Rabbi Josh Yuter has a good post on the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America's recent agreement with the Israeli Rabbinate on the standardization of the conversion process. The backstory is that the Israeli Rabbinate has been refusing to recognize conversions performed by North American Orthodox rabbis with whom they are unfamiliar. As a result, converts who believed their credentials to be impeccable have been unable to marry in Israel or to move to Israel under the Law of Return.
As Yuter notes, easing these tensions with the Israeli rabbinate has the potential to make the lives of many converts a great deal less onerous. Standardization may have its own benefits as well. Judaism is known for discouraging potential converts in order to make sure that those who do convert are genuinely comitted. This policy has some merit, but all too often it becomes an excuse for what can only be described as hazing, as religious courts attempt to prove their rigor by making the lives of conversion candidates as difficult as possible. People I know who have persued Orthodox conversions have been dragged through a lengthy procedure during which they had little sense of the court's requirements or how much progress they were making toward fulfilling them. This is a particular hardship for young singles, since potential converts are not allowed to date or have romantic relationships. Standardization of the conversion procedure could eliminate some of the ambiguities that make the process so difficult for converts as well as alleviating regional courts' perceived need to compete with each other over the rigor of their conversions.
On the other hand, standardization in the Orthodox world usually means capitulation to the right. Those who call themselves Orthodox Jews — and Orthodox rabbis — espouse a wide range of beliefs and practices. The RCA, however, is now claiming the right not only to determine the criteria for conversion but to decide which rabbis are worthy performing conversions. In addition, children who convert are required to attend an Orthodox day school through 12th grade, and the RCA reserves the right to decide which day schools are "serious" enough to qualify. Yuter observes, "as the religious and political dynamics of the RCA/BDA [Bet Din of America] changes, the regional Batei Din [religious courts] will be forced to adapt or lose their authorization." More distressingly, so will the converts.
All in all, I'm troubled. But of course, I have no say in this matter. We'll see what happens.
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
What is this Klal Yisrael of Which You Speak?*
If you follow the Jewish or Israeli news or read Jewish blogs, you've probably heard about the woman in Jerusalem who was beaten for refusing to sit at the back of a public bus. Stories like this make me wonder why I get upset over things like what rabbis eat when we have such serious problems. But then, they also make me question the reality of that "we."
I was raised with the concept of klal yisrael, corporate Israel, the greater Jewish people for whom I am supposed to have unconditional love. And I do feel a sort of kinship with other Jews most of the time, no matter how much I may disagree with them. But practically everything I see or hear having to do with the charedi community in Israel leads me to wonder whether I share anything significant with them at all, other than being human.
Yes, I know, they're like family. I'm supposed to love them no matter what they do. But no one in my family has beaten a woman for sitting on the back of a bus, so it's hard to know how to react.
I might feel differently if I learned that charedi rabbis were denouncing these men's actions without in the process somehow suggesting that the woman got what she deserved. So far, though, it seems like they're too busy building up legions of modesty police to make sure that little girls cover their ankles.
If you have any information that contradicts this impression, please let me know. It would be a kiddush hashem.
* Not my line.
I was raised with the concept of klal yisrael, corporate Israel, the greater Jewish people for whom I am supposed to have unconditional love. And I do feel a sort of kinship with other Jews most of the time, no matter how much I may disagree with them. But practically everything I see or hear having to do with the charedi community in Israel leads me to wonder whether I share anything significant with them at all, other than being human.
Yes, I know, they're like family. I'm supposed to love them no matter what they do. But no one in my family has beaten a woman for sitting on the back of a bus, so it's hard to know how to react.
I might feel differently if I learned that charedi rabbis were denouncing these men's actions without in the process somehow suggesting that the woman got what she deserved. So far, though, it seems like they're too busy building up legions of modesty police to make sure that little girls cover their ankles.
If you have any information that contradicts this impression, please let me know. It would be a kiddush hashem.
* Not my line.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Liturgy for Yom Ha-Atzmaut
Since the establishment of the state of Israel, religious Jews of Zionist persuasion have struggled to create a liturgy for Yom Ha-Atzmaut (Israeli Independence Day). The most widely observed religious custom for Yom Ha-Atzmaut is the recitation of Hallel, based on the Talmudic injunction that Hallel be recited when the Jewish people is delivered from distress (Pesahim 116a). To add anything more, however, entails finding a traditional paradigm suitable for a modern holiday, and there is little agreement as to the appropriate paradigm.
One early model, suggested by Yom Tov Lewinski, was for Yom Ha-Atzmaut to be observed in a manner similar to that of the festivals mandated by the Torah (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot), with the lighting of candles, cessation from labor, recitation of kiddush, and the insertion of ya'aleh veyavo into the amidah prayer and the blessing after meals.* It was not to be, however; Orthodox Jews were reluctant to give a modern holiday the status of the ones in the Torah, and the national celebrations that eventually developed in Israel were incompatable with the traditional festival restrictions. Another model is based specifically on Passover, and includes readings from a haggadah retelling the story of the modern-day redemption. A number of haggadot have been composed for Yom Ha-Atzmaut, but none has gained widespread acceptance, perhaps in part because the atmosphere on Yom Ha-Atzmaut in Israel is so incompatible with a family seder.
Some of the liturgies currently used for Yom Ha-Atzmaut are not based on any particular paradigm, but these can seem a bit random and therefore lacking in force. The Israeli rabbinate, for example, authorized the recitation of certain psalms and the reading of a selection from the Prophets, but not from the Torah. A service that I heard in college consisted of an odd hodgepodge of texts taken from sources as diverse as kabbalat shabbat (the Friday evening service) and Naomi Shemer (a modern Israeli songwriter). The Reform movement has its own service for Yom Ha-Atzmaut, comprised mainly of original compositions -- fine for people who like that sort of thing, but again, I think it lacks force.
It seems to me** that the most reasonable liturgical paradigm for Yom Ha-Atzmaut is that of Chanukkah and Purim. Since these holidays comemorate events that occurred after the composition of the Torah,*** they don't have the status of the major festivals (which means fewer religious restrictions), but they do have their own liturgies including readings from the Torah and Prophets, and they are accomanied by a generally festive mood. The main liturgical innovation for Chanukkah and Purim was the al ha-nissim prayer, which thanks God for delivering our ancestors from their enemies. Versions of al ha-nissim for Yom Ha-Atzmaut have been composed for the religious kibbutz movement, the Conservative movement, the Masorti movement, and the Israeli Reform movement. (Yehonatan Chipman has a number of the texts with insightful comments. Avraham Hein adds the version from the Conservative Siddur Sim Shalom.) Communities that recite al ha-nissim generally also have a Torah reading (Deuteronomy 7:12-8:18 or 30:1-10) and a Haftarah (Isaiah 10:32-12:6).
Certain problems inevitably arise when a preexisting paradigm is applied to a new situation. The various versions of al ha-nissim, for example, all use the language of the al ha-nissim for Chanukkah, which describes a battle in which the "wicked" are delivered into the hands of the "righteous." (The Reform version substitutes "members of your covenant" for "righteous," which is a bit better. The Sim Shalom version uses "guilty" and "innocent" in its "translation," but the Hebrew is the same as in the others.) Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli War of Independence was a just war, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the aggressors were "wicked," and it certainly doesn't mean that all the victors were "righteous." The Torah readings open with the same implication of Jewish righteousness, and one of them (Deut. 7:12-8:18) becomes more problematic as it proceeds: "You shall destroy the peoples that the Adonai your God delivers to you, showing them no mercy . . . You shall cast the images of their gods into the fire" (Deut. 7:16, 25). The choice of Haftarah, meanwhile, seems to have been motivated by the view that the establishment of the state was the beginning of the messianic era, which I find troubling on a number of levels. (Admittedly, the Haftarah doesn't have to be read in that sense in this context, but it would not have been my first choice.)
In spite of all this, I am not inclined to diverge from the existing liturgies. Chanukkah and Purim were controversial in their times precisely because they were new, but they eventually gained the acceptance of the Jewish community as a whole. I don't know what it would take to achieve the same degree of acceptance for Yom Ha-Atzmaut as a religious holiday, but some semblance of a standard liturgy couldn't hurt.
*Rabbi Irving Greenberg, Living the Holidays (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p. 388. Greenberg references Lewinski's Sefer Hamoadim, vol. 8, Y'mai Moed V'Zikaron (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956), p. 486.
**Yehonatan Chipman agrees.
***Whether Purim actually comemorates an "event that occurred" is not really relevant here; clearly, those who composed the Purim liturgy believed that it did.
One early model, suggested by Yom Tov Lewinski, was for Yom Ha-Atzmaut to be observed in a manner similar to that of the festivals mandated by the Torah (Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot), with the lighting of candles, cessation from labor, recitation of kiddush, and the insertion of ya'aleh veyavo into the amidah prayer and the blessing after meals.* It was not to be, however; Orthodox Jews were reluctant to give a modern holiday the status of the ones in the Torah, and the national celebrations that eventually developed in Israel were incompatable with the traditional festival restrictions. Another model is based specifically on Passover, and includes readings from a haggadah retelling the story of the modern-day redemption. A number of haggadot have been composed for Yom Ha-Atzmaut, but none has gained widespread acceptance, perhaps in part because the atmosphere on Yom Ha-Atzmaut in Israel is so incompatible with a family seder.
Some of the liturgies currently used for Yom Ha-Atzmaut are not based on any particular paradigm, but these can seem a bit random and therefore lacking in force. The Israeli rabbinate, for example, authorized the recitation of certain psalms and the reading of a selection from the Prophets, but not from the Torah. A service that I heard in college consisted of an odd hodgepodge of texts taken from sources as diverse as kabbalat shabbat (the Friday evening service) and Naomi Shemer (a modern Israeli songwriter). The Reform movement has its own service for Yom Ha-Atzmaut, comprised mainly of original compositions -- fine for people who like that sort of thing, but again, I think it lacks force.
It seems to me** that the most reasonable liturgical paradigm for Yom Ha-Atzmaut is that of Chanukkah and Purim. Since these holidays comemorate events that occurred after the composition of the Torah,*** they don't have the status of the major festivals (which means fewer religious restrictions), but they do have their own liturgies including readings from the Torah and Prophets, and they are accomanied by a generally festive mood. The main liturgical innovation for Chanukkah and Purim was the al ha-nissim prayer, which thanks God for delivering our ancestors from their enemies. Versions of al ha-nissim for Yom Ha-Atzmaut have been composed for the religious kibbutz movement, the Conservative movement, the Masorti movement, and the Israeli Reform movement. (Yehonatan Chipman has a number of the texts with insightful comments. Avraham Hein adds the version from the Conservative Siddur Sim Shalom.) Communities that recite al ha-nissim generally also have a Torah reading (Deuteronomy 7:12-8:18 or 30:1-10) and a Haftarah (Isaiah 10:32-12:6).
Certain problems inevitably arise when a preexisting paradigm is applied to a new situation. The various versions of al ha-nissim, for example, all use the language of the al ha-nissim for Chanukkah, which describes a battle in which the "wicked" are delivered into the hands of the "righteous." (The Reform version substitutes "members of your covenant" for "righteous," which is a bit better. The Sim Shalom version uses "guilty" and "innocent" in its "translation," but the Hebrew is the same as in the others.) Now, there is no doubt in my mind that the Israeli War of Independence was a just war, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the aggressors were "wicked," and it certainly doesn't mean that all the victors were "righteous." The Torah readings open with the same implication of Jewish righteousness, and one of them (Deut. 7:12-8:18) becomes more problematic as it proceeds: "You shall destroy the peoples that the Adonai your God delivers to you, showing them no mercy . . . You shall cast the images of their gods into the fire" (Deut. 7:16, 25). The choice of Haftarah, meanwhile, seems to have been motivated by the view that the establishment of the state was the beginning of the messianic era, which I find troubling on a number of levels. (Admittedly, the Haftarah doesn't have to be read in that sense in this context, but it would not have been my first choice.)
In spite of all this, I am not inclined to diverge from the existing liturgies. Chanukkah and Purim were controversial in their times precisely because they were new, but they eventually gained the acceptance of the Jewish community as a whole. I don't know what it would take to achieve the same degree of acceptance for Yom Ha-Atzmaut as a religious holiday, but some semblance of a standard liturgy couldn't hurt.
*Rabbi Irving Greenberg, Living the Holidays (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1988), p. 388. Greenberg references Lewinski's Sefer Hamoadim, vol. 8, Y'mai Moed V'Zikaron (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1956), p. 486.
**Yehonatan Chipman agrees.
***Whether Purim actually comemorates an "event that occurred" is not really relevant here; clearly, those who composed the Purim liturgy believed that it did.
Monday, March 13, 2006
International Agunah Day
Today is the 13th of the month of Adar, the Fast of Esther. As I mentioned last year, the Fast of Esther has been designated International Agunah Day by Yad L'Isha. An agunah is a woman who is unable to obtain a get (Jewish divorce). In modern times, such situations are typically the result of a husband's refusal to grant his wife a get, either out of spite or in order to extort money or gain custody of children. Although certain aspects of the halakhot pertaining to marriage and divorce developed in order to protect women, they are set within a patriarchal framework in which the decision to marry or divorce ultimately resides with men. Women who cannot obtain a ghet are left in an untenable situation, unable to remarry lest their children become mamzerim.
Such situations do not arise in the Reform movement, which often relies on civil divorce, or in the Reconstructionist movement, which grants unilateral divorces in cases of recalcitrance. Rachel Adler, a Reform activist and theologian, has advocated replacing the traditional marriage ceremony, kiddushin, with an egalitarian shutafut ("partnership") ceremony, in part to avoid the creation of mamzerim and thus promote harmony with other movements.
Orthodox and Conservative rabbis in the diaspora have devised various methods for preventing women from becoming agunot, including the use of conditional marriage formulas, special clauses within the ketubah (marriage contract), and prenuptial agreements that make civil divorce contingent on the granting of a get. You can read about Conservative approaches to the problem here; the prenuptial agreement sanctioned by the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America can be found here. Responsible rabbis do not officiate at weddings unless the agunah issue has been addressed. Those of us who marry in a halakhic context also have a duty to avail ourselves of one of these methods of agunah prevention, even if we expect to be married forever (as most of us do). It is only once these precautions become de rigueur that the problem will have been resolved.
When precautions have not been taken and a woman finds herself unable to obtain a get, rabbinical courts will often attempt to annul the marriage by means of various legal loopholes. Some courts (notably the Conservative and Masorti courts and the Morgenstern/Rackman bet din) grant annulments more readily than others. In Israel, where rabbinical courts are an arm of the state, legal sanctions are often imposed on recalcitrant husbands. However, such sanctions are not always effective, and the courts are not always willing to impose them. Rabbi David Malka, an Israeli rabbinical judge, recently admitted to the Jerusalem Post that he often encourages women to submit to the financial demands of recalcitrant husbands:
Right now, however, Israeli women are in a precarious situation. Annoyed by the public pressure imposed on them by institutions such as Yad L'Isha, the Israeli Council of Rabbinical Judges has decided to sever all ties with organizations that advocate for agunot. We can only hope that there is enough negative publicity to change their minds.
Please help spread the word about this problem, and take a moment today to recite the prayer for agunot.
You can read more about the connection between agunot and the Fast of Esther here.
(Hat tip to Miriam Shaviv and OOSJ, may his blog rest in peace, for linking to the JPost article.)
Such situations do not arise in the Reform movement, which often relies on civil divorce, or in the Reconstructionist movement, which grants unilateral divorces in cases of recalcitrance. Rachel Adler, a Reform activist and theologian, has advocated replacing the traditional marriage ceremony, kiddushin, with an egalitarian shutafut ("partnership") ceremony, in part to avoid the creation of mamzerim and thus promote harmony with other movements.
Orthodox and Conservative rabbis in the diaspora have devised various methods for preventing women from becoming agunot, including the use of conditional marriage formulas, special clauses within the ketubah (marriage contract), and prenuptial agreements that make civil divorce contingent on the granting of a get. You can read about Conservative approaches to the problem here; the prenuptial agreement sanctioned by the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America can be found here. Responsible rabbis do not officiate at weddings unless the agunah issue has been addressed. Those of us who marry in a halakhic context also have a duty to avail ourselves of one of these methods of agunah prevention, even if we expect to be married forever (as most of us do). It is only once these precautions become de rigueur that the problem will have been resolved.
When precautions have not been taken and a woman finds herself unable to obtain a get, rabbinical courts will often attempt to annul the marriage by means of various legal loopholes. Some courts (notably the Conservative and Masorti courts and the Morgenstern/Rackman bet din) grant annulments more readily than others. In Israel, where rabbinical courts are an arm of the state, legal sanctions are often imposed on recalcitrant husbands. However, such sanctions are not always effective, and the courts are not always willing to impose them. Rabbi David Malka, an Israeli rabbinical judge, recently admitted to the Jerusalem Post that he often encourages women to submit to the financial demands of recalcitrant husbands:
"Listen, this is money that she never earned," explained Malka. "Only in theory does it belong to her."For instance, according to the law the wife is entitled to half of a man's pension rights even though she never worked a day in her life. I do not think she should remain an aguna because she is stubborn about receiving her half."
The ugliness of such a statement coming from a leader of a community that encourages women to be stay-at-home mothers boggles the mind.
The organization Yad L'Isha (mentioned above) has made important strides toward helping Israeli agunot, including the creation of the institution of to`anot bet din, women who advocate for other women in divorce cases. Although they have no halakhic standing in rabbinical courts because of their gender, the to`anot, who are experts in the laws of marriage and divorce, have managed to work with rabbinical judges to free many potential agunot.Right now, however, Israeli women are in a precarious situation. Annoyed by the public pressure imposed on them by institutions such as Yad L'Isha, the Israeli Council of Rabbinical Judges has decided to sever all ties with organizations that advocate for agunot. We can only hope that there is enough negative publicity to change their minds.
Please help spread the word about this problem, and take a moment today to recite the prayer for agunot.
You can read more about the connection between agunot and the Fast of Esther here.
(Hat tip to Miriam Shaviv and OOSJ, may his blog rest in peace, for linking to the JPost article.)
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Obligatory Sharon Post
This is hardly a political or current events themed blog, but when something truly significant occurs, such as the prime minister of Israel suddenly losing consciousness just as his new political party begins to form, I feel that I should say something. At the same time, these are often the moments when I feel that I have little of value to contribute. Like many Jews, I am praying for Sharon's recovery, but there is little to say about that. And of course, the real issue is not whether Sharon is wiggling his toes but what will happen to Israel in the wake of his exit from politics.
I've often said that if there is any proof that God protects the people of Israel, it lies in the fact that the state of Israel hasn't imploded. Its political system is so hopelessly complex that even the most astute political junkies can't seem to make head or tail of what is going on there most of the time. That said, it seems fairly clear at this point that Kadima will survive without Sharon and even win a plurality of seats in the Knesset.
Is this good news? Much of Kadima's appeal seems to lie in its relatively non-ideological stance. After years of brutal terrorist attacks, leftists who speak of Israeli-Arab harmony, messianists who speak of Greater Israel, and Sharanskiniks who speak of a democratic Palestine all begin to seem like crazy dreamers. Many Israelis would rather support a policy that promises to minimize Israeli casualities to the greatest extent possible as soon as possible, by whatever means seem most practical here and now.
As someone with relatives in Israel, I am generally inclined to support this approach. Still, there is always the nagging concern that Sharon's policy of fence building and unilateral withdrawals may prove hopelessly short sighted. And then, there is always the possibility that Kadima will surprise its supporters, just as Sharon surpised his by withdrawing from Gaza, and who knows what that might mean.
I pray for Sharon and I pray for Israel, but I cannot pray for Kadima. What will be will be.
I've often said that if there is any proof that God protects the people of Israel, it lies in the fact that the state of Israel hasn't imploded. Its political system is so hopelessly complex that even the most astute political junkies can't seem to make head or tail of what is going on there most of the time. That said, it seems fairly clear at this point that Kadima will survive without Sharon and even win a plurality of seats in the Knesset.
Is this good news? Much of Kadima's appeal seems to lie in its relatively non-ideological stance. After years of brutal terrorist attacks, leftists who speak of Israeli-Arab harmony, messianists who speak of Greater Israel, and Sharanskiniks who speak of a democratic Palestine all begin to seem like crazy dreamers. Many Israelis would rather support a policy that promises to minimize Israeli casualities to the greatest extent possible as soon as possible, by whatever means seem most practical here and now.
As someone with relatives in Israel, I am generally inclined to support this approach. Still, there is always the nagging concern that Sharon's policy of fence building and unilateral withdrawals may prove hopelessly short sighted. And then, there is always the possibility that Kadima will surprise its supporters, just as Sharon surpised his by withdrawing from Gaza, and who knows what that might mean.
I pray for Sharon and I pray for Israel, but I cannot pray for Kadima. What will be will be.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Prayers for the Pullout
It is becoming difficult not to say anything about the Gaza pullout, even though I have little to add. I am not attached to the "greater Israel" idea, and I support efforts to create a democratic Palestinian state, but it is still unclear whether this move will bring us any closer to peace, or even Palestinian statehood. It has already resulted in tremendous suffering and a few depraved acts. One can only hope and pray that the ultimate outcome is positive.
I pray for the evacuees. May those who remain to be evacuated prevail over their evil inclinations, and may they all succeed at building new homes and resuming their lives with minimal trauma.
I pray for the soldiers. May they remain unified, strong, and safe.
I pray for the Palestinian residents of Gaza. May they eschew violence and succeed at building homes and constructive institutions from the rubble of the Jewish settlements.
May the One who creates peace in the heavens create peace for us, and for all Israel, and all the inhabitants of the world.
I pray for the evacuees. May those who remain to be evacuated prevail over their evil inclinations, and may they all succeed at building new homes and resuming their lives with minimal trauma.
I pray for the soldiers. May they remain unified, strong, and safe.
I pray for the Palestinian residents of Gaza. May they eschew violence and succeed at building homes and constructive institutions from the rubble of the Jewish settlements.
May the One who creates peace in the heavens create peace for us, and for all Israel, and all the inhabitants of the world.
Monday, January 10, 2005
Jerusalem, Home of the Depraved
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Correction in Catholic World News
This is old stuff, but it would be a shame if anyone who heard about the original error missed it. I have it tucked away in an update to an earlier post, which I realize is inadequate.
Vatican, Dec. 30, 2004 (CWNews.com) - The following is a corrected version of a story that appeared on CWNews.com earlier this week, in which a crucial error in translation caused a serious misinterpretation of the news. CWNews apologizes for the error.
Read the corrected story here.
Vatican, Dec. 30, 2004 (CWNews.com) - The following is a corrected version of a story that appeared on CWNews.com earlier this week, in which a crucial error in translation caused a serious misinterpretation of the news. CWNews apologizes for the error.
Read the corrected story here.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Worthwhile Reading
. . .especially for my dad, who is now in the business of marketing Jewish meat. I'm referring to the Chayyei Sarah Shabbaton Chronicles as presented by Esther of JDaters Anonymous. Old, but timeless. Start with this post, then move on to the Chronicles proper. Esther has them laid out very neatly, with headings.
(Take note: there are comments on Sarah's posts, even where there appear to be none. It's a Haloscan bug.)
1/5/05: I should probably clarify that by "worthwhile" I mean "hilarious."
(Take note: there are comments on Sarah's posts, even where there appear to be none. It's a Haloscan bug.)
1/5/05: I should probably clarify that by "worthwhile" I mean "hilarious."
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Bombs and Brimstone
What do you do when someone seriously -- and repeatedly -- advocates genocide at your table? I've blogged about this sort of thing before, but when it came up, I barely said anything at all. In part, this was because I was sitting all the way at the other end of the table (there were 9 of us), and I didn't feel like yelling. It was also in part because arguing seemed unnecessary. Everyone else was protesting, and the guy obviously wasn't going to change his mind.
On the other hand, it was my home. DH was mostly silent as well, and this bothered him. He told me later that he should have mentioned the Torah portion, in which God declares that he won't destroy Sodom if there are as many as ten innocents in the city. But that raises the question of whether we can legitimately discuss, in this sort of context, the "Torah perspective" on genocide. It isn't wrong because the Torah seems to imply that it's wrong (or at least, because it seemed to imply that last week). It isn't wrong because, as a rabbi I know once said, no major poskim [legal authorities] have permitted it. It is simply wrong -- deeply, morally, unquestionably wrong -- to murder noncombatants. I'm sure our guest realized this when he read the horrible news from Tel Aviv this morning. How is killing Palestinian civilians any different?
But here I am trying to make a rational argument again, on a subject that doesn't deserve to be granted this degree of legitimacy. So back to the practical end of things: what should we have done? Should we have risen in righteous indignation and refused to serve the next course until he recanted? Should we have shown him the door? Or should we simply have changed the subject?
Thursday, August 12, 2004
My Response to Schick's Response to Goldberg
My mother sent me a link to this Jewish Press column by Joseph Schick. The column is a response to the New York Times column by Jeffrey Goldberg to which I linked earlier this week. (Sorry, folks. The NYT column is no longer available for free.)
Schick writes:
The clear message from Goldberg`s piece is that Jewish settlers, with the tacit support of some Orthodox Jews and rabbis, want to kill Ariel Sharon. Unfortunately, this charge is not completely baseless. As I wrote in my last column, there are fanatics who have called for, or implicitly condoned the idea of, Sharon`s murder. Especially in light of Yitzhak Rabin`s murder at the hands of an Orthodox Jew, there is an obligation on all Jews to condemn the fanatics and not to ignore the danger they present.
However, Goldberg never distinguished between the fanatics and the other 95 percent of Yesha residents. Instead, he defamed all of them. He completely ignored the Yesha Council`s repeated statements that it unequivocally opposes any and all forms of violence in the framework of opposition to Sharon`s unilateral withdrawal plan. He also ignored the pact signed by Yesha Council leaders two weeks ago, in which they agreed that IDF soldiers would not be asked to disobey orders to dismantle settlements and that no form of violence was acceptable. And though Goldberg highlighted Avi Dichter`s concern about 150-200 extremists, he disregarded that Dichter also emphasized that the extremists were in no way representative of the general settler public.
I never had any doubt that these fanatics were in the minority. Residents of the settlements tend to be politically right-wing, but they are generally peaceful people. It is easy to be opposed to settlements; that is how supporters of Israel show that they are "moderate." But the issue doesn't seem that simple to me. There are some very well-established Jewish communities in the West Bank, and, after all, there are Arab communities in Israel. Why not Jewish communities in a Palestinian state?
Nonetheless, I am uncomfortable with Schick's article. It raises an issue with which I often struggle when I post on matters relating to Israel in this blog. On the one hand, I agree with Schick that the secular media is often unjust in its depiction of settlers, and that is a problem. On the other hand, I don't think readers of the Jewish Press need to be reminded of that. Ditto for readers of my blog, who (I surmise from the comments) are almost exclusively religious Jews who support the Jewish state.
I am grateful for media watchdog organizations such as CAMERA and Honest Reporting, but I seldom visit their websites or read their newsletters. I don't think there's much to be gained by nurturing feelings of victimization. Jews like to point out that Palestinian extremists are more numerous and more prone to violence than Israeli extremists. That is true, for a variety of reasons (none of which has to do with Arabs being evil or Jews being nice). But the violent Israeli extremists exist, and we, as Jews, should be more disturbed by that than by any bias we perceive in the media. It is our religion that they are perverting.
Schick writes:
The clear message from Goldberg`s piece is that Jewish settlers, with the tacit support of some Orthodox Jews and rabbis, want to kill Ariel Sharon. Unfortunately, this charge is not completely baseless. As I wrote in my last column, there are fanatics who have called for, or implicitly condoned the idea of, Sharon`s murder. Especially in light of Yitzhak Rabin`s murder at the hands of an Orthodox Jew, there is an obligation on all Jews to condemn the fanatics and not to ignore the danger they present.
However, Goldberg never distinguished between the fanatics and the other 95 percent of Yesha residents. Instead, he defamed all of them. He completely ignored the Yesha Council`s repeated statements that it unequivocally opposes any and all forms of violence in the framework of opposition to Sharon`s unilateral withdrawal plan. He also ignored the pact signed by Yesha Council leaders two weeks ago, in which they agreed that IDF soldiers would not be asked to disobey orders to dismantle settlements and that no form of violence was acceptable. And though Goldberg highlighted Avi Dichter`s concern about 150-200 extremists, he disregarded that Dichter also emphasized that the extremists were in no way representative of the general settler public.
I never had any doubt that these fanatics were in the minority. Residents of the settlements tend to be politically right-wing, but they are generally peaceful people. It is easy to be opposed to settlements; that is how supporters of Israel show that they are "moderate." But the issue doesn't seem that simple to me. There are some very well-established Jewish communities in the West Bank, and, after all, there are Arab communities in Israel. Why not Jewish communities in a Palestinian state?
Nonetheless, I am uncomfortable with Schick's article. It raises an issue with which I often struggle when I post on matters relating to Israel in this blog. On the one hand, I agree with Schick that the secular media is often unjust in its depiction of settlers, and that is a problem. On the other hand, I don't think readers of the Jewish Press need to be reminded of that. Ditto for readers of my blog, who (I surmise from the comments) are almost exclusively religious Jews who support the Jewish state.
I am grateful for media watchdog organizations such as CAMERA and Honest Reporting, but I seldom visit their websites or read their newsletters. I don't think there's much to be gained by nurturing feelings of victimization. Jews like to point out that Palestinian extremists are more numerous and more prone to violence than Israeli extremists. That is true, for a variety of reasons (none of which has to do with Arabs being evil or Jews being nice). But the violent Israeli extremists exist, and we, as Jews, should be more disturbed by that than by any bias we perceive in the media. It is our religion that they are perverting.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Jerusalem Dreamers
From Leah:
I have mixed feelings about the fence. I would rather it weren't there.. . . On the other hand, the wave of terror has been reduced tremendously and this could be because the wall has been built in certain areas.. . . Unfortunately, many innocent Palestinians are suffering because of the wall too. They have no work, their kids don't have easy access to schools, shopping isn't as much fun or as easy anymore.. . . And some Palestinian Israeli cities voiced some happiness at having the wall because they have less crime from their non-Israeli neighbors who used to come into their towns more easily. So I wish we didn't need it, I wish we could bring it down, I wish there'd be no terror at all, once it's down. Then we could really talk.
From Sarah:
It was a bit surreal, when I stopped to think about the fact that I was having a great time swimming in this beautiful pool with an incredible view, and it's in the West Bank.. . . Especially since, as far as I know, the Arabs in those parts do not have access to a pool (I might be wrong. I don't know.) Swimming pools are so important in places where it gets so hot hot hot. I felt a bit guilty.. . .Maybe if they ever figure out what Arafat did with the money he stole, they can use some of it to build nice swimming pools? It might seem frivolous, but when you stop to think about it, it's not. There are reasons that crime rates in New York go up in the summer.
I have mixed feelings about the fence. I would rather it weren't there.. . . On the other hand, the wave of terror has been reduced tremendously and this could be because the wall has been built in certain areas.. . . Unfortunately, many innocent Palestinians are suffering because of the wall too. They have no work, their kids don't have easy access to schools, shopping isn't as much fun or as easy anymore.. . . And some Palestinian Israeli cities voiced some happiness at having the wall because they have less crime from their non-Israeli neighbors who used to come into their towns more easily. So I wish we didn't need it, I wish we could bring it down, I wish there'd be no terror at all, once it's down. Then we could really talk.
From Sarah:
It was a bit surreal, when I stopped to think about the fact that I was having a great time swimming in this beautiful pool with an incredible view, and it's in the West Bank.. . . Especially since, as far as I know, the Arabs in those parts do not have access to a pool (I might be wrong. I don't know.) Swimming pools are so important in places where it gets so hot hot hot. I felt a bit guilty.. . .Maybe if they ever figure out what Arafat did with the money he stole, they can use some of it to build nice swimming pools? It might seem frivolous, but when you stop to think about it, it's not. There are reasons that crime rates in New York go up in the summer.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Jews For Kerry
Globe staff writer Frank Phillips interviews Steve Grossman, former chairman of AIPAC, and Alan Solomont, Kerry's New England finance chairman.
Solomont and Grossman say the Democrats have strong arguments to make to the Jewish constituencies that are enticed by Bush's policies toward the Mideast. They say the defense of Israel is only one issue of concern to the community and that Democrats offer other policies that they say provide more social and economic equity, traditionally a major focus of Jewish voters.
Ok, so Kerry's policies have some appeal for un-American, liberal, commie traitors like me. But what about Israel?
[Solomont] also said John Kerry's record on Israel is ''perfect" and that the senator has traveled a number of times to the region and familiarized himself with the issues and its leaders.
If only he didn't change his mind about everything every other day, Kerry's voting record might be significant.
As I've said before, I don't think that support of Israel is sufficient reason to vote for Bush over Kerry. The Democratic candidate obviously cares about the Jewish vote, and, if elected, he will continue to care about it for the next four years. As a senator from Massachusetts, he has shown himself willing to support pro-Israel policies, for whatever reason. It is even possible that he has genuinely changed his mind on certain issues, in Israel's favor.
But I don't trust the man, on this issue or any other. I may vote for him regardless, but I won't be happy about it.
Solomont and Grossman say the Democrats have strong arguments to make to the Jewish constituencies that are enticed by Bush's policies toward the Mideast. They say the defense of Israel is only one issue of concern to the community and that Democrats offer other policies that they say provide more social and economic equity, traditionally a major focus of Jewish voters.
Ok, so Kerry's policies have some appeal for un-American, liberal, commie traitors like me. But what about Israel?
[Solomont] also said John Kerry's record on Israel is ''perfect" and that the senator has traveled a number of times to the region and familiarized himself with the issues and its leaders.
If only he didn't change his mind about everything every other day, Kerry's voting record might be significant.
As I've said before, I don't think that support of Israel is sufficient reason to vote for Bush over Kerry. The Democratic candidate obviously cares about the Jewish vote, and, if elected, he will continue to care about it for the next four years. As a senator from Massachusetts, he has shown himself willing to support pro-Israel policies, for whatever reason. It is even possible that he has genuinely changed his mind on certain issues, in Israel's favor.
But I don't trust the man, on this issue or any other. I may vote for him regardless, but I won't be happy about it.
Friday, July 23, 2004
In one of my "typical American Jew" moments...
To the Editor:
In the July 22nd article, “Israel continues barrier work despite UN resolution,” Ramit Plushnick-Masti reports both Israel’s claim that the fence is needed for security and the Palestinian claim that it is a “land grab” intended to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Plushnick-Masti then offers support for the Palestinian position, noting that “in some areas where the barrier already has been built, Palestinians have been cut off from their land, schools, and other towns and villages.” If the report were even-handed, it would also note that since the construction of the fence began, the number of annual terrorist attacks has decreased by approximately 90% (http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/news.htm#news19).
Unfortunately, the most reliable source I could find for the statistics was an Israeli government website. What can you do?
In the July 22nd article, “Israel continues barrier work despite UN resolution,” Ramit Plushnick-Masti reports both Israel’s claim that the fence is needed for security and the Palestinian claim that it is a “land grab” intended to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Plushnick-Masti then offers support for the Palestinian position, noting that “in some areas where the barrier already has been built, Palestinians have been cut off from their land, schools, and other towns and villages.” If the report were even-handed, it would also note that since the construction of the fence began, the number of annual terrorist attacks has decreased by approximately 90% (http://www.securityfence.mod.gov.il/Pages/ENG/news.htm#news19).
Unfortunately, the most reliable source I could find for the statistics was an Israeli government website. What can you do?
Monday, July 19, 2004
Our Good Friend Michael Moore
Cathy Young assures us that this quote is not distorted:
"Of course many Israeli children have died too, at the hands of the Palestinians. You would think that would make every Israeli want to wipe out the Arab world, but the average Israeli does not have that response. Why? Because in their hearts, they know they are wrong, and they know they would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on the other foot."
Oh, I see. Israelis oppose genocide, which proves that they're wrong. Palestinian leaders who preach genocide must be right, then. I'm glad he cleared that up.
The more I read about this guy, the more he seems like the Ann Coulter of the Left. Is it any wonder that I don't want to see his movie?
"Of course many Israeli children have died too, at the hands of the Palestinians. You would think that would make every Israeli want to wipe out the Arab world, but the average Israeli does not have that response. Why? Because in their hearts, they know they are wrong, and they know they would be doing just what the Palestinians are doing if the sandal were on the other foot."
Oh, I see. Israelis oppose genocide, which proves that they're wrong. Palestinian leaders who preach genocide must be right, then. I'm glad he cleared that up.
The more I read about this guy, the more he seems like the Ann Coulter of the Left. Is it any wonder that I don't want to see his movie?
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
H is for Heresy
I have no idea who "H" is, but he (or she) has posted some interesting comments to OOSJ's blog.
OOSJ has been arguing that Judaism ought to be more of a "moral force" in Israel:
"The concern of many of our religious leaders (haredi and religious-Zionist alike) is so dedicated to the minutiae of the Halakhic observance of their often closed communities that religion is only used as an argument in the public square when it concerns the "mitzvah performance" of those communities.... [B]y concentrating on the material aspect of Jewish life that is halakhic performance they are ignoring the rich moral and ethical tradition that our non-halakhic literature and history has produced."
H contends that religion is "never a 'moral force:'"
"Morality is independent of religion, since religion can be so easily interpreted to fit your own morality."
In a later comment, H elaborates:
"[W]hen religion goes wrong, as it was (largely) wrong 50 years ago about women's rights and is (largely) wrong now about gay marriage, it's secular thought and basic human empathy which leads the way.... Empathy and religion both say "Love thy neighbor," but halakha for example says that gay sex is an abomination and that marrying a non-Jew is sinful."
H has a point. There are at least as many people for whom religion serves as an incentive for callousness and hatred as people for whom it serves as an inspiration for compassion and ethical behavior. However, based on my limited experience, it doesn't seem that "freethinkers" (as they were once called) are any more apt to be compassionate and ethical than their religious counterparts. Not everyone is empathetic by nature, and secular thought is as often cruel as religious thought(think of Social Darwinism).
In the end, I think, each of us is on his or her own when it comes to morality. (This is not a comforting thought.) However, I also think that those of us who lead religious lives can find positive moral guidance in our religious traditions, or in the simple belief in a just and merciful God. And I think that that can have a positive impact on the way we approach the world.
Take a look at the Heretic. Would she be ministering to the sick right now if she didn't believe in God?
Maybe.
Or maybe not.
OOSJ has been arguing that Judaism ought to be more of a "moral force" in Israel:
"The concern of many of our religious leaders (haredi and religious-Zionist alike) is so dedicated to the minutiae of the Halakhic observance of their often closed communities that religion is only used as an argument in the public square when it concerns the "mitzvah performance" of those communities.... [B]y concentrating on the material aspect of Jewish life that is halakhic performance they are ignoring the rich moral and ethical tradition that our non-halakhic literature and history has produced."
H contends that religion is "never a 'moral force:'"
"Morality is independent of religion, since religion can be so easily interpreted to fit your own morality."
In a later comment, H elaborates:
"[W]hen religion goes wrong, as it was (largely) wrong 50 years ago about women's rights and is (largely) wrong now about gay marriage, it's secular thought and basic human empathy which leads the way.... Empathy and religion both say "Love thy neighbor," but halakha for example says that gay sex is an abomination and that marrying a non-Jew is sinful."
H has a point. There are at least as many people for whom religion serves as an incentive for callousness and hatred as people for whom it serves as an inspiration for compassion and ethical behavior. However, based on my limited experience, it doesn't seem that "freethinkers" (as they were once called) are any more apt to be compassionate and ethical than their religious counterparts. Not everyone is empathetic by nature, and secular thought is as often cruel as religious thought(think of Social Darwinism).
In the end, I think, each of us is on his or her own when it comes to morality. (This is not a comforting thought.) However, I also think that those of us who lead religious lives can find positive moral guidance in our religious traditions, or in the simple belief in a just and merciful God. And I think that that can have a positive impact on the way we approach the world.
Take a look at the Heretic. Would she be ministering to the sick right now if she didn't believe in God?
Maybe.
Or maybe not.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
A Few Words on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
In my previous few posts, I made the assumption that Baker and Carters' approach to the Mideast conflict were "bad for Israel." This seems to be a view that most American Jews share, and, as far as I can tell from the comments here, so do most readers of this blog.
Still, having raised the subject, I'm not comfortable leaving off without some sort of explanation.
The problem with the Baker/Carter/Clinton approach is that it hasn't been successful. In fact, it's been quite the opposite of successful. As a Jew, and someone with friends and relatives in Israel, I'm particularly concerned about Israel's security. I don't want to see it compromised in exchange for promises of peace that will never be fulfilled. The status quo isn't good for Palestinians, either.
The reason for my general avoidance of discussions of Israeli policy is that I don't pretend to know how to bring an end to the present crisis. I do, however, have some idea of what a successful approach might look like. It's not my idea, of course. You'll find it outlined in these two articles, by Natan Sharansky and Omar Karsou.
In Sharansky's 2002 article, he praises Bush for expressing views similar to his own. You'll find approximately the same ideas in this summary of Kerry's views on the Middle East (thank you, Avi). Kerry attempts to differentiate himself from Bush by stressing "active U.S. involvement" in the process.
In the end, as I've said before, I doubt there's much the U.S. can do, one way or the other. This matter is in the hands of Israel and the Palestinian people.
Still, having raised the subject, I'm not comfortable leaving off without some sort of explanation.
The problem with the Baker/Carter/Clinton approach is that it hasn't been successful. In fact, it's been quite the opposite of successful. As a Jew, and someone with friends and relatives in Israel, I'm particularly concerned about Israel's security. I don't want to see it compromised in exchange for promises of peace that will never be fulfilled. The status quo isn't good for Palestinians, either.
The reason for my general avoidance of discussions of Israeli policy is that I don't pretend to know how to bring an end to the present crisis. I do, however, have some idea of what a successful approach might look like. It's not my idea, of course. You'll find it outlined in these two articles, by Natan Sharansky and Omar Karsou.
In Sharansky's 2002 article, he praises Bush for expressing views similar to his own. You'll find approximately the same ideas in this summary of Kerry's views on the Middle East (thank you, Avi). Kerry attempts to differentiate himself from Bush by stressing "active U.S. involvement" in the process.
In the end, as I've said before, I doubt there's much the U.S. can do, one way or the other. This matter is in the hands of Israel and the Palestinian people.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Kerry, Israel, and the Jewish Press
An anonymous reader commented on yesterday's political rant with a link to this Jewish Press article on Kerry and Israel. In its usual alarmist tone, the JP warns us that Kerry is only "pretending" to have aligned himself with Bush on Israel policy, and that his "actual" position is more like Jimmy Carter's.
I'm reading the same information as they are, and frankly, I don't see a devious man trying to hide his "actual" position. I see a whore.
I don't like John Kerry. Yesterday's post notwithstanding, I am still seriously considering not voting at all. Or abstaining. Or writing in the name of one of my favorite bloggers. Or writing in "Homer Simpson" -- he seems more responsible than either of the actual candidates. I live in a solidly Democratic state; it's not as if my vote matters, anyway.
However, to those whose sole reason for leaning toward Bush is his position on Israel, I say: think practically. Even if Kerry did employ Baker and Carter as envoys to Israel, what's the worst that they could do? Make a lot of noise, propose new "peace plans," and otherwise waste people's time. Israel is under no obligation to obey special envoys from the United States. There is no reason to feel so threatened.
I'm reading the same information as they are, and frankly, I don't see a devious man trying to hide his "actual" position. I see a whore.
I don't like John Kerry. Yesterday's post notwithstanding, I am still seriously considering not voting at all. Or abstaining. Or writing in the name of one of my favorite bloggers. Or writing in "Homer Simpson" -- he seems more responsible than either of the actual candidates. I live in a solidly Democratic state; it's not as if my vote matters, anyway.
However, to those whose sole reason for leaning toward Bush is his position on Israel, I say: think practically. Even if Kerry did employ Baker and Carter as envoys to Israel, what's the worst that they could do? Make a lot of noise, propose new "peace plans," and otherwise waste people's time. Israel is under no obligation to obey special envoys from the United States. There is no reason to feel so threatened.
Monday, May 10, 2004
My Jewish Vote
I tend to think that when Jews (or blacks, or gays) stop voting it a bloc, it's a sign of progress. It means that we've come far enough and been sufficiently integrated into society not to have to subordinate whatever individual views we might have to our group identity.
Still, for many Jews, there's one issue that trumps all others: Israel.
It may be true that our continued existence as a people depends on the continued existence of the State of Israel. I would certainly never vote for a candidate who I believed would threaten Israel's continued existence. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd subordinate most, if not all, of my other views to this one issue if such an individual were running for office.
But that isn't the situation we're in right now.
For all intents and purposes, only two men are running for president: George Bush and John Kerry. I wish there were someone else running, but there isn't. We have to deal with what we've got.
Bush alone of the two candidates is a clear supporter of Israel. He may have some nutty fundie reasons for this, but who cares. I appreciate the support. I even called the White House a few years back to thank the president for supporting Israel. I may even call and politely thank him again, before politely voting him out of office.
I realize that this requires some explanation. Let's be candid: Bush has said a number of very nice things about Israel. But what has he done? Absolutely nothing. Now, that may be the best thing an American president can do for Israel --– stay out of its business --– but you have to admit, it hasn't improved the situation any.
Now let's take a look at John Kerry. The best piece I've seen on Kerry's relationship with Israel is this article by Lawrence Kaplan for the New Republic. (Unfortunately, it's only available to New Republic subscribers, but the bulk of it is preserved by Kesher Talk's William Leon in his May 3rd post.) The article essentially indicates that Kerry doesn't give a damn about Israel, one way or the other. He does, however, give a damn about the voters --– those who support Israel as well as those who don't. This isn't terribly inspiring, but it isn't terribly threatening, either. We can expect Kerry to say things about Israel that are displeasing to both sides. We can expect him to do as little as possible, for fear of incurring the wrath of voters.
Worst-case scenario? Kerry tries to pressure Israel into making concessions that compromise her security. The pressure can only be verbal, since the threat of economic sanctions would lose him a sizeable number of voters. Israel will resist the pressure, the American Jewish community will be up in arms, and Kerry will back down.
Wouldn't I rather vote for an ideologue than a political whore? Certainly, if that ideologue didn't hold positions with which I disagreed on just about every other issue.
It's become popular among neocons to assert that domestic policy doesn't matter much when you're at war. But I live here. I'd like it if we didn't let the place go totally to hell.
One of the things I like about this country is the separation of church and state. So what am I supposed to think when the government uses taxpayer money to support missionary work? Or opposes abortions and equal rights for gays for the sake of religious principles? Or interferes with scientific research because the data doesn't line up with fundamentalist Christian doctrine? I'm not exaggerating. Stem cell research is one thing – it's a complex issue, although I know where I stand. But what about insisting that there may be a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, contrary to all evidence? Or refusing to fund research into GBLT communities? If there's anything that should be free from religious influence, it's scientific inquiry.
Another thing I kind of like about this country is democracy. Sure, the American people act like idiots most of the time. But on the whole, it's better that let the idiots get involved than rely on the government to make decisions without our knowledge. The degree of secrecy that this administration has introduced to American government is really quite astounding. The best treatment of this subject that I've seen comes from Matt Welsch's column in the National Post. The gold medal quote:
Is the Bush administration... uniquely venal in its manipulation of information...? I'd wager probably not ...But that's all the more reason for vigilance today. If the next president turns out to be the Antichrist, then the Antichrist will take the reins of a government that has greatly expanded its ability to conduct affairs under the cover of secrecy, and set a tone where public scrutiny and insider criticism is distinctly unwelcome.
I'm sorry this rant has gone on so long. But this is really just the tip of icebergburg for me. There's so much that this administration has done that's upset me -- suppressing evidence of environmental damage by industry, promoabstinencenance-based sex education,
curtailing Medicareicare, cutting veterans' benefits in wartime --– looking back, I can't think of one domestic policy decision they've made that hasn't turned my stomach. And, frankly, I'm not sure they're handling this war thing very well, either.
I love Israel. But I also love the United States. And, in the end, actions speak louder than words. Saying nice things about Israel isn't enough to win my vote at this point.
Still, for many Jews, there's one issue that trumps all others: Israel.
It may be true that our continued existence as a people depends on the continued existence of the State of Israel. I would certainly never vote for a candidate who I believed would threaten Israel's continued existence. I'd even go so far as to say that I'd subordinate most, if not all, of my other views to this one issue if such an individual were running for office.
But that isn't the situation we're in right now.
For all intents and purposes, only two men are running for president: George Bush and John Kerry. I wish there were someone else running, but there isn't. We have to deal with what we've got.
Bush alone of the two candidates is a clear supporter of Israel. He may have some nutty fundie reasons for this, but who cares. I appreciate the support. I even called the White House a few years back to thank the president for supporting Israel. I may even call and politely thank him again, before politely voting him out of office.
I realize that this requires some explanation. Let's be candid: Bush has said a number of very nice things about Israel. But what has he done? Absolutely nothing. Now, that may be the best thing an American president can do for Israel --– stay out of its business --– but you have to admit, it hasn't improved the situation any.
Now let's take a look at John Kerry. The best piece I've seen on Kerry's relationship with Israel is this article by Lawrence Kaplan for the New Republic. (Unfortunately, it's only available to New Republic subscribers, but the bulk of it is preserved by Kesher Talk's William Leon in his May 3rd post.) The article essentially indicates that Kerry doesn't give a damn about Israel, one way or the other. He does, however, give a damn about the voters --– those who support Israel as well as those who don't. This isn't terribly inspiring, but it isn't terribly threatening, either. We can expect Kerry to say things about Israel that are displeasing to both sides. We can expect him to do as little as possible, for fear of incurring the wrath of voters.
Worst-case scenario? Kerry tries to pressure Israel into making concessions that compromise her security. The pressure can only be verbal, since the threat of economic sanctions would lose him a sizeable number of voters. Israel will resist the pressure, the American Jewish community will be up in arms, and Kerry will back down.
Wouldn't I rather vote for an ideologue than a political whore? Certainly, if that ideologue didn't hold positions with which I disagreed on just about every other issue.
It's become popular among neocons to assert that domestic policy doesn't matter much when you're at war. But I live here. I'd like it if we didn't let the place go totally to hell.
One of the things I like about this country is the separation of church and state. So what am I supposed to think when the government uses taxpayer money to support missionary work? Or opposes abortions and equal rights for gays for the sake of religious principles? Or interferes with scientific research because the data doesn't line up with fundamentalist Christian doctrine? I'm not exaggerating. Stem cell research is one thing – it's a complex issue, although I know where I stand. But what about insisting that there may be a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, contrary to all evidence? Or refusing to fund research into GBLT communities? If there's anything that should be free from religious influence, it's scientific inquiry.
Another thing I kind of like about this country is democracy. Sure, the American people act like idiots most of the time. But on the whole, it's better that let the idiots get involved than rely on the government to make decisions without our knowledge. The degree of secrecy that this administration has introduced to American government is really quite astounding. The best treatment of this subject that I've seen comes from Matt Welsch's column in the National Post. The gold medal quote:
Is the Bush administration... uniquely venal in its manipulation of information...? I'd wager probably not ...But that's all the more reason for vigilance today. If the next president turns out to be the Antichrist, then the Antichrist will take the reins of a government that has greatly expanded its ability to conduct affairs under the cover of secrecy, and set a tone where public scrutiny and insider criticism is distinctly unwelcome.
I'm sorry this rant has gone on so long. But this is really just the tip of icebergburg for me. There's so much that this administration has done that's upset me -- suppressing evidence of environmental damage by industry, promoabstinencenance-based sex education,
curtailing Medicareicare, cutting veterans' benefits in wartime --– looking back, I can't think of one domestic policy decision they've made that hasn't turned my stomach. And, frankly, I'm not sure they're handling this war thing very well, either.
I love Israel. But I also love the United States. And, in the end, actions speak louder than words. Saying nice things about Israel isn't enough to win my vote at this point.
Sunday, May 09, 2004
I'm going to have to do some serious political blogging soon, since by not committing to vote for Bush in November I've managed to convince my dear family that I have no moral clarity. I'm kind of tired right now, though, so instead of getting into specific political issues immediately, here are a few thoughts on moral clarity.
I do recognize the existence of evil. This is not a philosophical statement. It is a statement about the way I approach the world. Deliberately crashing passenger planes into buildings filled with innocents is evil. Blowing up buses and trains full of civilians is evil. This is clear to me. What isn't clear to me is that we can so easily identify who is evil and use that as our sole criterion for determining policy.
I continue to believe that the United States and Israel are, as societies, morally superior than the Islamist regimes that sponsor the murder of our citizens. Far superior, even. I don't, however, think that we can take our moral superiority for granted.
Have you seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib? You can say, "Saddam was worse." But, true or not, that is hardly the point. If you look through this overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment (thanks again, Iris), you can see how easily ordinary people can become perpetrators of evil. It's really chilling.
Life is full of complexities. You can say that Jewish lives are more important to you than Arab lives, or that foreign policy is more important than domestic policy, or that national security is more important than civil rights. It feels good to know what your priorities are, to think that you've got it all figured out. But things are rarely that simple. I think, if there's any way not to sacrifice one important value for the sake of another, we should by all means pursue that course. At the very least, let's not give up so quickly.
I know. I'm a relativist. I'm a self-hating Jew. I've sold my soul to liberal academia. Maybe I'm simply young and foolish. One day I'll grow up and see the light. For now, though, this is the way I think.
I do recognize the existence of evil. This is not a philosophical statement. It is a statement about the way I approach the world. Deliberately crashing passenger planes into buildings filled with innocents is evil. Blowing up buses and trains full of civilians is evil. This is clear to me. What isn't clear to me is that we can so easily identify who is evil and use that as our sole criterion for determining policy.
I continue to believe that the United States and Israel are, as societies, morally superior than the Islamist regimes that sponsor the murder of our citizens. Far superior, even. I don't, however, think that we can take our moral superiority for granted.
Have you seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib? You can say, "Saddam was worse." But, true or not, that is hardly the point. If you look through this overview of the Stanford Prison Experiment (thanks again, Iris), you can see how easily ordinary people can become perpetrators of evil. It's really chilling.
Life is full of complexities. You can say that Jewish lives are more important to you than Arab lives, or that foreign policy is more important than domestic policy, or that national security is more important than civil rights. It feels good to know what your priorities are, to think that you've got it all figured out. But things are rarely that simple. I think, if there's any way not to sacrifice one important value for the sake of another, we should by all means pursue that course. At the very least, let's not give up so quickly.
I know. I'm a relativist. I'm a self-hating Jew. I've sold my soul to liberal academia. Maybe I'm simply young and foolish. One day I'll grow up and see the light. For now, though, this is the way I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
