Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Dealing With the Deal

August 21, 2015 by thejewishobserver

Both emails hit my computer within hours of each other. First was an email from the same rabbis who, in 2008, organized “Rabbis for Obama.” This email extolled the virtues of the JCPOA (proposed deal with Iran on nuclear weapons). They called it a great diplomatic achievement and asked me (along with dozens of other recipients) to sign on in support of the agreement. Shortly after I received an email stating the position of our local Jewish Federation – or at least the position of the majority of its board – urging us to pressure our elected representatives to oppose the deal. The talking points listed in the email, it turns out, are almost verbatim the talking points being circulated by many Federations around the country. They condemn the deal as bad for our country and a disaster for Israel.

On Facebook I watched the posting of the request for rabbis to sign on in support of the Iran agreement on the CCAR Facebook page. The reaction was diverse and indicative of one of my problems with the Iran deal. Everyone becomes an expert in a field in which they know nothing, giving profound pronouncements on how this is a monumental achievement on the path towards peace – a game changer in the Middle East or how this creates a doomsday scenario for Israel. But the rabbis on the CCAR Facebook page at least pretend to be polite and tolerant of each other. For me, the most disturbing part of the JCPOA is the spotlight it shines on the stridency within the Jewish community.

There are legitimate arguments to support the JCPOA. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the JCPOA. I cannot think of one legitimate reason for anyone on either side of this issue to accuse their opponents of being a warmonger (if you oppose the deal) or disloyal to Israel (if you support the deal). I am tired, now more than ever, of litmus tests raised by both ends of the political spectrum. Israel and the world wide Jewish community face some serious problems, and some serious questions as to what our future is going to look like. We are a small people and very vulnerable. The tone of interactions between Jews regarding the deal with Iran is hurting us. No, we do not need to agree on a particular policy. But we need to accept there is wide diversity of opinion among Jews (and Israelis) and accept that we hold those views, whichever side they fall, because of our concern for both America and Israel. Can we not put aside our self-righteousness concerning Israel, concerning politics, and listen and accept each other? Our Jewish community will be better for that.

I know that you want to know where I stand, what are my thoughts on the agreement. I will share them, bluntly, knowing that some of you will just tune out the minute I state something in disagreement with your perspective. I preface this by stating I want peace, I love the state of Israel, and I try hard to be a realist. So here is my position: I do not like this agreement. It is a disappointment. I am concerned about many of its provisions and I question its ultimate impact. I do, however, accept it as current reality, and the best of a range of limited, pretty bad options. In short, I am in alignment with 70 Israeli experts on military and intelligence affairs who, while wary of this agreement, feel it is workable and Israel can live with it. Their, and my feelings, are typified by Ami Ayalon, former head of Shin Bet, who says the deal is “hard to defend.” But he says it is “the best possible alternative from Israel’s point of view, given the other available alternatives.”

The source of my dislike for this deal is the flow of money that will go to Iran as the sanctions are lifted and Iranian assets, frozen for decades, are released. Iran has been funding Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations while dealing with a devastated economy. Once it receives an infusion of somewhere over 100 billion dollars, I do not know what prevents Iran from greatly increasing funding for terrorist activities. No one supporting the agreement has given an adequate response to this reality. What the P5 plus 1 countries did, was to separate the nuclear issue from other issues, and create an agreement that only addresses nuclear concerns. While I believe this is useful, I also know it is not adequate given Iran’s past actions in supporting bad actors in the Middle East.

But as I said, I accept the agreement, as I do not see a viable alternative. Believe me, I have read countless articles and position papers, from across the political spectrum. I have listened to the statements by Senators Schumer and Menendez and spoken to my own well-placed source in the media who has covered these issues for 20 plus years. Those opposed to the JCPOA keep saying there is a better deal to be had, or that we must maintain sanctions until Iran folds. I see this as unrealistic, wishful thinking, based on the false premise that just because the United States or its congress declares something, the world follows suit.

I know that some of the opposition to the JCPOA is from the political opposition to Obama. These folks are the worst flamethrowers for sure, as there is nothing the president can do they will support. However, much of the opposition is also from principled, caring people, who have supported the President on other issues but cannot support this. This opposition to the agreement, I believe, is well intentioned, motivated by patriotism as well as serious concerns for Israel’s safety, but from my perspective, these folks are substituting an emotional response (fear for safety of Israel) for acceptance of political reality.

First, Russia, China and EU are all anxious for trade with Iran. Russia already has deals in place that will be executed once the JCPOA goes into effect. The EU, Russia and China will move forward in lifting sanctions and beginning trade with or without the United States. The deal, I believe, contains the compromises it has, not just because of Iran’s negotiating position, but the political and economic desires of the other members of the P5 plus 1. To state that the United States will cut off trade with the EU or somehow economically punish those who trade with Iran is naïve, as it would mean disrupting our own economy, which no American politician would do. We will just not risk relationships with close allies over trade with Iran. Solutions like selling oil to allies to convince them not to buy from Iran only weakens our own strategic position regarding energy independence.

Second, given that the EU, Russia and China are ready and able to open relations with Iran, whether we like it or not, I believe it is better for us to be part of the agreement so we can still talk to the Iranians. If Iran conforms and if sanctions gets lifted, and if trade goes forward; we need to be part of this, not standing aside because of ideological rigidity. We are powerful but not unlimited in our power and less influential than we think. The last 13 years of disastrous US military involvement in the area should at least teach us the limits of our military power.

Third, I hear very few people speaking about the real, overall conflict in the region – the maneuvering for power and influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia. How public is the fact that our purported ally, Saudi Arabia, is funding ISIS? We cannot resolve nor should we place ourselves in the middle of this conflict. Rather, we need to be in some kind of relationship with the actors on both sides of this. In addition, if this agreement removes nuclear weapons from the table as a consideration, even for just 15 years, I have to think that is a positive, even if limited step. My media source, who is talking to players on all sides of this issue, spoke to a nuclear expert very familiar with the inspection protocols. He said the worst case scenario, if Iran ends the agreement in 10 or 15 years, is that we will have very accurate information of where to bomb.

Finally, too much of the opposition centers around the figure and influence of Benjamin Netanyahu. Americans are duped by his command of English and the impressive figure he cuts. We tend to forget that this he is a nasty political animal, who has been under investigation two times for corruption, once just barely escaping indictment for influence peddling. His election tactics this past spring, including his use of our Congress to help in his reelection, make me suspicious of any initiative he takes, particularly when there are knowledgeable, intelligent Israelis from high military and government positions who tell a different story than the one Netanyahu tells. I will point out that he has been crying about Iran for over 2 decades, and has never done a thing to alleviate the problem. It has just been a political ploy for him to rally support.

Despite what I have just stated, I must reiterate that I accept the agreement, but I am not an advocate for it. I did NOT sign the letter of rabbis stating support as I saw their position as naïve as those in extreme opposition to it. Further, I keep reading, and I keep listening. I am willing to learn and I have complete respect for everyone who comes to this out of concern for our country and for Israel.

More important, even if I accept the deal as reality, there are numerous things we can and must do the day after it goes into effect. We cannot lose our vigilance regarding our concern for Israel. We must, for example, lobby for a ramped up commitment to Israel, perhaps giving them access to the bunker busting bomb. We must urge the administration to search for other means to keep pressure on Iran regarding funding of terrorist groups. And, we need to pressure the President and Netanyahu to get past their bitter personal differences and start to operate in a way that is beneficial to both countries.

Most important, we need to maintain some sense of Jewish unity, overcoming our differences to stand together in the face of rising European anti-Semitism, combatting the BDS movement (those who advocate a boycott of Israel), and teaching the upcoming generations the importance of strong support for Israel. We cannot do this if we are at each other’s throats. Israel is a strong, vibrant place. It will survive. It is our task to help it flourish.

This week’s Torah portion, Shoftim, is known for a very famous phrase, tzedek, tzedek tirdof. We often translate that as “justice, justice you shall pursue.” Many will say that justice is served by following their particular stand on the Iran deal. That is only conceit. I prefer the translation of “righteousness, righteousness shall you pursue,” where our measure of righteousness is how we judge and treat each other. If we can respect each other as Jews, as humans, we will build a better Jewish future. Kein yehi ratzon, may it be God’s will.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 7 Comments »

After Marriage Equality, Then What? Part II

June 28, 2015 by thejewishobserver

It is official. The Supreme Court has upheld same sex marriage and ruled no state is able to outlaw same sex marriage. For many of us it is the culmination of decades of fighting another battle to assure equality under American law. For others this is a declaration of war against the will of God. This statement from the American Anglican Church is typical of that reaction:

“Marriage is established by God for the procreation and raising of children and for the good of     society. For this reason, governments have an interest in marriage and have delegated authority from God to protect and regulate it. But no court, no legislature and no local magistrate has the authority to redefine marriage and to impose this definition on their citizens.”

Political reactions to the ruling focus on parsing Justice Kennedy’s reasoning, usually condemning his summary as NOT based on the constitution. Dissenting justices such as Roberts and Scalia say this is denying states the right to a legislative process that expresses the will of the people. They hold that a committee of 9 lawyers is usurping the democratic rights of the citizenry. To me there is no question that those who oppose same sex marriage tie the two reasons, religious and political together.

I am not a lawyer. I cannot drill deep into the legal reasoning used by either side. I would simply make a couple of obvious observations. First, on June 12, 1967, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that any law preventing interracial marriage was unconstitutional. The ruling was in response to a case brought by an interracial couple that was forced to leave their native state of Virginia because state law deemed their marriage illegal. There was no movement in state legislatures to change the law. There was no “democratic” process in play. It was simply the court upholding a basic right of two citizens to choose to marry each other. I will point out that there were some Christians who based their opposition to interracial marriage on their interpretations of the Bible. The legal process exists to address threats to individual liberty that the legislature has not or will not consider. To wait for state legislatures to pass laws regarding equal rights (look at the history of civil rights) is to allow injustice to continue at human whim. The court’s intervention in these sorts of cases are necessary and honorable. Such is my uneducated opinion.

As to the Anglican Church’s and other religious leaders’ assertions that marriage is established by God in order to further procreation, I disagree on a number of levels. First is the obvious. Sex between man and woman is what ensures procreation, not marriage. Marriage is a human institution created to define a range of issues from establishing the boundaries of a family, to financial arrangements. Marriage in the Hebrew Bible was a transfer of the ownership of a woman from her father’s household to her husband’s household. This institution has undergone numerous changes over the centuries. The inclusion of same sex marriage as an accepted path is just another adaptation to the institution of marriage. Further, we now understand homosexuality not so much as choice, but genetically driven. Indeed, our understanding of sexuality in general is undergoing a revolution. We are only at the beginning of understanding the diversity of variations. If God created this world, then God intended these variations. Our job is not to condemn them, but to understand them. Of course, this approach means one has to recognize the Bible not as written by God and handed to humans, but the human attempt to understand our relationship with God and the world that God created, therefore subject to reinterpretation.

There is, however, an issue that raises at least a yellow flag in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling – to what extent will state or local governments try to control religious choices. I raised this in my previous blog and a couple of readers dismissed my concerns as unrealistic or a “red herring.” I beg to differ and here is why.

I wrote that the Catholic Church has legitimate concerns (even though I disagree with the Church on this issue) over being forced to provide coverage for contraception as part of the mandated health care packages. I am not talking about private businesses such as Hobby Lobby, whose owners profess a religious belief. Rather, I refer to Church run institutions, not only churches themselves, but hospitals and schools that operate under Church supervision. These are extensions of the institution of the Church. The question of whether or not the federal (or any government) can force an agency of the Church to provide something that is against the expressed doctrine of the Church IS a legitimate question. I cannot dismiss these concerns (even though politically I disagree with the Church) as they open the Pandora’s box as to what degree the government can interfere with acting out religious beliefs.

This becomes more complex when a religious doctrine or practice is seen as opposing a human right. In 2011 there was an initiative in the city of San Francisco to outlaw circumcision as an abridgment of the right of the baby boy, since the baby cannot make the decision on whether or not to have the circumcision. Jews and Muslims saw this as a direct interference with their religious beliefs and practices (rightfully so I add). Here is a case where a group of citizens are arguing that protecting an individual right supersedes the right of a religious group to hold a belief and perform the applicable ritual. While this initiative failed, it is neither the first or only attempt by a group of citizens to interfere with a religious rite (and right) while advocating for an individual right.

It is not unrealistic to see a group of citizens in a local community or a state, who will try to force clergy to perform marriages that are against their personal religious beliefs using the argument that they cannot deny a couple the right to marry in the religious institution of their choice. Lines are becoming more and more blurred. One can argue that it is one thing to force a photographer not to discriminate by refusing to shoot a same sex wedding versus forcing a member of the clergy to perform a wedding he or she does not condone. But people are raising these concerns. Religious beliefs are challenged all of the time in the name of the common good. We need to recognize these discussions are taking place and not dismiss them as being invalid or silly. At the minimum, religious organizations’ non profit status might be in jeopardy if they refuse to accommodate same sex marriages (see Bob Jones University loss of non profit status in 1983 due to policy banning interracial dating).

It was Bob Dylan who wrote “The times they are a changing.” Indeed they are. Regarding the legalization of same sex marriage I believe it is a change for good. It is just a disservice to ignore the probability of unintended consequences and the need for conversations to resolve them. The concerns of religious communities, even those with which we might disagree, should not just be casually dismissed. Our country will be so much better if we do not.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments »

Racism – The Senseless Hatred We Need to Discuss

June 22, 2015 by thejewishobserver

 

On February 25, 1994, Baruch Goldstein entered a mosque at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron during prayer and massacred 29 worshippers. This was a calculated act of terrorism. Goldstein entered a sacred spot for Muslims during Ramadan. That year it was also the holiday of Purim. His crime was sparked by his hatred of Palestinians – a senseless hatred

Last November 18, 2 Palestinians walked into Kehilat B’nei Torah in West Jerusalem bearing guns, axes and knives. They proceeded to murder 5 people in the middle of prayer, including the noted rabbi Moshe Twersky, who was an American as well as Israeli citizen. This was a calculated act of terror. The murderers knew the time of the shacharit service. They came in shouting “God is great!” They did not select a military site or any place with political significance. Their crime was sparked by their hatred of Jews – a senseless hatred.

Almost 7 months later to the day, last Wednesday night, June 17, a young white man entered Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC. He entered during a Bible study session. After sitting quietly for about an hour, he opened fire with his hand gun, reloading a few times, killing 9 members of the church including the senior pastor, Clementa Pinckney, who was not only the pastor but a respected state senator as well. One of the 3 women who survived reported the young man stated, “I have to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over the country. You have to go.”

Why did he choose Emanuel AME? This is an historic church, founded in 1816. In 1822 one of its founders, Denmark Vesey, a freed slave; was arrested, tried and found guilty of planning a slave rebellion. The list of historic figures who were members include Harriett Tubman. The list of distinguished figures who have spoken there include Booker T. Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The killer chose this site because of his hatred of blacks – a senseless hatred.

I cannot imagine anyone who does not see the murders in Hebron and Jerusalem as acts of terror. Yes, these incidents are different from the shootings at Emanuel AME because they occurred in the context of the political situation between Israel and the Palestinians. But anyone who justifies either of these terrorist acts because of their political leaning is allowing their own senseless hatred of the other side to drive them. When blinded by hatred, you cannot see the humanity of the victims. The question is, are we ready to see the murders at Emanuel AME as a terrorist act as well? Are we ready to acknowledge this terrorism as a result of the senseless hatred of racism?

Too often we dismiss murderous crimes perpetrated by white males as being the acts of lone wolves, or the mentally disturbed. While I am sure some incidents are unpredictable and certainly anyone who takes another person’s life is mentally disturbed; we are fooling ourselves if we do not recognize a real sickness that infects our country – the sickness of senseless racial hatred. We are afraid, as a society, to have that discussion to speak openly and honestly about the persistence of racism in America.

Look at the discussions in the aftermath of the murders at Emanuel AME. Both the political left and right elevated gun control to the to of the agenda. This despite the fact that the gun used was legally purchased by the perpetrator’s parents and given to him as a birthday present. Turning the murders at Emanuel AME into a discussion on gun control avoids the conversation that really needs to happen. Some folks tried to characterize the shooting as an act against Christians, or against religion. Some make the discussion about mental illness. Some say we will never understand the killer’s motivation in expressing this hatred.

But we do understand it. From what we know about the accused killer, he holds an extreme racist ideology highlighted by his hatred of black Americans.

Too often, politicians and the media, look at each incident; be it a murder of an African American or a police shooting of an African American, as an isolated incident. But they are not. Maybe the Ferguson, MO shooting of Michael Brown was not racially motivated. Add to that, however, the long list of other shootings of blacks by police, such as the 12 year old boy shot for having a pellet gun, or the 34 year old mother of a 5 year old little girl. Look at the long list of police shootings from 2014. Look at the arrest records of young black males to young white males for similar crimes. Look at how many of each race ends up in prison. In reacting to the Emanuel AME murders, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley stated that it was inconceivable to her that such an act could occur.

But it is conceivable. Because the hate is real. Hate is the undercurrent for too much of our political dialogue now. Hate is the undercurrent when referring to the person who is unlike yourself, be they different color, religion or even political party. I am not someone who takes Donald Trump very seriously, but how much of his rambling speech upon entering the Presidential race was based on senseless hatred of Mexicans, of immigrants? We are a country that is good at spewing hate and terrible at confronting the reality of this senseless hate.

The Talmud, in tractate Yoma, states that senseless hatred is considered as grave a sin as idolatry, immorality and bloodshed – all together! Our Torah in Leviticus 19:17 states, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart.” Of course we do not even see the person who is different from us as a brother, we see them as an “other.” In the front of the list of hatreds is racial hatred. It is the scar our country bears. It is the dark hearted undercurrent that we are still not willing to confront. Until we do, the timer is now running counting down till our grieving for the next Emanuel AME.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments »

After Marriage Equality, What Then?

June 3, 2015 by thejewishobserver

 

Several days ago I experienced a wonderful “first” as a rabbi. I officiated at my first legal same sex wedding in Florida. It was a marriage between two young women who joined my congregation about 4 years ago – when the idea of a legal wedding for them in Florida was unimaginable. One studied and converted to Judaism with me. A year and a half ago they had a beautiful baby girl. Among the photos displayed at their reception was one of me in the hospital holding their new baby. Of course I did the naming ceremony. This is a family I know well and care about deeply.

Our time under the chupah together was emotional and beautiful. They had circled each other before coming under the chupah. The usually more stoic one was in tears during the ceremony. The chupah itself was a symbol of family support and love as it was made from a tallit belonging to one of their fathers. I think my favorite moment was seeing their matching purple sneakers as each broke a glass at the end of the ceremony. As legalized same sex marriage is very new in Florida, you could feel the collective exhilaration of the wedding guests, almost like the entire room held its breath through the ceremony. In the aftermath, I am now wondering about what happens next.

Let me explain.

The first concern is whether this expression of equal rights is going to be short lived. The United States Supreme Court is about to issue a ruling that will either affirm or deny this right. I am not a student of the court, but from what I have read it will not be a shock if the court affirms and allows the continuation of marriage equality – which raises some new questions.

Let me explain.

A few days after the wedding I was at a meeting with 4 other clergy with whom I form a local “God Squad” that does monthly programs discussing civic issues from a faith perspective. This is under the umbrella of “The Village Square” an organization that promotes nonpartisan political dialogue. Besides me the group includes: a Catholic priest, a female Methodist minister, a Baptist minister, and an African American Christian minister (not sure of exact denomination name) . As we were wrapping up our planning session for the next season we shared news with each other. I mentioned that I had just performed the wedding. The Baptist pastor commented, “That is what I love about this group, we are all so different.”

The reactions of the other clergy were interesting. The priest smiled and said nothing. It is clear that he cannot support same sex marriage as it goes against the teachings and dictates of the Church. The Methodist smiled approvingly. The African American minister smiled in amusement (he does not support same sex marriage). Their reactions made me realize that same sex weddings do not conform to the beliefs and practices of a large swath of the American religious community. Now I must ask, what happens next? How, assuming the Supreme Court affirms the rights of same sex couples to marry, does the country proceed?

We have a glimpse of a possible future in the conflict between the Obama administration and the Catholic Church over health care provisions requiring Church institutions to provide coverage for birth control as part of their health care packages. Those supporting the government’s position see this as a right due the employees that overrides religious doctrine. Those opposed to the administration’s position see this is government overreach by intruding onto religious grounds. It is easy to wonder if there will be an attempt to require clergy to perform same sex weddings assuming the right is upheld by the court.

But I hope it does not come to that. I really do. As much as I support the right of couples to get married, I shudder when I think about government intrusion into religious areas. I know many rabbis who will not perform interfaith weddings.   If the right of a couple to get married trumps the right of the clergy to decide which weddings to perform, can these rabbis be forced to perform interfaith weddings?

What makes the question of intrusion into clergy decisions even more important is that we tend to reduce those with whom we disagree to caricatures. We mock them as “Neanderthals” or as “bigots.” Yet I will tell you that the other clergy who are part of my discussion group are all beautiful souls, deep thinkers, and very dedicated to the betterment of the greater Tallahassee community. They are deeply committed to their religious values. They are not condemning my officiating of a same sex wedding, but for each of their own reasons, they will not do it themselves. I, in turn, respect their positions.

Every religious group must find its own way through these issues. I cannot and will not endorse governmental interference in how any religious group decides what weddings to perform. We tread a fine line in finding the balance between personal rights and the right to religious convictions. In truth the affirming of the rights of same sex couples to marry is also an affirmation of my right as clergy to perform that wedding. It is an affirmation that it is up to each religious organization and their clergy to decide who they will or will not marry. I hope that is the status quo we can maintain.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 8 Comments »

What I Remember on Memorial Day

May 25, 2015 by thejewishobserver

I know. Memorial Day is our day to remember those who sacrificed their lives in the service of our country. It is a noble thing to serve in the armed forces. Facing the hardship of battle is something worthy of recognition if not praise. I know this because my dad, after fleeing Germany in 1939, served as an American GI in Europe after the United States entered WW II. I remember his stories about the horrors of war, what it was like to fear for your life in the middle of a battle. So I mean no disrespect to those who have fallen in the service of our country if, on this Memorial Day, I remember some other things as well.

I remember that my dad, despite his service for this country in the army, did NOT want me to be drafted and go to Vietnam. In a conversation that shocked me, as I approached my 18th birthday, Dad told me there was a huge difference between the Vietnam War and WW II. He saw no purpose to risking my life in Vietnam. He preferred that I immigrate to Israel and serve in her army or even flee to Canada. He told me specifically, that if I was in danger of being drafted and chose to go to Canada, he would understand that choice. I remember feeling how grateful I felt that my choices never came to that.

I remember when your choice of movies was not a measure of your patriotism. I have not yet seen “American Sniper.” It does not particularly appeal to me, although I know I will watch it when it hits HBO or another similar channel. I was appalled by the conversations I saw on Facebook, implying that if you did not go to see this movie and support it for best picture, you were being unpatriotic. I understand that the movie is an interesting psychological study in the unraveling of a soldier forced to kill. I do not understand how choosing not to see it was grounds for criticism.

I remember when my patriotism was actually measured by my idealism, by how much I dreamed and worked to make this country better. I remember wearing a black armband on Moratorium Day to protest the Vietnam War. I remember my synagogue youth group joined with other Christian youth groups to raise money in order to buy and renovate a house to give to a poor family, as our means of protesting the practices of a slum lord in Allentown. I remember the first earth days, and feeling our country was making real progress when the first major anti-pollution bills passed congress.

I remember working and voting for Republican candidates for office in Pennsylvania as much as I worked for and voted for Democrats. I remember in college, working on Richard Schweiker’s senate campaign in 1974 and having breakfast with him the day before election day, after working a campaign stop with him. I remember when Republican votes were necessary to pass much of the civil rights legislation in the 1960’s and how Senator Everett Dirksen (Republican Senate minority leader) was critical in helping President Johnson pass that legislation. I remember the intellectual prowess of William F. Buckley Jr. (although I often disagreed with him) and the diversity in the Republican party that included a range of politicians ranging from Barry Goldwater to Nelson Rockefeller.

I remember a time when political correctness did not inhibit the range of acceptable ideas on a college campus. I remember vigorous discussions in college, from a wide range of speakers representing a huge diversity of perspectives. I remember when it would be unthinkable to ban a speaker from appearing on a college campus because they were too conservative, or did not conform to any prevailing “groupthink.” I remember when the point of being in college was to hear and consider the whole range of ideas and opinions, and then choose what you believe.

And I remember a time when political correctness was really just known as common courtesy. It was not polite or appropriate to use certain words to refer to certain ethnic groups. I remember a time there were no “word police” who chastised you every time you uttered a phrase that might offend some one. I remember a time when people were just less sensitive about being offended.

I remember when all the amendments to the U.S. Constitution were of equal importance, and not just the gun rights of the second amendment. I remember when the NRA was just an organization for hunters and sports shooters, stressing gun safety and not a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturing industry. I remember never even thinking that gun ownership was an issue – my dad had hunting rifles and taught me to shoot when I was young.

I remember when we all felt proud about our country’s scientific achievements. I remember listening and watching with baited breath to the Apollo 11 moon landing. I remember when Republicans actually accepted science as reality instead of dissing science to court the votes of Christians who believe the Bible is an actual description of our origins.

I remember when baseball was really our national pastime, when we did not wonder if the achievements of the players were due to drugs. I remember when pitchers pitched 300 innings a season, and the best ones routinely won 20 games. I remember how the Amazing Mets took the world by storm by winning the 1969 World Series.

I remember when Memorial Day was May 30 – my birthday. I remember the time before it was moved to be the 4th Monday of May in order to create better commercial opportunities. I was excited my birthday was a holiday.

Finally, I remember listening to my parents remember their younger years, and lament for the values of their youth. I remember thinking that I would not become my parents. But of course, I have.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

Bread and Torah or Bread and Circuses

May 15, 2015 by thejewishobserver

Right around 100 CE, the Roman satirical poet Juvenal wrote this critique of Roman society, “Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the people have abdicated our duties; for the people who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil offices, legions – everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.” Bread and circuses is a standard metaphor for superficial means of buying political support. The society that operates on feeding the populace a steady diet of “bread and circuses” is hollow, corrupt, devoid of any true concern for the plight of its citizens, most particularly the poorest members.

At almost the exact same moment in time, the great rabbinic sage, Elazar ben Azaryah, gave his own quote concerning bread, now found in Pirkei Avot 3:17, Ein kemach, ein Torah, “If there is no bread, there is no Torah.” If one cannot meet their needs for basic sustenance, then study of Torah cannot occur. Rabbi Yitzchak Arama takes this even a step further when he adds, “Torah and all that it stands for cannot flourish without a sound economic foundation.” Any synagogue board struggling to balance a budget knows this. Without income, the institution cannot fulfill its missions of being a center of prayer, study and community. It is hard to feed the soul on an empty belly.

However, in our focus on the common sense aspect of Rabbi Elazar’s quote, we often overlook his very next words, Ein Torah, ein kemach, “If there is no Torah, there is no bread.” At first glance one says “really?” What is there in Torah that makes it essential to the production of food? Is this truly implying that without Torah one cannot have a sound economic foundation?

All of this brings us to the first part of this week’s double Torah portion, Behar/Bechukotai. Here we learn a set of commandments that seem arcane to some. Indeed, we do not know how much these instructions were truly, historically observed. I am talking about the command for the sabbatical year (in Hebrew called shmitah). The land is to be given a yearlong rest. Nothing is to be planted or cultivated. One can eat of the natural growth, but the land is to be given a rest, a Shabbat. But there is more. The sabbatical year is discussed in parashat R’ei as well, giving it major Torah “face time.” Additional instructions include the remission of all debts as well as the liberation of all put into indentured servitude – slavery. Contemporary Judaism has read a lot of environmental lessons in the command to give the land a rest. But that does not hue to the original intent of the text. If ancient Israelites followed this at all, it was not for environmental reasons. Crop rotation is certainly practical, but this is a complete letting the land go untended for a year. Remitting debts every 7 years and freeing servants are nice, but do they make any economic sense? We are justified in asking; if they even did these commandments, how could they have benefited the economy? How can any of this “Torah” actually put its followers on a better economic footing as implied by both Pirkei Avot and Rabbi Arama?

Rabbi Arama comments that these commandments remind us of a couple of key elements. First, ultimate ownership does not rest with us. We are only caretakers of the land or whatever property we own for a very brief stretch of time. Second, and I think more poignantly, all of this is meant to give us a better perspective on the accumulation of wealth – that it can never become an end to itself. That is not to say Judaism discourages someone from becoming rich. It emphatically does not. A lot of Talmud, particularly in Baba Metziah assumes a very capitalistic economic system. In Maimonides’ 8 degrees of tzedakah (charity or righteousness), the enabling of someone to become self sufficient, i.e. not dependent on charity or welfare, is the most praiseworthy level. No, Judaism embraces economic success but uses Torah to qualify its limitations and direct how the accumulation of resources should be used – for the benefit of the whole community.

The sabbatical year is a reminder that the material side of life must be balanced by the spiritual – that we have obligations beyond ourselves. The laws regarding debts and slaves are meant to curb our greediest instincts. Finally, we are not to accept a society based solely on the accumulation of wealth. The land given to Abraham is abundant and rich. Our covenant, as proscribed by Torah, wants us to use it to provide for ALL members of the community. Indeed, in Deuteronomy 15, while discussing the sabbatical year, we are told not to allow poverty to exist in our communities.

All of this comes into a sharper focus when considering recent research outlining which communities in the country have the most disparity between the richest and poorest, as well as those whose poorest members have the least path to raising themselves out of poverty(see recent Brookings report and Harvard studies on this).   If we are true to Torah, we understand that the situation of the least among us affects all of us. Wealth built on the backs of the despair of the permanently poor is not healthy for many reasons – beginning with the unrest that occurs when those with the least demand more resources.

But it is not revolution that is the real problem. When the working poor do not have proper health care, their condition affects the productivity of their employers. Those without health coverage raise the costs for everyone as they use the emergency room, the most expensive way to receive treatment, as their health care system. Those in the work force but whose coverage is not adequate, the debts piled up can throw them into bankruptcy. When workers have no shot at a livable wage, they cannot become consumers beyond trying to maintain the bare necessities to live. None of this is healthy for the economy even setting aside the moral and social dilemmas. The American dream is one based on the availability of an upward path out of poverty.

For too many Americans, there is no path. We have not yet broken the cyclical combination of racism, favoritism, cronyism that prevents most from having the opportunity to become successful. Too often we provide “bread and circuses” – just enough to eat and wonderful entertainment – to dull the minds of the populace. Too often we condemn the poor as “lazy” thus deserving of their plight, instead of seeing the despair that exists within the poorest communities. As David Brooks pointed out in a recent editorial for the NY Times, we have not yet come to understand the psycho-social underpinnings of the cycle of poverty.

Torah reminds us that we must keep trying. It begins by adjusting our personal attitudes. The parashah begins by telling us to observe a Shabbat for Adonai. By doing this for the land, we come to understand how all of us exist on a razor’s edge, our success due to part chance and circumstance as well as our hard work. The commands to remit debts and free our servants are to foster awareness, if not empathy for those stuck in a cycle of despair. Ein Torah ein kemach, if there is no Torah there is no bread. The wisdom and demands of Torah for fairness, for caring point us to healthier communities.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment »

Woman in Gold/Man in Black

May 8, 2015 by thejewishobserver

stock-vector-vector-illustration-of-hanukkah-menorah-73472815

I have seen many movies that have drawn their stories out of the Holocaust. I am the child of two German/Jewish immigrants, one of whom is classified, at least by Spielberg, as a survivor. I have grown up living and reliving, telling and retelling the stories. It is deep in my DNA. Often, I no longer want to go to Holocaust inspired movies. When I do go, I can appreciate them intellectually, I can appreciate good story telling. But other than “Schindler’s List” I cannot remember the last time I had an emotional reaction to a Holocaust related film. Often I feel detached. Often I am numb to yet one more rehashing of Jewish tragedy. I always say the best way to counter the Nazi attempt to destroy us is to build vibrant Jewish life – whenever and wherever we can.

I just saw “Woman in Gold.” Fifteen minutes into the movie I knew something was different. I felt a different reaction to this film than to almost any other film drawn from the legacy of the Holocaust. I can identify the minute the movie changed for me – when Maria Altmann engaged Randol Schoenberg to be her lawyer. She knew his family. She remembered him as a little boy. His family was part of her family’s extended circle. She even made him a strudel. At the scene when Schoenberg and Altmann were about to leave Vienna and stopped and the Holocaust memorial, I knew the movie was touching a deep emotional chord in me. When the decision was announced that the paintings were hers, I began to feel myself breaking down. In the last scenes, as she walks through her old home, now converted into offices, she sees scenes of her childhood, her family gathered in these rooms – I was sobbing like a baby.

Why? It does not seem logical. The depictions of Nazi oppression were very mild compared to so many other Holocaust movies. This was a story about recovered art, not saved lives. It was a story about an elite Jewish family in Vienna many of whom escaped. They had their own SS officer, a man in black, assigned to them to prevent their escape. As stories of Holocaust suffering go, theirs was much less tragic than many I have seen. Yet I felt this movie so deeply.

In my office is a photograph of a stairway in Brooklyn leading to a store of Jewish sacred books and ritual objects. The title given the photograph is “Stairway to Heaven?” The photographer is Teddy Tobar, who was my father’s close friend, dating to their childhood in Cologne, Germany. Teddy, like a good number of dad’s Jewish community in Cologne, found a way to make it to America. I remember him as a funny, engaging man who everyone in the German Jewish community in New York seemed to know. His apartment, in the late 1940’s, was a center of social gatherings for German Jews. In fact, at one party, my dad almost ran into a cousin he did not even know existed. She and I put this fact together when I first met her years after dad died.

I used to spend a lot of time with my mom’s parents in the Bronx, my Oma and Opa. They were also part of a German Jewish community that was deeply interconnected. People knew each other, often from their years in Germany. If they did not know each other in Germany, they had common friends or even cousins that formed a connection. We often kid about Jewish geography, but German Jewish geography was intimate in a way not found in most of the Jewish world. As a child I went to Chanukah parties – gatherings of the German Jewish cohort. I knew the grandchildren of Oma’s and Opa’s friends. Some of their friends had children in America after the war. They were my sitters during the stretches I lived with my grandparents. In a few weeks we will gather to celebrate my mom’s 85th birthday. My parent’s longest and closest friends will be there. The husband was my dad’s friend in Cologne as children. Their daughter has been my friend since I was 4 years old. If I were to meet someone whose parents or grandparents were German Jews, we would quickly be able to find family connections. We would be tied together as no other Jews are tied together.

All of this sense of community – and community lost by the way – I felt in the movie the moment Maria served Randol a piece of strudel. It all came flooding back. I imagine the survivors of the Viennese Jewish community had the same kinds of connections as my family’s German Jewish community did. As Randol discovered why this case was about so much more than money, as he felt the deep connection to his own family’s history, I relived my own journey with my family history. When Maria looked at the portrait of her aunt for the first time since before the war, but in a museum in Vienna; I relived the moment I found the photograph of my Uncle Richard, standing in the doorway of his bedding store, defying the Nazis, hanging in the Jewish museum in Berlin. It is a moment filled with the flooding of memories – of love, of celebrations and even of sickness and death.

Finally, as she won the arbitration case, wiping the smarmy, smug smiles off the faces of the Austrian officials, I felt the same pride in triumph that I felt when I remember Uncle Richard’s war heroics against the Nazis in World War II. Then, as she visits her old home, reliving her last moment with her father, who asks of her one thing – to remember him – my memory leaps not just to Uncle Richard, but to my Oma and Opa, and all of their friends, to Teddy Tobar and all of Dad’s friends from Cologne. I become connected to a chain of moments reaching all the way to the 1930’s, well before I was born. Because just like I was at Sinai with all Jews, I was also at that doorway in Cologne, protesting with Uncle Richard. So I wept.

From our parashah, Leviticus, 23:15, “You shall count for yourselves, from the day after the Sabbath, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete.” The Hebrew is profound, usfartem lachem, “you will count for yourselves.” This is the period of the Omer, which we are counting right now. It runs from Pesach to Shavuot. It connects the holiday of liberation to the holiday of covenant. The Omer is a reminder that all of time is connected. We tend to see each holiday in its own moment, distinct and unique. But we are wrong. Every moment on our calendar is deeply connected to what has come before it as well as to what comes after it. We live in a Jewish cycle of time that spirals back into ancient times. We often forget our place in the chain. We often forget our connection to all that was before and will be after.

And why are the words “you shall count for yourselves” so important? Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev taught that the beginning of the Omer marks the time that the creation of independent, thinking beings, who could serve God, was complete. Pesach, the moment of liberation, humans who would eventually learn teshuvah, who could work to improve the world, began their journey. Their instruction manual for doing that would be received on Shavuot. The command to count for themselves was a demonstration of their ability to be thinking, reasoning beings. The accounting for life was no longer in God’s hands, it was in theirs. Now it is in ours.

The Hebrew word for counting is the same root as for story, and telling a story. How profound. The beginning of accounting for our responsibilities in life, for understanding who we are and how we fit into the flow of the world begins with the accounting of our stories. Our memories, our stories, can inspire deeds of bravery, deeds of intelligence, deeds of caring, deeds of holiness. Each of us tries to retrieve our “Woman in Gold” while defying the “man in black.” May we recover our treasures of the past. May our counting and our story telling be filled with holiness, for now, for always. Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment »

Faith Versus Science

April 24, 2015 by thejewishobserver

Is this truly an accurate assumption?  Do faith (or religion) and science have to be pursuits that are in opposition to each other?  In 2009 Pope Benedict XVI gave an address at the University of Regensburg.  This speech tried to give a perspective on the intersection of faith and reason, and subsequently religion and science.  It was a brilliantly conceived and written speech.  Unfortunately, the world focused on a quote the Pope used from a dialogue between a Byzantine emperor and a Persian intellect that reflected badly on Islam.  The press about the address centered on support for or opposition to Benedict’s statement about Islam.  His quite cogent statements about faith and reason got buried in the storm.

What did Pope Benedict say?  He began with reminiscences of his days teaching at the university, noting how, with apparent pleasure, reasonable people could disagree on such fundamental issues as religion and God.  He recalled a colleague commenting how odd it was to have two faculties at the university devoted to something that did not exist – God.  Perhaps my favorite quote from his speech is this, “The scientific ethos…is the will to be obedient to the truth, and as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.”  Think about this.  By seeking truth, science is reflecting a core religious value.  Science searches for the truth about the mechanics and the Church reveals truths about the “why” of the existence of the mechanics.  Rather than seeing these as incompatible, Benedict saw them as reflections of two needed basic values – faith and reason.  At the very core of his message was a plea for people to be reasonable.  People of opposing views must at least share a commitment to “reason.”  One cannot be so anchored in faith as to reject what is reasonable.

But is the reconciliation of science and faith a reasonable expectation?  When one reads the critiques of religion by Oxford professor Richard Dawkins – then probably not.  Dawkins, in an article commenting on the relative contributions of science and theology to the origins of the universe and humanity writes, “It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover, in fascinating, overwhelmingly, mutually confirming detail.  On every one of these questions, theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong.”  Proceeding with even harsher words he adds, “What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody?”

Religious institutions will take varying degrees of umbrage at Dawkins’ comments.  The Catholic Church, which is the source and supporter of many distinguished institutions of higher learning, cannot give up the totally improvable concept of the resurrection.   To do so would destroy a basic underpinning of the Church.  Further, segments of the Church believe in the existence of Satan, an additional irrationality. In the larger Christian world (at least in America) a majority do not accept the science of evolution, taking the first chapters of Genesis to be literal truth.  Religious Americans who believe in the literal truth of Genesis and anyone embracing the scientific discoveries regarding the origins of the universe do not even consider the possibility that the other side is, as Pope Benedict would have said, “reasonable.”

Indeed, the word reasonable might not even be relevant when considering the human characteristic of “believing.”  We all have articles of faith on which we build our lives.  Many seem completely unreasonable to our neighbor.  Trying to understand creation, from either the science or religious perspective, is a prime battle ground for this conflict.  Yet, out of the ashes of this battle are some embers of possibility.

Recently I moderated a panel for The Village Square on issues of faith and science.  Featured on the panel was the noted physicist, Dr. Harrison Prosper.  Dr. Prosper is part of the team at CERN that discovered the Higgs boson, the particle that explains much towards how our universe actually holds together.  If you want a sample of his brilliance, please listen to this TEDX talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCUitYdA0xU

Dr. Prosper is not a religious person in any way, yet acknowledges that when looking at the complicated set of equations involved in the creation and order of the universe, one can wonder if intelligence was indeed behind it all.  Indeed there are scientists who see an intelligent hand in the structure of the universe, in both what is physically observable as well as in the math necessary to explain its structure.  For example, the value of pi (3.14…) is present in many of the equations that explain our surroundings.  Is that a calculated marker left by intelligence?

Further, the belief in scientific theory can at times be another form of faith.  All you have to do is read Thomas Kuhn’s book “Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”  Kuhn shows that stubborn belief is what happens when one scientific paradigm is about to give way to a new one.  Scientists have a history of holding onto a theory, often in the face of mounting evidence that disproves the theory.  Sometimes society will have shifted to the new change before the scientific community.  This is simply faith, but under a different guise.  While there are certainly areas of science considered universally to be true, our scientific understanding of the universe often undergoes radical revision.  During the program I moderated, I found Dr. Prosper’s most interesting statement to be his wish that everything his team had discovered would be overturned by a whole new discovery.  What makes the process exciting for human inquiry is the disproving of a theory by new, amazing evidence.  Where religion becomes “unreasonable” is when it tries to discount scientific theory without evidence, only faith that the words of the Bible are incontrovertibly true.

Judaism has little conflict with science.  We can point to numerous examples in rabbinic teaching that affirm and support scientific truth.  The model of creation proposed by the 16th century mystic, Rabbi Isaac Luria, is eerily similar to the “big bang” theory of creation, complete with a miniscule singularity point out of which all of creation explodes.  Perhaps most impressive is the work of the 13th century rabbi Maimonides, who posits that the language about God in the Torah is metaphorical, as our ability to articulate anything about God is so limited.  He goes on to teach that in order to better understand God, one must develop their intellect, and study science, philosophy and math.  Some more contemporary Jewish thought posits God not as an object, but as verb – the process of continuing existence.  Our prayers are an attempt to relate to this process, to sensitize us to the process and to find our place in it.

The scientific community need not see religion as opposition.  Rather, just as science is an attempt to explore truth, religion does the same.  But I believe the truth religion is exploring is much more and much deeper than the “why” to the mechanics of the universe.  All of us have our non-rational sides.  They are moved in different ways, music, art, spiritual wonder, and the search for meaning.   Prayer is an emotive experience, that can deeply move our souls.  Prayer can sensitize us to human suffering in ways very different than fact and research.  I do not claim everyone needs religion, just that it can provide as much as a path to meaning, to managing life as science.  In addition, religion is the primary arena in which morality and ethics evolves.  Deeply religions people can be at odds over profound moral dilemmas (see abortion, same sex marriage as examples).  Science can give us some facts to frame issues, but it is religion that leads the struggle over what our moral boundaries should be.

Finally, both religion and science must grow and evolve to remain vibrant and relevant.  Both find strength when finding a proper path that holds onto tradition and history yet changes as humans change.  At their best, religion and science travel parallel roads on their search for respective truths.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | 1 Comment »

Anti-Semitism Gets Personal

April 5, 2015 by thejewishobserver

Anti-Semitism Gets Personal

It had been many years since I had experienced any direct anti-Semitism – all the way back to high school in fact. But on the way home from sitting shiva with Audrey’s family after her father’s funeral, it became very real once again. Our flight into Atlanta was very delayed because of cross winds shutting down the runway in Providence, where our flight originated. Once we took off I realized making the connecting flight in Atlanta would be a very tight squeeze, no more than a 20 minute window. Fortunately, our gate at landing was in the same concourse that our flight to Tallahassee was to leave from, albeit at the complete opposite end of the concourse. My Delta app on my phone would not bring up the boarding pass, as it listed our next flight as already boarding. When we got off the plane it was 15 minutes until the next flight was scheduled to leave.

So I ran ahead of Audrey to get to the desk at the departure gate and have our boarding passes printed. Approaching the desk I saw boarding was just about to begin, so I thought we would be OK. I went to the desk, started to explain to the attendant about our late flight and having to print the boarding passes. He motioned me to the end of the desk, where the boarding passes are scanned as you get on the plane. There, a sweet looking young African American woman was waving to me to come over, flashing a big, warm smile. I went up to her station. There was a young man, perhaps in his late 20’s. The Delta attendant asked me my name. As I gave it, standing next to the young man, he turned to me and said, “I know you are a Jew, but take a deep breath man.” I was stunned. Thinking the young woman might have been asking his name and I had butted in front of him I asked her, “Were you asking for MY name?” She said yes, she was. I turned to the young man and said, “You better think about what you are saying.” That set off a stream of invectives laced with the constant phrase, “You’re a Jew.” Finally, out of anger I yelled back at him a very non-rabbinic reply, “You’re an a__hole!”

The young Delta attendant was clearly distressed. She printed our boarding passes and sweetly told me not to worry. As Audrey and I boarded the plane, we saw what we thought was a plain clothes agent taking the young man aside to talk to him. When we were in our seats we were dumfounded by the incident. A number of thoughts went through my head. First, I was embarrassed over losing my cool and yelling back at the young man. Second, I thought about the young African American Delta attendant who was trying so hard to make things right. I realized that she, as well as so many of my African American friends, must face circumstances that can make them angry almost every day.

Prejudice is still very real, constantly burning. I live in a bubble mostly protected from it. But there are many who live with it as a constant reality. They must be unbelievably skilled at anger management. I could not control myself over one small incident. How do others handle constant prejudice? The only conclusion is to resolve never to lose our vigilance in trying to educate to prevent prejudice. We must never stop opposing it in all its forms – racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia – the list seems endless.

On April 16 the Jewish community will note Yom Hashoah, the commemoration of the Holocaust, the most horrifying result of anti-Semitism in world history. More than ever it must stand as a reminder that the work of combating prejudice is far from over.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

The Netanyahu Conundrum

March 5, 2015 by thejewishobserver

140729-netanyahu-0433_239c513079ae4d286dc50a7df841ee31

My first reaction was emotional – I could not help feeling a thrill that a Prime Minister of Israel stood before a joint session of Congress and received a standing ovation. Israel has been part of my life since I was a child. My first trip there was the summer of 1971. I lived there for a year, the summer of 1996 to 1997. I have watched it grow from a fragile state too small to support a viable economy, to one of the most innovative and prosperous of modern states. I have seen it suffer through wars and know the desire of my friends there for a time of peace. Putting it simply, non-Jews just do not understand the importance of Israel to the Jewish people. It goes beyond religion to our history and peoplehood. Seeing an Israeli Prime Minister stand before congress represents a culmination of all of those emotions.

Yet, the particulars are troubling. I start with the figure of Netanyahu himself. I know his history. It is fraught with political and personal scandals. His election as Prime Minister is less about citizen approval of him than the intricacies of the Israeli political system. He has been the beneficiary of being in the right place at the right time politically. His party ekes out just enough seats in elections to be the broker in forming a government. Mostly, though, I see Netanyahu as a great showman who has pulled the wool over the eyes of the right wing of American politics. He grew up in Cheltenham, PA, so he learned perfect, idiomatic Americanized English. He talks tough. He has a deep resonant voice. He puts on a great show – for Americans.

So I resent that Netanyahu has used the American political system to stage a first rate re-election ploy. Israeli elections are a week away. His party, Likud, is in a tough fight for Knesset seats. Coming to Congress at this juncture plays to a political base in Israel that responds to the concept of tough talk standing up to an American president – especially a liberal Democrat.

The ostensible reason for his talk is fear over Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. If we are to speak truth, then we must admit that the possibility of a nuclear armed Iran IS the one real existential threat to Israel. The reality of that threat is acknowledged by Israelis from all ends of the political spectrum. And, Netanyahu has been speaking about this threat for years. But his words delivered in congress Tuesday will have no effect, and in fact might have a deleterious effect. I like this analysis by Ari Shavit posted in Ha’aretz, http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.645349

Rather than having the air of an important policy talk given by the leader of a key nation in the Middle East, Netanyahu’s speech in Congress had the feel of political manipulation – by Netanyahu for his own election purposes in Israel and by the Republican Party here, as they mount opposition to President Obama on pretty much everything. As an American I resent the feeling of being manipulated, for the purposes of those whose chief concern is seeking political power within their own systems. So the central truth of Netanyahu’s message was lost in all of the political gamesmanship. And the reality is, there was truth.

I am not a policy expert on Iran. I frankly do not know if the Obama administration’s approach is or is not the best way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. However, no one should be fooled by the agenda of the leadership in Iran, which has been consistent over he past 25 years. It presides over a state that oppresses individual freedom. It supports multiple terrorist organizations in the region. It wishes to impose its particular brand of Islam while ruling over more of the region and eventually beyond. Most frightening for Israel, it is blunt in its hatred of Jews and Israel, calling for Israel’s “annihilation.”

What would be most useful is an open frank discussion over what are the realistic options in dealing with Iran. This requires experts in the development of nuclear weapons along with those who actually have studied Iran and understand its culture and people. Tuesday’s speech created a sideshow that has now spawned other disturbing sideshows.

If you watch the video of the speech or read articles about it take some time to read the comments below. You will be horrified and offended (I hope). One trend is outright hatred of Jews – not just Israel but Jews. Old canards like the Jews control the American media are casually tossed about as truth. Normally it is easy to dismiss these comments as the work of kooks. But we have a current backdrop of rising anti-Semitism in Europe as well as on a number of American college campuses so the hatred hits home much harder.

Many of the responses are disturbing as well. Often the argument against the anti-Semite in these online comment threads is to condemn Islam, call it the religion of Satan. Is this really the level to which our public conversation must descend, the exchange of hate speech? Is it possible to respond to disagreement with thoughtful questions and discussion? My fear is that the discussion thread is starting to represent the reality of American political discussion – verbal bomb throwing.

Thus we come to the conundrum of Netanyahu’s speech. The truth in its content is overwhelmed by the problems of context, motive, and climate. If the hate speech in the comments moves beyond the lunatic fringe, then the result will be more negative than positive. These are serious problems and as Americans as well as Jews we need better ways to advance the discussion.  The Prime Minister’s appearance before congress did not provide one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a Comment »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »