The Pesach Seder – 3rd in a Series of 5 Blogs

06 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in American Jewish Life, Ethics, Holidays, Inuyim - Prayer reflections and ruminations, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Jewish-Christian Relations, Musings about God/Faith/Religious life, Social Justice, Women's Rights

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Jewish Life, Ethics, Holidays, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Musings about God/Faith/Religious Life, Social Justice, Women's Right

The Very First Seder in Jewish History – The first Seder was held in Egypt before the Exodus itself. Consequently, the Seder is not a celebration of redemption because the redeeming event had not yet taken place. Rather, the Seder is an expression of faith that there will be redemption in the future, that the world is not yet just and compassionate and that there is to be a more peaceful order of human affairs in a time to come.

The Seder as a Night-time Ritual – The Seder is the only full ritual that occurs at night and in the home. It is also the only time that the Hallel is said at night. Rabbi Levi Meier (z’l) suggested that whereas in daylight all things are public, at night our higher selves are revealed. When Jacob wrestled with a Divine/human being at the river Jabok we learn that following that struggle “Ya-akov shalem – Jacob became whole.” This night-time ritual moves us towards wholeness and integration (per Jungian theory – Rabbi Meier was a certified Jungian therapist) – i.e. the unification of body, mind, heart, and soul with God.

Birth Imagery in the Exodus Narrative – Birth imagery and the role of women in the Exodus narrative is prominently reflected in the Seder and therefore, alongside male images of God as a warrior and liberator, women are ancient Israel’s savers and sustainers of life. Feminine imagery is evoked especially at the Passover season because of the concurrence of the spring equinox when the lambing of the flocks took place. Most importantly, Passover celebrates the birth of the Jewish nation out of slavery. Israelite new-born boys were saved by two Hebrew mid-wives, Shifra and Puah. Yocheved (Moses’ mother) and Miriam (Moses’ older sister) saved the future liberator from certain death by placing him in a basket in the river, watching over him as he floated down the river, watching as he was drawn out of the river and saved by the Egyptian Princess, and by Miriam arranging with the Princess to have Moses’ own mother, Yocheved, act as his wet-nurse in the palace. Moses grew to manhood, never forgetting who he really was because of his engaged mother and sister, Yocheved and Miriam, and he eventually led the people through the opening of the Sea of Reeds, a metaphor of the opening of his womb. The Hebrew name for Egypt (Mitzrayim) means “coming from a narrow or constricted place,” such as a new-born moving through the birth canal. The salt water of the sea might suggest the amniotic fluid heralding both the birth of the Jewish nation into freedom and the beginning of spring.

Moses is Never Mentioned in the Hagadah – This obvious oversight was a deliberate attempt by the rabbis who developed the Hagadah in the first centuries of the Common Era (CE) to remind the people that it was God and God alone that redeemed the people from slavery. Much of the Hagadah developed in the centuries after Christianity made inroads into the Jewish community. The rabbis were concerned that Jews not deify any human leader as the Christians had done with Jesus.

Nachshon Ben Aminadav – The Midrash (rabbinic commentary) describes what happened when the Israelites arrived at the Sea of Reeds with the Egyptian army behind them in hot pursuit. Moses began to pray that God would save the people yet again while a little known figure, Nachshon Ben Aminadav, jumped into the sea and took history into his own hands. This is the first time a former slave acted on his own and on his people’s behalf. At that moment, in response to Moses’ prayer and Nachshon’s courageous deed, God split the sea and allowed the people to pass into freedom on dry land. Judaism affirms that God is a liberating force for justice and good, especially for the most vulnerable in society, and that we Jews are obligated by the Covenant to be drawn at Sinai to emulate God Who acted compassionately, defied injustice and strove to create a Jewish people (the early Zionist movement and the founding of the state of Israel is reflective of this earliest impulse in Jewish history).

Wine and Matzah in Christian Tradition – Jesus reportedly said at the Last Supper (thought to be a Passover Seder) while pointing at the matzah and wine, “This is my body and this is my blood!” (Matthew 26:26) Christian theologians developed the doctrine of transubstantiation (i.e. the Eucharist) and claimed it as legitimate continuation of first century Judaism. The deification of Jesus into a wholly Divine being, however, constitutes a significant theological leap and departure from traditional Judaism that affirms God as unknowable, infinite and eternal. For Jews, the bread represents the lamb of the Pascal offering. For Christians, Jesus replaced the lamb, and the wine symbolized his blood which led Jesus’ followers at that Seder to not be shocked by his alleged identification with the pascal offering. The anti-Semitic defamation in the “blood libel” is a convoluted distortion of the Eucharist turned on itself and against the Jewish people who had refused to accept the divinity of Jesus as the Christ Messiah.

To be continued…

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

04 Friday Apr 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

The Invisible Arab Citizens of the State of Israel

16 Sunday Mar 2014

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Ethics, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice

The vote last week in the Knesset to raise the electoral threshold from 2% to 3.25% has been interpreted by some as an effort to exclude small Arab and Jewish left-wing parties in which 12 Arabs currently sit as MKs. Whether this is true or not, the bill raises the issue, once again, about the status of Israeli Arab citizens in the state of Israel.

MK Esawi Frij, the only Arab member of the left-of-center Meretz party, told me when my synagogue group met with him in the Knesset last October that he believes that Arab Israeli citizens (now 20% of the Israeli population) are loyal tax paying members of Israeli society and are not treated equally. I asked him if he would ever want to serve as a soldier in the IDF – “Sure” he said, “but only after there are borders between Israel and Palestine.” He added, “Israel is my country. I am an Israeli!”

Surveys indicate that when a state of Palestine is created most Israeli Arabs would prefer to stay in the state of Israel and be Israeli citizens.

Many articles in the Israeli press report and opine, as Mr. Frij told us, about the unequal allocations of Israeli state money to Israeli Arab communities in education, social services, business, and industrial investment. These reports leave this pro-Israel American Zionist to conclude that a genuine civil covenant that gives Israeli Arabs their full rights in the state of Israel has not been fulfilled.

It is not enough to say, as many Israel apologists reflexively proclaim, that Israeli Arab citizens have it better and are safer than they would be anywhere else in the Arab and/or Muslim world. In the context of Israeli democracy, whether such statements are true or not, they are irrelevant. If Israel is to live up to its own civil covenant with its citizens, then corrective action must be taken to move Israeli Arabs from second-class to first-class citizenship.

Fifty percent of all Arab families and two-thirds of Arab children live under the poverty line, and many Arab students drop out of school for economic reasons. Yarden Kof of Haaretz reports that the Arab Israeli school system is inferior to the secular Jewish school system, and that Arabs have less access to pre-academic preparatory programs than Jews. She describes 14 specific barriers that Israeli Arabs face in obtaining a college education, ranging from financial challenges to inadequate public transportation. Because the Israeli Arab community does not serve in the IDF they are automatically excluded from consideration in other programs as well. (http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.530660)

According to another Haaretz writer, Meirav Arlosoroff, one quarter of all Israeli school children are Arab, and in five years the Arab population

“is expected to grow at a relatively fast rate of 3%, much lower than the 4.3% figure for the Haredi population, but much faster than the 0% increase of non-religious Israeli Jews. That means that both the Haredi population and Arab population represent increasingly large numbers of the Israeli overall population – and no one has been dealing with the Arab children.” (http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.578944)

Israel essentially has within it two separate states, one Arab and one Jewish, and there is a huge gap between these two populations in their standard of living, income, quality of education, and employment rate. On the one hand the Jewish state of Israel is a developed Western nation, and on the other the Arab state of Israel is a Third World Country.

Professor Eran Yashiv, head of Tel Aviv University’s Department of Public Policy, and Dr. Nitza Kasir of the Bank of Israel’s Research Department, conducted a survey and concluded that it would be good business for Israel to close that gap. They say that the

“huge price the State of Israel pays for being two countries within one state… loses [Israel] tens of billions of shekels because of the employment and educational backwardness of Israeli Arabs. …if Israel would succeed in closing the gap from which the Arabs suffer, the state would benefit form an additional NIS 40 billion through 2030 and some NIS 120 billion by 2050..[It is estimated] that some NIS 8 billion would be necessary to invest in the next five years in the Arab Israeli community and that the annual return on that investment would be 7.3%.” (http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.529415)

From the perspective of advancing Israel’s democracy, her commitment to equality of opportunity for all her citizens, and towards the development of her economy, Israel would be well-served to focus more of its efforts on raising the standard of living of its Arab citizens.

For more information see:
“In Israel, Arabs get less” – http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.579540)
“Ignoring Arab education imperils Israel’s future” – http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.578944
“Upper Nazareth mayor: No Arab school here as long as I am in charge” – http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/upper-nazareth-mayor-no-ara-school-here-as-long-as-i-am-in-charge.premium-1.494480
“Israeli Arabs face extensive barriers to getting college education, report says” – http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.530660
“Study: Integrating Israeli Arabs into the labor market would provide major economic boost” – http://www.haaretz.com/business/.premium-1.529415
“Closing the gap between Israel’s Arabs and Jews” – http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.529703
“Discrimination against Israeli Arabs still rampant, 10 years on” – http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.550152

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

06 Thursday Mar 2014

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

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

American Jewish Life, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pragmatic Optimism vs Cynical Realism – Support The Kerry Peace Initiative

03 Monday Mar 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so did Israeli President Shimon Peres when he said: “There are always skeptics in life…To be an optimist you have to work very hard to maintain optimism with the people you lead and have a lot of patience. It’s more natural to be a skeptic, be on the safe side…But in my experience in life I feel that being optimistic is wiser and more realistic…”

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

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

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

27 Thursday Feb 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Presbyterian Church USA Confronts an Extremist anti-Semitic Faction

25 Tuesday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He writes in part:

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

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

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

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

20 Thursday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

16 Sunday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi John Rosove's Blog

Tag Archives: Israel/Zionism

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

The Presbyterian Church USA Confronts an Extremist anti-Semitic Faction