Category Archives: Current Events

The Individual and the Community

Posted on March 26, 2010 | 4 comments

    The Korban Pesach is unique in many ways, but none more so than this: it is defined as a private offering, but yet it supersedes Shabbat. In every other circumstance, a private korban does not override Shabbat. So, too, there are occasions when this individual offering will be brought when the offerors are in a state of impurity. In every other case, only a korban tzibur, a public offering overrides Shabbat or impurity. So into what category does the Korban Pesach fit?

     Another question for the seder: the “wicked son” is castigated not for his question but for its implications – “because he ostracizes himself from the Jewish people, he denies the existence of G-d.” But why ? Just because he separates himself from the Jewish people, does that necessarily mean he denies G-d’s existence ? What is the connection ?

     And the Mechilta, citing the wicked son’s question, expounds it in a fascinating way: “‘And when your sons will say to you…’ – There is good news and bad news: the bad news is that there will come a time when your children will forget the Torah; but the good news is – at least you’ll have children and grandchildren.” Two conflicting approaches to one common dilemma: is the wicked son a blessing or a curse, good news or bad news ?

     Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook explained that the Korban Pesach resembles both an individual and communal offering, because it defined for all time the relationship of the individual to the community. The Korban Pesach was a private offering, but it had to be consumed in a group, with others. There is no other mitzva that obligates a person to join with others – that obligates him to create a group and find his spiritual fulfillment in that group. The Korban Pesach inherently had a communal component to it – and therefore, like other public offerings, it superseded both Shabbat and impurity.

       That is a far-reaching concept. Man struggles to find the right balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community, between what I can do for myself and what I must do for others. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that “democracy ends the moment the majority realizes it can vote itself money out of the treasury,” certainly a timely message today when the majority is wantonly voting itself and its supporters money out of the federal treasury.  Thomas Jefferson added a similar thought: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

     The Korban Pesach was an individual act that had to be done – on pain of extinction – in the context of the community. Pesach celebrates our creation as a nation, and therefore the most sublime moments take place in the context of that nation/ One who chooses to distance himself from that nation effectively denies the existence of G-d. The Unity of G-d is inextricably linked to the unity of the Jewish people, and, Rav Kook wrote, the fundamental conviction we have as a people is that “He chose us from the nations and gave us His Torah” – and that this community encompasses all Jews, and even the occasional scoundrel. Being part of the Jewish people is not just a functional connection (I am part of ‘something’) – but it is rather an existential connection, part of the inherent definition of our lives.

      “And when your sons will say to you…” There will come a time – and it comes in every generation – when some of our children will say, “what is this service to you”? Sadly, it does not speak to them, and those are bad tidings – that some of our children will forget the Torah. But that knowledge is also accompanied by good tidings that each generation will have Jewish children, and each generation will have the challenge of educating those Jewish children. We worry about the future, and rightly so – but we worry too much, especially about what others are doing or trying to do to us. There is no problem in Jewish life that cannot be resolved by doing the right thing ourselves – by speaking the language of Torah, faith, community, integrity and holiness.

    Then all our children will perceive the wisdom of Torah, and the depth of our commitment – and we will reclaim the spirit of the hosts of Hashem who were redeemed from Egypt 3322 years ago this year, and prepare ourselves for the future, in which we pray, we will soon see the wonders of G-d and His redemptive hand, speedily and in our time.

4 Comments

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

Denial III

Posted on March 24, 2010 | Comments Off on Denial III

    “There are pseudo-intellectuals, journalists and diplomats, who constantly declare that “everyone knows what the solution is,” and it is just a question of will and time. They assume a Palestinian state alongside Israel, living in peace and harmony and prosperity. And the evidence for that rosy scenario ? Non-existent. The evidence that Obama will actively engage Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions ? Non-existent. Rather, they (and we) would do well to heed Tedlow’s definition of denial: “the unwillingness to see or admit a truth that ought to be apparent and is in fact apparent to many others.”

    So I wrote in “Denial,” and among the prime exhibits of pundits who have presumed the outcome in the face of all evidence and who have therefore been relentlessly wrong and shameless unapologetic about it is Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria. One would think that his touting of Oslo and other debacles, Gush Katif and the rockets on Israel that that retreat created, would give at least some pause to re-consider, re-evaluate or perhaps even be silent about an area on which he clearly knows little. Yet, he persists. Herewith follows portions of this week’s screed, followed by simple commentary, relating to the current “crisis” in US-Israel relations.

   “…this crisis hasn’t been caused by just one event – the announcement while VP Joe Biden was visiting Israel, to approve new Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem…And while he’s apologized for the ill-timed announcement, Netanyahu remains unyielding. In fact, the Israeli press has reported plans to build not merely the 1600 units announced last week, but 50,000. ‘We will act according to the vital interests of the State of Israel,’ Netanyahu said last week.”

    Of course, the “crisis” wasn’t caused by one event; it was manufactured and contrived by an administration hostile to Israel, one that is re-orienting American foreign policy away from the US’s traditional allies. Unmentioned, of course, is that Netanyahu is continuing a policy advocated by each of his predecessors, and in furtherance of policy enunciated last year that would restrict building in Judea and Samaria but not at all in Jerusalem – a policy acknowledged by the United States, even if not fully embraced. So Israel, then, announced the third of seven stages in a process of building in its capital city where Israel has long maintained it would continue to build and from which it would never withdraw. What, then, is the cause for “crisis” ?

    “What are those vital interests ?….Iran… But…if tackling the rise of Iran were [Netanyahu’s]  paramount concern, would he have allowed a collapse in relations with the United States, the country whose military, political and economic help is indispensable in confronting this challenge…?”

     But America has been singularly ineffectual in dealing with Iran, and has been feckless in its diplomacy – failing to enact any meaningful sanctions , brutally failing (an epic collapse of American diplomacy under Hillary Clinton) to win over friendly nations (Brazil) to sanctions, much less adversaries like Russian and China. American threats are empty and routinely (and contemptuously) dismissed by Iran, and the pronouncements (“We will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear blah-blah-blah”) that it has been propagating for more than two years are ridiculed when they are not ignored altogether. What has Obama done that would engender the slightest hope in Israel that America will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear state? Nothing that I can think of, besides words and more words repeated ad nauseum. And for that Israel should refuse to build in its capital city, thereby tacitly conceding that its status is negotiable ?

    “Bibi likes to think of himself as Winston Churchill, warning the world of a gathering storm. But he should bear in mind that Churchill’s single obsession during the late 1930’s was to strengthen his alliance with the United States, whatever the costs, concessions and compromises he had to make.”

    And Zakaria should in mind that Churchill had Franklin Roosevelt to deal with, and not a post-modern, post-American, cosmopolitan, citizen of the world, radical liberationist, pacifist who rejects the concept of American exceptionalism (i.e., Obama). Nor did Churchill ever hear from FDR about the need to avoid violence or “disproportionate” violence, to negotiate with his enemies, to surrender all of Wales and parts of London. What a specious comparison !

     Zakaria, continues, in typical, anti-Israel polemicist fashion, to approvingly cite from a columnist from Haaretz – as if that is mainstream opinion in Israel –about how Netanyahu has “plunged Israel’s essential relationship with the United States to unheard of depths.”

    Can it not be argued that an administration without any natural sympathy for any of America’s traditional allies would eventually be at loggerheads with Israel ? Even allies can have diverging interests – must every divergence represent a nadir in a strategic relationship ? Does the United States have perfectly symmetrical interests with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, France, Italy, etc.? I think not, that is why this current “crisis” is not real but contrived. And I wonder how Zakaria would respond to Caroline Glick’s observations ?

    “Israel continues to live in a terrible strategic environment, with radical groups eager to combat it, most of its neighbors unwilling even to recognize its existence, and a broader world that is increasingly dismayed by or hostile toward it.  Many of these problems and attitudes stem from a deep-seating rejection of Israel. But much has changed in that regard. The Arab states have had to accept that their goal of defeating Israel has crumbled…”

     Really ? If so, then why are its neighbors unwilling to recognize it?  Herein lies the disconnect between fact and fantasy. In truth, not much has changed in 60 years, and simple honesty would demand that Zakaria mention that Arab hostility towards Israel pre-dates “settlements,” “fences,” “occupation,” “roadblocks” – and by a good 80 years. It deserves mention that from 1948-1967, Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria (and Egypt occupied Gaza) – and Arab states were still unwilling to recognize Israel, and waged wars of extermination against it. There is not a shred of evidence to support the contention that the Arabs have relinquished their dream of destroying Israel; on the contrary, reams of evidence support the very opposite conclusion. And nothing underscores the futility of this “peace process” and the ones before it than the elementary deduction that Arab rhetoric has changed, but not Arab genocidal motivations. And the world is turning on Israel for reasons that every Jew understands in his or her heart.

     “The Palestinians in the West Bank have extremely good leadership, with President Abbas committed to a peaceful path to a two-state solution and PM Fayyad committed to a competent, clean, and effective Palestinian government that focuses on economic growth, not violence.”

     Really ? With these insights, Zakaria crosses the line separating observer from propagandist. “Peaceful path” ? Does that include incitement (naming a square in Ramallah last weekafter a terrorist mass-murderer, an event attributed by Hillary Clinton to Hamas, not Fatah) ? Or the continued violence – stabbings, shootings and the like – against Israeli citizens ? Or the continued funding of Hamas – by the very same Palestinian Authority ? This is wishful thinking masquerading as analysis and bears no reality to the facts on the ground. Only a person who harbors ill-will toward Israel would conclude that “the Palestinians are being led wisely.” Pray tell: and how many “refugees” have been provided permanent housing during this enlightened reign ? Answer: none.

    “Bibi Netanyahu looks more like a local ward boss, concerned only with keeping himself on power while the dangers to Israel mount from all sides.”

     Someone give Zakaria a faux box of tissues to dry the crocodile tears he sheds over the great dangers facing Israel. Implicit in this criticism is the furtherance of one American policy objective – the destabilization of the Netanyahu government and his loss of power. And he can easily lose that power and that position of influence – if he pays any attention at all to another tendentious, uninformed and dangerous essay of Fareed Zakaria (ditto for Tom Friedman).

Comments Off on Denial III

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History

Denial: Update !

Posted on March 22, 2010 | 2 comments

Prime Minister Netanyahu today offered President Obama a direct and unequivocal reply to the demand that Israel cease building Jewish homes in Yerushalayim: no. “We will build in Jerusalem as we build in Tel Aviv.”

So far, the sky has not fallen. If Netanyahu retains this dignity and self-respect, he will compare favorably with Menachem Begin, who, as reported by Moshe Zak in the Jerusalem Post (March 13, 1992), knew how to deal with American presidents’ interference with Israel’s right to develop its own land: “As for settlements, too, over which the Administration rebuked Begin during all of his visits to Washington in the following six years, Begin knew how to respond with unconventional replies. “Why is it permitted for a Jew to settle and live in Bethel or Shiloh in the US, towns named after places in Judea and Samaria, but forbidden to build his home in the original Shilo or Beth El?” he asked Carter, and added: “I shall not lend my hand to discrimination against Jews in the Land of Israel.”

And not only with Carter, but at all his meetings with heads of state and government, Begin customarily replied with direct, frank words against anything he perceived as harming Israel’s interests or honor.

It is hard not to long for those days, and painful to ponder that it has been more than 30 years since Israeli prime ministers spoke like that. Here is another example, drawn from the same article, about a confrontation between Begin and that self-described “great Zionist,” Joe Biden, when the latter was a blowhard Senator, from 1982:

“In a conversation with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, after a sharp
confrontation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of the settlements, Begin defined himself as “a proud Jew who does not tremble with fear” when speaking with foreign statesmen.

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: “This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.”

After the meeting, Sen. Moynihan approached Begin and praised him for his cutting reply. To which Begin answered with thanks, defining his stand against threats.”

We say to PM Netanyahu: stand strong, and be strong, and the strength of an eternal people will carry you aloft.

2 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History

Denial

Posted on March 18, 2010 | 1 comment

     A new book called “Denial: Why Business Leaders Fail to Look Facts in the Face – and What to Do About It” (by Richard Tedlow, a Harvard Business School professor) tells the fascinating tale of the decline of the Ford Motor company in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and in particular the debacle of the Model-T. How did that best-selling vehicle suddenly lose its popularity and send Ford into a tailspin ?  Tedlow explains that Henry Ford (also a famous Jew-hater) refused to offer any variety of color to the consumer, saying: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, as long as it is black.” Instead, the customer went elsewhere. Ford was so convinced he knew best that he ignored explicit and obvious warning signs of impending doom, and the Model-T became a symbol of corporate mismanagement and Ford edged toward bankruptcy.

    Fast forward ninety years to the continued, stubborn mismanagement of Israel’s diplomatic affairs due to the persistent refusal of its leaders to assert a claim to the land of Israel based on divine right and historic justice. The latest travesty involves the contrived imbroglio over new “settlements in East Jerusalem,” not only a canard but reflective of Western intellectual laziness of the highest order. The apartments soon to be constructed in Ramat Shlomo, a Haredi neighborhood located in northern Jerusalem. It is bizarre how Ramat Shlomo [north], Gilo [south] and Maaleh Zeitim [east] are all construed to be in “East Jerusalem.” That is because “East Jerusalem” is shorthand for Arab and not Jewish. But even that is intellectually lazy: Ramat Shlomo was not occupied by Jordan before 1967 but was located in no-man’s land. But now that there is a man there, and the man is a Jew, the world is abuzz.

     Place much of the blame for this at the feet of Israel’s leaders. The announcement during Biden’s visit was foolish, but not for the standard reasons. Rather, since there are no – and can be no – serious negotiations in Israel’s best interests but rather each side jockeys for position in an inane PR contest, the announcement provided a useful pretext to Israel’s enemies – American and elsewhere – to criticize it for “obstructing peace.” That Israel breached no agreement in this announcement, tacit or otherwise, nor even in building in this part of its capital (which it had explicitly said it would continue to do), does not matter at all in the game as it is played today. Israel imprudently agreed to freeze construction in Judea and Samaria for “ten” months (sure) while retaining the right to build in Jerusalem. So why the uproar ?

     Because every concession Israel makes is simply pocketed and then ignored, leading to this week’s newspaper reports that – after Oslo, and Oslo II, and withdrawals from Sinai, Lebanon, Gaza, parts of the Golan, and much of Judea and Samaria – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is demanding that Israel prove its “commitment to peace” by new concessions. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZprVPKi-W6s&annotation_id=annotation_252323&feature=iv, for another perspective, even if I find the glorification of our victimhood in this video distasteful.) This followed by a few days her telephone tongue-lashing of Israel’s prime minister, who listened to the 45 minute diatribe and said little, taking it like a … well, not like a man, or a proud leader of an eternal nation. He should have cut her off, and said he had another call. (In any event, protocol should have dictated that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman take the call from the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister; likely, Lieberman would not have been as phlegmatic.) Instead, Netanyahu sighed and apologized, defusing a momentary diplomatic crisis to be sure but planting the seeds for the next one. Weakness breeds weakness.

    Remember Jewish strength and pride ? In December 1981, the Knesset passed the Golan Heights bill, effectively annexing that northern territory. When the American government announced that it was suspending its newly-signed memorandum of understanding with Israel, Menachem Begin called in US Ambassador Sam Lewis, and gave him a tongue-lashing:  “A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the “Golan Heights Law.” Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.  What kind of expression is this – “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?… The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America – and it will continue to live for another 3,700.” And then Begin asked Lewis to leave his office, without allowing him to respond. Strength breeds strength, and President Reagan – who, like most real leaders – respected strength and leaders who act in their national interests – soon resumed his customary support for Israel.

    Like Henry Ford (and other corporate failures), Israel’s leaders continue to pursue negotiations that will never lead to peace but can only weaken Israel both internally and externally. Netanyahu must realize on some level that the US administration is interested in his political demise, and Israel’s political decline, and its policies reflect that. The Americans have embarked on a naïve diplomatic course that distances its friends and cozies up to its enemies, with the obvious result that America’s position in the world will deteriorate during the Obama years – as America’s enemies are America’s enemies because of their national interests and aspirations and will remain so despite Obama smooth smile and glib words, even as America’s friends and allies will lie low and wait out this cosmopolitan. But Israel’s leaders stubbornly continue to engage in policies that run counter to its long term interests.

     American Jews are equally obstinate – and thoughtless – in their slavish obsequiousness to the Democratic Party. There are host of domestic reasons why the Democrat agenda is hostile to Jews and traditional values, and several related to foreign policy. Here’s one, Jews: Gallup reported a few months ago that 85% of Republicans pronounce themselves supporters of Israel, but only 48% (!) of Democrats so describe themselves. The Democrats are the home base of the far-left for whom Israel is anathema, and to which Jews are blinded. How blinded ? Jews, overwhelming Obama supporters, completely ignored Obama’s membership in a church whose preacher is a rabid Jew hater – twenty years of sermons about Israel, racism, the devil and other such sublime thoughts. Could it be there is a link between Obama’s current policies and his spiritual background ? Gee, who would’ve thought that ? No one could see that train wreck coming. Sure. Odd, indeed, how a Republican hostile to Israel (think Pat Buchanan) is tarred and feathered, while Jews routinely whitewash Democrats who are hostile to Israel. And that 48% of Democrats supportive of Israel is likely to diminish, not increase.

    It is fascinating still that the Torah provided us with all the lines, arguments and policy positions needed to sustain Jewish possession of the land of Israel. That we refrain from articulating them is counter-productive and self-defeating, and undermines that very objective. We are there for reasons that transcend Obama, the European Union, the UN and any other unsympathetic entity – and for Jews not to make the claim is a sorry indication that that same claim does not yet resonate in Jewish life. We cannot assert a divine mission and mandate if too many of us do not believe it.

     There are pseudo-intellectuals, journalists and diplomats, who constantly declare that “everyone knows what the solution is,” and it is just a question of will and time. They assume a Palestinian state alongside Israel, living in peace and harmony and prosperity. And the evidence for that rosy scenario ? Non-existent. The evidence that Obama will actively engage Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions ? Non-existent. Rather, they (and we) would do well to heed Tedlow’s definition of denial: “the unwillingness to see or admit a truth that ought to be apparent and is in fact apparent to many others.” For Netanyahu (and Olmert, Livni, Sharon, Barak, Peres, Netantyahu (!), Rabin, etc.) not to recognize this and base their policies accordingly is a dramatic failure of leadership. Eventually life in denial crashes into reality, as Henry Ford learned. So when will we learn ?

1 Comment

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