Tag Archives: American Politics and Life

To Be or Not To Be Spock – Leonard Nimoy Discusses his “Live Long and Prosper” Hand Gesture

20 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Inuyim - Prayer reflections and ruminations, Jewish Identity, Tributes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

My friends know that Leonard Nimoy is married to my first cousin Susan (her father and my mother were brother and sister). I have been close with Susan, who is a “smidge” older than me, throughout my adult life from our 20s when we rediscovered each other as young adults outside of childhood.

When Susan married Leonard twenty-five years ago I had only known him the way the public does, as a fine actor and director, the creator of Mr. Spock on the Star Trek series, as Morris Meyerson, the husband of Golda Meir, in Leonard’s Emmy-nominated role opposite Ingrid Bergman in “A Woman Called Golda,” as a liberal political activist, and as a committed Jew.

What I didn’t know was Leonard’s heart, and over these past two plus decades as a close family member, I have grown to love Leonard for so many reasons, not the least of which is that he makes my cousin Susan so happy (as she does him), but also because of his seriousness as an thinker and artist, his sense of humor and loving heart, his kindness and menschlechkite. My wife Barbara and I love him.

This five-minute interview with Leonard is a classic, and if you have not heard the story of his signature hand gesture of greeting/farewell as a Vulcan in Star Trek, do click onto the link below.

Leonard wrote two autobiographies; the first he called “I Am Not Spock”; the second he called “I Am Spock” – both are true, depending on circumstances.

As you will see, the hand gesture that accompanies “Live Long and Prosper” emerged out of Leonard’s earliest memories as a Jew accompanying his grandfather, father and older brother to shul on Shabbos morning in South Boston.

What I love most about this interview is that Leonard’s joy and love come pouring through, clearly reflecting that side of him which is NOT Spock!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyiWkWcR86I

 

“Is It Possible to be a Jewish Intellectual?” – Eva Illouz in Haaretz

16 Wednesday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

“Is It Possible to be a Jewish Intellectual?” is an expansive six-thousand-one-hundred-word essay written by Sociology Professor Eva Illouz of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem that was published this week in Haaretz, Israel’s equivalent of The New York Times. It is a must-read piece for both Israelis and American Jews. I am grateful to my friend Mike Rogoff in Jerusalem for sending me the link to it. [Note: You must be a subscriber to Haaretz to access the article. In my view, this article makes a subscription worthwhile in and of itself].  http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.585401 

Dr. Illouz considers in-depth the concepts of “Ahavat Yisrael – Love for Israel” and “Solidarity for the Jewish people” as well as the ethical and tribal challenges that confront intellectuals in remaining detached from their national or religious group in order to retain their moral integrity.

Dr. Illouz begins her discussion by citing the famous exchange between Gershom Scholem, the great 20th century scholar of Jewish mysticism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Hannah Arendt, the German Jewish political theorist who covered the Adolph Eichmann trial in Jerusalem in 1961 and who wrote a number of essays about it in The New Yorker and a book entitled Eichmann in Jerusalem.

After their publication Scholem accused Arendt, as a Jew, of

“…not having enough ‘ahavat Yisrael – love for the Jewish nation and people’ …. Instead of displaying what we would have expected from a Jew on such an occasion – undiluted horror at Eichmann’s deeds; unreserved compassion for the moral dilemmas of the Jewish leaders who dealt with the Nazis; solidarity with the State of Israel – Arendt analyzed each one with a cold sense of truth and justice, and blurred the moral terms in which these had been hitherto judged by the public.”

Dr. Illouz goes on to discuss the forces that have influenced contemporary American Jewish identity in light of the Holocaust, the establishment of the State of Israel, American Jewish political advocacy for Israel, and American Jewish organizational politics, all of which have served to embrace a priori the Jewish principle of “Ahavat Yisrael – Love of the people of Israel” as identical with “hyper-solidarity” with the political State of Israel and its policies regardless of their moral imperfections.

This essay lays the ground for us to consider both the nature of Israeli and American Jewish identity since the establishment of the state of Israel and the consequences of Israel having assumed political and governmental power as a nation-state for the first time in two thousand years. It also considers the impact of American Jewish organizational support for Israel and what it means to be pro-Israel.

 

 

Israeli and American Jews – The Struggle for Consensus and Current Tensions

04 Friday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

In recent weeks Israeli and American Jewish activists, writers and thinkers have been discussing political and ideological trends within both the American Jewish community and Israeli society vis a vis the nature of pro-Israel activism and what Israel would need to compromise should the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, now seriously threatened, ever advance.

There are, at the very least, two truths that seem to permeate much of our two societies these days. The first is the most consequential for the future security, Jewish and democratic character of the state of Israel; the distrust of Israelis towards Palestinians and Palestinians towards Israelis resulting in political/ideological recalcitrance of each side’s negotiating positions. The second is the growing ideological and emotional divide in the American Jewish community between left and right especially concerning the meaning of pro-Israel activism.

In the Middle East, it is unclear in the short-term whether American supported peace negotiations will continue. In the American Jewish community, conservative pro-Israel activists have undertaken a new campaign to discredit the pro-Israel legitimacy of J Street most recently reflected in a film called “The J Street Challenge” that is producing a great deal of ink.

J Street is the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee in Washington, D.C. and over the nearly six years of its existence has attracted growing support among an increasingly large segment of the American Jewish community’s liberal pro-Israel community. The film “The J Street Challenge” reflects the American Jewish community’s right-wing disagreement with J Street’s policy positions (www.jstreet.org) and is fueled by strong animus towards the organization’s leadership.

[Note: I serve as a co-chair of the national Rabbinic Cabinet of J Street representing nearly 800 rabbis from all the American Jewish religious streams, and my son has served as a member of the J Street national staff almost since the founding of J Street six years ago. However, I appreciate and respect the long history of support in the nation’s capital for the state of Israel by AIPAC, though I am sad and continually disheartened to say that so many in AIPAC do not hold similar appreciation and respect for J Street].

I offer the following two articles that address American Jewish internal tensions and the concerns of the broad majority of Israeli citizens that make up the Israeli political center.

As events unfold it is important to understand the short-term and long-term implications of what is occurring within the American Jewish community and Israel alike especially relative to the following themes: The future of Israeli democracy and the Jewish character of the State of Israel; The lack of agreement that will bring about a two-states for two peoples resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; The meaning of pro-Israel activism in the United States; and the state of civility within the American Jewish community today.

The first article was written by Yossi Klein Halevi, a research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a contributing editor to The New Republic. His piece “The Quiet Rise of the Israeli Center” (Times of Israel, March 23) is an insightful look at the dreams, concerns and worries of the largest bloc of Israeli citizens, the political moderate center – http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-quiet-rise-of-the-israeli-center/

The second is written by Larry Gellman, one of America’s top money managers and financial advisers, who has been active as a lay American Jewish leader for thirty years with Jewish Federations, State of Israel Bonds, AIPAC, J Street, CLAL, and Hillel. He has helped to create and fund Jewish Day Schools in two American cities. Gellman lectures widely in the United States and Israel on Judaism and business ethics. His op-ed that follows is therefore significant because of his standing as a mainstream leader in the American Jewish community – “Donor Slams Federation for Divisive ‘Political Attack Ad’ Aimed at J Street” (The Jewish Daily Forward, April 3) http://forward.com/articles/195784/donor-slams-federation-for-divisive-political-atta/?p=all

Female vs Male Power – Towards a More Peaceful, Healthy and Sane World

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in American Politics and Life, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Social Justice

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

“Appeasement” – “Weakness and doubt” – “Effeminacy” – “Soft sentimentalism” – “Naiveté” – “A lack of realism” – “A failure to adhere to demanding moral principles” – “A crisis in values” – “An aversion to martial, manly virtues that make nations strong and give life meaning!”

These are the ways many conservative politicians and pundits are characterizing President Obama and his foreign policy.

John McCain charged that Obama’s foreign policy allowed Putin to invade, take over and annex Crimea because the world now has the “perception that the United States is weak.” (The New York Times, March 14, 2014)

Sarah Palin said that “People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our President as one who wears mom jeans.” (Fox News)

Donald Rumsfeld bashed Obama on his handling of the Afghanistan disengagement saying that “a trained ape could do better” and that “United States diplomacy has been …embarrassingly bad.” (Fox News)

Dick Cheney critiqued the Obama Administration as “incompetent and lack[ing] principles and values.” (Fox News)

Bill Kristol opined in 2002 that the “era of American weakness and doubt in response to terrorism is over.”

None of this is new. For years conservatives have characterized themselves as the heroic defenders of American strength, virility and competence regardless of the complexity of the issues, their own hidden agendas and the dire consequences of their actions.

Peter Beinart analyzed their rhetoric this way:

“Today, hawks still link appeasement and effeminacy. Last month, for instance, after comparing the ‘bare-chested Putin’ to ‘Barack Obama, in his increasingly metro-sexual golf get-ups,’ National Review’s Victor Davis Hanson suggested that Putin’s aggression might finally rouse Americans to peer ‘into ourselves—we the hollow men, the stuffed men of dry voices and whispers’ and get tough.” (“Vladimir Putin – Russian Neo-Con”, Atlantic, March 24, 2014): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/vladimir-putin-russian-neocon/284602/

It is chutzpah that the very people most critical of Obama and his foreign policy used innuendo, distortion and lies to take the United States into war against Iraq on the false claims that Sadaam Hussein was in league with Al Qaida and had WMD.

Less we forget, the Iraqi war that the United States initiated resulted in 200,000 dead Iraqi civilians and 6,781 dead American soldiers along with hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis maimed, injured and traumatized.

Nor should we forget that America ran up a bill for that war of $1.7 trillion, an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, and expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades including interest – an equivalent sum of $75,000 for every American household, and that we sent Iraq back into the dark ages while removing the only counter-balance to Iran’s ascendency in the Middle East.

Those who want America yet again to brandish our swords and strike after all we and the victims of violence have suffered at their hands and all the negative international consequences ought to be doing t’shuvah for their sins and then think about whether they ought to speak at all given all the mistakes they made!

If we have learned anything in the past decade, it should be that our response to international conflict should not leave behind the impression that the United States is the nastiest, toughest and biggest bully on the planet. Rather, the world should see America as affirming diplomacy over violence, finesse over force, and negotiated compromise over militancy lest we make a mockery further of our democratic values and our faith in life as a sacred gift. As I see it, that is part of what Obama has been trying to do in several very tough international theaters.

Yes, there are times when an American military response is justifiable and necessary. Yet, it is easy to rush into war and almost always devastating when we do.

The words of the American Civil War Union General, William Tucumseh Sherman (1820-1891), are instructive: “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”

When Peter Beinart shined a light on conservative gender rhetoric last week, I recalled what the spiritual teacher David Steindl-Rast wrote years ago concerning the difference between feminine and masculine power:

“The very concept of women’s power is different from that of men. Women’s power is the power to foster new life and growth…If more people would understand how this life-giving power differs from power over others, the world would be a more peaceful, healthy and sane place.” (Essential Writings, p. 11)

The world would be well-served if American leaders from both major political parties were a bit more “feminine” and a lot more concerned about the well-being of every human being who will be affected by what our foreign policy does, more like mothers who instinctively cherish their children and act lovingly and responsibly on their behalf.

 

 

Pragmatic Optimism vs Cynical Realism – Support The Kerry Peace Initiative

03 Monday Mar 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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 in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

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

 

 

 

 

Israeli MKs Need a Course in Anger Management – D’var Torah Ki Tisa

12 Wednesday Feb 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Divrei Torah, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish Identity

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Last week I was stuck in a traffic jam and one driver’s road rage was so intense that I feared a physical attack. It didn’t happen, but I got to thinking about how anger plagues so many of us and how badly it disturbs our relationships, our character and civil discourse.

This week’s Torah portion, Ki Tisa, pulls the veil off Moses’ rage. It is a famous scene. Moses is carrying the tablets of the law down from Mount Sinai when Joshua tells him of the people’s celebration around the golden calf. As Moses approaches the camp he hears for himself the revelry, his anger is kindled, and with righteous indignation he confronts the people, smashes the tablets, burns the golden calf, grinds it to powder, mixes the pulverized idol with water, and force-feeds the substance into the gullets of the guilty Israelites. (Exodus 32:15-20).

His rage still boiling over, in the next chapter we read, “Now Moses took the tent and pitched outside the camp.” (Exodus 33:7).

The Jerusalem Talmud (B’chorim 3:3) explains why he pitched the Tent of Meeting so far away from the camp:

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

Moses moved the tent of meeting out of sight so that those who desired truly to come close to God would have to make the effort to do so.

God, however, 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 face to face as one person speaks to another.’” (Exodus 33:11)

We can’t blame Moses for his impatience with the people. He had lived with their obstinacy, distrust and faithlessness since leaving Egypt. However, tradition reminds us that magnanimity of mind, heart and soul, compassion and patience are critical virtues in a leader and that once the leader loses control due to anger or despair, so too do the leader’s moral credibility and authority evaporate.

As a congregational rabbi and leader of a large religious institution, I have learned over more than 35 years of service that the very worst thing I could do is to respond to anyone impatiently and in anger, because when I would do so my credibility is compromised and my moral authority diminished. I believe this is true about leadership in religious institutions, in all kinds of business, in non-profit organizations, in the arts, education, government, politics, and diplomacy.

With this in mind, I have been shocked by the angry, intemperate and hostile accusations leveled against Secretary of State John Kerry by Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz, Likud MK and Deputy Minister Ofir Akunis, and especially by Economics Minister and Jewish Home party chairman Naftali Bennett who recently called Secretary Kerry an anti-Semite. US National Security Advisor Susan Rice was quick to respond, and properly so, by defending Secretary Kerry’s integrity, friendship to the state of Israel, and sincere motivations in his peace efforts, as did Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli President Shimon Peres.

As if these extremist and intemperate remarks weren’t enough, at the same time an orthodox Israeli Knesset member David Rotem, who serves as the chairman of the Knesset Law, Constitution and Justice Committee, said that the Reform movement “is not Jewish. It is another religion.” In response Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the President of the North American Union for Reform Judaism, and Rabbi Gilad Kariv, Executive Director of the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism, called on the Israeli government to censure MK Rotem and remove him from his leadership roles.

At the very least, full and sincere apologies from these leaders are in order.

It is my position that a leader of the state of Israel who continuously insults United States officials and dismisses the legitimacy of a major religious movement of the Jewish people should be dismissed from his/her leadership duties.

Tradition says that Moses ultimately lost his dream to enter the Promised Land because in anger at the people he struck a rock with a stick instead of speaking to it as God had commanded him.

The Talmud reminds us that “When a person loses his temper – If he is originally wise, he loses his wisdom, and if he is a prophet, he loses his prophecy.” (Babylonian Talmud, Pesachim 66b).

If Moses could be so diminished by his anger that God would deny him his most cherished dream then so too should leaders of the Israeli government lose their positions when their words are insulting and intemperate.

Why I Joined as a Plaintiff in a Law Suit Against Los Angeles County

07 Friday Feb 2014

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

When the Board of Supervisors took a vote at its January meeting to restore a religious cross to the Los Angeles County Seal I was shocked, stunned and alarmed.

There are ten million citizens of Los Angeles County of whom 3.8 million are Christian, 564,000 are Jewish, 93,000 are Muslim, 70,000 are Buddhist, 73,000 are Hindu, and 4 million do not identify with any religious faith. However, by a vote of 3 (Antonovich, Knabe and Ridley-Thomas) to 2 (Molina and Yaroslavsky) the cross was ordered returned to the LA County seal, a blatant violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution that prohibits government endorsement of religion.

Ten years ago (2004) the correct decision was taken by the Board of Supervisors in a vote of 3 to 2 to remove the cross because it is a universally recognized religious symbol that is unique and special for people of Christian faith.

In response to the January Board of Supervisors vote, the ACLU invited me along with eight other religious leaders including Rabbi Harold Schulweis of Valley Beth Shalom Synagogue in Encino, UCLA Professor of Jewish History David Myers, the Reverend Peter Laarman of Progressive Christians Uniting,  Father Ian Davies of St. Thomas the Apostle Episcopal Church in Hollywood, the Reverend Ed Bacon of All Saints Church in Pasadena, Shakeel Syed, Executive Director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Rabbi Amy Bernstein of Kehillat Israel Reconstructionist Congregation in Pacific Palisades, and the Reverend Tera Little, Consulting Minister of the First Universalist Parish of Pasadena, to join as plaintiffs in this case. We all willingly agreed as religious leaders and as citizens living in LA County.

For us, our position (as opposed to that taken by Supervisors Antonovich, Knabe and Ridley-Thomas) is the true pro-religion position because we believe that by preserving the separation of church and state, we in fact preserve a safe, neutral space for followers of all religions to practice their faiths unhindered, without the implied endorsement and intimidation from an action signifying that government prefers, even symbolically, one religious denomination over others.

No child, no woman and no man should ever feel in the United States that he or she is marginal in matters of faith. America is NOT a Christian nation according to the US Constitution, nor is it a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, or any other kind of nation based on a specific faith tradition.

Since the case was filed yesterday, Supervisor Mike Antonovich has equated the ACLU with “Storm Troopers” and thereby slandered an organization the sole purpose of which is to defend the United States Bill of Rights, a cornerstone of American democracy. The Supervisor’s language is especially offensive to me as a Jew because I associate “Storm Troopers” with Nazism. By choosing both to put the cross back on the seal and using such inflammatory language, Mr. Antonovich has made this issue particularly divisive. Rather than help to unite this county Mr. Antonovich has chosen to insult and injure decent people and thereby divide us.

I join with my co-plaintiffs and co-counsel at the ACLU and at the law firm of Caldwell, Leslie and Proctor in demanding that the Board of Supervisors reverse its January decision and save the County from spending any time and sources on this matter when so many other urgent needs are confronting it, including 50,000 homeless individuals, rising hunger and poverty, a dysfunctional foster care system, inadequate health care, and a corrupt Sheriff’s Department.

​

Cynicism and Middle East Peace

03 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in American Politics and Life, Book Recommendations, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

I have discovered a small little book written by William George Jordan in 1898 that I recommend. It is called “The Majesty of Calmness” (published anew by Empowered Wealth, 2004). It is an elegantly written 62-page essay in which Jordan (a late 19th century early 20th century essayist and editor) opines on the meaning of failure and success, happiness and doing one’s best at all times regardless of age and circumstance.

I came across this little volume because it was favored by Coach John Wooden early on in his career and was a significant influence on him as he developed his educational philosophy and “Pyramid of Success.” Coach Wooden of the famed UCLA Bruins basketball team, has been called the greatest coach in any sport (college and professional) of the 20th century, but mostly he considered himself a teacher and a man of deep faith.

The following passage from “The Majesty of Calmness” is not only true for the individual, but is true in the world of international relations and diplomacy.

William George Jordan’s comments about the “cynic” and “cynicism” are particularly cogent and applicable to those within Israel and the Palestinian community who have been so hardened by fear, suffering and ideology that they cannot fathom an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and the normalization of relations between our two nations and peoples, despite the fact that contemporary history is filled with examples of reconciliation between former enemies (Germany, Japan and the West following WWII, etc.).

William George Jordan writes:

“A cynic is a man who is morally near-sighted, and brags about it. He sees evil in his own heart, and thinks he sees the world. He lets a mote in his eye eclipse the sun. An incurable cynic is an individual who should long for death, for life cannot bring him happiness, and death might. The keynote of Bismarck’s lack of happiness was his profound distrust of human nature [Note: Bismarck famously said – “During my whole life I have not had twenty-four hours of happiness.”]

-William George Jordan, The Majesty of Calmness, (1898) published by Empowered Wealth, p. 57

“Jew-Free Palestine” – “Tension in Israeli Coalition” – “Israeli Manners” – “My Promised Land”

02 Sunday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

News, commentary, criticism, and reaction about the Kerry-Israeli-Palestinian Peace Mission are being written in great volume from every perspective within Israel and amongst the Palestinians. Among the most important pieces in recent days are these three that I recommend you read:

1. A Jew-Free Palestine – by Rabbi Donniel Hartman, Times of Israel

A superb and thoughtful analysis of the meaning of the West Bank settlements and their role in the future of the state of Israel. Rabbi Hartman says that Israel must now decide whether it wishes to be a Jewish democratic state or not.  http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-jew-free-palestine

2. Tension Builds in Israeli Coalition at a Critical Juncture in Peace Talks, by Jodi Rudoren, NYT

Where is Prime Minister Netanyahu vis a vis a two-state solution? Though his rhetoric is clearly in favor, his taking the hard decisions necessary to effect a concrete agreement will necessarily alienate his historic political allies. If he is serious, his compromises will reveal the extent of his political courage, which most Israelis do not believe he has. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/world/middleeast/israel.html?src=rechp

3. Israel Needs to Learn Some Manners – by Avi Shlaim, NYT

Avi Shlaim is an Iraqi-born British/Israeli historian and emeritus professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford. He is part of a group of Israeli scholars who have put forward critical interpretations of Israel and the history of Zionism (per Wikipedia). Shlaim takes Israeli right-wing government officials to task for their blatant, arrogant and dangerous treatment of Israel’s most important ally saying that these Israeli leaders (e.g. Defense Minister Yaalon, Likud leader Danon, and Bayit Hayehudi leader Bennett, among others) give chutzpah a bad name. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/31/opinion/israel-needs-to-learn-some-manners.html?src=rechp

Finally, I recommend “My Promised Land – The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel” by Ari Shavit (see review – Tuesday, January 14).

Shavit’s in-depth consideration of key events and phenomena that have shaped the history of Zionism and the state of Israel constitutes the most important and honest book to come out of Israel in the last 25 years. This volume will inform and provoke you, inspire you and break your heart. After reading it, your understanding will be far deeper about the meaning of the Jewish democratic state of Israel in modern Jewish history. In addition, his book will challenge your identity as a Jew, whether you live in Israel as a citizen of the state or in the Diaspora.