May 12, 2021

What is it about Jews and race? In the 1930s, Hitler and others on the racist right demonized European Jews for being racially inferior. Today, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and others on the anti-racist left demonize Israeli Jews for acting racially superior. But injecting “race” into discussions about Jews is perverse. It clarifies nothing — and inflames everything.

Admittedly, Jews are confusing: not just members of a religious community, not solely members of a nation. But the Jewish people are by no means one race nor share a racial mindset. And because you can join the Jewish people by converting into the Jewish religion, Jews became one of the least biologically-based, blood-driven people — and one of the most permeable nations racially, especially after millennia of wandering.

These nuances are missing from Human Rights Watch’s recently-released hatchet job against Israel, titled “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution.” The report garnered headlines globally because, like the UN’s dastardly Durban conference, it accused the Jews — victims of the most racist crime in history, the Nazi genocide — of being racist themselves by practicing apartheid. The 213-page report mentions the “A-word” nearly 200 times. Nevertheless, it fails to make the case for Israel’s guilt on that score.

Apartheid and racism have specific meanings.  All nations draw boundaries, distinguishing between foreigners who are “out” and those who are “in” — whom democracies call citizens. That’s legitimate. Following the Nazi’s systematic war against the Jews from 1939 to 1945, racism was deemed particularly pernicious and deserving of the harshest penalties, including regime-change. Half a century later, white South Africa’s many race-based crimes against Blacks, “coloreds” and whites who dared dissent added “Apartheid” to the list of national crimes deserving of ostracism and ultimately elimination.

HRW, therefore, was wrong to claim that “The international community has over the years detached the term apartheid from its original South African context.” That term’s potency, and its sting to Israelis and Jews, stems from the South African analogy: From the oppressive, anti-democratic mechanisms required to enforce the crime to the regime’s well-deserved end.

While promising “detailed legal analysis” of the apartheid charge, HRW actually proved Israel’s innocence. According to the report, “The crime of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute consists of three primary elements: an intent to maintain a system of domination by one racial group over another; systematic oppression by one racial group over another; and one or more inhumane acts, as defined, carried out on a widespread or systematic basis pursuant to those policies.”

Nowhere does HRW prove that either Israeli Jews or Palestinians constitute a “racial group.” HRW simply assumes that in a world obsessed with race, those who seem weak and popular are “Black” or “Brown” while those who seem strong and unpopular are “white.” Yet Israel has never promulgated a law, regulation or military decree that defines people by the color of their skin or their blood or any way that constitutes “racial groups.” Moreover, Israel is at peace with some Arabs and at war with others, while granting full citizenship to some Palestinians (meaning Israeli-Arabs who live in, say, the Galilee) but not to others who live in an independent Gaza or an autonomous Hebron.

It took many Israelis years to acknowledge Palestinian nationalism. Suddenly, that characterization is politically incorrect. HRW treated this national conflict as a racial conflict. The only possible motivation is to besmirch Israel while clumping Palestinian nationalism with other race-based causes.

HRW’s failure to make the racism case proves its unfair motives. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) called the “Zionism is Racism” libel the Big Red Lie — emphasizing how the Soviets took the old Nazi Big Lie that Jews are inferior to accuse them of acting superior. This apartheid libel is the Big Black-and-White Lie.

When you racialize everything, you explain nothing — and distort a lot. This new blood libel isn’t really about race and apartheid, it’s simply the slur-du-jour, deployed to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world. To prop up their false charge, HRW’s authors had to treat all Palestinians as one, minimizing the differences between Israeli-Arabs, who are citizens in a democratic Israel, Gazans, who are subjected to the Hamas regime, and West Bank Palestinians, most of whose day-to-day lives are controlled by Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Highlighting the absurdity is HRW’s invention of a fake group — “Palestinian Bedouins.” Most Bedouins would find that characterization not only inaccurate but also offensive.

This new blood libel isn’t really about race and apartheid, it’s simply the slur-du-jour.

By racializing this conflict, HRW sidesteps the awkward fact that its target audience — the other countries of the world — make many parallel distinctions, generating various criteria and special categories when drawing up immigration laws and citizenship processes, incentivizing different groups to live in different places or letting in some people and not others. More broadly, when others, from Durban anti-Racism conference attendees to some Black Lives Matter activists, treat this national conflict as racial, they distract from the broader fight against racism and diminish the particular dishonor genuine racists deserve.

While detailing all kinds of allegations against Israel — some admittedly disturbing — the report ignores the most basic context. The report never acknowledges that many Palestinians call regularly for Israel’s destruction, which encourages other Palestinians to target Israeli citizens at home and all Jews abroad. Overlooking those terrifying facts makes every action Israel takes in self-defense seem pointless and spiteful, which is how racists act. A more nuanced analysis would have acknowledged that the conflict involves many different actors, multiple forces and is most often, from the Israeli perspective, about a beleaguered democracy defending itself and managing impossible dilemmas, not a bunch of racists seeking to torture their neighbors.

Like any country, Israel makes mistakes. Reasonable critics could use many different words to denounce Israel. But accusing Israel of racism and apartheid fails the anti-Semitic smell test. Jews have long proved to be a most convenient target, making anti-Semitism the most plastic of hatreds — adaptable but artificial and often toxic. During the Middle Ages, in Christian and Muslim worlds obsessed with religion, Jews were the ultimate heretics. In the nineteenth century, in a Europe obsessed with the class struggle, Jews were the worst Marxists to the capitalists and the worst capitalists to the Marxists. Today, in a world obsessed with race, it’s convenient to make Jews “white” and “racist.” Ultimately, however, these charges say little about Jews (the accused) but much about the Jew-haters (the accusers), even when some of those flinging the Black-and-White blood libel are themselves Jewish.

Gil Troy is a Distinguished Scholar of North American History at McGill University, and the author of nine books on American History and three books on Zionism. His book, “Never Alone: Prison, Politics and My People,” co-authored with Natan Sharansky, was just published by PublicAffairs of Hachette.    

The duality of Shavuot is undeniable: On the one hand is its status as an agricultural festival, marking the wheat/barley harvest and the celebration of the precociousness of the land of Israel, and on the other hand is its historic commemoration of the most remarkable event in the origin story of the Jewish People — the Revelation of the Torah at Mount Sinai.

Passover and Shavuot are connected by family ties — Nachshon, a hero of the Seventh Day of Passover, and Ruth’s husband Boaz, who we read about on Shavuot in the Book Of Ruth, are grandfather and grandson. As the ancient Midrash on Exodus revealed, before G-d split the Sea, saved the Jews and drowned the Egyptian soldiers, Nachshon showed his faith that G-d would keep His word by walking into the Sea up to his nose. In the book of Ruth, which takes place during the Era of the Judges, Boaz led the Jewish people through a time of famine and related unrest, which ended when he met and married the widow Ruth.

The duality of Shavuot is prominent in the Book of Ruth. The story of Ruth and Boaz occurs during the harvest, and Ruth’s decision to accept the Torah as law parallels what the Jewish People did at Sinai on the first Shavuot in our history.

What is more, Passover and Shavuot are connected not only by, but through Jerusalem. Shavuot is one of the three pilgrimage holidays named in the Torah, where the Jewish People are directed to travel to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices in the one location on Earth where G-d decreed that sacrifices be made to Him — the Holy Temple. And who built that Holy Temple? Boaz’s great-great-grandson, King Solomon (Shlomo HaMelech). Solomon, the direct male descendent of Nachshon and the son of King David.

Unfortunately, the rich meaning of Shavuot has degenerated over time to cheesecake and confirmations, unseen even by those who more traditionally observe the Yom Tov. Of course, the Shavuot tradition of studying Torah all night long is a good and a beautiful thing. But there is much more to Shavuot for us in our time.

In order to properly internalize the full context of Shavuot, we must look at what made the men of Nachshon’s and Boaz’s family so distinctive. The most distinguishing trait of this family was the ability to show complete disregard for their own individual wellbeing and step forward into the face of danger.

Consider Judah, the son of Jacob, who stepped forward when no one else would and saved the life of his brother, Joseph, when his other brothers planned to murder him. Nachshon, Judah’s descendent and a prince of his tribe, stepped forward when no one else would and entered the Red Sea, demonstrating a genuine faith that we still recall today. Boaz stepped forward when no one else would and took responsibility for Ruth, a convert from Moab, when it was known that Jewish women were prohibited from marrying Moabite men. David, while still a boy, stepped forward when no one else would, and faced Goliath.

And in the Book of Ruth, we find out how other members of this family who did not step forward suffered. Ploni Almoni, Boaz’s kinsman, who would not take responsibility for Ruth, loses his place in Jewish history, and we do not even know his name from the Book of Ruth. (“Ploni Almoni” is Biblical Hebrew jargon for “so and so.”)

Ruth’s first father-in-law, Elimelech, fares far worse than Ploni Almoni. When a drought occurred in Israel, Elimelech took his wife, Naomi, and his sons and chose exile rather than providing our people with leadership. He never returned to Israel. Elimelech and his sons died in Moab, and no future generations would come from their family line.

The lessons are clear. First: Those who are blessed with the talent and fortitude to do what is necessary to help a fellow Jew must heed the call. And second: The Land of Israel is precious and must be treasured. This is not just a Zionist belief — it’s a Jewish imperative. This is Shavuot. This is Judaism. This is Zionism.

Those who are blessed with the talent and fortitude to do what is necessary to help a fellow Jew must heed the call.

When Theodor Herzl stepped forward and initiated the Zionist movement, he heard the call.

When Ze’ev Jabotinsky stepped forward and proclaimed it was time to leave behind the character of the ghetto Jew and showed young Jews it was far better to take a stand, he heard the call.

When the resistance fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto stepped forward to battle the Nazis, they heard the call.

When the soldiers of the various Zionist undergrounds and militias stepped forward to defend the new Jewish State in 1948, they heard the call.

When the Refuseniks and the Jewish activists of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s stepped forward against the totalitarian Soviet Union, they heard the call.

When Israeli intelligence operatives in the 1980s went into the heart of Africa and covertly evacuated Ethiopian Jewish refugees to Israel, they heard the call.

This is Zionism. This is Judaism. This is the love of a brother being responsible for a brother. This is beautiful and it is eternal. Let us be worthy of listening for today’s calls and step forward.

This is what Shavuot demands of us. And the rewards are far sweeter than cheesecake.

Moshe Phillips is national director of Herut North America’s U.S. division. Herut is an international movement for Zionist pride and education and its U.S. website is https://herutna.org/

Have you ever experienced a situation where things did not go according plan? At first, we might experience disappointment and sadness, but after some time passes, we may feel blessed to be on the unexpected adventure of Plan B. The holiday of Shavuot is one such celebration when a sequence of events did not unfold according to plan. In fact, it was a total and complete deviation from what was “supposed” to occur.

This coming Sunday, May 16^th marks the anniversary of when our ancestors were given the Torah at Mount Sinai over 3,000 years ago. Upon arriving at the Sinai desert, Moshe Rabbeinu ascended Mount Sinai. God told Moshe that if Bnei Yisrael obeys Him and keeps his brit, we will be to Him a “treasured possession among all the peoples,” and a “kingdom of priests” and a holy nation (Shemot, 19:5-6).

Upon hearing what God had told Moshe, the people unanimously accepted the Torah and answered, “Naaseh Venishma,” — “everything God has said we will do.” After three days of preparation, preceded by smoke, thunder, lightning, quaking, fire and a loud Shofar blast, God proclaimed the 10 commandments. Moshe ascended the mountain again, this time for 40 days and 40 nights, to receive the luchot, the tablets, containing the ten commandments and the entire Torah, which he then imparted to the Jewish people.

During this time on the mountain, God taught Moshe the entire Torah and gave Moshe the luchot, which were “written with the finger of God” (Shmos 31:18). As Moshe prepared to descend the mountain, God informed him that the people built and were worshipping a Golden Calf. The pesukim relate that Moshe descended the mountain carrying the luchot, and upon seeing the idol worship, threw them to the ground, breaking them.

The sin of Golden Calf was not part of God’s plan when He redeemed us from slavery in Egypt, and it set a new course of history into motion. Following the sin of the Golden Calf, Moshe begs for God’s forgiveness took place. Eventually, God forgives us and Moshe hews a new set of luchot to replace the original broken set.

The Bais Halevi, in drush 18 in his Sefer on Torah, explores the intriguing variations between the first luchot and the second luchot and the impact of the Golden Calf on our nation. Torah — specifically the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, would be forever changed to accommodate the needs of our people, who were now routed to a new and different path of galus, or future exile. Rav Solovieitchik analyzes the striking differences between the luchot; while the first set of luchot were “God’s work” (Shemos 32:16), the second set of luchot were written by Moshe after God commanded, “Inscribe these words for yourself” (Shemos 34:27). On the first set of luchot, the words were “inscribed from both their sides” (Shemos 32:15) on the second luchot, the commandments were only inscribed on one side. The words on the first set were engraved, while the second set was not.

The Yalkut on Parsahat Ki Tisa elucidates how Moshe could have “flung” the luchot upon observing Bnei Yisrael engaging in idol worship. The Medrash shares that when Moshe descended the mountain and observed the sin, the letters flew off the tablets, causing the luchot to become heavy and fall out of Moshe’s hands and break. The Bais Halevi explains that once the sin of the Golden Calf occurred, future exile was decreed on our people. It was known that the other nations would one day rule over us and attempt to take the Torah from us. Therefore, once the sin had been committed and exile was decreed, the first tablets broke and God decided to not give us all of the Torah in written word. Instead, God kept parts of the Torah oral, so that we would be protected and distinguished from the other nations during exile.

This interpretation is further supported by the fact that ten commandments were engraved on the first tablets, or charut, which is translated as “free.” At the time the first tablets were given, prior to the sin, all of Torah could have been written down, and we would have been free from exile. When the letters flew off the luchot, according to the Medrash, the luchot became heavy because the letters contained the Oral Torah. The Oral Torah is critical to understanding, observing and fulfilling the Written Torah. Without it, the Torah can’t be “held” or observed.

The Oral Torah is critical to understanding, observing and fulfilling the Written Torah.

The Bais Halevi explains the significance of another intriguing difference between the first and second luchot: Only by the second tablets is Moshe’s skin and face described as being “radiant” (Shemos 34:35). Once it became a reality that the Oral Torah was not to be written on the second luchot, Moshe himself became the klaf, or parchment that held all of Oral Torah following the sin of the Golden Calf, to prevent shichecha, or forgetfulness, of the Oral Torah. This explains why the Pesukim state that Moshe’s skin and face were radiant. God’s change of plan in giving us the Torah, from Written to Oral, enables us to reach an even higher level of spiritual achievement and closeness to God.

When we left Egypt, we were saved not due to our own merit, but because God Himself extricated and freed us. Because it was a redemption that we did not work for or earn, we had not grown enough to be able to sustain being free. We quickly fell from these heights with the sin of the Golden Calf. Once the sin occurred, our future path was forever altered. With the second set of luchot, toil in learning was introduced. The first luchot, because it included the Oral Torah, ensured there was no forgetfulness and distraction in learning Torah. But the second set required us to add extra effort daily so as not to forget Torah. Torah learning after the sin of the Golden Calf requires daily exertion, ameilus v’yagea yomam v’laila. It is through this constant learning of Torah that we are able to connect and grow closer to God.

At times, we may find ourselves in situations where life has not gone according to plan. But with the understanding gained from studying the second luchot, we can see that pursuing new, unexpected paths leads us to achieve even loftier heights and provides for a more rewarding journey. It is times like these that give us the greatest opportunities for growth. That is the lesson of the second luchot: we can take the very things that were once perceived as setbacks and harness them to embark on new untried paths that bring us closer to God and to living the life we wish for ourselves. With the insights learned from second luchot, we discover that Plan B really is more desirable than Plan A and paves the way for even greater fulfillment.

Alanna Apfel is the founder and patient advocate at AA Insurance Advocacy, which helps therapy patients, individuals, couples, and children save thousands of dollars annually on their out of network mental health therapy bills.