Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

 

“Kindness and truth fought together, righteousness and peace strove together” – Psalms 85:11

Rabbi Shimon quotes these words from Psalms when he describes the argument among the angels of heaven upon hearing God’s decision to create humans. Half of them argued for it, half argued against it. It is further taught that God took truth and cast it to the earth. The ministering angels ask why.

We know the result. We humans are here. In all of our diversity, with all of our predilections, with all of our prejudices– we occupy this world. And we try to construct a society that stands upon the four qualities from the above Psalm: kindness, truth, righteousness and peace. Sometimes we think we are inching forward, making progress in overcoming human flaws in the quest to fulfill these qualities. Then something happens that tears apart our illusion of progress.

Grand juries have returned two decisions on intensely disturbing incidents, the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO and the killing of Eric Garner by strangling in Staten Island. Both incidents involve police interacting with African American males. Both incidents are fraught with emotions – on all sides – those who see only racism and those who see only police trying to do their job. Everyone claims righteousness is on their side. Most of us are left wishing that it would have been peace that God cast to the earth. “Why,” we ask each other, “can we not just find a way to get along? Why can’t people behave? Why is there so much default to violence?”

I would argue that God chose correctly by casting truth to the ground, for it is truth that holds the key to accessing the other three qualities. Is it truly a kindness not to know the truth? No, it is only ignorance and that is surely not bliss. Nor can there be righteousness without truth. And a peace founded on a lie cannot be a permanent or a real peace. God cast truth to this world for us – to seek, to wrestle with, to use as a means to try and put together a broken world. Yet it is truth that we most fear, that we most try to avoid or manipulate.

“I am the first, I am the last, and beside me there is no God.” – Isaiah 44:6

Midrash Deuteronomy Rabbah says this verse refers to God, who takes the Hebrew word for truth, emet, as a name. Emet contains the first, middle and last letters of the Hebrew alphabet, teaching that truth should permeate everything. It is the name that serves as God’s seal.

I first became aware of a truth about racism at 23. I was parked in a rather rough neighborhood in Philadelphia. There had been a snowstorm. My car was stuck in a snowdrift. The wheels were spinning. I looked up and saw 4 young black men walking towards me. The very first thought that went through my head was “Boy and I cooked!” One came up and rapped on my window. “Hey man, you stuck?” he asked. “You need some help?” I answered yes. He then organized his friends to push the car out of the snowdrift. He would not take any money. They did not see me as a potential mark, just as a guy needing help. I felt ashamed.

Ten years later, while living in the Philadelphia suburbs, I began to notice which cars the police were pulling over on the highway that led to our suburban shopping area. It always seemed to be cars driven by African Americans. Were blacks really more prone to speeding or running traffic lights? This observation came into a sharper, more serious light when I, along with the rest of the country, saw the Rodney King video. It was brutal. I remember my dad, a survivor of Nazi Germany calling me in tears, telling me that as he watched the police beat King, he felt himself back in Germany. If I had not yet acknowledged that there was a problem with police and black men, I could not escape that video.

So here is the first of some stark truths – racism is alive and very real. Yes, in many ways the attitudes of the general public are much more advanced than 40 years ago. However, too many people, especially white police who patrol areas populated by African Americans, still feel that baseline of fear I felt back when I was 23. To deny the presence of racism in America, to proclaim that there is no more prejudice, or to say that the work is done because we have a black president is to deny a basic truth. If we are to move forward, we have to embrace the truth. Racism is real and still infects the actions of police departments. Not all, maybe not even most, but look at the suspensions of the Wakulla County deputies for their social media reactions to the Ferguson grand jury results (“squash the cockroaches”) and then tell me racism does not exist.

“The highest function of the soul is the perception of truth.” – al Ghazali

Here is another truth. The police have a near impossible job. I have interacted with many police and members of the sheriff’s department. They are caring, concerned humans who take their job seriously. They can come under fire, putting their life in danger at any moment, and without notice. I know this because one policeman I know almost lost his life in a shootout. His life was in severe danger and only the heroic actions of another officer saved his life. I have unbound admiration for all first responders, police, firemen, sheriffs, EMT’s.

I tend to judge them less harshly because of the stress of their jobs. I also realize that police are human. Wearing the uniform does not make them flawless. I know that people make mistakes, sometimes very serious mistakes with awful consequences. So before I condemn an individual officer as a racist, who acted improperly or out of prejudice, I want to get facts unfiltered by media bias. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt until I know the truth of a situation.

Because here is another truth. Today’s sophisticated media drives the interpretation of events. And the driving is based on political leanings and bias. The interpretation of events in Ferguson by Fox News is very different than on MSNBC. In addition, the presence of media drives those not initially connected to an event to seek the spotlight, or to use the event to justify other behavior. I have to wonder how many of the riots and destruction of locally owned businesses in Ferguson were stoked by media frenzy. I do NOT know the answer but I cannot ignore the way media coverage drives attitudes, interpretations and actions.

We, the rest of the public are guilty if we do not try to filter biases and learn the truth. We become accomplices if we blindly march to agree with conclusions just because they are drawn by those with whom we generally agree with politically. Which finally brings us to the two grand jury decisions, in Ferguson and Staten Island. I believe each one represents a different truth; truths that we are having a very hard time reconciling. I admit that I have not read the thousands of pages of testimony in each situation. I am basing my thoughts on what I have been able to glean then drawing my own conclusions. So here it goes.

The events in Ferguson show the truth of how varying groups skew facts to create a narrative that supports their particular perspective. The surface event seems obvious, an unarmed young black man is gunned down by a white policeman. As details came out two narratives emerged. The first was that Michael Brown was a “gentle giant” who would never threaten anyone. His killing was a cold blooded expression of racism. Anyone who would question that is a racist, who does not “get” the race situation in America. The second narrative is that Michael Brown is a thug (a loaded word among African Americans) who resisted a police officer, even threatening him, during the course of normal police action. Former NY mayor Rudolf Giuliani is the poster child for this perspective by his assertions that because blacks prey on other blacks in crimes, the police have to be in their neighborhoods in greater force.

The grand jury’s declining to indict officer Darren Wilson created outrage among the believers of the first narrative, and cheers among believers of the second narrative. What is the truth? Likely the grand jury was correct by not indicting. Washington Post correspondent Paul Cassell (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/01/witness-10-proves-darren-wilson-had-a-reasonable-belief-he-needed-to-shoot/) provides a series of detailed analysis of the testimony presented to the grand jury.   I cannot give all of his analysis here (click the link) but here are two of his observations. First, the Medical Examiner’s testimony confirms that there was a struggle in the officer’s car, that Brown was not shot in the back, and that Brown was coming toward Wilson when the officer shot him, eventually with a fatal shot. Second, witness number 10 confirms the struggle in the car and also describes how Brown rushed at Wilson.

Of course, even if Wilson had justifiable belief that he needed to shoot, even though there is video showing Brown robbing a convenience store and bullying the clerk; his death is still a tremendous tragedy because there is a truth not being properly discussed. What are the conditions that cause so many young African American men to have difficulty? In the rush to defend Wilson or condemn Brown, the truth that so many young African American males are in deep trouble is somehow being swept aside. A young man with Brown’s potential should not have a life path that leads him to petty theft let alone being killed. The truth is, not to address the tragedy of young black men is to waste a lot of human potential.

But of course we also have Staten Island and the death of Eric Garner. It is hard to watch the video of his encounter with the police and not have the same sick feeling as when watching the Rodney King video from over 20 years ago.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1ka4oKu1jo The Garner death seems to be confirmation of the truth of racism combined with police brutality. I simply have no words to add to the images I have seen. They are shocking, scary.

Are we willing to face multiple truths? One truth is that racism is real and alive. Yes, police do commit awful acts that result in the death of black men. Another truth is that not every incident of the death of a young black male at the hands of the police is proof of racism.   Another truth is the manipulation of these tragedies by politicians, the media – a whole host of those with their own agenda. But the most tragic truth is that our country is failing young black males. These truths are not mutually exclusive. It is time to acknowledge them all.

When the angels of heaven asked why God despised his own name by casting truth to the ground, the response was the next line of Psalm 85, “Let truth spring up from the earth and righteousness shall look down from heaven.”

We are the ones who spring up from the earth. We are the ones entrusted with the search for truth. When we embrace the truth God acknowledges our righteousness. When someone dies we pray, Baruch Adonai, Eloheinu melech ha’olam, dayan ha’emet, “blessed is our God, the judge of truth.” Tonight we recite that prayer for Michael Brown and for Eric Garner. And in response I propose a second prayer, Baruch atah adam, doreish ha’emet, “Blessed is the human, the seeker of truth.” May we prove worthy of that blessing.   Amen.

Read Full Post »

This week has been framed by two shocking, tragic events. Late Wednesday evening, really Thursday morning, a shooting occurred in the Strozier library at FSU. By now all of us know the available details. Three victims were wounded, one in critical condition. We pray, of course that he has a full recovery. The shooter is dead from a showdown with campus police. From what we know so far, he is an attorney who suffered from severe mental illness. I believe I heard he had a vendetta against one of the victims. In any case it is clear this incident is the action of a single crazed individual.

Our community is rightfully in shock that this has occurred in our city. Those of us who live here and love this area believe there is something special about our community. Tallahassee has so many unique and wonderful characteristics. Even though none of the victims has died (at least so far), this incident wounds our souls. This blow to our home sends shivers through all of us. It is hard to accept that such violence can come to our doorsteps. Part of tonight is certainly dedicated to praying for peace and calm for our beloved community, as well as praying for the well being of the victims.

So what I say now is with no disrespect to the gravity of our local situation or the feelings we have for our community. But my focus is not going to be on the shooting at FSU, but on the horrifying tragedy that struck a synagogue in Jerusalem on Tuesday. During morning prayers, two Palestinians armed with guns and meat cleavers burst into an orthodox synagogue and murdered 4 worshippers, 3 of them rabbis. One of the rabbis was Moshe Twersky, son of the noted rabbi and scholar Isadore Twersky. Three of the victims held American citizenship. A Druze policeman who intervened to protect the worshippers was also killed before the two assailants were killed. The images, if you have not seen them, are horrifying.

The worshippers were engaged in morning prayers. That means they were wrapped in their tefillin and tallit. The pictures show a floor strewn with bloody tallit and walls spattered with blood. This was not just a shooting, it was a planned attack to generate terror. This was not a mentally deranged person in an isolated incident, but a politically motivated, planned massacre. Try to imagine the shock and horror of men wrapped in the symbols of prayer, in a moment in which they were beseeching God, to be attacked brutally and cold bloodedly by men with meat cleavers. The goal was not just death, but to strike fear, horror.

The reactions depended on where the speaker stood politically on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Hamas lauded the attackers as heroes – lest we have any delusions about the true nature of Hamas. Mahmoud Abbas condemned the killings, but Israeli officials beginning with Prime Minister Netanyahu charged that such a condemnation is just not sufficient, that Abbas has not done enough to defuse the politics. Israeli officials and much of the press point out that while Abbas might be condemning the action, this is for international public consumption, and that on the Palestinian street, few if any Palestinians are being given a message that such killings are outside the pale of human conduct.

Among the supporters of the Palestinians are those who try to place the murders in a larger context, even if they condemn the specific act. Tensions in Israel, in Jerusalem in particular, have been escalating in recent weeks. First, in the aftermath of the Gaza war this summer, Netanyahu announced an expansion of settlement building in the Jerusalem area. More recently, Jewish religious extremists have been insisting on greater access to the Temple Mount, where of course two mosques sacred to Moslems are located. Part of their agenda is an eventual destruction of those mosques and the reconstruction of a new Jerusalem Temple. The fact that the Netanyahu government has repeatedly denounced such plans and has begun to enforce once again who gets access to the Temple Mount; has not stopped many in the Palestinian and greater Moslem community from using the actions of these Jewish groups as a motivation for recent terrorist attacks. Again, this is even among some of those Moslems who condemn the attacks.

Further, everyone remembers the brutal attack of Baruch Goldstein in 1994 in which he entered a mosque in Hebron and slaughtered 29 worshippers during prayer. It seems in the Middle East we can never escape the mutual justification of tit for tat. It seems we can never stop letting the radical elements drive the conflict from both sides. We go round and round in political analysis, weighing if there is or is not moral equivalency in each side’s actions. As Jews, and as a people comprising only 13 million of a world population of over 7 billion, we are angry, hurt, and wonder how our tragedies are constantly turned in ways to make us the aggressors. We resent how much of the world turns our victimhood against us, condemning Israel as immoral or illegitimate. We are right to feel all of these things.

But the biggest tragedy is not political. The biggest tragedy is not because of an impact on a two state solution. The biggest tragedy is not how this is an expression of anti-Semitism or Palestinian brutality. The biggest tragedy is the loss of the basic human element of the deaths of the 5 victims. Rabbi Doniel Hartman of the Hartman institute in Jerusalem wrote beautifully on this yesterday. We are failing to see the humanness in these deaths. They are now symbols of a cause, not humans whose hopes, dreams, accomplishments and lives are now ended. I want us to see them as people devoted to God, not as tools in a political game. The deepest tragedy in this ongoing cycle of violence is the failure to see the humanness of the victims. It is the failure to see how each person, no matter their faith, no matter their ethnicity, is an expression of God.

Consider these words from Psalm 82: אנ’ אמרת’ אלוה’ם אתם ובנ’ על’ון כֻלכם “I have said you are Elohim, and the sons of the most High.” How can we be Elohim, often translated as God? It can also be translated as judge. Rashi comments on the verse by saying that we are neither gods or judges, but are really malachim, angels, messengers of God. We are divine messengers when we take the Torah given to us and use it in a way to ward off the angel of death. That is the task that falls to us, as Jews, as the receivers of Torah. We are charged with being messengers who see the humanity in everyone. It is as simple as heeding the directive to accept the stranger, as we were once strangers in Egypt. It is as simple as loving your neighbor as yourself. It is as simple as understanding Adonai echad, that God is one and we are all part of that oneness.

And it begins with the human connection we have to Jews who have suffered. It begins with understanding kol Yisra’el aravim zeh l’zeh – all of Israel is responsible for one another. We are part of one family. We are sometimes a dysfunctional family. We are a diverse family, but a family we surely are. For at least tonight we must see the 4 Jews who died praying as nothing other than members of the family who have died tragically. And we must see the policeman who died not as a Druze, but as a human who cared enough about his fellow humans that he sacrificed himself for their safety, for who knows how many more might have died had he not done so.

Tonight we will say prayers for peace. When we leave services we can access all kinds of political analysis about the tragedy and its impact on Israeli/Palestinian relations. But for now, let us just pray that the families of the 5 victims may find some measure of nechemta, of comfort. Let us take a moment of silence to grieve for members of our family, our Jewish family, our human family.

Amen

Read Full Post »

Tony Dorsett Pitt

I attended the University of Pittsburgh from 1972 to 1976. In those years Pitt football transformed from being an embarrassment, to being a power on the verge of national prominence. Indeed, the year after I graduated, Pitt won the national championship. By my senior year we all knew the program was poised for success. Pitt had gone back to a bowl, Johnny Majors had recruited a load of blue chip players, led by Tony Dorsett, and in the fall of 1975, Pitt dominated then national power Notre Dame, breaking through with its first significant win in many years. Against this backdrop, the athletic department announced that Pitt students would have to obtain colored coupons to exchange for tickets, thus limiting the amount of free tickets given to students. A protest occurred among the students, as everyone saw the next step as outright charging students for their tickets.

At that time I was a columnist for the student paper, “The Pitt News.” Here are some excerpts from a column I wrote about the issue in September 1975:

“The basic accusation leveled at the athletic department is that it is trying to run its football program as a business. This really is not so bad. After all, Calvin Coolidge told us America’s business is business. Since football is as American as apple pie, it follows that football should be a business since business is American. Right?

Not quite.

You see, Pitt runs an amateur football program, designed to help poor athletes, promote school spirit…and all that jazz. Therefore, football is really for the students and not for Calvin Coolidge after all. Right?

Well, not quite.

The athletic department is trying to run an amateur program like a business. That is, it wants to preserve all those hallowed institutional trappings that accompany football…and at the same time turn over a profit that will enrich the war chest and enable Pitt to eventually take its place among the Oklahomas and Penn States…”

Here is the solution I proposed:

“A lot of headaches would be avoided if the aathletic department would just drop any pretenses of trying to preserve amateur football. It should become professional in name as well as in reality. In fact, major colleges would do well to band together and create a minor league for NFL football…

Instead of being the Panthers of the University of Pittsburgh, the University would become owners of a minor league, professional team known as the Pittsburgh Panthers. Cas Myslynski (the athletic director at Pitt in 1975) could be the general manager. That way, all of his shenanigans that are now called “dirty tricks” would then be called good business practice.”

Here is perhaps the most important aspect of the solution I proposed:

“The relationship between the University and the players also would undergo a drastic change. Instead of giving them scholarships to attend classes and live in the dorms, they could be paid salaries. Instead of taking up class space and dorm space that many players do not care about, they would be responsible for finding their own apartments. If any wanted to go to school, then a special arrangement could be made for them to go during the winter and spring semesters so that the fall will be open for them to concentrate solely on football.”

I have never claimed prophetic powers, but my somewhat “tongue in cheek” suggestions from 39 years ago seem very relevant today.

My last blog post discussed the sickness of how we regard players: we defend them of all transgressions if they play for “our” team and condemn them otherwise. We fail to see the players as exploited products of a system that uses them, at very little cost to the university, to raise a pile of money and then discard them when they are no longer useful. Players are induced by the lure of professional ball, and many have little if any interest in the education a university can offer. This is being recognized by some of the players – witness the suit leveled against Northwestern by players to pay them for their services.

The problem is not only at the university level. This fall football programs have been suspended at two high schools, Sayreville, NJ and Central Bucks West in Doylestown, PA. Both suspensions are due to sexual hazing of younger team members by older team members. The suspension of the CB West program hits home personally, as we lived in that school district when our daughters were very young. They would have attended that high school if we had not moved closer to Philadelphia. While I have not read any statements defending the actions of the players, I have read lots of reactions by students and parents saying the suspension of the program is not fair to other students ranging from band members to mere spectators. No one wants to be robbed of their football. Yet, at least in these two schools, football culture has proven to be poisonous. I have come to believe the presence of football in academic settings, even when not resulting in something as radical as sexual hazing, is poisonous.

I think it is time to propose a radical change in the relationship between football and educational institutions. In high schools, football should be discontinued as a school activity. Young people, who are accomplished players wishing to participate in a competitive league; should be able to do so through club sports. This is exactly what happens in Europe. High schools need to be focused on educating students, not being a feeder system for major college football. The sick football hero system really starts by the hyper focus of a high school on its team and the elevation of the players to a level in which they rule the school. There have already been cases of districts discontinuing interscholastic athletics – football in particular – and seen their academic scores rise.

The problems are intensified on college campuses. The players are expected to perform like professionals, yet integrate into the school setting. These players are not equipped to really benefit from classes. They are part of a football mill. They hope to make it to the NFL, but the vast majority will never play professional ball. Even those who are drafted by the pros are ill prepared to handle the riches that will be dumped on them by an NFL contract. How many instances are there of pro players frittering away their earnings, completely oblivious to the reality that no matter how huge their contract, it does not last forever unless invested and handled properly.

No, my proposal in September 1975 makes a world of sense. The major college programs should become a system of minor league ball – even layered into A, AA and AAA levels of competition, much like professional baseball. Players should be paid for their services, increasing as they work their way up through each layer of competition. Those who are not promoted early will have a chance to opt to go to school, to get a degree that can put them on a productive path.

As for the universities, one purpose of football programs is to fund those sports that make no money. Often scholarships for students in those sports is the only way that student can get an education. Let’s face it, no one is going to make a fortune running woman’s track, or playing college soccer. If the universities, FSU for example, own a minor league franchise affiliated as feeder to an NFL team, it can still serve as a fund raiser for the university. But the players will not be part of campus life, which is likely a very good thing for most students.

As I mentioned in the beginning of my last post, I am a lifelong sports fan. My habit is to live and die with my favorite teams. But I have reached a point where I am having a hard time balancing my passion for sports with my conscience.

Read Full Post »

heismanwinston

After almost a lifetime of enthusiastically following college football, I find my taste for it growing increasingly sour. No, it is not because my own alma mater, Pitt, is a program hopelessly mired in mediocrity. I have grown tired of football culture, football worship, football excuse making, and most of all, football’s skewing of our moral compass. I live in Tallahassee, home of the current national champions and home to the latest national media campaign condemning the alleged preferential treatment of football players. It is home to the latest poster child for the discussion over what is wrong with college football – Jameis Winston.

So let’s start with Winston. Whether or not you see his December 2012 incident as sexual assault depends on the loyalties and politics of the person pronouncing judgment. If you are a feminist, you tend to condemn him as a rapist. If you are an FSU football loyalist, you assert this was consensual sex, and this, along with all of Winston’s other public escapades are more the product of him being an immature, enthusiastic kid than bad seed. That is the point of a recent editorial by the Tallahassee Democrat’s Corey Clark – we see what we expect or want to see. Clark makes a valid point but to conclude this discussion by simply stating our desires drive what we see avoids deeper issues.

Let’s revisit, for a moment, that December 2012 sexual encounter. Here is the most lenient, most benign interpretation of what happened. Winston had consensual sex with a young woman while his roommates and teammates watched and commented (cheered?), because that is what football players do. This is not rape but it is sordid enough. It is reflective of a rather depraved moral environment no matter how you interpret the reasons for the other players watching then have sex. AND, the way we can casually dismiss this as just immaturity, or playfulness, or just as what football players do, is indicative of the destructive impact the presence of football has on universities. A great example of that destructive impact is the victimization of Jameis Winston.

Yes, you read that last sentence correctly. Winston is a victim of the football system. Here is why. The only reason anyone cares about him at all is because of his ability to play football. Were he not a gifted athlete, he would just be another troubled black kid, probably not in college, probably with little hope for the future. His problems get noticed because he is able to help FSU raise large amounts of money through football. University supporters will try to help him not because they care about him as a person, but as a tool that benefits the university. If not for football, he might end up on the streets, possibly arrested and incarcerated for his indiscretions. No one would read about him. He would just be another statistic.

Herein is the destructiveness of the football system. It takes kids, largely black and largely poor, and gives them the false hope of striking it rich in the NFL. The colleges compensate them with scholarships. But is this fair compensation? Are these young men attending classes that will teach them to support themselves when the false hope of professional football dies? The path of man of these young people’s lives is evident from a very early age, and I witness it every week. It is tragic.

I am now in the second year of mentoring students at a local elementary school. I had one last year, and two this year. All three are young African American boys. All three are really sweet, nice kids who want to learn, but are struggling in the traditional school environment. They are extremely responsive to the attention I give them as a mentor. But I worry about their futures. If they do not have the tools to succeed academically, they will be lost. If they have any athletic ability, they will cling to the false hope of a professional career. The best most of them will be able to hope for is to become part of a system that will use them, and then discard them.

Major college football programs are their own “Towers of Babel.” The heavens the builders wish to reach are not the realm of God, but the prestige of winning and the financial awards that accompany winning. Much of that money is put to good purpose, yes, by supporting other university programs. However, the players in the system are disposable, interchangeable parts. They lose their humanity for the price of the dream of football heaven – the NFL.

Midrash Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer says that the people building the Tower of Babel paid no heed if one of the workers fell to their death. If, however, one of the bricks fell and was smashed, they would sit down and weep saying, “Woe is us! When will another one come in its stead.” Football players are the bricks of the athletic towers being built by universities. We mourn when one falls (by suspension, injury, etc.). We value them for what they contribute to our structure. But what about the average young person, who becomes another statistic of violence, of dropping out, of going to jail? We pay little heed. Shame on us for being contributors to this contemporary Tower of Babel.

Read Full Post »

Why

Why?

Anyone who has raised children is familiar with this scenario. You give your child an instruction; they ask “why.” You tell them a fact about something and they ask you “why.” You tell them you have to go on a trip for a few days and they ask you “why.” Why, why, why – kids are great at asking “why” to the never-ending annoyance of parents. How many times does the answer become, “because I said so?” Which of course never satisfies the curious child and just creates frustration for everyone. Yet, in our impatience to get the child to go along with us, or to just listen to what we say, we often forget how poignant the question of why is.

For there is a “why” behind everything we do. There is a “why” behind every organization, every human gathering, and every political or religious movement. If there is no “why” then the rest has no meaning. If there is no “why” then human activity is empty. Yet, we probably spend much less time thinking about our “why” than we do those other question words, namely our “what” and our “how.”

That is the premise behind Simon Sinek’s book, “Start With the Why.” Sinek writes that most organizations, be they businesses, non-profits, or political movements, focus on what they are doing and how they are doing it. Many organizations do these things quite well, businesses make profits; politicians get elected. But, Sinek proposes, what separates the successful from the game changing; the business making a profit from the business changing an industry, is knowing your why. He gives a great example – Apple versus Microsoft. No one disputes the success of Microsoft. Its presence in the computing world is almost ubiquitous. However, when we think of innovation, not just in computers, but an array of products, the revolutionary company is Apple. Yes, we have yet to see if that remains the same in the absence of Steve Jobs, but, Apple is a company that for 40 years understood its why – to be the cutting edge in expanding the use of computerized possibilities for consumers. Name a company in the last 20 years that has started more trends than Apple. The reason? Apple knew its why.

Here is another example. No one can deny the influence of Disney. What built Disney’s success is summed up in the company’s why – “dare, dream, believe, and do.” Disney is much more than just a profitable corporation. It is a company that changed family entertainment several times, through movies, animation, and theme parks. Only a company that knew its why would dare to produce a film like “Fantasia” in 1940; marrying classical music, film and animation. Disney’s history is to be a game changing company.

Sinek is not just discussing profits. He is trying to finger that fine line between being a success, and being a change agent. You can do very well and be quite comfortable knowing what you do and how to do it. But the “what” and “how” are not inspiring. A why, if you know your why, can inspire. And, by the way, making money is not a why – that is a result. What employee of a company is inspired by the company’s ability to increase profits? Sure, if the company increases compensation, it can manipulate loyalty in its employees. That is not inspiration; that is manipulation. What makes an employee loyal through a company’s tough times, when raises are not forthcoming?   For Sinek, that loyalty comes from the company’s ability to know its why, to communicate it, then to use that why to inspire its employees and eventually its customers. A why is no less than your raison d’etre, your purpose.

Tonight I would like to speak with you about our why – first the why of Judaism; second the why of our congregation, Temple Israel. In truth the sermon I gave last year about how we create a big tent for those who are anywhere on the Jewish spectrum; from intensely Jewish to exploring Jewish possibilities – well that sermon should really come after this one. That sermon was about our how and our what. Creating that big tent is not our why – it is how we express our why. The various programs and activities are our what – the means for carrying out our how. Now if all of this is starting to sound like Abbot and Costello’s baseball routine, “Who’s on first,” bear with me a few moments. Although “Why” might be Abbot and Costello’s left fielder, tonight it becomes the center of everything.

Perhaps you think our big tent approach is inspiring. Yes, it is a wonderful characteristic of our congregation. However, I will tell you that those who are seeking Judaism, be they Jews returning to the fold or non-Jews on a path to Judaism, well, they are not seeking Judaism because of our big tent. Rather something in Judaism has inspired them and our congregation’s attitude, our how, draws them to Temple Israel as an institution. This raises an important point. Institutions in and of themselves do not inspire. Ideas inspire. Beliefs inspire. Judaism inspires. If we are an institution that lives the inspirational ideas of Judaism, we know our why. As a result, our how becomes more powerful.

I point out all of this not to critique what we do. Instead, I want to put what we do and how we do it into a larger context, to provide a frame of meaning. I want us, institutionally and individually, to move into this next year thinking about our meaning, our purpose. I want us to think about our why.

Let’s start globally. All religions have a why, a purpose which inspires its adherents. That purpose is bound intrinsically in the foundational stories of the religion. Here is an example. A key foundational story of Christianity is the conversion of Saul of Tarsus on his way to Damascus. Saul had been among the doubters of the early Christians. He describes himself as a Pharisee who persecuted early Christians. Here is the account Saul gives of this event in chapter 26 of the Book of Acts.

Who are you Lord? The Lord answered, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles – to whom I am sending you to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.”

After this experience Saul becomes Paul, the author of most of the epistles in the Christian Bible. You can see the why of Christianity in the story. Through faith in the salvific power of Jesus, one’s sins can be removed. That person can ascend to heaven to join all those sanctified by faith in Jesus. This “why” of Christianity, that God sacrificed part of himself through taking on the suffering of the cross, thus providing humanity a way to salvation – is inspirational. And Paul’s personal why becomes to spread this among the gentiles. Yes, Christians debate the details of the how and the what – how important are deeds versus faith, how exclusive is the heavenly club that includes Jesus believers, what are the necessary rituals – the list of possible hows and whats is almost endless. But the why is very clear. It provides purpose for every church, every Christian sect, every individual Christian.

So what is the why of Judaism? That too gets lost in the debate of how and what Jews are supposed to do. But it is also present in the foundational stories of our people. The Jewish why is different from the Christian why. This is beautifully articulated by one of the great orthodox scholars of the last century, Joseph Soloveitchik, in his book “Halakhic Man.” The title is his term for the Jew, who I would say understands his or her why. Listen to Soloveitchik’s words, “The ideal of halakhic man is the redemption of the world not via a higher world, but via the world itself.” His term for those who believe we must be elevated to heaven is “homo religiosus.” Here is his contradiction between homo religiosus and halakhic man. “Homo religiosus ascends to God; God however descends to halakhic man.” In other words, the why of every Jew, the why of Judaism, is to work to bring that which is divine, that which is godly or heavenly – into this world. Rather than elevate individuals to heaven, Judaism teaches that every act has the potential to infuse our world with divinity.

How we do this and by what means are much debated. Those debates represent the differences between the various Jewish movements. A typical argument in the Jewish world is not between faith and acts, but between the importance of ritual acts versus ethical acts; between ritual piety and commitment to social justice. Whatever details you embrace, whether you observe more or less tradition, the why remains absolutely the same. Judaism attempts to find ways to take the divine from heaven and to express it in our world.

As with Christianity, this purpose, this why, is reflected in our foundational stories. Let’s take a few moments to look at the most powerful, most poignant foundational story of all Judaism, the Exodus from Egypt. I would wager that most people, most Jews even, would say the Exodus is the story of the journey from slavery to freedom. Perfectly true, but that is a story within a much larger story – the story of a distant God coming closer and closer to the children of Israel, until God’s presence dwells among the actual Israelite camp. You can glean this story from the arc of the entire book of Exodus.

Exodus opens with a description of the Israelites’ oppression in Egypt. Then, we learn of the birth and early life of Moses. It is not until the end of chapter 2 that God is even mentioned, finally noticing the outcry of the Israelites. So what does God do? God recruits a leader for the Israelites – Moses – who is invested with the ability to lead the people. For the first parts of the story, God is very distant, only communicating with Moses – often in seclusion or in the wilderness. Even after the Israelites leave Egypt and are trapped at the Sea of Reeds, God does not just appear to rescue the people. Rather God tells Moses to raise his hand and tell the people to move forward – in other words if they expect God to act, first the people must act.

At Sinai, it is Moses who is on the mountain receiving the Ten Commandments. While the people of Israel, are not directly experiencing the act, they witness the lightening and the thunder. The relationship between Israel and God has taken a step closer. After the apostasy of the Golden Calf, the people construct the mishkan, a portable sanctuary that is to rest in the middle of the Israelite camp during their travels through the wilderness. As the Book of Exodus draws to a close, God’s presence settles into the completed mishkan. God’s journey, from a remote non-presence, to a daily presence in the center of the community, becomes complete.

There is a midrash illustrating this interpretation of the Exodus story. Pesikta d’Rav Kahana teaches that in the beginning of time, God’s presence resided in this world. After Adam sinned it began to withdraw. As succeeding generations sinned, God’s presence with drew farther and farther from our world. Then began the work of righteous men, beginning with Noah, then Abraham. The works of these men drew God’s presence ever closer to this world until finally the work of Moses and the Israelites, upon completing the mishkan, made it possible for God’s presence to exist once again in our world.

Our daily lives are supposed to be lived in a way that invites and promotes and maintains God’s presence within our communities. Yes, the method for doing this has changed over the centuries just as Judaism has changed. But that does not change the underlying purpose – the why of Judaism. In Leviticus the community’s dedication to increasing the presence of God is expressed through the sacrificial system. Those sacrifices were a smoke signal to God, if you will, that the Jewish community was addressing issues that were repelling God’s presence. Inspiration came from everyone’s ability share in the responsibility for maintaining God’s presence. All were able to participate in the system, as the sacrifices were egalitarian. The level of sacrifice you brought was determined by what you could afford.

Leviticus contains a lot more than sacrificial details. Tomorrow afternoon we will read from the Holiness Code in Leviticus chapter 19. That is a moral code, more powerful, I think, than the ten commandments. It is punctuated by the phrase v’ahavtah l’rei’echa kamocha, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Now the theology of Leviticus becomes clearer. Through our physical and moral acts, we can either attract or repel God’s presence. The entire system linking personal responsibility, sacrifices, and a moral code is meant to maximize God’s presence in the community – the Jewish why.

The various approaches to Jewish practice are just the means different Jewish groups try to express that why. For the orthodox community, it is about adherence to halakhah, to strict Jewish law, particularly ritual. Doing one of the mitzvoth is expressing God’s presence in this world. For the Reform movement the same goal, bringing that which is divine into this world, is emphasized not by ritual, but by acts leading to social justice.

Whatever the approach a Jewish group chooses (its how), there are some important common links. First, this is a human endeavor. God’s presence will increase only through human effort. Our actions count. That is why we are here on Yom Kippur, because our actions really do count. We affirm this in the closing to the most fatalistic prayer a Jew can recite, the Untaneh Tokef, through these words, “but repentance, prayer, and righteousness temper the severe decree.” Nothing is truly fated. Our actions can change everything.

Second, we make a free will choice to either live this Jewish why or to not live it.  Torah states numerous times to choose between blessing and curse. We are given potential paths and their possible consequences. We hold the power of choice. I would propose that the only true commandments given in the Torah are for us to see the choices, and then to choose. If we choose poorly the divine presence is reduced. If we choose wisely it is increased.

How do we bring all of this home? How do we now translate this discussion of the Jewish why into our community at Temple Israel? First, we judge each of our actions, activities, and decisions on the basis of whether or not they are consonant with our why. Is what we are doing increasing the Divine presence in our community? That measuring stick works whether we are talking about large scale projects such as our work with the Alzheimer’s Project or the simple individual interactions we have with each other. That measuring stick works for every activity taking place as a result of Temple’s Israel’s efforts, be it the Jewish Food and Cultural Festival, religious services, or Jewish education.

However, there is another layer. All Jewish institutions are unique communities that reflect its members, the area in which it is located and its affiliations nationally or even internationally. Each institution has an individual why, its core purpose for being. For example, this is Chabad’s why: every Jew is holy and can participate here. Chabad sees a special purpose in reaching out to Jews and teaching their method of expressing the Jewish why. Their approach is positive, not negative. A Jew going to Chabad is told that each mitzvah they do brings a spark of godliness into the world. Their emphasis is overwhelmingly on ritual acts. There is never a condemnation of your failure to do mitzvoth, just encouragement to do them.

Our synagogue’s additional why is shaped by our location, beliefs and affiliations. We are a progressive Jewish community in a midsized city that does not have many Jewish institutions. We are the largest Jewish institution, as you have heard me say, along the I-10 corridor west of Jacksonville all the way to, but excluding New Orleans. We are affiliated with the Union for Reform Judaism, which has been a pioneer in outreach to non-Jews who find themselves somehow connected to a Jewish community. If anyone within many miles of Tallahassee has any interest in Judaism, they should come to us. So here is our Temple Israel why: every person is holy and if they have any desire to participate in Judaism, they are welcome do it here.

Now you have the why behind our big tent approach to Judaism – our how. We must be an open, accepting institution, one that does not judge on the basis of economics, sexuality, ethnicity, or religion of origin. We must provide a means for anyone who wishes to experience or explore Judaism. That experience must be consonant with Jewish tradition, yet flexible enough to embrace diversity of interests. We must maintain a high quality of programs, classes, and religious services that speak to the committed, knowledgeable Jew; yet conveys the beauty of Judaism even to the novice. Finally, everything we do must be an expression of the Jewish why – to increase the Divine presence in our world.

I believe that Temple Israel is positioned to do amazing things. I see every day how Judaism inspires people to bring God into this world. I see every day how our community is already doing that. Can there be a more worthy, more inspiring reason to be a Jew in Tallahassee? No matter what of our activities you might be doing or contemplating, know it all has purpose, it all is part of a larger reason – a why. Yes, I know; for Abbot and Costello, who is on first, what is on second and “I don’t know” is on third, but why – well, why is the reason we even play the game. Come, be part of the team.

Read Full Post »

I love “Peanuts.” No, I do not mean the food (although I do like to eat all things peanuts), but the comic strip. I used to own several books of “Peanuts” cartoon strips run in the 1960’s and 1970’s, but they have long been lost. Around my 13th birthday in 1967 (May 29, 30, and 31), a series of strips ran that has always stuck with me – probably because I first read them at a very impressionable age.

In the first strip Charlie Brown sees Linus patting birds on the head. The birds love this. Charlie Brown goes up to Lucy and says, “Your brother pats birds on the head.” POW! Lucy levels Charlie Brown. In the last frame of that strip he says, “Some people are pretty sensitive about their relatives.”

The next day’s strip opens with Linus patting a bird on the head. The bird is sighing with contentment. Lucy comes up to Linus screaming, “What are you doing!” She tells him people are coming up to her saying “Your brother pats birds on the head.” She yells at him to stop doing it. She walks away from Linus in anger. In the last frame a bird sticks out his foot and trips her.

The last strip in the sequence has Linus talking to Charlie Brown. “What’s wrong with patting birds on the head?” he asks. “It humiliates your sister,” responds Charlie Brown. “I can understand that,” says Linus, “but what’s WRONG with it. It makes the birds happy and it makes ME happy…so what’s really wrong with it?” Charlie Brown stares at Linus for a panel then responds, “No one else does it.”

Think about the roles of each player in this strip. Lucy is the control freak who cannot stand actions that do not conform to her particular standard of behavior. All of us have our Lucy moments and I hate it when I find myself becoming Lucy.   Charlie Brown is the innocent messenger. He is honest to a fault, often paying a price for his honesty by getting slammed. Charlie Brown is a realist. Yes he still has his dreams, like he will actually kick the football Lucy is holding. But his busted dreams just train him to accept the world is not just. That prepares him to be the honest messenger, the objective observer. There are moments when we all have to be Charlie Brown. The danger of being Charlie Brown is not to let it lead to detachment, discouragement, and thus disengagement in our world. Linus, however, well Linus is the person I really want to be.

Linus, you see, is altruistic. He is kind. Yes, his behavior gives him a satisfied feeling, but his behavior is one of trying to make others feel better. Even more, Linus will be kind without concern for social norms. Yes, the more I think about it, the more I want to be Linus.

The prophet Jeremiah said “Thus said the Lord, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom; let not the strong man glory in his strength; let not the rich man glory in his riches. But only in this should one glory – in his earnest devotion to Me. For I, the Lord, act with kindness, justice and equity in the world; for in these I delight.’” (Jeremiah 9:22,23) The implication of these verses is that devotion to God is reflected through acting like God.

God delights in kindness, justice and equity. Well, we spend a lot of time talking about equity, or inequity actually. We lament a society that spurns impartiality, one that tilts towards those with the resources to buy favors and influence. “All men are created equal” wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Yet, the world is filled (as the Charlie Brown in us would observe) with nothing but inequity. We support institutions that fight that inequity. As a result we engage in the fight for justice. We attend rallies, march in demonstrations, and profess our commitment to equal opportunity for everyone. We vote for candidates who echo our desires for a better, more just world. Of course we cannot agree on how this will happen, as our true dividing lines become political parties, with Republicans and Democrats each claiming to be the true providers of a system that will provide equal opportunity for all. For many of us, our political affiliation is our true religion. Each political party promotes its own approach to justice. We often substitute a political perspective for moral perspective – justifying how we vote with our professed morality.

All of this involvement, all of this concerned (albeit opinionated) feeling is great; but in a certain sense it allows us to care for the world from a distance. We tend to forget that Jeremiah is teaching us that before mentioning justice and equity, God begins with kindness. We Jews, who are so proud (justifiably I add) of our intellectual traditions and accomplishments, so proud of our focus on justice need to ask our selves a simple question. How much focus do we put on kindness, on the reaching out to another person out of pure, simple kindness? And, if we truly want to be in the image of God, should we not use the same starting point as God – kindness?

Instead, we are often cynical about those who offer kindness. How often do we look at the kind, giving person and wonder, “what is your motive for this?” How often do we think the person who extends herself, who seems too nice to be for real – is, well, a bit of a chump? We do not take seriously people who seem too kind to be true. Even if we are not the control freak, Lucy, but the objective observer, Charlie Brown, do we not wrinkle up our nose and say, “nobody else acts that way?” We cannot and do not think they are for real.

My favorite Broadway musical is perhaps the most Jewish Broadway show ever made – Man of La Mancha. This is a retelling of Cervantes’ “Don Quixote.” Quixote is an old man who decides that chivalry and good deeds are lacking in the world, so he decides to become a knight errant – in an age in which there are no more knights. Through his journeys, most of them the products of delusions, he sees things differently than we would say they really are. The keeper of a seedy inn is the lord of a castle. The shaving bowel of an itinerant barber is a magical golden helmet. An abused strumpet, Aldonza, is the fair maiden Dulcinea. The people he meets think he is insane. Aldonza thinks he only wants from her what all men want from her. That he could think of her as a high lady seems a cruel joke. Whatever the expectations of the people he meets, all Quixote really wants is “to make the world a little better.”

And he does. Despite his delusions, despite his naiveté, despite his ultimate defeat and death, he does succeed in giving Aldonza the ability to see herself differently, as he treated her differently. His kindness, his dedication to simple goodness, shows her that it does exist. How interesting that most of the other characters sees this as insanity.

What an amazingly Jewish show. To express kindness is to express a central Jewish concept – tikvah – hope. The person who expresses kindness believes that their actions count. They believe it will improve the life of the person they are connecting with, even in just a small way. In our concern for the large scale problems of the world, we find it hard to accept kindness for what it really might be – a simple expression of hope, connection, and change.

Judaism is a very intellectual religion. We are a religion of reason. The Talmud is an ingenious compendium of legal positions and arguments. Maimonides articulates a very rationalistic view of the human/God relationship. Even the mystics understand the power of the intellect and their concepts are often difficult for the uneducated to grasp. From our commitment to reason, we are a religion that urges the fight for justice. We stress education. We value achievement. But – and here is a big but – the simple act of kindness, the good and caring heart, is truly exalted and valued in our tradition. That is the component we often forget. I would like to share some stories that illustrate kindness in varying ways, to show just how prominent it is in our tradition.

Once Rabbi Eleazar fell ill. Rabbi Yochanan went to visit him. Rabbi Eleazar was poor and lay in a dark room with no windows. Rabbi Yochanan bared his arm and light radiated from him, filling the room with light as he entered to be with Rabbi Eleazar. Thereupon he noticed that Rabbi Eleazar was weeping. “Why do you weep?” he asked. “Is it because you have not studied enough Torah? Surely we have learned that the one who studies much and the one who studies little have the same merit as long as their heart is directed towards heaven. Is it because of your lack of sustenance? Not everybody has the privilege to enjoy both learning and wealth. Is it because you lack children?” Rabbi Eleazar replied, “I am weeping because of your beauty, which will one day rot in the earth.” Rabbi Yochanan replied, “On that account you surely have reason to weep.” And they both wept. After a while Rabbi Yochanan asked Rabbi Eleazar, “Are your sufferings welcome to you?” He replied, “Neither they nor their reward are welcome to me.” Whereupon Rabbi Yochanan said, “Give me your hand.” Rabbi Eleazar gave Rabbi Yochanan his hand and that is how he raised him. (Berachot 5b)

The theme of kindness flows through this story. The kindness of Rabbi Yochanan’s visit, the kindness of his empathy. The light, which is on one level his physical beauty is also a metaphor for his kindness which fills the room with light. But the end of the story is profound. The Talmud does not specify names in its last sentence “that is how he raised him.” It leaves open the probability that the grasping of hands, motivated by kindness, elevates both of them.

Second story. Rabbi Beroka used to roam the market place where he would often meet and converse with Elijah the prophet (zecher l’tov). One day he asked Elijah if there were any men in the market who merited a place in the world to come. At first Elijah replied “no.” Then he caught sight of a man wearing black shoes and who had no fringes on the corners of his garment. “This one has a share in the world to come,” said Elijah. Rabbi Beroka ran to the man and asked his occupation. “Go away!” said the man. The next day Rabbi Beroka found him and asked him again, “what is your occupation?” “I am a jailer,” the man replied. “I keep the men and women separate and I place my bed between them so that they may not come to sin. When I see a Jewish girl upon whom evil men have cast their eyes, I risk my life to save her.” Rabbi Beroka then asked, “Why do you wear black shoes and have no fringes on the corners of your garment?” The man replied, “I move among hostile gentiles who may not recognize I am a Jew, and if I hear an evil decree against the Jews I go to the rabbis to warn them, they pray to God to get the decree annulled.” Rabbi Beroka then asked him, “When I first asked you your occupation, why did you tell me to go away?” The man answered, “I had just heard such a decree and I needed to get to the rabbis so they might pray to God.” A short time later, while Rabbi Beroka was once again speaking with Elijah, two men passed by. Elijah said, “These two also have a place in the world to come.” Rabbi Beroka approached them and asked their occupations. “We are jesters,” they replied. “When we see men depressed we cheer them up. Further, when we see two people quarreling we strive hard to make peace between them.” (Ta’anit 22a)

What makes this story interesting is the contrast between the dark and the jolly, the cloaked kindness and the open kindness. Both the jailer and the jesters are performing small acts of kindness in difficult circumstances. The difference between them is their appearance, not the content of their hearts.

The final tale is not Talmudic, but a Jewish folk tale. A good man who was approaching the time of death was granted a gift from God, to be able to see both heaven and hell to see what each would be like. First the man went to hell. There he saw a gorgeous banquet table covered in fine linen. Sumptuous food was piled high all over the table. In front of each person was fine china and silver ware with which to eat. There was only one problem. Everyone’s arms were rigid. No one could bend their elbows. So although they could reach the food they could not bring it to their mouths. Thus everyone wailed aloud that they could not partake of the amazing food literally an arm’s length away. The man then went to heaven. There he saw a banquet table exactly like the one in hell. Same food, same china, same table cloth. In addition, everyone’s arms were locked at the elbows, they could not bend them either, yet, no one was crying. Indeed all were happy and enjoying the feast for each was reaching for food and serving it to their neighbor.

What makes this tale so Jewish is the lesson that we actually create our own heaven. And that the difference between heaven and hell is our acts of kindness.

Really, isn’t that the point? Our acts of kindness are what enables us to convert a hellish situation into a spark of heaven. Nice theory rabbi, you might be saying, but give us a practical example. Well, in a world filled with major problems, a world that is becoming more and more partisan, more divided, more polluted, more unjust – your simple act of kindness is the one thing you can do that might just start a landslide that changes everything. Look at the internet. Look at comments posted by angry people who are expressing emotions in what is basically an anonymous forum. They are hiding. No one in this room knows what the person next to him or her might be secretly posting on the internet. You have two courses of positive action. Both have merit. One is to post a very calming comment in response, basically to call out the nastiness through the gentleness, the kindness of your response. But the second I think has greater potential.

Just practice a life of small kindnesses. Hold doors for people, respect them, do not dismiss them based on looks or your preconditioned response to them.   Just be kind. I know this is harder than it sounds. I have a hard time with this as I tend to be a natural cynic. I fight hard to counter my instinctive emotional reactions to people and situations. But I pledge to you tonight I am going to try harder to just sow kindness.

Why? Because in a world in which we control very little, in a world in which all of the problems seem so huge, so overwhelming that we feel we cannot possibly change anything, acting with kindness is something we can control. And, here is the big point; it is contagious. Have you ever had the person in front of you randomly pay a toll or a parking fee for you? It changes your feeling in that moment. If enough of us begin to act with kindness, we can improve our families, our communities and who knows, maybe even the world.

Pirkei Avot teaches us Al sheloshah d’varim ha’olam omeid. Al hatorah, al ha’avodah, v’al gemilut chasadim. “The world stands on three things. On Torah, on prayer and on acts of loving kindness.” I do not know how many of you are going to be Torah scholars. I do not know how many of you believe in the efficacy of prayer. But, all of us are capable of acts of loving kindness. All of us are capable of calling upon our inner Linus. The very best that could happen is we ignite the messianic age. The worst is that we will have a lot of very satisfied birds!

Shanah Tovah u’metukah.

 

 

Read Full Post »

The Dreamer

 

I grew up with a dream – a dream of Israel. From my earliest memories Israel has been part of my life, my soul. That is because of my dad. I remember sitting on his lap as a 5 year old, watching Walter Cronkite narrate a “20th Century” episode about the 1956 war in Sinai. It was a sweeping victory for Israel and I remember my dad explaining to me why Israel was such an important country. He told me how this was an amazing victory for Israel. I knew even as a 5 year old that Dad took special pride in Israel. So I did too.

Why was Israel so special to Dad? It was the place he had wanted to live. As a Jewish teen in Germany he belonged to the Hashomeir Hatzair – a Zionist/socialist youth movement that trained young Jews for kibbutz life in Israel. Dad expected to immigrate to Palestine, but his family could not get permission due to the British restrictions placed on Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late 1930’s. America was his second choice – the place he fled to out of the desperation caused by Krystalnacht in November 1938. Even though Dad became a very patriotic American, who loved this country and served it as a GI in World War II; he never, ever gave up his dream of Israel. He took his first of many trips there in 1969. It was emotional, exciting, and I remember pouring over every picture he and Mom took upon their return. I could not wait to go myself.

My Mom, while not the Zionist Dad was, also had a deep connection to Israel. My mom is from a small town in Germany called Greidel. Her family was spread among the many villages in that area of Germany. Her older cousins were among the founders of Kibbutz Hazorea in 1934. Mom left Germany as a 6 year old in 1936. During their 1969 visit to Israel they went to Hazorea. Upon entering the office one of the kibbutzniks saw my mom and exclaimed, “Ach, das ist ein Greidel punim!”   It had been 34 years since any of the American part of her family had seen the Israeli part, yet the recognition was there. That story represents a truism about American Jews. We are all connected to someone in Israel.

My own commitment to Israel really began, probably like many of my generation, in 1967 as a result of the Six Day War. I remember well the tension leading up to the war: the closing of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping by Nasser of Egypt, the failed attempt by President Johnson to organize an international flotilla to open the straits. I remember the report of this broadcast by Nasser on May 27, 1967, the day of my bar mitzvah, “The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are stationed on the borders of Israel….We intend to open a general assault. This will be total war. Our basic aim is the destruction of Israel.” The threat of war in Israel loomed over family conversations that weekend. Of course, miraculously, Israel won. A new pride as a Jew and as someone who also dreamed of Israel was ignited within me.

In 1971 my desire was fulfilled. I spent almost 8 weeks on a NFTY in Israel trip called Mitzvah Corp. There were about 50 other teens on the trip, one of whom was Audrey. We spent 4 weeks living and working at Ben Shemen, a youth village near Lod. We spent one week working on the archeological dig at Beit She’an, and the balance seeing the sites one must see in Israel. It was a summer filled with emotion. I knew I was doing at 17 what dad was not able to do at my age. I went to Hazorea for a weekend and met my family. In Jerusalem I went often to the Kotel. But one episode really stood out. One night we were taken to Lod airport, where we saw a plane filled with immigrants from the Soviet Union. They had managed to escape, make their way to western Europe and get to Israel. I watched as they deplaned, many of them bending down to kiss the ground. We were able to greet them after they came through immigration. I met an older gentleman whose son had already come to Israel. He spoke no English. I spoke no Russian. I had studied some conversational Hebrew as did he, so we spoke in our pidgin Hebrew. He apologized that his Hebrew was not very good. When I told him that was not important, that the only important thing was he was in Israel and would soon see his son, he cried and hugged me. I had experienced his dream of Israel.

That trip also was the beginning of a more complex relationship with Israel. One of the reform rabbis who briefed us about Israeli politics, was an Israeli – Tuvya ben Chorin. From him I first learned of an Israeli peace movement that had ideals and perspectives a bit different than the narrative on which I had been raised – a narrative that the Arabs were the implacable enemies of the poor, overwhelmed Jews. It was the first time I was challenged to see the problems of Israel’s founding, the problems of Israel’s recent occupation of territory inhabited by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. He spoke of a peace of acceptance, of a dream in which Palestinian and Israeli saw each other as humans, not as enemies.

In college my relationship with Israel deepened. After my freshman year, in May 1973, I went back to Israel on a father/son trip. Kibbutz Hazorea was our home base. We explored the country together. In Tel Aviv, while visiting with his former Hashomer Hatza’ir leader, (who by the way had an amazing career as a Mossad agent), Dad learned that his best friend from Germany, a Polish Jew named Harry Mandel, had made it to Israel and was living in Tel Aviv. Dad had not seen Harry since 1938 when he helped his family get their luggage to the train station, having been forced by the Nazis to leave Germany. So in Israel after 35 years Dad was reunited with his friend. Only in Israel.

That fall was the 1973 Yom Kippur War. For 2 weeks I worked, whenever not in class, raising money for the Magein David Adom – to provide medical relief for Israeli victims of the war. It was the first time I feared for Israel’s existence, as it was clear they were struggling to get the upper hand in the conflict. It was in 1974 that I first heard the idea of a two state solution, a Palestinian state living alongside a Jewish state, for the first time. I was being challenged to change my dream of Israel, to make room in it for a Palestinian dream. Frankly, that was really hard.

I would not return to Israel until I began rabbinical school in June of 1996. Life, marriage, raising a family, involvement in business; all conspired in a way that kept us from taking a trip there. The Israel I encountered in 1996 was shockingly different from the Israel of 1973. Physically, it had transformed. The no man’s land that stretched from the back of the King David hotel to the walls of the Old City was now filled with luxury condos and apartments. The Jerusalem I lived in for the next year was a city of art cinemas, shopping malls, and exploding suburbs. Politically, the hope of the Oslo accords with the Palestinians was just beginning to fray. The assassination of Rabin by a radical, religious Jew, the ascension of the first Netanyahu government committed to expanding the West Bank settlements, and the first suicide bombings were changing Israel’s reality. During the year I went to school in Jerusalem I rode the number 18 bus – the route that experienced two deadly explosions – every day to class. I remember seeing the police handle a chefetz chashud, a suspicious package. When the bomb squad came and exploded it, it turned out to be a box of clothes. In a typical Israeli way a fellow next to me said, “There goes somebody’s laundry.”

However, the dream of Israel was still a very real and deep experience. I lived it by being a Jew in a country that operated on a Jewish rhythm. Hardly a car was in the streets on Shabbat. On Kol Nidrei, when I left my apartment for shul, the streets were bustling with traffic. When I came out after services, not a car was in sight. Instead, the streets were filled with Israelis walking home, greeting each other, stopping in the middle of the road to talk with each other. On Yom Hazikaron, the day of remembering Israelis killed in its wars, the sirens went off, stopping traffic. I stood and prayed silently with the Israelis who got out of their cars, stood up in the street to show silent respect for the fallen.

And, for a brief moment I thought I was seeing the dream of Israel at peace become a reality. Especially when travelling in Jordan, I saw guide books printed in Hebrew. I spoke with an Israeli tour guide in Petra who told me how wonderful it was to work with the Jordanians. In 1997 we were told that Israel had the 13th highest standard of living in the world. Combine that with what seemed to be acceptance by a portion of the surrounding Arab world, and I believed that the dream of peace and prosperity was within reach; especially when an Israeli friend of mine, a Likud supporter no less, whose business was conducted completely in the West Bank, spoke glowingly of his close relationships with his Palestinian customers. My dream for Israel could now include a Palestinian state that would bring a measure of justice to that displaced people as well.

What followed was not peace, but an intifada, seemingly endless suicide bombings, an Israeli government that sanctioned more and more West Bank settlements as well as land grabs from the Palestinians. The withdrawal from Gaza went sour when Hamas won an election and took control. A war against Hezbollah in Lebanon and repeated mini wars with Hamas in Gaza – all of this has conspired to sully the dream. Yet, I love being in Israel. I love being in the land, seeing our friends – just living the overall rhythm of the country. I love that after 5 days my Hebrew starts to kick into gear and I am speaking again. However upset I might become with the growing religious radicalism in Israel, or with the seeming intransigence of the Netanyahu government, I still cry when Israel cries and cheer when Israel triumphs. I know it is not logical, but could a lifetime of dreaming about Israel be any different?

Now we come to this summer. It has presented me with a challenge. Not the challenge of war, but the challenge of understanding, maybe for the first time, the difficulty of reconciling two seemingly conflicting demands. The first is the need to defend Israel against those who would question her very right to existence. Those voices are growing. The second is the need to fully face some of the realities of the history of Israel, the consequences of the manner in which it was established. Those two demands are symbolized by two items I read this summer: Ari Shavit’s book “My Promised Land,” and the position paper by a group of Presbyterians called “Zionism Unsettled.”

Shavit’s book; which links his family’s history, dating back to the earliest settlements in the 20th century, to the overarching development of modern Israel. A consistent undercurrent to the book is how, from the earliest Jewish settlements, Jews and later Israelis did not allow themselves to really “see” the native population. A lot of this was benign neglect. Some of it was outright discounting of Palestinian needs and desires in light of the needs and desires of the Jewish settlers. It all comes to a disturbing head in his chapter about the battle for the town of Lydda. Shavit, through interviews with Israelis who participated in the 1948 battle, details the outright slaughter of part of the town’s population and an expulsion of the rest. While there was no stated policy of coordinated expulsion of Palestinians from their homes, there are documented cases in which this did happen. In later chapters, through interviews with Israeli Arabs, Shavit shows the underlying resentment that still exists as well as the feeling among Arabs, that Israel has created a state that, in its modernity, is out of sync with the natural history of the land. They see it as a European creation forced onto Middle Eastern culture. All of this makes reconciliation that much harder.

I do not have the knowledge to analyze everything in Shavit’s book, but this much I can say. We, Jews and Israelis, need to wrestle and come to terms with a narrative of Jewish settlement and the 1948 war that includes expulsion of Palestinians from their homes; not ALL Palestinians from ALL of their homes, but enough that we must face the reality that Israeli actions, account for a significant piece of today’s problems. I do not say this to question the legitimacy of Israel. Quite the opposite. If we are to defend Israel’s legitimacy, to speak publically about Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself; we have to face the reality and the complexity of its history.

To me, this is no different than Americans facing the reality of our history concerning Native Americans. That is a history of brutalizing the native population in ways far worse and more consistently than anything Israel did to the Palestinians. We do not question the legitimacy of the United States, but in understanding our country we have to honestly face a very checkered past that includes our treatment of Native Americans, black slavery, and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in World War II, just to name a few things. It is exactly the same with Israel. We must honestly face its history.

By facing Israel’s history, our history, we then begin to move off of a habit of just loudly defending the narrative we were fed growing up – the narrative of the poor, defenseless Jews taming an untamed land, facing off countless evil enemies. While there is some truth in that narrative, it is not the complete truth. It is just a narrative. By facing the truth of our history, maybe, just maybe, we can listen for a moment, to the Palestinian narrative and understand it just a bit differently. Maybe, if we stop to listen just a little bit, instead of shouting our positions, we will inspire some Palestinians to do the same, to listen to our narrative.

In contrast to all the thoughts and emotions stirred by “My Promised Land,” is the perfidy of the document “Zionism Unsettled.” Published by a pro-Palestinian group within the Presbyterian Church, it was used by many members of the church to successfully push the vote for the PCUSA to divest from three companies that do business in Israel. I must state that “Zionism Unsettled” is not an official publication of the church, but a group within the church. It was posted on the PCUSA website but then removed. It is intensely disturbing because it represents a growing segment that just wishes Israel did not exist. I could do a whole sermon analyzing what is wrong with “Zionism Unsettled,” but I will share just a few points to illustrate.

First, it engages in outright falsehood. A very malignant example is the misuse of a quote by Rabbi David Hartman z”l. In a Washington Post article a few years back, he was describing the growing frustration among Israelis by suicide bombings. He said more were feeling they should just “wipe them out.” Hartman, a strong proponent of peace with the Palestinians, was describing and lamenting this growing feeling among Israelis. “Zionism Unsettled” presented this as Hartman’s wish – a blatant lie. Second, it presents the Jewish desire for a homeland in Israel as a regression to a more primitive form of Judaism. It superimposes how a particular group of Christians would like to portray Judaism, onto Judaism; thus degrading our theology and our history. It only discusses the Six Day War in terms of the aftermath of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. It gives no context of the run up to the war or Israel’s offers to return all of the land for peace in the immediate years afterwards. It pins the beginning of the problem to the 1948 war of independence, of course blaming Israelis for everything. All the history of the modern Zionist movement is ignored. The undercurrent of “Zionism Unsettled” is that Israel should not even exist – that it is a mistake of history needing to be rectified.

Can you sense the dissonance I felt by reading these two pieces? On the one hand I want, no I need to wrestle with aspects of Israel’s history. I want to face it honestly, to understand it. On the other, I am appalled by the growing number of voices who just want Israel to no longer exist. This is accompanied by an increase in anti-Semitism, showing that especially in Europe, the old hatreds of Jews still bubbles just below a more civilized veneer. So I must, I need to stand with my people, and with Israel. Indeed, in three different recent forums, in local Tallahassee churches, I did just that. At one of them I was confronted with someone who justified the actions of Hamas, who believed that justice meant the disappearance of a Jewish state.   So the dissonance remains and I then begin to wonder, does my dream of Israel still exist? And what exactly is it if it does?

My answer is an emphatic “yes!” I cannot help it. I am a dreamer. I cannot shake the grip Israel has on my heart, forged at my father’s knee, strengthened by times being there, and tempered by the realities of history. I still dream that there are Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims who are willing to cast aside anger and prejudice and to forge a new possibility. I still dream there are Jews and Israelis ready to honestly wrestle with our history, not to condemn who we are, but to learn about who we wish to be. I dream because every now and then I see a small glimmer of hope.

On September 11, just two weeks ago, I traveled to North Florida University to appear in an interfaith program called, “Difficult Conversations.” Along with my friend, Dr. Parvez Ahmed, I was the featured speaker. We talked to a room filled with students and professors of all faiths, including Jews and Muslims. We spoke about the need to forge friendship. We spoke about the need to stop shouting and to listen to the other side. We spoke about starting from a place of respect. When we were done, a young man, a member of Parvez’s mosque whose parents are from Egypt, came up to me and told me he agreed with my opposition to the movement to boycott Israel. As Parvez and I were about to leave, the presidents of the Muslim student association and the Jewish student association, were exchanging phone numbers, planning to get together for lunch – to begin to talk. Parvez turned to me and said, “Jack, today we had a victory.” So we did.

Yes I am a dreamer. I grasp at small episodes like this to strengthen the weakening embers of hope. I know I cannot change the reality of Israel all by myself. But I believe that if I do the work of outreach here, to use my role as a Jewish leader to listen as well as defend – that my work just might make a difference. I do not mind being called a dreamer. As we begin the year 5775 I simply ask you, won’t you join me? Won’t you dream too?

Read Full Post »

It has been an interesting week. In the aftermath of a summer that began with the ill-timed and ill-begotten Presbyterian resolution to divest from some companies that invest in Israel, followed by the horrifying war between Israel and Hamas, I find I am spending more and more time speaking to non-Jewish groups about Israel. In addition, because of the editorial I co-wrote in July on the Gaza conflict with my friend, Dr. Parvez Ahmed, I find I am one of small group that actually interacts with Muslims. The editorial made first page of the Huffington Post. Parvez and I both lament the tensions and realize our responsibility to model a different way to engage in interaction. What made this week interesting is that in two speaking engagements, I saw the poles of the Israeli/Palestinian problems – one that was discouraging and one that was hopeful.

On Sunday morning I was asked to speak at First Presbyterian Church in Tallahassee. I was one of two speakers and my task was to present the Israeli perspective on both the most recent conflict as well as the overall issues with the Palestinians. The other speaker, presenting the Palestinian perspective, was a member of the “Students for Justice in Palestine,” a student group not only on the Florida State campus, but many campuses across the country. I had heard of the group but never interacted with it, as my only reason to go on campus is when I am a guest lecturer for a class. The speaker was a young woman, a Christian, whose grandparents lived in Palestine until 1948, when they were forced to leave.

I was asked to speak first. I said it was hard to give a single Israeli perspective for two reasons. First, there are a lot of opinions within Israel about the conflict and how it came to be. The official position of the Netanyahu government is different than the editorial pages of Ha’aretz, for example. Second, the problem is very complex, despite many people’s attempts to force it into simple axioms. Different people, depending on the narrative they wish to convey put the start of the problems at different times, 1967 (aftermath of the Six Day War), 1948 (Declaration of the State of Israel and the resulting war), 1916 (Balfour Declaration). I suggested that to understand the conflict one had to realize there have always been Jews living in Palestine, not a majority of the country, but they have always been there; and that the modern increase in Jewish presence leading to the eventual creation of Israel has its beginning in 1894 – when Herzl witnessed the Dreyfus trial.

To summarize the Israeli perspective I stressed three things. First, that one must not conflate the Palestinian people and Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization but the Palestinian people have legitimate needs and grievances. Second, that the death of civilians especially children, was deeply tragic; third, that I oppose attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel but I disagree with much of the policy of the current government. I ended my 15 minutes by saying once again it is a multi-layered problem that should not be reduced to simplistic statements.

Then it was the young woman’s turn from the SJP. She gave a moving account of her grandparents’ story, how they were forced to leave their home in Palestine in 1948. This clearly drove her emotions as she then proceeded to continually condemn the “Zionists” for taking Palestinian land, for driving out the people, for destroying what she described as a lovely kind of utopia where Jews, Christians and Muslims all got along. That was only one of her historical mistakes. She showed no real acquaintance with the history leading up to 1947. She stated that Jews were only 1 third of the population of Palestine in 1947 yet got 56 % of the land under the UN partition plan. While technically true, much of that land was the Negev desert. Most of the partition plan awarded each people the land where their population was the most concentrated.

During the question and answer period, it got worse. She stated that Hamas had the right to do whatever it wished as it was fighting for the liberation of an oppressed people. No acknowledgement of its anti-Semitism or its religiously radical agenda that brands it outside the pale. She advocated a one state solution, but offered no way how to get there.

I was faced with a choice. Do I go into direct debate with her, contradicting her “facts” and allegations? Or, do I just try to state very reasonable embracing positions, emphasizing my sympathy for the deprivations of the Palestinians. I chose the latter. I felt at that point I did not need to speak to the Presbyterians, but to her. She needed to see and hear a Jewish leader who was not a chest thumper, but who would give a reasonable, balanced presentation. To correct all of her facts (I did offer a couple of corrections) would have made it seem like the older man being condescending to a young woman. That was a no win path.

Yesterday, Thursday, I had a very different experience. The director of the interfaith office at North Florida University in Jacksonville, where Parvez teaches, asked if we would speak at a weekly gathering they have called “Difficult Conversations.” Having read our editorial, she felt we might be able to model how a Jew and Muslim can speak about the Israeli/Palestinian issue. She said usually 30 to 35 students and faculty attend and she thought that might go up to 40.

First, I met Parvez for lunch. We had our usual conversation about the latest in Philadelphia sports. This week we relished an Eagle victory to open the season. We then went to campus to attend the event. When we walked into the room it was already overflowing. In the end 65 attended, double what they usually have. The crowd was diverse racially and religiously. We spoke about our friendship, how that relationship allows us to speak honestly about issues. We stressed that we find much common ground as we are sensitive to the sufferings of each other’s people. We talked about not trying to prove a narrative, but to try to understand the other person’s perspective – why someone feels the way they do. We spoke about the uselessness of shouting at each other and chest thumping. Most of all we emphasized the need to form relationships, friendships.

The students were wonderful in their responses and their questions. It was clear they heard and appreciated the message. What moved me the most was that the presidents of the Muslim Student Association, and the Jewish Student Association, both came. Neither had been to this forum before. Neither had met the other before. When the session was done I found the two of them exchanging phone numbers and deciding to have lunch together. Parvez and I both encouraged them to seek a better path. They agreed. As we left the event Parvez said to me, “Jack, today we had a victory.” I agreed.

This week’s Torah portion, Ki Tavo tells of the declaration of blessings and curses from the tops of two mountains. The blessings are to come from the top of Mt. Gerizim, the curses from the top of Mt. Ebal. The tribes are divided into two groups, with one on each mountain. A valley yawns as a gulf between them. This week I took a turn on the top of each mountain, one of curse and one of blessing. I pray that one day, if more of us can spend time on the mountain of blessing, we can bridge the gulf.

Read Full Post »

 

Some day it will end. The horrifying bloodshed of this Gaza war will end. The rocket fire will cease. Israeli strikes will stop. Israelis will heave a collective sigh of relief for the respite – whatever length it turns out to be. There will be appropriate congratulations over the discovery and destruction of the tunnels that very well could have led to indiscriminate slaughter of Israeli civilians. There will be the declarations of triumph by both sides. Netanyahu will declare that Hamas was dealt a crippling blow. Hamas will crow about its bravery in standing up to Israeli military might. After 5 or 6 weeks of brutal war, the springs that had been so tightly wound will be released. Then, they will begin to rewind once more; tightening ever so relentlessly to the point when violence will inexorably spring forth yet again. It is inevitable. Or is it?

Watching the deadly dance between Israel and Hamas is like watching a bloody version of the movie “Groundhog Day.” The day keeps repeating itself again and again. In the movie, the cycle does not end until Bill Murray’s character learns enough about itself to change his outlook and behavior. That is a great metaphor for what has to happen for both Israel and the Palestinians. They are doomed to repeating the same sequence again and again unless someone learns enough to change their outlook and behavior. What are the possibilities for change? What needs to be learned?

Israelis need to do an honest assessment of how they arrived in a situation of a Gaza being dominated by Hamas. It is a convenient narrative (and not without a measure of justification) to lay the full blame on Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organization masquerading as a liberation movement. It has radical religious goals that reach far beyond the political goals of freedom for Palestinians. Hamas uses absolutely brutal methods, from employing children to dig the invasive tunnels into Israel (some reports indicate 200 children died doing this) to placing weapon sites in the midst of civilian populations, banking on high casualties from Israeli strikes; to its readiness to just kill Jews. Israelis, however, have to ask themselves: to what degree have their own policies fostered the growth of Hamas?

The blockade of Gaza was seen as a necessary measure to keep weapons out of Hamas’s hands – yet clearly it has failed. Hamas has all the weapons it needs and ever more sophisticated rockets. Instead, the blockade has impoverished the civilian Palestinian population, creating in essence a large, restricted refugee camp, while at the same time providing fuel for Hamas to garner Palestinian support. Further, by not working seriously for a two state solution, Israel has undercut the one Palestinian leader – Abbas – who has shown some willingness to come to the table. Israelis must ask themselves this question. Would a better strategy be to help facilitate a stable Palestinian state that would share an economic future with Israel?   Would it not be better to create some prosperity among Palestinians making it more profitable to focus on peace and growth rather than fostering the despair that leads to support for Hamas? Gideon Levy raises these and many more questions Israelis must face in this editorial in Ha’aretz http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.608118

As hard as it will be for Israelis to break their “Groundhog Day” tendencies, it will be even harder for the Palestinians, who must come to realize exactly what Hamas represents – death, destruction, and radical religious theocracy. However, at the very core of changing Palestinian attitudes is a turning away from the rampant anti Semitism embraced by so many in the Arab world. Arab anti-Judaism is so bad that it is spilling rapidly into Europe, where in France, Jewish stores are being vandalized and the Jewish population intimidated. I must ask the Arab and Muslim communities how Israel can be expected to act with more restraint in the face of such obvious hatred of Jews? The blatant anti-Semitism in the Arab world creates heightened fear not just in Israel, but among all Jews. We have no choice but to support Israel as a rampart against what seems to our community, a continuation of centuries of scapegoating of Jews for the world’s wrongs.

My friend, Dr. Parvez Ahmed has told me that the path for Palestinian freedom lies in the formation of a non-violent peace movement that aligns itself with like-minded Israelis. I totally agree. But in order for this to happen, the Arab world has to confront its anti-Semitism. This would result in a rejection of the radicalism of Hamas and give hope that there might be a path to a peaceful, more prosperous, and most importantly – a shared future.

And isn’t that really the central point? If there is to be any kind of decent, prosperous future, it must be a shared future. There is grand potential in a region that harvests the already successful economic and technical advances of Israel when paired with the creative potential of the Palestinians – one of the most educated groups in the Arab world. The aftermath of the Gaza war is not fated to be a continuation of “Groundhog Day.” Palestinians and Israelis can choose to accept each other –and the world would then indeed wake to a new day.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

 

There is a country much criticized in the news today, whose history is checkered with less than savory incidents. Its founding is the result of European colonial activity. Initially, land was purchased from the native population of the country. There were also some great examples of cooperation between the early settlers and local population. But as history unfolded and became more violent, land was appropriated by other means. Unfortunately this included expulsions from native villages, consignment to restricted territories, and even, sadly, tragically – some massacres. Nevertheless, this country has overcome these incidents and is regarded as a center of democracy that tries to achieve the best it can for its citizens.

The country I am describing is the United States of America.

The Dutch bought Manhattan for 60 Guilders (680 in today’s dollars). Much of America, however, was purchased by spilling the blood of native Americans. The documentation of broken treaties and even massacres of Indian villages is an indictment of the 19th century doctrine of “Manifest Destiny.” Native Americans were consigned to reservations, stripping them of their ancient culture by denying free access to the land. The United States has this abuse in its history, in addition to others (such as the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II). The United States certainly comes under much criticism on the world scene.

Much in the history of Israel parallels the above synopsis of the history of the United States. There is one great exception, however. Israel was settled, built, and birthed while surrounded by other nations that not only opposed the formation of the state, but clearly wanted its Jewish population dead. Despite being surrounded by enemies and sometimes engaging in terrible actions, frequently Israel has risen above the conflict and engaged in humanitarian acts. Israeli hospitals treat Palestinians as well as Israelis. The IDF has often, in the midst of conflicts, tried to warn civilian populations of incoming fire. In short, Israel’s history is made up of the same mix of laudatory and lamentable acts as that of the United States – or any country for that matter. No one questions the legitimacy of the United States (or any other country with a far darker history) yet Israel’s very legitimacy is under attack – even from elements right here in America – from those we deemed to be our friends.

I refer in particular to the recent general assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA, in which a motion to divest from 3 companies who invest in Israel was barely passed. The final resolution, frankly, is not the real problem. It includes language that recognizes Israel’s right to exist. No, the real problem was the circulation and prominence of a document entitled “Zionism Unsettled,” published by a very pro-Palestinian group within the church that was the driving force behind the divestment movement. While it was not officially endorsed by the PCUSA, it was widely read, used as an “educational resource,” and was posted on the PCUSA website as such.

What makes “Zionism Unsettled” so awful? It does a great job of criticizing Israeli abuses of Palestinians. Most of those abuses are real. BUT, and this is important, there is no historical context given which frames the equally, and in many cases more atrocious acts committed by Arabs against Jews. In particular it ignores most of the history of Zionism in the years leading up to the declaration of Israeli statehood in 1948. Even worse, it changes or ignores facts to conveniently serve its narrative. For example, in relating the Six Day War and the consequences of its aftermath, “Zionism Unsettled” only states that Israel was the first aggressor. There is no mention of the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, effectively cutting off Israel from the rest of the world. There is no mention of the failed attempt by the Johnson administration to create an international merchant fleet to break the blockade. And there is no mention of the president of Egypt’s blatant calls to push the Jews into the sea – a call for outright slaughter of the civilian population. In discussing the aftermath of the war (1967 through 1973) there is no mention of the Israeli offers to exchange all of the captured territory (including the West Bank) for peace with its neighbors, and the rejection of that offer by the Arab nations.

Most perfidious of all, however, is there is no indication anywhere in “Zionism Unsettled” that Israel has any legitimate right to exist. Zionism, indeed all national aspirations of the Jewish people are depicted as a twisted belief, and a corruption of Judaism. The role of messianism in the formation of Zionism is greatly exaggerated. There is more than a touch of Christian superiority in the discussion of a Jewish theology that leads to the creation of Israel. A false choice is implied, Christians who support Israel are fundamental, evangelical dispensationalists. Those embracing true Christian values do not support the idea of a Jewish state. Jews are praised for their contributions to the many diaspora societies in which they live. Yet this is a kind of “Pyrrhic” praise. We Jews should be happy living in and contributing to Christian dominated societies (or Muslim), yet any national aspirations based on the traditional Jewish tie to the homeland is a perversion of Judaism. We do not need such friends.

All of this is important as we watch events unfolding in Gaza. There is indeed much about Israeli policy that can be criticized. One only has to read the Israel paper Ha’aretz, for example, to read how Israelis engage in serious self-criticism. We can question if the current government has any real interest in a two state solution. We can criticize and lament the heavy civilian losses of the Palestinians, especially the children. However, we cannot accept a conclusion that denies Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. That is my line in the sand.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »