Tag Archives: Jewish History

Bezalel: A Master Architect of Sacred Space – Parashat Vayakhel-Pikude

07 Thursday Mar 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Art, Divrei Torah, Inuyim - Prayer reflections and ruminations, Jewish History, Musings about God/Faith/Religious life, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This week we learn about Bezalel, the man chosen to design and build the Tabernacle that carried the tablets of the law that Moses brought down from Sinai. (Exodus 38:22-39:31)

On the face of it, these verses describe the matter-of-fact building of a physical edifice. But this isn’t merely an architectural plan. Rather, it’s a description of the highest aesthetic vision of the ancient Israelites, a standard of beauty and meaning that would impress itself upon the soul of generations of Jews to come in the land of Israel and all the lands of the Diaspora.

Not just any craftsman could design and build this sacred structure. The necessary qualities are spelled out in the text:

“See, God has called by name Bezalel … and filled him with the spirit of God, with wisdom (chochmah), with understanding (t’vunah), and with knowledge (da-at) in all work. And God instilled thoughts (lachshov machshavot) [in Bezalel’s mind] in order for him to make designs of all kinds…” (Exodus 35:30-32)

Because of the importance of the Mishkan in the iconography of Jewish tradition, our sages sought to understand the deepest meaning of this passage. Rashi says that chochmah is the wisdom we learn from others; t’vunah – the understanding we gain from life experience; and da-at – mystical intuition. Jewish legend assumes that Bezalel was well-versed in Kabbalah, that he understood the combinations of letters with which God created the heavens and the earth.

From all this Bezalel is presented as a master craftsman and architect, seasoned by life’s experiences, open-hearted and open-minded to the needs and insights of the people, inspired with a Godly spirit, and understanding of the fundamental laws and truths at the core of creation.
The name “Bezalel” means “being in God’s shadow,” suggesting that he had attained the level of tzadik and achieved yihud, unity with God.
Rabbi Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev says, yes, Bezalel’s function was to be the chief executive of this project to build the Mishkan, that is, in Rabbi Levi Yitzhak’s words, “someone who would meticulously carry out instructions.” But the next verse adds another dimension when it says “v’lachshov machshavot” ([and God] “made him think thoughts”), meaning that Bezalel was asked not only to carry out God’s instructions, but to contribute “original ideas of his own.”

There are people today and throughout history who have made and do fine work replicating through drawing, painting, sculpture, and architecture what they see objectively in nature, and in the art and architecture of others. They seek, at the very least, to reconstruct what they see. The great artist, however, does more than repeat. He/she adds something ineffable to the work – a deeper and broader vision that is unique to the artist.
Bezalel was such an artist. Yet, a midrash says that even his wisdom, understanding, knowledge, and originality weren’t sufficient to merit his assignment as chief designer, architect and manager of the building of the Mishkan.

A midrash has God asking Moses if he, Moses, thought Bezalel was suited for this holy duty. And, as if stunned by the question from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be God, Moses replied, “Master of the universe! If You consider him suitable, then surely I do!” Whereupon God instructed Moses, “Go and ask Israel if they approve of my choice of Bezalel.” And Moses did so.

The people, also probably stunned, replied, “If Bezalel is judged good enough by God and by you, surely he is approved by us, too.”

From this, our sages concluded that Bezalel wasn’t only God’s choice but also the people’s choice.

Mark Chagall adds yet another dimension to the task of the artist when he wrote that “the artist must penetrate into the world, feel the fate of human beings, of peoples, with real love. There is no art for art’s sake. One must be interested in the entire realm of life.”

This story reminds us to consider well the nature of our own  sacred spaces. They are not meant to be merely functional meeting halls with an ark and Torah scrolls on the eastern wall. Rather, they should reflect the highest aesthetic vision of our tradition and people, and thereby not only enhance our prayer experience in their spaces but construct stairways to heaven.

That is the architectural vision that our own architects, Hank Konig and Julie Eisenberg of Konig-Eisenberg Architects, Inc. have envisioned for our new chapel to be built in this very space.

It is our fervent hope that construction will begin soon thereby fulfilling at last the final stage of what we set out to do as a congregation more than ten years ago, to create a new synagogue as a whole and a new sacred space in which we may celebrate the holy and draw nearer to God.

Shabbat shalom!

Israeli Political Maneuvering – My Two Cents

03 Sunday Mar 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Everyone is prognosticating whether Israel will be able to form a government. Allow me from abroad to add my two cents.

Point #1 – The election was not about foreign policy or security, though those remain important. Rather, it was about internal Israeli policy, the economy and fairness in service to the state, young people’s inability to afford the cost of living, the huge government funds being given over to settlements and the Hareidim (ultra-Orthodox), the latter of which give nothing back in taxes or military/civilian service to the state.

Point #2 – Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) and Naftali Bennett (Habayit HaYehudi), who surprisingly earned 19 and 11 mandates respectively, have formed a strong  bond. Either they both become part of the ruling coalition or neither does, thus making Bibi Netanyahu scramble for parties (so far unsuccessfully) to join the government. Strange bedfellows when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Lapid and Bennett agree that the economy and “sharing the burden” of military service must be addressed by the next government. Neither will join a coalition with any Hareidi party. Bibi has been unable to break them up. The Israeli public is growing in respect for both Lapid and Bennett as a result.

Point #3 – President Shimon Peres has given Bibi a two week extension to form a government. If Lapid and Bennett hold together it is my best guess that new elections will need to be called. It’s said that Bibi is heavily courting Shelly Yachimovich (Labor) to enter the government though she has refused to do so (but so did Tzipi Livni once upon a time – Tzipi and Bibi hate each other – but she made a deal anyway). If Bennett/Lapid do agree to come into the government with no ultra-Orthodox Hareidi parties, it is unclear what Livni will choose to do because her two-state interest is contrary to Bennett’s one-state position.

Point #4 – Bibi was deeply weakened in this election. His partnership with Yisrael Bateinu (Avigdor Lieberman, now under indictment) had hoped to garner 42 mandates. Instead the combined parties got 31 (20 are Likud and 11 are Yisrael Bateinu). Lapid and Bennett together hold 30 (19 and 11 respectively). According to current polls, if new elections are called Yair Lapid will earn in the mid to high 20s and will be asked to form the next government.

Point #5 – Shelly Yachimovich seriously weakened the Labor Party by her refusal to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution and because personally she is not well-liked. Meretz (6 mandates) and Yesh Atid were the beneficiaries of disgruntled former Labor supporters. Lapid and Bennett are well-liked not only because they focused their campaigns on what the Israelis really want and need, (i.e. to clean up the economy, eliminate the disparity in government benefits going to Hareidim and the settlements, to make it obligatory for all Israelis – Hareidim included – to serve in the military or civilian service, and to clean up corruption.

Point #6 – Religious pluralism, though not the top issue of the campaign, will be affected by the government that is formed. If the ultra-Orthodox are kept out, this is very good for the Reform and Conservative movements and for secular Israeli Jews who make up 80% of the country. Civil marriage, reducing government support for ultra-Orthodox communities, granting more support for progressive religious communities (i.e. Reform and Conservative), women’s rights, immigrant rights, etc. will advance. Yair Lapid once wrote an article in Maariv saying that “We are all Reform Jews.” His children became b’nai mitzvah at Beit Daniel, our starship Reform synagogue of Tel Aviv and he is very close to Rabbi Meir Azari, Beit Daniel’s Rabbi.

Point #7 – The domestic issues that were the main focus of this election are now potentially in conflict with resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Vis a vis the Palestinians, Israelis have thrown up their hands. They want a two-state solution by a substantial majority (Bennett does not), but they do not really know whether the Palestinians want the same, though polls say the Palestinians too are in favor. Israelis, however, are not at all convinced that President Abbas of the PA can deliver a Palestinian state. The Israelis know that Iran remains a mortal threat, but are confident that President Obama will lead on the issue.

Conclusion – I believe Bibi will be unsuccessful in forming a new government and that new elections will be called – probably in May. If so, Yair Lapid could become Prime Minister. Of course, I could be completely wrong.

My wish for Israel is a strong and pragmatic middle of the road government without the ultra-Orthodox parties, and then real movement on both the domestic issues and a two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Amen v’Amen!

History Professor Yehuda Bauer: ‘Netanyahu doesn’t know history’ – Haaretz

25 Monday Feb 2013

Posted by in Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Quote of the Day, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Professor Yehuda Bauer (age 87) of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem is considered among the world’s leading historians of the Holocaust.

The following are excerpts from a long interview just published in the weekend magazine of Haaretz. He reflects on matters personal and historic, including the love of his life, the Holocaust and genocide, Zionism, extremism, the historical significance of the State of Israel, the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, the settlements, and why a two-state solution is the only alternative to preserve a Jewish democratic state.

He says matter-of-factly this of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

“Netanyahu doesn’t know history, even though he is the son of a historian, reads a great deal and is extraordinarily intelligent. Netanyahu is an ideologue and a tactician, but not a gifted strategist. As an ideologue, he believes wholeheartedly that we should rule the whole of the Land of Israel.”

Professor Bauer articulated what many believe to be true, that despite Netanyahu’s public acceptance of a two-state solution, in truth he may really be a “one-state” advocate.

In advance of the upcoming visit of President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry to the Middle East, it would be well to reflect upon Professor’s Bauer’s historical perspective.

The following are excerpts from a long and compelling interview, which I recommend you read in its entirety – http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/history-professor-yehuda-bauer-netanyahu-doesn-t-know-history.premium-1.504937

“The Jews were always in opposition to the whole world. The Jewish people would be endangered by unity. The quarrels and disputes are the engine that drives its culture forward, backward or sideways. That is its elixir of life.

…If we are deprived of the constant ability to quarrel, we will be finished.

The endless debates, from the Middle Ages to our own time, constitute the vitality of this people…

We live in a country that is divided into four states, all of them within the boundaries of the Land of Israel. In a small country that lies between the Jordan and the sea is a state called Israel. Next to it, in Gaza, is the State of Hamastan. In the West Bank there is the State of the Palestinian Authority, which is under Israeli occupation, and within all of these is the State of Judea of the settlers…

The dream of a Jewish democratic state will come to an end only if the right wing is in power.

A democratic state within the 1967 boundaries, with certain territorial exchanges, will be a Zionist Jewish state that is obliged not only to make peace with its Palestinian and Arab neighbors, but offers the possibility for national-cultural development and full equal rights to the Arab minority living in the State of Israel. The settlement policy is working against us and endangering us. We have to remove the majority of the settlers from the territories, which are actually areas of the State of Palestine…

The dream of a binational state and a state of all its citizens has no chance. That dream would mean a permanent civil war and mutual killing. Those who want to foment potential genocide here can do so by advocating a binational state for all its citizens. That, of course, would mean the end of Zionism in the sense of a state possessing a solid Jewish majority in which an Arab minority possessing equal rights lives.

Extreme religion is utopian by its very essence, anticipating ‘redemption’ and the Last Days, and the coming of the messiah to fulfill the utopia − which… is a murdering utopia. Every utopia murders. Beware of those who believe in the coming of the messiah.

I don’t think it is right to say that no Zionist party treats the Palestinian population in Israel as equals. Meretz not only does this, it also has an Arab MK, as is proper for a fifth of Israel’s population. The Zionist left always advocated this. … Well, in my aging eyes, Zionism is not Zionism when it does not treat the non-Jewish minority equally. after all, am a dinosaur, so the question becomes superfluous from this point of view.”

Cuban and American Judaism – The Growth of Secularism

21 Thursday Feb 2013

Posted by in American Jewish Life, Jewish History, Jewish Identity, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

In October I joined with 28 members of my congregation in a “humanitarian mission” to the Cuban Jewish community (meaning, we took goods and cash as gifts to support the Jewish community there). There are about 1000+ Cuban Jews living today in Havana, Santiago and Guantanamo, and we visited 3 of the 4 synagogue communities on the island. We were deeply moved by these people. They hosted us for Shabbat in Santiago (41 Jews) and welcomed us in Guantanamo (75 Jews) for lunch with an Israeli folk dance performance by 7 of its young people.

There is no Rabbi or Jewish school on the island to teach adults about Judaism and Jewish practice. Cubans generally have no access to the Internet, and so one would think that assimilation would be the greatest threat to the continued existence of their Jewish community. Yet, despite much intermarriage (by some estimates only 25 individuals have two Jewish parents) their Jewish identity is strong and their longing for all things Jewish compelling.

In Santiago I was asked to name a 10 day-old baby girl. In Guantanamo, we were shown the pride and joy of that community, a brand new Torah scroll contributed a few years ago by the Canadian Jewish Congress. It had never been read, which brings me to the purpose in this blog.

A study was recently published called “American Jewish Secularism: Jewish Life Beyond the Synagogue” by Barry A. Kosmin and Ariela Keysar http://www.jidaily.com/b2a49?utm_source=Jewish+Ideas+Daily+Insider&utm_campaign=9f3d224759-Insider&utm_medium=email in which the authors discuss our changing American Jewish identity. Though 40% of the American Jewish community (by some estimates) is affiliated with synagogues, and among them a portion do believe in God, study Torah regularly and do Jewish good works in the interest of tikun olam (repair of the world), most American Jews are not synagogue-affiliated, and an even greater number consider themselves atheist or agnostic, are unlearned in Judaism, and do not lead lives that are particularly Jewish, though they may very well self-identify as Jewish.

Many so-called “secular” Jews, instead of being involved in religious communities, are instead drawn as Jews to Jewish culture and politics such as Church-State issues, Israel, Yiddish and modern Hebrew study, Klezmer and Jewish music, Jewish photography and art exhibits, Israeli film, and Jewish book festivals. All this is well and good. Indeed, what the study indicates is that there is developing a rich secular Jewish culture in America that engages many.

My question is this: Just as the Cuban Jewish community relishes in the celebration of Jewish holidays, Israeli music, and Jewish communal life (with an obvious lack of exposure to American Jewish cultural opportunities), their knowledge base in Judaism is paper-thin.

Let me not be misunderstood. What the Cuban Jews have managed to create with no rabbis and no serious Jewish educational institutions is nothing less than heroic. But, I and my traveling companions worried about the survival of the Cuban Jewish community.

I also worry about the nature of the American Jewish community going forward. Will it survive, or will it morph into something unrecognizable by today’s standards.

I take the position that every door needs to be kept open, and new doors need to be opened, to welcome Jews and their families into Jewish communal life. I am well aware that not all these doors will necessarily lead people to an enriched Jewish faith, experience of God and the holy, or to greater Jewish learning. Yet those doors (be they children’s education, Purim Shpiels and carnivals, social justice work, trips to Israel and Jewish communities around the world, and Jewish cultural events), I would hope, will be stepping stones leading our people to deeper Jewish knowledge and engagement in the covenant of the Jewish people with God.

Many American secular Jews confess that that they do not need synagogues in order to be Jewish. That may be true, but for our community to maintain our Jewish identity and secure some measure of Jewish continuity, no other institution in Jewish life has ever been able to bring Jews together in all the dimensions of life as has the synagogue, except perhaps the State of Israel.

The synagogue has been the Diaspora’s laboratory of Jewish living for two millennia. It is where Jews experience the holy and engage in tikun olam.

What will the next generation of American Jews be like? Will our American Judaism look more like that of our Cuban Jewish brothers and sisters, or will we discover a more enriched Jewish identity and life?

The Talmud (Shabbat 127a) reminds us of the truth that Talmud Torah k’neged kulam (“The study of Torah is equal to all the commandments”).

To secure Jewish life, Jews have had to be learned and committed to the building of community. It is from this base that we have survived, and this alone.

A Defense of J Street to Criticism from Fellow Reform Rabbis

13 Wednesday Feb 2013

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

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

What follows is my response to a flurry of letters posted by Reform Rabbis on our List Serve (RAVKAV) critical of J Street. Many of my colleagues charge that J Street ignores hostility to Israel throughout the Middle East, the growing influence and threat of Hamas in the Palestinian community, that Israel has no real partner to peace in Mahmud Abbas, and that J Street is constantly critiquing Israeli policies and not the Palestinians.

Note: I serve as the National co-chair of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet with close to 700 rabbis of all religious streams – see J Street’s website for all policy positions – http://www.jstreet.org.

Dear Colleagues:

In response to [the above] challenges to J Street, I want to offer J Street’s stated position on a number of issues as well as its reasoning for a number of its positions.

Re: the issue of “calling for concessions by the Palestinians” – I would make two points:

(1) J Street has always made clear such views as
(a) the Palestinians have to give up the right of return;
(b) the Palestinian state has to be demilitarized;
(c) the Palestinians must cease the rhetoric and actions that incite violence and hatred of Jews; and
(d) that any Palestinian entity/party that hopes to be part of the political process has to renounce violence/terror, recognize Israel and agree to abide by past agreements.

Those views are all in J Street’s policy papers and on the J Street website – but not too much discussion or debate is ever generated by them because they are consensus points. There would be no need to set up a J Street in the first place if those were the thrust of our points – every Jewish organization agrees with and makes those points. That’s why 2% of the ink spilled about J Street addresses or acknowledges these points;

(2) The reason why it seems to those who follow us/read about us that we are 98% of the time talking about what we are calling on Israel to do is that that’s what there’s an argument. Those who choose to argue/debate don’t raise the issues on which we agree, they raise the issues on which we disagree. So that’s why one hears a lot more about our belief that Israel should stop expanding settlements, or that the US should play a more active role in leading the peace effort, and that such parameters as the borders need to be based on the ’67 lines with swaps or that both countries should have a capital in Jerusalem should be put forward by the US.

On the issue of primarily focusing on Israel – it’s hard not to disagree with the theory that, even though we’re Jews and we engage in this issue (as opposed to peace in Mali) because we care so deeply about Israel and the Jewish people, we somehow shouldn’t be more focused on the Jewish side of the equation. The entirety of this debate actually is about what it means to be pro-Israel – not what it means to be pro-Palestinian. We believe it is pro-Israel to advocate for Israelis to stop building settlements. We believe it is pro-Israel to advocate for US leadership in getting a deal. Of course it’s pro-Israel to advocate that the Palestinians should stop incitement and fight terror – but we’re going to have little impact on the internal Palestinian debate on how best to gain their freedom (even though we have made statements precisely on those points). We are going to have an impact on the Jewish debate over what it means to be pro-Israel.

On the Palestinian partner question, J Street obviously just disagrees. Abbas, Fayyad and this PLO/PA leadership ARE a partner for peace despite Abbas’ rhetoric at the UN, about which I was sickened. However, their being considered partners in peace is not just in J Street’s opinion but in the opinion of such Israeli leaders as former Prime Ministers, the President of Israel, former heads of the Israeli security services. No, Mahmoud Abbas is not a Zionist. That’s no surprise. When, as the leader of the Palestinian people, he addresses the international community directly he will be – as we would expect our leaders to be – a fierce advocate for the rights of his people, which we have to acknowledge are in conflict with the rights of our people. If he were to do less, he would be completely abdicating his role and he would sacrifice the last shred of legitimacy and credibility that he has. For anyone to simply state that “it is a reality” that Abbas and the PLO are “not yet committed to offering themselves as serious partners in the peace process” is simply an opinion that is out of step with the moderate mainstream of Israeli policy makers and analysts. It’s such a person’s right to hold that opinion and it’s J Street’s right to believe that s/he is wrong. If one is waiting for Abbas to come to Israel and announce up front that the Palestinian people renounce their right to the land as “theirs,” s/he will sadly watch a bloody, violent struggle continue for the rest of his/her life, and the state of Israel gradually will become more and more internationally isolated and shunned. If one is willing to recognize that peace will be made between two leaders/people who fiercely believe they are “in the right” but are willing to compromise at the end of the day to achieve peace and end bloodshed, then maybe there’s hope.

Let me say one more thing. I deeply appreciate the civility with which those who have posted are writing. That is a win for everyone. I would hope that those who hold views that presume J Street is one-sided will take a second look at J Street’s positions and approach to a two-state solution. It is, in my view, the only way forward. I am well-aware of the risks. I understand that Israelis are the ones on the front lines and that we in Galut have only a secondary right to speak. But, I also know that so many hundreds of thousands of Israelis agree with J Street’s position, or should I say, that J Street agrees with their position.

3 Year Israeli and Palestinian Textbook Study Provokes Controversy

04 Monday Feb 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

This morning I spoke by phone to Jerusalem with Felice Friedson (The Media Line’s – TML – co-founder and its current President and CEO) about a new U.S. State Department-funded study on Israeli and Palestinian textbooks that soon will be released.

The article “Text-Book Study Sparks Controversy,” co-written by Felice Friedson and Linda Gradstein of NPR News, covers a study conducted over the last three years of how Israeli and Palestinian school textbooks treat the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the images these textbooks create of the other population. Felice, who has read the entire study, reports that:

A U.S. State Department-funded study on Israeli and Palestinian textbooks released in Jerusalem has set-off a wave of insults, charges and counter-charges. Israel’s Ministry of Education called the detailed report “biased and unprofessional” while the International Society for Political Psychology called the Israeli government’s description “highly distressing.”

Education is a key element in a future two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is clear that there is a long way to go before the two enemy populations know and understand each other. Organizations such as Seeds for Peace have sought to defuse conflict through face to face encounters, camps and projects in which Israeli and Palestinian youth come to actually know one another, but not nearly enough people on each side have had such opportunities. This is why this text-book study is so revealing as a gauge for the state of understanding of each population towards the other. This story will have legs for some time. It is worth following:

See the Media Line Story at

http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=37069

Note: The Media Line is a “non-profit news organization established to enhance and balance media coverage in the Middle East.” It delivers its in-house news and programming via multiple media – radio, television content, Internet news and features, and written stories for the print media. Media outlets using The Media Line as a source include the BBC World Service; National Public Radio; ABC, CBS affiliates; Al-Quds (Palestinian) newspaper; Y-Net (Israel); Ma’an (Palestinian) Television Network; Atlanta Journal-Constitution; India Today; IRN (UK Radio). Media Line may also soon be picked up by The Huffington Post .

“Open Heart” by Elie Wiesel – Book Review

03 Sunday Feb 2013

Posted by in Book Recommendations, Health and Well-Being, Jewish History, Life Cycle, Musings about God/Faith/Religious life, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

This little volume reminds me of a conversation once between Picasso and an art critique who asked the Master how long it took him to draw a piece that had only a few lines evoking the image of a man. Picasso said, “A life-time.”

So too is Elie Wiesel’s new book in which he reflects on the meaning of his life following emergency open heart surgery on June 16, 2011.

The volume is vintage Elie Wiesel. The writing is simple, the scope sweeping.

Upon awakening from the anesthetic he remembers thinking “…I am not dead yet. What does being resuscitated mean if not rediscovering one’s future?”

The book is a positive, optimistic expression of a grateful man. Eighty two years have not nearly been enough. He admits to having more words to write and teach, more to learn, and more love to share.

For me, Elie’s most moving passage is his description of what happened when his five year old grandson, Elijah, came to pay him a visit during his recovery: “I hug him and tell him, ‘Every time I see you, my life becomes a gift.’”

“The Gatekeepers” – a Must-See Film

30 Wednesday Jan 2013

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

The film “Gatekeepers” was made, according to Director Dror Moreh, for Israelis who do not think much about the lives of Palestinians living in the West Bank under Israeli occupation nor about the negative and corrosive impact the occupation has had on the moral and political character of the people and state of Israel. It is also intended for those American Jews who love Israel in their kishkes, who understand that Jewish history in light of the Holocaust compels them to appreciate the central importance of the Jewish state in their lives, but who have come to the wrong conclusion, that in order to love Israel they have to support her policies right or wrong.

The film has been nominated for an Academy Award at this year’s Oscars, and I am personally mixed about whether I want it to win or not, because winning means even wider exposure of this disturbing story before the world at large.

The film features interviews of six retired Directors of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security services. These are hardened, pragmatic men, people with blood on their hands, who have seen it all, who have been the chief practitioners in the fight against terrorism, and who understand that though there are things Israel’s military has had to do to protect Israeli citizens, there is still something “unnatural” about this fight.

Why are these Shin Bet former directors speaking out now? After all, anyone working in Israel’s intelligence services historically has been closed-mouthed about what happens there. They agreed to be interviewed and part of this film because they believe that the direction of Israeli policy is leading the Jewish state towards a catastrophe, that the continued occupation of one and a half million hostile Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank is doomed for disaster, that the occupation is eating away at Israel’s political and moral heart and soul and threatening the survival of the Jewish democratic state of Israel.

The six characterized Israel’s policy in the West Bank as short-sighted, based on tactical matters and not reflective of a cogent long-term strategy. To a man they are soured on Israel’s political leaders who they say have failed to grapple with the core of the conflict and who have not demonstrated the courage necessary to find a two-state solution. They do not understand, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu who on the one hand says he is for a two-state solution and on the other embraces the most extremist elements within Israeli society that are against a Palestinian state anywhere west of the Jordan River.

One can only hope that there will be a more moderate Israeli government that forms in the next few weeks reflecting the Israeli public’s rejection of extremism and a renewed effort by the United States to bring the parties together to talk and negotiate in good faith.

“Gatekeepers” is a must-see film for anyone who cares about Israel as the democratic state of the Jewish people.

The following link is a 25 minute interview with Dror Moreh, the Director of Gatekeepers by The Huffington Post.

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/segment/dror-moreh%27s-documentary-the-gatekeepers-on-israeli-heads-of-shin-bet/50f941c22b8c2a2169000416

War Between Brethren?

29 Tuesday Jan 2013

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

So threatened Ohed Shaked, a self-described Hareidi (Ultra-Orthodox) teacher of citizenship in an open letter to Yair Lapid, as printed in the Israeli daily Yideot Achronot (January 24) http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4336516,00.html

Mr. Shaked expressed the view that Lapid’s success in the recent elections (19 seats) means that he now has a pivotal role to play vis a vis the Hareidi  community. Shaked appealed to Lapid’s sense of decency that he showed during the campaign in not attacking key rabbis and leaders of the ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism. He also asserts that the future of the state of Israel is in Lapid’s own hands.

What is Mr. Shaked (and by extension) the Hareidi community most worried about? Two things: 1. Yair Lapid’s call for shivyon b’netel (sharing the burden), which refers to the conscription of the Orthodox into either military or civilian service, like all other Israelis, and 2. The new government’s reordering of budgetary priorities given the massive deficit of $39 billion, $20 billion more than was expected. One of the budget’s large expenses is to the Orthodox community that is estimated to be between $500 million and $1 billion annually. Note: The Reform and Conservative communities receive almost no funds from the government. Lapid is a pluralist and attends occasionally Beit Daniel, the starship Reform synagogue of Tel Aviv, and it is the hope of Israel’s liberal religious streams that official Israeli government discrimination will end.

Mr. Shaked is concerned that military conscription of all Orthodox students would devastate the commitment to Torah learning and practice in the Orthodox world, which they believe sustains the Jewish people and the Jewish state. He understands that there are, however, two categories of religious students – the serious students of Torah (“Torah faithful”) and others. The difficulty is in defining who is “Torah faithful” and who is not. At the very least, Shaked believes that bonafide “Torah faithful” students should be given a pass when it comes to military service.

Mr. Shaked called for a meeting of the minds between Yair Lapid with the second on his party list, Rabbi Shai Peron, and the rabbis of Shas (11 seats) and United Torah Judaism (7 seats).

Since the election, Shas and United Torah Judaism have created a voting block of 18 seats, hoping to compete with Lapid’s Yesh Atid (19 seats). The question is whether the religious parties will be invited by Netanyahu into the ruling coalition in the next Knesset. Netanyahu, if press reports are correct, is leaning towards giving Shas a role in the government instead of Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home Party (Bayit Yehudi), which won 11 seats. Bennett, a young modern orthodox wealthy entrepreneur, represents the settler movement and is categorically against a Palestinian state existing anywhere on land west of the Jordan River.

If PM Netanyahu invites Bennett’s party into the government, he would not need Shas to give him a majority of seats in his coalition. If he invites Shas he would not need Bennett’s Jewish Home Party.

Yair Lapid said immediately after the election that he would push hard in his negotiations with Netanyahu for renewed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority towards reaching a two-state solution as well as the goal of Orthodox conscription and efforts on behalf of the middle class. Essentially, it seems that Lapid has become the “King-maker” as Bibi strives to piece together a coalition that would be secure enough to rule.

Shas is more open to negotiations with the Palestinians than is Bennett. Should Bibi invite Shas, Lapid would then insist that the Rabbis agree to go forward in the negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. If Shas does agree, it is likely that Bibi will accommodate the Ultra-Orthodox community somewhat on the issue of “sharing the burden” of military service.

My own view is that at this point in Israel’s history, a two-state solution must be number one on Israel’s agenda (along with concern about Iran’s nuclear development) for Israel’s sake as a Jewish and democratic state, and though there is much resentment towards the ultra-Orthodox in Israeli society (they make up 20% of all Israelis) because of the military deferments and the large budgetary expense for their yeshivot and communities, it may be politically necessary to set that issue on the back burner. Perhaps, there will agreement on the goal of a more gradual “sharing the burden.”

The politics of coalition building may avert Mr. Shaked’s veiled threat of a Milchemet Achim, (war between brethren) while also averting the next war with the Palestinians.

That would be a win-win!

The Israeli Election – A View From America

25 Friday Jan 2013

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Israelis have spoken – that is, 67.52% of Israel has spoken equaling 3,777,977 votes with a smaller percentage of Israeli Arabs voting than ever before. In the next six weeks we will learn what the ruling coalition will look like.

There were some big surprises in the final vote tally representing a kind of tikun (correction) within Israeli politics. Rather than continuing the trend towards a more extremist right-wing government, Israelis wanted their next Knesset to turn back towards the middle of the political spectrum.

The two most significant winners are Yair Lapid of “Yesh Atid” (i.e. There is a Future) representing the middle with 19 seats, and Naftali Bennett of “Bayit Yehudi” (i.e. The Jewish Home) from the right with 11 seats. Netanyahu was the big loser though he will likely remain Prime Minister. Kadima dropped to 2 seats and the ultra-Orthodox parties lost strength as well with a total of 19.

What does it all mean?

For the past two months I have been studying modern Hebrew by Skype with two wonderful teachers in Israel. Tomer lives in Tel Aviv, is 25 years old, secular, a graduate student in history and literature at Tel Aviv University, a jazz musician, and interested professionally in the media. He was among the 20% of “undecided voters” until he walked into the voting booth and cast his vote for Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party.

My other teacher, Avital, lives in Efrat (on the West Bank), is 28 years old, religious, a graduate student in Hebrew grammar at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and wishes to be an editor and translator. She was viscerally excited whenever speaking about Naftali Bennett.

Both teachers are smart, sophisticated, educated young Israelis. They are concerned about quality of life, the Israeli economy, the growing deficit, and the future of the middle class. Each was drawn to a candidate who is straight-talking and unencumbered by political corruption.

Tomer worries that Lapid yitkapel (slang: “he will fold/cave” to the pressures of Netanyahu and politics). Avital had wished that Bennett would have fared better. She liked his campaign’s emphasis on family and Jewish study. Both Tomer and Avital liked that their respective candidates each emphasized the importance of shivyon b’nitel (“sharing the burden of military/civilian service including the ultra-Orthodox).

Bennet and Lapid are alike and dissimilar, mirror images of each other. Lapid has called for a renewal of negotiations with the Palestinians leading to a two-state solution, is against the division of Jerusalem and wants the large settlement blocs to remain in Israel with appropriate land swaps in a final settlement.

Bennett wants to annex 60% of the West Bank and is opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian State anywhere on the land west of the Jordan River.

Lapid is a secular Jew and attends our starship Reform synagogue Beit Daniel in Tel Aviv occasionally. He believes in a pluralistic democratic Israel.

Bennett is a modern orthodox Jew who is married to a secular woman and wants the government to support all the orthodox parties and not just Shas. He and Bayit Yehudi have provoked the scorn of Shas’ 90 year old spiritual father, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who branded them as a party of “goyim.” Bennett does not speak about religious pluralism nor about equal rights for Reform and Conservative religious streams. He wants to change the way judges are appointed so as to prevent them ruling on the constitutionality of legislation passed by the Knesset. He charges that the media is controlled by the left, though neglects to note that the most widely read Israeli newspaper is Israel Hayom, financed entirely by the wealthy American right-wing Jew, Sheldon Adelson.

A defining decision will be whether Netanyahu includes Bennett in his coalition or excludes him. If Bibi excludes him the government will essentially re-affirm the goal of a two-state solution. If he includes Bennett, he will signal his disinterest in negotiations leading to a two-state solution.

Secretary of State designate John Kerry is planning to visit Israel and the Palestinian communities in February to get a lay of the land. I would hope that President Obama will come as well, or very soon thereafter, in order to speak heart to heart with the Israelis and demonstrate his personal concern for their security and welfare as a Jewish and democratic nation, and then do the same with the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, thereby opening up the process leading to a final two-state solution.

Granted, the President has much on his plate, not the least of which is the Iranian nuclear threat. But only the President can act as the divorce mediator between the Palestinians and Israelis, and I hope he will take on that role.

Tomer and Avital, their generation and the people of Israel deserve nothing less.