Tag Archives: Israel and Palestine

The Presbyterian Church USA Confronts an Extremist anti-Semitic Faction

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He writes in part:

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

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

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

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

20 Thursday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State of Israel …will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions….”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Sunday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

 

Ariel Sharon – Among Israel’s Greatest Leaders – z’l

12 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

How does one eulogize the passing of an Israeli Prime Minister, especially one who was so colorful a personality, so great a general, so influential a national leader, and so committed to the security and viability of the democratic state of Israel as Ariel Sharon?

I saw Ariel Sharon twice, though I never met him. The first time he was leaving in a hurry, almost running out of the King David Hotel after having met with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in the mid-1970s during Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The second time was when I had joined a delegation of American Reform Rabbis in 1998 to meet with PM Netanyahu and urge him not to bend to the ultra-Orthodox on changing Israel’s “Law of Return” to exclude Jews as Israeli citizens who had converted to Judaism with Reform and Conservative Rabbis. Sharon was walking through the halls of the Knesset and he glanced at us knowing who we were and why we were there, as the news of our mission were headlines throughout our stay.

He was a huge distinctive charismatic and handsome man Israelis nicknamed “HaShamen” (“The fat one”) – and he was indeed.

Despite Sharon’s mixed history, I became a fan – I admit it. I liked his spirit even if I disliked what he did in Lebanon and his settlement policies. I consider him a bonafide hero because he saved the state of Israel from destruction in the 1973 War of Yom Kippur.

My friend and congregant, Eli Yoel, was a commander of Israel’s Navy Seals in the Sinai before, during and after that terrible war. General Sharon, though not Eli’s immediate commander, ordered Eli nevertheless to prepare his men to cross the Suez Canal by laying down a bridge and fighting whomever they encountered. Sharon knew that this operation, as dangerous as it was for the soldiers leading it, was the only way to turn the war around and prevent the worst nightmare the Jewish people had experienced since the Holocaust.

Eli did as he was commanded, though he knew that half his 100 man strike force would be killed, including maybe himself, as he was leading the charge. Eli survived, but he lost half his men.

The operation was successful. Bridges were laid across the canal, and the Israeli Defense Forces entered Egypt and surrounded the Egyptian 2nd Army thereby compelling the United States to force a ceasefire.

The ’73 War was a tragic experience for the Jewish state. Yet, it laid the groundwork for the cold peace with Egypt that came out of the Camp David Accords in 1978.

Sharon also led Israel into the disastrous 1982 Lebanon War. He was the architect of Israel’s massive settlement policies in the West Bank. And he waged a relentless war against Yassir Arafat during the 2nd Intifada. Many Palestinians believe that Sharon was even responsible for the poisoning of Arafat.

It used to be said in Israel that when Syria’s President Hafez El Assad (the current President’s father) looked into a mirror each morning he would see the image of Ariel Sharon looking back at him. Sharon was at once the leader of a state, a military hawk, and a tribal chieftain who with paternal love embraced his people, but with ice in his veins would pursue any enemy threatening his people and the State of Israel.

The Arabs hated him and called him “the Butcher of Beirut” (though it was the Phalangist Christians who slaughtered over 900 innocent Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps, not Israel).

Israelis trusted Sharon’s strength and resolve, his political savvy and cunning, and his courage even if they disagreed with him and his politics. When he became Prime Minister, some of my leftist Israeli friends confessed that they were glad that Sharon was the leader of the state of Israel, that only he had the character, credibility and guts to lead the state to peace.

Sharon understood the snake pit that was the Gaza Strip for Israelis, and that Israel had to disengage which he did unilaterally. He could have done so in conjunction with Mahmud Abbas and Fatah, thus giving them the credit and preventing (perhaps) the take-over of Gaza by Hamas, but he did not.

Sharon also came to recognize, as Yitzhak Rabin did before him, as Ehud Olmert did after him, and hopefully Bibi Netanyahu will going forward, that a two states for two peoples solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the only way to preserve Israel’s democracy, Jewish majority, security, and international standing.

Had Sharon not suffered the stroke, it is possible that a two-state solution would already have emerged. We will never know.

Ariel Sharon will go down in Jewish history, and deservedly so, as one of Israel’s greatest leaders. We may never see another leader like him.

Zichrono livracha – May his memory be a blessing.

“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)

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Diplomacy – Quotes to Consider in Dangerous Times

05 Sunday Jan 2014

Posted by in Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Quote of the Day, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

As Secretary of State John Kerry, along with able diplomats such as US Middle East negotiator Martin Indyk, wade into the waters of Middle East diplomacy, I thought the following quotes are enlightening.

“Negotiation in the classic diplomatic sense assumes parties are more anxious to agree than to disagree.” -Secretary of State Dean Acheson (1893-1971)

 “You cannot negotiate with people who say what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.” -President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

 “Never hate your enemies. It affects your judgment.” Mario Puzo, The Godfather (1920-1999)

“Hating clouds the mind. It gets in the way of strategy. Leaders cannot afford to hate.” -Bill Keller, Journalist (b. 1949)

“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war–war.” -Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

“Diplomacy: the art of restraining power.”  -Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger (b. 1923)

“Diplomacy is the art of telling people to go to hell in such a way that they ask for directions.” -Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

“All war represents a failure of diplomacy.” -Anthony Neil Wedgwood “Tony” Benn, British MP and Cabinet Minister (b. 1925)

“Diplomacy is, perhaps, one element of the U.S. government that should not be subject to the demands of ‘open government’; whenever it works, it is usually because it is done behind closed doors. But this may be increasingly had to achieve in the age of Twittering bureaucrats.” -Evgeny Morozov, Russian-American writer (b. 1984)

“Force is all conquering, but its victories are short-lived.” -President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)

“Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” -President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

“Certainly the international community is putting a lot of pressure on Iran and making clear that its nuclear program must stop. If it stops with the sanctions, the combinations of sanctions, diplomacy, other pressures, I, as the prime minister of Israel, will be the happiest person in the world.” -Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (b. 1949)

Amen!