Author Archives: Rabbi

Fame

The Sages of the Talmud understood the value of entertainment, best exemplified by this passage in Masechet Taanit 22a: “Elijah the Prophet pointed out to Rav Beroka two people whom he characterized as worthy of the world-to-come. Asked by Rav Beroka what their special merit was, they answered, “Anshei badochay anan,” we are comedians, jesters. When people are sad, we cheer them up.” Sometimes, distractions are important –  comedians can even merit the world-to-come – but only as long as they are perceived as distractions.

The celebrity world took a big hit in the last few weeks – major stars have died: Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon, Karl Malden, and my own favorite, Billy Mays, the product hawker. All death is sad, but some of these deaths – one in particular – evoked almost a national grief that hasn’t yet ended, as if these were people of real accomplishment who were personally known to the mourners, as opposed to being just entertainers, anshei badochay, entertainers, whom we think we knew but did not at all.

Indeed, these were people who serviced particular needs that we have, and in that sense no different than the plumber or the grocer, who also service our needs. If you doubt that, then ponder this: Michael Jackson is probably the first person in history whose will was filed for probate before his body was placed in the ground. Priorites…! It is apparently more important to find out how much money he had, where he had it and who is to get it than to actually bury him, which to date – two weeks post-demise – has yet to happen. The sycophants who surrounded him used him, as he used them and an “adoring public” that tormented his life – literally made it unlivable. How exploited was he ? Well, his funeral required a producer, which could open up a new line of work for people in these troubled economic times (the polar opposite, I suppose, of the “party planner.”)

So what do we know about these – all talented, to be sure – and how are they different from the butcher or the baker, who are also talented in their own way ? One thing: fame.

They are famous, some are famous for being famous – but we think we know them because they have fame. But fame is a drug, and in America it is one of the most addictive drugs. On some level, we all want to be known; no one wants to toil in anonymity for 80 years and then disappear without a trace. But fame has become an end in itself, and not the consequence of any particular set of accomplishments. That is why America suffers occasionally from young men who mass murder perfect strangers – because, as they concede, at least they will die famous, and they lack the ability to achieve fame in a more productive or conventional way.

Thus, it is no surprise that the United States Senate now boasts a real comedian as a member, to join the other 99 comedians who are about as funny as the professional. Nor is it any surprise that Sarah Palin resigned her office; it is perfectly logical – even taking her statements at face value regarding the media torment she endured, her desire to work for her causes, write a book, etc. Celebrities, not people of real accomplishment, win elections today. The White House offers Exhibit #1 of this doctrine. Sarah Palin, if she runs for higher office, would not have even served one full term as governor – but nor did Barack Obama complete even one term – even sponsor one important piece of legislation – in the Senate. But it is unnecessary, and to an extent counter-productive to winning elections, to actually demonstrate any real achievement. She is in a much better position – if higher office is her goal – giving speeches, writing books, hosting talk shows, perhaps even doing modeling or movie cameos than by actually governing Alaska. Politicans are more advantaged by glibly talking about what they would like to do than by actually doing something. Governance is a slog.

This is the celebrity culture run amok, with an obvious and deleterious effect on governance, nurtured by a mass media that is as insipid as it is shallow, and by an electorate that votes based on the likeability of candidates rather than their policies.

But we are drowning in this celebrity culture, and all of us are affected by it. We all look for attention, even notoriety, as proof of our existence and worth – but in fact it is proof of neither. People are consumed by the mundane activities of “celebrities” who are hounded and harassed by photographers who give them no rest and deprive them and their families of normal lives, all to feed the insatiable appetites of the public, and the egos of the stars (many of whom would find being ignored a worse fate than being harassed). And those who cannot acquire fame themselves often seek to cultivate a false relationship with those who have fame, so they will share in the derivative glory. Hence, the institution of the “fan” – in sports, entertainment, etc. – which begs the question: is life so empty that the distractions are the focal point ? For many people, tragically, the answer is “yes.”

The paradox is that fame is often required to accomplish even important things. Unknown people can’t change the world – so how do we avoid falling into that trap ? What is the difference between good fame and bad fame ?

The answer is apparent from our daily prayers. Every morning we recite verses from Nechemia, including this statement (9:10): “Because of the signs and wonders You (G-d) imposed upon Pharaoh… You brought Yourself renown as clear as day.” G-d became famous as a result of the Exodus from Egypt ! So too, if we Jews are worthy, G-d makes us supreme over the nations “for praise, renown and glory” (Devarim 26:19). In both instances, the word shaim, literally, name, or here, fame, renown, is used. What is a shaim ?

Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch commented that the “name” is the essence of an entity, that which makes him sham, literally “there,” a presence; the “name” is the person’s real identity. Fame that comes naturally as a result of a person’s essence – his knowledge of Torah, his mitzvot, his good deeds, or his moral aspirations – is laudable. It is a reflection of his soul. But fame that comes as a result of a person’s incidental features is often lamentable; in a sense, it detracts from the person’s humanity. He will be perceived as caricature, as a one-dimensional distraction from what really has meaning and importance in life. That one can sing, dance, paint or act – or has twelve toes or two heads – is interesting, a talent, but they do not represent expressions of the soul, and thereby cannot reflect that person’s essence. It is the inner world that is most meaningful and has the greatest impact on the real life of others.

When the heathen prophet Bil’am looked at the Jewish people and exclaimed – “how goodly are your tents, Yaakov,” he saw that the entrances to our private homes were not aligned, so one could not gaze into another’s home from one’s own. That is, he saw that Jews – ideally – are restrained, private, modest, and not addicted to the allures of fame and glamour. He saw that real fame emerges from what an individual accomplishes in his personal tent – his home – and what his reputation is in Mishkenotecha Yisrael, the holy places of the Jewish people. That is true fame that should be celebrated.

That is what matters. All else is of little significance, all else is caricature, all else is the exterior of the person that doesn’t matter much – in the long or short term. Thus, when Micha the Prophet underscored for us, what all mankind wants to know – what is the good, and what does G-d want from us – he answered (6:8): “to do justice and love kindness and to walk humbly with G-d,” mindful that our task in life is not to fawn over the ersatz fame of the distractions but to add renown to G-d and sanctify His name, to give our lives meaning rather than to bask in the illusory achievements of others.

Perhaps this should be one goal of the thinking Jew in our world – to publicize the parameters of true fame and the objectives of the fulfilling life – for our betterment and that of all mankind. Because if we don’t, then an American society that is increasingly decadent and intellectually flabby will be even less capable of living in the real world – of terrorists, nukes, and evildoers who are uninterested in singers and dancers and those who mortgage their years on earth rejoicing in their fame and mourning their demise.

The Alternative

The conclusion that “peace” in our time is a dangerous illusion is actually quite liberating, as it frees the mind to explore other approaches to governance, diplomacy and security. It recognizes that “peace” is not the goal, but rather Israel’s security, prosperity and development as a truly Jewish state. How can those goals be achieved, mindful of the relentless hostility to Jewish nationalism of the Arabs and much of the “civilized” world ?

I dug out of my archives an article I published in a local newspaper on April 28, 1995 (yes, 1995) entitled “The Alternative.” It pointed out what later became obvious:

“Opponents of the ‘peace process’ maintained from the moment of the infamous handshake that terrorism would increase, Jews would be brutally murdered and the terrorists would have at their disposal more sophisticated and deadly weapons; that Gaza and Jericho would become Lebanons, armed tinderboxes and terrorist sanctuaries; that it was the height of criminal insanity to depend on the Palestine Liberation Organization (!) to protect Jews; that the PLO would renege on its commitment to renounce and rescind its covenant to destroy Israel; that the PLO would renege on its commitment to combat terror, and hand over wanted terrorists for Israeli prosecution; that the Rabin government would not let violations of the agreement affect its future implementation; that the Rabin government would stifle dissent by trampling on the civil liberties of Israeli citizen-protesters; that so-called liberals would be advocating a Kahanist-style transfer and resettlement – of Jews; that the agreement would tear apart the delicate fabric of Israeli society, pit Jew against Jew and exacerbate secular-religious tensions [update: the latter three typified the Sharon government]; and that Israel would be weakened, demoralized, divided and dispirited, and Israelis devoid of even a semblance of personal security – anywhere in the country.”

I could have added that the anticipated acclaim that Israel would receive from the international community for all their concessions would never materialize or would be short-lived. Indeed, it was. The world has forgotten Oslo, lynching, terror, Gaza/Jericho, the surrenders, the war of 2001-2003, the Expulsion from Gaza, etc., like a person who consumed a delicious meal one evening but is hungry again the next day. What can I have to eat, and now ?

The strongest argument in support of Oslo was the lament “there is no alternative,” what the columnist Charles Krauthammer called – back then – “a message of fanatical despair.” But there is an alternative, and I outlined it in 1995.

“ ‘There is no alternative’ is not rational discourse but inane sloganeering; surely there is an alternative to national suicide…

One prefatory note: the goal is not ‘peace.’ Peace, say classical Jewish sources, is a divine gift – a state of harmony between man, his world and God. It is unattainable in the present context, and we should stop looking for it…There are simply far too many armed and dangerous Arabs who are unreconciled and irreconcilable to Israel’s existence, and always will be – our delusions to the contrary notwithstanding. More to the point, there are far too few Arabs (if any) who would weep at Israel’s demise, God forbid. So peace, whether abstract or political, is not a realistic goal. The goal should be an absence of war, and that depends primarily on a strong Israel.

The priority of a strong Israel is the preservation of Jewish life and the development of a uniquely Jewish society. A strong Israel exercises sovereign authority over the entire land of Israel, defined halachically as the biblical borders and politically (in Napoleon’s phrase) by where its soldiers’ graves are located. It is unafraid to employ the maximum military power necessary to secure its border and cities and subdue those who challenge its sovereignty. This is moral, ethical, just and common sense, and serves as an effective deterrent.

A strong Israel annexes all the territory under its control, and announces to the world that there will be only a Jewish sovereign presence in the land of Israel from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

Annexation does not mean citizenship for all inhabitants – not every resident of the United States is a citizen. To preserve the Jewish character of the state, Arabs are welcome to live in Israel as legal aliens with full civil, cultural, economic and religious rights – even municipal autonomy – but without any national rights, a police force, an army or any entity that threatens the body politic of Israel. And they may dwell in Israel only on condition that they accept, freely and unequivocally, Israeli sovereignty over the land of Israel.

Any Arab who objects to or resists Israeli sovereignty should (and will) seek his fortunes – and civil, cultural, economic, religious and national rights – in any one of the 22 Arab sovereign paradises that today extend from the Atlantic to the Indian Oceans. Not every minority in the world is privileged to have national rights, especially when they dwell in a foreign land – and for Arabs, Israel is a foreign land…

All this is nothing more – and nothing less – than the political framework of the Jewish (Torah) state. The alternative to the sorry spectacle of governance before us – the last gasp of the secular Zionists who built the state and are now tearing it down – necessarily includes the creation of a true Torah state, and a return to the covenant with God. We should proclaim to all Jews before it is too late that our deed to the land of Israel – no matter how strong our armies or powerful our weaponry – is only valid when we live there as a ‘kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’

The historic, prophetic dream of re-born Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel was not to create a haven for Jews (today, the United States is a safer haven), nor for an Israel that would be a Middle Eastern bastion of Western cultural debauchery, nor even an Israel praised for its export of polished diamonds and oranges. The historic dream of Israel sought to inhabit the land that God gave us on which to create His model society, living according to His law, and exporting to the world Torah, knowledge of God and ethical values – as well as, perhaps, polished diamonds and oranges.

Imagine an Israel that truly rested on Shabbat, feasted on national days of celebration, established homes of purity, observed the commandments and united in service of God. Imagine an Israel that prayed and studied together, obeyed the halacha without dilution or compromise, and lived and breathed the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish people. Imagine an Israel whose leaders are steeped in Torah knowledge, values and deeds, and whose citizens – all of them –  seek to do ‘what is right and good in God’s eyes.’

Such an Israel would be strong internally and externally, proud, secure and content. It would serve as a magnet for Jews throughout the world, and rescue American Jewry from its spiritual self-destruction. Its foes would be vanquished before it, it would be a world leader in the best sense, and it could have untold consequences in terms of Jewish destiny…

…It is the creation of a new State of Israel – a faithful Israel, the unique people of God – that can transform the reality of the Middle East and the world, turn swords into ploughshares, and usher in an era of tolerance, respect, goodwill and – who knows ?- maybe even peace.

Does it seem possible ? It is. And, quite frankly, there is no alternative.”

That was 1995. It is still possible, especially if we acknowledge the current impossibility of peace. Certainly there will be a hue and cry in the Arab world and the diplomatic salons of the world, all of whom have become accustomed to the unilateral concessions of the Israelis.

In the short term, this approach engenders two policy prescriptions that need not require a public renunciation of the prospects for “peace.” First, Israel should stop the tired dance of negotiating building settlements, building in settlements, attending to the natural growth of settlements, or other such semantic games. Rather, it should state politely and clearly that since Israel will insist on retaining this land in any future “accord,” it is unjust and immoral for Israel to restrain its own citizens from building on their own land. This insanity is most acute in areas of Judea and Samaria that were purchased by Jews from Arab landowners, and is not at all “state” or unallocated land. By what moral standard should Jews – in the land of Israel, for Heaven’s sake – be denied the right to build a house on privately owned land ? Any self-imposed restriction – or an externally imposed restriction that is accepted – sends a message of weakness that invites further demands.

The second point rectifies a thirty-year old blunder. In the 1978 Camp David Accords, Menachem Begin – in probably the greatest error of his life – was compelled to recognize “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” That became the basis for all subsequent negotiations – but the “legitimate rights of the Jewish people” were not similarly recognized. Well, that time has come, and in advance of any future negotiations – an unequivocal, unambiguous, undeniable statement by the Arab world that the Jewish people have “legitimate rights” in the land of Israel. Let them chew on that one, for a decade or three.

Indeed, PM Netanyahu has moved in the direction of both these prescriptions – so far resisting any encroachments on the “natural growth” of settlements and also seeking the recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state,” something that is clearly anathema to the Arabs. My formula – recognizing “the legitimate rights of the Jewish people” – has the added charm of linguistic and moral symmetry, and without which the sinister objectives of the Arab world are patently clear.

And if Israel’s Prime Minister concedes the impossibility of peace in the current and foreseeable climate – even to himself and his advisors – Israeli diplomacy will be on the correct course, the world will gradually adjust to this new reality, and – despite the sound and fury that will emanate from certain quarters, and the occasional terror disruption – an era without war and with a measure of stability will commence.

The Twin Heresies

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.

Dueling Rhetoric

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.