Category Archives: Contemporary Life

Sensitivity

Posted on August 4, 2010 | 11 comments

Sensitivity is unarguably a fundamental Jewish trait. It is not merely an aspiration but a definition: “Whoever is compassionate towards others, it is obvious that he is a descendant of Avraham; whoever is not compassionate towards others, it is obvious that he is not a descendant of Avraham” (Talmud Masechet Betza 32b). Thus, the recent Statement of Principles on relating to homosexuals is clearly intended in that vein. However, the Statement itself, and some reaction to my own published thoughts on the subject, reminded me that while sensitivity is a cardinal Jewish value, it is one of many values that mold the Jewish personality.

Much has been made – and rightfully so – about the personal abuse heaped on homosexual oriented youth and adults. It should be rightfully condemned and eradicated as much as is humanly possible. “As much as is humanly possible” is a necessary qualifier, because, although we may strive for perfection, we rarely attain it, and the existence of human imperfections should not surprise or be unduly lamented. “Bullying” is, of course, wrong, as is mockery, verbal abuse, put downs, etc., and the victims are right to complain and be aggrieved. But perspective is helpful; homosexuals are not the only victims of such unfair treatment. As I recall from my own school days – before the invasion of the therapists, psychologists, and do-gooders, and when insults that went too far were settled – literally – in the school yard that itself bred a certain toughness and realism about life and the world – numerous groups (likely everyone, at one time or another) were tormented.

Here’s a brief list from my own experience of groups who were harassed: children of low intelligence or high intelligence, children who were not athletic, children who were too athletic (derided as “jocks”), boys who acted like sissies and girls who acted like tomboys, children who were obese or rail thin, people who suffered from a physical disability or were developmentally disabled, people who had a prominent physical characteristic (too short, too tall, big nose, no chin, one eyebrow, bearded at age nine, slack jaw), girls who were unattractive or too attractive (and therefore assumed to be dim-witted), immigrants, poor children, the poorly dressed and the too-spiffily dressed (the dandy), the fatherless and the motherless, the kid who brought his lunch from home in a metal box, the teacher’s pet, fans of non-local sports teams, and many others. [Yes, I attended one, tough school. If that weren’t enough, non-Jews would assault us on the way home.]

Many people in every strata of society still suffer from this sorry expression of a blatant lack of midot tovot (virtuous traits) on the part of insensitive people. Thus, the Torah mandates sensitive treatment for the poor, the widow and the orphan, to which we can properly add the divorcee, the single, the childless, the infertile, the unemployed, etc. Add to this list, today, the officially protected groups in our world, based on innate characteristics like race or skin color, ethnic background, religion and creed, and women, and now a class defined by private behavior that also seeks these protections, those attracted to same-sex relationships. We can literally walk on eggshells among our fellow humans, and it is undoubtedly prudent not to say anything that might offend a card-carrying member of one of the protected classes; that is to say, it is best to say nothing at all, ever.

There are many people who fear even addressing these issues – especially the place of the homosexual in Jewish society – for fear of sounding, or being branded, insensitive. Correspondents who castigated me assume that their particular victimization exceeds that of any other victim, a point naturally made by every victimized group in history, including Jews. But there are several brutal facts that need to be considered: first, as noted last week, homosexuals are the only group mentioned above whose defining activity involves a sin, a transgression of the Torah. That cannot be papered over, and the Statement’s dismissal of hirhur (illicit desires, even if not acted upon) as part of this discussion is deceptive, and telling.

Second, and consequently, it is naïve to think that an open homosexual – like an open adulterer, open Shabbat desecrator, open cheeseburger consumer, or open thief – can ever be accorded a place of honor or even acceptance (“full members”) in the official Jewish community, including shuls and yeshivot. Sensitivity becomes tolerance, then acceptance, then legitimacy – and that obviously requires a revision of the Torah, which cannot happen. The idea that a yeshiva can or should accept the children of homosexuals is as absurd as the notion that it should embrace a family of Jewish polyandrists (Torah prohibition) or Jewish polygamists (Rabbinic prohibition), and would subject that child to unimaginable and undeserved cruelty, our best efforts at sensitivity training notwithstanding.

That raises the third, and clearly the saddest aspect, of this individual tragedy: children. The Statement presupposes that homosexuals will want children, and want their children raised in the Torah community, notwithstanding their unacceptable lifestyle. But is it fair to bring children into the world – or adopt children – under those circumstances, i.e., fair to the children ? For sure, the childless in our world suffer enormously, as our tradition celebrates children and much of Jewish life is built around the continuity of family. For that reason alone, the Statement’s clear disdain for therapies that might ameliorate this condition is itself problematic. How can there be a “religious right” not to avail oneself of a therapy that might re-channel the person’s desires from the illicit to the licit, and potentially enable him/her to lead a normal and traditional lifestyle ?

In its casual but sincere call for the acceptance of such children – under the guise of sensitivity to children, which should be beyond question – the Statement fails to consider that not every Jew will merit posterity, either because of nature or choice. “For so says Hashem to the barren ones who observe My Sabbaths and choose what I desire (italics added) and grasp My covenant tightly. In My house and My walls I shall give them a place and a renown (Yad vashem), better than sons and daughters; eternal renown I shall give them, never to be cut down” (Yeshayahu 56:4-5). There are ways to serve G-d and contribute to Jewish life for those who cannot – or will not – have children.

It is sad, and their struggles – like all of us who struggle with transgressions that sever our connection to G-d, family, loved ones and community – are heartrending, and part of the human condition. But the Torah cannot be updated to conform to the zeitgeist on grounds of sensitivity, nor can we gerrymander the boundaries of Mitzvot in order to carve out an exemption for one class of sinner or another. We should be kind and decent to all people, including those in the schoolyard of my youth, and sensitive as well to the eternal nature of Torah that has been entrusted to us as the divine light that illuminates our every thought and move and by whose standard (and only that standard) we judge what is right and wrong. Those who choose to follow their desires, and not what G-d desires for them, deserve no special consideration – and certainly not (as mentioned before) when modesty dictates that what is private should remain private.

“Everyone knows why the bride enters the wedding canopy but whoever sullies his mouth and speaks of it will have even a good decree of 70 years overturned” (Talmud Masechet Shabbat 33a). There was a time when Jews reflected grace and decorum, where to be accused of being prust (unseemly, unbecoming) was a true Jewish insult. Under the guise of sensitivity, we have become as uncouth as others, and worse, tamper with the Torah as if it were our plaything, not our divine heritage. The Statement, like the other excitement of the past ten days, is just another nail in the coffin of Modern Orthodoxy, sacrificed on the altar of trendiness and political correctness. We must be sensitive – but we must also be different and holy, a nation created not to deify the transient values of Western man but the eternal values of G-d. When that happens, we will have something to teach the world, and perhaps even merit full and complete redemption.

11 Comments

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

HOMOPHOBIA-PHOBIA

Posted on July 30, 2010 | 4 comments

Homophobia, like racism, is a term whose import lies not in its technical definition but in its usefulness as a rhetorical bludgeon against perceived foes to an aggressive but fashionable agenda. The accusation itself stifles discussion, attempts to intimidate dissenters, and demeans the opposition rather than debates it. It is the refuge of those who prefer that shame replace reason, and invective substitute for civil discourse. In the last week or so, the indictment has been used to muster support for a resolution (?), a declaration (?) or something of that sort emerging from a group of Modern Orthodox rabbis that seeks overtly to increase sensitivity in the Orthodox world for the plight of the homosexual, and covertly, it seems, advance an agenda that will garner support in the religious world for the legitimacy of secular civil unions, an official welcome place in the Orthodox community for “open” homosexuals, and perhaps (among the more extreme elements among the MoDos) an admission that the Torah needs to be conformed to the modern research (and only that research) that supports the notion that homosexuality is innate and therefore could not have been prohibited by the Torah, or some other variation on that theme that would vitiate the obvious Torah prohibition homosexuality entails.

Much of the above does not appear in the Statement of Principles circulated in the ModO world, although it is the sub-text of what was characterized as the “Declaration against Homophobia” that I and others were urged to sign. The declaration encourages respect and sensitivity, an admission that homosexual acts constitute Torah violations, but also a plea for the official recognition of the homosexual as full members of the Jewish community (perhaps even as open partners, if celibacy is presumed). It is innocuous enough, unless one stops to ask the question: why is all this necessary ?

Homophobia, the accusation, carries less weight today than racism, the accusation, does, which is to say, none at all. These charges have been so overused as to be effectively meaningless, such that the indicted often wear them as badges of pride. Frankly, I do not know anyone who possesses a “fear of homosexuality,” the literal meaning of the term “homophobia.” People certainly object to the practice for religious, moral, and even societal reasons – but no one “fears” it. The accusation therefore should not be taken seriously, and undermines the sincerity of those who suggest it. They themselves are guilty of propagating a spurious phobia of non-existent homophobes, when all they are dealing with is the natural recoiling of the Jew at the attempted legitimization of a particular transgression.

I start from two very simple premises:

Everyone should treat everyone else with respect and decency. Period. We need not carve out special considerations beyond those afforded by the Torah – the widow, the orphan, the poor. Their unique status is based on external matters that do not involve a potential prohibition, but on the tragedy of the human condition itself. We should be teaching our children not to bully anyone – the poor kid and the rich kid, the smart child and the less smart, boys and girls, the cool and the uncool, the athletic and the less athletic. And we should likewise teach our adults not to disparage any human being – regardless of race, religion, ethnic background, creed and the rest of the list. But to highlight this one vice now, trendy as it is, is to pave the way for a future (not too distant) attempt to normalize these tendencies, much like a curriculum being debated in a school district in Montana these days that calls for teaching ten year olds that relations between men and women, men and men, and women and women are all “normal,” and they are free to choose as they mature. The suggested statement herein can be construed as innocuous enough, artfully phrased so that it does not trample on any fundamental principles of Judaism, but the wise person is always ro’eh et hanolad, sees trends and consequences, and the consequences for this campaign are potentially grave.

Secondly, every human being has tendencies that conflict with halacha, but we ordinarily do not broadcast them to others. How and why did homosexuality became the only biblical prohibition today that has its own lobbyists, interest group, and now legislators ? There is no other sin that earns such public acclaim, and surely that cannot be merely the result of allegedly harsh treatment against this particular group alone. The publication and mass dissemination of private sexual matters has contributed to, if not catalyzed, the tawdriness in our society that makes educating our children and other Jews with the eternal values of Torah an uphill battle. What shocks today becomes acceptable tomorrow, normal the day after that, and – scarcely a week later – a sign of moral degeneracy and mean-spirited judgmentalism for anyone who refuses to embrace it. This statement plays into that scenario and exacerbates that problem. To glorify, chastise, lament, excuse, or empathize with one set of hirhurim (illicit desires) as opposed to others elevates that particular hirhur to an undeserved “favored” status that simply echoes the zeitgeist and cheapens the Torah, but in a way that leaves us feeling both morally pure and virtuous when we in fact are neither.

In the society of decent people in which Jews should be the natural leaders, private behavior should remain private. That is the essence of tzniyut, the Jewish concept of modesty. Why must society be bombarded with knowledge of the details of a person’s private sexual practices, whether homosexual or heterosexual ? It is unbecoming. Indeed, everyone knows why people use bathrooms, and yet we still keep the door closed. For a person to trumpet his/her private sexual practices, whether or not they conform to the Torah, is just crude and unseemly, and unworthy of any Torah Jew. And yet, this statement, and the movement to normalize homosexuality in the Jewish world, is built on the foundation of coarseness that has vulgarized Western society and clearly infiltrated the precincts of Torah.

Must we know, hear about, read about, and agonize over people’s sinful or instinctual tendencies ? That is the job of a Rav to delve into in private with the afflicted individual, whatever the tendency is, not smooth the way for acceptance of that vice in Jewish (or general) society. The genius of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, similarly under siege today, was that it kept private matters private. No one need know the intimate details of another’s life, even if the person feels compelled to share it. And, as a rabbi, I need not decide whether a person who has homosexual tendencies can receive an aliya or perform some other public religious function – if I am not privy to that information. I don’t want to know and I don’t need to know – and if these matters are kept private by the relative few beset by them, then the declaration becomes superfluous.

Finally, despite all the protestations to the contrary, it strains credulity to believe that avowed homosexuals looking for acceptance in Jewish life do not act on their impulses. If they don’t, then why discuss it with the general public ? If they do, then why are we trying to diminish the gravity of their sin ? And if they do but we prefer to believe that they don’t so we can utilize the actor/action distinction as a convenient fig leaf to advance an agenda that further debases our society, then what is that saying about us ? As I see it, there is only one situation in which a person’s sexual deviance becomes an issue that requires sensitive but clear deliberation: the dating world. Men (or women) with homosexual tendencies should not date members of the opposite sex as they try to work out their issues. When they date nonetheless, the men (in particular) torment the women, who do not grasp why their relationship did not mature romantically, and, suspecting nothing, blame themselves unnecessarily. People who struggle with their sexual identity should discreetly say they are not dating; that would be a noble act of sensitivity and respect.

The bottom line is we should treat all people with respect – people like us and people not like us. Certainly, I would support under the proper circumstances the ostracism of an avowed adulterer, even though he/she could well argue that monogamy is unnatural, temptation is great, they were both consenting adults, and the pain and harm caused to themselves and their families were real and should itself warrant lenient treatment, sensitivity and “understanding.” Nevertheless, we sometimes act l’migdar milta, to set boundaries and sound a cautionary note about practices that offend the halacha. This statement tears down the boundaries that moral societies have always erected and maintained on the pretense that we are dealing only with thoughts of sin and not sin itself. I am not buying it.

I respect all those who struggle with their tendencies to avoid sin, and they should be lauded and encouraged – because “they” are “us” – all of us. The statement is therefore unnecessary and potentially harmful. The fact that it needed to be “negotiated,” with one side apparently advocating greater acceptance and legitimization of the homosexual agenda, with their own “red lines” drawn in the sand, is itself a cause for concern.

Keep private things private. We’ll be a better people for it, the world will be a better place, and the Torah will be cherished by all as the source of eternal verities and morality, rather than a weather vane that charts the shifting winds of public policy proper behavior. In so doing, we will rightly be a “light unto the nations,” if not also, first and foremost, unto ourselves.

4 Comments

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

Numbers Game

Posted on July 28, 2010 | 1 comment

The Torah teaches that “G-d did not desire us or choose us because we are more numerous than the other nations, for we are the fewest of all the peoples” (Devarim 7:7) But why would we think otherwise ? As the commentator Rashbam asks: did Moshe really believe that the Jewish people thought that G-d had chosen us because of our numerical superiority ? It is obviously not so. So what exactly is the point that Moshe was making?

On a superficial level, people are always impressed by the most, of anything. The largest country in population (China), the largest country in size (Russia), the most, the greatest, the fastest, the smartest, even the most home runs (however they were hit). It makes for interesting conversation, but what is the difference really ? Numbers do not impress us. There are more than a billion Christians and more than a billion Moslems in the world, but we are “the fewest of nations,” infinitesimal on the world stage. Clearly, we are taught that G-d’s designation of the Jewish people was not dependent on numbers, and nor is our destiny.

There is a deeper point as well. The Torah is teaching us that numbers not only do not determine worth, but they are never a significant factor in assessing the state of Jewish life. Notwithstanding that, we have such a numbers obsession in Jewish life that one would think, firstly, that the Torah posited such a viewpoint, and secondly, that our future existence is based completely on maintaining some arbitrary figure, some critical mass of Jews. We have such a numbers obsession that even hearing this iconoclasm, you must think that I am in need of a vacation.

The fact is that numbers have never mattered for much in Jewish life. There are as many Jews today as there was before World War I, and 5,000,000 more than in 1882. There are perhaps 10% more Jews alive today than at the time of the destruction of the Second Temple. We never grow that much, the enduring legacy of both assimilation and persecution. But here is another way to look at it: the world has tripled in size since the start of World War I, and we have stayed the same; but have we fallen off the map ? Are Jews unknown in the world ? We have gone from being .006 of the world’s population, to being .002. Are we less influential ? Are we harder to find ? Do we find it harder to get our names in the newspapers ? They still know where to find us, even though we are “the fewest of nations.” There are almost three times as Daoists in the world as there as Jews, and ten times more Yoruba. Go figure.

We have been conditioned to believe that numbers matter. We hear constantly that we need to boost our numbers, especially by making peace with intermarriage, and especially today by broadening our base by accepting converts who are not sincere about a Jewish commitment. If we write off the intermarried, the argument goes, our numbers shrink. If we do not embrace his non-Jewish wife and children, we will not achieve some numerical quota that we have apparently set for ourselves. It is the same reason that compels Jews to initiate a program of mass conversions, regardless of commitment, to boost Israel’s population, to ensure that we meet an artificial target that, if reached, will ensure Jewish survival. It has even led some to argue that the definition of Jewishness should be “any person that Hitler would have murdered” (i.e., a person with even one Jewish grandparent, sometimes one Jewish great-grandparent), leading to the macabre result that they have designated Hitler as the posek for the Jewish people, the decisor of Jewish law and identity. Talk about posthumous victories; that indeed would be an ultimate triumph. Fortunately, we are able to rely on the Torah to adjudicate these matters, and not a diabolical, pathological, mass murderer.

We are the smallest of nations, and every nation needs people to survive. We do, too, but more than some arbitrary number of people, we need good Jews, Jews who make a difference, Jews who want to be Jews – not just Jews in name, who will just pay dues or have to chased down to pay their dues, or Jews whom our enemies flesh out. “For you are a holy people, and G-d chose you to be His people” (Devarim 7:6), and therefore there are as many Jews at any one moment as G-d determines He needs for His purposes. There are never too few or too many; it is always just right. That “you are not more numerous” means that every Jew is precious, but that abstract numbers mean nothing at all. We are not trying to meet a particular quota.

We need good Jews. Capricious figures plucked out of the air avoid dealing with the main issue: how do we produce good Jews, Jews who make a difference, who make their mark in the public domain in a way that reflects well on all of us. For example, an observant woman named Wendy Shalit became a counter-cultural phenomenon in the last decade, writing books encouraging a “Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue” and “Girls Gone Mild: Young Women Reclaim Self-Respect”, about modesty and self-respect for young women in the world at large, about how young women need not ape the immodest fashions or behavioral trends in order to win friends.

Even in our world we struggle with this aspect of human dignity. There are religious girls who are forced to wear modest clothing to school – RULES – whose parents don’t mind them dressing down (or skimpier) on the weekends. They send a terrible (and awfully) mixed message. But this issue has only slowly entered the secular discourse, and to achieve that – to have a religious Jewish woman in the forefront of a moral issue (instead of evangelicals or Moslems) – is a sanctification of G-d’s name. One Wendy Shalit is more meaningful that any 50 Jews in Hollywood who debase the culture. But you wouldn’t know it because of our numbers obsession.

The day will come, the prophet Zecharia said, when “ten non-Jews will grab the coat of a Jew and say ‘let us go with you, because we have heard that G-d is with you.’” The nations will ultimately turn to us and say “teach us.”

But are we ready for that moment ? Do we have what to teach ? Are we secure in our values, and are we still shaped by the common culture and its frequent tawdriness ?

So why did G-d give us the Torah ? The Ramban here quotes the Talmud (Beitza 25b) that we were given the Torah because we are a tough people – a people that can withstand all the blandishments, allures and threats of the world, and endure all trials and tribulations tossed our way. We need strong Jews, not Jews who desire special accommodations because they cannot resist temptation, nor Jews who are easily broken by misfortune or prone to despair. We are the people who are eternally comforted, and therefore never lose faith in G-d or in His Torah.

The prophet Isaiah (40:3) declared that our task is always to clear the path for G-d, to build a straight road for His seekers – not one with detours, excursions, amusing twists and turns – to keep it straight and simple. Then we will merit the days of understanding and faith, with all Jews present and accounted for, and enjoy the fruits of a glorious redemption, for us and all mankind.

1 Comment

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

Five Years Later

Posted on July 22, 2010 | Comments Off

The fine work “Start-Up Nation” (Saul Singer and Dan Senor), the most upbeat book written about Israel in years, describes in vivid detail the economic miracle, or at least, anomaly, that has seen Israel not only weather the global financial upheavals of the last few years but also become a world leader in technological innovation. Its economy bumped and rebounded during the recent recession, but did not crash. Israelis, literally, are brimming with ideas and the moxie to implement them. Undeterred by occasional failure – or, more tellingly, by the Arab terror that violently interrupts their lives from time to time – these entrepreneurs have re-made the Israeli economy and transformed modern living across the world.

This creativity is certainly multi-faceted, but is largely attributed to the skill sets acquired by the average Israeli through his military service and especially the informality, originality, personal responsibility and free-thinking that are hallmarks of that service. They note, for example, that “the IDF has a chaotic, anti-hierarchical ethos – which can be found in every aspect of Israeli society. A private will tell a general in an exercise – You are doing this wrong, you should do it this way. (This is not to say that soldiers aren’t expected to obey orders.) But orders are given in the spirit of men who have a job to do and mean to do it. They are not defined by rank. This is because Israel’s society and history is based on questioning.” To leftist writer Amos Oz, Judaism itself has cultivated a “culture of doubt and argument.” These individuals are groomed to think out of the box. It can be a mixed bag for a commander: “Assertiveness versus insolence; critical, independent thinking versus insubordination – the words you choose depend on your perspective, but collectively they describe the typical Israeli entrepreneur.” Today’s Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren noted that he served in units where they literally “threw out” the officers – a colonel , for one – simply voted them out, and the commanding officer was re-assigned because the enlisted men thought he was not up to the tasks at hand.

Furthermore, “at debriefings, emphasis is put not only on unrestrained candor but on self-criticism as a means of having everyone learn from every mistake. Explaining away a bad decision is unacceptable.” Nothing is swept under the rug, and this type of thinking and questioning leads these soldiers – once they leave the army – into businesses where re-organization, enhanced efficiency, and new ways of looking at old problems are prized and desirable characteristics. So products such as microchips, EZ Pass, sophisticated medical surgical equipment, instant messaging and many others boast an Israeli provenance.

Oddly, there was time in recent years when these skills failed abjectly: the 2006 War in Lebanon. I quote: “Indeed, the 2006 Lebanon War was a case study in deviation from the Israeli entrepreneurial model that had succeeded in previous wars. Giora Eiland, a senior military official and for years a national security advisor to a succession of prime ministers, stated: ‘Open –minded thought, necessary to reduce the risk of sticking to preconceived ideas and relying on unquestioned assumptions, was far too rare.’ “One of the problems of the Second Lebanon War was the exaggerated adherence of senior officers to the chief of staff’s decisions. There is no question that the final word rests with the chief of staff, and once decisions have been made, all must demonstrate complete commitment to their implementation. However, it is the senior officers’ job to argue with the chief of staff when they feel he is wrong, and this should be done assertively on the basis of professional truth as they see it.”

The 2006 war was a costly wake-up call for the IDF.” During the Second Lebanon War, “Israel suffered from a lack of organization and a lack of improvisation.”

What is even more bitterly ironic, and arguably causative, is that the obsequiousness to authority and the glorification of “following orders” without question actually began almost a year earlier, with the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and Northern Shomron and the destruction of their thriving communities. This blot on Israeli society and Jewish history, now five years past, evoked a wave of hysteria about the sacred obligation to “obey orders,” how the failure to follow orders blindly would result in the collapse of the IDF and the imminent destruction of the State of Israel itself, and how the “mitzva” to obey orders supersedes any other mitzva in the Torah – especially that of settling the land of Israel. Those who embraced Oz’ “culture of doubt and argument” were branded as both immoral and seditious. The IDF Chief of Staff, Boogie Ya’alon, who challenged his civilian superiors and rejected the very premise of the Expulsion, was simply silence and replaced.

Is there anyone left who does not believe that had the Expulsion Plan been subjected to greater scrutiny and analysis that Israel would have spared itself both the stain of having maltreated its own citizens as well as the daily cascade of rockets that began immediately thereafter and terrorized Sderot and nearby towns ? To the anguished litany of catastrophes that have befallen our people on the Ninth of Av, we ourselves were bystanders to the addition of the following notation: “9 Av, 2005: the last day of legal Jewish settlement in Gush Katif and Northern Shomron.” That calamity took its place with the sin of the biblical spies, the destruction of the two Temples and the fall of Betar, the 1492 Expulsion of the Jews from Spain and other such cataclysms.

The wound of Gush Katif still has not healed. Most of the refugees, intrepid souls that they are, have successfully begun the process of rebuilding their lives – personal and professional – after much hardship, and with the assistance of a variety of private organizations (Jobkatif.org leaps to mind). They persevered despite the brutal betrayal of the Israeli government – before, during and after the expulsion. For many (even non-refugees), their trust in government, both in terms of policies and morality, will be forever shattered, and rightfully so. And Ariel Sharon, architect of the Expulsion, remains an exile himself, suspended between this world and the next one – perhaps awaiting the resettlement of the last of the refugees whose lives he shattered before he can find his own eternal rest.

Strange, further, that the authors of this insightful book do not connect the dots, and do not see the linkage between the travesty of Gush Katif and the failures of the Lebanon War a year later. The suppression of dissent – worse, the criminalization of dissent – that characterized the Expulsion became institutionalized in the debacle of Lebanon. Obvious mistakes were swept under the rug, no real introspective analysis has taken place about the costs of the Expulsion (nor, for that matter, about the Oslo debacle), nor has there been any accountability on the part of the poor decision-makers of the past. Most of the perpetrators of Oslo have remained unscathed, even celebrated. The architect of the Lebanon flight of 2000 – Ehud Barak – still offers his strategic insights as the Minister of Defense. The 10,000 refugees of 2005, caused by Israel’s own hand, mushroomed into the 350,000 refugees of 2006, the work of the heinous Hezbollah. “Following orders,” the catch phrase of 2005, became the macabre joke of 2006, when soldiers were ordered in and out of sectors within minutes, told both to move forward and then remain where they were in orders that changed every few hours, and occasionally, and sadly, marched to their deaths. Soldiers saw the futility of following commanders who were hampered by orders coming from distant superiors who did not understand the situation on the ground, and whose lives were therefore endangered and lost. Who can forget the ignominy of then PM Olmert’s directive at the end of the war for soldiers to capture a hill that he had already agreed would be returned the very next day when the cease fire was to begin? Thirty-three soldiers – Jewish husbands and sons – were killed seizing that useless piece of real estate that, indeed, was abandoned the very next day. “Futility of futilities, Kohelet said, it is all futile.”

Well, not all. “Start-Up Nation” certainly makes the case that Israel has learned from its mistakes, and the failed Lebanon War fueled a new wave of creative and iconoclastic thinking that hopefully will bode well for the future. The test will be when (if?) the next round of Israeli concessions requires more surrender of land and further expulsions of Jews. Will the reaction be as docile – and as ultimately destructive – as the one five years ago this week ? Let us pray we never have to find

Comments Off on Five Years Later

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought