Category Archives: Contemporary Life

The Right to Comment

Posted on July 4, 2011 | 2 comments

The Jewish Week, a publication that I have not read since canceling my free subscription over a decade ago, published an article last week by one Irwin Mansdorf castigating an unnamed but “well known New Jersey rabbi” (i.e., me) for accusing Israel’s Foreign Ministry of “not being able to explain the Jewish right to Israel.” This, of course, referred to an article in Makor Rishon that I already referenced here (https://rabbipruzansky.com/2011/06/23/1107/).
The Jewish Week piece was sent to me. Mansdorf writes:

“They have a hard time explaining the right to Tel Aviv” he is quoted as saying. “They have no answers. They can’t explain why we are here.”

Of course, the esteemed rabbi is in Teaneck and not in Tel Aviv, but he
needs to look closer to home before sounding off against people who actually
live in, and fight and sacrifice every day for Israel.

One wonders why an intelligent, educated Orthodox rabbi needs the foreign
ministry to explain to him why Israel has a right to exist, but if he does not
know why, he is not that different from many of the young men and women living in his community.

Well, of course, I didn’t question “why Israel has a right to exist,” but rather why the Jewish people have a claim to a state in the land of Israel. And, of course, I can explain it but was rather perturbed to encounter some (by no means all) people in the Foreign Ministry who could not explain it. And if they can’t or won’t explain it to a group of rabbis, how do they hope to influence anyone ? He went on to say that Israel’s claim has to be rooted in law, rights, and the resolutions of the San Remo Conference in 1920 (how’s that been working out ?) and those should be taught and publicized throughout the world. And, to be precise, I never claimed that the totality of Israel’s statecraft should be grounded in the Bible, but rather that the Bible has to be the starting point, the foundation on which all other claims rest.

I sent a letter to the Jewish Week (after being informed of the article) which, typically, they did not see fit to print. Here it is:

To the Editor:
Irwin Mansdorf castigates an unnamed New Jersey rabbi for his criticism
of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and the failure of some officials to base the
Jewish people’s right to the land of Israel on the Bible, all the subject of a
recent article in Makor Rishon.
Alas, he spoke too hastily. Several days after the initial article, Makor Rishon published an interview with Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon in which he joined that criticism of his own ministry, admitted the previous failure of Israel’s diplomats to emphasize our Biblical rights, and stated that the rabbi “touched on the right point.” He added that he and Foreign Minister Lieberman have attempted to rectify this, and he himself asserts our Biblical rights in every forum he addresses.
Had Mr. Mansdorf read more carefully, he would have noted that the
original article never stated that Israel’s diplomacy should focus exclusively
on our Biblical rights, but rather it must start from that premise. It is the
religious idea that animates true support for Israel among Christian
evangelicals, Israel’s most fervent advocates in American life (and therefore
plays well in both Teaneck and Peoria), and it is the religious claim that is
at the heart of the conflict. His contention that the modern world will be
persuaded by the declarations of the San Remo Conference is, to be kind,
wishful thinking, and basing Israel’s claim in the amorphous “historic rights”
of the Jewish people (similar in kind, I suppose, to that of the Navajo, the
Incas and the Aztecs to their ancestral lands) has not and will not persuade
anyone. Perhaps that is why Israel’s rights are being delegitimized across the
globe, and perhaps it takes someone living out in the world to call attention
to a feeble argument, expose its weaknesses, and suggest one more persuasive.
Unfortunately, living and working in an echo chamber does not usually
afford one the capability of re-evaluating and, if necessary, discarding failed
approaches to statecraft. Deputy Minister Ayalon deserves praise and support
for overcoming this malady and making important changes to Israel’s diplomatic posture.

One question that arises is: why would the Jewish Week print an op-ed by an obscure writer about an issue raised in an even more obscure Israeli publication in Hebrew, something that the average Jewish Week reader either could not or would not read ? The answer that presents, based on experience, is that someone in the Foreign Ministry unofficially commissioned this article in order to undermine the initiative of the unnamed rabbi and those supportive of it.

But what most interests me here is the persistence of some Israelis (usually the ones without real answers) in inserting into any discussion of policy or strategy the fact that I, and some other “critics,” do not yet live in land of Israel. Snarkiness aside, the point being made is that we do not have the right, and should not have the gall, to comment on Israeli affairs or to offer suggestions that will not impact our lives but will endanger others. (Some American olim adopt this stance within minutes of receiving their identity cards, and even before they have left Ben-Gurion Airport.)

That obvious attempt to avoid a substantive discussion (akin to a patient telling an oncologist “if you don’t yourself have cancer, then don’t tell me what to do!”) fails to convince for several reasons that I outline here, hoping that that particular tactic is forever retired from public discourse.

Why do Jews throughout the world have the right to comment on Israeli affairs ?

We are educated that all Jews are one, and that we are all bound to each other by fate and destiny. Therefore, the survival and security of Jews in Israel matters to me, as does the survival and security of Jews wherever they live in the world.

I have children and grandchildren, sisters and brother-in-law, nieces and nephews, and cousins who live in Israel. Several have served in the IDF, and one fell in battle. I certainly have a right and interest in seeing to their well-being in any way I can.

We are educated that all Jews have a share in the land of Israel. I have an obligation to preserve my share, regardless of whether I am physically present at any moment in time.

Israelis, when it suits them, have consistently requested that American Jews become involved and outspoken about all Israeli affairs. Among them are Ariel Sharon, Yitzchak Shamir, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who have personally spoken to me, and requested my involvement – each at different stages of their careers, and when it advanced their interests. Some have changed their tune when it did not suit them. Thus their objections are clearly situational and not categorical. One who never changed his tune was the late, sainted Chief Rabbi Avraham Shapira, who insisted to me that the battle for the hearts, minds, and support of Americans is critical to Israel, and for now, that was my battlefield that I could not abandon.

Israel solicits tourism from America and across the world, and a number of American tourists have been murdered by Arab terrorists in Israel. Obviously, then, Americans who visit Israel should be allowed a voice in matters that affect them, such as security.

The battle against Arab-Muslim terror has gone global. It is no longer a domestic Israeli problem, and when Israel shows weakness – in Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere – it emboldens all terrorists and makes all Jews and Westerners more vulnerable.

Finally, and forgive my snarkiness: as an American, three billion dollars of my tax dollars are provided to Israel annually. If you don’t want my advice, then take your hands out of my pocket. The same goes for the numerous Israeli politicians of all stripes who come to solicit American-Jewish dollars for their causes.

These seven reasons should put to rest once and for all that lame contention of lazy thinkers that only seeks to stifle debate. Indeed, sometimes external critics can be more logical and cogent, as their analysis is not colored by the wearisome circumstances of “living under the gun” that often produces wishful, delusional thinking that engenders impetuous and reckless actions, also known as the Oslo process, the Gaza expulsion, etc. But Israelis should also know that what is uttered by foreign Jewish critics of our affiliation is said with love, respect, and a desire for Israel’s security and prosperity. It is motivated by love of the Jewish people and of the State of Israel.

Obviously, foreign critics lack the means to fully influence policy in Israel, but it is hard to argue that the average Israeli has any means of influencing policy in Israel, especially given the propensity of politicians to dramatically alter their convictions after they are elected.

Equally obviously, my critics are rights. I should live in Israel. But in dispensing advice or in trying to influence matters for the good, such a point is simply not relevant to this discourse. It is a tired argument that adds nothing to the dialogue and obfuscates rather than elucidates.

It should be given a speedy burial.

2 Comments

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

Hometown Favoritism ?

Posted on June 15, 2011 | 12 comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

The Sotah Among Us

Posted on June 7, 2011 | Comments Off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Off on The Sotah Among Us

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

The Gender Benders

Posted on June 2, 2011 | Comments Off

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Off on The Gender Benders

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events