Thursday, December 7, 2017

Rabbi Sacks on the Status of Jerusalem

I wish I had said this... But that's what makes Lord Sacks - Lord Sacks and me - me. His eloquent words about US recognition of Israel follow: 

I welcome today’s decision by the United States to recognise as the capital of Israel, Jerusalem, whose name means “city of peace.” This recognition is an essential element in any lasting peace in the region.

Unlike other guardians of the city, from the Romans to the Crusaders to Jordan between 1949 and 1967, Israel has protected the holy sites of all three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and guaranteed access to them. Today, Jerusalem remains one of the few places in the Middle East, where Jews, Christians and Muslims are able to pray in freedom, security and peace. 

The sustained denial, in many parts of the world, of the Jewish connection with Jerusalem is dishonest, unacceptable and a key element in the refusal to recognise the Jewish people’s right to exist in the land of their origins. Mentioned over 660 times in the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem was the beating heart of Jewish faith more than a thousand years before the birth of Christianity, and two-and-a-half millennia before the birth of Islam. 

Since then, though dispersed around the world, Jews never ceased to pray about Jerusalem, face Jerusalem, speak the language of Jerusalem, remember it at every wedding they celebrated, in every home they built, and at the high and holiest moments of the Jewish year.

Outside the United Nations building in New York is a wall bearing the famous words of Isaiah: "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore." Too often the nations of the world forget the words that immediately precede these: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

Those words, spoken twenty-seven centuries ago, remain the greatest of all prayers for peace, and they remain humanity’s best hope for peace in the Middle East and the world.

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Thunderclap? Or Whimper?

Special Council investigating the President, Robert Mueller
I've been saying all along that the investigation of the President with respect to his involvement with Russia prior to his election - is almost certainly political and will not bear the fruit his opponents (including-  and perhaps especially - the mainstream media) are hoping for. 

To be clear, I am not a fan of the President and did not vote for him. And I continue to believe he is an embarrassment to the country. But I agree with Alan Dershowitz. This investigation will end with a whimper. His words from a published article follow: 


The charge to which retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty may tell us a great deal about the Robert Mueller investigation.

The first question is, why did Flynn lie? People who lie to the FBI generally do so because, if they told the truth, they would be admitting to a crime. But the two conversations that Flynn falsely denied having were not criminal. He may have believed they were criminal but, if he did, he was wrong.
Consider his request to Sergey Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S., to delay or oppose a United Nations Security Council vote on an anti-Israel resolution that the outgoing Obama administration refused to veto. Not only was that request not criminal, it was the right thing to do. 

President Obama's unilateral decision to change decades-long American policy by not vetoing a perniciously one-sided anti-Israel resolution was opposed by Congress and by most Americans. It was not good for America, for Israel or for peace. It was done out of Obama's personal pique against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rather than on principle.

Many Americans of both parties, including me, urged the lame-duck Obama not to tie the hands of the president-elect by allowing the passage of a resolution that would make it more difficult to achieve a negotiated peace in the Middle East.

As the president-elect, Donald Trump was constitutionally and politically entitled to try to protect his ability to broker a fair peace between the Israelis and Palestinians by urging all members of the Security Council to vote against or delay the enactment of the resolution. The fact that such efforts to do the right thing did not succeed does not diminish the correctness of the effort. I wish it had succeeded. We would be in a better place today.

Some left-wing pundits, who know better, are trotting out the Logan Act, which, if it were the law, would prohibit private citizens (including presidents-elect) from negotiating with foreign governments. But this anachronistic law hasn't been used for more than 200 years. Under the principle of desuetude - a legal doctrine that prohibits the selective resurrection of a statute that has not been used for many decades - it is dead-letter. Moreover, the Logan Act is unconstitutional insofar as it prohibits the exercise of free speech.

If it were good law, former Presidents Reagan and Carter would have been prosecuted: Reagan for negotiating with Iran's ayatollahs when he was president-elect, to delay releasing the American hostages until he was sworn in; Carter for advising Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to reject former President Clinton's peace offer in 2000-2001. Moreover, Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda, Dennis Rodman and others who have negotiated with North Korea and other rogue regimes would have gone to prison.

So there was nothing criminal about Flynn's request of Kislyak, even if he were instructed to do so by higher-ups in the Trump transition team. The same is true of his discussions regarding sanctions. The president-elect is entitled to have different policies about sanctions and to have his transition team discuss them with Russian officials.

This is the way The New York Times has put it: "Mr. Flynn's discussions with Sergey I. Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, were part of a coordinated effort by Mr. Trump's aides to create foreign policy before they were in power, documents released as part of Mr. Flynn's plea agreement show. Their efforts undermined the existing policy of President Barack Obama and flouted a warning from a senior Obama administration official to stop meddling in foreign affairs before the inauguration."

If that characterization is accurate, it demonstrates conclusively that the Flynn conversations were political and not criminal. Flouting a warning from the Obama administration to stop meddling may be a political sin (though some would call it a political virtue) but it most assuredly is not a crime.
So why did Flynn lie about these conversations, and were his lies even material to Mueller's criminal investigation if they were not about crimes?

The second question is why did Mueller charge Flynn only with lying? The last thing a prosecutor ever wants to do is to charge a key witness with lying.

A witness such as Flynn who has admitted he lied - whether or not to cover up a crime - is a tainted witness who is unlikely to be believed by jurors who know he's made a deal to protect himself and his son. They will suspect that he is not only "singing for his supper" but that he may be "composing" as well - that is, telling the prosecutor what he wants to hear, even if it is exaggerated or flat-out false. A "bought" witness knows that the "better" his testimony, the sweeter the deal he will get. That's why prosecutors postpone the sentencing until after the witness has testified, because experience has taught them that you can't "buy" a witness; you can only "rent" them for as long as you have the sword of Damocles hanging over them.

So, despite the banner headlines calling the Flynn guilty plea a "thunderclap," I think it may be a show of weakness on the part of the special counsel rather than a sign of strength. So far he has had to charge potential witnesses with crimes that bear little or no relationship to any possible crimes committed by current White House incumbents. Mueller would have much preferred to indict Flynn for conspiracy or some other crime directly involving other people, but he apparently lacks the evidence to do so.

I do not believe he will indict anyone under the Logan Act. If he were to do so, that would be unethical and irresponsible. Nor do I think he will charge President Trump with any crimes growing out of the president's exercise of his constitutional authority to fire the director of the FBI or to ask him not to prosecute Flynn.

The investigation will probably not end quickly, but it may end with, not a thunderclap, but several whimpers.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Ben Gurion's True Legacy

I saw this on Rafi's blog, Life in Israel. It is 53 minutes long and worth every minute. Daniel Gordis presents a contrast between the Balfour Declaration and Israel's Declaration of Independence. In the process many myths about Ben Gurion are shattered. Ben Gurion's true feelings about the source of our rights to the land - is the Torah.

 

Friday, November 3, 2017

The Demise of the Traditional Jew

Scenes like this are disappearing as more Jews shed their Jewish identities
Once again, words of wisdom from Rabbi Berel Wein. His historical overview of 'what happened' to American Jewry over the last 100 years or so is quite on target. It matches my own view, which I've discussed many times on my main blog. His words follow:

The Jewish community in the United States has changed dramatically over the last sixty years.  A trip down nostalgia lane will reveal that the backbone of the Jewish community in the United States then was the traditional Jew. That Jew did not attend synagogue services often but was somehow vaguely familiar with the prayer service itself. He or she was not strictly observant of the laws of Judaism by any measure of observance but retained a connection to that observance by eating matzo on Pesach, lighting Sabbath candles on Friday night and eating food that had some relationship to being kosher.

That Jew was fiercely loyal to and proud of the fledgling State of Israel and voted on the narrow issue of “is it good for the Jews?” That Jew was still scarred by the economic ravages of the Great Depression. He was determined to give his children a college education, a degree that would guarantee them a profession and a haven of economic security.

That Jew was not wealthy by today’s standards but strove to be part of the emerging middle class, to own a home and an automobile. That Jew was a strong supporter of the then American public school system and hoped that their children would be able to integrate themselves fully into the general American society, without having to intermarry and assimilate completely.

Their children were given a minimalist Jewish education in afternoon or Sunday Hebrew schools that, at most, led to their Bar or Bat Mitzvah ceremonies. It was better than nothing but only barely so

Most of these were second or third generation Americans, descended from Orthodox Eastern European parents and grandparents. Though they may have loved and cherished their ancestors, they were determined not to be like them in appearance, language and way of life. These traditional Jews became the constituency of the Conservative movement of twentieth century American Jewish life.

Unwilling to commit to the radicalism of Reform but equally unwilling or unable to adjust to a fully observant Jewish lifestyle, the Conservative movement became their logical and confortable home. Though it made few actual ritual demands upon its members, the Conservative movement still retained the flavor of traditional Jewish life and values.

Israel and the Holocaust were the main tenets of its approach to traditional Jewish life and its mission. But as the decades passed these issues receded and faded. In the eyes of many, especially on the Left, Israel was too strong and Germany was no longer considered to be a pariah state.

The children and grandchildren of the old traditional American Jew fought for universal causes and slowly but surely drifted away from any meaningful connection to the Jewish people or to the value system and lifestyle of Judaism itself.

Intermarriage became rampant and complete alienation from Jewish causes and the State of Israel became the norm of the new generation of American Jews. This new American Jew was completely ignorant of his faith and heritage, knew not the history of his or her people and began to internalize the narratives of the enemies of the Jewish people and the Jewish state. This type of Jew became the subtle enemy of his or her own people and self.

All of this was recognized on the ground by the slow but steady erosion of the Conservative movement in American Jewish society. In many respects, it lost its traditional moorings and became only a pale shadow of Reform. The influence of the increasingly hedonistic and loosened bonds of general American culture wreaked havoc among the children of its base constituency.

They were no longer interested in any form of Jewish worship services, no matter how many guitars now accompanied the prayer services. The universal had conquered the particular and the fuzzy ideas of utopianism replaced the hard-core concepts of basic morality that lie at the heart of Jewish thought and social life.

In this atmosphere of blissful ignorance and befuddled goals, support for all Jewish causes declined and loyalty to the State of Israel, as the great accomplishment of the previous century, weakened dramatically. The traditional American Jew of the twentieth century had no descendants and hence no future as well.

It is most unlikely that this tragedy can be averted and reversed in out lifetimes though as a nation we are well accustomed to unforeseen events and miraculous deliverances. The prediction of the past, that in Judaism it is either all or nothing at all, appears to be ominously accurate as far as American Jewry is concerned currently.


Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Ignoring the Forrest

Rabbi Berel Wein
Wisdom from Rabbi  Berel Wein in Arutz Sheva:

We are all aware that our best laid plans and visions of our future are upset when life itself intervenes. We are always blindsided by unforeseen events. We are prone to be distracted and diverted by rather petty, small and even inconsequential events. The great issues that face and even bedevil the Jewish people and the Jewish state rarely receive the attention that they obviously deserve. 

A great deal of this is due to the media frenzy and instant social media communication that characterizes our current society and generation. The constant necessity to produce news – fake or otherwise – drives the crushing creation of distractions and diversions. And these sideshows mesmerize us and we forget what our true goals and policies should be.

We are invested in scandals, personal failures and rumors, and the great issues are ignored. There is no doubt that a price will be exacted for this failure.  The history of the past two centuries in Jewish life worldwide shows clearly the perils of ignoring great ideas while concentrating on passing controversies. 

When Reform and Haskalah were attracting generations of children of previously staunchly Orthodox families, the Orthodox leadership generally ignored the underlying causes for the success of these movements and contended themselves with bans and posters. Instead they argued about women’s education, secular studies, modes of dress, personal rabbinic disputes and controversies and other issues, most of which have long been completely forgotten. Seeing only the trees and never viewing the forest is always a dangerous policy.  

There is currently a controversy here in Israel about the kosher status of a certain type of chicken species. Imported from Belgium, this type of chicken was approved as being kosher by a leading charedi kashruth certification organization, one of the more renowned groups here in Israel. However, as can be expected in any type of kashruth question and innovation, there is always another rabbinic opinion. 

And the other well-known rabbinic kashruth authorities declared that this type of chicken was not acceptable. The media had, and continues to have, a field day regarding this controversy. As is usual in such instances, families have been split, dishes have been discarded and destroyed and the poster wars have been renewed and intensified. 

And the other well-known rabbinic kashruth authorities declared that this type of chicken was not acceptable. The media had, and continues to have, a field day regarding this controversy. As is usual in such instances, families have been split, dishes have been discarded and destroyed and the poster wars have been renewed and intensified. 

This is very reminiscent of the rabbinic dispute in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries regarding the newly discovered American turkey.  For almost a century, the controversy regarding this bird continued until the Jewish people, by practice, decided that the American turkey was just a big chicken and therefore a kosher bird, as it is universally accepted today. 

I have no idea what the eventual Jewish decision regarding the fate of the Belgian chicken in our kitchens, but like most disputes of this type, I expect this controversy to continue for some time.  But the fate of the Belgian chicken and the attention that it is receiving is a distraction. The real issue that the rabbinate should be dealing with is education, outreach and adjustment to modern changes, which are the stuff of today’s important issues.

The existential issues facing the Jewish people and the State of Israel are unfortunately numerous and serious. Iran is the Hitler of our time and cannot be ignored. The Jewish people and its religious leadership have to prepare their societies for this looming crisis. Iran is not a matter of Belgian chickens. 

Demonstrations against the Israel Defense Forces are not only foolish and wrong but they are completely irrelevant to the Jewish future. The complete alienation of so much of the Jewish people certainly has to be addressed. But one hears very little from the top about this danger, which is certainly as existential as Iran is. The Talmud allows for questions to which it has no answers. Even without having answers to problems, the problems themselves should be raised, addressed and discussed. 

We are wasting assets and valuable resources on distractions and diversions. Our leadership, as well as all of us, must somehow rise over this and concentrate on the real issues and problems that face us. But we are very attracted to these diversions. We prefer to play with the toys that are strewn throughout our daily lives. It is much easier to avoid the real issues than to face up to them. At the very least we should be able to identify and reject these confusing disturbances.

Monday, August 28, 2017

A Black and White Plea

Words of wisdom from Rabbi Avi Shafran published in the Forward and republished at the Aish website:

There is comfort to be taken in some of what emerged from the ugliness of Charlottesville. Despite the horrific events, there is surely solace to be had in the widespread revulsion, for example, that was evoked in so very many Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, by the marching and chanting white supremacists.
Charlottesville is also an opportunity for something I have long hoped for: a coming together of African Americans and Jews.
Since the days in which Jews marched alongside our black brothers and sisters in Selma for civil rights, there has been a tragic fraying of the relationship between these two American populations. But in truth, the relationship between the two groups has always been fraught, and understandably so.
As many in our community are fond of saying, America has been good to the Jews. From the smattering of Sephardi Jews who came to these shores in colonial times to the German Jews who followed in the nineteenth century to the Eastern European survivors of the Holocaust, the Jews who arrived on America’s shores all found America to be, truly, a land of opportunity, and many found success in business, professions, academics and other fields. They were, particularly the refugees among them, reborn in their new land.
Black people, by contrast, could never be reborn here in the same way because of how they came here. It’s hard, one imagines, to conjure the image of a goldeneh medina, the “gilded land” that was America to European Jews, while bound in the hold of a slave ship. And while subsequent generations of Jews were able to build on their forebears’ successes, the descendants of American slaves came to be marked not only by the hue of their skin but by the emotional legacy of their ancestors’ experiences.
And so, even after Jim Crow the man, a white entertainer who performed in blackface, had long been buried, and the laws that came to carry his name undermined by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the psychological legacy of slavery and the persistence of racial discrimination prevented many black people from economic and social advancement. Add the War on Drugs, the prison industrial complex, and the practice of red-lining that banks used to keep African Americans from being able to purchase their homes and climb into the middle class, we have one of America’s worst moral stains, one which persists to this day.
Unfortunately, my community is not free of discrimination. Many Jews, like other white people, tended to look condescendingly on African Americans, and the latter readily reciprocated with resentment. In some cases, that resentment came from the leadership, like Louis Farrakhan and his followers, with their fantasy-fueled hatred. In others, it came from personal and communal tragedies, like the 1991 race riots in Crown Heights.
My personal experience was different, though. I spent my childhood in an observant Jewish home (my father, of blessed memory, was the rabbi of a small Baltimore shul) and a racially mixed neighborhood; one of my best friends was a black boy a bit older than I. Junie and I would play ball and ride our bikes on the rocky hills near where we lived. It was a mixed-race friendship that seems unthinkable in today’s racial climate. In neighborhoods like Crown Heights and Flatbush, you don’t often see African American kids playing with Jewish kids.
Baltimore was very much “the South,” and our domestic help was an African American woman named Lucille Jackson. My mother, of blessed memory, a Polish immigrant, treated her like a part of the family, and Lucille was like a “tante” to me. When she grew too old to do real work, my mother would have her come over all the same to do some dusting, so that Mama could, as always, serve her lunch and pay her wages, as compensation, not charity. That lesson in kavod habriot, “honoring all people,” remains with me to this day.
Then there was Dhanna, the librarian in Providence, Rhode Island, where my wife and I raised our children, who was so kind to them during their frequent visits to the public library, always encouraging them, helping them find what they were looking for and proudly placing the artwork they regularly produced for her on her desk for all to see. And Desi, our own young daughters’ friend, who became quite conversant with the laws of kashrut and Shabbat.
I realize that my personal upbringing and experiences may not have been typical for a haredi Jew. There is distrust, if not disdain, in parts of the haredi world – in fact, in the larger Jewish one, too – for black people. Just as there is animus among some in the African American community for Jews.
I have had unpleasant encounters, too. I won't forget the group of boys who asked my classmates and me if they could join our baseball game. Once their team was at bat, its members decided to turn the Louisville Sluggers on us. No one should ever have to hear the sound of wood hitting skull.
I also won’t forget the “Heil Hitler” that a black teen delighted in shouting at my father and me when we would walk together to shul. Even these days, I come across the occasional anti-Semite of color. One actually greeted me mere months ago on a city bus with a hearty “Heil Hitler!” of his own.
Of course, I have met more than the occasional pale-faced Jew-baiter, too. There are good and bad people in every population, something whose implications we too often overlook. Mindful of the Talmudic imperative to judge “all men favorably” (Avot, 1:6) and my parents’ example, I have never measured any human being by any yardstick other than his own words or deeds, and never prejudged anyone because of his race or the behavior of any of its other members. And my wife and I always sought – and I think successfully – to instill that same attitude in our children.
All the same, in my experience, the arc of the moral universe, to use abolitionist Theodore Parker’s memorable phrase (made famous by Reverend King), has been bending toward justice. While most Orthodox Jews and African Americans tend to live in their own, separate social and cultural milieus, it isn’t unusual anymore to see sincerely friendly interactions between members of the two groups.
It’s not unusual, but it’s also not often enough.
What might hopefully advance that happy development is Charlottesville. The ad promoting the “Unite the Right” rally was designed to evoke a fascist poster, with birds reminiscent of the Nazi eagle soaring through the sky over marchers carrying Confederate flags instead of swastikas.
Ponder that. Nazi eagles and Confederate flags.
“White supremacists” was the self-definition of choice among the marchers. And as they marched that Jewish Sabbath night, the torches they carried intentionally evocative of those of Klansmen, they chanted, loudly, lustily, “Jews shall not replace us!” And “Blood and soil!” — an English rendering of the Nazi “blut und boden.”
“This city is run by Jewish communists and criminal n****s,” one demonstrator informed a Vice News reporter.
The time has come, in this post-Charlottesville era, for all Jews and all African Americans to reject generalizations born of the worst examples in the “other’s” community and recognize that the malevolent drawing of a circle around our two peoples should impel us to understand, despite how dissimilar we may be, how joined, in fact, we are.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

The Most Qualified Person to Lead Israel

For all you Netanyahu haters out there who actually believe he is the most unpopular, corrupt, and incompetent prime minister in Israel’s history… well it just ain’t so. Among your own circle of friends he might be believed to be all of those things, but statistics say otherwise.  WJD reports: 
(W)hen pollsters asked who was most suited to be prime minister… 51 percent of those polled support(ed) him.
And from Ynet, here is the rest of the story: 
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud party is currently polling four seats ahead of its top rival, the center-left Zionist Union, the latest i24news poll revealed Sunday.

According to the survey, which was conducted by telephone among the representative sample of 500 Jewish and 200 Arab respondents aged 18 and over, if the elections were held today the Likud would get 27 seats and the Zionist Union would get 23. The poll had a four percent margin of error.

The results stand in contradiction those of other recent polls, which has the two parties tied in a dead heat, or even put the Zionist Union ahead of Netanyahu.

Two prominent parties who were running the risk of not passing Israel's newly instated 4 percent election threshold were the left wing Meretz and religious right wing Shas, which for the first time was overtaken by Yahad (Together) party – a Shas offshoot led by former Shas leader Eli Yishai – which was polling at 5.

Meanwhile, like in previous polls, the United Arab List – a political merger of Israel's three Arab parties – came in third, polling at 12 Knesset seats.

Naftali Bennett's Bayit Yehudi party, which aspires to establish itself as the third largest -- and to make its leader a viable future candidate for prime minister -- came in with a mere 11 seats, much lower than initial polls.

Moshe Kahlon's Kulanu party was on the rise, riding on its social welfare platform, with 9 Knesset seats. Yet its main rival for centrist voters, Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid party, was polling at a much higher 11.

Yisrael Beytenu, led by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, was polling at 7, slightly higher than in recent polls, which saw it scratch the elections threshold -- which, ironically, the party itself put on the books during the previous government.

The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party is doubtlessly enjoying the slump of rival Shas, once more under Aryeh Deri's stewardship, though it enjoys a solid and loyal base of ultra-Orthodox voters.

According to Prof. Avi Degani, head of the Geocartography institute which led the poll, the Likud's popularity does not seem compromised by the recent string of scandals in which Netanyahu and his party are embroiled, including the ongoing saga regarding Sarah Netanyahu's allegedly exorbitant expenses.

Prof. Degani attributed Netanyahu's lead to the loyalty of his core supporters, the traditional Likud voters who aren't overly impressed with the wave of criticism directed at the leader.

On the other hand, Netanyahu's chief rival Isaac Herzog is faltering, as the leader of the Zionist Union is facing allegations that he's lacking in charisma and perhaps even unfit to be at the helm of the country at this trying period. Tzipi Livni's lack of popularity represents another problem for the Zionist Union, with some arguing the party would be better off without her, and the results of the poll, where the party garnered 23 seats, bear this out.