Author Archives: Rabbi

Ministry Twists and Turns

Posted on June 23, 2011 | 7 comments

In an interesting week, I have been both attacked and defended by employees of Israel’s Foreign Ministry. What a strange turn of events, which tale follows.

Last month, I was part of a delegation of thirty rabbis who spent several days in Israel as guests of the Foreign Ministry, under the auspices of the World Zionist Organization. It was the result of a suggestion made by the new head of
the WZO (the first religious head of that organization founded by Theodor Herzl)
to the Foreign Minister that Israel should utilize the services of natural ambassadors – the pulpit rabbis across America – to get its message out. The usual channels do not work, and the pressure on Israel, cynical as it is, is intensifying. Israel is the only country in the world that has to defend its right to exist, defend its right to self-defense, and defend its right to its homeland – all to
a world that is losing interest in the Jewish national story and whatever
sympathy it once had.

Our group numbered ten from each stream, and many of the non-Orthodox rabbis (almost all creatures of the left) saw a side of Israel they  had not seen before: Israel under siege, Israel struggling for peace, Israel willing to accommodate, and the aftermath of all the withdrawals of the last decades. It was  a productive and rewarding week.

There was one question that I kept asking to the variety of speakers we met: why are you here? What right do the Jewish people have to the land of Israel ? I was shocked – but not surprised – by the number of Foreign Ministry officials – paid to explain Israel’s case to the world – who could not answer that question, which, of course, leads back to the Bible and the Creator of the Universe. Some did – of course – the religious bureaucrats, to be sure, and Minister Uzi Landau, an unabashed member of the old guard of Herut who heads a different ministry. They all base our right to the land of Israel in the Bible, in the fact that G-d
apportioned this parcel of real estate to the Jewish people for all eternity. One
even said he regular cites the first Rashi in Sefer Breisheet that states this
unequivocally. It is a point that I have harped on for months, that at least
frames the issue in dispute, and that – if uttered proudly – would at least
give Israel a credible argument in the world community. Otherwise, what the UN
giveth the UN can taketh away.

A number of FM honchos could not bring themselves to speak in those terms, likely for the best of reasons: they are secular and don’t believe in the Bible. And so they really have no answer to the question of “why are you here?” and can no more defend their right to Tel Aviv than to Hebron.

I spoke about this publicly, and a visitor from Israel present related this to a reporter for Makor Rishon, a religious-Zionist newspaper in Israel, who interviewed me two weeks ago, and then wrote in a banner headline on June 17, 2011, that “Israel’s Information Ambassadors do not believe in our rights to the land.” And he continued that, quoting me, that “many Rabbis were  disappointed…they had no answers.” The visit failed in its objectives, and that I was “disappointed” that no one in the Foreign Ministry can justify Israel’s right to exist in the land of Israel. He also reported that I had been “attacked” by a ministry official, Martin Feld-Fleks.

He continued: “The Foreign Ministry did not like Pruzansky’s criticism,” and each defended their particular arguments. Yigal Palmor (ministry spokesman, and a fine and dedicated official) said he answered all questions, and does not remember being asked that. Fleks just countered with sarcasm that he does not need to be lectured by “Zionists” from Teaneck, New Jersey.  (He is American by birth.)

Well. Sad to say (because these are my ideological soul mates), Makor Rishon got it partly right, and mostly wrong. Journalists are journalists, and truth always takes a backseat to whatever agenda the reporter advocates. If truth is the first casualty of war, it has been murdered again and again by journalists.

I wrote to him (and I trust it will be printed in this Friday’s paper) that he was much too negative, whereas the visit was mostly important and positive, and successful – well-conceived and well-executed. I don’t think most Rabbis were disappointed; certainly the non-Orthodox had other issues that were more important to them. There were a few officials who steadfastly refused to entertain the idea that we have a divine claim to the land of Israel, but Yigal Palmor was not of them. He was not asked “my question” because in his introductory remarks he already stated that we trace our claim to the Bible.

As for Flecks, a diehard secular, he didn’t “attack” me. We did have a sharp exchange when he asserted that “Israel has only two options; either create a Palestinian state or disappear.” I mentioned a third option (there are ten others) – grant legal resident status to those Arab residents of Judea and Samaria who accept Israeli sovereignty, much as you find in the United States where there are millions of legal resident-aliens who do not vote but are allowed to live, and designate the others of hostile elements to be treated as nations treat hostile enemies in their midst. (The US, of course, is unique; even illegal aliens are entitled to free health care and education, etc. but that is for a different essay.)
Fleks belittled that approach, to which I responded that he should not say
there are no other options but surrender (defeatism, in other words). When he
said that he would not want to play that hand in Vegas, I responded tartly that
the hand he did play – Oslo – destroyed 20,000 lives, engendered the loss of
substantial portions of the land of Israel, and left Israel more vulnerable
than before. He had no answer to that, which is why he chose the route of disparaging the “Zionists from Teaneck.” Of course, the questions stand, regardless of the provenance of the questioner, and the appalling inability to respond also stands, notwithstanding the position in the Foreign Ministry held by the answerer.

In the article, Fleks engaged in the gamesmanship of the diplomat, asserting that the “legal resident” status in the US that I mentioned refers to residents of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia who are US citizens but cannot vote in Presidential elections. He is wrong on a number of counts, but surely he knows that I was referring to legal aliens (holders of Green Cards) who are not US citizens.

Here’s the interesting twist: a few days ago, Makor Rishon interviewed Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (with whom we did not meet) and he said that, indeed, the Ministry has failed to emphasize our rights to the land of Israel, and that was one of the changes instituted by Foreign Minister Lieberman when he took office (obviously to the chagrin of some of the professional bureaucrats, who always know better and haven’t yet received that memo). Informed of my remarks and their rejection by his Ministry, Ayalon disagreed with his own ministry and stated that Rabbi Pruzansky “touched on the correct point” (naga ba-nekuda ha-nechona, in his words). “We do not emphasize enough our rights to the land… [but]  I do that in every forum with which I am involved.”

Is the Ministry on the same page, all imparting the same message ? Obviously not, and in that sense it is an accurate reflection of the state of Israeli society. If you wonder sometimes why Israel’s message is incoherent, it is because it speaks
with different voices – even in official circles. Israel is the only country in the world where the Minister of Trade offers opinions on military matters, and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs on agriculture, and the Minister without Portfolio
on every other portfolio. Apparently, we were deprived of a national existence
for so long, that literally everyone has something to say about everything – including cabdrivers in Tel Aviv and even Zionists from Teaneck.

But peace can only come from pride, from knowledge, and from strength. Respect from the international community can only from pride, knowledge and strength. Strength derives from knowing our roots, and weakness oozes from the rootless. That is why it was so important that Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke with such passion and fervor, and showed a little backbone in the Oval Office.

It is only when we speak the language of rights that we can also claim justice, and only then will we have the inner strength and fortitude to overcome our enemies and usher in days of redemption and peace.

7 Comments

Hometown Favoritism ?

Posted on June 15, 2011 | 12 comments

The discredited Anthony Weiner (soon to resign, unless he goes the
“thirty-days-of-therapy-and-now-I’m-cured” route) and his debacle raise an
interesting question about the Jewish community at large: should we continue to
support and defend an unabashed supporter of Israel, notwithstanding his
infamy? Does loyalty to the tribe – and the good works that a public person
does – overcome the personal degradation and embarrassment he brought on
himself and others?

For many liberals, the answer is clear. Weiner’s scandalous behavior should be overlooked (if not excused altogether) because he’s “fought for” important liberal causes, in the words of one D-list celebrity. The demise of Weiner, this theory goes, affects more than his own personal career, but also the success of a number of initiatives to which Weiner has dedicated his public life, and for which he
became known as an outspoken, brazen, and even arrogant advocate. Should Jews adopt the same approach, seeing as Weiner has long endorsed a strong pro-Israel line – Israel’s right of self-defense; calling for bans on arms sales to Saudi
Arabia, supporters of terrorism; opposing entry to “Palestinian” leaders,
albeit unelected; and castigating the New York Times for its anti-Israel bias?
He represents a district that is strongly pro-Israel (the district coincidentally
in which I used to live in Queens, although Weiner represented another district
back then). So, does he get a pass ? No.

Support for Israel should be, and is, grounded in morality and justice. It is certainly not a sop to pushy and wealthy Jews, as our enemies would have it. There simply aren’t enough Jews or Jewish money in America to make either the critical component in championing Israel’s cause. Thus is it clear why Americans have long been supportive of Israel’s rights and claims and impressed by its narrative, and why Americans with a passionate belief in the Bible are among Israel’s strongest supporters. Such support is rooted in shared values and common goals, and even the romance of the history of the Jewish people that returned to its homeland and reclaimed its sovereignty – as prophesied in the Bible – after nineteen centuries of exile.

While support for Israel should not be taken for granted, it should also not be perceived as an act of charity or compassion. It is simply the natural expression of all people who esteem justice and/or take the Bible seriously. Support for Israel has therefore always been bipartisan. Even though, today, such backing is much more enthusiastic among Republicans than among Democrats, that is true in the grass roots but not among the political class – where lovers of Israel are found on both sides of the aisle in large numbers. And while the pro-Israel community is based in the Jewish world, it could not possibly have the impact it does on American life if the number of non-Jewish pro-Israelites did not dwarf the number of committed Jewish devotees. We make a mistake in thinking that support for Israel is a favor, or limited to a small group, or precarious; it is none
of the above. It is elementary, widespread and reliable in the United States,
and the testimony of many non-Jewish politicians that they feel that Israel’s
fate is ultimately America’s fate – and that America will be judged by its
commitment to Israel – is sincere and pervasive. And, again, the more
religious-based the sentiment, the stronger it is.

The mystique of the Jewish people is based on our status as the People of the Book, a nation distinguished by G-d to transmit His moral notions to mankind. Our standing in the world is premised on the laws and morality of the Torah, which constitutes our wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations. While supporters of Israel number in their ranks both the chaste and the lecherous, it is far better – and far more salubrious and persuasive – if the public face of the pro-Israel community consists of many of the former, and none of the latter. It is just more representative of who we are as a people and what values we wish to project, and for which a Jewish state is a moral imperative.

We have to be a little more sophisticated, and mature, than to simply defend the indefensible – especially when almost all sensible, decent people have turned on him – just because he is on our team and plays one role well. That methodology is characteristic of ethnic groups that are less secure, and likely less worthy, of public sympathy for their causes. It was Cordell Hull, FDR’s Secretary of State, who allegedly said of the brutal Dominican dictator, Rafael Trujillo, an American ally: “He’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB,” an attitude that informed American foreign policy for decades with decidedly mixed results.

It should not be our attitude. Anthony Weiner’s reprehensible and bizarre conduct taint his public life even as it has devastated his private one. He needs to repent, make amends, and recover some sense of normalcy – spiritual and personal – so he can be a constructive member of society in years to come. That he is pro-Israel should not be a reason to overlook his sins or preserve his career. Someone else – undoubtedly equally or more pro-Israel – will succeed him and be a more effective spokesman and leader. And this scandal can become just a sordid footnote in the annals of our nation.

12 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

The Sotah Among Us

Posted on June 7, 2011 | Comments Off on The Sotah Among Us

The Talmud (Sotah 2a) asks: “why are the tractates of Sotah and Nazir juxtaposed? To teach us that one who sees the Sotah in her degradation should take a vow of abstinence from wine.” The Nazir is the individual, man or woman, who strives to elevate his/her spiritual level by accepting additional restrictions, such as abstention from wine. The Sotah is the married woman who improperly secludes herself with another man, is suspected of adultery, and undergoes a ritual ordeal in the Bet HaMikdash that adjudicates her guilt or innocence.

“One who sees the Sotah in her degradation should take a vow of abstinence from wine.” But why? Perhaps the Sotah herself is the one who should lay off the booze, not the innocent onlooker.

Rav Moshe Zvi Neria, the great thinker and founder of Bnai Akiva, commented that “seeing” here is not an idle or neutral pursuit, but “seeing” in the sense of
understanding. What must be understood ?

The Torah exists in two different realms – the normal and the abnormal. In the conventional world, our lives are bounded by mitzvot and service of G-d. Each field of endeavor, each human activity, and each desire is moderated and sanctified. These commandments – most of them , in fact – regulate a normal life and straighten out our paths.

But there is another realm in which Torah exists as well – the abnormal, typified by the Sotah. She represents the collapse of the Jewish family; even if innocent of adultery, she is still guilty of seclusion. A person who sees these deviations must immediately take corrective measures, otherwise he runs the great risk of thinking that the abnormal is normal, that everyone is doing it, or that somehow he is missing out on all the fun.

It is hard to escape the tawdriness and degradation of the modern world. Each day brings new “celebrities” in this genre. One day it is John Edwards, whose despicability is reaching its inevitable denouement in a courtroom. Another, it is Anthony Weiner, whose contrition today seems on par with his haughtiness on all other days. (Strange: Republican Congressman Chris Lee (NY-26) did  something similar but less salacious and didn’t lie about it but still resigned almost immediately. Are the moral rules different for Democrats ?) Not long ago, it was Elliot Spitzer, and even more recently Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Arnold
Schwarzenegger, et al.

We are forced to endure what seems like an avalanche of decadence, and we delude ourselves into thinking that it does not affect us. It does. How? We start to think that it is normal – sad, tragic, depraved – but normal. Everyone is doing it. “One who sees the Sotah in her degradation” must do something, lest he conclude it is not degraded at all, but rather part of life. Everyone is doing it.

But everyone is not doing it. Most marriages do not end in divorce, and most spouses do not cheat on each other, and most people do not murder or steal, and most of our children do not go off the derech. It only seems that way, because our world is filled with the ubiquitous images of the violators, but they are not typical at all. They are deviants. They are exceptions to the norm.

“One who sees the Sotah in her degradation should take a vow of abstinence from wine.” The onlookers, the passersby – they are the ones in danger of being seduced by the existence of the Sotah into thinking that the world is degenerate and corrupt while in reality it is mostly good and decent.

“Abstaining from wine” means that a person must temporarily deprive himself of the means of obscuring his moral sense, which alcohol will do in sufficient quantity. He has to counterbalance what he sees so it does not distort his world view. How that is to be done is not as simple as saying “get rid of the television.” That might help, but is still not enough. There is radio, there are newspapers,
there is the public domain. Sometimes it is difficult to walk down the street
these days without encountering a full range of Sotah-wannabes.

The least we can do – and the first step we must take as we observe the travails of Weiner, Edwards, and the rest is to realize that it is not normal, that it is atypical and disgraceful behavior, and that it is a moral offense, repugnant to our
sensibilities. If saying that certain conduct is “immoral” stamps us as judgmental, then so be it. Normal human beings make judgments all the time.

Where society is debauched, and too many are quick to rationalize misbehavior and trivialize iniquity, then we must go to the opposite extreme – for our own protection and to safeguard our own moral preserve. The Nazir and the Sotah are polar opposites – one takes on more prohibitions because the other observed too few. To uphold our moral standards in the face of unpopularity is a badge of honor, worthy of those who again preparing to receive the Torah as on the day it was given to us at Sinai.

Comments Off on The Sotah Among Us

Posted in Chumash, Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought

The Gender Benders

Posted on June 2, 2011 | Comments Off on The Gender Benders

     All things weird seem to originate in California. Just last week, a public school in Oakland subjected its youthful charges to a day of “gender diversity” training. Led by a Gender Spectrum trainer (with, unfortunately but typically, a Jewish name, and an appearance straight from the 1960’s), children were taught that “you can be a boy, you can be a girl, you can be both, or you can be neither.” Such is freedom of choice in the land of the free, which is liable not to be confused with land of the “educated” in the immediate future.

      Add to this the news that a Canadian couple has decided to hide their newborn’s sex from the world in order to encourage a gender-neutral upbringing (he looks like a boy, or Heaven help him), and we have social engineering run amok and a new method of pushing the ends of the envelope to challenge existing social norms.

      But why stop there ? For example, imagine a world in which children were free to choose their race, a world in which the troglodytes who determine race based on some reprehensible criterion like “skin color” are forever silenced ? In one fell swoop, we could eliminate the scourge of racism. Blacks could choose to be white and thereby increase sales at the Gap; whites could choose to be black and dominate the NBA. Asians could choose to be white and have their grades decline. Skin color is so limiting, and judging one’s race by skin color is so  antiquated.

     Then, we can allow people to choose their nationalities. Why must that designation be confined to countries of origin or residence ? North Koreans and Saudi Arabians can become “Americans by choice” and, in an instant, free at last. Americans can opt for Chinese citizenship and thereby still remain the dominant country in the 21st century. John Lennon lives ! “Imagine there’s no countries!”

    Imagine there’s no intelligence, common sense and morality, and we have a better description of what is happening. From one perspective, the decline and abuse of public schools continues. Have American youth aced math, science and classical literature that taxpayer-financed schools can afford to spend time on  indoctrination – and indoctrination of such a perverse nature ? Of course, the  Bible cannot be taught for fear of whatever, and so children cannot learn that “male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). But “anti-Bible” apparently can be taught, all in the guise of teaching sensitivity, anti-bullying, mutual  respect, etc.

     From another perspective, the Oakland propaganda campaign recalls the adage that some ideas are so preposterous that only someone university-educated could believe them. Even worse, it is sinister, as it corrupts one of the fundamental functions of education: the capacity to draw distinctions, and to learn about life through the ability to distinguish. What must offend the “Gender Spectrum Coordinator” is the idea that men and women are different, fundamentally and irrevocably so, and the world was created in such a manner and we are all better off for it. There are great similarities (each was created in the “image of G-d”), but there are profound differences in the way men and women think, act, interact, communicate, feel, emote, and live. It is what makes the world interesting, and what enables men and women in a normal society to pool their common resources, fuse their disparate personalities – and build homes that rear healthy, functional children. One need not adhere to a rigid view of roles (no male nurses, no female engineers!) to recognize that there are roles and tasks that are uniquely suited to males and females respectively, and that a stable society depends on them.

     A healthy, functional child – male or female – ideally benefits from both male and female influences. Where that does not or cannot happen, it is a tragedy. It is certainly never a desideratum under any circumstances. Some single parents make it work despite the challenges; most struggle, and often the struggles are not at all attributable to the dedication of that parent but to the inherent difficulties of the situation. But no one would deny that there is a unique role for father and mother that only each can play. Strike that – someone would deny it; it is actually being taught in Oakland, and likely elsewhere.

     How is that education ? If a teacher stood before a class and routinely taught that 1+1=3, such a teacher would be fired (or in the public school system where few are fired, the teacher would be put in the rubber room for years at full pay, and then retired at full pension). To teach that gender doesn’t matter, or is a
matter of choice, is simply false. What can be excused as the idiosyncrasies of
a meshugganeh couple in Toronto is inexcusable in the American public
education system. It is gross mis-education. It is also an obvious attempt to
further the homosexual agenda.

     What underlies this curriculum is the desire to de-stigmatize homosexuality, and the attempt to make sexual attractions as morally innocuous as one’s choice of ice cream flavors. Clearly, one who can “choose” to be a boy, girl, both or neither can also “choose” to become attached to any or all of the above. Not content to proclaim that sexual orientation is innate, the gender-benders seek to enshrine their views by promoting the notion that gender itself is a hollow, social contrivance.
And people expect their children to actually learn something from these schools ? It even sounds contradictory: how can orientation be innate, when gender itself is a matter of choice ? Hmmm… could the exact opposite be true ?

    This follows on the heels of a new comprehensive survey (CDC) that revealed that 1.3% of Americans identify as homosexual, a survey that has the homosexual lobby reeling. They like to assert that 10-15% or more of the population are homosexuals – the difference between roughly 4 million people and 40 million people. Interestingly, an even more recently released Gallup poll claimed that about 25% of those surveyed felt that one of every four people is homosexual, owing, if nothing else, to the high profile of the homosexual community. (Jews have a similar profile.  Years ago, a non-Jewish lawyer
colleague of mine estimated – at my request – that there are approximately
40-50 million Jews in America (!). His deduction was simply based on the
prominence of the Jewish community in American life. He was shocked to learn  that his estimate quadrupled the Jewish population in the entire world.)

      In both cases, prominence is conflated with prevalence. Homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the media, arts and entertainment industries – all high profile occupations – and therefore their numbers are wildly inflated. But their influence is even more wildly exaggerated, and the deference paid to them – including such educational travesties as above – absolutely ridiculous compared to their real numbers, which is roughly equivalent to the Jewish population in America.

     To be sure, what is private should be kept private, and tolerance, love, mutual respect and fair treatment should pertain to all. But Americans are done a disservice when their children’s education is distorted, and classroom time usurped for the indoctrination of views that are false, harmful, and – because they are so unnatural – ultimately futile.

Comments Off on The Gender Benders

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events