“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.]

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

12 Wednesday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

American Jewish Life, American Politics and Life, Divrei Torah, Ethics, Israel and Palestine, Israel/Zionism, Jewish History

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.

“Israeli Supreme Court Petition Stops Illegal Funding to ultra-Orthodox Draft Dodgers”

10 Monday Feb 2014

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Israel/Zionism, Jewish History, Social Justice

This Hiddush headline from this past week was a pleasant surprise given the fact that in recent years the ultra-Orthodox political parties have grown in political influence and successfully kept their yeshiva students out of the Israeli Defense Forces while also directing millions of Israel shekels to their synagogues and yeshivot, moneys that no other community receives. The headline suggests that there is a return to fairness for all Israeli citizens regarding mandatory military service on the one hand, and the appropriate use of tax-payer shekels for all Israeli citizens on the other.

Hiddush is an organization committed to the separation of Church and State in Israel and to freedom of worship and conscience as guaranteed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

The following excerpts explaining this High Court ruling are taken from Hiddush’s announcement (for the entire story, see http://www.hiddush.org/article-2609-0-Hiddushs_Supreme_Court_petition_stops_illegal_funding_to_ultraOrthodox_draft_dodgers.aspx

“The petition… challenged the legality of continued State subsidies to yeshiva students who should be required to serve in the army or national service. The petition maintained that the legal basis for continued State funding for the yeshiva students ended as soon as the Tal Law, which granted yeshiva students mass exemption from military/civil service, was annulled by the Supreme Court. The Tal Law facilitated mass exemptions of 14% of the annual conscription, which is close to 60,000 yeshiva students who are of military service age. The law was annulled by the court almost two years ago, but the Knesset is debating a new law to replace it, and still hasn’t applied the legal draft requirement…

The Haredi [ultra-Orthodox] and general media are full of statements describing the court decision as a declaration of war by the Supreme Court against the Torah and Haredi Judaism, claiming that it once again proves the illegitimacy of the [Supreme] Court and its prejudice against ultra-Orthodox Jews. United Torah Judaism (UTJ) MK Rabbi Israel Eichler went as far as to claim that the Justices were bribed by the Reform Movement, and MK Rabbi Moshe Gafni (also from UTJ) has called to respond with war against the petition and its supporters.”

The Shas Party also reacted in a way that pits the democratically elected members of the Knesset and the Israeli High Court against the authority of ultra-Orthodox rabbis:

“We regret that the High Court joined the persecution of Torah Jewry tonight by crudely intervening into the sensitive legislation procedure that is being discussed these days in the legislative body. … The decision to impose economic sanctions is solely intended to join the assault and incitement against Torah scholars in Israel.” (The Yeshiva World News, February 4, 2014)

Hiddush was sited in that same press release by The Yeshiva World News:

The High Court clarified to the Knesset that even its infinite patience has a limit and the court will not permit the flow of hundreds of millions of shekels against the law. Since the cancellation of the Tal Law 18 months ago the state has been violating the law by not recruiting the yeshiva students. It adds insult to injury when it finances their remaining elsewhere. The High Court placed a border on the scandal. Hopefully the politicians will come to their senses and take action in the coming days to complete the share the burden equality law so another appeal will not have to be filed with the High Court.

The founder of Hiddush, Rabbi Uri Regev, has scored a major victory for democracy and fairness in Israeli society. For more information and news on the work of Hiddush, see http://www.hiddush.org/

The Yin-Yang of Prophetic and Priestly Leadership – D’var Torah Tetzaveh

07 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by rabbijohnrosove in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Divrei Torah, Jewish History

Thirty times does Aaron’s name appear in this week’s Torah portion, while the name Moses is completely absent, except by inference three times using the second person pronoun “You.” Moses’ absence is explained by commentators in a number of ways, and this one (my favorite) is found in a famous midrash emphasizing Moses’ selflessness in defense of the people at the sin of the golden calf.

As God prepared to destroy the people, Moses told the Almighty that he ought to be destroyed too and that God should remove him from his “Book” because he, Moses, could not live without his people.

God appealed to his prophet, “Could you really stand to have your name taken out of this Book?”

“Yes, if it would save my people.”

So God took the name of Moses out of this one sidra to test whether Moses could stand it or not. Moses passed the test, continued working, and God, seeing that his prophet was resolute, selfless and sincere, relented and forgave the people of their greatest sin.

Regardless of the actual reason that Moses’ name is missing completely in this parashah, the emphasis this week is on Aaron as High Priest and not on Moses as prophetic leader, thus giving us an opportunity to reflect on the unique nature of Aaron’s exalted role.

The brothers represent, in truth, two distinct and different kinds of leadership; one as charismatic prophet and the other as an institution-bound High Priest.

Moses needs no special clothing or external signs to establish himself as leader. Aaron wears the “sacral vestments” thereby defining him in his priestly dignity.

Though loved by the people, Aaron’s leadership is encumbered by institutional constraints. Contained, measured, conservative, conventional, and non-reactive, Aaron’s priestly world changes slowly, if at all. Ritual defines time and occasion. Disorder is shunned, chaos anathema, the breaking of rules unacceptable.

Moses, despite his role as lawgiver and chief magistrate, is by nature and temperament Aaron’s opposite. Windswept and inspirational, the prophet reaches for the stars and communes with God. Consumed in divine light, he is a dreamer who establishes a new world order by smashing the past’s idols. He ventures alone into the desert, his hair and beard turned white and he transcends human convention.

Society needs both a Moses and an Aaron, prophet and priest, the yin and yang of ancient Biblical life. Without Aaron there would be little stability and societal order, and public life would succumb to the worst excesses in the human condition. Without Moses’ prophetic zeal, there would be little vision and hope for change towards a more inspired and just social order.

One important lesson for us as we reflect on how Moses and Aaron complemented one another is that shared leadership and multiple leadership styles are preferable over the leadership of the one. A division of power not only prevents the principle leader from experiencing burn-out, as Jethro taught his son-in law in Exodus 18, but decentralization of responsibility creates a system of checks and balances that can contain zealotry, prevent rigidity and enable progress.

The three times in this portion when God actually addresses Moses with the pronoun “you” we glimpse three specific modes in which the wise leader ought to respond to the needs of the community.

The first comes at the beginning of the portion; “V’atah t’zaveh et b’nai Yisrael… – You shall command the children of Israel…” (Exodus 27:20)

Here we see that a strong leader must be confident enough to command (i.e. take control) when necessary. However, if he does so constantly and in every instance he runs the risk of straining his authority and losing his followers.

The second time God addresses Moses is in the next chapter – “V’atah hakrev eleicha et Aharon achicha v’et banav ito mitoch bnei Ysirael l’chahano li… – You shall bring close to you Aaron your brother and his sons with you into the midst of the children of Israel…”. (Exodus 28:1)

In this instance we see that the leader ought to undergo a selfless act of tzimzum (contraction) and delegate responsibilities to others. Even as the leader contracts, however, he enables by contraction to draw others closer to him thus maintaining authority.

And the final instance in which God addresses Moses is “V’atah t’dabeir et kol chochmei lev asher mileitiv ruach chocham… – And you shall speak to all those wise in heart and filled with the spirit of wisdom…” (Exodus 28:3).

The leader has to presume wisdom in others, and that dialogue and persuasion are necessary in bringing everyone along to desired ends.

Moses’ and Aaron’s examples suggest that great leadership requires not just vision and moral rectitude, but love of truth, love of humanity, wisdom, humility, respect for the dignity of every individual, and a commitment to enhance the common good.

Shabbat shalom!

Rabbi John Rosove's Blog

Tag Archives: Jewish History

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

The Presbyterian Church USA Confronts an Extremist anti-Semitic Faction

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

The Yin-Yang of Prophetic and Priestly Leadership – D’var Torah Tetzaveh