Tag Archives: American Politics and Life

On Fear in the Rabbinate to Support the Kerry Mission

30 Thursday Jan 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I am an avid reader of a restricted list-serve called RAVKAV that includes 2500 Reform Rabbis living and working in North America, Israel and around the world. Our conversation covers every possible theme. Most recently, the discussion has focused on the rabbinic and cantorial petition in support of Secretary Kerry’s Middle East Peace mission co-sponsored by the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights and Americans for Peace Now. I posted the petition in this space on January 26 (“For Zion’s Sake, We Will Not Be Silent” – Rabbis and Cantors Speak Out.)

A rabbi living Israel posted this comment, “The people aren’t buying the J Street solution to the Middle East.”

Disturbed by this misinformation, I posted the following:

The facts are otherwise. The recent Pew Research Center survey reveals that fully 61% of US Jews believe that prospects for peace with the Palestinians ending in an independent Palestinian state and peaceful co-existence with Israel is possible while 33% say it is not possible, which the survey says is more optimistic than the US general public (50% yes vs. 41% no) and the Israeli public (50% yes vs 38% no).     

My colleague notes as well that many of our colleagues are afraid for their jobs. I understand the fear, and if it is legitimate I do not judge any other colleague who chooses to keep his/her own counsel.

However, I ask how we congregational rabbis, in particular, can justify our not speaking out on perhaps the most important issue facing the Jewish people in our generation, whether Israel remains Jewish and democratic if it does not settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even PM Netanyahu knows that a two-state solution is the only way to do so. Though reports indicate that he is under enormous pressure from his right-wing coalition to maintain the status quo, surveys of Israelis indicate that a two-state deal with adequate security for Israelis would be accepted by 80 members of the Knesset and by a similar percentage of the Israeli public in a national referendum.

This joint statement by J Street, Americans for Peace Now, and T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights will demonstrate the support of large numbers of the American rabbinate and cantorate for Secretary Kerry’s peace efforts, and that will send an important message to the Obama administration and Congress that, in addition to the results of American Jewish opinion as reported in the Pew survey, that American rabbis and cantors also do not agree with the politics of the major American Jewish Organizations that have supported the more right wing position of parts of the Israeli government coalition.

One final thought to our more fearful colleagues – Rabbi Israel Salanter said it best: “A rabbi whose community does not disagree with him[her] is no rabbi. A rabbi who fears his[her] community is no mensch.”   

It is one thing to fear losing our jobs and quite another to fear the wrath and criticism of some of our congregants. If it’s the latter and my colleagues agree with the essence of the petition, I ask them to transcend their fear and sign on.”

My post, of course, did not pass without comment. The two sharpest critiques are these:

[1] J Street should stay out of making foreign policy.

[2] Rosove ought to cease calling colleagues ‘cowards’ (or not menschen) if they do not speak out.

In response to critique #1 – J Street is no different than AIPAC in advocating for the security and future of the state of Israel. If J Street has engaged in influencing American foreign policy then certainly AIPAC has done so for much longer. As American citizens, we have the right and duty to speak out, and as Jews we have the moral responsibility to do so.

Saying nothing about policies pursued by the Israeli government that we believe are contrary to Israel’s own security interests and democracy gives a pass to American Jews who advocate strongly that we should support everything the Jewish state does.

In response to critique #2 – Rabbi Israel Salanter was among the most important orthodox ethicists in 19th century European Jewry. In my RAVKAV post I acknowledged the difficulty in speaking out for those rabbis who legitimately fear for their positions and I do not judge them. However, when a rabbi simply fears upsetting some congregants and provoking criticism and remains silent, especially on matters of major Jewish and ethical significance, to me his/her own menschlechkite (per Rabbi Israel Salanter) is compromised.

I did not call any such rabbi a coward. It would be intemperate and unkind for me to do so.

 

“Jaw jaw is better than war war!” – Sir Winston Churchill and the Iran Sanctions Bill

09 Thursday Jan 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Most Israelis, Americans and international observers recognize that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is an existential threat to Israel and the western world. The question is what to do and not do in the midst of current negotiations between Iran and P5 +1?

I believe we should NOT support S. 1881 – The Menendez-Kirk Iran Sanctions Bill which would impose new stringent sanctions on Iran and entities that do business with it if Iran fails to meet certain conditions in current negotiations over its nuclear program.

J Street, a pro-Israel and pro-peace American political organization, supports the Obama Administration’s current strategy in negotiations, as do I. What follows is J Street’s arguments explaining why S.1881 would either encourage a nuclear armed Iran, war or both.

The following is excerpted from a J Street memo.

“President Obama’s administration, the US intelligence community and numerous security experts believe that enactment of this bill would likely derail current negotiations, foreclosing the possibility of a diplomatic resolution to concerns over Iran’s nuclear program. The legislation of new sanctions would be seen by Iran and some of our P5+1 partners as a bad-faith act violating the spirit of the first –step understandings agreed in November, and empower Iranian hardliners seeking to undermine President Rouhani, restricting his ability to agree to necessary concessions.

If it led to the collapse of talks, enactment of the bill would also ensure that the international community placed the blame for such failure squarely on the United States, leading to the likely defection of several of Iran’s large trading partners (i.e. China, Russia, India) from the US-led multilateral sanctions regime. In other words, the bill could result in significantly REDUCED economic pressure on Iran.

The bill places an essentially impossible condition on any final agreement: that Iran abandon all uranium enrichment, even for verifiably civilian purposes at levels far below weapons-grade. Conditioning the avoidance of new sanctions— not to mention relief from existing sanctions– on this outcome would also cause the likely collapse of negotiations, as Iran is extremely unlikely to agree to such terms.

The failure of diplomacy makes a nuclear-armed Iran or military engagement with Iran (or both) much more likely, which would threaten US and Israeli security, and frustrate the United States’ ability to advance the critical Israeli-Palestinian talks now underway.

Thirty-four Senators need to vote “No” in order to ensure that there is override-proof support for President Obama on this. He has promised to veto any bill of this kind that passes through Congress because:

[1] It sets an essentially impossible condition for a final deal, namely that Iran renounce even a peaceful nuclear program with intrusive international inspection.

[2] Its passage would be very likely to immediately derail the current diplomatic process.

[3] Enacting a bill that all but ensures the collapse of talks would likely lead other countries to break from the US-lead multilateral sanctions effort, and significantly REDUCE economic pressure on Iran.

Legislating sanctions now is an unnecessary risk, especially given that there is no question that Congress would be ready to pass new sanctions immediately should Iran violate the “first step” agreement or fail to come to terms on a permanent agreement.

I ask you to contact your senators and express your opposition to S. 1881.

Senators who have not taken a position on the bill (39):

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

Max Baucus (D-MT)

Michael Bennett (D-CO)

Sherrod Brown (D-OH)

Richard Burr (R-NC)

Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Thad Cochran (R-MS)

Michael Crapo (R-ID)

Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

Al Franken (D-MN)

Martin Heinrich (D-NM)

Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)

Dean Heller (D-NV)

Mazie Hirono (D-HI)

Tim Kaine (D-VA)

Angus King (D-ME)

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

Ed Markey (D-MA)

Claire McCaskill (D-MO)

Mitch McConnell (R-KY)

Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Chris Murphy (D-CT)

Patty Murray (D-WA)

Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Rand Paul (R-KY)

Jack Reed (D-RI)

Harry Reid (D-NV)

Bernie Sanders (D-VT)

Brian Schatz (D-HI)

Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)

Richard Shelby (R-AL)

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Jon Tester (D-MT)

Mark Udall (D-CO)

Tom Udall (D-NM)

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

 

Senators who wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in opposition to moving such a bill (10):

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)

Tom Carper (D-DE)

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Tom Harkin (D-IA)


Tim Johnson (D-SD)


Patrick Leahy (D-VT)


Carl Levin (D-MI)


Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)


John Rockefeller (D-WV)


Ron Wyden (D-OR)

 

Cosponsors of the Bill (51):

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)

Kelley Ayotte (R-NH)

John Barrasso (R-WY)

Mark Begich (D-AK)

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)

Roy Blunt (R-MO)

Cory Booker (D-NJ)

John Boozman (R-AR)

Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Bob Casey (D-PA)

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Dan Coats (R-IN)

Tom Coburn (R-OK)

Susan Collins (R-ME)

Chris Coons (D-DE)

Bob Corker (R-TN)

John Cornyn (R-TX)

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

Joe Donnelly (D-IN)

Michael Enzi (R-WY)

Deb Fischer (R-NE)

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

Charles Grassley (R-IA)

Kay Hagan (D-NC)

Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

John Hoeven (R-ND)

Jim Inhofe (R-OK)

Johnny Isakson (R-GA)

Mike Johanns (R-NE)

Ron Johnson (R-WI)

Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Mike Lee (R-UT)

Joe Manchin (D-WV)

John McCain (R-AZ)

Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Jerry Moran (R-KS)

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)

Rob Portman (R-OH)

Mark Pryor (D-AR)

James Risch (R-ID)

Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Marco Rubio (R-FL)

Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

Tim Scott (R-SC)

John Thune (R-SD)

Pat Toomey (R-PA)

David Vitter (R-LA)

Mark Warner (D-VA)

Roger Wicker (R-MS)

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

The Ethics and Politics of Street Tzedakah – Part II

08 Wednesday Jan 2014

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Social Justice, Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

When I lived in Berkeley in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, walking along Telegraph Avenue could be expensive if you gave to every panhandler who asked for spare change. Not that much has changed in all these years. The number of people asking for hand-outs is at least as great as it was, and perhaps more so. Given the nagging high national unemployment rate of 7% and the large numbers of long-term unemployed who have been unable to find work, the high number of under-employed, the historically low minimum wage, the federal cuts to food stamps for the working poor, and the threat that Congress will not extend unemployment insurance, it is no surprise that people asking for help on the street is so ever-present.

What to do? Democrats in Congress who believe that the federal government should extend a helping hand, especially in difficult times, are slogging it out with a recalcitrant hard-hearted extremist Republican party that cares little for “the least among these” (Matthew 25:40) despite their own Christian faith claims.

What about us? Do we give to the people on the street? Something to everyone, nothing to anyone, sporadically when we feel like it?

I confess that over the years I have been alternately generous and tight-fisted. Sometimes I open my wallet, but more often I walk by without responding, always feeling guilty when I do.

A week ago, my friend Letty Cottin Pogrebin sent me a link to an Op-ed she had just written for Moment Magazine called “The Politics and Ethics of Street Tzedakah” (http://www.momentmag.com/opinion-politics-ethics-street-tzedakah/). After reading it I felt especially ashamed of myself.

I decided, both for the sake of the person asking for help and for myself, that henceforth I would give to everyone asking me for assistance. This week, so far, I have given to five individuals, a dollar per person, not very much in the grand scheme of things (perhaps $250-300 annually). The pay-off, however, is great in human terms. The opportunity to connect heart to heart and soul to soul with a stranger in need is a benefit for both him/her and me.

In each of the five cases this week, the recipient responded gratefully: “Thank you brother!” “God bless you!” “Have a great day!” They felt seen and respected. I felt I did the right thing. It was, in a limited way, a win-win though my dollar gift did little to solve the great socio-economic problems in our country.

None of those who panhandle wish to be doing so. One young man walking through traffic was holding a sign that read, “This is humiliating to me, but I am hungry. Please help!”

To those who say skeptically that these people are scamming us, that they can do better standing at a busy intersection than by actually getting a job, I ask only that you put yourselves in their place and reflect on what it would have taken for someone to do what they are doing.

Regarding giving when we legitimately suspect fraud, Rabbi Chayim of Sanz (1793-1876) said:

“The merit of tzedakah is so great that I am happy to give to 100 beggars even if only one might actually be needy. Some people, however, act as if they are exempt from giving charity to 100 beggars in the event that one might be a fraud.” (Darkai Chaim, publ. 1962, p. 137)

Maimonides reminds us that “One must never turn a poor person away empty-handed, even if you give him a dry fig.” (Mishneh Torah, “Gifts to the Poor” 7:7)

The obligation to give tzedakah includes everyone without exception, even the poor who receive from community funds and individual handouts (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 248:1). When the poor gives, they realize that there are others worse off than themselves.

According to surveys, the American Jewish community is the most generous community in the country per capita. I am proud that our people give to all kinds of worthy causes, to alleviate suffering here and around the world, to the people and state of Israel, to local, national and international Jewish causes, to synagogues and food pantries, homeless programs, and refugee organizations, to universities, hospitals, art museums, and symphony orchestras. We write checks because we know that Judaism requires it, because we know the heart of the stranger, the poor and oppressed, and in the interest of tikun olam.

But how often do we give when we meet strangers on the street?

I have decided that I am no longer walking by without giving. My personal pledge is to carry one dollar bills at all times, and to give them whenever asked, not just for the sake of the other, but for my own sake as well.

Helping Families Have the Most Difficult Conversation

31 Tuesday Dec 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Life Cycle, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Over the weekend I listened to a moving interview on NPR by Linda Wertheimer of former Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman concerning a project that Ms. Goodman helped to establish to encourage adult children and their parents to talk openly about the most difficult and challenging of life’s transitions at the end of life. It is called “The Conversation Project.” Its home page says that

“It’s time to transform our culture so we shift from not talking about dying to talking about it. It’s time to share the way we want to live at the end of our lives. And it’s time to communicate about the kind of care we want and don’t want for ourselves.”  [See: http://theconversationproject.org/about/]

Most people, Ellen Goodman says, have not had that conversation and therefore are unprepared for the inevitable, though most elderly parents have clear ideas about what they want at the end of their lives. They don’t share their wishes with their children, however, because they fear burdening and worrying them, and adult children don’t raise the matter with their parents because they fear upsetting them.

Goodman notes that as unsettling an experience as a parent’s death is, surveys indicate that when conversations about it take place there results less depression, less sorrow, less guilt, and less regret felt by everyone. The conversation can be among the richest and most intimate that we ever have together.

When there is no conversation, however, children often feel lonely and uncertain about what to do when their parents die because they do not know what their parents would have wanted. If adult children, in trepidation, fear and/or denial avoid the inevitable and suppress conversation when their parents want to talk, their parents feel cut off and likely never will have the opportunity to make known what they really want to their children.

The Conversation Project has conducted surveys showing a substantial gap between what people want and what they have shared with those closest to them:

  • 90% know it is important to have these conversations, but only 30% are having them;
  • 60% say that it is “extremely important” that families not be burdened by tough decisions, but 56% have not communicated their end-of-life wishes;
  • 70% say they prefer to die at home, but 70% actually die in a hospital, nursing home or long-term care facility;
  • 82% believe it is important to put their wishes in writing, but only 23% have done so.

The Conversation Project’s “Starter-Kit” offers a workbook of questions that needs to be clarified and shared, and acknowledges how difficult it is for many people to know how to begin the conversation. The Project organizers suggest starting by completing this sentence: “What matters to me at the end of life is…..”

They offer other questions for parents to ask themselves and then share with their children for discussion:  

  • What is most important to me?
  • What can I not imagine living without?
  • What are my greatest worries at the end of my life?
  • Who do I trust to talk to about my desires and wishes?
  • What milestones do I want to meet before I die?
  • What do I want to know about my health?
  • What do I want my loved ones to know about my health?
  • How aggressive should the treatment be in the last stages of my life?
  • Who do I want involved in my end-of-life care?
  • What do I want my loved ones, doctors/nurses and clergy to understand about my wishes?
  • Do I wish to be alone or surrounded by my loved ones when I die?
  • What do I want my loved ones to do when I die?
  • What affairs do I need to get in order now?
  • Do I have a will/trust set up and an Advanced Directive (AD), Health Care Proxy (HCP) and Living Will in place?

The Conversation Project is a gentle, thoughtful and loving prod to help open the hearts, minds and souls of parents and children to each other as the end of life approaches.

See Wertheimer’s and Goodman’s NPR conversation here:  http://www.npr.org/2013/12/28/257822206/helping-families-have-the-most-difficult-conversation

To assist Jews in thinking about Judaism’s traditions concerning terminal illness, death, funerals, burial, and mourning, I have written a 45-page life-cycle guide called “Preparing for Jewish Burial and Mourning”  in an easy-to-use format that addresses most of the questions Jews concerning end-of-life matters, as well as a practical step-by-step guide to prepare for it. See: http://www.tioh.org/images/Worship/ClergyStudy/preparing%20for%20jewish%20burial%20and%20mourning.pdf or http://hillsidememorial.org/images/Jewish-Lifecycle-Guide.pdf.

Don’t put off thinking about these matters, putting your wishes in writing, and discussing them forthrightly with the people you love the most. The time is now.

Express Your Gratitude to 25 American Universities for Protesting ASA Boycott of Israeli Universities

24 Tuesday Dec 2013

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

My friend and colleague, Rabbi Jeffrey Salkin, has written an appeal for us to perform an important mitzvah: hakarat ha-tov – “recognizing the good” by thanking the Presidents and Chancellors of 25 American colleges and universities that have refused to join the boycott of Israeli universities called by the American Studies Association (ASA).

Not only have these academic leaders refused to join the ASA boycott, but many have made strongly worded public statements condemning the Association’s bigoted assault not only on the integrity of Israel’s institutions of higher learning, but on the State of Israel itself.

Israel is a great democracy, and as all great democracies it has its share of imperfections. However, for the ASA to single out Israel when truly grievous human rights abuses are occurring in countries all over the world that make Israel’s imperfections pale by comparison raises serious questions not only about the fairness of the supporters of the ASA anti-Israel boycott, but also about their deeper motives, their anti-Jewish and anti-Israel animus, and their personal integrity.

Rabbi Salkin has provided us the names, email addresses, and mailing addresses of the leadership of these 25 institutions. He says

“… it is not enough to scream gevalt when we have been wounded. We also have to scream ‘thank you’ to those who are our friends, to those who stood up for truth, to those who have refused to have their educational institutions seduced by all too common siren song of anti-Israelism. We need to thank those institutions, especially if we are alumni of them, and/or our children or grandchildren attend them.”

Here is the letter that I wrote and sent this morning, in answer to Jeff’s call, to each of the twenty-five university and college presidents and chancellors. I urge you to follow suit and fill their mailboxes with our individual and collective love and gratitude. Feel free to use my letter as is, or change it, or write your own; but write to let them know that their courage and commitment to truth and decency has not gone unnoticed nor unappreciated.

Dear President/Chancellor:

I want to add my voice to the voices of countless fair-minded people in expressing my deepest gratitude to you and your university for your commitment to truth, intellectual honesty and independent inquiry, to common decency and fairness, and to your courage and generosity of spirit in standing up to and protesting the American Studies Association (ASA) boycott of the State of Israel’s academic institutions.

What you have done preserves the dignity and integrity not only of Israel’s institutions of higher learning, but of your own.

I am grateful beyond words.

Sincerely,

Rabbi John L. Rosove

Senior Rabbi – Temple Israel of Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA

Boston University. Dr. Robert A. Brown, President. John and Kathryn Silber
Administrative Center, 1 Silber Way (8th Floor), Boston, MA. 02215.
president@bu.edu

Brandeis University. Fred Laurence, President. Office of the President,
Irving Enclave 113, MS 100, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA 02453

Brown University. Christina Paxson, President. Office of the President,
Brown University, Box 1860, 1 Prospect Street, Providence, RI 02912

Cornell University. David J. Skorton, President. Office of the President,
300 Day Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. president@cornell.edu

Dickinson College. Nancy A. Roseman, President. Dickinson College, Post
Office Box 1773 , Carlisle, PA 17013. presofc@dickinson.edu

Duke University. Richard A. Brodhead, President. Office of the President,
Duke University, 207 Allen Building, Box 90001, Durham, NC 27708-0001.
president@duke.edu

George Washington University. Steven Knapp, President. Rice Hall, 2121 I
Street, NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20052

Harvard University. Dr. Drew Faust, President. Office of the President,
Harvard University, Massachusetts Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138
president@harvard.edu

Indiana University. Michael A. McRobbie, President. Office of the
President, Indiana University, Bryan Hall 200, 107 S. Indiana Ave.,
Bloomington, IN 47405

Michigan State University. Lou Anna K. Simon, President. Office of the
President, Michigan State University, 426 Auditorium Road, Hannah
Administration Building, Room 450, East Lansing, MI 48824-1046.
presmail@msu.edu

New York University. John Sexton, President. Office of the President, New
York University, 70 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012
john.sexton@nyu.edu

Northwestern University. Morton Shapiro, President. 2-130 Rebecca Crown
Center, 633 Clark Street, Evanston, Illinois 60208.
nu-president@northwestern.edu

Princeton University. Christopher L. Eisgruber, President. Office of the
President, 1 Nassau Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544

Tulane University. Scott S. Cowen, President. Tulane University, 218 Gibson
Hall, 6823 St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70118-5684

University of California-Irvine. Michael V. Drake, MD, Chancellor.
University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697 chancellor@uci.edu

University of California-San Diego. Praddep K. Khosia, chancellor-elect.
Office of the Chancellor, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman
Drive # 0005, La Jolla, California 92093-0005. chancellor@ucsd.edu

University of Kansas. Bernadette Gray-Little, Chancellor. Chancellor’s
Office, University of Kansas, 230 Strong Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045-7518.
chancellor@ku.edu

University of Maryland. Wallace D. Loh, President. University of Maryland,
1101 Main Administration Building, College Park, MD 20742-6105
president@umd.edu

University of Pennsylvania. Amy Gutmann, President. Office of the President,
University of Pennsylvania, 1 College Hall, Room 100, Philadelphia, PA
19104-6380. presweb@pobox.upenn.edu

University of Pittsburgh. Mark Nordenberg, Chancellor. University of
Pittsburgh , 107 Cathedral of Learning, Pittsburgh, PA 15260

University of Texas-Austin. William Powers, Jr., President. Office of the
President, 110 Inner Campus Drive, Stop G3400, Austin, TX. 78712-3400

Washington University in St. Louis. Mark Stephen Wrighton, Chancellor.
Campus Box 1192, One Brookings Drive , St. Louis, MO 63130
wrighton@wustl.edu

Wesleyan University. Michael S. Roth, President. 229 High Street,
Middletown, CT. 06459. presoffice@wesleyan.edu

Willamette University. Stephen E. Thorsett, President. 900 State Street,
Salem, Oregon 97301 president@willamette.edu

Yale University. Peter Salovey, President. President’s Office , Yale
University PO Box 208229 , New Haven, CT 06520-8229
presidents.office@yale.edu

The Emotional Reality that Underpins Everything We Feel and Do as Individuals and as a Society

02 Monday Dec 2013

Posted by in American Politics and Life, Art, Ethics, Health and Well-Being, Social Justice, Women's Rights

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

It is true in our interpersonal relationships, as it is true in religion, science, politics, business, education, technology, and the arts – that those who take the greatest risks, who act from love and not fear, who challenge the limits of current thinking and think outside the box, who meld their self-interests with the common good, who act on behalf of justice, compassion and peace, that these are the people who not only evolve and grow as individuals, but effect progress in society and the world as a whole.

I have pondered for years why some people are uncommonly courageous, willing to step outside the mainstream to create something new, to fight for justice and peace, despite the inherent risks.

I ponder as well why other people resist positive change, hold tenaciously to their truths regardless of the evidence that disproves their veracity, are risk adverse, and seek certainty even if it means ignoring innovations that will improve their quality of life and the quality of life of others.

Dr. Brené Brown, a research professor at the University of Houston in the Graduate College of Social Work, has studied such differences in people and come to the conclusion that the determining factor in the way people think and behave is how they cope with vulnerability, for it is vulnerability that underpins our feelings about ourselves, our relationships to others and to the world around us.

At the heart of vulnerability, she says, is the fear of losing connection with others due to a sense of inherent unworthiness. The most frightened among us fear especially the shame that comes with disconnection. These people assume that because they themselves feel unworthy they will be rejected when others discover the truth about them, that they are not smart enough, desirable enough, lovable enough, talented enough, competent enough, promotable enough, or wealthy enough. Whatever the deficiency they feel, they fear being revealed as flawed and vulnerable.

Those who do not fear their vulnerability are what Dr. Brown calls “whole-hearted” because they feel worthy of love and connection, despite their flaws, and so they allow their vulnerabilities to be known and seen and do not worry about rejection. Such people tend to have greater empathy and tenderness, and rather than fear the shame that comes with disconnection, they feel courage in connection. It is that courage born in a sense of self-worthiness that enables them to muster their abilities, insights and talents and take risks, create, innovate, and change.

Those who fear disconnection the most not only become numb to their vulnerabilities, they numb other emotions including empathy, compassion, gratitude, and joy. Disconnected, they feel miserable and seek means to discharge their misery. Is it any wonder, Dr. Brown asks, that this generation of Americans is the most addicted and medicated cohort of any we have seen before in American history?

Those numb to vulnerability tend to crave certainty and black/white answers to life’s most difficult challenges. They regard intolerance as virtue, openness as destabilizing, nuanced thinking as elitist, and creativity as subversion.

To acknowledge vulnerability is to accept our humanity, for none of us is perfect. Recognizing our vulnerability means that we are alive, and being courageous in connection we invest in relationships that may or may not work out. We start something new that may or may not bear fruit. Vulnerability understood this way is hardly negative, it is the birthplace of innovation, creativity and change.

As I have thought about the role that vulnerability plays in the way people, communities and nations respond to creativity, innovation, and change, I believe that Dr. Brown has identified a key emotional reality that we ignore at our own peril.

Israeli Military Chiefs are NOT Panicked – PM Netanyahu is a Doomsday Prophet

27 Wednesday Nov 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Much is being written on the Israeli response to the Geneva agreement. One can find reasoned arguments for and against, that it is a “bad deal” and “historic mistake” (ala PM Netanyahu) and a “mitzvah” (ala former Deputy Prime Minister and Oslo negotiator Yossi Beilin).

The two pieces below published in today’s Al-Monitor offer insight into the security and diplomatic realities and opportunities that will be considered during the next six months of diplomacy hopefully leading to a final agreement, as well as politics in Israel itself.

I find it noteworthy that so often Israel’s military chiefs and former heads of Israel’s security services Shin Bet (ala “The Gatekeepers”) are the least panicked and most clear-thinking people in Israel.

I also have come to believe that though PM Netanyahu, by all accounts, is sincere in his worries over Iran’s nuclear weapons program, as are most Israelis across the political spectrum, Bibi so often plays to the politics of fear, and that usually does not result in the wisest of policies, public statements and consequences.

Fear keeps people stuck in the wounds and sufferings of the past on the one hand, and disallows them the freedom to create new, wiser and more secure realities moving forward on the other. Though there are risks in every option, there are also risks and dangers in doing nothing.

Netanyahu’s alarm about Iran balanced by military chiefs, Al-Monitor – According to Ben Caspit, “There’s no panic at all among Israel’s professional military echelons. Nobody talks about a catastrophe or an imminent second holocaust. People discuss the merits of the agreement with levelheadedness and discretion. After all, doomsday prophecies are not their thing. For this we have Netanyahu.” http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/iran-agreement-israel-defense-apparatus-not-alarmist.html#

Netanayahu plays the Iran card in Israeli politics, Al-Monitor – Mazal Mualem makes the case that Netanyahu is “using the Iranian nuclear project for internal political needs.” http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/11/benjamin-netanyahu-deal-nuclear-iran-israeli-public.html

Note: I have just discovered the Al-Monitor Middle Eastern news service. Here is a description of its mission taken from its web-site:

“Al-Monitor – launched February 13, 2012, features reporting and analysis by prominent journalists and experts from the Middle East, including through its Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria and Turkey Pulses. Al-Monitor’s content is regularly referenced in The Wall Street Journal, Time, Reuters, Le Monde, The New York Times, The Economist and many other publications. The Washington Post has called the site “invaluable,” The Huffington Post referred to it as “increasingly a daily must-read for insightful commentary on the Middle East” while The Economist recommended Al-Monitor’s Egypt and Iran coverage in its What To Read section. Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/about#ixzz2lrdUKijU

The Mitzvah of Diplomacy and the “2 Campaign of J Street”

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

President Obama and Secretary Kerry are to be congratulated, along with Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, for this diplomatic success between Iran and the P5+1 on the road to eventually eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapons capability in future agreements.

Contrary to naysayers and cynics who say, including Israeli PM Netanyahu, that this is somehow a “bad deal,” one need only read what the agreement actually requires to realize that that this deal effectively stops advancement of Iran’s nuclear progress for six months, leaves most of the sanctions in place pending continued progress, while a stronger agreement is developed.

The President and Secretary of State are also to be congratulated on their diplomatic efforts to rid Syria of chemical weapons.

Each of these successes, despite them being imperfect, is a mitzvah because each pursues and effects the fulfillment of our duty to save lives (pikuach nefesh).

President Obama and Secretary Kerry are also to be congratulated for devoting enormous time and political capital in bringing the Palestinians and Israel to the negotiating table with the goal of peacefully and diplomatically bringing about a two states for two people’s resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Their initial efforts are only a beginning. The road will be very tough because a viable and fair peace agreement will require Israel and the Palestinians to make difficult concessions and compromises on all the core issues of borders, settlements, land swaps, Jerusalem, water, and refugees.

The alternative to an agreement, however, for the Jewish people is unthinkable – namely, the end of the Zionist dream and the erosion of the Jewish democratic state of Israel.

J Street, a pro-Israel pro-peace political organization in Washington, D.C. that supports a two-states for two-peoples agreement, has answered Secretary Kerry’s challenge to America and to America’s Jews to be part of the “great constituency for peace.” J Street’s response is “The 2 Campaign”:

The 2 Campaign answers Secretary of State John Kerry’s challenge to rally a “great constituency for peace” behind the administration’s initiative to achieve a two-state solution.

In particular, Kerry turned to the Jewish community to enlist our support, because he recognizes “no one has a stronger voice” when it comes to Israel. Most in the organized Jewish community are now on record supporting a two-state solution and have applauded Secretary Kerry’s efforts. However, too many are then quick to list the reasons why an agreement isn’t possible.

The 2 Campaign is a concerted effort across the country to convey to Secretary Kerry that he has the support of the American Jewish community and beyond in pushing negotiations forward, especially in the most difficult moments. Achieving a two-state solution is in the American, Israeli and Palestinian national interest.

Together, we will demonstrate the resolve of pro-Israel Americans to see a two-state solution reached. We will show policymakers and political leaders that we support US leadership in helping the parties make the difficult, but necessary choices with regard to Jerusalem, borders, refugees and security.

The 2 Campaign will consist of a major multimedia effort that will unfold as the negotiations progress, a national petition, educational outreach across the country and major events in key American cities. Join Us!

Become part of the solution – sign the 2 Campaign petition here http://www.jstreetu.org/latest/2campaign

Note that I am a national co-chair of the 700 member J Street Rabbinic Cabinet.

High Holiday Sermons – 2013/5774 – Ayeka? Where are You?

10 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

This past High Holiday season (2013-5774) I asked myself and my congregation one central question in three different ways: Ayeka? (Lit. – “Where are you?”).

The question, of course, is not about one’s location. Rather, it asks about our identity, how we think and what believe, who we are and what values are central in our lives.

Ayeka is the first question to appear in the Hebrew Bible (Genesis 3:9). It was asked by God of the first humans in the Garden of Eden immediately after they ate from the forbidden tree.

Ayeka – Where are You?  Part I – American Jews

Ayeka – Where are You?  Part II – The Jewish People and State of Israel

Ayeka – Where are You?  Part III – God

I include here as well my Yizkor sermon on “The Death of Moses” based on a compilation of midrashim (rabbinic legends and commentaries).

In the context of my synagogue mission’s to Israel and the West Bank in October (2013) about which I am still writing in a series of Reports from Israel, the second sermon, in particular, informs my thinking.  All three sermons, however, ought to be considered together.

The sermons are posted on the Temple Israel of Hollywood web-site at http://www.tioh.org/worship/clergy/clergystudy

 

If You Want To Be Politically Irrelevant, Support BDS – Israel Journal Part III

22 Tuesday Oct 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

I have much respect and personal fondness for Kathleen Peratis, and so I read with interest her thoughtful piece on Open Zion of The Daily Beast, “If You Want Two States, Support BDS.”

I share Kathleen’s sense of urgency to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict before it is too late, but I categorically differ with her conclusion about the efficacy and appropriateness of the BDS movement.

I have just returned from ten days of meetings in Israel and the West Bank. I led members of my congregation in talks with Israelis on the left and right, settlers, human rights activists, journalists, and members of the Knesset, as well as with Palestinian Authority officials and Palestinian business and community leaders, excluding Hamas. Our purpose was to gain a deeper understanding of the current situation and of the attitudes of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as to express our American Jewish support for a resolution of the conflict that includes two states for two peoples.

We spent an afternoon touring the West Bank with Leor Amichai, the director of the “Settlement Watch Project” for Shalom Achsav, and saw for ourselves the extent of settlement construction in Ariel and evidence of dozens of illegal Israeli “outposts” (i.e. small settlements) that are flourishing everywhere with full infrastructure provided by regional settlement councils and are condoned by the Israeli military authority.

Seeing these settlements with our own eyes persuaded us that they are a serious challenge to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a future peace agreement, there will come a choice; either 100,000 Israelis will abandon their homes and settlements in the new state of Palestine and move into Israel across the Green Line, or, as once agreed upon by Yossi Beilin and Mahmoud Abbas during the Oslo period, Israelis will be permitted to remain in the Palestinian state if they agree to live peacefully under Palestinian sovereignty and if Palestinians are free to live anywhere in Palestine, including inside Jewish settlements.

Though Kathleen and I agree on the necessity of a two-state solution, we disagree about BDS.

Kathleen writes:

The deciders on whether there will be a two-state solution are the Israeli people. It is they at least as much as their government who should be the targets of our advocacy … any pollster will tell you that a large majority [of the Israeli people] says it favors ending occupation. But that majority neither puts pressure on its representatives nor votes in large numbers for peace candidates. Why? Because ending occupation is low on the agenda of Israeli voters, lower even than the price of cottage cheese.

She also says that American Jews should “shake Israelis from their indifference.”

I disagree that our role as American Jews is to shake up Israeli society. Such a position is presumptuous on the one hand and unnecessary on the other. There are, indeed, hundreds of thousands of Israelis represented in a number of political parties including Meretz, Avodah, Hatnuah, Hadash, Yesh Atid, Shas and even Likud who are not at all indifferent to the necessity of a two-state solution.

Even Tzahbi Hanegbi, a former Likud politician who is close to PM Netanyahu, has called for a two-state solution. Tzipi Livni, Israel’s chief negotiator to the Palestinians, who also comes from the Israeli center-right, advocates the same.

J Street’s purpose, in my view, is not to influence Israelis. Rather, the movement was formed to demonstrate widespread American Jewish support for the two-state solution to this conflict and to influence American government officials to do everything possible to assist Israel and the Palestinians in resolving their conflict.

I believe it is a serious political mistake for American Jews to support any kind of BDS (even one limited to the settlements) because we risk having our friends and allies in Congress walk away from us as pro-Israel, pro-peace advocates and align themselves with regressive, right-wing forces that do not support two states for two peoples.

If we do not get the politics right, the consequence could be a serious setback not only to the J Street movement and approach, but, most importantly, to the best long-term security interests of the Jewish democratic state of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.

Note: My response to Kathleen’s original blog on Open Zion of The Daily Beast appeared there on October 21, 2013 – http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/21/if-you-want-to-be-politically-irrelevant-support-bds.html