Nobel Jews

Posted on October 5, 2011 | 1 comment

As of this writing (Wednesday, October 5), five of the seven Nobel Prize winners already announced are Jews. That is not normal.

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Bruce A. Beutler,
Jules A. Hoffmann, Ralph M. Steinman, in Physics to Saul Perlmutter, Brian P. Schmidt, Adam G. Riess, and in Chemistry to the Technion Professor Daniel Schechtman.  Beutler, Steinman, Perlmutter, Riess and Schechtman are all Jews, and for all I know, the Luxembourg-born Hoffmann is Jewish as well (making six out of seven). The Australian Schmidt is the outlier, literally and geographically. With the Economics Prize winners often Jews, the tribe is doing quite well this year. But it is still not normal. What do we make of all this ?

I remain as astonished as Mark Twain, when he wrote of the Jews:

”…If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the
human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of
the Milky Way. Properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard
of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other
people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in
literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are
also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a
marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands
tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with
sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

– Mark Twain

(“Concerning The Jews,” Harper’s Magazine, 1899

Not that Twain was necessarily a lover of Jews, as some of his other writings are sprinkled with the traditional prejudices of his time. But his question remains a good one: what is our secret ?

For sure, we are beneficiaries of the kindness of the Creator who has preserved, protected and sustained us for thousands of years in the most inhospitable and hostile corners of the globe. Our survival is as unique as our consistent contributions to mankind. And, truth be told, our success and survivability has often engendered even more, and more belligerent, enemies, notwithstanding our contributions to mankind.  If only the world would allow the Jew to live in peace and tranquility, and especially to build a model, just society in the land of Israel, who knows what blessings would flow to the entire world ? And that is part of the eternal frustration of the Jew, and the diabolical ignorance of our enemies, ancient and modern.

Additionally, the love of knowledge is paramount among Jews, and even Jews
far from the world of Torah seem to bear within them the questioning, probing,
analytical style of Talmudic-study. Creativity, innovations in thought and investigation, and an unwillingness to settle for theories or conclusions that are deficient are typical of the Jewish mode of study, and therefore quite typical of Jews. Breakthroughs come to minds that are trained or geared to look beyond the shibboleths of any field, and Professor Schechtman’s statement of his own
discoveries (that so challenged accepted notions in his field that they were originally rejected and he was expelled from his research group!) underscores that point.

But there is a broader and nobler point as well, and it all goes back to
the blessing that Yitzchak bestowed on his son Yaakov thinking he was Esav.
Yaakov certainly merited the blessings of Avraham, which were G-d’s to grant in
any event: the blessings of Torah, Israel and the special covenant with G-d.
But Yitzchak assumed that Esav – more materially grounded than Yaakov – could assist Yaakov in his mission by providing him with both muscle and sustenance. Rivka intervened because she realized that Esav’s nature was such that his wickedness would be used against Yaakov, and not to support him.

Yaakov our father therefore merited, in addition to the blessings of
Avraham, the blessings of the material that can be used to advance the divine
will – in other words, civilization. Yaakov would not only transmit the truths
of G-d to his descendants and to all nations but he was also blessed with being
a civilizing influence in every society in which his family would dwell. Yaakov’s
heirs would contribute to the welfare of all nations – their prosperity,
health, morality, knowledge and culture – and indeed that has been the destiny
of the Jewish people in every society in which we have lived. (Not always successfully: we have too often contributed to the tawdriness of modern life, but that too is a consequence of the divine gift of prominence.)

That Jews are a civilizing, stabilizing and usually unappreciated
influence across the globe should be undisputed. That Jews are still being
celebrated for our achievements to mankind in such disproportionate numbers
that the word “disproportionate” does not fully convey the asymmetry is itself
remarkable and worthy of celebration. And more: it is worthy of repeated mention in a world community that is, again, increasingly hostile to Jews and Jewish national life. That evil short-sightedness endangers not only Jews – but is also destructive to the future and well-being of our detractors.

May they soon see the light, and continue to benefit from the gifts of
the Jews to the world community.

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Listening

Posted on September 28, 2011 | Comments Off on Listening

The Baal Shem Tov offered a parable. There was a king who, through some very adept magic, built a palace that appeared to have many walls  that protected him from his people. The walls were very high, straight and  curved, one higher than the other in a maze leading up to a mountain. And from  the outside, through this sleight-of-hand, it also appeared that the palace had  many rivers and moats, and armed guards, and bears and lions and other wild  animals. And so no one dared approach the king, and the king was feared throughout his kingdom, and his glory filled the provinces.

One day, the king issued a proclamation that whoever enters the palace to greet the king will be granted honors and riches, and serve the king as a trusted minister. Some people came, saw what appeared to be the multiple walls, were intimidated and retreated. Others penetrated the first and second layers, and despite seeing no great obstacles – no rivers, no walls, no ferocious animals, and the king’s retinue dispensing great riches to all visitors, they still shied away from approaching further.

Only one person persisted – the king’s son, who yearned to see his father. And so he forced his way into the palace, past the magical walls and the bears and the lions and the guards – he fought and struggled until he arrived at his father’s inner sanctum. When the king saw his son’s dedication, he removed his
sleight-of-hand, and the son saw that there were really no walls, nor any
partitions or separations – just gardens and orchards and all the delights one
could imagine – and the king sitting on his throne, surrounded by his retinue.

And the son cried out to his father – why did you hide from me ? Why did you conceal yourself – “you concealed Yourself and I trembled” (Tehillim 30:8)? And the king answered that it was all done for you, to test you, to reveal
what is in your heart, the extent of your love and reverence for me.

There are times when we sense a distance between us and G-d – when G-d appears remote and inaccessible, when we feel forlorn and abandoned to a chaotic and unruly world. “You concealed Yourself and I trembled” – we tremble at the distance, at the concealment. It is when we call out to G-d – “to You, G-d, I call out, to G-d, I supplicate” (ibid 30:9) – that we realize that the barriers
are illusory and the obstacles are all of our own making. G-d is wherever we
let Him in.

Why does man build walls – why does man resist surrender to G-d’s will ? Primarily fear. Fear that our lives will be less enjoyable, fear that we will have fewer friends, fear that we will lose our jobs and our money, fear that the nations of the world will oppress and persecute us. We run from the covenant, or we attempt to re-define it on our terms.

We conclude – “I can’t learn Torah (no background, no time, no fun); I can’t observe Shabbat as a complete day of sublime holiness for 25 hours (I have to commingle it with the activities and deportment of the weekdays); I can’t give charity, I can’t make aliya, I can’t avoid speaking lashon hara, I can’t dress appropriately, I can’t behave in shul, I can’t treat others with respect and courtesy, or I can’t feel G-d’s presence in my life…” Each “can’t” is a wall, a moat, a roaring lion, a mighty soldier that blockades the door to the palace. King David said “my soul thirsts for G-d” (ibid 42:3). We might say – “I don’t want to thirst for G-d; I want to retain my autonomy, my independence – I don’t want to surrender, I want to engage G-d on my terms. I don’t want to feel a spontaneous gratitude to G-d – too limiting, too demanding.”

But, if we choose, we can dismantle these barriers on our own – one by one. Or, sometimes, the barriers fall away by themselves, because we are left with no choice. We fear the consequences of sin, we’re adrift, we sense something is amiss, and we finally want to enter the palace. Our fears are replaced by a yearning – “as a father has compassion on his children, so too G-d has compassion on us.” And we finally admit that “there is nothing but  Him” (Devarim 4:35).

The Rogatchover Gaon said the blessing for the commandment of shofar is “to hear the sound of the shofar,” rather than to “blow the shofar” because we don’t all hear the same thing. And it is not the technical “hearing” of the shofar
that fulfills the mitzvah, but rather the mitzvah is to listen to the sound of
the shofar that breaks through the walls of our creation, the figments of our
imagination, the sources of our rebellion. If one hears the shofar and is not
moved, and the walls don’t crumble, and the heart is not bent, then there is no
mitzvah. It is the sound we hear, each and every one of us, that defines the
mitzvah, and our surrender to G-d on the day of judgment.

Rav Saadia Gaon wrote that we listen to the shofar and surrender to G-d, because that is the nature of the shofar, the instrument of coronation.

May the sounds of the shofar this year cause G-d to ascend, and enable us to break down all the barriers, and confer the blessings of life and health, prosperity and tranquility, on us and all Israel.

Shana tova  to all !

Comments Off on Listening

Posted in Contemporary Life, Holidays, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Turnaround ?

Posted on September 23, 2011 | 3 comments

     Did President Obama’s UN speech – effusive in its praise and defense of Israel and remarkable for its criticism of the Palestinians – signal a dramatic internal transformation away from his unsympathetic, unenthusiastic Israel policies towards one more attuned to the classic American friendship towards Israel and a recognition of Israel’s role as the flagship of American values in the Middle East ? Was his change a reflection more of his newfound “hatred of Haman” – the utter disregard by the Palestinians of Obama’s diplomatic requests or political needs – than of his newfound “love of Mordechai”? Or was it simply a desperate attempt to shore up his flagging support among Jewish Democrats – a base he cannot afford to lose – by embracing what has been the policy of his predecessors for generations ?

     The latter two seem more likely. Bear in mind for a moment how low the bar has been set for what is construed as Obama’s “support” for Israel. Prior presidents routinely vetoed Security Council resolutions that condemned Israel’s acts of self-defense and other such treacheries. (The infamous Carter did not veto a resolution condemning “settlement” construction.) But US vetoes of anti-Israel moves at the UN have been so routine that we have taken them for granted, and so expected that the threat itself of a veto has precluded the introduction of many such resolutions.  The Palestinian gambit to have the Security Council recognize their “statehood” was as much precipitated by their own shenanigans and miscalculations as it was by Obama’s diplomatic incompetence. Undoubtedly, Obama encouraged the Palestinians to expect a state on a platter as their natural right, made a halt to “settlement” construction a pre-condition to negotiations (the tree limb from which Abbas has not been able to climb down), and boxed Israel into a corner in which any negotiations
would cause Netanyahu’s government to fall. And Abbas and his cohorts probably assumed that Obama – an advocate of a Palestinian state in the
heartland of Israel – would never veto such a resolution and incur the ire of
the Arab world and street, contrived that it is.  Thus, the speech and the veto – if it comes to that – are damage control.

    But it will have its intended effect. Jewish Democrats, desperate for a reason to vote for the re-election of a black, leftist, Democratic president, now have it. Obama said all the right things – and if he would actually visit Israel, some of his diehard Jewish faithful would be proposing shidduchim between their own
sons and Obama’s daughters. Expect a boost in the “Jewish” polls for Obama,
although not quite to the level that he enjoyed before, when he was acting on
his natural impulses.

     Certainly it was not easy for Obama to change course, and he still does not look comfortable in Netanyahu’s presence (he didn’t even before May’s White House smack down). This is a president, after all, whose economic plan to dig America out of its hole is to dig a bigger hole – by embracing this week, yet again, higher taxes and more public union jobs. And this is a president who can offer to states – just yesterday – a waiver from compliance with the accountability provisions of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” legislation, and claim with a straight face that this does not mean there will be no accountability for failing schools and failed teachers. Well, yes, that is exactly what it means; hence the waivers. He rarely admits error.

    So the diplomatic tap dance worked out as best as can be expected, and President Obama is to be credited for his public support for Israel in an unpopular forum. Of course, the converse would have been odd, given America’s signature as a witness on the Oslo Accords that prohibited either party from taking unilateral steps to change the political status on the ground. But, as aforementioned with the Bush education legislation, Obama is not averse to erasing the policies and values of his predecessors when it suits him. Here, he held – for what is for him – firm, and that sense of realism is welcome. An America that casts its lot with Israel is itself on surer footing.

    Israel also held firm, although one always fears what concessions PM Netanyahu is promising behind the scenes that he will be unlikely to keep when he returns to Israel. And his speech, pointed and passionate, still lacks the winning argument, the polemical punch that would mark Israel’s statecraft as unique and special. Netanyahu, true to his secular roots, cannot bring himself to base the Jewish people’s possession of the land of Israel on the Bible – on G-d’s promise to our forefathers. His references to where our ancestors “walked 4000 years ago,” or to coins found with his name on it next to the Kotel, leave me (me!) cold and unmoved, and thinking, so what ? Just because they walked there gives us as much claim to the land as the name Netanyahu on a coin gives him rights of ownership over that coin. Ancient man walked in a lot of places; no one claims that land on that basis. His is simply a losing argument that persuades no one.

     The divine source of our right to the land of Israel is the only argument with merit and durability, even if it will attract few supporters in the short term. But it has the virtue of being true – to ourselves, to our history, to believers across the world – and true to the G-d who made it to us. Perhaps someday soon there will be a Jewish prime minister who speaks the language of the Jewish people.

    Until then, we can only pray that Israel will quell the inevitable violence that will result from the Kabuki theatre at the UN, and that – here’s the real test – Obama will unequivocally support Israel’s right of self-defense despite the casualties inflicted on a suicidal population, and without demands on Israel to make itself more vulnerable. Then the negotiations to nowhere can begin, and end, and begin again.

3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Maturity

Posted on September 15, 2011 | 8 comments

     The victory of Republican Bob Turner in New York’s 9th Congressional district is significant for several reasons, among them that the defeat of the observant Jewish Democrat David Weprin represents a coming-of-age of the Jewish electorate. In this heavily Jewish district, where Democrats outnumber
Republicans three-to-one, and which had never had a Republican  representative in its current boundary, Jews – especially Orthodox Jews – overcame the lure of tribal affiliation, and Democratic Party sycophancy, and voted Republican in large numbers, powering Turner to office.

    For Orthodox Jews, the Republican vote was not surprising. The Orthodox have long voted majority Republican. For example, in the two districts in which most members in our synagogue reside – in heavily Democratic Bergen County – John McCain won handily in 2008 averaging 60% of the vote. But the results here, as well as the huge number of yarmulkas seen at Turner headquarters on election night, are a watershed, because it means that Orthodox Jews voted not for the Orthodox candidate but for the Roman Catholic candidate who better reflected their views, values, and particularly their dislike of President Obama.  Although Weprin did not live in the district, itself a reflection of the good old party politics in Queens that won him the nomination from the party bosses, he is well known and a member of an Orthodox synagogue in an adjoining neighborhood. And yet, the Jews said no, along with many other registered Democrats.

       The causes are multi-faceted, as well as instructive, and might only presage a greater electoral maturation across the Jewish world. Clearly, Obama is unpopular. Start with the economy. The blame-Bush theme has grown tiresome, and his economic recovery plans equally so. This week’s much-touted “jobs” bill reveals again a staggering ignorance of economic reality. Obama’s ideas – leave aside the tax increase that will ostensibly pay for it – are limited to keeping public sector unions – the Democrat base – employed, by funneling federal money to the states for teachers, fire fighters and police officers. It completely ignores the states’ dire need to reduce its workforce with its unsustainable pension and health care obligations. Obama also trotted out the old “shovel-ready” work projects as a sop for the construction unions. For sure,
this will keep the rate of unemployment steadier, and keep people employed at
the public expense who would otherwise lose their jobs.

    Of course, this recalls Milton Friedman’s prescription for a nation of full employment: have the government pay half the people to dig holes and the other half to fill the holes. It makes sense, except for the fact that none of them produce anything. States and municipalities that need to reduce their workforces are not benefited by the artificial stimulus of more federal funds that enable them to avoid the inevitable day of reckoning. And Obama’s obsession with “green jobs” led to the Solyndra fiasco, where half-billion tax dollars were poured down the rat hole of a “green” company – that went bankrupt, with the money coming after the Administration knew – or should have known – it was going bankrupt.

      Obama further suggested that Congress enact a tax credit for private sector employers in order to induce them to hire more workers. Again, the ignorance is
breath-taking. Employees are hired only to the extent that they can produce
value to their employers greater than the salaries they are being paid. If this
will not happen – say, because their products are not selling well – there is
obviously no incentive to hire anyone who will be a further drag on their bottom
line. Why doesn’t Obama realize this ? Not only because he has never run a
business, but more likely because his advisors, mentors and supporters are
rooted in the union mentality where such inane hiring practices (i.e., hiring
workers you don’t need) are so common it has its own name: featherbedding.

      Count this election result as another blow to Obamanomics.

      There was also an overt appeal (by Ed Koch, among others) to make this election a referendum on Obama’s anti-Israel rhetoric and policies. (Yes, yes, it is not all anti-Israel – we assume the US will veto the Palestine Authority’s independence bid in the UN – but it is mostly anti-Israel, in word, deed and
especially attitude. Even now, word behind the scenes is that Obama is
threatening Israel not to veto the motion if Israel responds by either
repudiating the Oslo Accords – as is their absolute right, as this attempted UN
proceeding is the type of unilateral action barred by the agreement – or by
annexing Judea and Samaria. Either action on the part of the Israelis would
strengthen Israel and bring much needed clarity to their statecraft.) There are
numerous Jewish Democrats who have vowed to sit on their hands and deny the Obama re-election campaign their largesse. Would that it happened, but I would be stunned if even a hostile, weakened, incompetent Obama did not receive 60% of the Jewish vote. If he receives anything closer to 50%, a Jewish political transformation is in the making, not to mention an obvious defeat in 2012.

     That is clearly why the Dems selected Debbie Wasserman & Schultz as their national chair and why Chuck Schumer came around again to campaign for Weprin and try to ease people concerns about Obama. Jews have often fallen for the right words (“security for Israel,” I will never abandon Israel,” “we love Israel”) even when the policies were antagonistic. I personally recall then-Congressman Schumer coming to Kew Gardens Hills to extol the Israel-loving credentials of Jimmy Carter running for re-election against Ronald Reagan. Even then he met a skeptical and unfriendly reception – clearly, Schumer favored party over people. If Jews actually vote based on their perception of a candidate’s attitude toward Israel – by no means a given and traditionally not that significant a yardstick – then the Democrat president is in deep trouble.

     So even though Weprin is solidly pro-Israel, he was tainted by his Democrat and Obama associations, as Jews again recognized that a pro-Israel non-Jew can often be as – or more – effective than a pro-Israel Jew.

    Finally, it is clear that Weprin was grievously harmed by his support of the NY same-sex marriage bill, even touting his support as rooted in his Orthodox Judaism. He could have bucked the tide (as his colleague Dov Hikind did) or he could have even taken the coward’s out and abstained. He didn’t – and his pro-homosexual marriage vote, indispensable to passage, marked him as out-of-touch with the values of many of his constituents.

     One can only hope that gone are the days when eating a kreplach in public and mouthing a few Hebrew words is enough to secure the Jewish vote. But what should really be purged is the entire notion of ethnic voting; Jews, like any other group, are not unidimensional stick figures. It is demeaning, and childish, that people are expected to vote for – or against – a candidate because of his/her skin color (blacks voted 96% for Obama), religion, ethnic origin, sex, or any other superficial indicia that do not relate at all to his policies, qualifications or values. Indeed, people who lack that sophistication and predicate their vote on such inanities should not really be voting at all, but should be encouraged to stay home. Unfortunately, that constituent is a large part of the brain-dead vote that sustains the candidacies of many unqualified office-holders.

     That is not to say that every Jew or every black must vote Republican, but rather that a more even distribution of votes between the candidates and parties reflects a greater attunement to issues and platforms and a more mature electorate. Is the 9th district vote an aberration, or are Jews ready to abandon their blind, unthinking fealties of the past?

      One can only hope.

8 Comments