fbpx

February 24, 2013

February 24, 2013

The US

Headline: Kerry makes first foreign trip as top U.S. diplomat

To Read:  According to Gil Troy 'Anti-Israel' is not a term that should be used in the Hagel discussion-

As preparations for Barack Obama’s first presidential visit to Israel proceed, we need some conceptual, and linguistic groundwork, not just the usual itinerary generating, security planning, and soporific statement-drafting. For too long, the debate about American-Israeli relations has been too polarizing.  Let’s silence the sky-is-falling cries proclaiming crisis and predicting disaster.  Americans and Israelis should celebrate their deep, enduring relationship, cemented by Obama’s foreign policy formula from his second inaugural address: “our interests and our conscience.” With most Americans  being “pro-Israel,” using the language of “pro-Israel” and “anti-Israel” when discussing American politicians– including Obama and even Chuck Hagel — is foolish and self-defeating.

The linguistic imprecision reflects conceptual sloppiness. Using the phrase “pro-Israel” invites discussion of its opposite, “anti-Israel.” But tagging someone who believes in a Jewish state, who supports Israel’s right of self-defense, who denounces attempts to delegitimize Israel, as “anti-Israel” is insulting and alienating. Regarding most Americans, such a characterization usually is an exaggeration. And sometimes, harsh characterizations turn wavering friends into implacable foes.

Quote:  “nice seeing our Foreign Service on the big screen”, John Kerry wishing Ben Affleck's Argo luck at the Oscars.

Number: 56, the percentage of Americans who believe that the US 'can trust Israel'.

Israel

Headline: ‘Third intifada’ is already raging, PA officials say

To Read: Isi Liebler is highly critical of Netanyahu's ongoing coalition building antics

Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid seemed an obvious partner. Contrary to depiction by much of the media, Lapid is no leftist and is committed to an undivided Jerusalem and retention of the major settlement blocs, including Ariel. His parliamentary team of newcomers was far superior to the prevailing Knesset members, many of whom were elected through corrupt and dubious primaries.

To bring Yesh Atid into the government, all that was required was a formula ensuring that the ultra-orthodox “share the burden” in terms of the draft or national service and become productively engaged in the workforce rather than subsisting on welfare. Lapid’s proposal on the draft was a graduated increase of conscripts over a five year period with exemptions for a limited number who could remain in full-time Torah study. Had Netanyahu moved in this direction, he would have enjoyed the enthusiastic support of most of the nation.

Instead, he suggested an essentially cosmetic arrangement which imposed no limit to the number of haredi exemptions – a proposal which Lapid refused to accept.

Quote: ““We told the Jewish Home people that if they are indeed in a close alliance with Yesh Atid, we should sit together in coalition talks too. It’s a waste of time to meet separately with representatives of both the parties. If there is a pact in place and a joint veto on the inclusion of ultra-Orthodox parties in the government, we might as well all meet together”, a senior Likud official addressing the Bennett-Lapid pact.  

Number: 4,500, the number of security prisoners in Israeli jails who sent their food back this morning

 

The Middle East

Headline: In Syria, new influx of weapons to rebels tilts the battle against Assad

Read:  FP's Marc Lynch believes the wisest thing the US could do in Syria is to deliver large scale amounts of humanitarian aid through opposition forces-

Direct humanitarian aid to local organizations, channeled through Syrian opposition institutions, would not only alleviate immediate suffering, but would also be a major step toward the development of meaningful and effective alternative governance. The institutional capacity for delivering aid, which is now unfortunately lacking, is the same institutional capacity needed to effectively govern. Pushing the humanitarian assistance through opposition channels is the best way to strengthen them, to show progress toward improving conditions in rebel-controlled areas, and to give the opposition something to demonstrate its relevance on the ground.

What about the war? The best way for the United States to affect the course of the conflict is not to arm the rebels. Instead, it is to more forcefully coordinate the military and civilian aid that Syria is already receiving. Since the conflict has already regrettably been militarized, and there's clearly no going back, a coordinated flow of arms is better than an uncoordinated flow of arms.   

Quote: “This was a difficult year for our economy”, Iranian President Ahmadinejad making a rare admittance.  

Number:  16, the number of new nuclear power plants the Iranian government has declared it plans to open.

 

The Jewish World

Headline: Oxford in uproar over union motion to boycott Israel

To Read: Rabbi Marc Schneier points out the growing number of Muslim leaders who have been denouncing attacks on Jews-

The encouraging reality is that in the past several years, many top Muslim leaders in France and across Europe have been speaking out against anti-Semitic attacks, even when carried out by fellow Muslims, and vowing to stand together with their Jewish counterparts in opposing anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim bigotry. Many Jews are unaware that in the wake of the killings in Toulouse, large numbers of French Muslims took part in interfaith demonstrations and candlelight vigils in Paris, Marseilles, Nice, Lyon, Strasbourg, Grenoble, Bordeaux, Dijon, Lille and other cities. Major French Muslim organizations, including the French Council of the Muslim Faith and the Great Mosque of Paris strongly condemned the attack as being antithetical to the fundamental precepts of Islam.  

Quote: “Circumcisions which are applied with the consent of parents or custodians are not subject to criminal liability”, a German prosecutor after dropping charges against a mohel.  

Number: 30, the percentage rise of anti Semitic incidents in Belgium

February 24, 2013 Read More »

How Do We Relate to Morally Difficult Texts in the Jewish Tradition?

We have all become familiar with the tactics of bigots who distort our religious beliefs or make up horrible lies to advance their hatred. Fortunately, most people in our pluralistic society recognize and reject these tactics.

But how would we respond to a skeptic who points to the morally troubling verse, “When…the Lord your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must utterly doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter” (Deut. 7:1-2)?

Or consider the many admonitions in the Torah to be kind to strangers, and to remember that we were once strangers in the land of Egypt. How do we reconcile this noble idea with these seemingly contradictory commands, “In the towns of the latter peoples, however, which the Lord your God gives you as a heritage, you shall not let a soul remain alive. No, you must proscribe them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you” (Deut. 20:16-17), and  “Samuel said to Saul, ‘I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over His people Israel. Therefore, listen to the Lord's command! … Now go attack Amalek, and proscribe all that belongs to him. Spare no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings, oxen and sheep, camels and assess’” (I Samuel 15:1,3)?

There are four primary philosophical approaches in relating to difficult texts like these.

First is the “Divine Command Morality” argument; i.e., because G-d is the source of and determines all morality, there is no contradiction between morality and G-d’s commands. Only the Divine can understand the big moral picture and thus only G-d has moral reasoning and authority. The problem here is that humans must abandon some of the greatest G-d-given gifts: moral conscience, reason, and autonomy.

Second is the argument proposed by 19th-century theologian/philosopher Søren Kierkegaard; i.e., if it appears that there is a contradiction between religion and morality, it is only because G-d has the power to suspend morality, and we must abandon our human conscience in heroic sacrifice to the Divine command, which supersedes all. This binding of Isaac-type mentality creates the religious personality. The problem here is that one must consciously act against their own moral intuition and that is spiritually and socially dangerous.

Third is the “heretical argument,” that there is indeed a contradiction between morality and the religious command, and that we must choose morality as we understand it over religious duty. This individual may be moral but they are generally not deemed religious.

Fourth is the “casuistic argument”; i.e., we need both the truths of human morality and of Divine command and that all contradictions can be resolved. Through moral reasoning, we can come to understand and embrace the Divine command. We are never compelled to obey anything immoral if we cultivate our intellectual and spiritual faculties to really understand that, to the well-organized mind, religion and morality can always be reconciled.

This last approach is most compelling, and demanding, for the modern religious person. In working every day to understand our texts, our world, and our hearts and souls, we can best achieve our Jewish mission. Rav Saadia Gaon, the 10th century Jewish philosopher, explained that if we find a contradiction between tradition and reason then we have made a mistake and we must continue to learn the text over and over and analyze our reason over and over until they are consistent. The text is our starting place, read charitably, but we never neglect our crucial human faculty of moral reasoning.

Rav Kook, the first Chief Rabbi of Israel, said it well:

It is forbidden for religious behavior to compromise a personal, natural, moral sensibility. If it does, our fear of heaven is no longer pure. An indication of its purity is that our nature and moral sense becomes more exalted as a consequence of religious inspiration. But if these opposites occur, then the moral character of the individual or group is dismissed by religious observance, and we have certainly been mistaken in our faith (Orot HaKodesh 4e).

We are following the path of Avraham who asked, “Shall the Judge of all the earth not act justly?” (Genesis 18:25), as we continue to challenge all dogmas to achieve the full truth. We should bear in mind that Avraham came from Ur in Mesopotamia, in modern-day Iraq. This region has for millennia been plagued by absolutist god-kings who waged brutal wars on one another. Even when codes of law were created, they often reinforced the extreme powers of the monarch. We should be grateful that we emerged from this land as a people of faith, law, and morality, while acknowledging that we did not always measure up to those ideals. We should remember that the best purpose for studying our sacred texts is not to puzzle over troublesome passages or justify the behavior of another era, but to become motivated to act, today, in the true spirit of tikkun olam.

Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz is the Founder and President of ” target=”_blank”>Jewish Ethics & Social Justice: A Guide for the 21st Century.” Newsweek named Rav Shmuly How Do We Relate to Morally Difficult Texts in the Jewish Tradition? Read More »

Unmasking: The Purim Blog

By Rachel Goldman Neubauer

Purim, as most of us know, is all about masks.  Esther hid her Jewish identity from King Ahashverosh, even after marriage, until revealing herself meant saving lives. 

While I love being silly and dressing up in costume, there are certain things about Purim that don’t always sit well with me.  Mainly, I dislike the message that it’s sometimes ok to hide who you are.  Yes, I understand that in ancient Persia it made sense for Esther to conceal her entire identity for obvious reasons of safety…and I also recognize that, unfortunately, there are still parts of the world where this fact is necessary.  For those of us blessed enough to live here in America, though, we clearly don’t live in some form of Shushan with a Haman breathing down our backs and our true identities no longer are things that could put our lives in danger.  In fact, hiding ones’ self out of fear, shame, guilt, etc. is the very thing that can either drive someone back into addiction or keep them there.  Hiding is the new Haman for alcoholics and for anyone trying to live a life of transparency and rigorous honesty. 

Last year, my friend and colleague Shira Freidlin started a new tradition at Beit T’Shuvah for Purim that I think deserves sharing.  We still dress up at Beit T’Shuvah, but instead of dressing up as anything that we feel like, we take some part of ourselves that we mask on a normal basis and let that part of us fly during the holiday.  I still to this day am someone who almost always appears put together, and sometimes (albeit far less so than, say, seven years ago) that’s because I’m terrified of someone actually seeing that I’m not always together and I’m not perfect.  It was quite liberating to show up to work in a Forever Lazy and show the world that I’m not always put together and I don’t have to be.  The parts of us that we try to hide from the world are just as much a part of us as the parts we show, and it’s nice to be able to spin a holiday about masking into one that embraces unmasking from the beginning. 

We all had a great time last night at our schpiel, both from laughing and embracing our whole selves.  I wish everyone a Purim Sameach.

Unmasking: The Purim Blog Read More »