Author Archives: Rabbi

     One would think that the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next US Secretary of Defense would have caused Jews, and Americans’ comfortable with the projection of American power across the globe, some cause for concern, and for Jews, a reassessment of their voting patterns. Not so fast.

     Obama opponents are not surprised, Obama acolytes are unperturbed, but the most interesting reaction came from a well-known ADL voice who opined to the Wall Street Journal that he does not understand how President Obama could choose someone “who policies are so out-of-sync with his own,” or something of that sort. Funny how the obvious answer – that Obama chose someone whose policies are quite in sync with his own (all election rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding) never occurred to this commentator.

    Indeed, both the Hagel nomination for the Pentagon and the John Kerry nomination to head the State Department are ominous but not unforeseen. (This space anticipated a Kerry nomination back in October.) And that is not because of the unfortunate statements that Hagel has made over the years about Jews and Israel, nor because of Hagel’s astonishingly insensitive defense of his Israel record: “I have voted to give Israel about $35B over the years,” as if to say, you know, that’s all the Jews want anyway, money.

    We should not bandy about the phrase “Jew-hater” too wantonly; it is a hideous accusation today, akin to being called a “racist.” The accusation is the indictment, and punishment comes forthwith. In fact, there is a limit as to how anti-Jewish any American politician can be, whatever their private beliefs, and such accusations here are unwarranted and undeserving. Nor does “money” play a role in ascertaining one’s support or antagonism for Israel; Rand Paul is charged with being unsympathetic to Israel because he opposes foreign aid on the grounds that it makes little sense for America to borrow money from China to give to Israel, or any other country. That sounds like a reasonable proposition to me, but for the simple fact that America’s military aid to Israel is largely spent in the United States (approximately 70% of it) and so amounts to a US subsidy to the US arms industry. So one can be pro-Israel and oppose military assistance, or be anti-Israel and support military assistance. In any event, Congressional support for Israel is so bi-partisan and widespread that changes in aid are unlikely in the near future no matter who heads the Pentagon or the State Department.

     The Hagel problem boils down to a set of values and policies that will reduce the American profile in the world – something that can only cause the anti-American evildoers to rejoice. (Indeed, the Hagel nomination was greeted in Teheran with dancing in the streets; sometimes, an enemy’s visceral reaction is more indicative of the true nature of events than any spin politicians and talking heads can put on the matter. There is no Hagel thesis-antithesis-synthesis ahead: he, like Obama, is at core an isolationist who is not at all proud of the role American has played in the world. That is not say that Hagel will embark on his own international apology tour as Obama did, or that Hagel will be caught bowing to the Saudi king. It is that bad things happen in the world – instability festers, problems linger until they explode – when the United States is in retreat.

     Israel is worried, because they assume that a Hagel as head of Defense means that the United States will never attack Iran, nor necessarily cooperate with Israel if Israel wishes to attack unilaterally. The sharing of intelligence will be muted; since that is mutual, that can affect US intelligence in the Middle East as well. The nightmare scenario of a nuclear armed Iran –and what that means for Israel and for the United States – is that much closer. A nuclear Iran will dominate the Persian Gulf destabilize the flow and the price of oil. In effect, Iran will play a more dominant role in the American economy, especially given Obama’s opposition to oil-drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and the Keystone pipeline. Rather than make America energy-independent – a distinct and realistic possibility within a decade – Obama is leaving the US at the mercy of Iran and prefers reliance on the sun and the wind. No wonder Iranians are dancing in the streets; Hagel has even long opposed sanctions against Iran.

     Much has been made – too much – of Hagel’s distinguished service in Vietnam, and all Americans honor that service. But service in the military qualifies one to head the Pentagon and formulate strategic doctrine as much as being a welfare recipient qualifies that person to head the Department of Health and Human Services. Patriotism is an admirable characteristic, but not necessarily a “qualification” for any particular job. As a Senator, Chuck Hagel was wrong more often than right – especially in his contemptuous dismissal of the Bush surge – the “worst mistake since Vietnam” – which, in fact, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. (Granted, it was a victory since squandered by the current administration.)

     Hagel is a problem, but John Kerry might prove to be an even bigger problem. Jews are always made a little nervous by people who deny or assert unawareness about their Jewishness. As is well known, Kerry’s grandfather immigrated to the United States, changed his name from Kohn to Kerry, converted, and passed himself off as an Irish Catholic until he allegedly met a tragic end. At times, Jewish roots inspire pride and further investigation into one’s heritage; other times, Jewish roots are perceived as painful and threatening, and induce an unconsciousness desire to suppress those memories and renounce those roots.

    But Kerry’s Jewish connection is not as troublesome as are his politics. It was just a few years ago that he described himself as a “good friend” of Basher al-Assad, the current butcher of Damascus. Assuming that Assad did not just in the last year transform himself into a monster, what sort of “friendship” was that? Indeed, while the personal relationship is probably exaggerated, the policy conclusions are not: Kerry believes in the stability wrought by dictators whom he thinks can be won over as American allies. That particular prescription has been fools’ gold for almost a century, and certainly – in the Arab world – in the last half-century; the United States has benefited little from those attempts.

    Essentially, the Arab world provides the US almost nothing but oil. But for oil, there would be no talk, or need to talk, of an “alliance.” Those “alliances” have always been unpredictable anyway, and such relationships have proved hazardous to Americans and US interests time and again. Dependency on despots is never salubrious. It should trouble Americans, therefore, the Obama administration has chosen energy dependence over independence, and chosen to align itself with the Muslim world – Turkey, Egypt, et al – and in the process completely ignoring the anti-American shifts that have occurred in those countries. The Kerry/Hagel dialectic will only hasten the reorientation of US foreign policy. That is not only bad for Israel and bad for the world, it is bad for America as well.

     Such are the consequences of elections, my fellow Jews. The spin being spun is that there is more to being pro-Israel than supporting Likud policies down the line. All true – but the Israeli political party must attuned to the Obama administration in its current drift and future trends is not Likud or Labor or even Kadima which is moving Achora so quickly it will soon be defunct; rather, Obama’s foreign policy is more closely aligned today with the Balad Party of Haneen Zoabi – who is also not worried about an Iranian bomb, who also favors a two-state solution (although she might mean two Arab states), and who is obviously pro-Muslim.

     As Chuck Hagel said quite forcefully several years ago, he is not the “Senator from Israel but a United States Senator.” Whatever his personal feelings towards Israel, his policies reveal that he clearly has never valued the US-Israel relationship as much as most of his colleagues do and as the American people and most prior administrations have. Assertively pro-Israel Democrats – like Chuck Schumer, for example – know the score and the problem and the spin, and are surely being tested now, including wrestling with this conundrum: the Kerry/Hagel approach is very much in sync with that of the President they enthusiastically endorsed, not at all a departure from it, and not good for Israel or the United States. As if the disregard of America’s spiraling deficit was not enough, you got what you voted for.

      Now what?

 (The above are my thoughts alone. Any similarity to the thoughts of other people, groups or institutions – real or imagined, living or dead – is purely coincidental.)

      The new star of the Israeli election season (mercifully short, at approximately three months) is Naftali Bennett, leader of the “Bayit Hayehudi,” the Jewish Home. That party, a merger of the old National Religious Party and a break-away, the Ichud Haleumi, National Union Party, itself is an accomplishment that ranks as a minor miracle: for the first time in memory, religious right-wing Israelis have a united home and need not split their votes among splinter parties, and for the first time ever, such a party has natural appeal even to Israelis who are not necessarily right-wing or religious. The ever-fickle polls still show that Habayit Hayehudi is poised to become Israel’s third-largest political party after these elections, and possibly even the second largest party. How did this happen?

     Bennett himself is that rare politician who combines background and attributes that make him appealing to large sectors of the population. Born in California, he spent his early years here in Teaneck, with his family proud members of our own Congregation Bnai Yeshurun. (On a visit here just two months ago, he stopped by his old house and spoke in shul as well). His parents made aliya while he was still a child, he studied in the Israeli educational system, and served 22 years in the IDF including a long stint as an officer in the elite commando unit Sayeret Matkal. He is religious, but married a woman from a secular family. He is independently wealthy, having co-founded and then sold a high-tech company specializing in anti-fraud software. He served as chief-of-staff to Binyamin Netanyahu (before the latter returned to high office) and head of the YESHA Council. He is fiercely pro-settlement, but lives in tony Raanana.

Think of the demographics targeted: New immigrants, veteran Israeli fighters, religious Jews, secular Jews, settlers and entrepreneurs, i.e., almost everyone who votes. And his party includes representatives of those groups, as well as municipal leaders from struggling communities who can be the voice of Israelis who have not yet been lifted up by the waves of prosperity in Israel. For the first time, a so-called “religious-Zionist” party has a Knesset candidate – Ayelet Shaked – who describes herself as “secular,” based on the sensible and compelling premise that the “Jewish Home” includes as well non-observant Jews and Israelis who care deeply about Jewish life and continuity. It is composed of Ashkenazim and Sefaradim. It is a far cry from the NRP of old, which saw itself essentially as primarily responsible for religious life and therefore served (with some exceptions) as religious functionaries, “kashrut supervisors in the Socialist government.” Bennett aspires to more – leadership, and national leadership at that – and why not? He has more life experience in a variety of fields at age 40 than did a certain community organizer who himself rode the perfect political storm to victory in the United States.

The credibility of Bennett’s challenge to the political establishment and the possibility that this election cycle could be the beginning of a new revolution in Israeli politics has, of course, frightened that very establishment which has attempted to discredit Bennett in a number of typically cynical ways. Most recently, Bennett was accused of fomenting a mutiny in the IDF by calling on soldiers to refuse orders to expel Jews from settlements. That accusation was blatently false.

Said charges grew out of an interview that Bennett gave in the Israeli TV hot box known as Mish’al Ham (Hot Mish’al) presided over by veteran Israeli reporter Nissim Mish’al. Mish’al provokes, antagonizes and tries to bully his interviewees, unabashedly distorts their words, cuts them off mid-sentence –and achieves high ratings in the process. Israelis love it. I watch it, and it must be like watching a mud wrestling match in which the viewers themselves are splattered with mud, and emerge exhausted and sweaty.

For example, after the contretemps over refusal of orders, Mish’al asked Bennett (translation mine): “Your primary concern is the settlements. But 800,000 Israeli children live below the poverty line. Why doesn’t that interest you?” And that was followed by this journalistic doozy: “Why do you hate Arabs?” (Hmmm… and when did you stop beating your wife?) Mish’al’s style evokes that of the relentless attack dog Mike Wallace, but Mish’al is an attack dog with rabies. When one of Mish’al’s panelists – more like a cheering squad of fellow journalists – began to explain that Bennett has to encourage refusal and must hate Arabs “because he leads a party of extremists” – and Bennett started to protest – he was interrupted by Misha’l who explained “that was a statement, not a question; there is no need for you to respond.” To be fair to Mish’al, he torments and abuses all his guests, not just the right-wingers.

That background is useful in understanding what preceded it: Mish’al’s question: “what would you do as a soldier if you were told to evacuate Jews from their homes.” Bennett answered that he would be incapable of carrying out such an assignment in good conscience, and would ask his commander to be excused from it.

Well, that unleashed a torrent of criticism that Bennett was inciting refusal, which would cause anarchy, provoke a civil war and lead to the destruction of the Jewish state and an end to the Zionist dream – all, probably, within a few minutes of each other. When Bennett insisted he was not calling for refusal but conscientious objection – and reiterated that several times – the distinction was lost on his interviewer, the panel, and the gaggle of squealing politicians across the landscape who immediately heaped abuse upon him.

Shame on them, and not only because anarchy, civil war and self-destruction will result from further expulsions of Jews and not because of the conscientious objection of soldiers who joined the IDF to defend Jews rather than persecute them, but rather because the nuance of Bennett’s reasonable response was either intentionally or unintentionally missed in the intense atmosphere of the program and the campaign.

On a practical level, soldiers have frequently opted out of participating in these violent acts against fellow Jews; that is why one rarely sees a kipa-wearing soldier among the expelling forces either in Gush Katif or some outposts in Judea and Samaria. Intelligent commanders have respected that and not placed their soldiers in the awkward positions of having to expel their parents and friends from their homes.

And there is a profound difference between conscientious objection and insubordination. A refusal of orders challenges the authority of the entity that gave the order, and delegitimizes it; a conscientious objection accepts the legitimacy of the order, but declares that that recipient of the order, on a personal level, is unable to carry it out and wishes to be excused. That distinction should be patently clear, even in the heart of an obsessive election season, but for the barefaced hypocrisy that abounds.

How reasonable is conscientious objection, aside from the fact that every military among the world’s functioning democracies recognizes it?  No less an “authority” than Ariel Sharon said on July 13, 1995 that a soldier who is called upon the act against his conscience (and he meant the expulsion of Jews from their homes) “should turn to his commander personally, say that he cannot carry out such an order, and pay the price for it.” That Sharon later changed his opinion, among other changes in his life, should be attributed to nothing less than crass politics. A 2004 proclamation calling the expulsion of Jews “ethnic cleansing” and a “crime against humanity,” and imploring the government not to issue such orders and for the soldiers to “listen to the voice of their consciences – national and human – and not participate in activities that will stain them,” was signed by hundreds of prominent Israelis from across the political and religious spectrum – including Benzion Netanyahu (the PM’s late father), Shmuel ben Arzi (the PM’s late father-in-law) and Ido Netanyahu, the PM’s brother. Yet, PM Netanyahu chose here to excoriate Bennett.

Was Bennett’s statement so extreme? On the contrary, it was reasoned, principled, moral and just – none of which have anything in the slightest to do with politics, and hence the ferocious and contrived overreaction. Bennett’s response – read and heard unfiltered, and without the caustic, duplicitous commentary of the chattering classes and their political patrons – struck the electorate as so balanced and decent that, almost immediately, Habayit Hayehudi gained several seats in the polls, and so the issue was dropped, sure to re-surface in distorted form and at a time and place when Bennett cannot respond adequately.

Until then, one can only hope that Bennett’s electoral appeal continues to broaden. He is proudly pro-settlement and firmly against a Palestinian state (for cogent reasons that Likud politicians long advocated but quickly abandon when in power). He advocates cooperation on economic and quality-of-life issues with the Arab leadership that can only improve the conditions under which their residents live, which itself might reduce tensions. He favors strong military responses to attacks on Jews, and, of course, he promotes deepening the Jewish character of the state in a way that most Jews, even those not defined as observant, appreciate and would embrace.

Democracy is a most unwieldy form of government, and the Israeli electorate has a history of bewildering and unpredictable choices. Likud has disappointed in the past, and Netanyahu’s future statecraft is a mystery, both to his party, to his voters, and maybe even to himself. His party will win a plurality of the votes and he will again serve as Prime Minister (although the merger with Likud Beiteinu is shaping up as a colossal blunder that will cost them seats).

The natural home for fearful Likud voters, and for so-called secular Israelis who cherish tradition and want to safeguard the Jewishness of the State of Israel, is the Jewish Home, which, together with its leaders and its platform, has a beautiful ring to its name.