fbpx

October 26, 2010

Messianic building won’t serve as polling place

A polling place at a messianic Christian center in New York was changed after Orthodox Jewish voters protested.

Jewish voters complained to the city’s Board of Elections after the Life in Messiah evangelical group’s building was announced as a polling place for four election districts from Midwood in Brooklyn, according to the New York Daily News. The voters said their strict adherence to Jewish law would not allow them to enter the building.

Life in Messiah requested after the outcry that its building not be used.

“We have a deep love and respect for our Jewish neighbors,” said its development officer, Marilyn Miller. “We understand that coming into a messianic center might be uncomfortable for some. … The right to vote is a valued freedom, one we do not wish to hinder in any way.”

The polling place was switched to a nearby public school, which is not handicapped accessible, according to the newspaper.

A religious facility may serve as a polling place.

Messianic building won’t serve as polling place Read More »

The super-sexy Glee photos and why they’re really offensive

In this month’s GQ magazine, there is a racy photo spread featuring the stars of ‘Glee’ by lecherous fashion photographer Terry Richardson. The two actresses who were photographed, Lea Michele and Dianna Agron are both Jewish, and seem to be having a grand ole time flaunting their fortunate Hebraic genes all around the school locker room.

Because the actresses play high school students on TV (in real life, they are 24), the photos have sparked moral outrage. High school students, the thinking goes, shouldn’t seductively suck lollipops or expose hints of thigh usually covered by underwear elastic. The photos are not beautiful, or even all that interesting. There are probably 8 zillion more glamorous poses they could have struck, but GQ wanted sleazy and sleazy is what they delivered.

Agron, who plays Quinn Fabray on “Glee” took to her blog to clear her conscience. She wrote:

In the land of Madonna, Britney, Miley, Gossip Girl, other public figures and shows that have pushed the envelope and challenged the levels of comfort in their viewers and fans…we are not the first. Now, in perpetuating the type of images that evoke these kind of emotions, I am sorry. If you are hurt or these photos make you uncomfortable, it was never our intention.

Agron added that she grew up “very sheltered” and unaware of “anything provocative or risque in the media”, explaining, “[w]hen I was finally allowed to watch a movie like Grease, I did not even understand what on earth Rizzo was talking about!?” Agron said she understood that young children with internet access might stumble upon these photos but that “there are parental locks” that can help shield young eyes from such scandalous sights.

“I am twenty-four years old,” she wrote. “I have been a pretty tame and easy-going girl my whole life. Nobody is perfect, and these photos do not represent who I am.”

But that’s where Agron is wrong.

The photos are tasteless, yes, but not because they’re inappropriate. Let’s face it Parents Television Council, high school students do worse things than feign fellatio on lollipops. The photos are problematic because they conjure hyper-sexualized images of teenage girls. And they don’t just represent Agron, they represent all high school-aged girls, and ultimately, women. I don’t see Cory Monteith having to run around in his thigh-highs.

When Agron suggests the photos are merely edgy, she’s missing the point. What Britney and Miley were doing was not “pushing the envelope”; they were sucked into a culture that hyper-sexualizes females starting from a very young age. And as long as teenagers feel they have to do that and look like that to be attractive—or really, accepted—no woman is safe.

When I asked the iconic feminist Gloria Steinem last Spring if it bothered her that her beauty has played a role in her success—after all, her breakthrough journalism story required her to go undercover as a Playboy bunny—she said, “The basic problem is that women are assessed by how we look. The problem for all women is we’re identified by how we look instead of by our heads and our hearts.” In other words, how women appear is still, unfortunately, more important and certainly more powerful than what women do. So if two successful actresses don’t have the gall to tell a men’s magazine “no”—how can society expect high school girls to do any differently? Give them what they want, right?

Only, there’s a lot more at stake when you’re 15, and you don’t know who you are, and all you want in the world is to be acknowledged. It isn’t playful in high school; it isn’t theatrical. It’s real.

The super-sexy Glee photos and why they’re really offensive Read More »

Football, Sex, and the Jews

A couple of Sundays ago, our 9 year old was watching a football game on TV. Seemed like a reasonable activity in between several things that had been scheduled for the day. I sat down next to him, and within minutes was confronting a “parenting moment”. The first beer commercial after the time-out went straight to the edge of the legal limit, in targeting the libido in order to sell its product. It was all at the family-friendly hour of 11 in the morning (Pacific Time) on network TV, as a father and son were bonding over a ballgame. Shoot.

It’s not like I don’t live in the world.  Or that I believe that my kids never see billboards, or magazine covers in the checkout line. But those are “out there” in the world that our kids already know is a mixed moral bag. But the commercial was “in here”, in the sanctuary of our Jewish home, the place where we still insist on the difference between “appropriate” and “inappropriate” words and images. 

Of course you and I can complain from today till tomorrow, but nobody at the NFL, Budweiser, or Fox is interested in hearing it. We know it’s our own job to talk with our kids about this. And you’d think that it actually shouldn’t be too hard for us. After all, we go all the back to Leviticus in abhorring promiscuity, and our traditional Jewish literature extols the virtue of modesty all over the place. In theory, we have all the right language and religious/moral categories to carry on the conversation. Yet in practice, we struggle, procrastinate, and sometimes just can’t figure out how to have the conversation at all. After all, it’s not as if we believe that sex is dirty, or that beauty isn’t part of God’s creation (with apologies to the closing verses of Eshet Chayil). The conversation is nuanced, which is to say, difficult.

And unfortunately, we’ve compounded our problem by absolutely murdering the one value-word that we always do seem to have at the ready. “Tzniut” (modesty) is the word we instinctively want to say, but we’ve tragically succeeded in emptying the term of any value content at all. It’s become an adjective – strange all by itself, since it’s actually a noun – with which to describe the length of a sleeve or the height of a neckline (and confined only to discussion of women’s apparel, never men’s). The term is equal in actual moral content to the word “k’zayit” (the “olive-size” minimum amount of matza that one must eat at the Seder). To battle the NFL et. al. we need to be deploy a different religious vocabulary, reviving the use of solid, traditional terms like human dignity (“kavod habriyot”) and image of God (“tzelem Elokim”). With these, we can initiate and frame a discussion that truly captures our religious ethic, one that truly addresses what’s wrong with that beer commercial and the value system it’s built upon. And as an added bonus, if we leave “tzniut” alone for a while, the next generation will be able to reclaim it for the powerful religious word that it is.

Football, Sex, and the Jews Read More »

Plenty of Jews on board California’s bid to legalize marijuana

Ed Rosenthal has been working to legalize marijuana in California since he moved to the state in 1972.

Vindication may finally be at hand for the Bronx-born former yippie.

On Nov. 2, California voters will consider Proposition 19, a ballot initiative to legalize the cultivation and possession of small amounts of marijuana for recreational use, and empower local governments to regulate and tax its sale.

Medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996, and is legal now in 13 other states and the District of Columbia. But if Prop 19 passes—recent polls show opposition and support running neck and neck—California will become the first state to legalize pot for general use.

Plenty of Jews are throwing their weight behind the initiative.

“This has been a long time coming,” said Rosenthal, 66, a a longtime marijuana activist and the author of books on everything from growing the herb to avoiding jail time.

Rosenthal, a columnist for High Times magazine, is sitting in his office—a small, cluttered room in the Oakland home he shares with wife, Jane Klein. An ashtray on the desk is filled with roaches, and a lifetime achievement award for his drug policy reform work hangs on the back wall.

He makes no secret of his own marijuana use, saying that he smokes it, drinks it, eats it and puts drops of it under his tongue. Rosenthal no longer grows the stuff, however, acting now as a consultant, developer of a new herbicide and an organic pesticide, and executive director of Green Aid, a medical marijuana legal defense and education fund.

“Jews have a special affinity to marijuana,” he mused. “It’s an intellectual drug, not a drug that takes you outside your senses like alcohol or opiates. And a lot of marijuana research comes out of Israel.”

THC, the active hallucinogenic ingredient in cannabis, was first isolated in 1964 by Raphael Mechoulam, now a professor of medicinal chemistry at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University. Other studies of the drug’s effect have been conducted at Israeli institutions.

“A lot of my parents’ friends in Boca Raton use it,” chimed in Klein,  an active member of Oakland’s Temple Sinai. “My aunt’s husband was diagnosed with liver cancer. I gave [pot] to her and said this isn’t just for him for after the chemo, it’s for you because you’re going through stress. She’s in her 80s, and it gave her back her appetite.”

Even if Prop 19 passes, Rosenthal points out, marijuana is still illegal under federal law, putting those who wish to grow, sell or possess it at risk of federal prosecution. That’s the case in states such as California where marijuana is legal for medical use.

In 2002, federal agents arrested Rosenthal in Oakland even though he had been deputized by the city government to grow marijuana for medical use. He was convicted the next year by a jury that was not told of his connection to the city—an omission that later caused many of the jurors to denounce their own verdicts. A sympathetic judge sentenced him to one day in prison, time served.

In February 2003, a group of supporters from Congregation Beth Am in Los Altos, a Silicon Valley Reform synagogue, handed out “Ed Rosenthal—Hero” buttons to delegates at the Reform movement’s West Coast regional biennial.

The campaign was organized by policy analyst Jane Marcus, who headed the congregation’s Medical Marijuana as Mitzvah project, itself launched to support medical marijuana on the grounds of Jewish values of social justice and compassion for the sick.

Jewish institutional support for legalizing marijuana has been spotty and limited to tentative support for its medicinal use.

In 1999, Women for Reform Judaism passed a resolution calling for greater research into its pain-relief properties, and urging the U.S. Congress to permit physicians to prescribe it for critically ill patients. A similar resolution was passed by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Reform rabbinical association, in 2001.

In 2003, the Union for Reform Judaism passed a “resolution on the medicinal use of marijuana” urging federal legislation to permit the drug’s medicinal use under a physician’s supervision, and calling upon Reform congregations to advocate for such legalization at the local, state and federal levels. The Reform movement thus became the first religious body to call for such legalization, followed soon by the Presbyterians.

No other Jewish denomination has come out publicly for or against marijuana’s legalization. No Jewish institutions, including any Reform bodies, support Prop 19.

But individual Jews have been vocal in their support , including mega-philanthropist Edgar Bronfman, who penned an Oct. 20 editorial for the San Jose Mercury News urging its passage on the same grounds that Prohibition was repealed 77 years ago.

“Prohibitions of widely desired products or services don’t work,” he wrote, adding that taxing and regulating marijuana along the lines of alcohol will fund badly needed social services, free up the jails and court system, and bring rationality to an argument that is often anything but.

A state report values California’s marijuana crop at $14 billion annually.

Marcus, who is on the board of Women for Reform Judaism and a member of the URJ’s Commission on Social Action, last week sent a letter in support of Prop 19 to all the Reform congregations in the state.

Noting that she was “speaking as an individual,” she urged Jews to vote yes on Prop 19 in the name of social and racial justice (a preponderance of those arrested for drug use are non-white), compassion for the ill, social and financial stability (taking a multibillion-dollar crop out of the hands of drug cartels and taxing it for the country’s benefit), and general good sense.

“I keep going back to the issue of Jewish values,” Marcus told JTA. “The Just Say No generation didn’t allow us to be honest with our kids about the relative dangers of alcohol versus marijuana. Our country’s drug policy is wrong—addiction should be treated medically, as an illness.”

Ethan Nadelmann is executive director of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance, a nonprofit he founded in 1994 that supports legalization and regulation of marijuana, among other drug policy reform issues. He was in California last week stumping at a San Francisco Reform synagogue on behalf of Prop 19, as well as taking part in a conference call with the leadership of the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center.

“Is this good for the Jews?” he asked JTA, speaking rhetorically. “It’s good for individual values and social justice, so yes, it’s good for the Jews. The alternative—the war on drugs—is grounded in ignorance, fear, prejudice and profit, values one would like to believe are [anathema] to Jews.”

Jews have always been involved in social justice work, Nadelmann points out, and drug policy reform “is the cutting-edge social justice issue of the day.”

Even so, he adds, whereas Jews constituted the bulk of his staff and supporters a decade ago, more and more African Americans, Latinos and GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) activists now fill those ranks.

“To a certain extent, gays are the new Jews in drug policy reform,” Nadelmann said, noting that those who cut their political teeth in the AIDS battle are now turning to marijuana legalization as another issue affecting their community. “I’m struck by the number of GLBT activists involved in my organization and among my funders.”

Opponents of Prop 19, who include most key elected officials in the state, police associations and seated district attorneys, call it deeply flawed and chaotic. They say that because regulation and taxation is left to local governments, wildly different situations could exist city by city. Drug-free workplaces could no longer be enforced, the opponents say, and while lighting up behind the wheel would be forbidden, lack of enforcement mechanisms in the bill means that drivers who are already high could operate moving vehicles such as school buses or delivery trucks.

Prop 19 foes also fear that greater availability will lead to more users, leading to health problems and a greater number of regular users of the drug.

But even if the initiative does not pass, Nadelmann, Marcus and Rosenthal believe its political impact already has been felt.

“It’s changed the conversation,” said Marcus. “It’s not a question anymore of whether it will pass but when.”

What will Rosenthal do then? He looks up with a sly grin.

“Well, I moved here 38 years ago for Prop 19,” he said. “If it passes, my work here is done. I’ll probably go back to the Lower East Side. Or maybe Williamsburg.”

Plenty of Jews on board California’s bid to legalize marijuana Read More »

Just knock it off

From NYTimes.com:

Some of Israel’s worst critics are fond of saying that Israel behaves like America’s spoiled child. I’ve always found that analogy excessive. Say what you want about Israel’s obstinacy at times, it remains the only country in the United Nations that another U.N. member, Iran, has openly expressed the hope that it be wiped off the map. And that same country, Iran, is trying to build a nuclear weapon. Israel is the only country I know of in the Middle East that has unilaterally withdrawn from territory conquered in war — in Lebanon and Gaza — only to be greeted with unprovoked rocket attacks in return. Indeed, if you want to talk about spoiled children, there is no group more spoiled by Iran and Syria than Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite militia. Hezbollah started a war against Israel in 2006 that brought death, injury and destruction to thousands of Lebanese — and Hezbollah’s punishment was to be rewarded with thousands more missiles and millions more dollars to do it again. These are stubborn facts.

And here’s another stubborn fact: Israel today really is behaving like a spoiled child.

Please spare me the nonsense that President Obama is anti-Israel. At a time when the president has made it one of his top priorities to build a global coalition to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon, he took the very logical view that if he could advance the peace process in the Middle East it would give him much greater leverage to get the Europeans and U.N. behind tougher sanctions on Iran. At the same time, Obama believed — what a majority of Israelis believe — that Israel can’t remain a Jewish democracy in the long run if it continues to control 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank.

Read more at NYTimes.com.

Just knock it off Read More »

Rattling the cage

Next Tuesday, a uniquely deranged political party is going to take over the most powerful country on earth.

The key word here is “unique.” The Republican Party in 2010 is the only major political party in the Western world, the only one shooting for national leadership, that has been supercharged by crackpots with crackpot ideas – i.e. Tea Partiers, the generic name for America’s xenophobic, libertarian, right-wing Christian conspiracy freaks. There are lunatic fringe movements all over, but only in the US is there a major party, a governing party, of this nature. And in Tuesday’s congressional elections, this unique modern political phenomenon, the 2010 Republican Party, is going to neutralize a sane, moderate president and “take back America.” 

This is not entertainment; this is serious.

Where besides America is there a Sarah Palin – a defiant ignoramus with so much political power and influence, with such a good chance of becoming head of state?

Where is there an equivalent to Glenn Beck, a multimedia force who brainwashes millions every day into believing they’re under the heel of totalitarian dictators, of Bolsheviks, of Nazis? 

Where else is there a Fox News, a top-rated “news” program that shills for the right,  that describes a high-five between Barack and Michelle Obama as a “terrorist fist-bump,” that asks about the president, “Do we know he wasn’t a drug-dealer?” – and that gives a platform to a grinning, teary-eyed demagogue like Beck?

In what other country can a movement like the Tea Party, which idolizes Palin, Beck and Fox, radicalize a major party and steer it to the brink of a historic electoral upheaval?

This is unique.

Yet another fun fact about the GOP (Grand Old Psychos) is that while the whole world has been burning up and drying up, while everyone except a few eccentrics now understands that global warming is real and mankind has to change or we’re going to die a horrible death, the Republicans say this is all a hoax. This is just “the man-caused climate change mantra of the left,” to quote Sharron Angle, who is expected to unseat Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, leader of the Senate.

Find me another major political party anywhere that says manmade global warming is a myth. Find me one prominent center of scientific research where such a view is taken seriously. There is, in fact, a debate going on over global warming, and it’s between scientists and Republicans. This would be entertaining, except America’s involvement, and probably its leadership, is needed to save the earth, and America is about to be taken over by the criminally insane.

When boiling waves are rising over the Capitol building, the Republicans, with their dying breaths, will be shouting, “It’s all – glub, glub, glub – Al Gore’s fault! – glub, glub, glub, glub, glub…”

It’s very strange to remember that two years ago, the symbol of everything wrong with the GOP was George W. Bush. Today, Bush seems to be the most sober, judicious statesman compared to this new generation of Republicans. Next to Palin, Newt Gingrich and some of these people coming into Congress, Bush was Adlai Stevenson.

It amazes me how gullible American voters are. Some “outsider,” or insider pretending to be an outsider, gets up and says, “I hate politicians, I hate Washington – vote for me for Senator.”  And they do!

The insurgents are raging against socialism, against big government, against taxes, against regulation – you’d think it was 1980, you’d think the Reagan Revolution had never happened.  You wouldn’t know that even a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, announced nearly 20 years ago that “the era of big government is over.”

These people do make one good point – Obama is cranking up ridiculous, dangerous deficits. But he also inherited a huge deficit from Bush, while Bush, by the starkest contrast, inherited a tremendous surplus from Clinton, then spent it all and much, much more on tax cuts and two wars, which left Obama with a country deep in the hole. If deficits were the Tea Partiers’ beef, why didn’t they rise up during the last administration instead of this one?

No, this is not about deficits. This is about that weird old cowboy, survivalist, paranoid, angry white streak in American politics, and it’s coming out now because of economic hard times, and because the man in the White House is personally too alien and politically too liberal for Middle America.

You don’t have to be paranoid to think Obama’s a bad president; there are plenty of rational claims to be made against him from right, left or center. But the alternative to him and the Democrats – the Tea Party GOP; rabid radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh (who calls the president “Imam Hussein Obama”); countless conspiracy-fixated bloggers; Gingrich, Palin and Beck – these people aren’t rational. These people are nuts. There’s no grand-scale political movement on earth remotely like theirs. And it appears that on Tuesday, they’re taking over.

I used to dread the idea that China would one day replace America as the world’s most powerful nation. Now, the way things are going, I think I’d be relieved.

Rattling the cage Read More »

EU: Iran nuclear talks ‘not serious’

Iran’s failure to engage in “serious” international talks on its nuclear programme “is frankly ridiculous,” a senior European Union official complained on Tuesday, as the bloc
was waiting for Tehran’s response on its latest offer of dialogue.

The EU’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, has proposed that talks between Iran and the 5+1 group – comprising the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Germany – resume November 15-17 in Vienna.

“It is now more than a year since there was any serious conversation with the Iranians, and that is frankly ridiculous and leads to a good deal of frustration on our part,” the EU source pointed out.

“I know this is shared by the Russians and the Chinese,” the official added.

Earlier on Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast had said that no decision had yet been taken on attending the talks proposed by Ashton.

Read more at HAARETZ.com.

EU: Iran nuclear talks ‘not serious’ Read More »

Palestinian gambit for statehood puts Israel against wall

With talks at a stalemate and no agreement from the Israelis to reinstate a settlement freeze, the Palestinians are playing a new card: an end game to statehood through an appeal to the international community.

The card hasn’t actually been played, but the mere threat that the Palestinians would push for international recognition of a state from the United Nations has been enough to push the Israeli government to reconsider options to return to the negotiating table.

On Sunday, partly to pre-empt a Palestinian move toward statehood that would bypass negotiations with Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he is working intensively with the Obama administration on a formula to restart the stalled peace process.

“We are in close contact with the American administration with the aim of restarting the peace process,” Netanyahu said at his weekly Cabinet meeting. “Our aim is not only to renew the process, but to renew it in such a way that it won’t collapse in a few weeks or in two months, but that we will go into a full year of serious negotiations on the core issues in an effort to reach a framework agreement on the way to a peace deal.

“Any attempt by the Palestinians to circumvent this process by going to international organizations,” he said, “is not realistic, and will not in any way advance a genuine peace process.”

Israeli, Palestinian and U.S. leaders all say publicly that a negotiated peace deal is much preferred to unilateral steps that could spark a sharp response from the other side. But the Palestinians warn that if the direct peace talks remain on hold, they will consider approaching international bodies for recognition of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders with eastern Jerusalem as its capital.

It isn’t clear whether this is merely a tactic to frighten Israel back to the peace table—talks that were renewed in early September broke down four weeks later over Israel’s refusal to extend a building freeze in the West Bank—or part of a new strategy aimed at achieving a better deal for the Palestinians through the international community.

Either way, given Israel’s precarious position on the international stage and the lack of international support for its West Bank settlement construction policy, the Palestinian threat carries weight and is being taken very seriously in Jerusalem.

Much depends on the American stand, which gives the Obama administration added leverage over Israel.

The new Palestinian thinking has been evolving over the past few years and is based on two key principles: winning enhanced international support for Palestinian goals and, in parallel, building the institutions of a functioning Palestinian state from the bottom up.

The idea is that if the American-mediated peace process with Israel proves fruitless, the Palestinians can invoke Plan B: Gaining the world’s approval for an already functioning Palestinian state, on conditions favorable to the Palestinians, at a time of their choosing.

With Palestinian confidence in the Israeli government on the wane and Israel’s international standing in decline, Plan B has emerged as a genuine threat to Israel.

Last week, the Palestinians made their first significant move for recognition as a state by approaching the International Criminal Court at The Hague to urge recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the equivalent of a full-fledged state government. That designation would enable the Palestinian Authority to press war crimes charges against Israel for its conduct in the 2008-09 Gaza War because only states have standing before the court.

Recognition of the Palestinian Authority by the international court not only would open a crack for the possible prosecution of Israeli civilian and military leaders, it also would hand the Palestinians a major PR victory in their quest for internationally recognized statehood. The Palestinians would be able to cite the court’s recognition as legal backing for their case for a state.

Last week the court’s prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, heard arguments from legal experts, backed up by nongovernmental organizations, from both sides. The Israeli side argued that the Palestinian Authority is not a state and therefore cannot claim standing before the court, and that in any event, the court is not empowered to prosecute a state like Israel, which has effective and credible legal mechanisms for dealing with suspected war crimes.

A decision is not expected for several weeks.

If the Palestinians do press ahead in earnest with Plan B, the United Nations will be the main battleground. Given the certain backing for a Palestinian state by the non-aligned and Muslim states, the Palestinians easily would be able to secure a majority in the General Assembly—the same body that granted Israel international recognition in November 1947 by a vote of 33 to 13.

But the Palestinians want more than mere recognition: They want a binding allocation of territory based on the 1967 borders. For that they will likely seek a resolution from the U.N. Security Council, whose votes are binding. Such an effort likely would be blocked by the United States, which has veto power in that body. Therefore, for such a gambit to work, it would need to have the backing of the Obama administration. That’s unlikely.

In the run-up to a crucial Arab League meeting in early November that will discuss the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has been canvassing Arab leaders on his U.N. strategy.

The Palestinians see an important convergence in early November of key events for the future of the peace process: the Arab League meeting and the U.S. midterm elections. They believe that after the midterm elections, President Obama will have a freer hand to deal with Israel and will press Israel to return to the negotiating table on the Palestinians’ terms to head off any U.N. strategy.

For Israel this constitutes a major headache. The Netanyahu government fears that many countries, including the Europeans, would go along with the Palestinians and recognize a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 border between Israel and Jordan.

If Israel remains in control of large swaths of the West Bank after a Palestinian state is declared and recognized, even if it’s just in the General Assembly, it would further sink Israel’s international reputation and provide additional fodder for the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

“The Palestinians will declare a state. Virtually the whole world will recognize it. And we will be left without security arrangements,” Israeli Trade and Industry Minister Benjamin Ben Eliezer said Monday.

Israel’s response to the challenge has been a combination of defiance and diplomacy.

“Like Ben-Gurion, Netanyahu will not allow the United Nations, or any other organization, to dictate our borders,” Israel’s U.S. ambassador, Michael Oren, said last Friday. “They will be determined through negotiations.”

Privately, some Israeli Cabinet ministers have been proposing unilateral Israeli responses, such as Israeli annexation of a significant part of the West Bank or redeploying inside the large settlement blocs to create a de facto border along Israeli terms.

Behind the scenes, Israeli diplomats have been warning their colleagues in Washington and Europe that if the Palestinians act on the U.N. strategy, the current peace process, and the Oslo process on which it is based, would be over.

For now, however, Israel is focusing its efforts on putting direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks back on track and undercutting the Palestinians’ U.N. strategy. Netanyahu’s special envoy, Yitzhak Molcho, is in Washington this week working with his American counterparts on the details.

“Peace will only be achieved through direct negotiations,” Netanyahu said Sunday, “and I hope we will return to this avenue in full force very soon.”

Palestinian gambit for statehood puts Israel against wall Read More »

Change and Our Path

Relentless change whittles away at our egos, and it’s painful. But less ego, means more room for our essence. With the ego tempered more of our soul can shine through. And our souls are what we need. It is our soul that allows us to be really happy, successful, and prosperous. It may be on a path that is different to our ego’s path, but that’s okay because it would be our true path. And that’s the only path we want to be on, for as we know, life is all about the journey…

Change and Our Path Read More »

We, The People

This is the third piece of a weekly series in which the Progressive Jewish Alliance looks at the propositions on this year’s California ballot in light of the weekly Torah portion.

We, the people of California, are dizzy with déjà vu.  Each year, our state government passes a budget that cuts public spending and gives tax breaks to corporations.  Each year, polls such as the recent study by the Pew Center on the States, reveal that a majority of Californians would approve increased taxes if the money was used efficiently to bolster education, health and human services.  A related poll by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that voters also believe corporations do not pay their fair share.  Yet, each year we end up with a budget that drastically cuts public spending and that holds taxes neutral or decreases them. 

Why can’t the people of California get what we want?

Every year, the majority of legislators submit thoughtful proposals that balance public services with fair contributions – that is, taxes – from people and businesses that can afford them.  Every year, a minority of legislators holds up the process and extracts concessions from public services and reduces the percentage of profits that their corporate sponsors must contribute.  This is because, when it comes to the California budget, a two-thirds rather than a simple majority vote is needed.

This brings us to this week’s Torah portion, Va’eira.  Va’eira recounts the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which is best known for how it is mistakenly cited, as a condemnation of homosexuality.  Its true relevance lies in its condemnation of selfishness.  Jewish commentators observe:  “Some say, ‘Mine is mine and yours is yours.’  This is an ordinary trait.  But some say, this is a trait of Sodom.” (Pirkei Avot 5:12.)  “Pride, fullness of bread, and careless ease was in her… neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy (Ezek. XVI, 49),” teaches Rabbi Eleazer in Midrash Rabah.  These cities sought to bar travel through their land and thereby avoid sharing their wealth with the less fortunate.  (Sanhedrin 109a.)  As an allegory for modern times, this story teaches us that a society without social solidarity destroys itself.

We are reminded of these texts now, as our state faces a grave crisis and, with the election, gives us a chance to take some steps toward repair.  This year, in California, we have a chance to change the way our budget is decided.

Proposition 25 would allow the state budget to be passed by a simple majority of both houses of the legislature instead of the two-thirds vote that is now required.  In addition, the measure requires the permanent forfeiture of all legislator salaries and living expenses for every day the budget is overdue.  Right now, those payments are merely suspended until the budget passes. 

Proposition 26, on the other hand, would amend California’s Constitution so that certain regulatory fees would be redefined as taxes.  This means that changes to those fees would require approval by a two-thirds supermajority either in the legislature or through the ballot box.  Government pays for important programs like state parks, health inspections, recycling, and roads for new subdivisions.  As private citizens and business people, we pay these fees when we enter a state park, own a restaurant, buy a beverage or develop real estate.  Other fees help clean up oil spills or offset the adverse affects of tobacco use.  Repeal of these fees would cost $1 billion a year.

From the Talmud, we learn that, in Sodom: “A certain maiden gave some bread to a poor man, [hiding it] in a pitcher. When the matter became known, they daubed her with honey and placed her on the parapet of the wall, and the bees came and consumed her.”  (Sanhedrin 109b.)  As our rabbis teach, that was the last straw for God.  That was why Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Propositions 25 and 26 force us to face serious questions about how we, the people of California, think our state should be run, about what are value are: 

Are we willing to change the rules of the game?  Are we willing to stop demanding sacrifices from the public and those who serve her without appropriate sacrifices from the corporations that continue to reap record profits during this recession?  Are we willing force a more balanced and ethical approach to our budget?

If the answer is yes, we must pass Prop 25 and reject Prop 26.

We, The People Read More »