30 Second Wall Street Ad – David Sauvage on MSNBC

David Sauvage is a young man (pushing 30) who I’ve known since he was a kid and I consider a friend. He is smart and principled, is a play-write and a documentary film-maker (like his Dad, award winning Pierre Sauvage). David appeared in the last couple of days on MSNBC and talked about the Wall Street Protests and his 30-second Wall Street ad that has gone viral. I am proud of David and recommend your watching. http://ow.ly/7mbGV

Abraham’s Last Test – Did He Pass or Fail? D’var Torah Vayera

In our post-World War II world there is no aspect of the story of the Akedah (the Binding of Isaac) that is not jarring and disturbing. We ask, how could any father agree to slay his own son on God’s command and claim this as essential to faith?

This Torah portion (Vayera) confronts our relationship with God as none other in our tradition. In this age of skepticism, doubt and tentative belief we ask what kind of a human being was Abraham who was prepared to kill his son? Did Abraham “hear” God correctly, and if so, could any of us have said “Hineni” (Here I am) as Abraham did when God called him to demonstrate how far his faith would take him?

The mystics tell us that Abraham’s willingness to do God’s will reflects an ideal man of faith, that there are times when (per Kierkegaard) we have to suspend the ethical and nullify completely the individual ego, even if it means destroying everything we love and our future. The 20th century Israeli scholar and thinker Yeshayahu Liebowitz has written that we are not supposed to extract an ethical message from Abraham’s behavior. In effect, he says, human beings are not commanded by the Torah to be ethical; they are commanded to serve God!

I wonder. My understanding of the Torah and prophetic traditions is that a covenant of justice and compassion is what God requires of us, not heartless self-destruction.

The key Hebrew command relative to Abraham’s near slaughter of his son reads: Kach na et bin’cha, et y’chid’cha, asher a-hav’ta et Yitzchak v’lech l’cha el eretz ha-Moriah v’ha-a-le-hu sham l’olah al echad he-harim asher omar elecha (“God said, ‘Take your son, your only one, the one you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah. Offer him there as a burnt-offering, on one of the mountains that I will show you.” (Genesis 22:2).

One midrash says that Abraham’s understanding of the event was wrong from the start and based on a mistaken perception of the original order. Abraham should have tried to find out, the midrash argues, what God wanted of him and not do anything until he was certain about what he was being asked to do.

Rashi explained that Abraham did not, in fact, understand God’s words and command. God didn’t say “slaughter your son – v’tish’chat et bin’cha.” He said, “Lift up your son to the service of God – v’ha-a-le-hu sham l’olah.

Yes, the word “olah” can be rendered as a burnt offering; but it literally means “that which is lifted up.”

Recall Kunte Kinte from the 1977 TV Mini-Series “Roots” as he, following his tribal custom, took his son to the top of a mountain and lifted him in thanksgiving and dedication to the spirit world. Recall, as well, “The Lion King” doing the same by presenting his son and future King to his spiritual relatives among the stars.

In the Genesis story, just as Abraham lifted the knife to slay his son God sent the angel rather than speak directly to Abraham to stay his hand. God never spoke to Abraham again. Was God devastated by Abraham’s mishearing of his call to dedicate his son? Did Abraham fail that tenth and most crucial final test of faith? Did Abraham really understand the meaning of the Divine-human partnership?

The end of the story is clear. God did not want human sacrifice and we do not have to give up our humanity to serve God. What Abraham did earlier at Sodom and Gomorrah and what Moses did at the sin of the Golden Calf – namely, challenge God to live up to God’s own standards of justice and compassion – that is the lesson of the Biblical tradition. That is our Jewish legacy!

Shabbat shalom.

Release Marwan Barghouti – By Avinoam Bar-Yosef – International Herald Tribune

Last week I wrote about two photographs I have in my drawer – one with former President George W. Bush who I met in 2000 in the run-up to the Presidential “selection” and the other with jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti who I met in Ramallah in 1998. I will never hang my photo with Bush on my wall as the blood on his hands in Iraq to me is a source of profound shame to the United States. The one with Mr. Barghouti, also with blood on his hands from his leadership in the 2nd Intifada, I may hang one day – and hopefully will be able to do so if his release from prison eventually leads to a two-states for two-peoples final resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict with him as President of Palestine. Here is an excellent piece published yesterday on Mr. Barghouti in the International Herald Tribune.

Op-Ed Contributor

Release Marwan Barghouti

By AVINOAM BAR-YOSEF
Published: November 8, 2011

When Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas recently called on Israel to release more Palestinian prisoners in advance of any possible negotiations, he was setting a condition that he probably knew Israel would balk at. One of the prisoners on his list, Ahmed Saadat, is accused of killing an Israeli minister. More significantly, another one, if released, would most likely soon take Abbas’s place.

Related in News

·         Times Topic: Marwan Barghouti

That has not escaped Israeli leaders. In fact, freeing Marwan Barghouti, who is regarded as the sole Palestinian leader who enjoys the full trust of Fatah and the Palestinian public, is said to have figured prominently in high-level Israeli consultations as a means of retaliating against Abbas for his bid for Palestinian statehood at the United Nations, and as a way of ushering in a new and less corrupt generation of Palestinian leaders.

The Israeli peace camp has often called for the release of Barghouti, but the security establishment has strongly opposed it. The 52-year-old, life-long activist is held responsible by Israel for directing many attacks and suicide bombings against Israeli civilians, and he was sentenced in 2004 to five life sentences.

But in his earlier years as a Palestinian student leader and then member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, he also opened channels not only with the Israeli left, but also with the Israeli center-right, because he believed that an agreement could not be achieved with only the “peaceniks.”

I knew him well in those years, before he turned militant. He speaks Hebrew, and never denied the right of the Jewish people to a Jewish state. And while he always made clear to his counterparts that a Palestinian state would have an Islamic character, and was proud of being a Muslim, he also expressed contempt for Islamic fundamentalists.

Above all, he has never been associated with the corruption of the Palestinian establishment that formed around Yasser Arafat. While a student at Ramallah’s Birzeit University, his main efforts were invested in the refugee camps: social work, aid to the ill and the poor, cleaning the streets.

In 1987 he was deported by the late Yitzhak Rabin, then minister of defense, because of his role in preparing the first, less violent, intifada. Barghouti spent seven years in exile, keeping his distance from Arafat’s corrupted entourage in Tunis. He was allowed back in 1994, under the Oslo Accords signed by the same Rabin, and in 1996 elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council, where he was a strong critic of the corruption in Fatah. In 1995 he was among the founders of Tanzim, an armed, grassroots offshoot which played a significant role in the second intifada, far more violent than the first.

So why would Israelis, including some from the intelligence community, seriously consider releasing Barghouti?

For one thing, he and Tanzim represent the next generation of secular Palestinian leaders. One of the biggest mistakes of the Israeli establishment and American envoys over the past two years has been their failure to open back channels to Tanzim, a group also ignored by Abbas and his officials.

Barghouti would also form a powerful leadership team with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Like Barghouti, Fayyad is regarded as being above any dirty dealings. He has structured an impressively efficient bureaucracy. He is rightly courted by the Obama administration and many Israelis. It is well known that there is no love lost between him and Abbas, but the Palestinian president needs Fayyad to ensure a flow of funds from the West.

The trouble is that Fayyad is regarded by the Palestinians as a professional, as the C.E.O. of the Palestinian Authority, but not as its leader. Many experts believe that Israeli and Western negotiators should encourage cooperation between Fayyad and Barghouti. The endorsement of Tanzim would bring Fayyad and his reforms critical support from the Palestinians.

This may be why some in the Israeli leadership, those who are interested in achieving a two-state solution to the conflict, see Barghouti as a possible partner, even if his sins are not forgiven. At least he is honest, and has the trust of the Palestinian people. Abbas, after all, is Arafat’s former deputy, and hardly a saint in Jewish eyes, and at 76 he appears largely concerned now with his legacy.

To hold the peace process hostage to Barghouti’s release raises an impossible hurdle for any Israeli politician. Abbas and his associates understand this well. But even if the Israelis cannot release him now, at least they should immediately initiate a back channel to Tanzim, and allow its representatives unencumbered communication with the jailed Barghouti.

The world should understand that there is a new Israeli phenomenon: most Israelis have moved to the left when it comes to the peace process and are ready for compromise even if, for tactical reasons, they vote for the right. A majority of Israelis would support a two-state deal if it included a Palestinian state that recognized Israel as what it is, a Jewish state, and the Palestinian right of return was limited to the new Palestine, while the Jewish right of return was limited to Israel proper. They do not believe that Abbas is ready at this point to accept this.

If such an understanding could be reached with Tanzim and Fayyad, then Barghouti could be released to take his place in the landscape of Palestinian leadership.

Avinoam Bar-Yosef is the president of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute and a former chief diplomatic correspondent for the daily Maariv.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 9, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune with the headline: Release Marwan Barghouti.

The Principle – B’tzelem Elohim – as Applied to Social Media

Once the Baal Shem Tov (or, the Besht) summoned Sammael, the lord of demons, because of some important matter that he wished to command Sammael to do. Sammael roared at the Besht – “How dare you summon me! Up until now this has happened to me only three times; in the hour when the Tree of Knowledge was violated, the hour when the Israelites created the golden calf, and the hour when Jerusalem was destroyed.”

The Besht bade his disciples to bare their foreheads to Sammael, and on every forehead, the lord of demons saw inscribed the sign of the image in which God creates the human being.

Upon that, Sammael did as the Besht requested, but before leaving on his mission, he said humbly and beseechingly: “Oh Sons of the living God: permit me to stay here just a little longer and gaze upon your foreheads.” (Tales of the Hasidim, by Martin Buber – p. 77)

Imagine the world if every human being were aware every time he/she looked upon another human being of what is inscribed on our foreheads – B’tzelem Elohim – that each of us, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, race, religion, ethnicity or nationality is created in God’s image! There would be no “other!”

My friend Alex Grossman applied this principle of sameness to his post concerning the social media and the growing tendency to self-censor because of the fear of personal attack. It is worth reading as well as his first response to a reader.
http://mediatapper.com/are-there-taboo-subjects-in-social-media/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran’s Nuclear Threat and Israeli Rhetoric

IAEA Expected to Detail Iranian Nuclear Efforts

“The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is expected to release its most explicit charges to date that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Diplomats who have seen the report, which will be released this week, said that among the most incriminating facts are that Iran developed computer models for a nuclear warhead and that it constructed a large steel container to carry out tests with high explosives that could be used in nuclear weapons. Western powers have long suspected that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, but Tehran has insisted its program is peaceful and the IAEA has until now has held by back from making any definitive conclusions. The diplomats argue that the new IAEA study offers no other explanation for Iran’s efforts other than that it is developing a nuclear weapon. The U.S. will likely use the report to lobby the international community to impose new sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned on Saturday night that an attack on Iran is “more and more likely.” (Media Line News Services – http://www.themedialine.org/elite/registration.asp – I recommend your subscription – JLR)

The above report of the IAEA confirms what Israel has known for a number of years. Yet, the questions remain – what is to be done about it and who is to do it?

When Israel’s leaders rattle their sabers as Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak did publicly this past week calling upon Israel to be ready to strike Iranian missile silos and weapons installations, we have to ask how serious Israel really is given the catastrophic implications that such actions would unleash.

In response to Bibi’s and Barak’s statements, Hezbollah’s leader Hasan Nasrallah warned that if Israel attacks Iran, Hezbollah (Iran’s proxy in Lebanon) will launch 20,000 missiles at Tel Aviv, and though Hamas has not also made such a statement, we cannot eliminate the possibility that Iran’s proxy in Gaza will not also launch missiles at Tel Aviv, Ashdod and Ashkelon.

Bibi’s and Barak’s speeches may have been merely political rhetoric to shore up their get-tough bonafides following the Gilad Shalit deal with Hamas, an exchange which emboldened Arab and Muslim extremists, enhanced popular support to the increasingly unpopular Hamas, and softened Israel’s deterrent presence in the Middle East.

It is noteworthy (and comforting to me, at least) that all the heads of Israel’s intelligence services have strongly advised against Israel attacking Iran, not only because Israel likely would not succeed in its mission in destroying all Iran’s missile silos and nuclear production facilities (some are deep underground and others are presumed to be hidden), but an attack could instigate a wider war including other Arab nations against Israel as well as increased threats of terrorist attacks against American, Israeli and Jewish targets worldwide.

The peace activist Shlomo Avineri wrote this past week that he is certain that Israel will NOT attack Iran on the basis of the above and on the principle that if one is going to launch a surprise attack one doesn’t talk about it in advance. And so, if Israeli leaders are sane and calculating, which I believe (or want to believe) they are, then all this talk is nothing more than talk.

That being said – Iran indeed poses a real threat to the State of Israel and moderate forces in the Middle East, and because of this the United States and the Quartet should be the ones on the front lines confronting that threat, not Israel.

Shaalu shalom Yerushalayim – Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

Death Penalty for the Crime of Driving While Israeli – Bradley Burston in Haaretz

  • Death Penalty for the Crime of Driving While Israeli – Bradley Burston
    As of this week, my daughter’s school is now within reach of rockets from Gaza that travel farther and with far more deadly payloads than the weapons we knew just a short time ago. With blasts strong enough to shatter apartment windows seven stories in the air. My daughter is an unarmed noncombatant. That should matter. It should matter, in particular, to progressives who believe, and justly so, that the inalienable rights of human beings, children in particular, take clear precedence.
    It should matter, as well, when progressives turn a blind eye to war crimes committed against Israel. Here, Islamic Jihad’s calls of “Death to Israel” come wrapped in Iranian steel and 40 pounds of explos ives: a call for genocide. “Death to Israel” means death to Israelis. It means death to the members of my family, a family which has long worked hard and consistently and intensively for the rights of Palestinians, Muslims and Christians alike, to live in safety and sovereignty in a country of their own. Last weekend, Moshe Ami, a father and grandfather killed by an Islamic Jihad rocket, was put to death on the streets of Ashkelon for the crime of Driving While Israeli. (Ha’aretz)

Go Forth – Amir Or for Lech L’cha

Go forth from your land, my Lord, / Go forth, come to me, / travel my skin with your lips. / Come dark, come night, / touch all of me, touch, / leave no soundness. / Rise in omens within me, grant / on everlasting inheritance, a multitude / of seed, my Lord, / because I grant it to you / I will increase your hire.

Go forth from your body, my Lord, / go forth, come to me, / wound my heart, smooth of teeth. / Touch my face, touch my eyes, / truly kill, leave nothing. / Rise within me to the fingers of tears, rise / to the man, until before you / I / shall end.

Go forth from yourself, my Lord, / go forth, come to me, / travel my length, my width, / travel my horizon / I / will burn before you, not consumed. / See my spirit / but some face to your void, see / here I am / no more.

(Translated from the Hebrew by the author. From “Modern Poems on the Bible: An Anthology” – edited with an Introduction by David Curzon, publ. JPS, 1994)

Amir Or was born in Tel Aviv in 1956. He is an editor, translator and poet whose works have been published in more than 30 languages. Or is the recipient of the Prime Minister’s Prize for poetry.

 

How Abraham Healed God’s 4-Lettered Holy Name – D’var Torah for Parashat Lech L’cha

The greatest Jewish theological revolution since the destruction of the Temple (70 CE) has been brought about by Kabbalah. The greatest new idea about the relationship between God and humankind to appear during the past 2000 years was introduced by Jewish mystics who boldly asserted that we humans actually have the ability to restore God’s wholeness and effect the end of God’s exile within the Divine Self. Much of this new thinking was stimulated by Rabbi Isaac Luria (15th century, Safed) whose ideas about the origins of the universe led to the belief that the Jewish people has the capacity to create the conditions necessary for the Messiah to come.

Isaac Luria’s cosmology is brilliant and simple. He explains that when God contemplated creating the universe the Creator realized that there was no room for anything except God’s Self, Who filled all time and space. In order to accommodate the new creation God underwent contraction (tzimtzum). Before the beginning God’s essence was light, and so God took away some of the light and placed it in giant vessels (keilim), but the vessels were not strong enough to contain the light and an explosion shattered the vessels (sh’virat ha-keilim) flinging the shards (kelipot) to the four corners of the universe. Trapped in the shards were sparks (n’tzitzot). Whenever a Jew performs a mitzvah (commandment), a spark is released from a shard. When all Jews perform all the mitzvot, all the sparks are released, the Messiah (Mashiach – lit. “anointed one”) is ‘awakened,’ and Tikun Olam (restoration of the world) results. When this occurs God too undergoes Tikun and the holiest Name (YHVH or Yod–Heh–Vav–Heh) is reunified.

Jewish mystics explain that the Yod–Heh (the first two letters of the 4-letter Name) represents the “highest” and purest of God’s ten emanations (Sefirot), but were separated from the Vav–Heh (the third and fourth letters of the Name) when the vessels shattered. The Vav-Heh represents the “lower” Divine Sefirot. As such, the “upper” and “lower” worlds were split apart (i.e. going into exile from themselves) reflecting the brokenness of our own world.

Enter Abraham, who in this week’s Parashat Lech L’cha (Genesis 12:1-17:27), receives the Divine call. That call and Abraham’s receptive response was a necessary stage leading to the unification (Yihud) of God’s holiest 4-letter Name. How so?

In Genesis 12:2 we read of God’s promise to Avram (he became Avraham in Genesis 18 after the Brit Milah):

“I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and You shall be a blessing (Veh’yeh b’rachah).”

Note that God’s 4-letter Name (Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh) is comprised of the same 4 letters as Veh’yeh (“…and be a blessing”), but appear in a different order (Vav-Heh-Yod-Heh).

Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev (1740-1809, Ukraine), teaching that nothing is to be overlooked in Torah and that every word and letter have deeper metaphysical significance, wrote:

“The letter Yod-Heh [the ‘higher’ Divine emanations] in the word Veh’yeh is an allusion to God, whereas the letters Vav-heh [the ‘lower’ Divine emanations] is an allusion to the Jewish people. As long as Abraham had not existed, there had not been a human being who tried to ‘awaken’ God’s largesse to be dispensed in the lower regions. God’s largesse, whenever the Eternal One dispensed it for the good of humankind, owed this exclusively to the Creator’s goodwill [i.e. meritless Grace]. As soon as Abraham became active on earth, there were deeds on earth that ‘awakened’ God to dispense the Divine largesse as a result of acts performed by human beings. In other words, prior to Abraham, God’s Name could be spelled in the order Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, whereas this order had now been reversed and God’s Name could be spelled as Vav-Heh-Yod-Heh… The reversal of the sequence of the letters Vav-Heh hints at this largesse having its origin in the ‘lower,’ rather than the celestial regions.” (Kedushat Levi, translation and commentary by Rabbi Eliahu Monk, Lambda Press, volume 1, pages 43-44)

What is the meaning of this complicated understanding of the 4 letters in God’s Name? Until Abraham appeared, Levi Yitzhak taught, there was no mutual relationship between God and humankind. However, with Abraham all that changed. Abraham’s capacity to “hear” God’s call (i.e. prophesy) and respond augured well not only for the future spiritual development of the Jewish people, but also signaled the beginning of Divine Tikun.

The Torah’s reversing the order of the letters represents Abraham reversing the direction of largesse that had exclusively come from God to humankind to a new paradigm that moved from humankind to God.

The idea that Jews can actually effect the internal life of God is revolutionary, not only in Judaism but in the history of religion. This is why, according to Jewish mystics, Abraham was the world’s first Jew. As a Jew, each one of us carries a burden, responsibility, opportunity, and profound privilege to work towards tikun olam, the restoration of a shattered universe. When that occurs so too is there a Tikun Shem M’forash (a restoration of God’s holiest 4-letter Name).

Shabbat Shalom.

 

 

 

Two Photographs I Cannot Now Hang on my Wall

I am not one to hang photographs of myself and celebrities in my office or at home. If I were, I have two photographs that I cannot imagine hanging at this time. One is with Presidential Candidate George W. Bush and Laura Bush taken in the months preceding the 2000 election. I had joined many rabbinic colleagues in October, 2000 in a meeting with the candidate after which we had the “honor” of standing with the soon-to-be-elected Bush and his wife Laura for a photograph.

The other photograph, which inspires this blog, was taken in 1998 of myself in conversation with the then leader of the West Bank’s Fatah organization, Marwan Barghouti, in his offices in Ramallah. Mr. Barghouti graciously received about 20 rabbis from Israel, the United States and Canada in a delegation of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the Association of Reform Zionists of America, the Reform Zionist organization. The then Executive Director of ARZA, and now one of my dearest friends, Rabbi Ammi Hirsch, who led our group had asked me to chair that meeting and introduce our group to Barghouti. At the time, Mr. Barghouti was a relative unknown. He was young (then 39) and small in physical stature, and Yassir Arafat still had the reigns of control. Oslo wasn’t quite yet dead and Barghouti was regarded as a “moderate” and a presumed leader of the Palestinian people

He told us that PA leader Arafat supported a two-state solution (in hindsight, I wonder), and Mr. Barghouti believed that there would eventually be a State of Palestine existing peacefully beside a State of Israel. The only two issues he told us where he believed there would be difficulties were concerning Jerusalem and refugees.

I am reminded of these photographs in light of the release this month of Gilad Shalit for 1027 Palestinian prisoners, several hundred of whom have “blood on their hands.”

Mr. Barghouti was a leader of the First and Second Intifadas, and though he supported the peace process when I met him, he later became disillusioned. After 2000 he went on to become the main figure behind the Al-Aqsa Intifada in the West Bank. He is credited with founding the Tanzim.

Mr. Barghouti was accused by Israeli authorities of directing numerous attacks and suicide bombings against Israelis. He was arrested in 2002, accused of the murder of Israeli civilians and attacks on Israeli soldiers, tried and convicted on charges of murder, and sentenced to five life sentences. Mr. Barghouti refused to present a defense to the charges brought against him, maintaining throughout that the trial was illegal and illegitimate. The Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has called him “Palestine’s Mandela.”

When I led a group of Temple Israel leaders to Israel last November, we met with the head of the Palestine News Agency, Ma’an, in Bethlehem. He told our group that without question, Marwan Barghouti is the most popular Palestinian in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that Israelis are speaking with him continuously, and that should he ever be released from prison he would become President of the State of Palestine once it is established and eclipse all Fatah and Hamas leaders.

It is questionable whether Barghouti supports a two-states for two-peoples resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It is also questionable whether any Israeli government would release him either in advance of or as part of a peace agreement. Yet, after the release of so many Palestinian terrorists with the blood of innocent Israeli men, women and children on their hands, what possible rationale can Israel advance for not releasing Barghouti? If such a release would facilitate bringing Israel and the Palestinians to an end-of-conflict agreement, I would support releasing Barghouti in a Tel Aviv second. From inside our own history, we cannot ignore the fact that both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir also had innocent blood on their hands and each went on to become Prime Ministers.

By the way – President George W. Bush has far more blood of innocent Iraqis on his hands than any Palestinian terrorist ever, to the tune of thousands of lives. Be assured, I will never put Bush’s photograph on my wall – but I might put Barghouti’s there if he could make peace with the State of Israel.

 

Admiral Ami Ayalon – A Sane Voice for a Two-States for Two-Peoples Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

It makes me feel hopeful when I hear Israeli experts and I find myself nodding in agreement with virtually everything they say. Such was the case last evening (Thursday) at a Los Angeles J Street event featuring Admiral Ami Ayalon, former Commander of Israel’s Navy and head of Shin Bet, Israel’s General Security Service, along with J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami about whom I have written before (see my Book Recommendations).

In 2003 Ami Ayalon joined with Palestinian Professor Sari Nusseibeh to develop a set of principles for a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians – see http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1273B3972DA8E47185256DD00055A0CF. Eventually, 450,000 Israelis and Palestinians signed on signaling a consensus on what is likely to be the contours of an eventual two-states for two-peoples end-of-conflict solution.

Last evening, Admiral Ayalon repeated the general principles and noted the following:

[1] We have gone backwards over the last three years. Pragmatic leaders in Arab countries cannot deliver what they could have delivered three years ago. There is a new Middle East, more unstable with different divisions of power. Leaders are weaker and the Arab street is stronger. Egypt has disappeared as the potential guarantor of an agreement. Turkey is no longer the ally to Israel it once was;

[2] It is time to recognize that the settlers have made it possible for Israel to be accepted de facto and de jure within the Arab world; but, it is now time to bring the settlers who live outside the main block of Jewish settlements and east of the security fence home with full compensation and deep expressions of gratitude by the Jewish people and the state of Israel for their sacrifice. These people, despite many of their extremism, are NOT our enemy. They are our people. It is time for Israel’s government to say that Israel should not build in those areas east of the fence, but within the areas that will be within Israel after an agreement (per the statement of principles), Israel has every right to continue to build and expand, and should say so;

[3] Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians will not work at this time and we should not be pushing this as an end goal nor as the determiner of whether there is progress or not towards an agreement. Rather, both sides need to come to a consensus through others around the stipulations noted in the set of principles (above);

[4] The President of the United States is the ONLY world leader who will be capable of bringing the Israelis and Palestinians to the consensus position. The Quartet and the UN are not so capable. If the President succeeds, all others will follow and there will be an international consensus. The Israelis know it and the Palestinians know it.

[5] Admiral Ayalon told us that J Street has enabled him and people like him to have a voice in America because his ideas, though representing the consensus, are not welcome by and large in the organized American Jewish community despite the vast majority of American Jews (according to all non-partisan surveys) agreeing with those ideas.

Barbara and I left this meeting feeling at once hopeful and infuriated that the common consensus shared by all except the extremists has given way to the extremist minority. When will that stop? This week’s Parashat Noach reminds us of the catastrophe that can occur when avarice, fear and hatred win the day. However, we cannot forget that the dove and the rainbow are the hope of the Jewish people and humanity as a whole.