Category Archives: Current Events

Invitations

Posted on May 28, 2010 | Comments Off

President Obama’s friendly outreach to PM Netanyahu strikes me as primarily an appeal to a domestic Jewish audience – whose liberal component is deeply troubled by Obama’s tone and substance toward Israel – rather than a genuine attempt to mend fences with Israel and conduct himself as one would expect from a friend and ally. With Obama’s poll numbers declining, he needed to shore up his Democratic Jewish support that had bottomed after he was misled into believing that the leftist Jews with whom he surrounds himself are representative of the Jewish – even liberal Jewish – community. They are not, despite their protestations.

The attempted “charm offensive” began several weeks ago. It included reaching out to US Rabbis for private meetings and the exchange of clichés and platitudes, meetings that – unlike President Bush’s outreach – did not actually include a meeting with the president himself, and now has culminated in what is being billed as a “friendly” meeting (as if that is something unusual), that will even include the presence of a photographer, perhaps a flashy smile, and, if Netanyahu plays his cards right, an entrance through the front door of the White House in daylight instead of the standard (for Israel’s prime minister) rear door entry in the dark of night.

Yet, even this invitation was muffed by the White House. Note the contrast in the invitations of Netanyahu and PA ex-president Abbas (who still functions as ra’is despite the fact that his term lapsed more than a year ago, but who’s counting anyway ?). Netanyahu was “invited” in a throwaway line by Rahm Emanuel who was visiting Israel: “Since you’ll be in Canada next week, stop in…” or something to that effect. The Abbas visit, in two weeks, was announced in a formal statement issued from the White House, with pomp and solemnity. There was no such formal White House statement for Netanyahu.

The Prime Minister should have said “no, thank you… not this time, perhaps in a few months.” He should have deflected this invitation by saying: “Mr. President, your invitations are always welcome and our friendship is strong, sincere and true. But it is not right for me to impose myself on you for a third visit, while you – a world traveler, including across most of the Arab world – have yet to visit me in my humble and holy land. So let us plan a date for your visit, and we shall talk then…” He should not come because the Obama administration is locked into a mindset that is detrimental Israel’s survival: “peace” is on the horizon and it will only be won through Israeli concessions. However that sentiment is couched and colored (the Arabs will renounce terror, incitement, or the wearing of white robes), the bottom line is all tangible concessions must come from Israel. And every new concession is just the prelude to the next round of concessions.

Israel could benefit from some benign neglect, at least until the harmful dynamic is halted or reversed. An interesting commentator wrote (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=176586) that Netanyahu’s primary goal today should be domestic stability (especially including that of his government) and that Israel would do well to avoid any diplomatic initiatives for the foreseeable future. Every Israeli diplomatic initiative in the last thirty years has left Israel in an impaired strategic posture at its conclusion, as if often winds up negotiating with itself and against itself. Passivity has its place, and even words matter.

Be careful what you say. Surrender begins insidiously, with words that Israel interprets as innocuous even as the enemy and its acolytes invest them with great significance. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 102a) states that “brit keruta lasfatayim” – there is a covenant made with the lips. Whatever people say will be fulfilled in some form, and not always as they intended. In 1978, Menachem Begin agonized over accepting one phrase in the Camp David Accords, acknowledging the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” He didn’t believe they had any rights to the land of Israel, much less legitimate ones. He was convinced to sign (foolishly), likely by advisor Aharon Barak, who later became the irksome President of Israel’s High Court of Justice, who told him that the phrase “legitimate rights,” absent any real definition, meant nothing, and were just empty words.

Not quite. The phrase was almost universally perceived to reflect the “national” rights of an Arab people to the land of Israel, and the rest is inglorious history. Within twenty years, the idea of a Palestinian state went from being anathema to the civilized world and synonymous with a wish for Israel’s destruction to Israel’s being anathematized by the civilized world (and the uncivilized) for its failure to create a Palestinian state, even though it is still synonymous with a wish for Israel’s demise.

Therein rests the danger as well in Netanyahu’s embrace of a conditional Palestinian state last June. Not many remember or care what his conditions were; all people consider is that there few credible leaders in Israel now – right or left – who oppose a Palestinian state. The natural question then becomes: why is Israel obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state that they themselves have endorsed ? That question is difficult to answer convincingly to a world that has tired of Israel’s security laments, and that question – sure to be raised by Obama to Netanyahu next week – weighs like an albatross around Israel’s neck. So why go to a White House altogether ? To coordinate a joint attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities ? That’ll be the day.

Words matter. Words create psychological realities that are often then translated into physical realities. Sure, Netanyahu relieved US and some domestic pressure by this concession, but at what cost? When words are used as concessions, to thwart the relentless pressure coming from our enemies and their supporters, the consequences are profound. The only answer is not to become tired, not to become so fatigued that surrender seems like the only reasonable option. In this, the Talmud guides us as well (ibid 104b): “kal hamaitzik l’Yisrael eino ayaif,” whoever oppresses Israel does not become weary. The enemy is inexorable, and is emboldened when he sees that Jews are tired (as Ehud Olmert infamously said five years ago). But knowing that their relentlessness is a given – and that our passion must exceed theirs – means that we must be vigilant in giving no quarter practically or even verbally. “No” (or “no, thank you”) is also an answer.

So, you are always welcome here, Mr. Netanyahu, but you need not jump just because Obama tells you to jump. He is busy anyway cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that his daughter Malia has been hectoring him about (shades of Amy Carter’s youthful obsession with “nucular proliferation” that bedeviled her father). Let Obama clean up the mess in the Gulf, and when those waters are again pristine, he can try to clean up the mess in the Middle East. Otherwise, there are hazardous and choppy waters ahead for Israel.

Comments Off on Invitations

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

The Range of Prophecy

Posted on May 25, 2010 | Comments Off

The Torah highlights for us Moshe’s greatness, and even construes it as an article of faith. Hashem explains to Miriam and Aharon: “If there are prophets among you, I make Myself known to them in a vision or in a dream. Not so My servant Moshe, who is trusted in My entire house. I speak to him mouth to mouth in a clear vision without riddles” (Bamidbar 12:6-8). Hashem’s message to Moshe is direct, unimpeded, and unambiguous – and no other prophet had or will ever have such a relationship.

In fact, this principle is one of the fundamental concepts of the Jewish people – that no prophet is like Moshe and no prophecy is like Moshe’s. It is the seventh principle of the Rambam – that Moshe is the master of all prophets, and that all others are inferior to him. We maintain that G-d communicated with Moshe b’aspaklaria hame’ira, with a crystal clear vision, but to other prophets b’aspaklaria she’enena me’ira, with a visualization that was cloudy, opaque, and unclear.

That was Moshe’s greatness. The question is: why is this important ? How does it affect our lives whether or not Moshe was the greatest prophet? Who keeps score ? Why should this be a fundamental tenet of Judaism ? And what is an aspaklaria hame’ira, the clearest mental picture attainable ?

Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook zt”l explained (Orot 121) that there is a difference between Moshe’s prophecy and that of other prophets, and this distinction affects us greatly until today. The other prophets only spoke of ideals, principles, values, and strivings – of justice and righteousness and kindness. They reinforced to the Jews again and again the basic norms of decent behavior, the foundation of the entire Torah. They never admonished the people for not keeping Shabbat or Kashrut – but for not being good people, or for not being conscious of G-d’s presence. The prophets were not allowed to innovate in halacha, or to tamper with, deviate or supplement the Torah.

Their vision was of ideals and generalities, but nothing specific. It was a vision b’aspaklaria she’enena me’ira.

Moshe’s prophecy was b’aspaklaria hame’ira. He transmitted to us not only the ideals of Torah, but also specifically how those ideals are translated into practical behavior. Moshe spoke not only of justice in the abstract, but also how the particulars of every mitzva produce a just person; he taught not only of the imperative of kindness, but also how the details of each mitzva help fashion the kind personality. Moshe taught us how each mitzva translates the theoretical into the practical – and that is why his prophecy was unique, and itself one of the thirteen cardinal principles of the Jewish faith.

Moshe saw the entirety of Hashem’s message b’aspaklaria hame’ira, with a clear lens. He perceived both the particulars and the principles as one. The prophetic vision can only complement Torat Moshe; it cannot add to it intrinsically.

Certainly, this is no denigration of the prophets of Israel. Indeed, the particulars of Moshe’s Torah – the Mitzvot – are wasted on and easily corrupted by those who observe them without reference to the prophetic vision. And clearly those who speak in the lofty and exalted terms of the prophets while divorced from the mitzvot of Torat Moshe have emasculated the Torah and essentially created another religion.

Both visions form the composite Jewish experience. And yet, both currents today inhabit two different worlds. We are confronted by a Jewish world that, at one end, ignores halacha as not germane to modern life, or, at the other end, is wrapped up compulsively in issues of kosher wigs, kosher water and wormy fish, and the like, that, notwithstanding that it reflects a lack of sophistication about the world (and even a very narrow view of halacha), but is almost designed to make us look peculiar in the eyes of our contemporaries. “You shall safeguard and perform the mitzvot, for they are your wisdom and discernment in the eyes of the nations, who will hear of these decrees and shall say about you ‘Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation’” (Devarim 4:6). Unfortunately, few people who read of current events in the Jewish world will be moved to exclaim ‘Surely a wise and discerning people is this great nation’. (When the facts remain the same and only the halacha purports to change, something more than sober analysis is afoot.) Much has been lost in the synthesis of Torat Moshe and the vision of our prophets.

We witness some of this dissonance every week. Although prophecy ceased some 24 centuries ago, the words of the prophets ring true until today. They are not written on the subway walls, but read in shul – the weekly haftara. Yet, some of us are so unmoved by them that we literally walk out on them every Shabbat. We may tolerate Torat Moshe – the details of the mitzvot – but we cannot bear to hear the words of the prophets. They do not speak to us, and, like some other mitzvot, often do not remind us of Hashem or evoke a spiritual response. Thus, some may be quite diligent in uttering the correct blessing at Kiddush, or make sure not to turn on the TV on Shabbat, or support Israel generously – but the whole framework of the Jewish experience simply does not resonate. And that is most unfortunate.

Conversely, the world – even part of our world – is filled with spiritual seekers, people trying to get in touch with G-d, their soul, something beyond the physical. That is why kabbala and the New Age and all that other stuff are so popular. They may not know where to look, but at least they are looking; many of us are not even looking anymore. We are content to keep the Indians out of our hair and the bugs out of our water, recite the appropriate prayer formulas by rote, and that is our divine service.

Even worse, parents worry about their children “flipping” in Israel. Many witness the spiritual apathy of teenagers, who, for a time will stop going to shul or observing some of the mitzvot – and wonder what will become of them. They may even pray that their children learn to just go through the motions – “just show up, say the words, bind the tefillin unthinkingly, and move on” ! Like “I” do.

Then, after a year in Israel where a child sees the holistic, fully-integrated system of Torah, and for the first time actually feels a closeness with Hashem, the parents will often wonder what has become of their child. By the same token, the child begins to wonder why his/her parents attend shul primarily for social reasons – to visit and chat with friends – or because of social conventions – it is what Jews do on Shabbat. They feel estranged from their elders who are going through the motions and observe the Mitzvot out of habit and routine, and may even feel spiritually empty. In shul, while the child is talking to Hashem, the parents are oblivious to Hashem and talking to their friends. So, who is really “flipped” ?

Rav Kook wrote that in the end of days, there will be a return of the light of the prophets and then a hatred of the details will prevail – the details which simple people feel hampers their ability to serve Hashem, and which frum people often feel constitutes the totality of their service of Hashem.

We are seeing that today – as a prelude to the return of the spirit of Moshe that infuses every particular of halacha with not just a behavioral component but also with its profound spiritual essence. People will see the inner beauty of the mitzva, and we will coalesce the vision of the prophets with the vision of Moshe. We will be able to view the Torah itself b’aspaklaria hame’ira.

Not all of us can do that today. Some of us may be spiritually burnt out and feel spiritually ice cold. But ice cold is not dead. The embers burn deep within every Jew, and only need to be ignited. We already have the great gift – the Torah. “For I have given you a precious gift…” (Mishlei 4:2). We already have the mitzvot; we only need to bring them alive, appreciate them, embrace them with fervor and enthusiasm – daven, learn, serve G-d, do chesed as befits us as serious Jews – and a thirsty world will turn to us yearningly, with respect and reverence, for the spiritual guidance that it craves.

That is our legacy from Moshe. Only Moshe’s prophecy could transmit to us such a system. Only through appreciating it in its fullness will we merit the true joy of the present and the glories of the future. Only then will we be receptive to and worthy of welcoming the divine presence into our midst, speedily and in our days.

Comments Off on The Range of Prophecy

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

The Pariahs

Posted on May 17, 2010 | Comments Off

Two men, whose public conduct vis-à-vis the Jewish people have branded them in many circles as undesirables, have now had their private lives suffer as a consequence. Is this a healthy sign of public discourse or a poor reflection on the shallowness and intolerance of certain Jews ?

The first is Richard Goldstone, the erstwhile Apartheid-era South African judge whose penance before the liberal elites centered on his issuance of the tendentious, anti-Jewish “Goldstone Report” at the behest of his masters at the United Nations. The report detailed Israel’s alleged war crimes during last year’s Gaza War, Operation Oferet Yetzuka (“Cast Lead;” who chooses these names anyway, and why?), especially including the loss of civilian life – but did not seem to take issue with Hamas rockets falling on Israeli civilian heads or Hamas’ use of civilians as shields for their malevolent and violent deeds. It did not distinguish between aggressor and victim, nor did it seem to accord any substantive right of self-defense to Israel – as if only Jews are not allowed to defend themselves. Of course, to have such a report issued by a “Jewish” judge grants it even more “legitimacy” in the eyes of both those who seek to do Israel harm, and those who don’t know any better.

Goldstone’s grandson is soon celebrating his Bar Mitzva in South Africa, and the Jewish community of South Africa first “disinvited” the grandfather – who no longer lives in South Africa – informing him that his presence there would create a disturbance and that he himself is unwelcome. After a brief flurry, the SA Federation relented, and Goldstone is being permitted to attend.

The second putative pariah in the dock is White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who this week is celebrating his son’s Bar Mitzva in Israel. Emanuel, known to his friends as a contentious, tempestuous vulgarian – not to mention his enemies – has reportedly been the catalyst for at least part of President Obama’s ongoing humiliation of Israel’s Prime Minister and his contempt for Jewish nationalism. Emanuel has repeatedly threatened Israel’s leaders, and supporters in the US, with the most dire consequences if Israel does not kowtow to Obama’s dictates and make “peace,” and “now.” Reportedly, Emanuel decided to move his son’s Bar Mitzva away from the Kotel – where it was originally planned – in the face of expected protests from individuals who resent the fact that Emanuel wished to celebrate his son’s milestone at a national holy site that his – and his bosses’ – policies – would lead to the denial of that right to other Jews. His opponents feel, I suppose, that one should never let a good simcha go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before…

Are these protests fair ? Should we conflate and commingle someone’s public and private lives ?

There are logical arguments to be made on both side, but, on balance, I think – in most cases – not. My yardstick is the Ba’al Simcha (celebrant) himself – does the young man wish to have his grandfather or father present, does he desire to celebrate his Bar Mitzva as “normally” as possible ? If, in the latter case, the boy wishes a bar Mitzva at the Kotel, it would be grossly unfair to him to deprive him of that right. We should not visit the sins of the father, such as they might be, on the son (or grandson). Indeed, and it pains me to say it, there is something laudable about a public figure like Emanuel wanting to celebrate his family smachot in Yerushalayim, a point certain to be noted by Jew-haters of the “dual loyalty” stripe. It even makes a statement about the centrality of Israel to Jewish life that we can only wish will be internalized at some point by Emanuel himself and his boss.

By the same token, if the Goldstone grandson desires his grandfather’s presence, it should be permitted (how one denies a person the right to daven in a shul is a separate question), unless it would cause such a distraction that it would detract from the Bar Mitzva itself. That should be the rule of thumb – keep the personal personal, and the public public.

Certainly, one can conjure a scenario in which an individual is so loathed by the public – a Madoff leaps to mind – that his mere presence is considered odious. That, of course, begs the question: why is (even massive) financial impropriety worthy of public ostracism, and causing (potentially massive) political harm to the Jewish nation brushed aside to allow for a joyous event ?

Perhaps because the deeds of the former were definite crimes, and the deeds of the latter – although potentially more devastating – are indefinite, subject to interpretations, intentions, motivations and other forces in the future. Or, perhaps because the deeds of the latter are not “crimes” technically, as distasteful as they were to supporters of Israel, they should not be treated with the opprobrium we reserve for real criminals. And banning people for their loathsome political opinions is a very slippery slope.

Of course, Goldstone should recognize that if his presence impairs the simcha, he would do wise to stay away. It is not about him, nor should he use the occasion to mount a defense of his perfidy. And, perhaps, we can only pray, an Emanuel Bar Mitzva at the Kotel will arouse something in Rahm’s Jewish spirit that will prompt him to serve as an advocate for the Jewish people in his current position, and not as an adversary. His Israeli father, as is well known, was briefly a medic in the Irgun many years ago – not that necessarily means anything to the son. But maybe being in Yerushalayim – seeing, for example, Ramat Shlomo on the ground – and experiencing its vibrancy will cause him to re-think his political course, and guide his master to a more sensitive policy.

That would be an effective confluence of one’s public and personal lives. But, in the interim, let the boys enjoy their smachot with their families.

Comments Off on The Pariahs

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Yom Yerushalayim 5770

Posted on May 12, 2010 | 1 comment

This Yom Yerushalayim – Jerusalem Day, celebrating the liberation and reunification of the Holy City by Israel in 1967 – finds Israeli sovereignty over its capital in its most precarious state since the Six Day War, owing to two causes: the hostility of Barack Obama and the weaknesses of Binyamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu boasted Wednesday evening that Jerusalem will never be divided again. “We cannot divide or freeze a city as vibrant and creative as Jerusalem – we will continue to build and be built by it.” He insisted at Yeshivat Mercaz Harav on Tuesday night that Jews are building and will continue to build in Yerushalayim. The statement is truthy, but not completely true, and note its ambiguities: Jews will continue to build in Yerushalayim, but, left unsaid, not in every sector of Yerushalayim despite all protestations to the contrary.

Netanyahu’s assertion that there is no building freeze in Yerushalayim is contradicted by two sources. The spokesman for the US Department of State announced last week that there is a building freeze – this after all the uproar over the 1600 apartments approved two months ago for Ramat Shilo and the subsequent deterioration in US-Israeli relations that led to the Hillary Clinton rage against Netanyahu and his snub at the White House. (It is a shame that Netanyahu is not perceived to be as decent a fellow or as reliable an American ally as is Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who is being feted in Washington this week after announcing last month that he may join forces with the Taliban if Obama doesn’t back down in his criticisms of the Karzai regime. Obama backed down.) Now it seems that Netanyahu backed down, to his shame and that of his right-wing coalition partners.

Or did he ? He denies it, but then again his own Housing Minister confirmed in the Knesset earlier this week that building in Yerushalayim has indeed been halted, and for some time. So what gives ?

It is true that duplicity is diplomacy without the mask of niceties. There is a certain skill in diplomacy, in speaking equivocally in order to avoid escalations or inflammations of delicate political situations. But Israel – whose diplomats have long snatched defeat from the jaws of victory – has always suffered from both the appearance and reality of duplicity – of saying one thing, and doing another. That tactic works with a rogue like Arafat, but as Israel is part of the civilized world, its interlocutors who are treated with such disdain rightly protest. An Abbas can promise – again – to crack down on terror and incitement in exchange for this new freeze, but few believe him, or should. (He is not even the legal authority in the PA anymore; his term expired almost 15 months ago in that joke of a political entity.) But Israel is held to account, as it should be, and should not – for a variety of reasons – acquiescing to another freeze, a tacit admission that the land is not theirs and that they are doing something illegal or ignoble building on it.

For Netanyahu to play this double game is shameful. For Israel’s prime minister to forego attendance at the re-dedication of the Hurva synagogue in the Old City (a most magnificent facility that was destroyed twice by marauding Arabs, and in which I was privileged to pray a few weeks ago) so as not to seem “provocative” by entering the Old City is disgraceful. Is Israel’s Prime Minister effectively barred from the Kotel, because his appearance there might create an international incident ? That type of pusillanimity does not bode well for the future.

Israel’s PM has a checkered past; his first term ended in ignominy and he became a political exile once it became clear that his values were for negotiable, his word meaningless, and his principles fluid. He vowed that he had learned from his mistakes. In one sense, he has – he has become a cleverer politician, neutralizing the left and the media by incorporating both secular right-wing and left-wing elements in his government, dangling before them portfolios and the sinecures of high office. But in another sense, he has not: he still lacks a backbone that enables him to tell critics – whether domestic or foreign – to stuff it. He can proclaim his love of Yerushalayim from the rooftops, but the facts on the ground do not nourish those convictions. Those who know him personally have told me that he – like many politicians – has a desperate need to be liked, and will do anything to avoid criticism and to be perceived as popular. Would that he had the audacity of a Hamid Karzai; if he did, he might not be heading to a second disastrous failure.

How unsuccessful has he been, and how much has the political culture in Israel changed during his term ? Consider: there have been two staples of Israeli diplomacy for decades – one, the indispensability of direct talks between Israel and the Arabs, so as to impress upon them the permanence of Israel; and, two, the refusal to take any concrete steps – such as building freezes – that pre-judge the outcome of the negotiations. This was policy for decades, and upheld recently by even a lightweight such as Ehud Olmert (with whom, it seems, the law has finally caught up). And yet, under the “staunch” right-winger Netanyahu, all that has gone by the boards. Israel conceded, for the sake of inducing the Arabs to join in “proximity” (i.e., indirect, not direct) talks, that it will freeze building in Judea, Samaria and Yerushalayim.

That is unprecedented, sheer madness, as well as gross incompetence: Netanyahu has skillfully navigated Israel into a weaker diplomatic position that it had even under the far-leftist Olmert. Not to mention his endorsement of a Palestinian state (in utter disregard of his party’s platform) and his inability to win international acceptance of Israel’s right of self-defense. It is a puzzle why his failures have not won more attention, except for the obvious facts that his rivals are perceived as even more inept, and the strong Israeli economy lulls people into complacency. Terror is also down, but how long that will remain if Israel pulls its forces from the Arab cities it patrols – and when it opens major Route 443 (Modiin to Jerusalem) to Arab traffic – remains to be seen. The surface is calm, with great turbulence rising up from the underground.

So this Yom Yerushalayim had its customary pomp and pageantry, its heartfelt prayers and wistful recollections. But there is an air of uneasiness. Netanyahu’s glib talk does not at all complement his actions. Trying to appease Obama so he will thwart Iran is foolhardy in the extreme. And duplicity eventually turns on its practitioners. People without core values become absorbed with self-preservation as their only value. Once again – again – a right-wing leader is guiding Israel down a path of concessions and defeat masquerading as strength and triumph. When will we wake up ? Better, will we wake up ?

1 Comment

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