Author Archives: Rabbi

The Twin Heresies

Posted on June 24, 2009 | 1 comment

I must confess that I am guilty of the “twin heresies” of modern Jewish political life, as I reject the two prevailing fantasies that animate all peace processors and many others as well.

Fantasy #1: Peace is coming soon, perhaps with 1,5, 10 or 20 years.

Fantasy #2: The State of Israel cannot be destroyed, no matter what Jews, politicians or armies do.

I must dissent from both.

One of my first articles on these matters dates to 1994, and was entitled “The Peace Idol.” It described how the pursuit of peace was an idolatry, with its own set of rituals, commandments, holidays, saints, and, yes, sacrifices; how the process was self-justifying, and was therefore impervious to reason or countervailing notions; and how the idol demanded to be worshipped, and was relentless in its powers to convince otherwise rational people to act completely irrationally – abandoning the pretense of having red lines, inviolable interests and values, and even a clear articulation of diplomatic goals or a way to measure success.

Even when we think the idol had to shatter – in the wake of the Oslo debacle, failed surrender of land, terror, suicide bombings, lynching, kidnappings, brutal murder of captured soldiers, war in the cities, Gush Katif expulsion and its aftermath, the Lebanon fiasco, etc. – it still commands allegiance and deference, and expects more sacrifices. It lives on, like a vampire – almost impossible to slay.

Yet, after everything we have experienced in the last 15 years, the idol is stronger than ever, and Israel’s concessions are seemingly never enough. (The basic tenet of the Peace Idol is that if peace has not come, it is only because Israel’s concessions have not been sufficient.) Every promise has been breached, every expectation has not been realized – the same rugs of “no terror, no incitement, etc.” are sold multiple times to the gullible buyers, and it is on the market again now – and, nonetheless, there is not a shred of evidence that peace is any closer than it was 15 years ago. Indeed, all credible evidence indicates that peace is further away, that Israel has just been made more vulnerable, and that the Arab appetite to destroy Israel has just been whetted and indulged.

But this conclusion – that peace is not coming anytime soon, that we should stop looking for it and expecting that the next concession or two will succeed – is informed not only by the cold wind of reality but also by the soothing words of Torah. Rav Kook wrote (Orot Hamilchama) that war is an unfortunate but necessary component of life before the Messianic Era. “It obliterates evil, and the world becomes more perfected…The same generations that were involved in war in ancient times, and the men of those times – are the same great figures whom we cherish for their holy stature. All the events in the world are intertwined to bring the light of G-d into the world.”

Yes, Rav Kook notes the saddest aspect of this – the death of innocents – but our emotions do not dictate the reality, which is that man is imperfect, drawn to conflict, and only the naïve assume that war can be wished or negotiated away permanently. (Memo to President Obama.)

But the first heresy of modern times is to deny, renounce and reject that simple truth. Jews simply do not want to accept this, and many Israelis – those, like former PM Olmert, who are just “tired” – do not want to hear it, and undoubtedly many are motivated by congenial notions of the benefits of peace. Jews embrace this fantasy mostly because it is unpleasant to contemplate the converse. But unpleasantness does not make it any less true.

The second heresy is my belief that Israel is subject to destruction, certainly if it embraces policies that tend to weaken it and throw it at the mercy of its enemies. For this I have been accused of having a lack of faith and worse. I seem not to realize that, as I have been told, G-d would never allow Israel to be destroyed (since He “owes” us after the Holocaust), or that Midrashim indicate that Israel cannot be destroyed, or that Israel has nuclear weapons, or that it is too gloomy a prospect to even consider, and therefore it cannot happen.

This fantasy is as dangerous as the first, and in some way nurtures and underwrites the first. I do not know how G-d runs His world. All I do know is that He gave us a Torah to study and obey, and gave us minds with which we are empowered to make reasoned decisions about life. The same people who argue that G-d could not allow the State of Israel to be destroyed because of the Holocaust as the same people whose ancestors likely argued that G-d would never allow His Bet Hamikdash to be destroyed because… because, so they said. And the interpretations of Midrashim come and go (remember that Moshiach was coming imminently, after the first Gulf War in 1991, because of the Yalkut Shimoni ?) And if a powerful empire like the Soviet Union can implode before our eyes, then, as depressing as it sounds, it is not too far-fetched to envision a scenario where Israel succumbs to the combined might of a variety of hostile armies, or consents to its dissolution in a bi-national state of Palestine, or Israstine, or Palrael, or some other dire outcome.

Therefore, politics, diplomacy, statecraft, and military planning must occur in the real world and not the world of illusions and wishful thinking. Bad policy choices can have horrible, even fatal, outcomes, whether made by physicians, attorneys, rabbis or politicians. Those policy choices have to reflect our core values and interests, and politicians who adopt them should be embraced and supported – even if some are offended, and even if threats are made to surrender or else.

Yet, isn’t it possible that the Arab world will someday soon accept the existence of a Jewish state, and agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state on only a part of the territory they claim, and they will forever renounce the use of force and agree – for the betterment of their people’s lives – to live in peace, tranquility, harmony and mutual respect ? Isn’t it possible – just hear me out – that the Arabs will recognize that Jews also have a claim to part of the land, and that together they can make the desert bloom and usher in an era of tolerance and brotherhood for all mankind ?

Isn’t it ?

THAT is the power of the Peace Idol. It is relentless, and most unforgiving. It will not let go, unless you let go of it.

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Dueling Rhetoric

Posted on June 17, 2009 | 4 comments

One way to evaluate PM Netanyahu’s much-anticipated speech at Bar-Ilan University this past Sunday night is to conclude wistfully that it didn’t take long for him to cave. Running on a platform of no concessions to the Palestinians, and implicitly rejecting a future Palestinian state (even, at times, explicitly), at the first hint of pressure Netanyahu sacrificed bargaining power, the credibility of Israel’s right-wing political parties, and good judgment by succumbing to American pressure moments after the first nudge was felt.

Surely we can expect more from our putative leaders – or perhaps not. After all, the operative principle of Israeli politics for the last thirty years has been “Labor proposes and Likud disposes.” It was Likud that surrendered Sinai, dismantled settlements there and recognized the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” and Likud that expelled Jews from Gaza and North Shomron – all over the vociferous objections of its ideological stalwarts, who are disappointed time and again.

Netanyahu’s de facto acceptance of even a “demilitarized” Palestinian state, from that perspective, moves the goalposts of Israeli politics even further away from where mainstream opinion was even fifteen years ago, leaving Israel without a major political party that asserts that the Jewish people have exclusive rights and claims to the land of Israel provided to us by G-d in the Torah (a point also ignored by Netanyahu in his otherwise excellent historical narrative). And, of course, anyone who believes that a Palestinian state, should it ever (never) come into being, would ever be demilitarized should seek immediate professional help, and then read a little history.

Germany was to be completely and permanently demilitarized under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I. And it was – until Hitler came to power, perceived that clause as demeaning to Germans, and swiftly and publicly proceeded to militarize Germany, until the quantity of its weaponry – in a very short time – exceeded that of the other European nations. What was the response of Europe to this blatant violation of Versailles ? Nothing at all, and the results are well known.

The Oslo Agreements, as well, promised a demilitarized Palestinian entity – with several thousand police officers who could bear only pistols, just for law enforcement purposes. Within several months, an army of 25,000 Arabs armed with machine guns and advanced weapons had been formed, and soon 1500 Jewish lives were lost. In fact, the Hebron Agreement that Netanyahu signed on his first go-round as prime minister permitted only pistols to the Hebron police force. But they were so jubilant at Israel’s withdrawal from Hebron that they immediately began firing their machine guns in the air. So much for agreements.

And does anyone actually believe that when the Palestinians breach such an agreement, and begin militarizing and attacking, that the world will have the slightest sympathy for Israel’s plight, or that Israel will have the fortitude to defend itself ? Words on paper never matter, and the most recent example is telling: Israel’s surrender of Gaza was accompanied by Sharon’s stern warnings that any rockets from Gaza would be met immediately with overwhelming force. Otherwise astute columnists like Charles Krauthammer averred that if Israel were attacked from Gaza after leaving Gaza, they would have the unassailable right to bomb Gaza to smithereens, “thirty Israeli rockets for every Palestinian rocket fired.” Of course, that did not happen, and thousands of rockets and ruined lives later, even Israel’s reluctant and brief invasion of Gaza was met with international condemnation and cries of “disproportionate use of force, killing of civilians,” etc., eventually forcing a withdrawal and a gradual return of the rockets falling on Israeli’s heads. Now why would one think the same thing would not happen here, only worse because these attacks from the “demilitarized” Palestinian state would aim at Israel’s heartland – its major cities and international airport ? Of course it makes no sense, anymore than we can expect the Palestinians to adhere to their tenth written promise to stop all anti-Jewish incitement in their media and schools.

So here’s another approach to Netanyahu’s speech – a brighter spin, if you will – that renders it a brilliant piece of political theater. This address had only two audiences: the domestic Israeli scene, and Barack Obama. One audience it did not address was the Arab world, despite the mandatory rhetorical nods to that population of incessant Jew-haters. Netanyahu might have correctly assumed that the Arabs will never agree even to negotiate over a “demilitarized” state at all, much less accept one; indeed, his speech and proposals were already rejected by Arab spokesmen as non-starters. Therefore, the ball is thrown into their court, in a way in which public opinion – in the short-term, and only in the short term – can accept, to wit: “If the Palestinians want a state, and Israel wants security, then the Palestinians can have a state and give Israel security by renouncing an army,” which in any event is superfluous. And Netanyahu studiously avoided the trap that he and all his predecessors have fallen into – making tangible concessions (prisoner releases, checkpoint removals, provision of money to the terrorist government, and surrenders of land) as “goodwill” gestures. That does not mean he won’t eventually do it, only that he did not append those to this speech.

As a result the domestic Israeli audience, desperate always to nurture the illusion that peace is at hand and to avoid an open rupture in the US-Israel alliance, overwhelmingly supported Netanyahu’s approach in the address (71% in the Haaretz poll) – even though 55% felt that he merely succumbed to American pressure. In that sense, he was able to stabilize his domestic standing merely by saying a word – “state” – and that is politically shrewd.

But his main audience was Obama, and in that regard he succeeded, and on Obama’s turf. After all, why did Netanyahu have to speak at all ? Why didn’t he just continue his negotiations and policy implementation through normal diplomatic channels ? After all, no Arab leader felt compelled to address the world after Obama’s Cairo speech, so why did Netanyahu run to Bar-Ilan ?

The answer is that Netanyahu realized that Obama is, literally, all talk. Obama thinks words are deeds, or at least matter more than deeds (hence, his verbal thrusts at Iran or North Korea, which he confuses for real policies). If talk is the coin of the realm, then talk, offer words – and nothing else. Even be so magnanimous – “moderate” – as to say the word “state.” Indeed, the media so obsessed on the question of whether or not Netanyahu would say “state” that had he spoken of the “Palestinian state of mind” or the “Palestinian state of the art weaponry”, the media have exulted in the juxtaposition of the words “Palestinian” and “state,” and that would have sufficed. In the chess match of dueling rhetoric, Netanyahu checked Obama – and when Obama speaks again in another forum on these same issues, as he assuredly will, Netanyahu should speak again – maybe in the United States, and match him speech for speech, cliché for cliché.

That is why I am supportive of Netanyahu and his approach.

The only downside is that words eventually catch up to the wordsmith, and eventually Israel will be held accountable. Once accepting a “state,” then the details of that state become subject to negotiation – unless Israel develops a backbone and stands firm against Obama, saying “no” to him as has every single country that he has asked for a favor in the last five months (the G-8 and the Arab world, not mention the rogue states). Israel can say “no” as well – as it is doing on the “natural growth in settlements” issue – and the world as we know it will not end.

And even in that instance, the notion that Israel has, to an extent, repudiated – again – the Zionist vision, and scorned the divine gift of the land of Israel, is unsettling, even if the existence of such a “state” has attached conditions that make its realization extremely unlikely. It is analogous to a Rabbi permitting a Jew to eat a ham sandwich, but only if the ham sandwich is located in a vault to which only one person has the key, and that person is unavailable. Principles do matter.

It is not the speech I would have given, but I am not the Prime Minister of Israel. For a prime minister of Israel – especially compared to his predecessors – it was clever, ingenious, and even devious – matching Obama’s rhetoric with his own.

As always, though, Netanyahu – like the rest of us – will be judged in the future by deeds and not only his words. We should maintain our principles, and support him from his right flank and not at his side, challenging him and strengthening him as is warranted by events.

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Israel

The Attack of the Moralists

Posted on June 15, 2009 | 5 comments

It is a bitter irony clearly lost on its editors that the so-called “Jewish Week” chose to impugn the well-regarded Rav Dovid Cohen during the very week the Torah castigates Miriam for slandering her brother Moshe (actually, mildly rebuking him). Perhaps the message of the weekly Torah portion was unknown to the writer, someone named “Staff Report” – apparently to protect his identity.

Rav Cohen came to my neighborhood approximately two years ago and allegedly said publicly that cheating on taxes is permissible for Jews as long as there is no desecration of G-d’s name through their arrest and exposure. It is hard to believe he would make such a statement, given the preponderance of Rabbinical opinion that the Talmudic principle “the law of the land is the law” applies first and foremost to areas such as taxes. Add to that Rav Cohen’s statement – quoted in the paper – that his remarks had been “totally misunderstood” and that he “repudiated” them, one wonders what was the necessity of finding a “news” story in this, two years after the event that I, living in this neighborhood, had not heard about? Isn’t that lashon hara (slanderous, evil talk) of the worst kind, and so from where do Jewish journalists derive the right to engage in blatant violations of the Torah – while paradoxically claiming the moral high ground and ethical superiority over their subjects ?

Newspapers often speak of the public’s right to know… whatever the journalist deems newsworthy. It is interesting that while Western law speaks almost exclusively in terms of the “rights” of individuals, the Torah never speaks directly of “rights” but quite frequently and extensively about the “obligations” of individuals. “Rights” flow, if they do at all, from the mutual “obligations” people have to each other, but people generally have no inherent right to “know” anything, certainly not if there is no imminent danger to them or to others. We do have an “obligation” to treat each other fairly, decently, and with respect.

But character assassination is the sport of journalists and so it is no surprise that Mr. (or Ms.) Report resurrected a dead, non-story and trumpeted their findings. It is one reason why I personally never read the so-called “Jewish Week” (this particular article was forwarded to me), nor do I understand why any serious Torah Jew would. The spiritual harm is insidious and persistent, and the advantages nebulous at best.

There is a broader point here as well. The media delights in skewering its favorite targets, with each editor or writer having his own favorites whipping boys or girls. Bernard Goldberg, in his new book describing the “Slobbering Love Affair” between the mainstream media and Barack Obama – essentially committing themselves to do whatever it took to ensure his election – lambasted the media for, among other things, its tendentious, baseless attack on John McCain’s relationship with a female lobbyist, while completely ignoring the effects on Obama of listening to twenty years of rabid, anti-American and anti-Jewish sermons from Obama’s pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright (its influence on Obama is becoming more apparent every day) or some of his other sordid associations. All this led to the election of what one commentator called the “most unknown person” ever to be elected president. But journalists love to expose the moral foibles of others, and some of them even live for that. Here is Goldberg’s suggestion:

“I have long thought that it would be a good idea to find some man or women with oodles of money and start a foundation of sorts that would bring in gifted reporters and writers and assign them just one mission: to snoop into the lives of…journalists !

“These hired guns would nose around and then write hit pieces about some pathetic reporter who got stood up on prom night. They would dig into the life of an editor to find out why he got divorced… They would discover why a certain journalist had been in therapy for quite some time. They would do a story about why some writer was not popular with his neighbors. They would humiliate the poor journalists by running these “big scoops” in newspapers, websites and on television networks.

“Sounds like fun, doesn’t it – reporters getting a taste of their own medicine ?… It might imbue these journalists with a bit of sensitivity next time they go out to try to unearth some titillating but useless information about, to use one example, the wife of a candidate running for president” (pages 112-113).

It is tantalizing ! After all, the watchers are watching, but who is watching the watchers ? Journalists have set themselves up as the moral authorities of modern life, who can pass judgment from their inaccessible perches on any individual or group. So what are their biases ? What do they say behind close doors, how are their relations with their wives and children, why do some seem to have an undisguised contempt for Rabbis and Torah ? Were they raised with those attitudes, is it a reaction to their upbringing, or did they rebel against their parents, teachers and communities and carve their own moral path ? Who really knows anything about them ?

Isn’t this a great idea ?

No. There is already enough lashon hara in the world, and the Jewish world, without adding more to it. Rabbis especially are always constrained from responding forcefully and publicly to many accusations against them, because of propriety. It is unseemly to climb into the mud, difficult to climb out, and all mud-throwers eventually become soiled. Enough already.

We should be dialing back the lashon hara in our lives – avoiding like the plague (literally; think Miriam) those individuals and organs that are purveyors of verbal trash, who will always find a ready audience for their wares but never an audience among the decent and virtuous. When the merits of Rav Dovid Cohen are weighed against the merits of his detractors, Mr. Report and others, the scales will be wildly unbalanced in the Rabbi’s favor, and that itself should give pause to the gossipmongers and their willingness to disseminate “titillating but useless” information, since denied and repudiated in any event.

Bernie Goldberg’s suggestion (perhaps, half in jest) is tempting, but it is a temptation that all good people should resist. Right ?

5 Comments

Posted in Current Events

The Tuition Crisis – and the Road Back

Posted on June 12, 2009 | 2 comments

The Rabbinical Council of Bergen County is proud to join forces with the lay leadership of our local yeshivot and other community activists to stem the tide of tuition costs that are escalating beyond the affordability of the average Jewish family by wholeheartedly endorsing the “Kehilla Fund, ” the short name for the memorable acronym NNJKIDS (North New Jersey Kehillot Investing in Day Schools). Clearly much thought went into creating the acronym, as much has been written and lamented in recent years about the high-cost of Jewish education. The “Kehilla Fund,” formed in cooperation with all the local day schools, shuls and the RCBC, asks that every Jewish family in Bergen County contribute, as a minimum, $30 per month to go into a special fund for Yeshiva education. Those who wish to give more will not be turned away – and nor will those who give less – but the goal is 100% participation, in recognition that this is a communal need.

If every family participates at the minimum level, the fund will annually raise over a million dollars, to be distributed proportionately – based on student population – to each elementary school. What will $1,000,000 accomplish ? It will not solve the problem of Jewish education, it will not give free tuition to every child, and it will not even relieve the crushing burden that many families feel today. But it will stem the tide, and prevent immediate tuition increases, and in the future, perhaps, rollback tuition costs through utilizing other avenues of assistance – for example, from the government.

Certainly, the “Kehilla Fund” initiative must be combined with two other (at least) initiatives – meaningful cost-cutting and effective cost-control at the yeshivos, and a re-evaluation by parents of their priorities.

Parents (and people generally) cannot continue looking to others for unlimited assistance, and it is unjust to expect the few to bear the burdens of the many. Parents must learn to prioritize in every sense of the word: to make do with less (materially) in order to fully fund their yeshiva tuition obligation to the best of their abilities – even if it means no summer camp for the children, no vacations for the adults, and no hotel for Pesach (even funded by others). What sounds Draconian is actually quite reasonable. It was not that long ago when parents literally sacrificed – living in small apartments, never vacationing, skimping on personal luxuries – in order to fully fund their child’s yeshiva education. We need some of that spirit again. If it sounds harsh and judgmental, it is only because we are also afflicted with the “entitlement” mentality that plagues American life generally – that every person is entitled to pursue happiness…and have someone else pay for it.

Apropos of that, we certainly recognize that there are families who are legitimately struggling and need – and should receive – scholarship assistance. But we are also sophisticated enough to recognize that there are some who might manipulate the system, who enjoy lavish lifestyles as a result of their successful “cash” businesses, and will dutifully file their tax return with the yeshiva scholarship committee showing their paltry income of $35,000 despite spending more than $200,000 – a feat that can only be accomplished regularly by the United States Government, but not by any individual. Scholarship committees should therefore routinely visit the homes of applicants to gauge their true standard of living and rule accordingly – because it is outrageous and unacceptable to expect others’ to foot the bill for one’s own obligations (not ot mention the crimes involved).

And schools must be more realistic about what they can raise and spend as well. Too their credit, local yeshivot have already begun to reduce their mortgages through government programming, have cut salaries, energy and health costs, and sought state grants for a variety of needs. More has to be done, and will be done. The question is: will we consider the work of the few or of the entire community ?

As I see it, there are only two groups who can rightfully complain about this new assessment: parents whose children have already graduated elementary school (and have already paid their “dues”) and parents whose children are still attending elementary school (and are now being asked to pay even more money, in addition to the tuition). But, of course, everyone falls into one of those two groups, and if each person cogently argues why he or she should be exempt from the “Kehilla Fund,” then there will be no “Kehilla Fund.”

So why should people contribute ?

The answer is that it is a communal obligation to support Torah – and to support Talmud Torah first and foremost, and to support the Talmud Torah of our children before we support Talmud Torah in Israel or any other place. We must learn also to prioritize our tzedaka dollar, and keep (as Rav Hershel Schachter said in our shul a few months ago) 75% of our contributions local, and 25% outside of our area. And, yes, that means reducing drastically the money we give on Sundays and weekdays to perfect strangers who knock on our doors seeking assistance. Charity does, indeed, begin at home.

And no person should think that his/her contributions are insignificant and superfluous. The Torah, when referring to “counting” always uses the expression “Nesi’at rosh” – “lifting the head.” For Jews, nothing is more important than counting heads – and having heads that count. We are an intellectual, bookish people, we pride ourselves on our pursuit of knowledge and our commitment to education, and our whole Torah is extolled as “our wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations.” But in this endeavor, we all have a role – every person must do his/her share to sustain the “head” of the Jewish people.

To be sure, many people will have complaints and suggestions, and some will have complaints that are masquerading as suggestions. It is very easy to criticize, and very difficult to build; that is why the world has so many critics and so few builders. But we should all look at the bigger picture, join in and pledge by signing on at www.nnjkids.org, and together merit the divine blessings for ourselves, our children and our people.

2 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life