Israel Thoughts

I followed the recent fighting in Gaza rather closely, and though it's unclear whether Israel's made any long-term gains from it, I'm happy that the Israeli casualties were relatively low. It's interesting to compare my reactions to the fighting to my reactions in previous years: during Intifada II I was fairly critical of Israel, but over the last few years my sympathies for the Palestinians and focus on the IDF's foibles have shifted. I still recognize that the IDF isn't perfect-- and there are plenty of cases I've heard about over the years where I question individual actors' judgment-- but it's also quite clear that at least when it comes to Hamas, there aren't a lot of options at the Israelis' disposal. Two days before the cease-fire, Mrs. Yid and I were driving home in the car and I happened to put the radio onto a public access show run out of Berkeley, and the hostility toward Israel was so infuriating we both started yelling at the radio. It's quite a contrast to my first days of becoming aware of Middle East politics and discussing such topics online with people, often taking the Palestinian side, or at least playing a very strong devil's advocate for their position.

I don't think I've drank the hasbara kool-aid, but after a lot of years of reading and talking about Israel and becoming closer with relatives there, I now feel more identification with it and the Israeli people. I certainly don't think of myself as Israeli, but I feel that I understand Israel much better than when I was younger. At the same time, I've tried to work to better understand Palestinian and Arab-Israeli issues and viewpoints as well, and I think that's important, too, if only so one can be educated about all the things going on there. While I continue to have sympathy towards Palestinian civilians I also recognize that the politicians and fighters in their society bear a large measure of responsibility for the ongoing conflict with Israel. Listening to the idiot on the radio talking about Hamas "bottle rockets" and comparing Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto and Israel to the Nazis, I realized that people like that are why it's becoming so hard for honest liberals to feel like they have a place in the discussion. It is true that we need to be talking about Palestinian deaths, and it is true that no military is infallible, but as soon as you've started minimizing Hamas' behavior or making ridiculous accusations or comparisons, you've lost any credibility-- or at least, you should have. I don't know whether the crazy rhetoric was just more subtle during my high school years or I wasn't listening to those kinds of people, but now I feel like I better understand what the real issues are-- and what they aren't. Israel isn't perfect, but it sure isn't genocidal (though it does have its share of morons). And, while some may accuse me of naiveté or squishiness, I don't think most Palestinians are, either-- though I do think they require major social and political shifts to get to a point where coexistence starts looking like a reality. I'm worried about the next generation of Palestinians and how they get from where they are today to where people would like them to be.

What I've mostly tried to do over the last few years, though, is become more thoughtful about how and when I offer my opinions about what goes on in Israel and proto-Palestine. Because I realize that while I'm entitled to an opinion, it doesn't mean a whole lot if I'm not there, on the ground, living through what people there are living through. My opinions-- and especially, my advice-- don't mean much, because I'm not the one on the line. Though it's natural for people outside the region to want to help or feel a strong urge to contribute to the discussion, sometimes I think we'd all be better off if we took a step back and tried to listen more, instead of lecturing the Israelis and Palestinians about what they need to do to bring peace. As with so many others, I still hope for peace and resolution in my lifetime, but I realize that those dreams have to be shared and realized by the people actually living through the fighting-- and who have the most to gain or lose.

Israelis have opinions! Should you care?

That's the existential question posed by two articles I found. One by Abraham Katsman points out that 85% of American Israelis voted for Romney.

Israel has become a “red state” through such a solidly Republican vote.  In fact, if Israel were in the United States, it would be the “reddest” state in the entire country.  Redder, even, than Utah, or Wyoming or Oklahoma.  Significantly redder.  That should be a startling development for the Democrats, who once owned the pro-Israel vote.

Not really. The Israeli left has been on the ropes for anywhere between the last 9 and 13 years (depending on how you count), whereas American Jews tend to be overwhelmingly liberal. I personally think part of the reason for the difference (along with the security situation, which obviously plays a role) is that the Israeli political system allows for a much wider range of representation than the American two-party system. In any event, the Israeli left is in rather bad shape right now, whereas the American Jewish left, while perhaps losing some market share to the center-right, is still clearly the dominant force in the American Jewish political scene. Also, this whole thought experiment is incredibly stupid in the first place, as if Israel was part of the United States, its whole political landscape would be reshuffled as some of its most existential issues (security, synagogue & state, Jewish demographics, the West Bank territories, etc) would be drastically different if not off the table entirely. Hey, what if Israel was part of Mars?

Second, that 14% for Obama is 40% lower than the vote he received from Israel in 2008.  That should worry his campaign.  Even if his support in the Jewish community in America has eroded by only half that much, he may have trouble clearing the 60% mark.  An interesting historical note: for almost a century, every Republican candidate who received 30% or more of the Jewish vote was victorious–and it looks like Romney will win well over 30%.

Sorry, you're wrong. Polls are showing Obama will likely take 75% of the Jewish vote. Romney will probably only get around 25%, like McCain before him.

the Israel-based voters–who overwhelmingly voted Romney–were unusually highly motivated to vote.  Compare that to the 5% participation rate in the rest of the world–voters who lean towards Obama–and quite a contrast emerges between the relative levels of motivation to vote between supporters of each candidate.  This appears to be an extreme example something U.S. polls now show: higher motivation to vote corresponds to higher likelihood of voting for Romney.  And motivation correlates with turnout.  That is a doubly good sign for Republicans.

I guess, but I'm still unconvinced this means much. In 2008, Obama got almost 69,500,000 votes, compared to McCain's 60,000,000. Unless all those voters are from swing states (and they're not), 80,000 votes just isn't all that significant-- unless, of course, you're an operative for the Republican party and are trying to convince people that Romney has more Jewish traction-- and therefore, more general traction, period-- than he actually does. Incidentally, who does Katsman work for? Ah yes, he's a lawyer for Republicans Abroad Israel. Color me shocked.

Not surprisingly, the primary motivating issues in the Israel-based vote are Israel-related issues, such as candidates’ policies on Israeli defense and security, the American-Israeli relationship, the status of Jerusalem, the peace process, and policies regarding Iran and its nuclear program.  82% of respondents considered such issues most important, and 88% of those voted for Romney.  If voters with such concerns so heavily favor Romney among Israel-based Americans, there may be a corresponding  higher-than-expected Romney vote among U.S.-based voters concerned with the same issues.

EXCEPT that most Jews don't vote based primarily on those issues. Because, you know, they don't live in Israel. I guess this might help him with Evangelicals, but guess what, he was already going to get that vote.

What does it all mean?  In the short-run, this is all great news for Romney and the Republicans.  But in the longer run, it is healthier for both Israel and America when strong pro-Israel support is solidly bipartisan. Such a one-sided vote as we just had means that something is out of whack.  In fact, several high-profile Democrats have complained that Israel support is becoming a partisan, Republican issue. 

This vote, however, highlights what those complaining Democrats are missing.  It’s not that the Republicans have somehow driven a wedge between the Democrats and the pro-Israel community; it’s that the Democrats, led by President Obama, have drifted far enough away from their once-solid support of Israel that even life-long Democrats are crossing the aisle.

Right, except that some of the harshest Jewish Democratic critics of Obama's first term are now endorsing him. Whoops.

So what does it all really mean? Not a lot, other than that a lot of Israelis don't like Obama (and, possibly, that a lot of the increased voter registration in this election was done by Republican organizations with the goal of getting more votes for the Republican candidate). However much Katsman tries to spin it, the reality is that both parties still support Israel as an ally, so the contention that the Democrats have abandoned Israel and the only remaining party for Zionists is the Republicans is just hogwash. If the vote is really so one-sided, it indicates that either a lot of those who voted (including registered Democrats) either personally dislike Obama or have been turned off of the Democratic party, or that the Republicans have been better at spreading their message than the Democrats. Let's be honest, how many people actually believe that the "best" candidate or party is always the one that gets the most votes?

Additionally, as mentioned before, American Jews are not single-issue voters.

For the vast majority of Jews, Israel ranks surprisingly low in their considerations as voters. Early in 2012, the Public Religion Research Institute found that among self-identified Jewish adults, 51% of those registered to vote cited the economy as the most important issue driving their voting decision. Fifteen percent cited the growing gap between the rich and the poor, while 10% cited health care and 7% the deficit. Only 4% cited Israel as the most important issue to their vote. 

As David Harris, Executive Director of the nonpartisan American Jewish Committee, put it, "Jews are multi-issue voters. The notion they are single-issue voters is simply wrong."

That kind of deflates the main contention of Republicans like Katsman. Israelis can-- and should-- vote however they want. But however much they'd like us to, American Jews are unlikely to base their vote on what their Israeli cousins say.

Some sad parallels

The Bet Shemesh culture clash that's been occurring off-and-on for the past year has been pretty upsetting to watch and read about. While my usual reaction to such stories is to jump on the Haredi-bashing wagon, at this point, hearing about all the negative interactions between the communities, I'm filled less with disgust and more with pity. It's so tremendously sad that these two groups of Orthodox Jews seem to not have enough common ground to coexist, and it adds to the pessimism many people have about the ultimate direction of Israeli culture as well as Jewish diversity and tolerance.

The Bet Shemesh mess is in particularly sad contrast to the book I just finished, The Jew in the Lotus, which while now rather dated (the events in it took place over a few weeks in 1990, which I never considered "a long time ago" until I did some math), radiates with warmth and love as it describes the various dialogues that occurred (both between Jews and Buddhists as well as between Jews and Jews) during a trip by a Jewish delegation to the Dalai Lama to explain the "secret of surviving Diaspora." The author, Rodger Kamenetz, goes into the visit rather jaded and comes out of it filled with, if not specifically hope for Jewish revival, then at least a great deal of respect and passion for the multiplicities of practice and philosophy within Judaism, represented by the individual participants in the Jewish delegation, who ran the gamut from Yitz and Blu Greenberg to Zalman Schachter-Shalomi. It's tragic to go from reading about different Jews gently disagreeing but still clearly respecting each other to hearing about the latest installment of craziness from Bet Shemesh. Though the school protests seem to have stopped, the war on women (or should I say females, as it includes little girls) seems to be ongoing.

Reading about Bet Shemesh, and especially watching the videos focusing on the Haredi crowds who would congregate near the Orot school, made me think of a similar flashpoint ten years ago in the Ardoyne area of Belfast, where Protestant crowds blockaded a Catholic girls' school and harassed the students trying to get in or come out. This led to a twice-daily running of the gauntlet by the girls and their parents, often with police acting as buffers, just to get them in to school. If you watch some of the videos, the hatred and hostility-- directed towards children-- is pretty disturbing.

That for me is what Bet Shemesh really comes down to. It's one thing to have ideological disputes. It's even ok to have very heated arguments. But when you decide that you have no common ground, no common language, no starting-place for discussion and need to take to the street-- and particularly when, as at Holy Cross, you are targeting, and effectively abusing, young children, there is a serious problem, a problem with leadership, as well as culture.

This isn't to say that there may not be two sides to the Bet Shemesh issue, as there were in Ardoyne. But there need to be some basic lines drawn when it comes to what is legitimate discourse and what isn't. Harassing children most definitely isn't, and I hope, hope, hope, that in ten years' time when Na'ama Margolis is interviewed by Israeli TV, she and her classmates don't show the same signs of PTSD as the Holy Cross girls do.

Obligatory Wittily-Titled Yom HaShoah Post

Shoah Day is here again. Look for the oldies under the Shoah label. After several years I've finally updated my In Loving Memory list.

There have been some interesting Shoah-related tidbits floating around the Judeosphere the past couple of days. Item One: A Haredi crank that has complained about Yad Vashem whitewashing the Haredi experience has done it again, and once again while he may have a point somewhere, you'd be hard-pressed to find it in his shrill, hyperbole-filled attack. Here are my two favorite parts:

According to some experts, between 50%-70% of those murdered by the Nazis, were "traditionally religious Jews." There is no reason to assume the percentage of survivors who were religious was any less. But in the rooms of Yad Vashem only one of the 50-60 video monitors playing taped testimonies of Holocaust survivors shows a Haredi Jew. By choosing to record and display taped testimonies of mostly secular Jews, Yad Vashem is giving a distorted picture of the religious affiliations of the survivors. This gives the false impression that few ultra-orthodox Jews survived the Shoah.

First of all, there is a scholarly argument to be made for a relatively slow survival rate for Haredi Jews. Simply put, the more Haredi you were, the more you were likely to stand out and thus be singled out for persecution. The more risks you were willing to take for your Judaism (trying to keep kosher in a camp, fasting on Yom Kippur, growing a beard, etc), the lesser the likelihood of you surviving the war. However, let's not even go there. Instead let's talk a little about extremely broad criteria and poorly sourced statistics. Exactly what rubric is being used to identify people as Haredi as opposed to some other stream along the Orthodox/traditional continuum? Beards? Hats? Membership in specific political parties or community institutions? I love how there's no consideration of the documented fact that plenty of Jews started the war religious and ended it with major crises of faith. How do we count them? Are yeshiva students who became secular for a decade after 1945 but then became b'aalei teshuvah included as "Haredi" after the fact? This whole thing is not as simple as Dr. Crankypants would have us believe. There may be an issue with a lack of representation at Yad Vashem (which could also be related to a historic distrust of the institution by the Haredi community, hint hint), but you're playing fast and loose with some goalposts here, sir.

Second favorite part:

Unfortunately, these changes fall far short of what is needed. As the premier Holocaust museum under Jewish auspices, Yad Vashem dishonors the memory of the six million by continuing to present a distorted and incomplete record of the Shoah. No, not all those who perished in or survived the Shoah were Haredim. But many more Haredim did survive than the 2% represented by the one videotaped testimony currently on display.

Got that, Holocaust museum? You're not doing your job to my satisfaction, so you are dishonoring the memory of every Shoah victim. Way to go. Yeah, good luck getting Haredi input going with the Yad Vashem board now, man. I'm pretty sure just about the worst insult you can say to curators of a Holocaust museum is that they dishonor the memory of the Holocaust.

I suppose the one bright side of this whole thing is that after generations of disparaging Yad Vashem as a godless enterprise of the Zionist state, the fact that now people in the Haredi community are offended at being left out can only be seen as progress.

Item Two: Peres and Netanyahu both participated in Yom HaShoah ceremonies in Israel. It's interesting to examine their speeches:

The president and the prime minister both mentioned Iran, but while Peres dedicated it one small paragraph, preferring to draw from the Holocaust lessons of Israel's duties to its non-Jewish citizens and the ideal of tikkun olam instead, Iran occupied nearly two thirds of Netanyahu's address. 

...Netanyahu, as he has done in previous years on Holocaust Remembrance Day, lost little time in drawing the historical comparison. This time though, he went a step further and launched on a lengthy reckoning with those "who do not like when I speak such uncomfortable truths. They prefer that we not speak of a nuclear Iran as an existential threat." 

He asked whether "these people lost all faith in the people of Israel?" and accused them that they "have learned nothing from the Holocaust." Here also he had an historical comparison. Netanyahu likened himself to the Likud's spiritual father, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who warned the Jews of Poland in the 1930s of the impending storm "but the leading Jewish intellectuals of the day ridiculed Jabotinsky, and rather than heed his warning, they attacked him." So now, Israeli politicians who disagree with Netanyahu on Iran are being equated to those who failed to foresee the Holocaust. 

He didn't mention Barack Obama by name but Netanyahu also had a historical comparison for the American president. He is the equivalent of Jan Karski, leader of the Polish resistance who refused to speak up on behalf of his Jewish compatriots. 

"Karski was a decent, sensitive man, and they begged him to appeal to the conscience of the world against the Nazi crimes. They described what was happening, they showed him, but to no avail. They said: 'Help us. We have no country of our own, we have no government, and we even have no voice among the nations.'” 

He also had an answer for "those who believe that the unique evil of the Holocaust should never be invoked in discussing other threats facing the Jewish people. To do so, they argue, is to belittle the Holocaust and to offend its victims." To them Netanyahu said:
"Not only does the Prime Minister of Israel have the right, when speaking of these existential dangers, to invoke the memory of a third of our nation which was annihilated. It is his duty."

What I find particularly fascinating about this is that a few years ago, Peres seemed fully aboard the Iran-is-the-New-Nazi-Germany train, too.

It is hard to fathom why despots such as Hitler the Nazi, Stalin the Bolshevik and Ahmadinejad the Persian chose the Jews as the main target for their hatred, their madness and their violence. Perhaps they targeted the Jewish people because of its spiritual power -- a nation poor in material possessions, but rich in values -- for he who is infected with megalomania fears the power of the spirit...

We have learned that our spiritual heritage is dependent on physical security. A people that lost a third of its members, a third of its children to the Holocaust, does not forget, and must not be caught off-guard. 

The first lesson we took from the Holocaust, therefore, was the need to immediately establish a Jewish homeland -- a Jewish state. Without it, the survivors would have been left homeless, and their lives would have remained exposed and prey to destruction. The State of Israel is not merely the Jews' protective shield, but an ideal of historic import: to be a nation with a moral message. 

Existence and heritage are inextricably linked. We never asked other nations to defend us, and we have made the decision that spiritual conflict will not divide us. 

We must not let the memory of the Holocaust diminish, and we must ensure that the memory-bearers do not lessen in number. The Jewish state must ensure the continuity of the Jewish people, for our people have just one country... 

Israel must be an example to its children and a source of pride for those Jews who do not live here. The Jewish people helped establish the State, and the State must now help its people, preserve its identity, give its children a Jewish education and enable the Jews to ensure that their descendents remain Jewish. 

The IDF has given security to the State of Israel, whose soul thirsts for peace. In Israel's eyes, peace is not just a matter of political wisdom, but a fundamental Jewish imperative.

Interesting progression there.

Condensed Stupid

According to my many hypothetical readers, the only thing more irksome than reading longwinded stupid commentary on the internet is reading my longwinded commentary on the longwinded stupid commentary. I aim to please, so here's some silliness I read recently, now in fun bite-sized form:

1- Dennis Prager wants you to know that the best way to become an educated human is to listen to conservative talk radio:

The intellectual input [a full-time mother] can find is likely to be greater than most women (or men) find working outside the home. There is a reason that about half the audience of my national radio show is female – they listen to talk radio for hours a day and broaden their knowledge considerably...  

I am syndicated by the Salem Radio Network. My colleagues are Bill Bennett, Mike Gallagher, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt. Two of us attended Harvard, one Yale and one Columbia. One of us taught at Harvard, another at the City University of New York. And a third teaches constitutional law at a law school. 

In addition to reviewing the news and discussing our own views, we all routinely interview authors and experts – left and right – in almost every field. The woman who listens to us regularly will know more about economics, politics, current events, world affairs, American history and religion than the great majority of men and women who work full-time outside of the house.

Wow, with such an impressive collection of minds, it sounds like Salem Radio is the one who should be creating their own private university, not ol' Dean Beck. 

2. In the course of continuing to pimp his "so awesome people refuse to pay money for it" novel about how the Diaspora is terrible, Tzvi reminds us of that fun bit in the Zohar about reincarnation and rolling through tunnels.

“Come and see, it has been established that all of the dead of the Land of Israel will be the first to rise to resurrection, because the Holy One Blessed Be He will shed upon them the spirit of life from Above and grant them renewed existence. Regarding them it is written: “Your dead shall live” (Isaiah, 26:19). This refers to the dead of Eretz Yisrael who will rise to life first. 

“In contrast, what follows in the verse, “My dead shall arise” (Ibid,) refers to the dead of the others lands. Of them it is not written that they “shall live” – rather they “shall arise.” The spirit of life will only enter their bodies in the Holy Land of Israel, and for that reason, regarding those who die in the Diaspora, it is not written “shall live,” but “shall arise.” Therefore the dead of the Diaspora will arise without the spirit of life, and then they will be made to roll in underground tunnels all the way to the Land of Israel, and only there will they receive their souls, and not while they are in the Diaspora where the impure rule of the Sitra Achra (Other Side) holds sway, so that they will be resurrected only in Israel in the fitting manner” (Zohar 131A).

Now, Tzvi, if you were writing about interesting things like that in your books, instead of putting in weird stuff about the Baba Elazar (sorry, "Saba Yosef") using his magic powers ( the "wireless Google Earth" in his head) to peek in on the narrator's wife sleeping with their neighbors, maybe I might actually read one.

3. Chief Sephardic Rabbi Shlomo Amar, faced with some hard questions about the state of the rabbinate, conversions, and marriages in Israel, decides that the best tactic to take is to pretend that he lives in fantasy land. For instance, the rabbinate is apparently super-duper awesome:

"Beautiful work is being done with conversions; there are no unnecessary stringencies and no unnecessary leniency, and there also is beautiful work being done in both the army and in the civilian sphere. It is getting better and better, toward the positive side. And the Rabbinate is gaining even more strength. 

...I will say outright, and you have my word on this, that the Rabbinate is excellent, and the religious court judiciary is excellent, much better than what was the case many years ago. It is getting better and better, including also the way in which it relates to the public. 

"We have a very strong disciplinary religious court and when there are complaints, that is where they are referred. In the religious courts, of course, there is an ombudsman who is impartial, who does not favor anyone. Things are going very well there, and every complaint is handled very seriously by the religious court judges, believe it or not. Everything has changed. The secular male lawyers and the female lawyers admit that the work in the religious courts now bears no resemblance to what used to be the case. 

...every person who loves Israel and who loves our people wants to see a settled and secure people: He wants to see security placed in the hands of the security people - not in the hands of private people; medical services offered in an organized manner, and also the Rabbinate and the services of the Rabbinate organized in a proper, official way. 

...There is an organized Rabbinate, there are organized religious courts that are well arranged. They now set the pace for the religious courts outside Israel. There are a great deal of obstacles. There is no doubt there are many people who are hurt. Sometimes there are injured parties from this side who cannot accept the realization that they did not take the right path ..."

By contrast, anyone that says the rabbinate is a bureaucratic, politicized mess is either misinformed, power-hungry or a troublemaker:

"...there are people who want to run the world themselves. It is hard for them to come to terms with the fact that they are not running the world. There are people who make their living from there being X number of women who are refused a divorce." 

...Ever since Moses our teacher there were those who disagreed with him, and it is written: 'The sons of Korah died not' [Numbers 26:11]. Korah died, but he's got descendants. There will always be disagreements. And no one who comes to disagree says that he wants the kingdom. He says that everyone in the entire community is a saint, why are you being arrogant, why not give them good service? If they come, they'll check it out, they'll bring their allegations, and they'll see that, thank God, the religious courts give excellent service. The same is the case for the Rabbinate, and if there are any 'instances,' we are prepared and we will take care of them. We have proved ourselves." 

The opinion of the chief rabbi did not change at all when he was asked to comment on a completely different group, that of the rabbis of the Tzohar organization, who still highly regard state religious authority and are not prepared to break away from the Chief Rabbinate. Regarding them, as well, Amar said that they are the descendants of Korah, filled with "an inclination to argue."

Got that, anyone who's ever had a bad experience with the state rabbinate? You're all crazy. Or descended from Korah. Take your pick.

Those Who Should Know Better

Nazi comparisons have always bugged me. Since the time I started researching my family and found dozens upon dozens of names of the dead and missing, I intuitively understood that to compare someone to a Nazi was to abandon any pretense of intellectual consideration in exchange for scoring a cheap emotional shot. In my experience, when people invoke Nazism and the Holocaust to comment on modern issues (with the exception of those actually involving genocide), they almost always do so in a way that cheapens past events (and victims) as well as the contemporary ones they are trying to bring attention to.

I am used to seeing this kind of non-thought from a whole swath of people. I saw it from young liberals in High School and college during the Bush years. I see it often from conservatives in media punditry today. But, while I found that kind of rhetoric frustrating, upsetting and even disturbing, there was a part of me that also understood the mentality behind it-- simply put, these people usually had very little knowledge about the Holocaust or Nazism, and so for them it was an almost entirely rhetorical concept. Someone was bad, the Nazis were bad, therefore the guy that cut you off, the mall cop giving you a hard time, the politician you disagreed with-- they were all Nazis. Simple. It was stupid and enraging, but marginally understandable.

However there is one particular group that I never expected to hear violating Godwin's Law. That would be Holocaust survivors themselves.

There is a story making very small circles in the Jblogosphere. It is written by Ynet, which is known for having a pretty solid anti-religious bias, so I am aware that there may be some exaggeration or misinformation in it. However if the thrust of the article is in any way accurate, it reflects a troubling low point in Jewish discourse.

According to the article, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, who lost much of his family to the Nazis and spent his childhood as the youngest inmate in Buchenwald, said the following, to a group of high school students, no less:

"Marrying gentiles is like playing into the hands of the Nazis," Yad Vashem Council Chairman and former Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau has been quoted as saying to students from Ramat Gan's Ohel Shem High School. According to the students, the rabbi made the remark during a lecture on the Holocaust and on his personal memories as a survivor of the Buchenwald concentration camp which he delivered to teenagers who had returned from a trip to Poland. Lau's remark and the nature of his lecture caused several 12th graders to walk out of the auditorium during the lecture, the students said. One of the teens who left the room explained, "As far as I understood, the lecture's point was that marrying non-Jews is forbidden, and according to Rabbi Lau, marrying gentiles is 'playing into the hands of the Nazis.'

I think it's important to stop here and think about this. The Nazis murdered most of R. Lau's family. Not "theoretically" murdered, not "spiritually" murdered. Murdered, murdered. I understand how intermarriage, particularly the sort that was extremely popular a generation ago when the Jewish partner usually wound up raising their children Christian, if not converting themselves, can be seen as troubling, if not downright painful to Jews from religious backgrounds. But as someone who actually suffered under the Nazis, it frankly boggles the mind how an intelligent person like Lau could actually make this comparison in any serious way, much less repeat it to young students. It also reflects an extremely binary viewpoint, which is also quite surprising coming from Lau, who historically has tended to bring a fair bit of nuance to his public speaking. To compare intermarriage to the Holocaust, or suggest that it is some sort of Nazi-esque tactic, ignores the fact that intermarriage exists in a very long continuum, all the way from raising children with no Jewish content or identity whatsoever, all the way to, well, this lady:

I run into you over and over at many of the parallel events of our lives, pick-up times of our school-aged children, brisen, chasunas, Shabbos lunches.  Baruch Hashem, Baruch Hashem. You have heard it by now from your friends, children’s teachers, rabbis, rooftops. My husband is not Jewish. We have been married eleven years. Our kids attend an Orthodox day school; we maintain a kosher home and we keep Shabbos.  I make kiddush in our house, one day my oldest son might take over.  Or not.  Not your typical intermarried family with the predictable outcome of a forbidden union but it makes you uncomfortable all the same.  I failed the ultimate test.

By every standard of logic, attitudes like the one allegedly shared by Lau (I have too much respect for him to accept this as fact without a little more confirmation) consistently fail. On a moral level, people who intermarry are certainly not comparable to Nazis. They are individuals who love each other and their children and, presumably, try to raise them as well as they know how. On the issue of Jewish continuity and education, intermarried families, again, run the gamut. While some parents may decide not to educate their children about their (partial) heritage, others do-- sending their kids to Hebrew school, to Jewish camp, to day schools, volunteering at their shuls, sitting on boards, donating time and money, etc. And, for that matter, there are in-married Jewish couples who do none of those things-- and yet they are not accused of "playing into the hands of the Nazis," though doing nothing does just as much to further assimilation along.

The only area where R. Lau is partially correct is regarding the issue of whether intermarried couples are making babies with halakhic status. Obviously, in a case where the mother is not Jewish or has not converted, according to Orthodox halakha (AOH), the child is not Jewish by Orthodox standards. However, focusing on this single issue ignores two important caveats:

1- The fact that someone is born not Jewish (AOH) does not mean they may not at some point decide to become Jewish (AOH). I'm obviously biased but I would assume that I would be much more inclined to consider converting to a religion or formally joining a community where I had been welcomed, not insulted, deemed defective, or, of course, been accused of being the offspring of an evil Nazi-esque tactic.

2- Not being born (or not "turning out" a certain way) is not the same thing as actively being killed. It sounds obvious but there you go. I understand that in traditional Judaism this issue is sometimes muddied (hence the controversiality of birth control, among other things), but, really, let's be clear on this. The fact that one has a non-Jewish (AOH) child is not remotely the same as having a Jewish child who is then killed. One is a tragedy, an unspeakable crime, a horrendous trauma that will permeate and affect the rest of your life. While the other may not be some people's ideal for themselves or their family, it is profoundly NOT the same thing as having a child being murdered. A child is a wonderful blessing. They are filled with endless potential. They can be or accomplish amazing things, they can be kind and wonderful human beings. They may even, shock of shocks, do things that help or positively impact Jews without being one! (Say, a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer, or a politician, or anything else under the sun!) When people say things like "If my child turned out to be gay/not Jewish/not religious, it would be like they were dead," what they really mean is that either they're incredibly narrow-minded, or that they're just not thinking.

If people really want to test this analogy, have them go talk to Leiby Kletsky's parents. These people actually had their son violently murdered. They have actually lived through the hell that this causes. Do you think they would consider a living, breathing Leiby with questionable halakhic status to be no different from the mutilated body they buried a few months ago? Do you think they wouldn't trade one for the other in a heartbeat?

A disturbing analogy? I agree. But anyone who doesn't realize that this kind of insane-- and incorrect-- logic is ultimately where the "assimilation/intermarriage = Holocaust" analogy leads needs to start paying attention.

As someone who saw children (and teenagers, and adults, and elders) be murdered, really murdered, by sadistic, evil monsters, I can only hope that R. Lau is too wise-- and sensitive-- to have really said this. (Though the fact that his office admits that he mentioned intermarriage and "generations of Israel's enemies" makes me concerned that something similar may have been said.)


Hat-tip: Failed Messiah.

Are we talking about the same place?

Jonathan Rosenblum wrote an article encouraging the mayor of Bet Shemesh to confront the Haredi wingnuts that keep attacking students at a Modern Orthodox girls' school because it's too close to their turf and because the girls aren't dressed quite modestly enough for their tastes. As often happens, my issue with Rosenblum is not so much with his main point, but rather the way he goes about arguing it.

Case in point: to illustrate that Haredim can live by their principles of modesty but also avoid becoming major jerks, Rosenblum discusses the fine folks of Kiryat Sanz:  

Last week, I found myself davening Mincha in Kiryat Sanz in Netanya, prior to spending a few hours at the separate beach across the road. Kiryat Sanz is a largely self-contained neighborhood of Klausenberger Chassidim, though late Klausenberger Rebbe insisted from the beginning that there be a Sephardi community within Kiryat Sanz. Laniado Hospital, which the Rebbe built, lies at the edge of the neighborhood.

While in Kiryat Sanz, I noticed one or two women in decidedly non-Chassidic dress walking through the neighborhood. No one paid them any attention. Just to make sure that my powers of observation are not waning, I called a doctor friend who lives in the neighborhood, and he told me a story of rabbi who once spent his summer vacation in Kiryat Sanz. After a week, he complained to the Klausenberger Rebbe, of blessed memory, that he was shocked by the presence of immodestly dressed women in Kiryat Sanz. The Rebbe replied, “That’s amazing. I’ve been here over ten years, and I never saw anything like that.”

My friend then told me another story that captures the ahavas Yisrael that the Rebbe made the animating value of his community, along with devotion to Torah study. Once the Rebbe heard that some Chassidim had shouted, “Shabbes,” at seaside bathers. He ordered them to cease and desist forever. “Nobody ever came closer to Torah because someone shouted at them,” he said. “Open your windows and sing Shabbos zemiros at the top of your lungs. That might have a positive effect.”

Many Mazel Tovs to the Klausenberger Hasidim, who apparently follow their rebbe's approach in not sweating the small stuff.

However, it's a little unfortunate that shortly after reading about the tolerant and open-minded people of Kiryat Sanz that I happened to stumble across this piece over at FailedMessiah:

Sanz hasidim are forced submit their mail, the land line phones, their cell phones and computers to censorship that includes banning all computer games for children and having a rabbinic committee certify that all laptops have their Internet capability permently disabled.

Hmm... Well, as long as they're only harassing themselves, I guess we're still cool. Rock on, Klausenberg.

There's Bad Taste, Then There's Obscene

Am I alone on this? Prime Minister Netanyahu went to a memorial service for the 40-plus people killed in a horrible fire last month in Israel. Speaking to the victims' families, he said this:

“They left from here on the Carmel, soaring to the heavens on a chariot of fire”

Uh, Bibi? Maybe you think you're being poetic or something, but you really can't mention "chariot of fire" when a bunch of the victims died in a burning bus. Just like you wouldn't tell the widow of a man lost at sea that "Joe's finally found a safe harbor", or console the family of someone who died of cardiac arrest that "Bob was the heart and soul of the company."

This is the textbook definition of being a dick.

Am I being oversensitive, readers? Or is Bibi suffering from rhetorical Asperger's?

Hat-tip to Failed Messiah.

Huh?

There's breaking news from the Christian Post. Apparently the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict has been solved.

Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself:

"Palestinians and Jews reconciling through Jesus Christ"

Really? Hmm, Jesus as the ultimate uniter (not a divider)? I wonder how the CP figures this could possibly work...

Oh, by fudging the facts.

Shadia Qubti, a Christian Palestinian Israeli from Nazareth, and Dan Sered, a Messianic Jew from Israel, discussed how believers are helping to reconcile the opposing people groups... Qubti works with Musalaha, an interdenominational initiative seeking to expand reconciliation between Christian Palestinians and Messianic Jews, while Sered directs Jews for Jesus in Israel.

Wow, I didn't realize that the biggest issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were between Palestinian Christians and Messianic Jews. Isn't that sort of like saying World War II was principally about Albania wanting to occupy New Zealand?

It's an interesting commentary that in the eyes of most Jews and Muslims, it seems "natural" that Christians (Messianic Jews included) would be naturally sympathetic to each other. However this article demonstrates that the respective national/ethnic identities seem to play much more of a prominent identity role for these groups.

I don't disagree that it's good to see people getting along, and I'd much rather see Palestinian Christians getting along with Israeli Messianics (or Israeli Christians, for that matter) than otherwise. However it's hard to take these folks seriously when they say things like this:

CP: Is it possible to have peace in the Middle East? How?

Qubti: I believe in grassroots movements starting with smaller groups that come from the people. I believe as followers of Christ we have a lot of work to do. If we can establish unity among us, between Israelis and Palestinian Christians first, I think that will have a domino effect within our countries and regions. But first we have to try to get along together as a smaller community, as a prototype that this works. Christ is able to do what the world is not able to do. I think peace is possible in the Middle East and we need to be very proactive.

Sered: I couldn’t agree more. I think peace is not only possible in the Middle East, [but] I also believe it is inevitable. When Jesus returns there will be peace in the Middle East and all over the world. Right now, immediately, it is also possible. One by one as Israeli Jews and Arab Palestinians come to faith we are going to see more and more reconciliation and more and more peace. It is only because of the reconciling power of the gospel that we see that, through proclaiming the gospel, through working more and more towards an understanding of reconciliation between men. But first and foremost we must seek reconciliation between men and God and that only comes through faith in Jesus.

Get gospel, get peace. Good to know. After all, it worked so well during the English Civil War.

Honestly, I wish these partners luck with their endeavors. But I hope the Christian Post recognizes how misleading it is to claim that the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is believing in Jesus-- and imply that "the Jews" are already on board.

Choosing Authenticity over Honesty

Lots of people care about being authentic. In a cultural or religious context, some people are positively obsessive about it. In Jewish circles, this can manifest in different ways-- be it the Reform struggle over what a Reform prayer service "should" look like, or the Orthodox infighting in Israel over whose conversions are (or aren't) acceptable. Throwing his hat into the ring this week is eminent leap-before-he-looks master Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. I admit before going into this that I have a strong anti-Shmuley bias, not because he's always wrong but because he's always so damn full of himself. That said, let's hear Shmuley educate us about "Living Judaism in the West Bank."

To start, Shmuley wants you to know he objects to the word settlers.

The first thing you discover about the residents of Hebron, whom the world derisively describes as settlers - as if Jews living in their own ancient capitol are newcomers - is their warmth, friendliness, and hospitality. 

This, of course, is pure politics. The fact that Hebron is an ancient Jewish site has zero ramifications on its Jewish occupants' legal status, which is at issue. Neither, incidentally, does the fact that they were friendly and said hi.

All around us children were playing, utterly carefree, on pristine playgrounds. So many Jews in Hebron have been killed in terror attacks over the years. Yet the residents in general, and the children in particular, live unafraid. They are also liberated from hatred.

Ah yes, that must be why we never hear about any conflict in Hebron. Nope, not ever.

When their friends die - as did the four two weeks ago - they mourn them, bury them, commemorate them, and get on with their lives. There are no calls for revenge attacks, there are no mass demonstrations braying for Arab blood. Their response, rather, is to demonstrate, in the most peaceful manner, that they are there to stay.

Except when they machine-gun a college, attach bombs to buses, attack foreign volunteers, NGOs and diplomats visiting Palestinians, break into people's houses and beat them to a pulp, desecrate Muslim graves, or just go rioting in the streets. You know, little things like that. Honestly, Shmuley, do you just not do basic research, or do you not expect us to bother with Google? Look, either you're stupid, gullible, or just a terrible liar. Those are your choices, decide now.

Shmuley goes over the tragic history of Hebron (no argument here), and points out that the Muslim residents are not exactly friendly to their Jewish neighbors. Fair enough. However, the argument that the settlers' biggest problem is that the media hates them-- as opposed to the decades of ongoing, double-sided violence which anyone can look up and verify for themselves-- is nothing but blatant partisanship.

There are no fluctuations in the commitment to pray by the graves of those who gave the world monotheism.

Yet these residents have been demonized by the entire world. They face daily character-assassination in the media by those who would decry their simple desire to walk in the footsteps of Abraham. 

Oh please. Sorry Shmuley, the settlers aren't saints. They're real people, making real choices, and some of them, frankly, are bad ones. They're armed, hostile, and antagonistic. I'm not saying I wouldn't be some of those things if I was in their shoes (though, personally, I would never put my family through such a situation), but let's at least call an automatic-rifle-wielding spade a spade.

Abraham, at whose tomb I prayed with my children tonight, is the father of all peoples, Jew and Arab alike. The Arabs are my brothers, equal children of G-d in every respect. And Arabs and Jews must learn to live peacefully together in the land. 

Quite right, which is part of what makes the Hebron situation so upsetting and painful. On an ideological level, I agree with Shmuley that well-meaning Jews and Muslims should, in principle, have the right to live where they want as part of the two-state solution. However, let's also think about what this entails: In any final status agreement, Hebron will be part of a Palestinian state. If the settlers' real attachment to Hebron is its religious significance, and not as part of a political stance or ideology, this would mean committing to becoming Jewish citizens of a Palestinian state. I have yet to see or read any evidence that indicates any members of the Hebron community think this way. They are not interested in being part of a two-state solution, certainly not in Hebron. Part of the settlers' raison d'etre in Hebron (or at least a very satisfying side-effect) is the smug knowledge that their presence acts as a permanent spoiler to Palestinian sovereignty in the city. Any appeal to "tolerance" is mere cynical sophistry. To have Shmuley parrot these recycled arguments as if he's discovered some new truth is both boring and pathetic.

It is not the spiritual-seeking settlers who threaten the peace, but rather the murderous groups of Hezbollah and Hamas, who wish to make all of Israel judenrein.

Again, you're either being disingenuous or incredibly naive, take your pick.

Could it really be that a community who simply wish to live aside the earthly remains of Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah, are obstacles to peace?

As long as they see themselves as human Israeli "outposts" whose job is to preclude a Palestinian state, yes. By definition.

But don't take my word for it. The next time you're in Israel, come and immerse yourself in the city chosen by Abraham as the eternal resting place for a wife he so loved to forever rest in peace.

And there you have it: anyone who opposes the Hebron community does so because they hate that Jews, especially religious Jews, are living in a place that has historical and religious significance to Judaism. It has nothing to do with politics, nothing to do with the settlers' own questionable behavior or troublesome ideology, it's all anti-semitic, anti-Israeli, and anti-Orthodox bias. To Shmuley, the mere fact that the settlers are living in Hebron (and, of course, that they were nice to him) already seems to elevate them. They aren't hardliners, they're spiritual. They aren't intractable, they're committed to "walking in the footsteps of Abraham." The way Shmuley tells it, the Hebronites are hippies on a commune, as opposed to hardcore radicals whose beliefs, actions, and choices continue to cause massive problems for their neighbors and fellow citizens. In short, Shmuley sees the settlers as good, authentic Jews, living where Jews "should" live. Everything else, even terrorism against their neighbors, is secondary (i.e., doesn't exist).

Take my advice, Shmuley: drink less Kool-aid. Even if it's kosher.

Truth versus Marketing

While online I tend to come off as harsh at times, it's likely because in person I'm usually very accommodating. The truth of the matter is that I realized a long time ago that the truth is usually fairly relative, and that humans are fallible enough that most people tend to not have all the answers. Hence the need for collaboration, compromise, and yes, dialogue.

My brother Deacon Yid is not like this. He believes in, and practices, what A.J. Jacobs once described as "radical honesty". In most circumstances (unless he can get something out of you), Deacon will say exactly what he thinks, to whomever he pleases. Most people, including me, tend to interpret this as being rude, mean, or sometimes just plain uncompassionate. But to Deacon, he's telling it like it is. He once told me that he felt sorry for me because I let people walk all over me. As far as he was concerned, asking him to hold his tongue or walk away from an argument (or perceived slight or insult) was like asking him to lie, to compromise his ethics.

I bring this up today because it really helps explain Tzvi Fishman.

Tzvi is stuck. On the one hand he has a cause-- encouraging aliyah to Israel. On the other hand, he's an ideologue. Like Deacon, he's also a binary thinker. Either you're telling the truth or telling a lie, either you're an authentic Jew or you're not. If the truth hurts, so be it.

But let me explain something. For every Jew you may convince with columns like this, you easily turn off five.

Can anyone imagine a Puerto Rican kid not speaking Spanish? Or a Japanese kid not speaking Japanese? Of course not. This is the natural, healthy, common-sense order of life.

But when it comes to the Jews, something gets very screwed up. You would think that, like in the above examples, every Jewish kid should know how to speak Hebrew. Just the way Spanish is the language of Puerto Ricans, and Japanese is the language of the Japanese, Hebrew is the language of the Jews.

Nothing could be simpler, right?

That’s the way it is in Israel. That’s the way it should be. Jewish children grow up speaking Hebrew. They also may know Yiddish, or English, or French, but they all speak Hebrew fluently.

But in the Diaspora, things get screwed. In the Diaspora, there are millions of Jews who don’t know Hebrew at all! Instead of speaking their own language, they speak an assortment of foreign tongues that are totally alien to their souls and their brains.

This alone should make everyone realize how damaging, mind warping, and insidious Diaspora life is for a Jew.

Tzvi is right that language is deeply rooted to community and identity. But he essentializes language to the point that you'd think it was the primary element. In Diaspora cultures particularly, where people become dispersed over a wide area and need to adapt to wherever they end up, this is simply not true. Jews have been struggling over Hebrew as far back as the days of the Talmud. But to Tzvi, this diversity of language is shameful, because it indicates a break with continuity, an aberration in a nation's "normal history." Rather than positively promote learning Hebrew as a way to engage with the holy books of Judaism, connect with the richness of Jewish tradition, or cultivate relations with other Jews around the world, Tzvi instead focuses on the negative approach: Jews should speak Hebrew. In Israel they do. Elsewhere, they don't, because the Diaspora is evil. The Diaspora "warps" Jewish minds by making them speak foreign languages "alien to their souls."

Sure, the wise and saintly Yosef, and members of the Sanhedrin, knew 70 languages. No problem with that. But Hebrew should come first.

So if you don’t know Hebrew yet, start learning. It’s your language. It’s who you are. It may say on your passport that you are a Canadian, or Frenchman, of Englishman, or American, but that’s only a piece a paper. You are really a Jew. So start speaking Hebrew and be who you really are. Why live a life imitating others when you can be yourself?

Here Tzvi relies on rhetorical devices that are clearly subjective. He dismisses a national identity as "only a piece of paper", saying that speaking Hebrew turns you into "who you really are." What tremendous power! Never mind that for generations, while most Jews knew Hebrew, it was not spoken as their first language (particularly women, who tended not to have as much educational options). Good to know that all those famous Jewish figures, rabbis, etc were doing it wrong all those years.

Tzvi is not a salesman. He is an ideologue. To him, he's telling it like it is, and the only alternative is to lie. But what that means in practical terms is that rather than inspiring, he criticizes. The only motivation is to avoid guilt and shame. And most people will not respond to messages like that. Several years ago, I read a book exploring different aspects of the American Jewish experience. One woman in her 40s, explaining why she was so ambivalent about Jewish practice, said that to her, "Judaism was an old man saying no."

No one likes being told what to do, or harshly criticized. And many Jews tend to be rebellious by nature. The Zionist pioneers rejected the status quo of their day, as did the Zionist rabbis. Tzvi, too, rejected the status quo of his own day.

But these days, Israel is its own status quo in the global Jewish community. And while some Jews will choose to immigrate by rebelling against their elders who tell them "no", it is highly unlikely that any fence-sitters will decide to go to Israel based on Tzvi Fishman dumping on their Jewishness.

Nefesh B'Nefesh has done some amazing things. But, for the most part, it is probably in spite of guilt-trippers like Fishman, not thanks to them. To a binary thinker, any moderation is a surrender. But it's sad to think that Tzvi doesn't realize that every time he writes his column, he's likely working against his goals, not for them.

Rotem and Identity

There are lots of things I don't like about the recent Rotem bill brou-ha-ha in Israel. And yes, there's plenty of blame to go around.

First, as always, the elephant in the room, is Israel's lack of a civil marriage option. Supposedly, this is the very issue that bothers Rotem's party, Yisrael Beiteinu, so much, given that much of their Russian constituency are not halakhic Jews as per the Chief Rabbinate. Some folks with allegedly insider information have said that Rotem is actually trying to pass two bills, one trying to make conversion easier (at least in this instance), and one pushing for a civil marriage law. Unfortunately, in order to get the Haredi parties on board (particularly Shas), Rotem had to amend his bill to reinforce the present status quo, i.e., that the Chief Rabbinate gets final say over all conversions. Cue American Jewish outrage, angry letters, and likely a fair amount of high mucky-muck conversations with Israeli politicians. Next step was Bibi Netanyahu stepping in and tabling the whole matter for a good six months.

This brings us to the second dilemma: what is the appropriate level of American Jewish involvement in Israeli affairs? Some Israelis would say very little-- who are Americans to tell Israelis how to be Jewish? The problem here is that Israel is not just a sovereign nation, but also "the Jewish state," i.e., the state of the Jews. With Diaspora demographics declining, Israel is becoming (somewhat) more justified in viewing itself as the center of Jewishness. So the question then becomes, is Israeli Judaism the new standard? Whatever your opinion on this, it's unquestionable that Israel views itself as the center of the Jewish world. Which means, among other things, that decisions of its Rabbinate have (or at least have the potential to have) global consequences. The sovereign nation argument is ultimately a strawman, because Israel's identity or consciousness is not exclusively localized within the boundaries of land. I don't care what Nepal thinks about me. It doesn't affect me in the slightest. Israel, on the other hand, has constructed its national identity on the twin pillars of Israeli-ness and Jewish-ness, and the later is something I lay claim to. If Israel's rabbis and government declare heterodox rabbis, or their converts, illegitimate, this becomes a very personal thing. As the Jewish state, Israel claims a connection with Jews around the world, and has consciously cultivated this relationship since before the founding of the state. Sometimes Israel uses that connection to ask the Diaspora for help. Part of the question here seems to center around what the acceptable boundaries are when it comes to the Diaspora flipping the script and asking for something from Israel, namely, recognition of heterodox movements and either liberalizing the rabbinate or decreasing its influence.

Last point: I understand the argument that if heterodox movements want equal rights in Israel, they should put their money where their mouths are and move there. Here are some responses:

First, part of an western democracy's job is to protect the rights of minorities. There shouldn't be a minimum threshold you need to pass in order to be counted. There is only one Jew left in Afghanistan, does that mean he's forfeited any rights as a citizen?

Second, Israel's privileging of Orthodoxy (and simultaneous disenfranchisement of heterodoxy) means that heterodox Jews are caught in a catch-22. On the one hand defenders of the status-quo say the onus is on them to immigrate, build up their communities, and thereby "earn" (maybe) the right to be treated as equals. The problem here is that you are basically demanding that, before they're even allowed to be part of the conversation, these folks must relocate to a country that on the civic and government level, has shown itself to be hostile to them. What's the motivation here, exactly? A Reform rabbi may spend time in Israel and fall in love with it. They may want to move there to strengthen the heterodox community and support the country. But I imagine that knowing that every time they want to practice their Judaism it is going to be an uphill battle can't make it a very easy choice.

Third, last I checked there were still plenty of Orthodox Jews in America as well. They seem to feel no qualms interjecting their opinions on Israeli matters. Nor do I see many of them calling on their community members to stop because, as non-Israelis, they don't really have the right to have an opinion, much less work to make it happen. The only time I see American Jews getting up in arms about "interference" with Israeli policy is when they happen to agree with the status-quo! The accusations that American Jews are selfish or backstabbing Israel over hurt feelings is a way of side-stepping the fact that Israel (and the Orthodox) appeal to Jewish unity and identity when it serves their purpose, but get "outraged" when heterodox Jews point out that it's awfully hard to feel affectionate towards a country that claims to be your "home" while not recognizing your rabbis, converts or marriages. This isn't about "feelings" as much as it is respect and consistency. Israel can't tell the Diaspora that all Jews are family, etc when they want something and then act outraged when the Diaspora asks back. If Israel wants to claim to be the universal Jewish home, then it should act like it. If not, don't be surprised or self-righteous when heterodox Jews start getting alienated.

One blogger cited this article from the Jerusalem Post, in which the author says,

The way America’s Reform and Conservative movements see it, the battle over conversion in Israel is between Orthodoxy and non-Orthodoxy. Well it isn’t. Rather, it’s between ultra-Orthodoxy and modern Orthodoxy, and to join this battle, American Jewry must set aside its longer-term agendas and help Israel’s modern-Orthodoxy win this battle. 

The problem with this call to arms is that you are asking American Jews to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves and their counterparts, under the hope that the lesser of two evils will eventually grant them equality. If the heads of the Modern Orthodox community were all like Seth Farber, that would be one thing. But when one of the Chief Rabbis, a supposed "moderate" among the MO known for trying to liberalize the rabbinate goes to the press and repeatedly bashes heterodox Jews, let's just say it makes the prospect of an alliance a whole lot less palatable.

This is what Rabbi Amar said at the beginning of August:

Israeli laws should be determined by residents of Israel who defend its security and bear its burdens. If our Jewish brethren immigrate to Israel, we will welcome them with great joy, and then they would be entitled, as citizens, to struggle for the adoption of their perspective.

Ok, Israelis should determine Israeli policy. I can understand the argument. Except then there was this a mere week later:

And it’s no secret that our spiritual state is low and demeaned, be it in the relations between people or in the increasing violence and cruelty, even murder, which has reached the lowliest state, God save us. And also in the other commandments that bind us, the levels of modesty and morality have decreased exponentially, and the most difficult plague is that of hitbolleloot [abandoning the Jewish law and adopting a western way of life] that everywhere plagues our holy and pure people, as is the case in other countries in which the dilution has reached terrible ends, so is it now in our holy land, this ill is everywhere and nobody pays attention.

And those who call themselves liberals and Reform, and their friends and supporters, they are responsible for this terrible crime, they support it openly and without shame.

And now they dig their claws into the people who live in Zion, and they try to dictate to us a lifestyle, that Israel should be like all other nations, God forbid, and they terrorize us in various ways, and they formed legions of warriors inside the land of Israel whose sole purpose is to rip the Torah out of Israel and defile the religious courts and everything that’s holy, and they’ll use whatever ways and means they can, by threatening and exerting influence on ministers and members of Knesset and by appealing to the courts. Things are getting worse and worse.

Presumably, this rant includes Israeli heterodox Jews. So much for them being entitled to "struggle for their perspective."

If this is from a so-called moderate, then what's the point? When the Chief Rabbi accuses other movements of being criminals and terrorists, that seems to suggest a major disconnect. Who are the heterodox supposed to talk to? What is there left to talk about?

The bottom-line seems to be that Israel doesn't want to give heterodox movements equal status basically because it doesn't feel like it. And ditto for civil marriage. At the end of the day the answer to American Jews is that the Orthodox refuse to deviate from their worldview, and the seculars seem not to give a damn. Claims that by separating Rotem's bill from the Law of Return "avoid the issue" are missing the point. Most American Jews aren't upset because they personally will be shafted if their children or converts make aliyah. They're angry because by maintaining the status quo, Rotem and his supporters indicate that they don't care about heterodox Jews-- especially the vast majority of American Jews. The problem is the slap to the face, not whether they'll actually be turned away at the door.

Are the Orthodox entitled to have their "perspective?" Of course. But asking that American Jews not care is a pipe dream. Damn right we care. We should care. (And actually, it's good for Israel that we care, because it shows that we still care about-- and identify with-- Israel.) And if supposed liberalizers like Rotem were smart, they would reach out to us rather than leave us to their political opponents (Kadima) to rile up.

Ditto for the Americans. While both sides are talking past each other, American Jews are being used as a boogey-man for Israelis bemoaning the loss of the Rotem bill. The American community would have a much better leg to stand on if they showed some damn consistency. If you're going to exert pressure for a cause, then actually do it and communicate-- to the rank and file-- why it's important, don't just call the Prime Minister in a hissy fit every few years when you remember that, oh yeah, the Rabbinate still has an Orthodox monopoly on the state. Israelis aren't going to care about this issue just because American Jews care. We have to get the Israelis to care. Going above their heads by using our Bibi hotline gets us nowhere.

If the Modern Orthodox want help liberalizing the rabbinate, I don't see the harm in allying with them-- BUT the heterodox community actually has to stand on its principles and stay true to its ultimate goals of making Israel a more open society that heterodox Jews can feel just as comfortable and proud of as their Orthodox counterparts. Otherwise it really does just come off as petty.

Come on, focus!

I don't know if WND has a bad case of ADD or what, but their latest columns are really all over the place.

Take this dreck by Les Kinsolving, which is so inflammatory you'd think it was made of rayon.

A 'gay' private with blood on this hands?

Oh, this should be good.

The Telegraph also featured photographs of Bradley Manning: "who could face more than 50 years in prison for treasonous conduct, holding up a sign with rainbow colors, demanding 'equality on the battlefield' and participating in a gay pride parade."

Ok... and the significance of this is?

The Telegraph also reported that Pfc. Manning is "not only a homosexual, but was considering a sex change. Manning was arrested at the end of May and is being detained by U.S. authorities."

Wait, what does any of this have to do with the story? You know, the one where he leaked thousands of documents?

Why, if "don't ask, don't tell" is still authoritative in our armed forces, was Pfc. Manning engaging in such public behavior?

Uh, maybe it has something to do with the same motivations that caused him to steal documents? Maybe he was mentally or emotionally unbalanced, maybe he was upset at a variety of army policies. I don't know. Are you really claiming this as a gay protest against the army?

If all of this very serious trouble can be caused by just one promiscuous homosexual private first class, what on earth would be the effect on the U.S. Army of sergeants and captains and colonels who, after the repeal of "dont ask, don't tell," could announce their homosexual orientation in the barracks?

Wait, wait, you lost. Me. Are you pretending like the part you're mad about is him holding up a rainbow sign, not the accusations of treason? Or are you trying to link being "a promiscuous homosexual" (evidence?) with being a national security threat?

This was only one private first class, who was a multiple-partnered homosexual activist who was able and willing to leak 90,000 secret U.S. military documents. If one private first class can cause such an enormously horrendous security violation, who can estimate the full potential of the Obama hope to open our armed forces to the sodomy lobby?

Wow. Just, wow. This is your go-to scare scenario? Not hot "troop movements" in the shower, not singing "YMCA" on parade, but anti-military spies? Don't you think you might moving the goalposts just a little? I mean, it's one thing to go after this one guy, but it's ballsy to claim that it's slippery slope from going to a Pride rally to stealing classified documents.

Question: why would gays volunteer for the military just to spy on it? Furthermore, why would being allowed to come out make a difference on whether they decided to spy or not? Wouldn't giving gays more rights make them less frustrated, less disgruntled, and less likely to act against the military? (You know, assuming that Manning constitutes any sort of trend, which of course you haven't demonstrated at all.)

It gets better. Resident Jew-hawk Aaron Klein manages to hijack his own story, ostensibly about a wacko Pentecostal church in Brazil building a life-sized model of the First Temple, and turns it into a rant about Muslim Palestinians. No, really.

It starts out predictably enough: super right-wing Jews are presented as mainstream and their loopier activities go unmentioned; and anything they dislike not only happens to be bad, but also part of a global evil entirely directed at bugging them.

"This planned church is a mockery which stands in diametric opposition to everything that the Holy Temple of Jerusalem represents," Rabbi Chaim Richman, director of the international department of the Temple Institute, stated in a press release.

"The Bible, bequeathed to the world by the Jewish people, emphasizes the preeminence of Jerusalem and its spiritual and prophetic role in the future of both Israel and all mankind," Richman said.

"We are witness today to the phenomenon of nations that seek to de-legitimize Israel's connection to Jerusalem. This planned megachurch represents the next logical step, the de-legitimization of the significance of Jerusalem altogether," he said.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what this church was thinking. It couldn't be that they're just oblivious or self-centered, they've got to be doing it deliberately to undermine Israel!

Richman slammed the reported plans by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God as a "cynical and manipulative attempt to morph the Bible's universal message into its own self-serving agenda."

According to the U.K. Guardian, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God will construct a church in Sao Paulo based on King Solomon's Temple, including a replica of the Ark of the Covenant at its center.

"We are preparing ourselves to build the temple, in the same mold as Solomon's," Bishop Edir Macedo, the church's leader and founder, was quoted as saying in the report.

"[Solomon's] Temple … used tons of gold, pure gold. ... We are not going to build a temple of gold, but we will spend tons of money, without a shadow of doubt," said Macedo.

Macedo told the British newspaper his church had signed an $8 million contract to import stones from Israel.

"We have signed the contract and commissioned the stones that will come from Jerusalem, just like the ones that were used to build the temple in Israel; stones that were witnesses to the powers of God, 2,000 years ago," he said. "It is going to be a knockout, it is going to be beautiful, beautiful, beautiful – the most beautiful of all. The outside will be exactly the same as that which was built in Jerusalem."

Ok, so the Jews are mad and the Christians are nuts. So far so... good? Here's where things take a turn for the confusing. Klein pretends like he's giving background information about the Temple and the Temple Institute.

While the Temple Institute criticized Macedo's plans, Richman's group, based in Jerusalem, focuses on preparation for the rebuilding of the Third Temple in its biblical location - the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Institute has been preparing ritual objects suitable for Temple use. Many of the more than 90 ritual items to be used in the Temple have been remade to the highest standards the Temple Institute.

Yeah, compared with the "crazy" Pentecostals who want to build a Temple in Brazil, building one in Jerusalem (complete with all the stuff we need to re-start animal sacrifices once the Messiah shows up) sounds positively logical!

Now watch the birdie:

The First Temple was built by King Solomon in the 10th century B.C. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 B.C. The Second Temple was rebuilt in 515 B.C. after Jerusalem was freed from Babylonian captivity. That temple was destroyed by the Roman Empire in A.D. 70. Each temple stood for a period of about four centuries.

The Temple was the center of religious worship for ancient Israelites. It housed the Holy of Holies, which contained the Ark of the Covenant and was said to be the area upon which God's presence dwelt. All biblical holidays centered on worship at the Temple. The Temples served as the primary location for the offering of sacrifices and were the main gathering place for Israelites.

According to the Talmud, the world was created from the foundation stone of the Temple Mount. It's believed to be the biblical Mount Moriah, the location where Abraham fulfilled God's test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

The Temple Mount has remained a focal point for Jewish services for thousands of years. Prayers for a return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple have been uttered by Jews since the Second Temple was destroyed, according to Jewish tradition.

OK, fine.

Al-Aqsa Mosque was constructed in about A.D. 709 to serve as a shrine near another shrine, the Dome of the Rock, which was built by an Islamic caliph. Al-Aqsa was meant to mark what Muslims came to believe was the place at which Muhammad, the founder of Islam, ascended to heaven to receive revelations from Allah.

Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. It is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 656 times.

...According to research by Israeli author Shmuel Berkovits, Islam historically disregarded Jerusalem as being holy. Berkovits points out in his new book, "How Dreadful Is This Place!" that Muhammad was said to loathe Jerusalem and what it stood for. He wrote Muhammad made a point of eliminating pagan sites of worship and sanctifying only one place – the Kaaba in Mecca – to signify the unity of God.

As late as the 14th century, Islamic scholar Taqi al-Din Ibn Taymiyya, whose writings influenced the Wahhabi movement in Arabia, ruled that sacred Islamic sites are to be found only in the Arabian Peninsula and that "in Jerusalem, there is not a place one calls sacred, and the same holds true for the tombs of Hebron."

A guide to the Temple Mount by the Supreme Muslim Council in Jerusalem published in 1925 listed the Mount as Jewish and as the site of Solomon's Temple. The Temple Instituteacquired a copy of the official 1925 "Guide Book to Al-Haram Al-Sharif," which states on page 4, "Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which 'David built there an altar unto the Lord.'"

Uh, what? Hang on, I thought we were talking about silly Pentecostals. Why are we talking about Al-Aqsa?

The Temple Mount was opened to the general public until September 2000, when the Palestinians started their intifada by throwing stones at Jewish worshipers after then-candidate for prime minister Ariel Sharon visited the area.

Following the onset of violence, the new Sharon government closed the Mount to non-Muslims, using checkpoints to control all pedestrian traffic for fear of further clashes with the Palestinians.

The Temple Mount was reopened to non-Muslims in August 2003. It still is open but only Sundays through Thursdays, 7:30 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and not on any Christian, Jewish or Muslim holidays or other days considered "sensitive" by the Waqf.

During "open" days, Jews and Christians are allowed to ascend the Mount, usually through organized tours and only if they conform first to a strict set of guidelines, which includes demands that they not pray or bring any "holy objects" to the site. Visitors are banned from entering any of the mosques without direct Waqf permission. Rules are enforced by Waqf agents, who watch tours closely and alert nearby Israeli police to any breaking of their guidelines.

Those... totally non-sequiteur bastards!

I've got to give Klein credit. Either he's really dedicated to giving people super-detailed background information on his news pieces (in this case more than half of the article) or he's got a real knack for tying everything back together to the root issue of the day, which is of course that the Waqf is a bunch of jerks. I can't wait until WND moves him to sports.

I could go on, believe me I could, but I'm starting to feel a dull pain in my brain. So I'll just leave you with the title of a recent brainfart from Joe Farah:

Have Dems re-enslaved blacks?

Yea, gentle readers, I have set you on the path, now go forth and... cry.