Category Archives: Current Events

The Attack of the Moralists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn’t this a great idea ?

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

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

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

Obama in Cairo

Have teleprompter, will travel.

President Obama’s long-awaited speech in Cairo on US-Muslim relations met expectations. It was passionately read and delivered (except for one stumble: calling a “hijab” a “hajib,” an understandable error), touched all the rhetorical bases and, like typical Obama, actually said much less than it read. And what it said should cause Jews, frivolous worriers, to worry for real. As always, what was said was as important as what not was said, and the audience reaction spoke eloquently about the effect of these words on the Muslim world.

Many will perceive the speech as a success simply by virtue of its being given, and because Obama was met by occasional applause but never with a shoe or two. But what in fact did he say?

Praising Islam for all its contributions to civilization is admirable and accurate; of course, Obama could have then delivered this speech in the year 1200, by which time all the “contributions” that he mentioned had already been made. But Islam has been slumbering, in primitivism and occasional barbarism, for 800 years, and but for the discovery of vast oil reserves a century ago would be today completely ignored by the civilized world, as is, for the most part, Africa. To speak of Islam as a wellspring of “dignity, justice and tolerance” is, at this point in history, delusional, as is the attempt to marginalize Islamic radicals as some fringe element in Islamic society, when in fact their supporters number, perhaps, in the tens of millions. And terming Islam, as a religion, part of the “solution” for global peace would have been more meaningful had it followed the simple truth that Islam is the only religion sparking violence across the globe today.

But Jews should be most concerned. Speaking of America as “partners” with Moslems and Jews in forging peace is a troubling code that signals that America and Israel – according to Obama – no longer share the special relationship that has always marked the two countries. The moral equivalence uttered between the suffering of the Jews historically (especially during the Holocaust) and the suffering of the Palestinians “in their quest for statehood” was obscene. Studiously avoiding Israel on this trip, instead tossing Jews the bone of visiting Buchenwald, sends Jews the clear message that we are to be best perceived as history’s victims, to be sheltered by the beneficence of a kind world, but not at all as national actors with rights, interests and claims of our own. And the comparison of moral offenses committed by both sides – lodging rockets at sleeping babies and blowing up old ladies on city buses (Arabs) vs. settlements !!! (Jews) is grotesque. Hmm, Jews build houses on empty land given to them by their government…what an outrage !

Whatever his personal background (rootless, without any real identity, and therefore a citizen of the world who is above the parochial religion that engender strife) and his rhetorical nods to Israel (America will never abandon Israel, etc.), deeds speak louder than words. And Obama’s campaign to weaken Israel and force it into making suicidal concessions is now crystal clear. He has decided what will bring lasting peace in the region, and he will impose whatever he has to – despite the fact that the same solution has been tried in the very recent past, and failed miserably. He – Obama – is just another slave to the “peace idol” who cannot ever admit that peace is not coming anytime soon. Who will pay the price for those fantasies? Jews.

Once again, Jews are expected to make concrete concessions, dismember their land and jeopardize their existence – in exchange for a repeat (sixth or seventh time, by my count) of Arab promises not to use violence, not incite violence, not to indoctrinate their children with the ideals of violence, etc. Same defective merchandise being sold, this time by a new and charming salesman.

The real gauge of the speech was the audience reaction. The State of the Union address, with its constant and insipid interruptions of hand clapping, it was not. Obama’s brutal and truthful comments about the Holocaust and the evil of Holocaust denial – was met with stony silence. His impassioned declaration that Arabs must recognize Israel’s right to exist – generated no applause at all. And this took place in what passes in the Muslim world for a bastion of moderation – a university setting, in which students in the past have participated in pro-democracy riots. But any positive reference to Israel – indeed, any indication that Arabs might have to compromise on anything – was greeted with dead air.

But a denunciation of settlements, the “history” of Palestinian suffering (almost all, by the way, self-inflicted), the grievances of the Arab world against the West and the United States all drew wild, enthusiastic applause. The silence of the audience was more revealing of the current state of Arab-American and Arab-Israeli relations than anything President Obama said.

In media-speak, Obama showed great courage in going to Cairo and even giving a speech in which he did, on occasion, challenge his audience to re-think some of their prejudices. But that seems to be drama, not courage (which involves the risk of some personal sacrifice), and Obama is an individual who loves a stage and knows how to perform on it. Real courage would have required him to challenge the audience on their silent reaction to crucial parts of his speech, rather than just move on to the next paragraph. Real courage would have Obama challenging Mubarak on his authoritarian rule and suppression of dissent, much like Condaleeza Rice did in 2005 in Egypt. Real courage would have required Obama to call upon the Arab world to join America in arresting Iran’s nuclear program by any means necessary. Real courage would have Obama telling the Arab world that Israel is a reality, that it unreasonable to expect any further Israeli concessions when past surrenders have sowed the seeds of future conflict, that it is senseless to further carve up the one small Jewish island in the Arab-Muslim ocean of 22 states in order to create an irredentist, 23rd Arab state, and that the Arabs now dwelling in the Land of Israel should find their nationalistic aspirations elsewhere if they are unhappy in Israel. (Actually, that courage would be welcome in an Israeli prime minister as well.)

Therein lies the confrontation ahead. Obama has paskened the solution to the conflict. It is up to the Israelis to say “No, that has not worked in the past, and there is not a shred of evidence that it will work in the future. We will not betray our heritage and endanger our existence based on your fantasies.” They will need the strength and political support of American Jews – 80% Obama supporters – to inundate the White House with protests and their congressmen with our expectations and interests, taking nothing for granted, and rallying our support for the right of Jews to settle anywhere in the land of Israel and for a strong hand to be raised against any hint of terror. American Jews – and their obeisance to the Democratic Party – will be tested.

Then the Obama Cairo speech will take its proper place in the other dramatic Obama addresses – rhetorical flourishes, symbols without substance – until this moment passes, and strong leadership will arise that can address problems in the real world, and not the world of our illusions. Until then, we will have to show fortitude, tenacity, and real courage.

Summer Tour

For details on my upcoming July 2009 tour

of the Canadian Rockies, see

http://www.keshertours.com/tour-03-canadian-rockies.html

All invited !

Oba-mania

At what point do we officially label President Obama “anti-Israel” ?

For many Jews, this will never happen, as Obama is a liberal Democrat, supports all the politically correct social justice causes (read: pro-abortion), and belongs to a favored minority group for whose treatment in America Jews have always felt particularly guilty (having been major slaveholders in the antebellum south, apparently…).

But consider that just in the last few weeks Obama has:

1)      shifted American foreign policy back to the orientation of the Clinton years, expecting all tangible concessions to come from Israel and all unenforceable promises to come from the Arabs;

2)      repudiated President Bush’s understandings with Israel that accepted “natural growth” in settlements in Judea and Samaria, in exchange for Israel’s commitment not to build new settlements outside existing areas;

3)      rejected Israel’s request for the purchase of new Apache helicopters (allegedly because of Obama’s “discomfort” as to how they were deployed during the recent Gaza conflict);

4)      suggested that America will no longer veto anti-Israel UN resolutions if Israel does not completely conform to American foreign policy dictates;

5)      allegedly directed Israel not to launch any military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, and to confer with America before taking any action at all;

6)      displayed very uncomfortable body language in his public sessions with Netanyahu, and declined to have a public session at all with visiting President Peres (who was sneaked in and out of the White House through a back door.

Add to this Obama’s continued efforts to mollify the Arab world, culminating in a trip this week to three Middle Eastern countries (but not Israel), and a disturbing pattern emerges. Undoubtedly, Obama will be able to calm the nerves of his most ardent Jewish supporters through his lofty rhetoric and smooth, teleprompted delivery, and leaked references to Rahm Emanuel’s father’s service in the Irgun – but none of that change the facts on the ground: US policy to Israel might be undergoing its most dramatic, harmful shift since the Carter Administration – including even the hostility of the first President Bush-James Baker years.

President Obama spent more than twenty years absorbing the anti-American and anti-Israel ranting of his pastor. It is no wonder he sat quietly through the anti-American screeds Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega – it was like being back in church all over again. Words do matter, and have an effect – in the short term and the long term.

Will American Jews have the gumption to challenge Obama, rally Congressional and other support against him if necessary, and stand up for Israel’s interests – which, in this case, accord with the interests of the free world in combating Islamic terror ? Will American Jews be blinded by flowery words, a White House seder and other allures, and allow the president to potentially sell out Israel ? Or will American Jews see themselves not as defenders of Obama or Israel – both awkward positions, to many – but as intermediaries trying to bridge the gaps between the parties ? Time – and our true sense of national identity – will tell.