Category Archives: Jewish History

Whither the Jews?

A headline caught my attention the other day and caused a “here-we-go-again” sensation. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a poll (the US Religious Landscape Survey, at Pewforum.org) illustrating the beliefs and attitudes of adherents to various faiths, with one Jewish media report leading with this: “5% of Jews Believe that Jewish Religion is the One True Faith.” That would be a terrible indictment of Jewish life, a symptom of the eroding commitment of Jews to their faith, and a reflection of how the mushy moral milieu of the American melting pot has taken its toll on the Jewish people, again. Most religions assert that they are the “one true religion,” so how could Jews be so mealy-mouthed when compared to others? Only 5%? Surely this represents the abject failures of schools, shuls, temples, parents and families, right?
Not so fast. On closer look, the headline did not accurately represent the question being asked or answered, even though that, indeed, was Pew’s title, “Views of One’s Religion as the One, True Faith.” The choices offered in the question itself were: “My religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life” (added emphasis is mine), or “Many religions can lead to eternal life.” That is a different question entirely, and whatever the answers were, it is then shocking – astonishing – that so many Jews could be on the same page when it comes to a basic principle of Jewish life, for 82% of Jews responded that “many religions can lead to eternal life.”
This, essentially, is a uniquely Jewish doctrine, notwithstanding that the poll revealed that a few religions and sects had slightly higher percentages of adherents who believes that “many religions can lead to eternal life” than did Jews. Most were lower, with the Mormons having the lowest such percentage (39%), and the religions that emerged from Judaism showing percentages ranging from 56% to 83%. The Jewish conclusion that “many religions can lead to eternal life” – odd in light of the fact that Judaism also claims exclusive truth – emerges from a Talmudic discussion (Sanhedrin 105a) and codified by the Rambam twice, most famously in Hilchot Melachim (The Laws of Kings) 8:11: “All who accept the seven Noachide laws and are careful to observe them are the pious one of the nations of the world and have a share in the world-to-come (i.e., eternal life)…” Those Noachide laws are the basic building blocks of civilization, prohibitions against homicide, robbery, idolatry, sexual misconduct, blasphemy, tearing a limb from a living animal and the positive commandment of maintaining a system of justice to enforce the other obligations.
Although Rambam does require that acceptance of the Noachide laws must be based on the Bible, the fundamental point established is that non-Jews need not become Jewish in order to merit eternal life, and not even to live moral and meaningful lives in which they relate to G-d. For that reason, Jews do not proselytize. Sadly, at least 5% of Jews are unaware of this, but even more sadly, it seems that many more Jews answered this question correctly but accidently, not knowing of the Rambam’s opinion but simply afraid or unwilling to opine that Judaism is the one, true faith.
This is borne out by other statistics uncover the state of Jewish belief (or better, the beliefs of Jews) today. Approximately 84% of Jews believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, far more than any other religious grouping, with an astounding 40% of those asserting that abortion should be legal “in all cases.” All cases? Ninth month?! Mother in labor?! No restrictions at all? Abortion on demand! Even people who described themselves as unaffiliated with any religion (!) approved of abortions less frequently than did Jews; apparently, worship of personal autonomy over one’s body has made abortion a sacrament for many Jews. Conversely, 5% of Jews believed that abortion should be illegal “in all cases,” a clear misstatement of Jewish law as well. I wonder if those are the same 5% as above; from where are they acquiring their knowledge of Torah.
Similarly, 79% of Jews believed that homosexuality should be “accepted by society,” a number that again far exceeded any other religion or denomination except for the Buddhists (82%) who must also be practicing Democrats as well. A scant 15% of Jews averred that homosexuality should be “discouraged by society,” itself an inelegant phrasing of the issue. How would society “discourage” homosexuality even if it could? “Acceptance” might be interpreted as legalization, or protection within the law, but then “discouragement” is not its antithesis. Pew may have meant to distinguish “acceptance” not from rejection or discouragement but from celebration, legitimization and/or adoration of homosexuality, which is where American society is heading today, and which would have generated among the Jewish respondents here the same lopsided answer. “Acceptance” rates of homosexuality among evangelical Christians, Mormons and Muslims all hovered in the 25% range – less than a third of the Jewish rate.
One flaw in the study, alluded to above, is that the respondents self-identify the religion of their choice. One of the anomalies of American-Jewish life is the large number of people who identify or perceive themselves as Jews when Jewish law deems otherwise, while many others – with the most non-Jewish sounding name – are actually Jews according to Jewish law. That is the price of intermarriage and assimilation, and those individuals number in the hundreds of thousands, a staggering figure given the undersized Jewish community. Pew calculated that 1.7% of Americans are Jews, but 4% identify as atheists or agnostics, but one can assume that those groups are disproportionately Jewish, at least by birth through one Jewish parent.
Tellingly, a scant 41% of Jews said they were absolutely certain of G-d’s existence, and 10% did not believe in G-d at all. Both figures were again surpassed only by Buddhists; Christians “absolutely certain” belief in G-d was almost double that of Jews.
As such, it is to be assumed that few Jewish respondents answered the questions by accessing their knowledge of Jewish law or philosophy, but rather by looking into themselves, or the repository of ideas and values they have accumulated over the years from mere living, and answered accordingly. Most Jews do not speak Jewish or think Jewish; many even claim – sincerely – that Judaism does not mandate any particular beliefs, values or deeds, but rather seeks goodness and kindness from its faithful. Of course, goodness and kindness are quite important to Judaism – as they are to most religions – but Judaism is ultimately defined by the divine revelation of 613 commandments, 13 fundamental principles of faith and a commitment to live a divinely-inspired life, part of a people of destiny and eternity.
We also have the highest median age (36) of any group, attributable to the low Jewish birthrate outside the Orthodox community. It would seem that the Jewish “religious landscape,” to use Pew’s expression, is quite barren, with lush pockets of verdancy and fruitfulness that literally keep the faith and welcome others to learn about real Judaism and to actually live it in real life. It may not be possible to completely stem the decline and disappearance of most Jews, but many are open, ready and willing to explore their heritage and discover their roots.
Let us strive to be good examples for them.

Another (Mis)Take on Chanuka

        There are few Jewish holidays that are as popular and well-known outside the Jewish world as is Chanuka, and almost none that are subjected to as much misunderstanding and outright distortion. But a recent article in a Maine newspaper set a new standard for mendacity and misrepresentation, in rooting the support for same-sex marriage of an Orthodox rabbi in the miraculous events of Chanuka. The article can be found here (http://www.pressherald.com/opinion/at-hanukkah-rejoicing-over-peaceful-victory-for-same-sex-marriage_2012-12-12.html), and inverts the story of Chanuka on its head in order to make a political point that is shockingly shallow and entirely bereft of Torah wisdom.

     “The Jews fought for religious liberty.” This has become the trope by which Chanuka has assumed its place in the American tradition of winter holidays. But this news would come as a shock to those who actually began the uprising and waged the battles that freed the land of Israel from Hellenist domination and liberated the Holy Temple from those who had desecrated it. Even a Sunday School child is aware that the elderly Matityahu (father of Judah the Maccabee) provoked the rebellion by slaying a Jew who had dared to eat pork at the command of the Syrian despot. So much for religious liberty.

    Indeed, much of the war was fought against the Hellenist Jews who sided with the Syrian-Greeks and betrayed their Torah and their people. Chanuka was as much a civil war as it was a war against foreign domination. That is why the Maccabees were the “few prevailing over the many;” they were the few – unlike any other insurgent uprising in history in which the occupying army is always the minority – because they had to fight as well against the indigenous but unfaithful Jewish population. And when they won, no allowances were made for deviant interpretations of Torah, nor for alternative views, practices or lifestyles. They fought for Torah, period. Surely the rabbi knows this.

With my very own eyes, I have seen a great miracle this year right here in Maine. A small group of people, homosexuals and their supporters, stood up for their equal rights in marriage.” Well, this is certainly a more subdued understanding of a “miracle” than one to which most of us have become accustomed, but since when is same-sex marriage a “religious right” or even a “rite?” If the battle of Chanuka is going to be mislabeled as a war for “religious liberty,” then what is the “religious” dimension here? The demand for same-sex marriage is personal and political, but not at all religious.

What makes the irony even more pungent is that the Greeks – against whom the Maccabees fought and prevailed – were avid supporters of and indulgers in homosexuality. It was just one of the immoral practices of the Hellenists that the faithful Jews found so repugnant, and therefore went to war in order to purge the land of it. In other words, to be faithful to the Chanuka story, the rabbi should have opposed same sex marriage. I.e., rather than succumb to the morality of the dominant culture and wrench the definition of marriage from its traditional moorings, he should have stood with the faithful Jews of yesteryear (and today) and preached the truth of Torah even if – particularly if – he would thereby remain in the minority. That is, after all, a dominant theme of Chanuka historically: that the Jewish people have survived not by mimicking the fluid morality of others but by clinging tenaciously to our own timeless moral norms. Surely the rabbi knows this.

It was not easy for me to publicly support same-sex marriage.” The only inhibition would be a fidelity to Torah. That aside (literally, that aside), the easiest position for any public figure today to adopt is support for same-sex marriage. One receives acclaim and adulation from across “enlightened” society, and one gets to bask in the glow of endless praise about self-growth and moral development.  Much of that is self-praise; the preening itself can make one dizzy. Besides, who would want to be numbered among the “nasty opponents” of same-sex marriage?

No one wants to stand in the way of love, of course. But, then, the rabbi must now justify his opposition to incestuous marriages (of adults, of course), polygamy, polyandry, polyamory, and a few other polys. Why should any of these unions “be subject to discrimination?” They may not be my cup of tea, but admittedly I have not “grown.” Has the rabbi “grown” sufficiently to endorse any other form of marriage beyond same-sex marriage, and monogamous same-sex marriage at that? Why should those people with overwhelming amounts of love to share be limited to only one spouse at a time? That doesn’t seem very constitutional. And the world could always use more love.

   “The truth of their hearts helped me overcome my wall of religious textual evidence that helped justify arguments for the other side. Now I know with complete faith that the love of homosexuals should be respected as equal by society. I am an ordained Orthodox rabbi…”  That “wall of religious textual evidence” is known to us as the Torah. It is our lifeblood, and contains the definitive code by which we govern our lives. It is not a “wall” that has to be “overcome” to allow us to live the way we want to live, but the “wall” that sanctifies our homes and our lives, and connects us with G-d’s eternal truths. Those truths are so eternal, that we fought for them on Chanuka and have been martyred defending throughout our history. Surely the Rabbi knows this.

   How then can a self-described (and ordained) Orthodox rabbi invoke “G-d’s blessings” on unions that G-d has prohibited, except by invoking a “god” of his own creation? The Torah prohibits same-sex relations, much less marriage, for Jews, and the same is prohibited for non-Jews as one of the Noachide laws. Surely he knows the Talmudic statement (Chullin 92b) praising the Noachides for “not writing marriage deeds for males,” notwithstanding their debauched conduct in private. Even the “miracle of love” cannot overcome G-d’s will, at least not in the religious tradition with which I am familiar.

    “Still, we should not impose our belief system on others and certainly should not discriminate against other human beings.” But all law is a reflection of a belief and value system, the only issue being whether that value system is of divine or human origin, and all law imposes restrictions on people. That is the very purpose of law. Yet, on the political left, we hear very little uproar about the imposition of belief systems when the system encroaching on our freedoms comes from believers in “global warming” or Mike Bloomberg’s campaign against the sale of large, sugary sodas. I’ll take the divine system any day.

The opposition to same-sex marriage, which is now being forced underground, is a classic example of a value that has extended from the Torah across the entire civilized world for millennia. There is a reason why civilized society depended on marriage for the maintenance of its basic foundations. The family, moral traditions, a sense of continuity and an allegiance to ideas that transcend the self are dependent on it. The alternative is to mandate, for example, that children be taught that it is acceptable to marry a man or a woman. The simple question to a child implicit in the new morality – “do you think you want to marry a man or a woman?” – is cause enough to understand why there is such confusion over sexual identity among today’s teenagers, rampant unhappiness, and a collapsing family structure.

The Defense of Marriage Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in 1996, by votes of 85–14 in the Senate, and 342–67 in the House. Haters all? I think not. It was not that long ago. Credit the homosexual lobby for marketing its cause well, and for wrapping itself in the mantle of “equal rights.” That is a chimera, for a number of reasons, but especially because the “equal rights” issue has been resolved by the creation of “civil unions” which provide the legal framework for rights of survivorship, visitation, etc. There should be limitations though in the extension of equal treatment to any voluntary pairing in society.  Two roommates can also be a “family,” of sorts, but only in a society that is seeking to devastate the family as we know it.

  “We have witnessed a miracle, as a small group of people of faith won victory over strongly entrenched, wrong beliefs.” Wrong beliefs? But those were your beliefs, rabbi, until you renounced your heritage, abandoned the Torah, and embraced the political correctness of the age – just as the Hellenist Jews did in ancient times.

Surely, that is your right as an American. But please leave Chanuka out of it, once and for all.

Abbas in Wonderland

Oddly, we are a week into the alleged birth of a “Palestinian state,” as decreed by the UN General Assembly, and nothing seems to have changed. Life “after” the state is remarkably similar to life “before” the state, and his people must be suffering from even more frustration than is their norm.

For example, Israel’s announcement that it will build new housing right outside Jerusalem, between Jerusalem and its suburb (five minutes’ drive) of Maale Adumim was greeted with shrieks of horror and howls of protest from across the world – from the Americans, the Europeans, the Asians and of course the Arabs. There scarcely walks a terrestrial – an inhabitant of Planet Earth – who did not leap to criticize this decision allowing Jews to build new homes where Jews have lived for the last 3000 years. Why such dismay?

    Ostensibly, as the new “state’s” media outlet put it, because the new construction will “kill any chance for the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state.” Hmmm… but wasn’t that state created already? How is it possible for a few thousand apartments and houses to “kill” any chance for the creation of a “contiguous Palestinian state?” Doesn’t a state – to be declared and recognized – have to have defined borders?

Well, yes, in the real world, or as real world as international law ever gets. Since 1648, there are more or less established procedures by which states are formed and gain international recognition. None are formed – or ever have been formed – by a UN General Assembly resolution, which are non-binding and have no force under international law. In fact, the standard procedure would have been for the Palestinian Authority to declare itself a state, and then apply for UN recognition. It did not do that. Their pretense is that they already declared statehood, either in 1988 or sometime in the last decade, and therefore need not do it again. But no one paid attention to their past declarations, and none should today.

Traditionally, a state is established when a lawful government exercises control over a distinct population within defined territory, and can conduct foreign relations accordingly. The PA does not qualify as a state even in diplomatic wonderland. It has no lawful government; Abbas’ term in office expired around the time that George W. Bush left the presidency. He has declined to have elections since then, because he knows he cannot win. Nor does the PA have a defined territory – for sure; if they did, they would not be protesting this new Israeli construction. Nor does the PA govern a defined population; it pretends to rule over Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria, and even those Arabs have tired of Abbas’ autocracy and failures. Arabs who live in Gaza do not accept the jurisdiction of the PA, and the primary absence of contiguity is not the construction outside of Jerusalem but the distance between Judea and Gaza. They have effective sovereign control over nothing. Some state.

Well, what kind of “state” is this? They are great in symbols but woefully lacking in substance. They are now seeking their own passports, but they do not have airports, seaports or control over any border that would allow them to leave. That has to be done under Israeli supervision. They have no indigenous economy, and their institutions are propped up by persistent infusions of cash from some Arab countries, the Europeans and the United States. Their primary exports are terror, incitement and Jew hatred, each serving a (malign) purpose in the world but not especially attractive foundations for a lucrative economy. Their national history is a complete fabrication. There is no Palestinian “identity” that is not inherently linked to the destruction of Israel. Try to name a “Palestinian” from the 19th century, let alone from the 16th century, and it becomes clear that they do not exist in the real world. Indeed, this mirrors the biblical admonition to the Jewish people that when we fall short of the national standard that G-d ordains for us, He will “provoke us with a non-people” (Devarim 32:21). The “Palestinians” are this “non-people.”

It is fascinating, and bizarre, that this new “state” is wholly incapable of self-sufficiency and is completely dependent on the enemy that it has sworn to destroy – Israel – for its energy, water, food and vital supplies. It remains weird that Israel continues to supply Gaza with fuel that enables it to mass produce the rockets and mortars that Gazans then fire at Israel, including the vicinity of the power plants that are the source of the energy in Gaza. Jews respond too quickly to tales of the “humanitarian crisis.” Those who create the “crisis” should be held responsible. That is the consequence of war. The Allied firebombing of Dresden and the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki created “humanitarian crises;” perhaps that is why those wars ended, as opposed to this interminable conflict. When the governments of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan could no longer tolerate the mass civilian casualties and devastation of their infrastructure, they surrendered.

Instead, Israel sustains its enemies, even in wartime. Little recognition is given, nor certainly is any gratitude ever expressed, for the medical care Israel offers to its Arab enemies, especially their children. In one infamous case, Soroka Hospital in Beersheba treated a pregnant Gazan woman – saving her pregnancy – only to have her show up a few weeks later with a bomb strapped around her large stomach in an attempt to blow up the maternity ward. She was caught at the entrance to the hospital and arrested before she could blow herself up. Often, the Jewish heart prevails over the Jewish head. One would think a “state” would be able to provide health care to its own citizens, but not in Abbas’ wonderland.

Israel is fully within its rights to renounce the Oslo Accords, as these unilateral moves strike at the very heart of the agreement. It should, and thereby partially rinse the stain of Oslo from its statecraft and from Jewish history. It should, but it won’t, all part of the dance of performers in this staged melodrama. It should, because only an abrupt reversal of the political dynamic can undo some of the damage of the last two decades.

Abbas’ declaration, and the UN farce, only has meaning in the context of the continuing attempt to delegitimize Israel’s very existence. That has become the primary weapon in the Arab world’s century –old effort to first thwart and then strangle Jewish statehood. Arabs today are thankfully incapable of defeating Israel on the battlefield. The primary Arab enemies of Israel – Egypt and Syria – are now engaged in civil wars and are cauldrons of instability. The Iranian threat looms large, and its aggressive designs are abetted by assertions of Palestinian “statehood” that are ill-disguised attempts to undermine Israeli statehood – and the sovereign existence of the Jewish people in the land of Israel.

The very essence of statehood is the notion of “self-determination.” But this new “state” can determine nothing by itself – not its existence, borders, prosperity, security, even authority. It is a chimera, a fantasy, a mirage – conceived in sin and born under intimidation and duress. Shame on Israel for acquiescing to the idea even in principle, and shame on those nations who supported the charade at the diplomatic world of make-believe known as the United Nations.

New construction in an area designated for Jewish homes for decades already is a start, but should not be a political tool. It should be done for nationalistic reasons, in line with Israel’s long-term interests. When it figures out what those interests are and prioritizes them – sovereignty over the land of Israel, security for its citizens, and the implementation of Torah values in the lives of the people and laws of the country – then their policies will become coherent and an era of stability will dawn. And even the Arabs who reside in the land of Israel will benefit from that prospect, certainly more than from the proclamations of Abbas in Wonderland.

Cease Fire?

Israel faces a momentous decision – whether or not to again launch a ground invasion of Gaza – most weighty because the lives and health of its soldiers and civilians are at stake. I number relatives and loved ones in both groups, so any decision is fraught with peril, uncertainty and the risk of catastrophe. The questions then become: what would be the strategic objectives of such an incursion, and how realistic is it – both in terms of present casualties and future political prospects – that those objectives can be achieved?

Since Biblical times, Gaza has been a source of vexation to the people of Israel. From there the Philistines harassed and occasionally dominated ancient Israel, and it was through the Philistines – by then an extinct people for centuries – which the 2nd century Roman Empire sought to erase any reference to the Jewish people by re-naming their conquest “Palestine.” For sure, Jews have resided in Gaza since ancient times, with thriving communities from the 16th century until the War of Independence in 1948, and after the Six-Day War for almost 40 years. More than twenty Jewish communities were destroyed by Israel in 2005 in a reckless and counterproductive act whose real legacy is once again on display this week. As predicted then, Gaza became a haven for terrorists, the source for the relentless harassment of Israelis through rockets and missiles fired at civilians, and the base for Hamas.

It is remarkable how few Israelis seek to recall the provenance of their current predicament, perhaps because so many of the politicians responsible for that debacle are still in positions of prominence and influence. Although missiles were shot sporadically from Gaza even when it was ruled by Israel, it was much more limited in scope and more readily halted. There would be no need now to debate the risks of a ground invasion – and since the Expulsion, for the second time – because the military bases would still be there. Soldiers would not have to navigate through minefields, booby-trapped homes and underground weapons caches. Aside from the devastating human cost of the Expulsion, the task of pacifying Gaza has become infinitely more difficult. We can lament the past, but it is more productive to learn from it.

What are the strategic objectives of Hamas in this conflict? Bear in mind something that is rarely referenced – that Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction. Its raison d’être according to its charter is the elimination of the Jewish state and it has pledged to wage eternal war until it achieves that goal. It has mortgaged the lives of its fighters, their families and now all Gazans for a successful realization of its vision. Thus, Hamas is Nazi-like in its inspiration, aspiration and policies.

Their short-term goals are several: to kill Jews; to sow terror among the Israeli people; to test its weapons capabilities for future conflicts; to deflect attention from Iran’s nuclear program; to test the reactions of the American administration which it perceives as weak and not fully supportive of Israel; and, especially, to acquire further ammunition for its war of delegitimization against Israel.

The latter demands special emphasis, because it explains the glee of the Palestinians at the death or injury of their own civilian population. They love nothing better than to trumpet the evils of the Israelis who kill innocent civilians – babies! Unsaid of course, but now recognized by all decent people who pay attention, Hamas deliberately places its weapons, rocket launchers and offensive capabilities in the very heart of its civilian population – right next to, and sometimes even inside its schools, day care centers, hospitals and mosques.

That is the height of evil cynicism. They deliberately shoot their missiles at Israeli civilian targets, and then squeal like mice when their civilians – ensconced in what are effectively military zones – are hit. Certainly they do not expect their use of their civilian population as human shields to gain them immunity from attack; what they do expect is that their civilians will be killed or injured, giving them a propaganda coup amongst the venal and the gullible across the world by their feigned, pained expressions of anguish. That is why they have adopted the macabre practice of staging scenes of the injured and dead – and then having those “victims” get up and walk away when the cameras are turned off; that is why they have already this week utilized graphic pictures of fathers holding their wounded children – even though the pictures are from Syria, and from last month. (Israel has done remarkably well this time around in responding almost instantly to every Arab fabrication.)

And that is how they are trying to rile up the Arab world and win sympathy and support for themselves, even though the 100 Arabs killed in the past week pale before the 40,000 (!) Arabs killed in Syrian fighting in the last year or so, without respite and without any desire of the Arab world to intervene to halt that bloodshed. Every time one thinks that the Arabs have reached a new low in raw hypocrisy, they dig a little deeper. Those who think that they somehow care about the lives and wellbeing of their people have probably never heard of the phenomenon known as the “suicide bomber.” They don’t care about human life the same way we do; to think otherwise is to project onto them Western values that they do not share and in fact ridicule. A Hamas spokesman years ago brazenly touted their “advantage” in these battles: “We love death like the Jews love life.” Add to that the simple fact that this civilian population voted for the racist, genocidal and suicidal policies of Hamas, then any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced. Those who really are innocent should leave, and quickly, because they have linked their destinies to those of the malevolent mass murderers who govern them. Facilitating that would be an honorable mission of the Arab world today.

From an Arab perspective, they have achieved most of their goals already. They have killed Jews, sown terror, challenged the Americans, garnered their propaganda photos and tested their weaponry. Their major “demand” now is that Israel end its embargo on Gaza, the better to allow Hamas to import more missiles and even heavier weapons. Heaven forbid if Hamas would acquire guidance systems for their missiles, which now have the capability of reaching Israel’s largest cities and population centers. Such an agreement would embolden Hamas, grant it a major victory, and make the next war even deadlier.

What are Israel’s strategic objectives in the current conflict? As always, those are more difficult to ascertain, because Israel once again was forced to respond. (From Bizarro World: Hamas claims that Israel is the aggressor here and must make concessions. Follow the logic: Hamas has been indiscriminately firing rockets at Israel for years, with an increase in the last month. Since Israel responded only last week, Israel changed the rules of the game – the passive acceptance of rockets on its civilians – and is therefore the aggressor.) Israel’s obsession with avoiding civilian casualties, even to the immoral extent of risking its own soldiers’ lives, and even though it is the only such army in the world held to such a standard, greatly limits its maneuverability. But what are its goals, ultimately?

The problem is that what those goals are and what they should be are not identical. Israel wants stability on its southern border, and an end to missile attacks on its civilian population. It wants Hamas isolated internationally. It wants the world to halt the Iranian nuclear program. It wants to avoid an escalation in the north, where Hezbollah sits atop Lebanon with even more advanced and deadly weaponry than Hamas has.  It wants to avoid a propaganda victory for Hamas that a large scale death of Arab civilians would engender. It wants to avoid casualties to and the capture of its own soldiers – anytime, but certainly in an election year.

Notice how none of Israel’s strategic objectives are solely or even primarily within its control. That is why it is consistently on the defensive, reacting to events but never taking the initiative to transform its strategic situation. One Israeli general this week described the current operation as “mowing the lawn.” Every few years, Israel has to “mow the lawn,” i.e., degrade the capabilities of the enemy and thereby buy a few years’ relative tranquility. Ultimately, that is a defeatist attitude, as the enemy’s capabilities only increase. It is certainly not worth the lives of Israeli soldiers to “mow the lawn.” The grass just grows back, higher and more unruly; on the other hand, dead is dead.

A ground invasion is only worthwhile if there are strategic objectives that are achievable and can be enduring. One typical calculation involves war game theory. A war today that costs 1X casualties might be more desirable than a war in 2-3 years that will cost 3X or 5X casualties. Israel has to project the future capabilities of its enemy, as well as the reliability of the future support of its own allies (i.e., ally). A definite war today might not be sensible if casualties in a potential future war are only 2X. A war might be more beneficial today if the Obama administration two years hence is projected to be less supportive of Israel. (President Obama is in a predicament. Certainly, he has endorsed Israel’s right of self-defense, a gesture that is perceived by his supporters as unusually magnanimous, instead of what it really is: obvious. But he has also insisted that Israel not invade Gaza, which means that he prefers the status quo. But the status quo harms Israel.)

What should be Israel’s strategic objectives in a ground invasion? Nothing less than the destruction of Hamas and an end to its genocidal ambitions. (Of course, those ambitions will remain, but operating from exile, Hamas, like the PLO before Oslo planted them in the heartland of Israel, will be much less effective and an annoyance more than a threat.) It certainly can be done – although to announce it in advance would essentially pre-empt its implementation – and it is better accomplished with aerial bombing that weakens their resistance and Special Forces to capture and kill the leadership, rather than a full scale ground invasion.

Israel must re-assert its control over Gaza; it is the only way in the real world in which we live to prevent the recurrence of the same (or deadlier) quandary in another few years. Clearly, the hostile elements among the civilian population must be encouraged to find their happiness and fortunes elsewhere, and a world genuinely interested in their plight should facilitate that. In fact, an uninhabited Sinai Peninsula begs for them, and they could even live there in greater comfort with limitless land at their disposal – an end to the densely-crowded conditions in which they live and in which their problems fester.

This requires Israel to acknowledge that Hamas is their enemy, dedicated to their extermination, and so must be eliminated. There can be no rapprochement with a genocidal foe.

The downside, of course, is that such might prompt a violent response from Hezbollah –and from those in the international community who are devoted to the establishment of Palestinian states that render Israel more and more vulnerable. The upside is that, if not done, Israel will come under increasing pressure to make additional concessions, both to Hamas and to the PA – including the destruction of more settlements in Judea and Samaria and the formal recognition of a Palestinian state. If that happens, of course, then the current situation in Gaza will be replicated in Israel’s heartland in a few years, and life will become unbearable.

That process can be forestalled and even reversed, but only if Israel’s takes the initiative to transform the strategic dynamic in which it has operated for decades, including abandoning the illusory pursuit of peace with enemies sworn to its destruction. Otherwise, it is not worth soldiers’ lives for another paper agreement, or to strengthen Hamas through more concessions, or simply to kick the can down the road.

Frankly, there is no alternative other than to change the dynamic, and revitalize Israel for the struggles ahead. It is not a simple decision by any means.

May G-d bless Israel, its leaders and soldiers, to make the decision that is right, proper, wise and just, and to carry it out with efficiency, alacrity, and success.