Category Archives: Israel

    The AIPAC policy conference, simply put, is a tonic for the battered and bewildered supporter of Israel – battered by the incessant hatred of Jews and the Jewish state that emanates from the Arab world and its fellow travelers in the West, and bewildered by an Israeli government that is seemingly rushing headlong into another catastrophic signing ceremony that will be a another prelude to another wave of retreats, terror and mayhem.

     First, the good news. It is an incomparable experience to stand with more than 14,000 lovers of Israel – Jews of all stripes and backgrounds, and non-Jews of all races, creeds and ethnic origin. AIPAC is remarkably successful in bridging gaps. In truth, it was not at all surprising to see rabbis of three Jewish “denominations” standing on stage together and each describing his warm feelings towards Israel. Despite all the rhetoric, we are accustomed to Jews uniting in times of communal danger. What was shocking (!) was how natural it was for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md) standing together, each explaining the vital American interest in a strong US-Israel alliance and pledging to promote and strengthen that alliance even more in years to come.

    Watching them, I could not think of another issue facing Americans today on which Republicans and Democrats make common cause, work in tandem, and do not seek to undermine the other. Indeed, each lauded the bipartisan nature of the US support for Israel – a support that has always been rooted in Congress. Presidents come and go, and some are more and others are less supportive of Israel. But Congressional ties to the Jewish state have been robust for decades. And I wondered, why? Why, in fact, do Americans support Israel over the Arabs by margins of five or six to one?

Contrary to our enemies’ propaganda, it is neither the Jewish vote (which is miniscule to begin with, and overwhelmingly Democratic) nor Jewish money (Arabs have much, much more, and spend it) that sway the American public and political class. It is, rather, the Jewish soul – the spirit of the people of Israel. And AIPAC did a wonderful job in conveying this message.

Throughout the Convention Center, one did not have to go far in order to see pictures and accounts of Israeli teams throughout the world on a variety of rescue missions and other acts of compassion. There was a large map that depicted the dozens of countries across the globe (some that do not even recognize the State of Israel) that have been the beneficiaries of Israeli aid during catastrophes and natural disasters. Israeli rescuers are often the first on the scene, saving victims, building hospitals, stabilizing food and water supplies, and thwarting the spread of disease. Other groups of Israelis have traveled the world to teach more efficient uses of water to areas that are parched and where drought is a familiar though unwelcome visitor.

And, of course, the technological innovations that Israelis have brought to the world are unparalleled. The latest on display – and already in use by law enforcement across the US and the world – is a device that allows people literally to see through walls (brick, steel and otherwise) and facilitates hostage rescue and the capture of any band of malefactors. And those evildoers and Jew-haters who advocate a boycott of Israeli products should immediately stop using their computers and EZ-passes, and order their physicians to abstain from treating them with any of the Israeli medical devices that have transformed health care. That’ll teach ‘em!

Why does Israel attract such support from Americans? Because at the end of the day Israelis are good people who are trying to make the world a better place. And all the best propaganda that money can buy will not change that. AIPAC, though, has a critical role in publicizing these good deeds – the latest, rendering medical care to victims of the mutual atrocities in Syria – that would otherwise be suppressed by the forces of hatred.

Of course, being “good” has its downside, and it is disheartening to hear otherwise intelligent and sophisticated people in the political class speak of “peace and prosperity” in the Middle East as if it were just a few more Israeli concessions away. The “good” often have a hard time seeing the “bad,” and certainly acknowledging the permanence of “bad.” But it is a reality, and from the hi-tech entrepreneurs to the parade of politicians spouting clichés and platitudes, the concerns for Israel’s future are justified. Israel is only country in the world –and probably ever –that always seems to be either five minutes away from complete redemption or five minutes away from complete destruction. The ge’ula and the churban seem equally plausible prospects. What is needed is strength, courage, convictions, belief in the narrative of Jewish history and the unfolding destiny of the Jewish people. The temptation to give up so close to the end is tantalizing.

The German military strategist Karl von Clausewitz wrote: “Given the same amount of intelligence, timidity will do a thousand times more damage than audacity.” One sees this unfolding today in US foreign policy where timidity now rules the roost, under the guise of a people tired of war. The Romans said – and this corollary has yet to be repealed – Si vis pacem, para bellum, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” America’s strategic decline and shifting alliances spell short-term trouble. Obama’s America is not feared by its enemies and not respected by its friends. Obama’s naïve world view was summarized by his reaction to Putin’s seizure of the Crimea, when he trumpeted its illegality and then suggested that “Putin’s lawyers must be telling him something different.” Does he really believe that Putin consults lawyers before acting? Only a community organizer would even think in those terms, much less articulate them.

Such gullibility is harmful to America but it could deadly for Israel. Israel is on the verge, allegedly, of marching down the road to two inconceivable outcomes: first, that it can rely on the United States to halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program. It is simply inconceivable that the US will act militarily against Iran in an Obama administration, like it is unimaginable that Iran will agree through negotiations to cease the development on its own. Iran is successfully playing the same game it has played in the past. The suspension of sanctions in exchange for temporarily delaying uranium enrichment allows it to sufficiently recover from the effects of the previous sanctions to be able to weather the next economic storm when it ends negotiations on its own terms. Israel is really on its own in dealing with Iran.

Second, it is inconceivable that Israel would agree to surrender more land, establish another Arab state on its own land and emasculate its defenses in the Jordan Valley. It is ludicrous. It is implausible. But is it happening?
Providence granted the Israelis a respite from the expected pressures of the White House by distracting Obama and Kerry with the problems in Ukraine. But in a world of free choice, it is up to the Israelis to change the dynamic, be audacious, rely on itself, and not kowtow to US pressure when it comes. Listening to John Kerry’s speech at AIPAC before he immediately flew off to Kiev was an eye-opener. He really believes, apparently, that partitioning the land of Israel and creating a hostile state will solve the problems once and for all – that peace and brotherhood will descend on the Holy Land. And he believes that against all reason, against all odds and against all the available evidence, historical and current.

So, too, Netanyahu believes that his winning strategy will be to get the so-called “Palestinians” to recognize Israel as a “Jewish state.” If they say those magical words – “Jewish State” – then surrender will be at hand. He doesn’t think they will, but that is the height of foolishness. Once again, Israel will be in a position of transferring objective and valuable assets – its land – in exchange for words – words that might not be sincere when uttered and that can be retracted once the concessions are pocketed. Is he counting on the Arabs’ hatred of Israel being so irrational that they will not be able to utter those words? What a fool’s bargain that would be. If they had any sense, they would say those words, and say it yesterday.

They are just words. In his Epistle to Yemen, the Rambam advised the beleaguered Yemenite Jews who were being persecuted and forcibly converted (on pain of death) by the Muslim natives to say the Muslim declaration of faith – just say the words and do not allow yourselves to be martyred. It’s just words. The so-called “Palestinians” can also say words. So what? Deeds and attitudes matter more.

Few people in the world give a better speech than Israel’s prime minister, even if every word has been heard before. But does he really believe what he is saying? Is he a cunning genius – or too clever by half?

A right-wing journalist asked me the following question: If AIPAC is pro-Israel, how can it support a Palestinian state? I answered simply that AIPAC supports the Israeli government; it is the current Israeli government that supports a Palestinian state.

And therein lies the problem, and the hazardous road ahead. But that road will be infinitely smoother with strong and faithful leadership in Israel backed by a strong and faithful leadership in the United States, especially including the good people at AIPAC.

     Is there a shul in the world where the Rabbi has absolutely no detractors? Not that I know of. Is there a shul in the world where every single person loves the Rabbi? Again, I plead ignorance; never heard of one. On some level, it is to be expected. Sometimes, the rabbi is at fault, but rarely so. Sometimes it comes as a result of a clash of personalities and philosophies, and even more frequently because the rabbi is cast as an authority figure and represents – in the eyes of the disgruntled – every authority figure he has ever reviled – teacher, parent, even G-d. It is as Moshe (who certainly had his share of detractors) and Aharon said to the Jews in the wilderness during one of their periods of discontent: “Your complaint is not against us but against G-d” (Shemot 16:8).

     Perhaps that will help explain the relentless assault underway against the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, from many quarters – usual suspects, those with complaints against the Torah and even some of my distinguished colleagues.

     Think of the State of Israel as the largest shul in the world. It is not so far-fetched; after all, its Parliament is called the Knesset. It has approximately six million members, and of all stripes in Jewish life, from one end of the spectrum to the other. Many people join together in common acts of devotion but otherwise have little to do with each other. They have their circle of friends, and people (some, they don’t even know) whom they cannot abide. And they have a Rabbi – in this case, two – and they treat them pretty much the way an average, decent shul treats its rabbi.

Many people love the Rabbi, and here as well. They revere the institution as well as the holder of the position. The Chief Rabbi is the national symbol of the religious establishment. He preaches the message of Torah – and Rav David Lau is indefatigable in his outreach, visiting several different communities almost on a daily basis. The rabbi brings the wisdom of Torah to current events, and ideally is consulted for the Torah’s perspective on a variety of national issues.

For sure, the Chief Rabbi is a posek as well, and decides questions of Jewish law relating to ritual matters (Kashrut, Shabbat, burial, etc.). He is responsible for the application of Jewish law in family matters, such as marriage, divorce and conversion. And, ceremonially, the Chief Rabbis are available during moments of national mourning and rejoicing, setting the tone, offering encouragement to the afflicted and assistance to the disadvantaged. He is a symbol, and of course, a person as well.

Most people appreciate the need for a Chief Rabbinate, even if they will only encounter it very infrequently, and usually for some ritual requirement or by attending a shiur.

And then there are the detractors, like in any shul, and there are just many more such people in a big shul of six million souls, even if the percentages are probably the same. And they are loud and frequently run to the media (sometimes, they own the media). They don’t like the Rabbi’s stance on issues (he is too Haredi or too modern). He is too stringent. He represents only a small segment of the population. It’s all about money. It’s all about politics and protekzia. It’s jealousy. Occasionally it is even the other rabbis who think they could be doing a better job. I could go on.

Personally, I think this “Israelis hate the Rabbinate” or “the Rabbinate is forcing people to hate Torah” trope is enormously overblown, and many people – rabbis included – unwittingly contribute to the perception by continuing to cite it as if it were verifiably true and beyond intelligent discussion (like global warming, as we suffer through this unbearable Northeastern winter). Do some secular Israelis hate the Rabbinate? Yes. Do some religious Jews hate the Rabbinate? Yes. Sure, any bureaucracy is a problem when it clashes with people’s desires and when it displays inefficiency.  But people also hate the Motor Vehicle Bureau, yet they don’t swear off driving as a result.

News flash: Do some American Jews also hate rabbis? Yes. They are called “clergy killers.” And the United States does not even have a formal rabbinate. Hmmm…there seems to be a pattern here.

To my way of thinking, estrangement from Torah causes hatred of rabbis rather than hatred of rabbis causes estrangement from Torah. And some people are estranged from Torah for reasons having nothing to do with rabbis, and everything to do with background, upbringing and secularism. Sure, there is an occasional exception – the mean rabbi who permanently turns people off from Torah, the abuser – although for some odd reason we never read about the mean doctor (or abusive doctor) who permanently turns off people from seeking medical care. Perhaps the doctors are not as quick to cannibalize their own as rabbis sometimes are?

Of course, we all know the polls and the anecdotes. We all have heard such stories. So what? The drumbeat in the secular press for years – with which some rabbis now compete very ably – is that ” the Chief Rabbinate is bad, bad, irredeemably bad! And they turn people away from a Torah, except for good rabbis who hate the Chief Rabbinate and whom the people love!”

With that incessant chorus, no wonder the polls report what they do. These days, it is counter-cultural and a sign of mean-spiritedness (if not lunacy) to support the Rabbinate. But the critics, assuming they are sincere, should recognize the inherent limitations of the system.  Even Rav David Stav said last week that you can’t accommodate every demand that people have. There is a halachic system. Not every desire that Jews have can be satisfied, not every wedding can be performed, not every person can marry whom he/she or both wishes to marry. Some of the unpopularity, such as it is, is built into the system. It is unavoidable.  Few rabbis have won friends (I know the exceptions!) by insisting on decorum during the davening  – but should a self-respecting rabbi abandon the quest for a dignified tefila because some people will be disenchanted? If so, then his semicha is not worth the klaf it is written on.

The truth is that we should stop beating  ourselves over the head and thinking that some panacea will bring secular Israelis back to Torah. The suggestions abound: ending Shabbat work prohibitions will bring Jews back to Torah, having public transportation on Shabbat will bring Jews back to Torah, stopping mandatory Kashrut in public institutions will bring Jews back to Torah, or allowing civil marriage will bring Jews back to Torah. Sure. But exactly what Torah will they be brought back to?

It has been astonishing to read otherwise intelligent people (even rabbis) write that “Israel is the only democracy in the world in which a person cannot marry the spouse of his/her choice.” Well, yes. That is because Israel is the only “Jewish State” in the world. What part of “Jewish State” is difficult to understand, and for how long could Israel credibly claim to be a “Jewish State” (and it says it right in Israel’s founding document, its Declaration of Independence, “Medina Yehudit” – a “Jewish State,” and several times, not a “Medina shel Yehudim,” a State of Jews) if Israel abolishes religious control over matters of personal status? It would certainly behoove Israel to convince its citizens (and some of its rabbis) that Israel is a “Jewish State” before it compels the “Palestinians” to do so.

What is even more astonishing is the yearning for American-style freedoms and liberties to be exported to the Jewish state. Is the American-Jewish product that vibrant, secure and untroubled that it is ready for export – or is it collapsing under the weight of Jewish ignorance, intermarriage and assimilation?

The Chief Rabbinate unfortunately suffers from another malady without a near-term cure. People in democracies generally hate government – same in Israel – and the Chief Rabbinate, as part of the government apparatus, suffers the same fate. Like any government entity, they could always improve on the delivery of services. Great. That is exactly what they are doing. So why should we continue to parrot the attacks of the past? Why don’t we join the chorus of supporters and encourage more reforms in terms of delivery of services? Why the constant demands for dismantling the system, the unremitting attacks on the holders of the office – like a shul Board meeting that never ends?

I do not doubt that part of it comes from people who simply are unhappy with the Torah as written and interpreted, but their real adversary is Above, and they will not be content until the State of Israel is de-Judaized and becomes a secular democracy.

Frequently,  people love the shul even if they have complaints about this or that aspect of the shul, and so it is in the biggest shul in the world. There are people that despise the “Chief Rabbinate” much more than they do the Chief Rabbis themselves. But the condemnations are beyond all reasonable bounds and reflect the multiple and even conflicting agendas of the critics.

Granted, rabbis under indictment or in disrepute (it happens) are not good for our business or our reputation, but a little perspective is in order. There is the occasional miscreant in every field and it is especially troubling in holy work – but such is life.  The stakes on this level should be clear: universal civil marriage will undo Israel’s claim to being a Jewish state, as much as abandonment of Shabbat.

We should stop blaming the Chief Rabbinate for the discontent with Torah in some quarters in Israel, like we should blaming rabbis for the fact that not every Jew is shomer mitzvot. Most people make their choices in life; in some rare cases, choices are made for them. Israeli society, to its credit, gave a lifeline to Soviet Jewry with all the blessings and challenges that brought, but its Socialist establishment also (mis-)educated an entire generation by robbing them of their Torah heritage. To lift the heavy weight of secularism off the back of a secular Israeli or Oleh from the FSU is arduous. It can take decades and even then might not succeed.

But to think we will succeed by diluting the Torah, by ending Hesder, by civil marriage, etc. is a fantasy that will become a nightmare.

All good Jews, and especially my rabbinical colleagues, have an important role to play. We can begin to undo the damage of the persistent negativity against the Rabbinate by becoming more supportive, not less so, and encouraging more Jewishness in the state, not less. For when Jews are habituated, even programmed, to speak negatively about the Rabbinate, they mean us as well.

Yes, even the good guys like us.

Here in Israel, the annual Jerusalem Conference was an often-riveting discussion of every major issue – and controversy – in Jewish life today. Sponsored by “Besheva” and “Arutz-7,” the sessions attracted many hundreds of Jews, mostly but not all situated on the right-wing of the political and religious spectrum, and voices from all sides of each issue were heard. There was the typical Israeli audience “participation,” i.e., the occasional heckling, catcalls and shouted questions, all to let the speakers know that the audience was listening. The first session was an historical retrospective with the most current applicability: “Twenty Years Since Oslo: Success or Failure?”

One might reasonably conclude that a diplomatic process that resulted in 1500 homicides of innocent Jews, thousands more wounded and maimed, the abandonment of significant parts of the homeland, the arming of one’s enemy and the resuscitation of Yasser Arafat as a respectable figure on the world stage, the proclamation by a government of Jews for the first time in history that the land of Israel does not only belong to the Jewish people, the increased vulnerability it spawned among the Israeli populace and the whetted appetite of the Arabs for more concessions – a ravenous, insatiable hunger that will not be satisfied by anything less than full surrender – the ruptures in Israeli society yet to be healed, etc. was indeed a failure, one of the greatest blunders in history.

In fact, Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel’s National Security Council and a leading strategic thinker, prefaced the session with the statement that “of course, it was a failure, by every yardstick. We can even bypass this whole session.”

Not so fast. One of the speakers was the original architect of the Oslo Process, Professor Ron Pundak, who willfully violated then-Israeli law by negotiating with the PLO and came to the infamous agreement after months of negotiations. He is, to say the least, sincere and unrepentant, terming the Oslo Process good for Israel, and “one of the most Zionist acts in the history of the state.” What was fascinating about Pundak’s presentation was not only seeing and hearing it live but witnessing a complete disconnect between theory and reality, between the dream and the nightmare. He even ignored the obvious question: “was it worth 1500 deaths?”, just choosing not to answer.

He spoke passionately about the demographic demon that had underwritten Israeli leftish diplomacy for decades, notwithstanding that the dire findings have long been discredited. (The Israeli birth rate has exceeded the Arab birth rate for years.) He noted with pride the international acclaim that Israel garnered as a result of these withdrawals, without acknowledgment that said acclaim was a fleeting phenomenon. He was outspoken about the security benefits that accrued to Israel as a result of not having to patrol areas where there is an Arab majority, hardly a comforting eulogy to the victims of Oslo, victims only because of the military and territorial empowerment of the Arab population. If was as if the last twenty years had not happened – and the promises and vision of the Oslo-ites had never been proclaimed with such fanfare; as if none of its proponents – Rabin, Peres, et al – had ever promised the nation that if the process resulted in violence, Israel would just go back in and re-conquer the territories. Uh huh…

As former YESHA Council head Dani Dayan said, it is hard even to debate someone who lives in a world with such “dangerous illusions.” There can be no common ground when one side sees down as up, left as right, defeat as victory, and death as life. Indeed. He was quite concise: “If one said: ‘I have a great idea. Let’s bring Arafat to a place five minutes from Jerusalem, give him weapons and a government…’ It is hard to imagine that intelligent people actually believed that.”

Pundak even saw fit to share a dream that he had the night before the conference. He saw himself guiding PM Netanyahu through the “Palestinian territories” and protecting him. (Why anyone would need “protection” from lovers of peace is actually a mystery, but what a weird, even unsettling dream? And what a nightmare for those people forced to live in the real world!)

Of course, Oslo would be an historical aberration, a candidate for entry into a revised and updated edition of the Encyclopedia Idiotica (a compendium of history’s worst mistakes, a book I happen to own), but for the incredible fact that an Oslo III is now being planned, this time shoved down the throats of an unwilling Israeli government by the Obama administration in collusion with Israeli and international leftists. The exact same arguments heard pre-Oslo are being proffered again: there is a small window for peace; you make peace with your enemies, not your friends; the occupation is corrupting Israeli society; the world will turn on Israel with a vengeance unless the Arabs are appeased; etc. Some are even calling again for another unilateral expulsion of Jews, just to “do something,” show good faith to the Arab enemy (who is never asked for any act of good faith). Open threats are made of violence, war, terror, boycotts, sanctions, penalties and economic divestment from Israel, unless Israel divests itself of its land and its divine legacy.

Pundak put it best to the audience: “the question is do you prefer the Bible and the land of Israel or…” He never got to finish the question, because the audience pre-empted him with shouts of “yes, yes!” To him, Oslo was a success because it weakened the settlement movement, and peace in Israel will be the anchor of stability in the entire region. Tell that to the Syrians. And the Egyptians. And the Libyans. And the Iraqis. And…

Such experts are dedicated, to be sure, but dangerously certain of their own brilliance and blissfully oblivious to the real-world consequences of that brilliance. They are dangerously naïve. Pundak even termed Mahmoud Abbas – the “Palestinian” president whose termed ended five years ago, whose doctorate was a scholarly study of the hoax of the Holocaust, and who spent decades as Arafat’s top advisor – “one of the most honest [yashar was the word he used] men in the entire world.” The strongest argument that he (and another speaker) raised in support of more concessions was the odd declaration that “Ben-Gurion would have done it.” To encourage a surrender today by relying on the statecraft of someone who died forty years ago – even asserting that we have the possibility now of implementing the findings of the (1937) Peel Commission (!) – evinces a breathtaking cluelessness that only someone living in an ivory tower could actually espouse.

The world has no shortage of people who create their own realities. Some live in institutions, few achieve positions of power and influence, and fewer still retain those positions when their fantasies blow up (literally) in the faces of real people. There is something peculiar about Israeli society and its reluctance – its almost obsessive reluctance – to hold the architects of the Oslo failure politically accountable. Indeed, one of its primary proponents serves as president today.

This is not new; Golda Meir was re-elected after the Yom Kippur War debacle. She, at least, had the dignity to resign a few months later after the Agranat Commission findings were published, holding her accountable. The question is: why didn’t the people hold her accountable? Are Israelis so locked into support for a party – any party – that issues don’t really matter? Are they so easily manipulated by false narratives and a worrisome familiarity with, if not almost an expectation of, unending grief? And, it almost goes without saying that a Commission of Inquiry to investigate the Oslo debacle was never seriously considered, and certainly never convened. Perhaps it was politically unpalatable, even to the secular right; perhaps because the media were the driving force behind Oslo – and behind the prior Commissions of Inquiry – and they had little interest in exposing their own foolishness; perhaps because the Rabin assassination provided protective cover to the failures of Oslo.

Whatever the reason, the unwillingness to fully investigate the fiasco has left too many Israelis forgetful and hopeful – forgetful of what the past concessions have brought and hopeful that a new retreat will engender different results than the old retreats.

Who says Jews are people of little faith?

May Hashem bless Israel’s leaders with strength, a backbone, courage and faith, and keep a watchful and vigilant eye over His people who, like innocent children, indulge in wishful thinking that has too often crashed into an unkind reality. Fortunately, the Jerusalem Conference attracted from Israeli society the best and the brightest, the clear-eyed thinkers and the Jews of real faith.