Alan Jay Weisbard http://jta.org/user/profile/38756 I am a retired professor of law, bioethics, and Jewish and religious studies. I have worked in senior positions on bioethics commissions at state and federal levels, and drafted innovative legislation on the declaration of death and advance directives for health care. My Jewish commitments and experiences are quite diverse; I have spent significant time in Israel and visiting Jewish communities around the world. en-us rcsillag@jta.org Copyright 2009 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 My wife and I secured a guide through Milk and Honey a few years back. We had a terrific experience--the guide was highly educated and knowledgeable and worked carefully with us to plan an itinerary (several days worth) calibrated to our Jewish interests and my physical limitations. Our preconceptions of Germany and Berlin in particular (my father fought in the Battle of the Bulge) were transformed as a result. Berlin's "memorial culture" is utterly fascinating. We highly recommend Milk and Honey. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Abe Foxman speaks for that part of the traditional Jewish establishment for whom bringing in folks like me (I'm 59) would constitute a youth movement. He, and they, are dinosaurs, unable to adapt to changing times and conditions. (No offense, Arthur--I recognize that folks even older than I can summon the wisdom of their years and remain connected to changing realities, unlike those I am talking about here.)They continue to roar, and are infuriated that fewer ears are inclined to listen. Hence they bellow louder, and nurse their sense of "lese majeste". So sorry, Abe--we hereby revoke whatever "authorization" you may feel to confer, or withhold "authority" on others. Re the substantive points at issue in Palin's Pander of the moment: There is plenty of room for thickening and additional Jewish population centers in the Galli and the Negev--parts of historic Eretz Israel (and traditional destinations for Zionist pioneering) that somehow don't appeal to those previously drawn to Gaza. Not to speak of luxury enclaves now expanding the existing footprint of Jewish settlement in Jerusalem and along the Mediterranean coast. The notion that any foreseeable American Jewish aliyah (which I would encourage, including in my own family) requires "living space" in territory critical to the creation of a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel is simply absurd, and should not be encouraged. I agree with the decision to call out Palin, and others spouting out such wrong and uninformed gibberish, on such counterproductive nonsense. Shabbat shalom, The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Israel's failure to engage with the Goldstone mission was a calamitous failure. Israel chose neither to respond to contestable claims of its own alleged abuses, not to fully document abuses against its own population and legitimate sovereign concerns. Nor did it adequately challenge the mission, or the world's human rights community, to consider the dilemmas posed by a democratic state engaged in asymmetric warfare, in which its adversaries act from within population centers in an obvious effort to elicit Israeli military responses that can then be used in public relations and propaganda efforts. Israel missed what is probably the best opportunity it will have to get its own story out and considered. Most of the Israeli responses to the Goldstone Report have been attacks on Judge Goldstone's character and the biases of the world community, often designed to obscure the findings of the report itself. Surely some of the report's findings are contestable on the merits; some information has begun to emerge on some of the particulars. But Israel is now well along toward forfeiting its second opportunity for a fair hearing among those potentially willing to listen, by blaming the messenger and ignoring the message. Israel can and must do (much) better if it is to counter the increasingly successful efforts to delegitimate the state on the world stage. An independent, comprehensive investigation of the findings of the Goldstone mission would constitute an important first step. Showing further contempt for the world community--at least some of which is potentially open to a fact-based examination of difficult issues and behaviors on both sides (even if all, clearly, are not), does Israel no favor and no benefit. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Mr. Bernstein's comments surely come with a heavy heart. Human rights organizations play an important role in the contemporary world. As President Obama's regrettable decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama at this time suggests, considerations of realpolitik will always constrain the behaviors of big powers whose interests are necessarily complex and, sometimes, contradictory. (Israel's precarious course on maintaining its currently frayed relationship with Turkey while responding to claims regarding the Armenian genocide is another example.) Ideally, human rights organizations should be less compromised by conflicting political agendas. Sadly, that is often not the case. As one who has been publicly critical of some of Israel's actions on the human rights front, both domestically and internationally, I share Mr. Bernstein's frustrations that the organization he founded with high hopes, as well as a number of other human rights NGOs, have focused their criticisms hugely disproportionately on Israel, by far the region's most democratic polity and most open and vibrant civil society, and have averted their eyes from far worse transgressions elsewhere in the region and around the world. This disproportion severely reduces the credibility of these organizations among fair minded observers sensitive to human rights concerns, reduces their ability to effect positive change within Israel's imperfect but nonetheless democratic system, and aids efforts to delegitimate Israel on the international stage, a development contrary to efforts to induce Israelis to take necessary risks for peace. It also perpetuates a failure in the West to hold Palestinian and other Arab (and Iranian) regimes to international standards of human rights performance, and patronizes their leadership and populations as somehow "beneath" what is expected of others. My own belief is that those who love Israel and seek a positive democratic and peaceful future for the State and (all) its people should hold Israel to high standards of behavior. But this must be done with some understanding and compassion for the situation Israel finds itself in (for which both Israel and its adversaries bear responsibility), and with balanced and proportionate recognition of other human rights failures, both by those in Israel's neighborhood and by other far less democratic regimes around the world. I thank Mr. Bernstein for his statement, and his devotion to the cause of human rights over the decades. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Cheryl, I posted a response to the substance of your comments elsewhere, where I first saw them. Thanks for a very thoughtful and well considered post (except, perhaps, for your first paragraph above, which was not included in your other posting). Mr. Bilek, thanks also to you for a thoughtful response. Please note that i was very careful NOT to accuse you personally of any inconsistencies; my comments were directed specifically at Mr Schoenfeld's behavior, and that of his intellectual compatriots who did, in my view, behave both inconsistently and, frankly, in bad faith, during periods of more dovish Israeli governments. On the substance of your remarks, I would only note that several of your propositions go both ways. That is, if American Jews who favor more dovish (I prefer "owl-like"--that is, far-seeing and wise--but that phrase in not in common use) positions keep quiet with their concerns, and the result is a tragedy for Israel's long term interests, status as a vibrant Jewish community, democratic status, and long term well being (which depends in no little part on its relationships with America and the democratic world and their economic, political and military support)--then an "oops, sorry" would hardly be of much solace, whether coming from those with my opinions or from those with your opinions. South Africa did not last as an apartheid state (in my view, properly so) once it lost its political legitimacy and the support of the West. The same could happen to Israel if it persists as an expansionist, occupying force in the face of worldwide political opposition and inexorable demographic changes. I do not want that to happen. Iran is a very complicated question, and I do not necessarily agree with positions taken by some of the organizations we are discussing. I'm not sure anyone (including me) has figured out a good set of options there. I would note that the situation there worsened considerably under Bush's watch, and that poorly calculated decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan have diminished the willingness of much of the American public to consider military steps (by the US or by Israel) against the despicable current government of Iran. I am withholding judgment on how President Obama's diplomatic initiatives (including complex maneuvers with Russia) regarding iran will work out; I hope a combination of carrots and effective sticks can result in ending the nuclear threat, but that is far from a foregone conclusion at this point. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Cheryl, let me compliment you on a thoughtful, well composed post. I don't agree with some of your critical points--for example, I fear that Jewish lives are today more at risk in Israel than in North America, and I would note that it took generations, not years, for favorable conditions in Muslim Spain to deteriorate, under both islamic and Christian regimes. But this approach is both nuanced and conducive to intelligent discussion and debate conducted in a civil fashion. Thank you. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Do others find "blackie's" comments on this or other threads a positive contribution to intelligent discourse? For what it is worth, my late father fought the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge, winning a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and Purple Heart(s). He is buried at Arlington National Cemetery. I do not live up to his achievements on the battlefield, but at least someone in my family fought and sacrificed for his ideals, and for his country. How about you, blackie? Any evidence of making the world a better place, other than through insulting others without any basis in fact while hiding behind a pseudonym? Talk about a horrible existence... 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I thank William Bilek for expressing his disagreements in civil fashion conducive to intelligent debate on important substantive matters. The position he advocates is a serious one, one that I once found persuasive. Indeed, I seriously explored aliya at an earlier stage in my life, and a number of my close friends with similar perspectives made a go of it. Virtually all became incredibly frustrated with the Israeli political system, whose dysfunctionality (both in terms of internal party dynamics and the excessive role of small parties necessary for the composition of coalition majorities) has become increasingly apparent over the years. Some have stayed on to fight for their positions, others have, over the years, returned to their countries of origin. A part of me retains a sadness that aliyah did not work out for me or for my family, although all of us retain close ties to Israel and our many Israeli friends. But that does not constitute a full or adequate response to Mr. Bilek's position. What has also become apparent over the years is that Mr. Bilek's proposition is routinely trotted out by AIPAC and Commentary folk in times of right-wing Israeli governments, and routinely ignored by these same individuals during periods of more dovish Israeli governments. I have no idea whether this is true of Mr. Bilek himself, but it certainly is of Mr. Schoenfeld, Mr. Podhoretz, and many others, who have vigorously and publicly critiqued Israeli policies with which they disagree, and sometimes sought to subvert those policies. Not to speak of those who responded to peace efforts by elected Israeli leaders by demonizing those leaders, and indeed by assassinating an elected Israeli prime minister in the midst of his quest for peace. I am absolutely unwilling to concede the proposition that those holding hawkish views care more about Israeli security, or are more devoted to Israel's future, than those who believe the continuation of existing demographic and geopolitical trends do not accrue to the benefit of a secure, democratic, and Jewishly resonant Israel. In the end, I am convinced that all those Jews and others devoted to Israel do best to speak their minds, openly and candidly (and with love and occasional pain), on how best to secure Israel's future. The conversation is not improved by those who castigate individuals or groups through the use of ad hominem attacks and McCarthyite tactics, such as those apparently employed by Messrs. Schoenfeld and Podhoretz (not to speak of some of this site's usual rabble rousers). There is, of course, a set of additional considerations for those friends of Israel who are also American citizens, and are also rightly concerned with what is best for the United States, both domestically and in international affairs. In my own view, there is very substantial correspondence, but not necessarily identity, in those policies that are best for Israel and for America. For the present, while I have few illusions about problems emanating from the Palestinian and broader Arab players, I still believe that an active American role in promoting a negotiated two state solution is in the best interests of both Israel and America, and that American pressure on both Israeli and Arab governing authorities may serve a necessary role in moving both sides to make concessions that are politically difficult or impossible for the parties to achieve on their own, without the visible presence of external pressure. The policies of the recent Bush Administration, so often celebrated by right wing commentators such as Mr. Schoenfeld as "pro-Israel", did little or nothing to advance the peace process, or to respond to threatening demographic or political trends. It is past time for a change in approach. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 One thing we learn from history is that long-term extrapolations of short-term trends cannot be relied upon. This phenomenon seems to be particularly true about predictions concerning religion and demographics. We are in the midst of a worldwide return to more fundamentalist religious tendencies that was completely unexpected a generation ago, and is still not very well understood. Those who predict permanent continuities in this domain do so at their own risk. I do not know what the future holds for Jews and Judaism in Israel or in America. I distrust those who claim certain knowledge. I do know, at first hand, of significant pockets of young Jews, particularly in independent minyanim and havurot, who are Jewishly knowledgeable, committed, and active both in Jewish religious life and in working to improve the world in which they live, without withdrawing from or denying the fruits of the modern secular world. May they live, prosper, and, in their time, reproduce with gusto. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Here is one Jew deeply involved in Jewish communal life and Israeli activities for some four decades (including multiple visits to and longer stays in Israel), who has spoken out against the unbalanced and overstated views of Walt and Mearsheimer, who feels considerably closer to the ideals advocated by the pro-Israel, pro-peace community than to the ostrich-like, hidebound, and hard right conservatism of AIPAC and the Commentary crowd. As a University professor of, among other things, Jewish law and ethics and as one who also works with Jewish students through Hillel, I can testify that the Israel "right or wrong" attitudes promulgated by such folk do not appeal to a high proportion of independent minded, critically aware Jewish students at my midwestern campus, let alone to non-Jewish students. There is a powerful case to be made for a secure and flourishing Jewish State of Israel, but ad hominem attacks and distractions like Schoenfeld's contribute nothing toward it, and turn off potentially receptive students and other thinking Americans. Once upon a time, neoconservatives claimed to be the party of ideas. They have become the party of name-calling, and are well along to forfeiting any reasonable claim to be heard or paid attention to. The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Here is an interesting reflection on Kristol pere and the evolution of neoconservatism over the past 40 years, by Michael Lind, of the sort I encouraged above: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/09/22/neoconservatism/index.html?source=newsletter 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There are two distinct issues presented here: first, whether a vehicle of public accommodation should be free of personal items that migh be offensive to members of the public utilizing the conveyance, and second, if there is such a policy, whether it is enforced on an equitable and non-sectarian basis. The first seems open to fair debate; the second does not, and would appear to be discriminatorily applied in the particular case. Has there been enforcement in cases of other religious symbols, national flags, personal effects, etc? Facts would help. Blanket generalizations about religious, ethnic, or national groups of a hateful and invidious quality, on the other hand, do little to advance the conversation, and should be denounced. I wish JTA would take more aggressive efforts to moderate these comments and delete comments of that character, several of which appear above. I see no significant difference between these statements and those of the character, "some of my best friends are Jews, but as a group..." --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Actually, Mr Schimel, I recognized a positive contribution made by Irving Kristol during an intermediate stage of his transformation, and called for a more balanced evaluation of his impact. The fact that you term this "closed minded liberal dribble" , and fail to notice or acknowledge differences in my words and tone from those of another commentator, says more about you than about me. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The author unaccountably fails to mention the scurrilous, highly personal attack on Judge Goldstein by Alan Dershowitz, which has been taken up and reflected in numerous comments on the blogosphere. I know Prof. Dershowitz and admire much that he has done. But this was surely a low point for him. Israel made a fundamental error in refusing to cooperate with this inquiry. I do believe that Goldstone's presence might have permitted a deeper and more thoughtful engagement with the dilemmas posed by asymmetrical warfare with a group--Hamas-- unwilling to engage in meaningful negotiations with, or even to recognize, its adversary. Israel forfeited that opportunity here, to its detriment. Having dug itself into that hole, it should stop digging. It is past time for defenders of Israel to move past name-calling and confront some of the troubling specific findings of the Report. I am not prepared, at this point, to defend the Report in its entirety or in its particulars, but neither am I impressed by blunderbus attacks on Judge Goldstone's integrity. It does not serve Israel's interests to collaborate in efforts by its enemies to be portrayed as an outlaw state. Given geopolitical realities, some of that is inevitable and unavoidable. But with limited opportunities for friendship in the community of nations, showing utter contempt and disregard for one's potential friends (or those potentially willing to give Israel a fair hearing) does not move the ball forward. Sadly, The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There is a generational group of ideologues, once of the left, later of the neoconservative right. For a brief period, during the early years of The Public Interest, that Kristol Sr. seemed to care about rigorous analysis of public policy, and raised important questions of the structure and efficacy of Great Society programs. But that gave way to right wing buffoonery, of the sort now pathetically championed by Kristol's idiot son, William. Readers would be better served by the assessment of a serious intellectual figure, not a mere camp follower of the Kristol/Podhoretz fawning society. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Ellen, thanks for your good work, here and on so many other worthy projects over the years. I fully agree with your decision to include this critical, and disturbing, piece of our heritage, and your encouragement to begin our life-long wrestle with challenging Biblical texts. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 David, thank you for your sane and judicious comment. Perhaps if more readers expressed such a perspective, we could elevate the level of discourse on this list and engage in mutually respectful substantive discussion rather than pathetic name-calling of one another, or significant and well-intended leaders like Ehud Barak (one of Israel’s greatest and most courageous military heroes, however much I disagree with some of his decisions and his failed leadership of the Labor Party) and Barack Obama (the result of whose policies in the Middle East are yet to unfold, and premature to judge). Shana tova to all persons of good will. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 David, thank you for your sane and judicious comment. Perhaps if more readers expressed such a perspective, we could elevate the level of discourse on this list and engage in mutually respectful substantive discussion rather than pathetic name-calling of one another, or significant and well-intended leaders like Ehud Barak (one of Israel's greatest and most courageous military heroes, however much I disagree with some of his decisions and his failed leadership of the Labor Party) and Barack Obama (the result of whose policies in the Middle East are yet to unfold, and premature to judge). Shana tova to all persons of good will. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Evil does not always lose out to good. Evil triumphs when persons of good will fail to act in accord with our responsibilities to one another, recognizing that each of us is created in the divine image. All too many of us soil that image through hateful and racist language and behavior. Speaking for myself, i could do with more frequent moderator intervention to cleanse these boards of such crap. Shana tova; may we all use our limited time for good, and not for the spreading of hate. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Cheryl, perhaps you have heard of Pat Buchanan? Or, somewhat earlier, George Lincoln Rockwell, or Father Coughlin? Or do you have as much trouble recognizing right-wing anti-Semites as you do detecting religious discrimination against non-Orthodox Jews in Israel? I'd suggest you get your spectacles cleaned and turn up your hearing aids. Sorry if this comes across as excessively personal,which I try generally to avoid, but your statements on these matters simply lack all credibility. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but let's try to stay with some real facts. Shana tova to all, --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 First, it is important to recognize that Rubashkin is NOT an inmate. He is an accused, entitled to a presumption of innocence. Bail is constitutionally mandated so long as his presence for trial can be assured. That is the case, no matter how much anyone dislikes the fellow. Second, there is a clear distinction between movement within US jurisdiction and travel abroad, outside the reach of official US jurisdiction. Last I heard, there is a difference between Brooklyn (or Queens?) and Mecca in the relevant respects. While aspects of the situation may be difficult to resolve, some other aspects are relatively clear and straightforward under existing law and constitutional principles. We do better not to confuse or conflate the difficult with the easy. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Those who work on such difficult and emotional terrain over many years are not impervious to statements at moments of unbearable tension that they may subsequently regret. Unless there is special reason to suspect that particular statements provide compelling insights beneath the public posture of a "Manchurian candidate", I am inclined to judge such statements in the fuller context of a long public record, and to trust the judgments of those who have worked with an individual on challenging tasks over a long period of years. If there is to be peace between Israel and Palestine, and better relations between Arabs and Jews, then it must build on efforts of the sort described here. Supporters of israel cannot expect Arab interlocutors to be closet Zionists; if they were, they would have little or no credibility with their own people. (That goes both ways, of course.) There are competing narratives of the past century or more in Eretz Israel/ Palestine; both contain important elements of truth, as well as elisions. oversights, and falsifications of unpleasant aspects of reality. The sides are highly unlikely to win their opposite numbers over to their own narratives; it would be a major step forward to listen to and appreciate the opposing narratives--e.g., for Arabs to accept the reality of the Holocaust and the traumatic effect it had on all Jews (not to speak of prior Jewish connections to Eretz Israel and other traumas of Jewish life in exile), and for Jews to appreciate what Palestinians regard as the Naqba, and the impact of the Zionist enterprise on the aspirations and lives of those Arabs living in and connected to this same piece of earth. The author speaks of 60 years of occupation, looking to times and territories prior to the 1967 war. Important questions remain on narratives going back to statehood, and indeed decades before. It is unlikely that the two peoples will ever reach full agreement on these matters, but greater mutual understanding and recognition are the foundation for positive steps to working and living together, both in America and in the Middle East. I commend those Muslims willing to join hands and hearts in working toward a better future for us and for future generations. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I have been highly critical of Agriprocessors and the Rubashkins. Their conduct disgusts me on multiple levels, and I strongly support efforts within the Conservative Movement and among some in Orthodox circles to attend to a variety of legal and ethical issues associated with the production of kosher products. So far as criminal prosecution goes, I think those responsible for violations of criminal laws should be prosecuted and, if the evidence warrants, convicted and punished. That said, the purpose of bail in our constitutional system is to assure that the accused are present for trial, not to punish those accused but, under our system, presumed innocent until proved guilty. The denial of bail to Jewish defendants on grounds of their potential to flee the jurisdiction for Israel raises a number of difficult and tricky issues, on which I have not come to any general conclusion. My current tendency is to believe that this should depend on the facts of particular cases, but i have no easy formula. If Mr. Rubashkin desires to pray at a particular place for the high holidays and his security can be adequately assured, I have no objection in principle, a position I would also take on those of lesser means but comparable religious needs. I believe the costs of transportation and necessary security measures should be born by the defendant in such cases--recognizing that this principle may, unfortunately, result in different results for persons of different means--a necessary corollary of our economic system. So far as administrative costs of hearing this issue, I have no particular problem with these costs being absorbed by the criminal justice system as are a wide variety of costs associated with any number of legitimate (and not so legitimate) motions by and on behalf of some not very nice people. That is part of the price we pay for civilization. The proposition that "The more money you got, the more justice you get" is, sadly, all too often the case in the American system of justice. Similar things can be said about medical care, housing, restaurant meals, vacations, and most other things distributed in a capitalist society. We, as a society, provide some help to those at the bottom, through public defender programs, medicaid, public housing subsidies, etc. In most respects, we are far less generous in these measures than most other advanced nations--Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan...My own belief is that we should do a better job in assuring quality legal (and medical) services to all. The "Israel" envisioned by Zionist leader Louis Brandeis, and the Israel of the early statehood years, aspired in these directions. Current performance does not rise to those aspirations. --The Wise Bard, of Harvard, Yale, Yeshiva U. and (currently) Wisconsin. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Several of the prior comments are, as is all too typical here, delusional, not to say hateful. Having visited Israel many times, and lived there for an extended period in a variety of settings, the notion that freedoms of religion and conscience exist in unalloyed form, and that no Israelis feel constrained, humiliated, intensely angered by the stranglehold of (now increasingly ultra-) Orthodoxy on Jewish institutions and practices is risible. To take the simplest example: look at the number of Israelis who feel compelled to go abroad to marry. I've met many Israelis (particularly, but certainly not only, on secular kibbutzim) who have bitterly resented the intrusion of Orthodox practice on their marriage rites. All this is for marriages of Jews to Jews where Jewish status is not in question. Add elements of contested Jewish status, not to speak of intermarriage, and the problems increase geometrically. Freedom of religion and conscience, under any plausible definition in the post-Enlightenment world, includes the right not to believe or to be compelled to act in accordance with religious requirements. The absence of secular marriage in Israel flatly contradicts this widespread understanding. Further, the gross disparities in governmental support for non-Orthodox Jewish clergy, congregations, and schools reflects another set of manifest violations of religious freedom in the modern world. This is not only in contrast with the increasingly challenged separation of church and state in the US, but with a variety of practices in European nations in which state funds are apportioned among a variety of religious and secular institutions. As to the "reform and conservative assimilationist vermin" (nice touch during this penitential period of seeking forgiveness for our sins, including those of lashon hara and failures of ahavat yisrael), those we are talking about are in Israel. Where are you, except hiding under your rock? As for me, I have one question--where do I, and millions of other Jews respectful of the plural streams within our people, sign up to contribute and help? --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Professor Helmreich does not explicitly invoke the word hypocrisy, but the concept lies just below the surface of his analysis, and goes a long way toward explaining a number of other items touched on by prior comments. The media love to puncture hypocrisy. That, rather than any ideological bias, goes a long way to explaining the fascination of the press with sex scandals among "moral values" Republicans, as well as (less juicy, and generally less publicized) "elite" behaviors among populist Democrats. It also helps to explain the focus on morally corrupt behaviors among the "chosen people"--as does garden variety anti-Semitism, particularly with regard to financial crimes. But this is pretty standard stuff. More significant to me, and worth highlighting here, is a more troubling phenomenon that does seem to be especially prevalent among more insular Jewish groups (typically although not quite necessarily Orthodox) in the US--the continuing appeal to patterns of thought and conduct developed in other places and times, which seem to me, as to Professor Helmreich, utterly unjustifiable in present-day America, and deserve to be widely condemned by all leaders of American Jewry. I can't do better than Helmreich, so I will just quote his words, and hope that they are taken to heart during the penitential month of Elul: "Another explanation presented by those who would excuse such illegal behavior is that Jews historically have lived in societies where the government was hostile to them. Jews therefore developed a negative attitude toward governmental authority generally, which they perceived as anti-Semitic, and developed a habit of skirting the law. "This is a nonsense defense. Can we really excuse people for mistaking the U.S. government with the Polish or Russian government of 60 years ago? "A government that features more than a dozen Jewish U.S. senators and many more Jewish congressmen, and which has been friendlier to Jews than any other country in history deserves better treatment than this ludicrous justification." Amen. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 This must be the holiday season--I find myself in agreement with Abe Foxman, a fairly rare occurrence. As a participant in Jewish Christian Islamic interfaith dialogues, and a believer that such efforts--and greater intercultural understanding in general-- are important to the Jewish future and the peace of the world, I would note that a number of my Catholic and other Christian colleagues are significantly distressed by the very unfortunate turn of events during the current papacy well described by Mr. Foxman, and have participated in public statements critical of these developments, at some potential personal cost given the strongly hierarchical character of authority in the Roman Catholic institutional framework within which they live. On other topics discussed above, I can report that the current state of genetic evidence on the descent of Askenazi Jews and current inhabitants of the middle east is considerably more complex than represented in the comments above. Among the Ashkenazi Jewish population, there are significant differences in paternal and maternal lines of descent, with some of middle-eastern/semitic origin and others of likely European or central Asian origin, as might be expected by anyone knowledgeable about the vagaries of European Jewish history over the past couple of millennia. This is something of a work in progress; while the current findings are intriguing, it is probably still early to draw definitive conclusions. With the partial exception of certain features of the cohen and levi paternal lines, it is very difficult to distinguish among Jewish and other semitic lines of descent, or to distinguish among Arab/Muslim populations descended from the ancient Mesopotamian/Arabian peoples--again, not a large surprise given the significant mixing and movement of ancient populations in this part of the world. In this as in other domains, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. And for the record: Jewish tradition strongly discourages speculation or investigation regarding the racial/ethnic/religious antecedents of those who sincerely convert to Judaism, and of their descendents. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Mistakes do sometimes happen. Particularly on a publication run virtually entirely on student volunteer labor, in a school without a "journalism department." Of course, as a graduate of both Harvard and Yale, I might be expected to take some exception to several of the comments above. That is, when I and my "leftwing, libtard buddies are done multiculturalizing, gentilizing, feminizing and sissifying Judaism..." and have time to turn to defending these institutions from preserving, protecting and defending an "elitist, right-wing, spoilt mentality", "where these little rich brats" of "fascist leaning" are "supposedly trained to run roughshod over the rest of us." I'll leave it to the considerable intellects assembled here to reconcile that series of claims, although I haven't noticed that adherence to facts or logic are highly prized in these quarters. Meanwhile, I have to get back to my "academic gasbagging." A shana tova to all assembled here. Perhaps we could devote some study in the coming year to lashon hara and ahavat yisrael. Probably not... --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Next thing you know, Israeli government spokespersons will be denying references to self-hating Druze. Badly chosen, indeed. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Sh'ma has maintained a high level of informed Jewish discussion and debate for many years. Thanks to those who have sustained it over the years, and good luck to those seeking to continue the Tradition for current and future Moments. While I'm not quite sure why folks would prefer Kindle to the internet, I trust these new media efforts will not go up in flames. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Judging from any number of published accounts, there is ample reason for Iowans to be predisposed not to be especially sympathetic to the Agriprocessors defendants, and the change of venue is legally appropriate. And, at risk of actually agreeing with Cheryl for the first time in recorded history, Agriprocessors managed to combine cruelty toward animals with cruelty to their workers, disdain for neighbors, disregard of the environment, and likely multiple violations of the law. Certainly does make vegetarianism sound good in comparison. ---The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There is nothing in this report that provides conclusive evidence of whether Ravid's reports in Haaretz are or are not correct. Nor is there determinative evidence regarding editorial standards at Haaretz. There are reasons diplomacy is practiced in private as well as in public, and private developments may well be represented differently in official public statements. If PM Netanyahu did make the reported statements about President Obama's close advisors, one would hardly expect him, or his spokespersons, to confirm the statements on the public record. Unless they really wanted a profound public split with the American Administration...and, probably, people. Not highly recommended. Israeli politicians routinely point out disparities between statements made by Arab leaders in English and in Arabic, to the international diplomatic community and to their own populace. Somehow I don't anticipate that Israeli pols are much more transparent in their public and private utterances. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 That is an awfully broad generalization. Evidence, please? 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 For better or worse, Zuma's language, at least on this occasion and as reported here, is the language of the world (including many Israelis, and most Americans), not solely "of the Arabs." South African Jews and Israel played a complicated and mixed role with the former apartheid government that Zuma and the ANC resisted for decades, and finally overcame. There were Jews in the ANC, there were Jews among the leading liberals in South African society and political life, there were Jews deeply complicit with the apartheid regime. Israel, blocked from constuctive interchange with many nations in Africa and Asia, looked to and dealt with the former South African regime in ways that, while perhaps understandable, did not win friends among the resistance movements that now govern South Africa. Zuma's comments are constructive and somewhat promising given that troubled history. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Mussa Aliwat, If your only concern is to entertain yourself, why don't you go to the corner and, let's say it this way, masticate. That way, you'll improve your digestion, and ours. Your lack of humanity, and disregard for fundamental Jewish values--starting with the principles that all humans are made in the divine image, and all are descended from a common ancestor--are breathtaking. And disgusting. And now you have me participating in this dreck. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Perhaps we could all chip in and buy a different site for Mussa Aliwat to curse with his/her rac(ial)ist venom. This really does get tiresome, as well as offensive. it contributes nothing to meaningful dialogue, and should be repudiated forthwith. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Blackie, try to pronounce my last name, which I have the courage to publish, unlike you. it might provide some insight into my choice of screen name. As to the rest of your post--and virtually all of your other posts--I agree with precisely one word: drivel. And that will have to do with any further direct conversation between us, at least from my side. Since you lack any apparent capacity to talk about facts, ideas, or reasoning ("gasbagging"), there reallly is no point. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 If I had to judge my status on the basis of any ethnic or religious commonality with persons who authored the comments above, I guess I wouldn't be feeling very good about myself, either. I am not familiar with values in Jewish law, religion, or tradition that are consonant with the characteristics of such foul, destructive, and unredeemable nonsense. Unless, I suppose, one can't distinguish Rahm Emanuel or Leon Wieseltier with Amalek. Which is not a sign of very acute perceptions. Didn't any of your mothers ever take the occasion to wash your mouths out with soap? And for the historically minded, reflecting on the "just so" accounting of the four sons: a rather high percentage of Jews emigrating to the US in the great wave of immigration from Eastern Europe between 1881 and WW I were not notable for their piety. The most pious tended to stay put, and those most attracted by economic opportunity (typically hard to reconcile with strict patterns of Orthodox observance in the America of those times) were the most likely to come. There were, of course, exceptions, but mass immigration of stringently observant Jews was largely a post-Holocaust phenomenon. There is a good deal of truth about the desire for assimilation in the second generation, and the willingness to give up on old patterns. This is true much more broadly of European immigrant groups during that period, and hardly limited to Jews. The story of the third and fourth generations is much more complicated, rich and interesting than the above account would suggest. While further attenuation of Jewish identity and knowledge is characteristic of a part of this group, it is hardly the entire story. Much to the surprise of many, the past forty years has witnessed an astounding rise in creative Jewish life, both within and without the precincts of Orthodoxy. The rise of University-level Jewish studies is an unprecedented achievement, and there has been phenomenal creative development in areas of liturgy and ritual, much of it energized by the opening to full participation in Jewish life by Jewishly well-educated women. The folks who have participated in these creative Jewish expressions are not "simple," and they have been awfully good at raising new questions and pursuing answers to them, drawing on both Jewish tradition and secular knowledge. By and large these folks are too busy learning and contributing to hole up in their basements and spew venom and drivel of the sort over-represented in these comment boards. It's hard to know quite who reads these comments, but if you are out there, let's take back this space from purveyors of hate who rarely have anything constructive, or reasoned, or factual to say. Calling people names does not represent a high level of moral development in secular or in Jewish terms. Enough! Alan Jay Weisbard ("The Wise Bard") 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 This is a positive step back from an untenable and self-defeating claim. If the Israel Project is interested in being "sensitive" to the rights and concerns of others--as I hope it will be-- this can be the first of a number of constructive steps. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The Jewish Agency created the infrastructure necessary to sustain a successful state during the decades prior to statehood. It is past time for the Palestinians to do likewise. It is in Israel's long-term interest for the Palestinian population to develop effective democratic and economic institutions to create a stake in a successful state living in peace with neighboring Israel. By all accounts, the "technocrat" Fayyad has been one of the most successful governmental leaders to emerge in the history of the Palestinian movement. While I hope a Palestinian state will ultimately co-operate economically with Israel (and Jordan, and perhaps Lebanon) to their mutual advantage, focusing on internal economic development probably does make sense now. Poverty, dependency, and hopelessness do not auger well for peace or for friendly relations. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Blackie, all one needs to do is quote your words and rest his case. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 One can believe in and support freedom of the press while castigating (but not censoring) particular irresponsible exercises of that freedom. Freedom to publish does not, and should not, insulate a paper from justified criticism, including criticism from governmental spokespersons. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Reb Arthur, I too am discouraged with President Obama's seeming unwillingness, thus far, to deploy all his rhetorical and political gifts in the fight for meaningful reform of our wildly dysfunctional and preposterously over-expensive health care system. I am skeptical that even a robust public option (as opposed to some form of Medicare for All) will be adequate to secure universal coverage while adequately controlling costs and improving incentives for best practices. But I agree that all of us who fought for "change we can believe in" do all we can to stiffen the spines of those we supported against the onslaught of big money corporate contributors with vested interests in the status quo who will, indeed, fight to the death to oppose meaningful change. And whether one agrees or doesn't with the particulars of Obama's efforts to foster a two state solution in Israel/Palestine, I hope those cognizant of Jewish commitments to life and health will join in the battle for improved health care available to all. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I think it is possible to disagree, as I often do, with many of the "contributors" to these boards, without wishing for their demise. Although sometimes I wish they would write with greater respect and humility, or direct their energies elsewhere... I really do think it is time for serious reflection by JTA on whether these discussion boards should be moderated, at the very least for tone, and to some degree for content. Laurie's comment, above, suggests that many potential readers and contributors are deterred from participation by the hateful nature of many of the postings that appear here, and by the difficulty of constructive engagement. Unfortunately, that is all too typical of many discussion boards dealing with Jewish and Middle East topics and perspectives. I participate in a range of media, and am sad to report that many Jewish boards compare very unfavorably in civility and intelligence of discussion with, say, the comments at the Christian Science Monitor, which moderates its comment boards and insists that disagreements be stated with civility and a modicum of mutual respect. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There is much in Jewish tradition to support the proposition that we are all partners in God's creation, and have obligations to heal the ills of the world. This long antedates contemporary liberal streams within Judaism, and is especially richly rooted in the Jewish mystical tradition (with some allowances for who is included in "all"). Comments above are not only hateful (as is customary of that writer), but Jewishly ignorant. But, as Barney Frank sagely observed, sometimes it's like trying to argue with a piece of furniture. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Pursuant to instructions from my mother, given long ago, I hereby say nothing at all. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Isn't the major point of Jewish organizational life to create the maximum possible number of entities (aka "Major Jewish Organizations") for individuals to be Chairs, Presidents, Executive Vice Presidents/CEOs, and gala honorees of? As a proud member and/or supporter of J Street, Brit Tzedek vShalom, Americans for Peace Now, Ameinu, Israel Policy Forum...(sorry, not you, ZOA or AIPAC), I am glad to stimulate employment (paid or volunteer) in this important sector of the Jewish ecology. ;-) In terms of actually contributing something substantial in the real world, one might consider other approaches...but that doesn't seem to bother the more venerable defense agencies... --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 What, exactly, is the point of publishing these comments? 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 As usual, we have our share of gratuitous hate comments. Having visited Jordan several years back, I can report that there are a number of archeological sites well worth visiting. Petra is truly awesome, and there are several Roman sites of note, as well as medieval mosaics of considerable beauty. The Jordanians I met were, on the whole, quite hospitable. Our visit was too short for much social interchange--I hope someday to make a longer visit allowing for more interpersonal opportunities with Jordanians outside the tourist industry. For an interesting perspective on Israeli-Jordanian interactions on a personal level, try to see the quirky and rather charming recent Israeli film, The Beetle. None of this excuses confiscation of Jewish ritual objects intended for personal use by observant Jews while travelling in Jordan. I can understand security concerns (not least for the welfare of the individual traveller), particularly after moments of special tension, such as during and after the Gaza campaign earlier this year. I very much hope a satisfactory solution can be found. I'm not certain that loud public protests are necessarily the best approach. Much has been accomplished between Israel and Jordan over the decades on the basis of quiet conversation. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 These comments are absurd. I am a law prof and have read a number of Judge Sotomayor's opinions (as well as several postings by those commenting above, which have impressed me far less than Judge Sotomayor's work, to say the very least). While Judge (now Justice) Sotomayor would not have been my first choice as a nominee, and I have my differences with aspects of her record and her less than forthcoming responses at her confirmation hearings (no worse, however, than those of several recent SCOTUS nominees), she is a bright and highly accomplished individual who has built a very credible record as a serious, competent, hard working and fundamentally fair jurist at both district court and appellate levels. She has had diverse professional experience, and has personal knowledge of important aspects of American life largely unknown to most of her new colleagues. She will make a fine addition to a court badly in need of fresh perspectives. My own view is that the court would benefit from some proudly progressive, brilliant, and imaginative scholar-judges who have also served in non-judicial office and appreciate the complexity of the distinctive, but sometimes overlapping roles of the different branches of government. I do not expect that from Justice Sotomayor, and I could name half a dozen very plausible potential nominees who would be more promising in those respects and whom I hope will be considered for appointments in coming years. But rather few Supreme Court Justices, of whatever ideology, have met that sort of standard, and Justice Sotomayor certainly fits comfortably in terms of education, accomplishment, and relevant professional experience with the 106 white males and 4 others who have previously served on the Court. The comments on affirmative action say more about the prejudices and utter lack of knowledge of those invoking those terms than about the reality of Justice Sotomayor's qualifications for the Court. I am also mindful of the significance of Woodrow Wilson's appointment of Louis Brandeis as the first Jewish Justice, the meaning that appointment had for aspiring Jewish lawyers--and indeed for the entire Jewish community--and of the explosion of bigotry and anti-Semitic rhetoric elicited by that nomination--one of the most controversial in the Court's history. Opponents at the time claimed that Wilson was seeking political advantage with the Brandeis appointment, and that Brandeis was outside the mainstream of those typically considered for such appointments (which he was, certainly far more so than Sotomayor today). This is a time for all Americans to celebrate the ever expanding ambit of opportunities and achievement by fellow citizens of all backgrounds--certainly a core aspect of Jewish experience and success in this beloved, if still imperfect, society. It should not be an occasion for the spewing of ill-informed and hateful rhetoric, such as that found above. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 People at political conferences of this sort often make extreme statements, feeding red meat to those seeking it. Just think about party conventions revving up the faithful for an impending electoral campaign. Nonetheless, a number of statements made at the Fatah conference are truly disturbing, and deserve to be condemned. We are still a long way from a genuine, thoroughgoing Palestinian commitment to permanently renounce violence and pursue peace through peaceful means. The strategic question for Israel is whether it can and will work with those in the Palestinian national movement who are genuinely committed to peaceful co-existence on the basis of a two state solution. There is some evidence of a potential followership; Israel needs to further the credibility and authority of those who might be effective leaders toward peace. Such leaders also must have credibility with their own people; it is unlikely they will be recruited from the ranks of choirboys (so to speak). --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Ad hominum attacks add nothing of value to the discussion. Nor do seemingly "factual" assertions pulled out of thin air (not to state the matter more crudely). I would be interested to know precisely who determines the content of "non-politicized international law", and what "self-hating" means beyond being a label to hang on any Jew whose opinions or arguments disagree with your own. If folks want to participate in civil discourse, grow up and act like adults. And Mr Pearlman, slicha, but peraps you mean to refer to smicha. Which Rabbi Waskow possesses. All you seem to possess is an exceptionally foul mouth. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Life is complicated, and the Middle East more so than most places in the world. One does not have to encounter rhetoric like that presented in this article ("Fatah will never give up on the armed struggle until we get our state,” Rajoub said. “Until then, this is just a time out for tactical reasons.") to recognize the difficulties facing Israeli political leaders--and the populace of Israel. The Palestinian leadership (and, in many cases, the Palestinian people) are moral agents and bear both moral and political responsibility for the failures of their movement. Would that there were more Palestinian Martin Luther kings and Nelson Mandelas, and a tradition of peaceful civil disobedience rather than incitement, violence and terror. Neither Fatah nor Hamas is devoid of hate, self-aggrandisement, corruption, or violent aggression. Nor do they lack for hateful rhetoric. It is quite possible to recognize all of this, to take it seriously, and yet to struggle toward a better and more peaceful future. Not a future like the US and Canada, but perhaps one eventually more like France and Germany, or perhaps Russia and the West--historic antagonists who learned, after much spilt blood and treasure, to live beside one another. Treating one another on this list as cardboard cutouts, conforming to foolish stereotypes with little grounding in reality, does little to advance discussion on the challenging issues presented. Of course, it is well understood that ad hominum (or ad femina) attacks reflect, all too often, the inadequacy of facts, logic, analysis in one's argument on substance. --Thee Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 This seems to be yet another in a long series of developments reflecting an extremely short-sighted view of Israel's interests and values. The period in which Western nations, and the US in particular, supported Israel as a matter of realpolitik, and as a strategic asset, has largely come to an end. What support remains, beyond that predicated on Jewish money and votes, and evangelical hopes for end-times, is grounded on a sense of common values and democratic principles. That sense is ebbing away, particularly with a change of generations to those lacking a core awareness of Jewish history, of the Shoah, and of the heroic founding vision of the State of Israel. Over the course of the twentieth century, the leaders of the pre-State Zionist movement and of the Israeli State often had to accommodate to the exigencies of history, making difficult decisions necessary to preserve and fulfill the Zionist dream. The nascent and young State was in a battle for survival, and had very limited control of its circumstances. Thinking far ahead was a luxury that often could not be indulged. While elements of that description continue to remain true, Israel today is a vibrant, well-established society, the predominant military power on its region, and more capable of shaping its own circumstances. Yet its policies reflect a constant improvisational quality, with little in the way of a long term vision or abiding principles (other than, perhaps, the principle of avoiding hard decisions). The dysfunctional political system (to some degree grounded in the complexity and diversity of israeli society and demographics) discourages individuals of vision and foresight from achieving leadership positions, and allows short term coalition political considerations to defeat necessary initiatives critical to Israel's future (for example, the creation of a comprehensive constitutional document, not to speak of the hard political decisions necessary for a viable peace settlement). My own commitments to Israel took shape in the late 1960s and 1970s, when it was still possible to associate Israel with idealism and the struggle for a better society, blending Jewish tradition with democratic ideals. My children and their generation never fully knew that Israel, and that vision is now fading away. On campuses, both in America and even more abroad, Israel has become the enemy rather than the source of inspiration for idealistic youth, Jewish and other. Do Israeli leaders have any concept of a hopeful, positive future that can still inspire and mobilize support? Or is it all a rear-guard, defensive battle, with no end in sight? The Zionist dream envisaged the Jewish nation taking greater control of its destiny. That dream has achieved major successes, although there are inherent limits on a small nation in an interdependant world. Are the current leaders of Israel making good use of their possibilities? --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 If Bush is sent anywhere, it should be to The Hague for trial as a war criminal. Israel's romance with GWB is a study in self-delusion. Bush was an enabler of some of Israel's worst tendencies. There was no progress toward peace during his administration, and traditional American public support for Israel (apart from Christian evangelicals) took a huge hit. Take a look at attitudes toward Israel on American campuses, not to speak of developments throughout Europe and elsewhere. Generational change does not bode well for Israel's future. Nor does avoidance of the necessity of a two state solution before it is too late. The vast majority of American Jews do not support continued expansion of Israeli settlements and outposts (illegal even under Israeli law) that are recognized by virtually all as obstacles to peace--and often intended by settlers and their political enablers as precisely that. While settlements are certainly not the be all and end all for successful peace negotiations, and Palestinians (and their divided leadership) bear considerable responsibility for the failure to move effectively toward a two state resolution, I think Obama is right to draw some very public lines to establish that things have changed, and that there is now a real commitment by the White House to move both sides toward the compromises that will be necessary for any prospect for peace. Given recent history, it is understandable that public demands are addressed first toward Israel. Time will tell whether parallel demands are made--as they must be-- toward the Arab world. Only in this context can we learn whether the Saudi/Arab peace initiative provides a sound basis for constructive negotiations toward comprehensive changes in the Middle East, or is mere blowing smoke. Let's see where the Obama team takes this before drawing premature conclusions and making racist characterizations of a man of immense talent who has always had friendly ties with the American Jewish community, and shown commitment to a peaceful resolution conducive to Israel's long-term security and flourishing. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The invocation of "ethnic cleansing" has been applied in quite the opposite direction, and I'm not sure introducing this concept will serve Israel's interests in any case. For those supporters of settlements who oppose both a two state solution and a single state in which all residents (including Arab residents of the territories across the Green line) participate as equal citizens of a democratic state, the question naturally arises as to what they intend for the future. Most publicly deny that they desire an apartheid state. What then remains as a logical possibility is a "disappearing" of the Arab population. That, it seems to me, fits any plausible definition of "ethnic cleansing." I would be interested if those disagreeing with this analysis could attempt to avoid calling me names, and respond to the substance of the analysis. My own preference is for a secure two state solution, perhaps evolving over time to a multi-state economic confederation. I would abhor an undemocratic, apartheid state--or the forcing of Palestinians out of their ancestral homeland (yes, I know about the arguments about Arab immigration to Palestine during the early Zionist period). For those who disagree, what alternatives do you propose? (BTW, I have no principled objection to a negotiation that allows some Jewish settlements to continue within the sovereign territory of a Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel--although I doubt that many settlers outside the anti-Zionist Satmar community would be much attracted to that prospect. Some Palestinian leaders are beginning to discuss such a possibility, with the settlers living subject to Palestinian law, as Arab citizens of Israel live under Israeli law.) --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Those engaged in generic France-bashing might reflect on the fact that, for better or worse, Israel's own nuclear program resulted in substantial part from French assistance in the pre-1967 period. The key figure on the Israeli side in making this happen was Shimon Peres. Calling people, or nations, names is not a very illuminating substitute for facts and analysis. Given what has been reported about the dispersal and underground siting of many of Iran's nuclear facilities, it is not clear how much Israel could accomplish in a single air strike on Iran. Most likely their program would be set back and delayed for a few years, but Iran would then find considerable support for rebuilding, and further Western efforts (such as they are) to oppose this would be seriously undermined in the aftermath. While it is difficult to predict what Iran might do in reprisal, their position along the Persian/Arabic Gulf would allow them to greatly complicate oil exports to much of the world, and it is not clear to me that Israel would benefit from the ensuing political and foreign policy consequences--leaving aside any direct military reprisals from Iran, its proxies, and its quasi-allies. My guess is that Israel's long term security, not to speak of its international standing, might well diminish rather than improve as a result of a strike on Iran's facilities. Not a happy set of choices. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 In the abstract, it is probably a good thing for Jewish voices to be present and heard in both party caucuses of the House and the Senate. In the real world, the category of "moderate Republicans" has largely disappeared, so it is not much of a surprise that politically moderate Jewish politicians can no longer find a home in those precincts. And one should hesitate to classify Norm Coleman as much of a moderate in any case--particularly given that he represented a generally progressive state. As a now-retired professor at the University of Wisconsin, I am exceptionally proud of the active and constructive role Jews have played in the political life of this state, and of our neighboring state of Minnesota. Coastal Jews might well be surprised, and impressed, at how small the obstacles that religious/ethnic identifications have posed to the electoral success of a series of fine public servants (I would especially commend Senators Feingold and Wellstone and Wisconsin's elected Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson) from "flyover country." 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Mr. Schultz, perhaps you should be introduced to something called Medicare, on which a very high proportion of elderly Jews depend for their medical care. While not perfect, it is a heck of a lot better than the alternatives. And it is, in your terms, "government health care." The frequent use of inflammatory rhetoric and scare quotes is a sure sign that those who oppose a more rational system of health care and health care financing have neither good evidence nor good arguments on their side. The vast proportion of advanced industrial societies utilize single payer systems, or modifications thereof, to provide affordable, generally high quality health care on a universal basis. They get considerably better patient outcomes, at much lower costs (and at vastly lower levels of anxiety over expense) than the American non-system, which is rapidly speeding toward collapse. To be sure, each system has its own distinctive challenges. But many of the problems identified in foreign systems would be solved, or substantially ameliorated, if their health care spending were closer to that accepted in the US. Those promoting continuation of current American practices might do well to explain their apparent preference for insurance bureaucrats (rewarded for denying care to the sick to maximize profits) over civil servants responsible to the public. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The relevant question, of course, is not whether he should be a rabbi (and able to speak as such), but whether he should be the chief rabbi of the IDF. In a more rational universe, less dependant on the political muscle of the ultra-Orthodox parties, the answer to that question would seem clear. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 While my own interests lie more with books and the arts than with pop culture, and there is no lack of Jewish perspectives on politics available on the web, I wish Tablet well and look forward (so to speak) to its efforts. Too few Jewish entities are willing to think imaginatively and creatively in adapting to new conditions. While I immensely regret the financial chaos with which Jewish institutions (and, of course, many other good causes) now have to contend (including the loss of work for many dedicated employees), I commend those institutions that are using these challenges to rethink their missions and how best to further them--including opportunities for fruitful collaboration. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 It is instructive that Abe Foxman is still capable of being shocked by Richard Nixon's amply demonstated capacity for racism--or, indeed, startled by Billy Graham's anti-Semitism. I thought that was his job--certainly more so than praising retrograde, racially-insensitive decisions by the Supreme Court. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 At long last. Congratulations to Sen-elect Franken. Mr. Coleman richly deserves an extended period out of the public eye--maybe a lengthy vacation in Argentina? His hypocrisy in delaying Minnesota's proper representation in the Senate should be more noted than it seems to be, but his Republican colleagues have raised the bar in that domain to unprecedented levels. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The question is what constitutes "qualified". Many jurisdictions (including Bridgeport, down the road from New Haven) make promotion decisions based, in whole or substantial part, on skill based judgments, not primarily on ability to memorize materials for a written test (especially when some applicants are given preferential access to the preparatory materials). New Haven's process reflected an old contract with the firemen's union, which, like many, has a long record of nepotistic and (pro-white/ethnic) practices--of the sort often used to keep an earlier generation of Jews out of the competition. This decision is actually a fairly complex one, which has been grossly oversimplified in highly partisan political and media discourse. Before shooting off your mouths as above, try to read the actual opinions, including the dissent by Ruth Ginsburg, which fills in a good deal of factual background left out in many popular accounts (and by the court majority). Unfortunately, no one knows what "strong basis in evidence" means, and the majority opinion does very little to clarify its new "standard". An opportunity to encourage employers to work toward fairer and more meaningful evaluations on a voluntary basis was lost here, and unnecessarily so. There may be worse to come. In terms of identifying Jewish values, I will look to others than ADL and Mr. Rodgers above. However, at risk of possibly agreeing in part with one of the above, I found the slim majority opposing mandated access to DNA testing to establish actual innocence yet another in this Court's seies of decisions that makes me ashamed to be a lawyer and a law teacher. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I have nothing to say about Michael Jackson, or on the comparison attempted by Mr. Eden, which has its moments. I do think we could do without comments like the one above, and I would urge JTA to limit postings by individuals making them. It is possible to disagree on issues or assessments of individuals without engaging in hate speech. This is just despicable. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Had Israel behaved in a fashion more consistent with its prior commitments on settlements and outposts, it might be easier to sympathize with Lieberman's perspective. But for many years, settlement activity has been pursued (with substantial government subsidies and facilitation) specifically to create obstacles to any plausible two-state solution. Unlike the military or quasi-military settlements created to enhance security and serve as "bargaining chips" in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war, for decades settlement policy has sought to create communities that will be, both politically and logistically, extremely difficult to displace as part of a peace plan. It has largely succeeded in this highly problematic objective, a fact not lost on the rest of the world, now including the American Administration. Arguments that might sound persuasive on their face simply lose credibility against this background of past actions. At this point, a moratorium on new construction is required simply to show good (or at least, better) faith and get negotiations back on track. If negotiations should result in an agreed land swap with a future Palestine, constuction in settlements within agreed new borders could, of course, resume, without expropriating land not belonging to Israel. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There was a time that neo-conservatives thought of themselves as smarter than everyone else. That fantasy is increasingly difficult to entertain; at this point, mostly they like to hear themselves talk, although few others are paying much serious attention. America has a troubled (to put it very mildly) history in Iran, and many American interventions have proved counterproductive, at least in the long run. Virtually every thoughtful commentator, including many now or previously living in Iran, have cautioned against overdoing it, rhetorically or otherwise, and providing those in power (however illicitly) with the ability to blame America for the popular revolt now underway in Iran. Obama, it seems to me, has been exceptionally adroit in calibrating his public statements, which provide inspiration to those asseting democratic freedoms, to developing (and worsening) events, without turning what is, after all, an inspiring Iranian story into something "about us". We are on the fringe of this story--there is relatively little America can to to further punish the increasingly desperate Iranian leadership, and it is relatively easy to slip over the edge into behavior that is counterproductive to the ultimate cause of greater democratic freedom (and, one hopes, a less aggressive international posture) for the mass of the Iranian people. Time will tell whether there is, or should be, any occasion for negotiation (e.g., over nuclear enrichment activities) with the very unpleasant people who currently hold power in Iran. But negotiation is not a "gift" to those folks; it is an effort to find a way to avoid military actions that could have pretty disastrous consequences for the region and the world. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Rabbi Saperstein is amazingly dedicated and energetic. While I am not a member of the Reform movement, and do not know him personally (to my regret), I am delighted to have him speaking up, often eloquently, for a variety of good causes consistent with the values of a large proportion of American Jewry--and with Jewish tradition. It is very hard for me to understand what motivates gratuitously hateful comments like the one above. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Why do I find Mr. Lieberman's characterizations rather difficult to credit? Perhaps 19 of the 20 points discussed at the meeting consisted of what to order for lunch? I doubt they had much to do with the West Bank, or Gaza, or Golan, or Jerusalem, or final status issues, or Iran, or Palestinian freedom of movement, or the movement of goods into Gaza. But deli, and maybe some cheese cake (Lieberman not being known for his observance...)? 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I can't bring myself to believe that those portrayed on the Blumenthal video were representative of much of anyone except some drunken jerks. If taking down the video was consistent with uniformly applied company policies, I don't think it represents much of a loss to rational discourse (which seems not to have been Mr. Blumenthal's objective, in any case). And I very much doubt that regular readers of this column would consider me "right wing." --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 How about the possibility that President Obama has genuine sympathies--and considerable understanding--for the plights of both people, and is trying his best to help them find a path toward peaceful coexistence that has eluded their abilities to achieve on their own--or with the short-sighted and ineffectual policies of George W. Bush, whose uncritical support of dubious Israeli policies led to no progress toward peace or security for anyone. Despite the yearnings of majorities of both Israelis and Palestinians for a political settlement on terms akin to those reached at Taba and Geneva, there is abundant evidence of "blocking minorities" on both sides who frustrate the compromises necessary for progress (sometimes by violent means--don't forget that Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist). It will take a strong outside intermediary capable of pushing both parties to the limits of the possible to get past the roadblocks. Neither Palestinian nor Israeli leaders of the past generation (since the time of Sadat, Begin, Hussein, and Rabin) have shown the political courage or leadership to move the process forward. President Obama has the possibility of doing so, and many lovers of Israel and its secure future hope he will succeed in his efforts. I'll take that over Bush any day. --No Weed Wise Bard. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 What does Tony Blair know that the rest of us do not? May the "great hope and expectation" finally yield something conducive to the security and flourishing of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples. But I'm not holding my breath. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 With superbly-qualified Jewish candidates like Elena Kagen (former Dean of Harvard LS), Martha Minow (incoming Dean of Harvard Law School), Chicago/Harvard Professor and Obama colleague Cass Sunstein, several sitting federal judges, and other outstanding non-Jewish candidates like Diane Wood who have well-established records on first amendment religious freedom and other issues of special importance to the Jewish community, why exactly would the Elders of Zion prefer Judge Sotomayor? Jews, like all Americans, can appreciate the many challenges Judge Sotomayor has overcome, as well as her many educational and professional achievements, but there is little in her record of distinctive significance to Jews as such. Did anyone read about her culinary preferences? Give us a break. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Speaking now as a law professor (and noting that law professors, like judges, can and do disagree), there is a difference between written agreements, such as treaties and memoranda of understandings, and less formal "understandings" of various sorts. There are also reasons why some policies are embedded in formal, written undertakings, and others are not--and one (not the only) reason is that formal treaties are typically intended to outlast the administrations of those who commit to them. To treat less formal undertakings as if they were formal treaties is a category mistake, and sophisticated actors on the international scene are generally aware of that. Thus, folks like Abrams and Netanyahu are not only wrong, but knowingly acting in bad faith in attempting to hold a new administration to terms of dubious --and pretty clearly temporary--informal undertakings. Whether the substantive content of any such informal undertakings justifies continued adherence is a policy matter--I think not in present conditions--but the notion that the Obama Administration is in violation of a binding agreement is, as mildly as I can say it, mistaken. This would, of course, not be Mr. Abrams first sin in a lengthy public career. In the absence of an international criminal court, I am content to leave his ultimate fate to powers higher than myself. With regard to Mr. Cohn's posting, it seems reasonably clear that both Palestinians and Israelis have fallen considerably short of adhering to their formal commitments, much less informal ones. While i carry no water for Palestinian leadership, which has been corrupt, often bloodthirsty, and almost singularly inept in achieving positive results for the Palestinian people over many decades, no one should be deluded on the fact that Israel, too, has failed to meet many of its obligations. One of many weaknesses in the fabric of international law is its difficulties in addressing the consequences of partial violations of reciprocal commitments--also true in considering reciprocal (if asymmetric) violations during the recent Gaza incursion. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I certainly agree that his non-agreement should be honored as long as Bush and Sharon are leaders of their respective countries. After all, we must reward Netanyahu for the "bold and dangerous" initiatives he has undertaken for peace. What a crock. Elliott, your team lost, big time. The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The result for ADL and other Jewish "Defense" organizations is likely to be another four years of enthusiastic "scare" fund-raising. Has anyone discovered how to get off their mailing lists? There are many other entities, with positive and constructive views of the Jewish future, who have a more pressing claim on my charitable giving. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Many of the individuals mentioned are extremely capable, dedicated, and hard-working people. I do not begrudge them a decent living, at a time so many doing much less good earn so much more. But I would note that Arnold Eisen, Chancellor of JTS, took the largest salary cut among Seminary employees. That is leadership worthy of emulation in a time of crisis and hardship. Then again, Eisen is not a product of the system. He is, first and foremost, a scholar and an educator. Others might learn from his example. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I am not troubled by President Obama or the approach he enunciated in Cairo. Are there some particulars that might have been a bit different, and more to my personal taste? Sure. But he was speaking in Cairo, to the Arab and Muslim world, not to an AIPAC convention. I am, however, very concerned by Malcolm Hoenlein, and believe he may well have outlasted his organizational usefulness for the Jewish community. Perhaps it made sense to keep him on during the Bush years. But he is out of touch with the broad majority of American Jews on both domestic and international affairs, and many of us are becoming increasingly restive with those on the right wing who purport to speak for the rest of us. Their moment has passed; it is time for a new generation to take their place, more reflective of the democratic progressive and peace-seeking values that animate many Jews in public life. Many of us do not buy into the Netanyahu-Lieberman Likud-and-worse ultranationalism that is in neither America's interests, nor Israel's. It is for Israel to try to straighten out its dysfunctional political system that has brought years of failed leadership, from virtually all points of Israel's political spectrum. But America's Jews, while supportive of the long-term security and flourishing of Israel and its founding ideals, need not follow misguided policies over a cliff, as Hoenlein is wont to do (except when he--and some of the few he represents-- distrusts Israeli leadership emanating from the considerable space available to his political left). 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Sadly, I find myself in substantial agreement with the comments of Prof. Retsos (although I did not hear Bibi's speech as precluding resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestinian territory). I think Israel does have legitimate security concerns about the military capacities of a Palestinian state along its borders--concerns that can be addressed in negotiations. But if the purpose of Bibi's speech was to make serious negotiations impossible--as his comments on refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, etc., would seem to suggest--then we will never get there. Whatever one may think about Obama, he is not dumb. The apparent effort by Bibi and others to put one over on Obama--to outsmart him through devious tricks such as those embedded in the Bar Ilan speech--are highly unlikely to work with Obama or his team, and are even less likely to win friends or trust. It is not in America's interest (or, in my view, Israel's) to "enable" Netanyahu/Lieberman's right-wing agenda. We are in for hard times in American-Israeli relations. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 One rather small step forward for Bibi, about nine steps back for any possibility of meaningful negotiations. The media memory has a half life of about 15 minutes. If anyone lined up Bibi's comments against Israeli proposals at Camp David, Taba, or Geneva*, that would be obvious. No person of any sophistication could imagine that with this speech, Bibi actually intends for serious negotiations to go anywhere. Apparently the White House has decided to express its frustrations privately, at least for the moment, since Bibi's speech falls so far short of what was demanded. None of this is to say that Israel's positions need to be ever more generous; in many respects, the situation has deteriorated in the past decade, due in significant part to failures on the part of the Palestinians and their political leadership, such as it is. It is easy for skeptics to believe that the Palestinians have shown little evidence that they are truly ready to accept a Jewish Israel as a permanent part of the neighborhood, entitled to live in peace and security. Making compromises in the hope of peace necessarily entails risks. The question is, compared to what? Given demographic realities, obfuscation, delay, and a stalled peace process do not serve Israel's long-term interests. Nor will the world (or America) abide a reality that looks increasingly like apartheid for Israel's Arab population, in the territories and perhaps within Israel's pre-67 borders. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 After reading several of the comments on this thread, I am inclined to rethink my devotion to the first amendment, or, speaking more precisely, to invite JTA to reflect on whether publishing some of these genocidal rants serves any conceivable constructive purpose. I find such remarks, reminiscent in tone of those inciting the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, to be hateful,horrific and profoundly antagonistic to any variety of Judaism worthy of allegiance. Such fanaticism feeds on itself, encourages like responses from others, and leads to disaster for all. It should be unequivocally repudiated. I am not sure what to make of the statements published under Rabbi Friedman's name in Moment, and what to believe in terms of the question he intended to address with these remarks. eI have a hard time imagining any question to which his remarks would form an appropriate response. I feel relatively confident that most in the Chabad community (to which I feel no personal allegiance) would not subscribe to the views set forth by Rabbi Friedman, or to those advocated by some of his defenders here. To the best of my knowledge, Jewish tradition has not endorsed the general application of the morally deeply problematic norms directed to Joshua's conquest of Canaan (however understood and explained) to other times, places, and peoples. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 As an academic, I favor employing and exposing students to a range of perspectives and political ideologies, and teaching them the critical skills to evaluate those perspectives and reach intelligent conclusions for themselves. As a former faculty member at YU's Cardozo School of Law, I am somewhat at a loss to understand why the University would want this particular professor to be its "new face", or the head of its men's honors program. My hope is that he will make a successful, and reasonably prompt, shiddach with another institution. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Actually, Will, I am a law professor, not a politician. Perhaps you consider that the same thing. And while I am capable of writing a diatribe in a good cause, that was not one of them. If you think it was, that may say more about you than about me. Then again, the rest of your comment may say enough. As I have stated, Judge Sotomayor was not my preferred first choice. Now that President Obama has nominated her, there are a number of questions and concerns that should be explored during the confirmation process--as is true with all nominees. Perfection is not a reasonable standard--even if we all agreed on what it is, which we do not. Virtually all appellate judges are occasionally reversed by the Supreme Court. It has happened only 3 or 4 times in S's career, and that does not necessarily mean she was wrong in those cases. After all, most Supreme Court Justices (other than Anthony Kennedy) are often in dissent. The notion that some particular nominee should be disqualified on the basis of spurious generalizations about others of (sort of) her ethnicity should not disquaify her, but perhaps it should disqualify anyone making such comments from a serious discussion. My own wish is that we can get past so much focus on gender and ethnicity in thee appointments. But given the current complexion of this--and all past--Supreme Courts, we are not there yet. I hope the day will come soon. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Lani Guinier was nominated to head the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department. She was not nominated to the Supreme Court, as this article would seem to suggest. Some of her academic writing was grossly distorted, and her nomination was withdrawn by President Clinton, to his considerable discredit. Sam Alito, who was nominated (and confirmed) to the Court, was, like Judge Sotomayor, an appellate judge on the US Court of Appeals (in his case, for the Third Circuit) for a number of years prior to his elevation to the Supreme Court. He did not spend "years pushing intellectual boundaries in the halls of academe". Of the three individuals listed, only Robert Bork had a nomination to the Supreme Court defeated, at least in part, on the basis of his academic writings, together with his contentious responses to questions posed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ironically, the judicial decision likely to give Judge Sotomayor the most difficulty in her confirmation process is one she did not sign. In the controversial case involving a promotion exam for firefighters in New Haven (now pending decision in the Supreme Court), Judge Sotomayor was one of three members of a Second Circuit panel which disposed of the case in a brief, per curium (that is, not signed) opinion which, as I understand it (I am not entirely certain on this point), was not initially intended for official publication. While the decision was pending possible reconsideration en banc, the panel substituted an opinion adopting the decision of the district judge, a very unusual disposition of a case posing substantial statutory and potentially constitutional issues. The Second Circuit's peculiar treatment of this case, and Judge Sotomayor's role in it, is highly likely to be the subject of critical questions during the confirmation process. While Judge Sotomayor was not my first preference among the several outstanding individuals reported to be on President Obama's short list, President Obama's comments introducing his nominee, and Judge Sotomayor's own comments, were gracious and moving, and Judge Sotomayor's story, like that of the President himself, should be truly inspiring to all Americans, certainly including Jews with whose history as immigrants her own experience is so resonant. America will take another big step forward with Judge Sotomayor's accession to the Supreme Court. I hope her confirmation process will be fair, respectful, and dignified. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I'm a bit confused as to precisely what Rabbi Saperstein, whom I greatly admire, has in mind here. Many Jews are, of course, deeply knowledgable about law and the judiciary, and are involved as individuals in the public (and, presumably, also some of the private) discussions of potential nominees--to the extent any of that discussion will influence the decision of President Obama, who is likely to make a very well-informed and carefully thought through personal decision as a former teacher of constitutional law. I have a high degree of confidence that President Obama's selection, whoever it turns out to be, will be someone sympathetic to many of the causes and concerns that Rabbi Saperstein addresses so ably in his work in Washington. I am also confident the nominee will lend distinction to the Court she or he will join upon confirmation. I presume that Rabbi Saperstein is calling here for Jewish organizattional participation in the appointment process. But is it really productive for Jewish organizational entities to favor this candidate and oppose that one among those known to be on the "short list", at least absent a very specific reason for concern about a potential nominee's attitudes on issues at the core of Jewish life in America (and one should note that opinions differ among Jews on a fair number of issues, particularly but not only on those affecting the Orthodox community). It seems to me that the more appropriate time for Jewish organizational involvement will come after the nomination is announced, during the confirmation process, particularly if Republican/Conservatives decide to wage a pitched battle, and possibly to filibuster, any nominee perceived to be to the left of Justice Souter. It is, in fact, quite unlikely that the next Justice will vote very differently from Justice Souter on those issues of greatest concern to the Jewish community, although nuances of influence and interaction with other Justices may vary to some degree. The new Justice will likely become the senior --and the assigning--liberal Justice for an extended period after the retirement of Justice Breyer. That makes this an especially important assignment, although its major effects will be felt not immediately, but in the longer term. I look forward to Rabbi Saperstein's further thoughts on precisely how he thinks the Jewish community can best make its influence felt in coming days and weeks, and on additional judicial appointments to come. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I see you corrected your headline from the misleading " stay of execution" to the more correct "stay of deportation." Good. The Israeli judicial proceedings were very complicated. As I recall, the Israeli Supreme Court reversed Demjanjuk's conviction as "ivan the Terrible" at a particular concentration/execution camp, although finding credible evidence of criminal behavior at a different concentration camp. Because that was not the crime for which he was initially charged, extradited, and convicted, the Israeli Court reversed the initial conviction and returned him to the United States. For reasons of state, never fully explained (so far as I know), Israel decided not to prosecute him for these other deeds. This does not constitute a finding of innocence, or lack of guilt, on the other charges, which are now, after further delay, being pursued in Germany, which has requested Demjanjuk's extradition. I respect the presumption of innocence. But regarding one charged with the ghastly crimes conducted on innocent concentration camp inmates, the characterization by "thoroughly disgusted" of putting an elderly invalid "through the hell of deportation" rings somewhat hollow, particularly given the defendant's energetic efforts over many years to resist accountability for the deeds he is alleged to have committed. Had he not covered up his past by lying to US immigration authorities many years ago, he would have faced justice at a much earlier--and "healthier"-- stage. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 As regular readers of these comments will appreciate, my credo is never to address a matter worthy of discussion in 140 characters when 5000 will do. No twitter for me. I prefer my conversations to be fully baked. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 I've commented on the AIPAC dismissal elsewhere. But one should not confuse that case with the Pollard matter. Jonathan Pollard clearly violated the laws of this country, and knew he was doing so. He was rightly prosecuted and convicted for his illegal conduct, however much one may sympathize with his love of Israel and his desire to provide material that he felt should have been rightly and officially shared with Israel by the US Government. There are many reasons to believe aspects of his prosecution were unfair, and his punishment unduly and vindictively harsh. I hope he will win pardon in the near future. But that is not because he was innocent or wrongly convicted. The cases are importantly different, and making appropriate distinctions is critical to clear thinking. The comment above, with its fusillade of reckless and slapdash accusations, neither demonstrates nor contributes to clear thinking on this matter. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 David Souter has brought enormous integrity, intellect, and wisdom to his performance on the Court. While sometimes categorized as a "liberal" on a very conservative Court, he has demonstrated prudence and moderation in his jurisprudence, reminiscent of some of the best qualities of John Marshall Harlan--like Souter, a Republican appointee. American Jews have been uniform in their strong support of the religious "free exercise" clause, of which Justice Souter has been a champion. Jews are far more divided in their approach to the (non-) establishment cause, with many favoring a strong separation of Church and State. Indeed, the American Jewish Congress supported much of the most significant establishment clause jurisprudence over the past half century. While segments of the Orthodox community have pursued a different stance in recent years--and there is room for reasonable discussion on the issue--Souter's performance on these cases has won approbation from much of the Jewish community here as well. Given Republican nominations to the bench in the years since Eisenhauer's presidency, Justice Souter's service on the Court has been an unanticipated blessing for the Jewish community and for all Americans who believe in the promise of our country. May he enjoy a vigorous and satisfying retirement. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The prosecutor's use of the 1917 Espionage Act provisions raised a number of troubling questions from the start of this shaky and ill-fated case.While I am pleased that this case has been dropped (I should note that I am no fan of AIPAC or of its customary legislative tactics), I do hope that Obama's AG Eric Holder and the new team at Justice have the opportunity to fully review and reconsider the approach pursued by the former Administration, and to set forth revised prosecutorial guidelines more consistent with the realities--and the First Amendment rights--in this domain. Acting US Atty Dana Boente's grudging comments should not be the final word in this process. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 If Goldstone can pursue a fair inquiry and come up with a serious and balanced report, which I think he will try to do, it could mark a real turning point in disciplining human rights inquiries on Israel. Neither side should come out of such an inquiry clean. Exploring the implications of violations by one side for the permissible behavior of the other (in a serious and considered way) could mark a major advance for applied international law. I'm not holding my breath--the record of international inquiries into Israeli behavior is hardly one characterized by fairness and balance--but I have some hope for Goldstone's efforts. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The patent inadequacy of the disclosure amazed me when I first read the piece. I still can't get my head around the notion that The Times editor knew the reality and signed off on the disclosure. Unless--of course--this is the same op-ed editor who signed up William Kristol. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There have been a number of kosher events at the White House, although I'm not sure any took place during Passover. We take pleasure in sharing Seders with non-Jewish friends. Given the centrality of the Exodus story to the experience of blacks in America, this has the potential for being an extraordinary sharing. While one didn't find much notice of this in right wing Jewish circles, candidate Obama repeatedly called for nurturing the frayed Jewish-African American alliance that contributed so powerfully to America's civil rights revolution. He deserves praise for delivering on that commitment, in this and other ways--despite the noxious comments of some of my fellow Jews. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 This is one weird business. But it can be fun, and is almost endlessly adaptable to interpretation (this year, particularly in environmentalist fashion). So I said the prayer--ironically. Not so very different from commemorations of animal sacrifices in Temple days. I keep quiet when the text calls for their restoration. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Re: Jeffrey Goldberg annotations: Truly, I (and sometimes my wife) am the measure of all things. To say that this is a little light on research, and over-heavy on idiosyncratic personal tastes, is the least of it. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 If it is possible, I am more distressed by several of the defenses of Jackie Mason's insensitivity than by the insensitivity itself. Whatever and however the term was used generations back, it has come to be understood--quite widely--as derogatory, and often as racist. We can easily do without it. And its invocation to refer to our first President of African American heritage is contemptible. As the target of racist animus and name calling for many hundreds of years, Jews should be at least minimally sensitive to the impact of such behavior. Mr. Mason, at this late point in his overlong career, may be beyond further redemption in this regard, and little is to be gained by further berating him. I never thought I would say this, but I agree that on this occasion, at least, Al Sharpton showed wise restraint. But others reading this discussion might well reflect on the harms associated with intemperate and demeaning racial sloganeering, and clean up their acts. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 It is increasingly clear that Coleman's efforts are designed less to advance his vanishing prospects for overturning the will of Minnesota's closely-divided electorate, and more to delay the addition of a Democratic vote to the Senate majority. Minnesota's loss of full representation in the Senate at this momentous time in history is apparently collateral damage to Coleman and his Republican operatives. Pretty ironic, given Coleman's self-serving comments in the days immediately following the election, now nearly five months past. In contrast to the chaos and intimidation induced by the shipping of Republican operatives into Miami-Dade in 2000, Minnesota is following an orderly and careful --if agonizingly slow--path in accordance with state law. Far be it from Coleman to show a bit of statesmanship at this preposterously late date. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Tamar, why don't you give it a rest. Virtually every comment you make drips with poison, and suggests anything but ahavat yisrael. Or did they leave that part out in your Jewish education? 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Both the havurah movement and the new independent minyanim respond to this multi-generational "quest for meaning, purpose and connectedness" in Jewish settings, without any diminishment of " ritual behavior and... a sense of responsibility for the Jewish people"--and for all inhabitants of this world. There are powerful opportunities for spiritual fulfillment within the treasures of Jewish tradition, which do not require leaving the community or resorting to purely individual paths. Within Judaism, spirituality can thrive within community, and is consistent with a profound sense of mutual responsibility, support, and friendship. In my four decades of adult Jewish life, I have found it considerably more difficult to satisfy these Jewish (and human) needs within conventional synagogue structures, including those of the Conservative Movement (to which we currently belong in practice, if not fully in ideology). If synagogues and other institutions within the non-Orthodox Jewish world (Orthodoxy has a different set of issues, which preclude my participation) are becoming more attentive to the challenge of addressing the quest for life meaning and purpose in a Jewish context, that is all to the good. For the sake of my Jewish children and hoped-for grandchildren, I hope these efforts succeed, the sooner, the better. And without getting caught up in unnecessary and unproductive denominational rivalries and contention. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 “The suggestion that a Jewish minority living among a West Bank Arab majority is harming peace is false,” he [ZOA's Morton Klein] said. What world does Mr. Klein live in? One can accept differing perspectives on controversial issues, and the complexities of difficult tradeoffs, but this statement is simply delusional. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 What? No Minister for Sandboxes? Talk about a recipe for dysfunctionality. Israel's electoral system must be reformed to limit the influence of tiny and non-representative parties, and to advance the prospects for more coherent governments and policies. Anyone want to join a pool on when the first Minister is indicted for something or other? With so few female Ministers, I fear it will be sexual harassment again, although it is hard to bet against corruption. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The US must work aggressively to restore its credibility and influence in promoting human rights worldwide. We have been through an awful eight years; it is (and should be) no surprise that the Obama Administration seeks to present a new and more cooperative face to the world. While this is certainly a highly imperfect instrument with a terrible record, one has to start somewhere in rebuilding. Perhaps the US can influence things in a positive direction; if not, it's hard to see what is lost in making the attempt--the Council could hardly be more negative toward Israel, and the fact that the US is participating (and voting against stacked resolutions) will not add much to the credibility of the Council or those resolutions. Of course, there may be occasions where particular Israeli measures are appropriately sanctioned, and the US may participate. But the problem there may lie more with aspects of Israeli policy than with American participation. There is little to be accomplished by (being seen to) oppose US participation in international human rights agencies (however imperfect)--at least unless the US can act successfully in concert with many other democratic nations (as perhaps with Darfur II) to delegitimate grossly abusive events. The more general challenge is to help make US participation constructive and properly influential in advancing proper objectives. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Oops--not THAT world to come, but this one! 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 As a one time supporter of day school education outside the Orthodox world, as well as a university professor at a major state university, I see a variety of Jewish undergraduate and professional school students of diverse affiliations and educational backgrounds. While heartened by the Jewish knowledge of graduates of Orthodox and non-Orthodox day schools, I am increasingly troubled by chauvinistic attitudes, and limited awareness of the diversity of non-Jewish life in America, characteristic of some of these students. For black hat Orthodox who at least imagine they will lead insular lives within their communities (few of whom find their way here), that is one thing. But for others, who intend to live full lives as Jews in America, I worry about their relative lack of knowledge of, interest in, and friendships with those of different backgrounds. Somehow, at least for this group, there is an urgent need to find better ways of coupling intense Jewish learning with a broader range of shared experiences with persons of varying religions and ethnicities. Imaginative arrangements involving mixes of private and charter schools or programs within charter schools offer some promise here, which should be explored. This might provide some help in this time of financial stringency, but even more important, it will provide a better and fuller education and set of opportunities critical to life in the America and world to come. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Tamar, you really do take that "conservative" seriously. My guess--and my hope--is that those pressing for more urgent change and rejuvenation are approaching things from a different direction. I do wish more of JTA's coverage would focus more on the substantive questions at issue--perhaps as much institutional as political and ideological--and less on the personalities and politics. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 From what i can tell, Lieberman is a racist who is potentially pragmatic on policy, particularly some of the compromises necessary to a two state solution. Netanyahu, while more careful in his rhetoric (and perhaps less extreme in his views on Arabs), is likely more hard line in his responses to critical negotiating issues, and that will become increasingly clear if he leads or plays a decisive role in Israel's next government. The one reason Nathan Diamont probably has for preferring Netanyahu is Lieberman's opposition to the stranglehold the ultraOrthodox rabbinate has on Israeli daily life, while Netanyahu is shameless in his dealmaking with the religious parties to secure and hold on to power. Neither Diamont nor Netanyahu makes much of a case for what "new strategies and tactics" are likely to be (talk about recycling--focusing solely on economic advancement in the territories harks back to failed policies of the decade following the 1967 war!), or why they are likely to work. For all the discussion about the failures of the Oslo process, too little attention is paid to the devastating impact of the bullet of the assassin of peace--a Jewish religious extremist. We really cannot know what might have been accomplished under the leadership of a changed Yitzhak Rabin, who coupled military and political credibility with a real desire to reach a peaceful solution. As so often in the Middle East, extremist violence (which emanates from both sides) defeated the wishes of a majority of Jews and Arabs seeking more normal and peaceful lives. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Please spell the man's name correctly: it is G-A-N-D-H-I. I do wonder where we would be if the Palestinians took up non-violent civil disobedience yeears ago. Of course, in one of his more ill-advised moments, Gandhi urged Jews to use such tactics against Hitler. Non-starter, to say the least. I would like to believe Israeli Jews would have come to tolerable terms with Palestinians using non-violent means to achieve mutual national recognition. But that may not be the Middle East. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Oy! That such an explanation is even necessary in the circumstances of contemporary America. Refusal to participate in discussions with members, or leaders, of other faiths also strikes me as a dubious point of pride in the contemporary world, bespeaking a shocking lack of confidence in the strength of our own faith, and in the proposition that different communities might find different, but worthy paths to a common God. We no longer live in the medieval world. It is time to incorporate the lessons of our historic experience with democracy and pluralism, both within and without the Jewish world. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 What? No complaints from the Europeans about lack of proportionality? Quel horreur! 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 These are appropriate initial objectives, and I wish Mitchell success in achieving them. Perhaps along the way he will gather some ideas on how best to pursue longer term objectives in the very messy realities of Palestinian internecine struggles and broader Middle East politics. Perhaps neighboring Arab states can be induced to use their influence, and funds, to press the varying Palestinian factions toward the compromises requisite for a manageable two state solution, as The West moves Israel to overcome some of its own internal strife toward the same end. We cannot allow the extremists on both sides to retain veto power over any prospect for settlement on decent, livable terms. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Tamarah's equation of Muslims with terrorists is disgusting, and her apparent assumption that first amendment rights apply only to those she agrees with is, not to speak of her other rhetoric, is repellent. A core requirement of democracy--and perhaps of civilization more generally--is to move beyond such narrowly tribal allegiances, and to listen with some degree of openness and mutual respect to views of others with differing perspectives. I carry no water for Hamas--I find their views and methods despicable, and cannot imagine that many of their liberal Western supporters would care to live under their dominion for even a day. Given all the asymmetries in the Israel/ Palestine conflict, and Hamas' mode of terrorizing Israeli civilians while using innocent Palestinians as human shields, Israel has a very difficult challenge in dealing with them. But as my Bible teaches, humans--including Arabs and Muslims--are created in the divine image, and we are all diminished by the loss of innocent life--even those of our adversaries. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Klein is quite right that in principle, Jews should be able to live in the West Bank, as Arabs live in the Galilee, and Haifa, and elsewhere in israel. That is, subject to the laws and sovereignty of the majority government in the area in which they live. I see no principled reason why Jews could or should not be citizens of a Palestinian State, to be treated fully as equally as non-Jews are in Israel. Of course, certain subsidies, privileges, and special protections might no longer be available, and qualities of good neighborliness (and compliance with law) might be expected. Perhaps that is not quite what Mr. Klein has in mind. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The Church under its recent leadership is marching resolutely onward into the thirteenth century (give or take a couple of hundred years). Many, if not most, of its progressive tendencies (not limited to those of narrow Jewish interest) have been jetisoned in the years since the momentous events of Vatican II, and scholars of integrity and independent thought (except on the extreme right) have been marginalized, or worse. Loyalty to the hierarchy is replacing competence and compassion as the criterion for advancement within the hierarchy. Perhaps it is time for a comprehensive rethinking and debate of whether and how the Jewish community--especially in North America--wishes to relate to the Church under current conditions. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Maybe Lauder can get the WJC to become more "green conscious" by stopping their ridiculously overpackaged (and probably non-recyclable) fund raising mailings including cheap non-functional pens. There seems to be no way to get off their distribution list, either. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 There are nuanced differences among the statements by the different groups, which are not captured by this summary article. Several, if not all, of the groups have made prior statements critical of Hamas in the past, although they tend not to get much attention in calmer times; in addition, the current set of statements do address (some better than others) the need for actions on both sides. Some of the statements are less sophisticated than others in grasping the complexities and difficulties of trying to deal with Hamas (even if peace or a better managed conflict require negotiations, the use of force is sometimes, regrettably, necessary to create the basis for productive talks, whether direct or indirect). There are also complex ties between the use of force (or failure to respond to violence emanating from Gaza) and the resolution of political conflicts within and among the parties (Israeli elections, Palestinian elections, conflicts between Fatah and Hamas). There are also issues of deterrence, involving Iran, Hizbollah, and others. This is not a time for simplistic sloganeering, in one direction or the other. One hopes Israel will have made its point relatively quickly, and the prospects for a sustainable ceasefire and progress toward more productive talks will improve soon. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Sicko. Why give them the attention? 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 As an academic, I have been privy to increasing signs of anti-Semitism (usually of a relatively "genteel" rather than eliminationist variety), as well as troublingly unbalanced comments about Israeli policies and, sometimes, the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. My head is not in the sand, and I think the post-WWII taboo on expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment in polite society has largely run its course. But if we are contemplating likely victims of economic and perhaps political turmoil on the European continent, I think the likely victims are far more likely to be Muslims than Jews (except, perhaps, with respect to violent outbreaks among Muslims themselves). While Jews and Muslims will have our differences around matters of Middle East politics, I hope Jews will be in the forefront of European movements resisting any racial or ethnic manifestations of prejudice, discrimination, dehumanization, and victimization, and find common cause with sensible leaders of the Muslim communities of Europe. 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 As a 50-something longtime member of the havurah community, I welcome this new renaissance of independent minyanim, and the opportunity they provide for leadership and creative expression by young persons too often marginalized in more conventional parts of the American Jewish Establishment. The national havurah movement has made a committed effort to open up room for leadership for our younger members, and we have found, to our delight, that this new generation responds with energy, creativity and responsibility. We are all the better for it. I would quibble with one element of your story, in which you refer to these minyanim as "rabbi-less". That requires clarification; in a sense, some of these communities are rabbi-full. Many of these communities include persons--sometimes many of them--ordained as rabbis, as well as others with considerable Jewish knowledge. The difference is that these rabbis do not serve as priests or designated Jews; they, like others, are equal participants in their communities, giving of their knowledge and liturgical skills while learning from others, without the rigid roles and status differentiations characteristic of many more conventional Jewish religious communities. As the havurah community has learned over the past 40 years, this can take some effort and planning, but it works. Alan J. Weisbard (The Wise Bard) 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Brooks and the RJC have shamed themselves and will rightly harvest the bitter fruits of their despicable smear campaign. They deserve a term in the wilderness, and should not return to the scene until they are able to engage in civil and constructive discourse. Judging from Mr. Brooks' post-election statements and degree of self-deception (his success in deceiving others is clearly minimal), that is likely to take some time. Serious atonement is in order. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Agriprocessors does not deserve to survive. It has been a continuing source of shame to the Jewish world. May those responsible be held to account by the civil authorities, since unfortunately the powers that be in the Orthodox world have largely abdicated their responsibilities. One may hope that more responsible producers in the kosher food world will step forward (perhaps purchasing the facilities left barren by Agriprocessors) to restore production to necessary levels while adhering to legal requirements and ethical standards of the sort proposed by the hekhsher tzedek initiative. And I agree that it would not be a tragedy for those affected to move to a less meat-centric diet, which would benefit both personal health and the health of the planet. --The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 The Republicans are without shame--they couldn't end their despicable campaign without bringing back Jeremiah Wright and stuff like this. Meanwhile, perhaps Rep. Nadler can join Sen. Biden for a term in re-education camp, and perhaps get his jaw wired. What is it with these over-voluble politicians--not every passing thought needs to be verbalized, especially given the likelihood that such pearls will be preserved for posterity.--The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00 Jews should denounce this latest slur on both Sen. Obama and Prof. Khalidi. One does not need to agree with all of Khalidi's views to recognize that any sustainable settlement between Israelis and Palestinians will require the support--and perhaps the participation--of thoughtful Palestinian moderates. Prof. Khalidi has shown courage and foresight in his denunciations of Palestinian violence against civilians and corruption. It is a good thing that Sen. Obama is open to talks with persons of diverse views on contentious and difficult issues. The gross pandering of McCain and Palin on issues like this should be a source of embarrassment to the Jewish community. Do thhey really think we are that shallow, and that stupid?--The Wise Bard 2009-11-20T;16:30:00-05:00