Explaining the Unexplainable, Part II

Posted on December 18, 2009 | 4 comments

       What has gotten into Binyamin Netanyahu ?

       He has traveled down a road – a ten month freeze on most construction in Jewish parts of Judea and Samaria – that even his leftist predecessors dared not do. And for what? He agreed, ostensibly, to lure the “Palestinians” back to the negotiating table, even though, to date, they have rejected his overtures, thereby making Netanyahu’s freeze lame, foolhardy and immoral. Since the objective of the freeze has already failed, then why persist? Indeed, it is better – given Israel’s record in diplomacy – that no negotiations occur, so why force the Arabs to accept the next surrender?

      And he agreed, we are informed, to appease a hostile American president who demanded this unprecedented action, a blatant act of discrimination against Jews – an act that would be protested by Jews and all decent people if it occurred anywhere else in the world. Apparently unaware that he became the first world leader to cave in to any Obama request – every appeal Obama has made across the globe has been rebuffed, and usually dismissively – Netanyahu betrayed his supporters, the people who voted for him, those who assumed he had learned lessons from his failed first term, and the principles of the party that elected him its leader.

      The broader question is: what happens to Likud leaders when they enter office that they begin to treat their parties’ platform and professed values as gossamer and fluff to be ignored at will and sworn allegiance to only in the months before the elections? Can’t they ever stick to their guns? (Ignore the nonsense that the view from the prime minister’s seat is different – one either has values or one does not.)

      The list of Likud disappointments is long and tragic. Ehud Olmert was a political chameleon (and disaster – he still claims the failure in Lebanon was a “great and historic victory), Tzippi Livni long ago abandoned the pretense of being a Jewish nationalist – and both of those were from the royal, “fighting” families of the Irgun. Ariel Sharon was in a class by himself (literally), in his contemptuous disregard of the Likud platform on which he was elected, and the Likud referendum that voted down his proposed disengagement from Gaza. Sharon, indeed, is unique – and historic – in a perverse way, as he mocked his opponent’s own disengagement plan (Amnon Mitzna, in 2001) as heralding the imminent destruction of Israel – only to adopt it himself ten months after the election.

     Even Menachem Begin parted with the sparsely-populated Sinai, but at least his premise was securing the possession by Israel of Judea, Samaria and Gaza in perpetuity. Only Yitzchak Shamir clung to his principles – and was rewarded by the electorate with a defeat at the polls for not providing them the elixir of fantasies and phony hopes sold to them by Yitzchak Rabin.

     It is a sad legacy – to which can be added the likes of Tzachi Hanegbi, Limor Livnat and a host of others who have all proven themselves to be not leaders but shallow politicians for whom office is more important than principle. It is a depressing truth that most of the land conquered in the Six-Day that has already been surrendered to the Arabs has been surrendered not by left-wing Laborites but by supposedly right-wing Likudniks. It is as if Labor proposes – and Likud disposes. Put another way: Labor proposes – and Likud erupts in vehement protest and anger, calling the leftists weak and soft on security, and then winning election by an emboldened electorate yearning for strong, nationalist, Zionist leadership – and then Likud disposes, mimicking the Labor policy and boasting that they surrender better. Such weird statecraft is uniquely Israeli, unknown in the rest of the world. (In an American context, imagine the election of a Conservative Republican president who then became pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-statist economy, and de-funded the military.) How does that happen?

      This is a mystery, but there is a possible explanation. Years ago, I posed this very question to one of the leading Hesder Roshei Yeshiva in Israel who answered me as follows: Torah Jews and secular right-wing Jews can all love Israel, fight for Israel and even die for Israel. Both groups can demonstrate great self-sacrifice for both the land and the people – but for secular Jews, it must stop at a certain point. “If it were possible,” he said, “to achieve the same love of Israel through Torah and not-through-Torah, then why would you need the Torah?” Therefore, their dedication collapses at a certain point – each person (Netanyahu, Sharon, Livni, Olmert, etc.) at his/her own level.

     Simply put, they do not have the same values, and certainly not the same source for their values, as the Torah-faithful Jew. Their values are, therefore, more fluid, subject to political pressures and enticements – and they do not have the spiritual backbone to stand up to the intimidators. (Shamir, a fascinating individual, was the exception to this rule, and his story shows the marked contrast to today’s crop of leaders. An insider reported recently that the first time James Baker demanded an immediate freeze on settlement construction, Shamir stood up to his full height (4’11” – more than a foot shorter than Baker) and berated him about Jewish rights to the land of Israel and that he never wants to hear such a request made again. In a subsequent negotiation when Baker repeated the same demand, Shamir grew red in the face, glared at Baker, sat in stony silence for three minutes – until Baker changed the topic.)

     It is hard not to avoid the conclusion that secular right-wing Zionism is as bankrupt and bereft of values as secular, left-wing Zionism. That is certainly not to disparage their contributions in building the state; it is, though, an acknowledgment that those who built it – right and left – have been trying to dismantle it for well over a decade and a half – and only Torah Jews imbued with a nationalist impulse stand in their way. Hence the outrage over Rav Eliezer Melamed’s endorsement of soldiers’ refusal to obey orders to attack Jews, and the discomfort that defense officials have toward the Hesder program that many feel is neither cost effective nor trustworthy enough to create the robotic fighting machine craved by generals.

     The tragic pattern is that Netanyahu will lose the confidence of the people, be voted out and replaced by the next leftist hope – only to have that PM succeeded by the next rightist hope – and failure.

      Eventually, the day will come when Torah-true leadership – lovers of Zion and Israel – will emerge to the fore, the people will rally around him and grow again in self-confidence and awareness of our destiny. The question is: will that happen before Moshiach comes or only when Moshiach comes?

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel

Explaining the Unexplainable, Part I

Posted on December 15, 2009 | 3 comments

      Who said this ?   “War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.”

     “And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.”

      “Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred.”

       “We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

          It is hard to believe, but those uncharacteristic words were part of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (“Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize… my accomplishments are slight,” a suitably humble statement that is itself an exaggeration.) Do the words above sound like those of a talmid of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who railed against America, its wars, its “hubris,” its international “aggression and its “racism”?

       Not at all, and nor what followed in what was – at least in its first part – an eloquent articulation of the nobility of the use of arms in a just cause: “ I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

       “But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.”

     These were words more suited to Franklin Roosevelt (who fought World War II; in fairness, he died before its end so the Nobel Committee was off the hook), Harry Truman (who ended WW II and should have won), Winston Churchill (who obviously should have won), Ronald Reagan (whose policies precipitated the end of the Cold War, and certainly should have won), and perhaps even George W. Bush (whom decent people may yet respect for the courage in beginning the relentless struggle against radical Islam that less decent people would rather wish away). Any of those leaders could have – and probably did – deliver that speech. No wonder his audience greeted his remarks with stony silence.

    What possessed President Obama to laud the notion of a just war, and defend America’s conduct of just wars ? Certainly he had to have been a bit embarrassed over the distinction (see https://rabbipruzansky.com/2009/10/09/premature-congratulation) never before awarded to a person with such slender achievements in the field in which he was honored. He might have been even more discomfited by his delayed decision to order a surge of American forces in Afghanistan (a policy announced, after an inordinate delay, shortly before the Oslo ceremony). It must be weird to address a group of peaceniks just a few days after ordering 30,000 more troops to escalate a war – and odder still when that policy seems to duplicate that of the loathed and scorned predecessor whose name Obama could have mentioned (but, unsurprisingly, did not) in recognition for the just wars he waged. After all, he won the award in large part because he was the anti-George W. Bush. (The surge also reflects well on Obama. Even though he did not provide the number of troops requested by the commanding general, that is also not unprecedented. Generals, like fund-raisers, will always ask for more than they need, in the hope of getting what they need. In stable countries, the civilian government controls the military so decisions can be made that reflect a broader range of priorities, and not just one particular battle or war.)

     Did the speech intimate that Obama has suddenly become enamored of the projection of American power across the globe in order to advance American interests and values ? Not likely, as liberals gloat over the “post-imperial president,” oblivious to the potential consequences to a world that has grown accustomed to a United States that defends and promotes freedom throughout the world.

     It might have been – surely was, to some extent – a crass political calculation designed to boost his domestic standing. With Obama’s poll numbers in slow and steady decline, many Americans (granted, most of them not natural Obama supporters anyway) had tired of the President’s habitual apologizing for America’s “sins,” his bowing to foreign potentates, and his overt lack of pride in American accomplishments. This speech made amends for that. He could not make another anti-American speech abroad, and retain the respect of anyone but the hard-core left.

    It also spoke the truth as Jews see it. War is a necessary evil, “the beginning of redemption,” and often the only means of eradicating evil. In the Chanuka prayers, we even thank G-d for the “wars,” because they are the prelude to the salvation, redemption and all the miracles. To fight evil is a great good, and one that classical Christianity has unfortunately denied both in theory (in its pacific strain) and in practice, as Jews learned well for almost 19 centuries.

     Or maybe, one can hope, Obama has grown in office, and indeed is starting to see the world as it really is, and not simply as “Bush’s fault.” There is a virulent strain of wickedness in our world, and it must be confronted and crushed with the relentless weight of America’s might. To the extent that Obama identified that at Oslo marked that speech as a high point of his presidency; to the extent that his future policies reflect his new-found realism will determine the direction of America’s leadership and much of the world’s stability in the coming days.

3 Comments

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

Aliya

Posted on December 11, 2009 | 3 comments

    Reports are that American aliya this past year totaled almost 4000 souls. It may not sound like a lot, and total yerida from Israel (a closely held secret) may far exceed total aliya, but it is nonetheless a remarkable achievement. It is made even more astonishing by the anecdotal evidence of the olim themselves. There are few large Jewish communities today in which aliya, or plans for aliya, does not figure widely in people’s calculations. In my community, almost fifteen families – our members or children of our members – ascended to the Land of Israel in the last six months.  Why is it more common today than in years past – indeed, in the United States, the highest number since after the Yom Kippur War?

    [CAVEAT: Most American Rabbis shy away from discussing aliya for the most obvious reason: it usually generates the tart and uncomfortable question: “so why don’t you go?” Or, if he says he will, then “why don’t you go already?” – the latter, a question that many congregants are thinking, in any event. Preachers should set the example, and lead. Of course, if the pro-aliya Rabbinate left America, then there would be no pro-aliya Rabbinate in America, and we would be left listening to those who subtly oppose aliya before of fear of a “brain drain” or the loss to American Jewish life of the most committed Jews. I have always felt that, notwithstanding that challenge and the questions tossed at the Rabbi, it was as important to speak about aliya as any other mitzvah, and leave my personal situation aside. ]

    A number of reasons present as to the uptick in aliya:

1)      The remarkable success of Nefesh B’Nefesh in putting aliya in the consciousness of American Jewry – remarkable because most Jewish organizations are not very useful in advancing any Jewish agenda and many are downright counterproductive. Nefesh B’nefesh is therefore unique,  and it shows how two people with vision– Rabbi Joshua Fass and Tony Gelbart – and resources can accomplish wonders for the Jewish people. For a fraction of what Jews spend on, e.g., fighting a non-existent Jew-hatred in America (i.e.,  hundreds of millions of dollars annually!), an organization revolutionized American-Jewish life and gave a needed psychological boost to a beleaguered Israel, as well as assisted thousands of Jews in fulfilling this essential mitzva and extraordinary dream. That is, and continues to be, historic, and may their successes only grow. [Disclosure: I received no remuneration for that endorsement !)

2)      Nefesh B’Nefesh made aliya less imposing. Hearing horror stories of olim from 20 years ago, the thought occasionally crossed my mind that Israel’s aliya apparatus was designed to discourage, not encourage, aliya. (True story: I attended an aliya planning meeting many years ago with official representatives from Israel, and their focus was on “things that can go wrong when you send your lift.” Indeed, my only memory of the event was the vivid description of someone who watched all his worldly possessions – in the container – fall from the cargo ship and into the water in New York harbor. I still live in the US.)

      But NBN smoothes the transition, eases – as much as possible – the oleh’s bumpy ride through the Israeli bureaucracy, facilitates the absorption into Israeli life, gives sound and realistic guidance on communities, employment, education, etc. and serves as a continuing resource. Their planning meetings are upbeat and positive without being phony or hokey. In short, NBN is a very professionally run organization that has set a very high standard for Jewish  organizations generally.

3)      Can it be true? That, finally, decades of Religious Zionist education in American yeshivot that emphasized love of Israel, aliya, parades, rallies and the like has succeeded? Well, I don’t know about that. As much as I would like to think this is a compelling factor in the recent renaissance, it is probably just a factor, while not a very compelling one. Interestingly, the Israeli Yeshivot (the post high school programs) gave a much harder aliya sell when I learned in Israel in the 1970’s than they do now. Today, the emphasis is more on shana bet and the continuation of learning Torah after that, and the focus on aliya has waned.

4)      Israel has become a much more livable country from a Western perspective than it was twenty, and certainly thirty years ago. Almost every amenity that makes life in America comfortable – Fox News (!), modern gadgets, spacious homes, culture, even sensibility – can be found in Israel today. And because of the plethora of American olim and Anglo communities, one can move to Israel and not feel like a keren yarok (greenhorn…  And there is no such idiom in Hebrew). The internet, Skype, unlimited telephone access, and the ease and frequency of travel have made the world smaller and the distance between olim and family left behind smaller as well. So the creature comforts are similar, and in a much holier and more Jewishly-rewarding atmosphere.

     But all these reasons pale before the catalyst for the American aliya that NBN has facilitated:

5)      The declining American economy and the excessive cost of living-Jewishly in American today. The financial burdens faced by the average American Jew are, literally, frightening. Factoring only yeshiva tuition, mortgage and health insurance, the average family can face fixed costs of over $100,000 per year before putting a falafel on the dinner table. To most Americans, the notion of someone earning more than six figures and struggling to make ends meet – indeed, even sometimes qualifying for tuition assistance – would be hard to comprehend, but that is the reality for a growing number of families, and a daunting, insurmountable reality for many young ones. For many, to earn an amount of money that provides for the standard of living commensurate with modern Jewish life requires working an inordinate amount of hours – that is to say, working but not really living, and not having much of a family life. 

      And with the health care reform debacle now taking shape in Congress, the Obama administration spending America into bankruptcy (maybe his $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize haul should be use to pay down some of the $12,000,000,000,000 deficit – that’s trillion, by the way), and the declining economy that is being transformed from one based on free enterprise to one based on state control, it is likely that the situation will get worse, if it ever gets better.

     Who would have ever thought that people would make aliya for financial reasons – i.e., they could more easily prosper in Israel, and have an easier material life (very limited tuition and health care costs)? The bad joke from the 1970’s was: “How do you make a small fortune in Israel? A. Come with a large fortune.” Now, that joke’s on us. A young family is more likely today to live a less-pressured, more economically stable life in Israel than in America – and if not today, then maybe in several more days.

      I have heard Rabbis in Israel opine that America’s economic woes are all part of the divine plan to gather to Israel this last, great Jewish population still largely untapped. I am not that gifted in reading the Divine mind, but who can argue? Those American Jews who insist that Jews must remain here to protect Israel’s political interests in the United States have probably not been following the news recently: the president whom Jews supported more overwhelmingly than any other in history is decidedly cool to Israel, if not to Jews generally. The “influence” argument rings a little hollow today.

      So, for an increasing number of young couples, families with children, and retirees, the return to the Jewish home will proceed apace. We are the last of the exiles to be ingathered, and the most difficult to convince – a reservoir of potential olim not fleeing political persecution but (perhaps?) financial distress. Or, perhaps it is simply the desire to be part of Jewish history, perceive the trends of modern times, and complete the historical circle started almost 2000 years ago. What awaits us is the next great moment in Jewish history.

3 Comments

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

Fighting in the Dark

Posted on December 7, 2009 | 2 comments

     The miracle of Chanuka was astonishing for a number of reasons, but especially because “the few vanquished the many.” The Maccabim prevailed against overwhelming odds. Yehuda’s forces never numbered more than a few thousand, and in the climactic battle he mustered 10,000 soldiers against 60,000 Syrians – and still defeated the enemy.

      The Maccabim were greatly outnumbered, even though they operated in their home territory (where usually the insurgents have a numerical advantage) because they were a minority force even among Jews. It wasn’t just a case of the Hellenist Jews predominating, although that was also true. It was also because most Jews adopted a wait-and-see attitude, in large part because this was the first time the Jews fought while not under the protective guidance of a prophet, and Chanuka is the only festival that post-dates the Bible. In every other war – the prophets led the way: Moshe, Yehoshua, most of the Judges, David, etc. Even when the Jews were not victorious – usually because they disobeyed the prophet or due to other sins – he was at least in the background and a useful resource.

      But now, Jews were in the dark, literally. Faced with the occupation of our land by the world power, who knew what to do and which paradigm to follow? How could they decide, and what guarantee did they have that the decision was correct ? These questions plagued the Jews of that era, as indeed they trouble us today. To fight, to compromise, to surrender ? To look for allies, or to fight alone ? To seek the support of the majority who may not be imbued with a national or Torah spirit, or to go it alone – a few radicals leading a bunch of sluggards ? How do we decide ? How did they decide ? In Rav Shlomo Aviner’s phrase, what is the proper balance between faith and realism ?

    That question really frames the issue, and in a sense, defines the challenge of Chanuka. Realism dictated that the Maccabim could not defeat the mighty Syrian empire, that the few could not defeat the many – that all the advantages lay with the conqueror, the most powerful empire in the world. But realism would also dictate that the Jews would never leave Egypt, and never conquer the land of Israel, that David could not slay Goliath (it was possible, but the smart money was still on Goliath), never return to the land of Israel, and not be able to retain it today with the international community allied against Jewish nationalism.

     Often, a non-Jew gives us a clearer insight than we could derive ourselves. The famous Italian philosopher, Giambattista Vico, wrote the first philosophy of history in the early 1700’s, called the “New Science about the Common Nature of Nations.” His theory was that nations are like individuals – nations go through infancy, youth, mature, grow old, decay and disappear. All nations suffer this fate, and it is easier to track the ebb and flow of nations than of individuals, whose choices can take them out of the realm of the predictable.  But Vico acknowledged, in 1725, that one nation does not fit the pattern – the Jews. The Jews, he wrote, were an “exceptional people,” who are the beneficiaries of “extraordinary help from the true G-d.” Jewish history is moved by holy forces, not simply political ones.

      And that is the lesson of Chanuka and the motivation of the majestic men of Modiin. It is the idea, post-Biblical times, on which we thrive or stumble. It is easy to have faith when everything is spelled out in the Torah, and the word of G-d reaches us through his prophets – and we know clearly why we win when we win, and why we lose when we lose. That faith is a theoretical one. Yehuda knew what we needed was practical faith, taking that notion out of the books on the shelves of the Bet Midrash – out of the realm of the theoretical and implementing it in our world view, our conduct – as individuals and as a nation. Our realism includes faith; that is to say, it must include awareness of our exceptionalism. We may ignore that too frequently, but we ignore it at our peril.

      This was the miracle of Chanuka, and the eternal lesson of Chanuka in every generation – that we never despair, that even at the darkest moments the miracle of light is near, and we look for the mysterious cruse of oil that suddenly materializes, and heralds the immanence of G-d.

       As a military victory, the triumph of Chanuka was short-lived. But as a clarion call to faith,  to the hand of G-d that is as real to us as anything material, to be active in defense of Torah and the land of Israel – then the wars of the Chashmonaim inspire us until today – in their dedication, in their tenacity, in their faith, and in the miracles they experienced, in those days in this season.

2 Comments

Posted in Current Events, Holidays, Jewish History