Thursday, 29 October 2009

Learning Tanach "Be-Gova Einayim" - Parashat Lech Lecha

Learning Tanach "Be-Gova Einayim" - Parashat Lech Lecha


27
Oct
2009

[From "Nesichei Adam"]

Those who look at Avraham Avinu as they do other people commit a grave error. This is called learning Tanach "Be-Gova Einayim" (literally, "at the height of the eyes"). This is first and foremost an intellectual error. This shows that they do not understand anything, they did not learn anything, and they did not grasp anything. They do not understand who Avraham Avinu is. The second error results from the first. It is an educational error. If we look at Avraham Avinu from the correct perspective and follow after him, we follow his light. But if Avraham Avinu is the same as us, even when we follow him, we will remain in the same place. We will not be elevated and exalted. We will not have a guide.
Ha-Rav Moshe Feinstein related in the preface to the last volume of his responsa, Shut Igrot Moshe, an incident which occurred in his city in Russia. A man became ill with a horrible sickness: his tongue swelled up within his mouth, he was unable to speak and he eventually died. A day before his death, Rav Moshe came to visit him and the man asked that everyone leave the room. He had something private and of great importance to discuss with the Rav. He explained that he had given a class and had discussed Lot's older daughter who named her son Moav – from father. She was the progenitor of the Moabite People, which means that she is the ancestor of Rut, who is the great-grandmother of King David, from whom the Messiah will descend. How could it be, he had asked, that this woman, who had no shame, and therefore publicized her illicit and immoral behavior by giving her son a name that would ever recall here sinful act, was granted such honor? He spared no words in denigrating her behavior. He continued: "That night, two elderly women appeared to me in a dream. Their heads and faces were covered, and they said they were Lot's daughters. They had heard my complaint about their behavior and came from the World of Truth to convey to me a justification for their actions. Since it was well-known that Avraham Avinu, their uncle, was an individual for whom miracles were commonplace, they feared that people might say that their sons were conceived by immaculate conception. There were no men around, so how else could they have been conceived? In order to prevent another religion such as Christianity from being established by this misunderstanding, they decided to publicize the source of their conception. Their motives were pure and lofty. Since he had spoken ill against them and defamed their character, he was to be punished, just as the spies in the wilderness were punished. Their tongues swelled, and they died an unusual death." Ha-Rav Feinstein said that this seems correct. We are not speaking about the daughters of Lot. We are speaking about our great and holy people, and all the more so the giant of the giants: our Forefathers, Foremothers and ancestors in the Torah.
Originally posted by Torat HaRav Aviner

MK Ben-Ari to Boycott Rabin Memorial - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

MK Ben-Ari to Boycott Rabin Memorial - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Who Changed Old City Street Signs to Arabic Names? - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Who Changed Old City Street Signs to Arabic Names? - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Shomron Wisens Up: If You Can't Join Them, Beat Them - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Shomron Wisens Up: If You Can't Join Them, Beat Them - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Struggle to Keep Jerusalem Unchoked Continues - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Struggle to Keep Jerusalem Unchoked Continues - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

UNWRA Stages 'Propaganda Play' against IDF - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

UNWRA Stages 'Propaganda Play' against IDF - Defense/Middle East - Israel News - Israel National News

Sheikh to Jews: Keep Jewish Law on Temple Mount - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

Sheikh to Jews: Keep Jewish Law on Temple Mount - Politics & Government - Israel News - Israel National News

New Anti-Semitic Textbook: Polygamy in Israel - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

New Anti-Semitic Textbook: Polygamy in Israel - Jewish World - Israel News - Israel National News

RubinReports: Gorky Parks; Lenin Drives: What does Gorky’s Critique of the CP have to say to the era of PC?*

Gorky Parks; Lenin Drives: What does Gorky’s Critique of the CP have to say to the era of PC?*

By Barry Rubin

If most people know of Maxim Gorky today it is as Vladimir Lenin’s favorite writer; a novelist, playwright, and journalist of such towering reputation that even Joseph Stalin never touched him. But it is forgotten—and deliberately so, buried by the Soviet Communist government—that Gorky, like many Russians on the left in 1917 and early 1918, was horrified by the Bolshevik revolution and became in the early days its most articulate critic. (Oh, and also Moscow’s most famous park is named after him, hence Gorky Park.)

Why should this matter to you? Because Gorky’s problem is that faced by many today who are from left of center yet disgusted at dominant world views and mistaken policies that claim to be progressive and to serve the interests of the people and social justice. (If patriotism is the last refuge of [right-wing] scoundrels, social justice is the first refuge of left-wing ones.)

Like Lenin, but without the violent repression, the currently dominant worldview silences critics or opponents in two ways by proclaiming them to be reactionaries: first, by discrediting them with their potential audience (don’t listen to him he’s an icky conservative or a racist); second, by making them fear for their reputations if they speak out. No left-of-center intellectual wants to be labeled a reactionary, after all as that also challenges his own self-image, a fate worse than death in psychological terms.

Of course, the contemporary situation is far different from the tyranny unleashed by the Communist revolution—and all exaggeration should be avoided here, even though tall yokes from little acorns grow. We live in a post-Marxist, post-Communist world, though there are those who want a transformation of existing society in the name of their version of utopia based on an ideology which they believes tells them all truth.
Still, some of the things Gorky wrote in his column, “Untimely Thoughts,” and experiences he had may be applied to our era. Two lessons in particular are worth recounting: the arrogance of those claiming to be the tribunes of the people and the way they disarm criticism.

The first of these is the cold-blooded arrogance of those who make changes that look good in their ideology but damage the real interests of actual people. In an appeal to the Russian working people discussing that era’s charismatic leader, Gorky wrote:

“Lenin is only carrying out some sort of experiment on [your] hides….He is of course a man of exceptional powers….He possesses all the characteristics of a leader, among them…a genuinely lordly lack of compassion for the life of the popular masses….Life in its complexity is unknown to him. He does not know the popular masses, for he has never lived among them. Out of books, he has learned…by what means to whip up their instincts most easily to a fury.”

Second is the demonization of anyone who disagreed with him. Lenin saw such people as merely clinging to religion, or antipathy to the proletariat, or anti-nationalization of the means of production sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. He reacted to Gorky’s rather humanistic religiosity with frenzy:

“Every religious idea, every idea of any little god...is unutterable vileness,” wrote Lenin to Gorky.

It was this basic disrespect for the basis of morality and for individual human dignity, Gorky warned, that was the real danger from people who “have not the slightest idea of the meaning of freedom of the person.” The new rulers claimed that they represented the working people and yet, “The proletariat has not won a victory in anything or over anybody.”

Nevertheless, after opponents, many of them workers, demonstrated against the Soviet government, the state-supporting media, Gorky complained, lied: “When it writes that the demonstration…was organized by the bourgeoisie, bankers, etc.”

Gorky was denounced as a reactionary, strikes were organized in his newspaper’s printing plant; demonstrations were assembled calling him a supporter of the old ruling class. But Gorky refused to be cowed: “We will continue our polemics with the government which is leading the working class to its ruin.”
On July 16, 1918, Lenin ordered that Gorky’s newspaper be closed down, the last one not in the state’s hands. It was sort of a fairness doctrine since the Bolsheviks viewed all media to have been in the hands of the bourgeoisie and hence not free.

Even then, Lenin was able to win over Gorky, which offers a further lesson for our time.

How? First, since Gorky’s newspaper was shut down and the rest of the media, all controlled by the Communists, wouldn’t publish him, the great writer had to choose between being silenced and seeing his career end or going along with the regime. It would be like someone today knowing that unless he toed the line he’d never get a university position, a good publisher, or access to writing for leading newspapers.
Second, he appealed to Gorky’s pride in having been for so long a fighter on behalf of the downtrodden people of Russia. “Who is not with us is against us,” Lenin told him. “People independent of history is a fantasy….No one needs them.”

Third, Lenin persuaded Gorky by warning that the Communist government’s enemies were rightists, who were repugnant to him. Did he really want to be allied with those who wished to restore the Czar?
Incidentally, that’s a key reason why the opposition wasn’t able to overthrow the Communist revolution in its first years. The “White” Russian armies and Cossacks would have nothing to do with the liberals (Cadets), populist pro-peasant leftists (Social-Revolutionaries), or the democratic socialists (Mensheviks), and vice-versa.

The refusal of the “conservatives” to work with the democratic left-of-center forces, reacting against the revolution by moving even further to the right, was catastrophic. The real liberals—supporters of democracy—often reacted by joining forces with the Communists as the lesser of two evils.

And so a regime representing a minority managed to consolidate power, stayed in office for 70 years, go far beyond what even most of its original supporters wanted or expected, and dragged the country into disaster.
Naturally, most of this has nothing much to do with contemporary conditions in the West, but if you want to perceive some lessons, be my guest.

*Note on title: CP= Communist Party; PC= Political Correctness

RubinReports: Gorky Parks; Lenin Drives: What does Gorky’s Critique of the CP have to say to the era of PC?*

RubinReports: In the Middle East: Slanders Outrun Apologies Every Time

In the Middle East: Slanders Outrun Apologies Every Time

[Please subscribe for original analysis and information.]

By Barry Rubin

Eric Severeid, one of the greatest American journalists of the twentieth century, once said that it is impossible to protect your reputation against someone determined to misinterpret you. That is also true in international affairs. There are honest misunderstandings, and then there’s deliberate slander or at least the predisposition to hate and lie.

These reflections arise from what is, in its own terms, a small story about an Afghan protest against an alleged desecration of the Koran by U.S. troops. What makes it particularly interesting was that the march ended by burning an effigy of President Barack Obama.

Obama, of course, has done everything possible to be popular among Muslims. Yet the best-laid lands of mice and men often go awry. What goes wrong?

--People who have limited sources of information, highly politicized and sensationalist media or are used to getting data through word of mouth are more likely to believe wild rumors without checking them further. In contrast to Western authority figures, who usually promote more moderate behavior among those they influence, opinionmakers in Muslim majority countries are often ideological militants or demagogues who encourage militancy.

--Those having conflicts of interest with you and/or ideological predispositions are more likely to believe bad things about you on limited or no evidence.

--Forces that hate you and want to defeat and perhaps destroy you will tell deliberate lies to manipulate others, cleverly formulated so that the others believe them.

--When there are profound cultural gaps people cannot understand how you behave, your motives, and what makes sense or is ridiculous. How would the average Afghan or Palestinian have any notion about how the American system works or how Americans behave?

--Societies lacking the scientific method, Western-style critical education, and Enlightenment values won’t do basic things like comparing sources, examining a story for internal contradictions, demanding specifics and documentation, etc.

Now this is not true only of Third World societies. It is not hard to discuss parallel things in Western countries—especially in history (witch trials, for example)—or ideas—belief in superstition amd myths--yet this proves the argument.

First, such events took place in past times when modern Western society and its institutions were less developed.

Second, they most often take place among people with little power or influence over national governments or major decisionmaking.

Third, opinionmakers try to combat false information and extremism. Efforts are made to check the facts accurately.

Fourth, institutions like the media, schools, and others promote tolerance and moderation. Of course, these things are not always true—Nazi Germany being the foremost example—but they generally prevail in 2009.

Indeed, despite hysteria over “Islamophobia,” the treatment of diverse groups and immigrants, in the United States at least and generally speaking in Europe has been remarkably tolerant given what might be expected or what could have happened.

Yet despite Political Correctness ignores the fact that these problems are far more present in Third World—and especially in Muslim-majority societies than they are in contemporary Western ones.

This is hardly the first lynch mob situation set off by rumors. Indeed, such things have been happening for centuries, previously around such claims as that a Christian or Jew had cursed Muahmmad, defiled some Muslim text or object, attacked or insulted an individual Muslim, or kidnapped a Muslim woman.

The reason why such stories are almost always false is that even if a Christian or Muslim had been inclined to do any such thing he would have been too afraid to ever do such a thing knowing that the outcome would be mass violence against his community and his own death. Indeed, these communities with few exceptions—the Christians of Lebanon being one of the few—had completely adapted themselves to always showing deference and keeping a low profile, in practice accepting dhimmi status.

When such outbreaks did occur, however, the situation could end in a pogrom or forced conversion (the alternative being death) by the victims. In more recent times—often in Egypt--one sees many cases in which a Coptic Christian man is accused of dating a Muslim woman or some other rumor spreads which leads to anti-Christian riots. What usually follows is that the police don’t interfere and then arrest as many Christians as Muslims, followed by media reports (echoed in the Western press) that both sides started the fighting.

By the way, what’s it called if someone gathers together lots of people who hate you, lie about you, and want to see you dead; let’s them talk without criticism or investigation of their wild, contradictory, and unproven claims; and then uses this testimony to condemn you? Answer: the Goldstone Commission report.

In this latest Afghan case, U.S. officials denied that any Koran desecration occurred and instead—probably accurately--accused the Taliban of deliberately spreading lies to make people hate America. Nonetheless, demonstrators insisted that they believed that U.S. troops had desecrated a Koran in some place near the capital even though they didn’t have a specific time, place, or details of the event.

By the way, the demonstration began at Kabul University, which makes it likely many of the participants were college students, not uneducated peasants.

The beliefs that Westerners or Israelis hate and want to destroy Islam; are deceitful enemies, and similar such things have been deeply inculcated by families, religious training, and political indoctrination. It is not easy or lightly overcome. If American soldiers sacrifice to liberate Iraq from a dictatorship or help Afghanistan; if the United State provides massive economic aid or development assistance or diplomatic support, these efforts will not be seen as generous but imperialistic.

There is simply no way to overcome such perceptions. Even those most directly benefitting from assistance—say the Egyptian political elite—will not only denounce the United States or West frequently but in fact have an even greater need to do so precisely to “prove” they are not Western or American lackeys and to mobilize mass support for themselves.

The idea that a concerted effort to show respect—generally unreciprocated—act unselfishly, praise Islam, gain popularity, or follow policies that will satisfy such populations is going to have a major effect in changing the behavior of Middle Eastern countries or peoples is quite naïve.

This doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse strategies or that it is futile to try to build links, but respect for strength, strategic credibility, and material leverage are going to be far more important than gratitude.

Finally, there is the basic diplomatic reality that any decision will inevitably lead to hostility. No matter how much U.S. policy tries to distance itself from Israel, it won’t be far enough for many or most. Whether the United States leaves or stays to fight in Afghanistan will make enemies. Consider how little strategic or military benefit the United States has received from saving Kuwait in 1991; saving Saudi Arabia from Iran in the 1980s and Iraq in 1991; becoming patron of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority; or pouring billions of dollars into Egypt in aid.

How many more times will Obama be burnt in effigy by the very people he has bent over double-backwards to please, appease, or apologize to so often?

RubinReports: In the Middle East: Slanders Outrun Apologies Every Time

UNIVERSAL TORAH: LECH LECHA

UNIVERSAL TORAH: LECH LECHA


By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum

Torah Reading: Gen. 12.1-17.27. Haftara Isaiah 40.27-41.16.

No spiritual seeker can fail to be thrilled by the challenge in G-d's words to Abraham with which this parshah begins: "Go to YOUR SELF.". G-d's challenge to Abraham is His challenge to every one of us: to go on the journey of destiny in search of the ultimate Source of the self and the soul. For G-d is the source and goal of all things.

All Abraham's descendants, the Children of Israel, and all the proselytes who have taken shelter under the wings of the Shechinah (Divine Presence) are justly proud of the founder of our faith and our nation. Abraham, "father of a multitude of nations", is revered not only in Judaism but also in Christianity and Islam, and evidence of his imprint on the culture and collective consciousness of mankind may be found in the religions of places as far afield as India, Japan and South America.

The Torah teaches us about the attributes of G-d by telling us stories of the outstanding Tzaddikim of all time, who emulated His ways. Study of the parshiyos recounting the lives of the founding fathers and mothers helps us attach ourselves to the very roots of our souls and to inculcate in ourselves the qualities through which we can come to know G-d. The Torah dwells more on the story of Abraham than of any of the earlier Tzaddikim (such as Adam and Noah) because the qualities embodied in Abraham, and particularly his CHESSED (expansive loving kindness) are the very key to finding G-d.

An originator and creative genius unique in human history, Abraham entered the world in the year 1948 after the creation (1812 B.C.E.), following twenty generations in which mankind had degenerated further and further into decadence. The Children of Adam had strayed far from the glorious role of benevolent kingship envisaged for Adam as ruler over creation and from Noah's New World vision of harmony among his three sons, each in their proper place. The world had fallen under the violent tyranny of Nimrod, son of Kush, firstborn of Ham. Ham was supposed to be the slave ministering to his brothers Shem and Yapheth. But the slave had rebelled: Nimrod had "stolen Adam's clothes" for himself, and was making himself into a world ruler who was determined to impose idolatry by force.

The popular image of Abraham as a placid, smiling white-haired Sheik amidst his tents and camels belies much of his very essence. From earliest childhood and throughout his life, Abraham was a revolutionary and a rebel against the complex, sophisticated yet often barbaric culture of the ancient Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians and Canaanites among whom he traveled extensively. Priests, mathematicians, astronomers, logicians and philosophers were to be found in plenty, but none of them could satisfy Abraham's unquenchable passion to discover the mystery of G-d's unity. The Midrash states that, without a teacher, Abraham's own kidneys flowed with inspiration and understanding, bringing him to supreme heights of attachment to the ultimate powers of creation. Abraham was willing to sacrifice his very life to sanctify the Name of G-d. His methods and teachings are inscribed in his Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation), the earliest known text of the Kabbalah.

* * *

The rectification of slavery

Abraham was unable to keep G-d for himself: he had to give Him to the whole world. By the time we meet Abraham when our parshah of LECH LECHA opens, he is already 75 years old. By the time he received G-d's prophesy to go on his journey of destiny -- which was to bring him eventually to the spot where Adam was formed, the place of the future House of Prayer for all the Nations -- Abraham was already well established. He was travelling with his wife, his orphaned nephew, their possessions, and a company of "souls they had made" during their sojourn in Haran. Who were these souls?

Rabbi Nachman of Breslov tells us that when Abraham would come to a town, he would stand up in the town square and start calling everyone to come and listen to him. He would ask them what was the point of squandering their lives on the pursuit of worldly vanity, telling them to think about the purpose of life in this world -- to find G-d. Abraham set the young people on fire with his revolutionary ideas, and they would come running after him.

The Midrash states that Abraham's chief slave, Eliezer, was none other than the son of Nimrod, who had cast Abraham into the fiery furnace in Ur Kasdim. When Abraham escaped, Eliezer was so overwhelmed by the miracle that he abandoned his defeated father and became Abraham's slave and chief convert. Another prominent figure who was willing to become Abraham's slave for the sake of having a connection with this charismatic man was Hagar, daughter of Pharaoh.

Both Eliezer and Hagar were descended from Ham, the son of Noah, who aroused his father's ire when he saw his nakedness and was cursed to be slave to his brothers. Abraham's journey to the land of Canaan (Ham's son) was in fulfilment of Noah's blessing to Shem that G-d would "dwell in the tents of Shem", who would be served by Canaan. The Canaanite slave had rebelled: the Canaanites were occupying the land destined for the descendants of Shem. Abraham's mission was to return to the source -- the land from whose earth Adam's body was formed -- and to settle in the Land of Canaan.

The society that Abraham's descendants were to build there was to be one in which the concept of slavery was to be transmuted. The details of the Covenant of Sinai begin with the laws regulating slavery (Exodus ch. 21). In the power-crazy world of Nimrod, the slave was the lowest of the low, one held captive in the physical power of others. Historically, slaves have been subjected to every kind of abuse, physical and psychological. In contrast, the Siniatic Covenant gives the slave his dignity. Even the Canaanite slave must keep many of the commandments, including circumcision (as we find at the end of our parshah.) In due course the Canaanite slave may even be freed and become a member of the assembly of the Children of Israel.

Abraham rectified the concept of slavery by turning it into a way of understanding our relationship with G-d. Abraham was the first to call himself "Your servant" (Gen. 18:3). In his humility, Abraham knew that before G-d he was but "dust and ashes". Adam was created to be free and to rule the world, but he abused his freedom and fell slave to his lusts. Man pays the price of his sins by serving -- man has to work. Those who are slaves to other men may pay a bitter price for their sins, but those who are willing to serve G-d become free. The more they serve G-d, the more they are freed from servitude to the cycle of lust, sin and degradation. Through serving G-d, man reaches his greatest heights -- and once again he becomes His beloved son.

By the time we meet Abraham in our parshah, he was already the epitome of humility, and he was therefore capable of becoming a master. Abraham rectified the concept of slavery by having slaves like Eliezer and Hagar, who were capable of serving their master in his mission of bringing G-d to all the world. In this way the power of Ham becomes harnessed in the service of the G-d of Shem. In order to completely rectify the concept of slavery, Abraham's own descendants, the Children of Israel, also had to descend to the level of slaves in Egypt until they were freed by G-d in order to serve Him (see in our parshah Genesis 15:13-14).

Very shortly after Abraham entered Canaan, famine forced him to go down to Egypt in the archetypal pattern of descent and ascent that would be repeated by his descendants. Egypt was the land of Ham's second son, and accordingly it was a place of rampant immorality, as exemplified in the story of the capture of Sarah by Pharaoh's officers. Things were only set right again when Sarah was released and Pharaoh's daughter Hagar became her maidservant.

* * *

Conflict and conflict management

Abraham was childless, and it flew in the face of nature that an old man like him could have children. Yet his mission in Canaan was to take possession of the land that was occupied by the descendants of Ham, who had been cursed, and to settle it with his own descendants, the Children of Shem, who had been blessed. Having no children of his own, Abraham had taken in his orphaned nephew Lot.

As the man of CHESSED -- kindness -- Abraham displays his love of peace in his dealings with his nephew Lot, as when he suggests that since they are both expanding, they should avoid conflict by going their separate ways. However, Abraham's love of peace does not prevent him from going to war when the necessity arises, as when Lot was captured by the Four Kings and Abraham went out in hot pursuit.

In geopolitical terms, the war of the Four Kings against the Five (Genesis ch. 14) was a war for control over the blessed strip of land on the East Coast of the Mediterranean that is G-d's chosen, Promised Land. "Amraphel King of Shin'ar" is Nimrod -- Ham's grandson and Abraham's implacable adversary. Ham is fighting Shem. What spurs Abraham into action is the capture of Lot -- a mortal threat to Lot's destined progeny, including Ruth the Moabite, grandmother of Mashiach. Abraham rouses his followers -- those he has educated -- namely Eliezer, Nimrod's own son, the rectified slave (Genesis 14:14, see Rashi there), and miraculously rescues Lot. In this way Noah's prophesy is fulfilled and Eliezer, the descendant of Ham, serves Abraham, descendant of Shem, in helping pave the way to Mashiach.

* * *

Hagar and Yishmael

In many places in the story of Abraham, he is depicted as praying to G-d -- because prayer is one of the main pillars in the path of service of G-d which Abraham established. The simple, direct language of Abraham's prayers are a lesson for all, Israelites and gentiles alike, in how to approach G-d with words.

Faith in the power of prayer is the message of the name that Hagar gave to Abraham's son, Yishmael -- "G-d will hear". Yishmael's service is the service of prayer. It is an historical fact that Yishmael and his descendants brought knowledge of the G-d of Abraham and the service of prayer to many parts of the world, including many of the Children of Ham. As noted earlier, Hagar herself was a descendant of Ham. In this way, the families of the earth are being prepared for the House of Prayer for All Nations, when "Yapheth will dwell in the tents of Shem and Canaan will be servant to them".

* * *

The Covenant

".which G-d created to DO" (Genesis 2:3): Man was created incomplete in order that he should acquire merit through DOING, serving G-d by completing and perfecting himself. The form of the male ADAM is incomplete as long as the crown of the organ of creation remains covered by the impure ORLAH, the foreskin, a pleasure-center that keeps those from whom it has not been removed uncontrollably attached to the material. The genitals are vital to the whole body and whole person (cf. Deut. 25:12) and the presence of the ORLAH influences the person's mind and outlook, preventing him from becoming being perfectly attached to G-d.

It is said that Abraham agonized long when he began to understand that circumcision was to be the sign of his bond to G-d and the mark of his slave-like attachment to the Master of the Universe. Abraham feared that by cutting his flesh in this way, he would be setting himself apart from the rest of humanity, making it more difficult to bring them to the knowledge of the True G-d. In the end, however, Abraham accepted G-d's commandment, because the purity which the circumcision bestowed upon him him enabled him to serve as Priest of all mankind in bringing man to G-d. The sign of G-d's Covenant with Abraham is inscribed upon the very organ with which we procreate, signifying that the foundation of the Covenant is that we submit our powers of procreation to G-d's service.

The commandment of circumcision is not one of the universal commandments of the Torah, but rather the exclusive mark and sign of the Children of Israel. The descendants of Yishmael consider themselves bound by the commandment of circumcision, but they do not perform the P'RIYAH (peeling of the membrane) as practiced by the descendants of Jacob.

Christianity presents itself as a "new stage" in the revelation that began with Abraham, in which the original covenant or "old testament" with Abraham and his biological descendants, marked by the circumcision, was "superseded" by a "new covenant" or "new testament" with all humanity which did not require circumcision. It was the abandonment of circumcision that put the seal on Christianity's break with the Torah of Moses, which states that "an uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his forskin, that soul will be cut off from her people, he has broken My covenant" (Genesis 17:14).

Nothing can change these words, for "G-d is not a man that He should lie or the son of man that He should change His mind. He spoke -- will He not do it? He pronounced -- will He not fulfill it?" (Numbers 23:19). "For I am G-d, I have not changed." (Malachi 3:6). "Go and let us ascend to the Mountain of G-d, to the House of the G-d of Jacob." (Isaiah 2:3).

Shabbat Shalom!

Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum

--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org

Wednesday, 28 October 2009

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Israel Matzav: Iran wants to retrade the deal

Iran wants to retrade the deal

By Wednesday, Iran is supposed to give an answer as to whether it will agree to send some 75-80% of its known low enriched uranium (LEU) to Russia and France for enrichment to the 30% level and casting into rods for use in a medical reactor. While that is not a great deal for the West, for reasons I have discussed elsewhere, on Tuesday afternoon it was reported from Tehran that Iran wishes to retrade the deal, a scenario that could cause the deal to be canceled.

Among the central planks of the plan opposed by Iran -- but requested by the West to cut the risk of an Iranian atom bomb -- was for it to send most of its low-enriched uranium reserve abroad for processing all in one go, state television said.

Iran says it is enriching uranium only for power plant fuel, not for nuclear warheads. But its history of nuclear secrecy and continued restrictions on U.N. inspections have raised Western suspicions Iran is latently pursuing nuclear weapons capability.

Citing an unnamed official, the Iranian state Arabic-language satellite television station al Alam said on Tuesday Iran would present its response to the proposed agreement within 48 hours, a week after a deadline set by its author, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Al Alam said Iran would "agree to the general framework of the draft proposal but will request some important amendments."

It did not elaborate on the changes Tehran would seek to the draft agreement ElBaradei hammered out in consultations with Iran, Russia, France and the United States in Vienna last week.

But senior lawmakers have said Iran should import foreign fuel rather than send abroad by the end of this year much of its own low-enriched uranium (LEU) stock -- a crucial strategic asset in talks with world powers -- as the proposal stipulates.

...

"It's not a good sign ... it is a bad indication," French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told reporters at an EU foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg, referring to the latest, ambiguous Iranian statements.

"Time is running out for the Iranians... This (Middle East) region is inflammable. It's an explosive circle and I do not think that in such a context the Iranians can play for time. That is very dangerous," he said.

"If there is the necessity -- but we might not see it until the end of the year -- we would start work on new sanctions," Kouchner added.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Iran wants to retrade the deal

Israel Matzav: Survey: American support for Israel, support for striking Iran stronger than ever

Survey: American support for Israel, support for striking Iran stronger than ever

A survey released on Monday by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) shows that American support for Israel is stronger than ever and that American support for striking Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons is increasing.

The full poll is available online at http://www.adl.org/Israel/poll_israel2009/default.asp

Key findings on Israel and the Palestinians

-- 67%, the highest figure in recent years, see Israel as a country to be counted on as a strong, loyal U.S. ally.
-- By a 3-1 ratio, the American people express more sympathy with Israel
than with the Palestinians.
-- 64% of Americans continue to believe that Israel is serious about reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians.
-- Americans see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as difficult to resolve. Of the 26% who believe the prospects for peace have worsened, 51% blame the Palestinians.
-- There is increased support for U.S. involvement in the process --39%, up
from 30% in 2007, but still a significant plurality - 48% -- believe that the sides must solve their own problems with minimal US involvement.
-- Americans are skeptical about "peace dividends" that would result from a
freeze on settlements. 53% believe leaders of the Arab world will continue to refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist, even if Israel stops all further construction settlements; only 25% believe the Palestinians would be prepared to achieve a final resolution of the conflict if Israel stopped further construction of settlements.
-- 61% of Americans believe that the differences between Israelis and Palestinians will drag on for years. Only 29% believe that the two sides "will never have a better opportunity to reach a peace agreement than they do at the present moment."
-- While Americans support the creation of a Palestinian state, 56% believe it must not be established until the Palestinians end the violence and accept Israel's legitimacy.
-- A majority place the onus for peace on Palestinians because of the division between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, and the Arabs, because of their refusal to accept Israel's right to exist as the major obstacle to peace other than Israeli settlements. 51% believe Palestinian division stands in the way of peace.

Key Findings on Iran

-- 63% of Americans now see Iran as an immediate or short-term security threat to the Middle East, up from 50% in 2007.
-- 83% believe that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, up from 71% in 2007
-- 57% support Israeli military action to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapons program, up from 42% in 2007
-- 54% support U.S. military action to keep Iran from developing a nuclear
weapons program, up from 47% in 2007.

The American people are smarter than their President. A lot smarter.


Israel Matzav: Survey: American support for Israel, support for striking Iran stronger than ever

Israel Matzav: Back to 1938? Nazis in the Ivory Tower

Back to 1938? Nazis in the Ivory Tower

We've seen it all before. So concludes Steven Plaut after reviewing The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower by Stephen H. Norwood (Cambridge University Press, 2009). What we've seen on American college campuses since the early 1990's is remarkably similar to what went on at American college campuses in the 1930's. Harvard, Yale, Columbia - Norwood covers them all and Plaut reviews them all (Hat Tip: Ashan).

The simple lesson from examining the behavior on American universities in the 1930s is that that the appeasement, the support for totalitarian aggression and terror, the academic bigotry, and the anti-Semitism that today fill so many American universities were all predominant forces on many campuses in the 1930s, especially at America’s elite schools, including on much of the Ivy League. The Chomskies, Coles, Beinins and Massads of today could easily be fit into the campus atmosphere of the 1930s.

Norwood sums up the situation at American universities in the 1930s thus:

“The leaders of American colleges and universities remained for the most part uninvolved as others in this country forcefully protested the Nazis’ barbaric treatment of Jews. The Nazis anti-Semitic terror in 1933 precipitated demonstrations and boycotts (of Germany) on an unprecedented scale… But although academicians were the Americans most conversant with European affairs, few engaged in public anti-Nazi protest…. American universities maintained amicable relations with the Third Reich, sending their students to study at Nazified universities while welcoming Nazi exchange students to their own campuses. America’s most distinguished university presidents willfully crossed the Atlantic in ships flying the swastika flag, openly defying the anti-Nazi boycott, to the benefit of the Third Reich’s economy. By warmly receiving Nazi diplomats and propagandists on campus, they helped Nazi Germany present itself to the American public as a civilized nation, unfairly maligned in the press.” (Norwood, page 34)

Norwood’s book is a must-read, but also a sad and uncomfortable read. He details the reactions of America’s professors and universities to the rise of Hitler. The responses on American campuses ranged from complete indifference and refusal to join in campaigns against Nazi Germany to widespread support for German Nazism, including for German atrocities committed against Jews. This was not mere Yankee provincial ignorance of what was happening outside the country.

Read the whole thing.

And if anyone can get me a review copy of the book, I'd be grateful.


Israel Matzav: Back to 1938? Nazis in the Ivory Tower

Love of the Land: Regional Outreach

Regional Outreach


J.E. Dyer
Contentions/Commentary
27 October 09

Iranian ships loaded with weapons keep turning up in the darnedest places. The latest report is that Yemeni authorities on Monday seized an Iranian ship in their waters trying to deliver anti-armor rounds to Yemen’s Shia Zaidi rebels. Especially noteworthy is that the ship was seized on Yemen’s Red Sea coast. Yemenis say the ship is not the first to pull into the Eritrean port of Asmara and then cross the Red Sea to deliver weapons to the Zaidi insurgents. The Yemeni press, in fact, reports that Iran is training Zaidi rebels in Eritrea. Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh insisted earlier this year that the Zaidi (or al-Houthi) rebels are being trained by Hezbollah.

Iran’s 2008 basing agreement with Eritrea has received minimal attention in the West, in part because there is little new information on any developments related to it. Radio France International reported in May that Iranian warships and a submarine had been observed in Asmara along with a unit of Iran’s Pasdaran, the Revolutionary Guard’s paramilitary force. If a submarine were actually present, it would have been one of Iran’s mini-submarines, small one- or two-man submersibles with a very restricted range of operations. Iran has long cultivated a mini-submarine threat to shipping in restricted waters. As for the warships, Iran is using Asmara for the replenishment of its antipiracy patrol ships.

Israel, of course, has expressed concern over this Iranian Red Sea presence, and analysts have connected it with the overland arms route for Hamas, interdicted in a dramatic air raid over Sudan in February. Somalia watchers continue to warn that Iranian arms are flowing to al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-affiliated insurgency in southern Somalia, through Eritrea. Riyadh is now increasingly concerned about Iran’s support to the Yemeni rebels, whose stronghold in western Yemen is on the poorly guarded border with Saudi Arabia. The rebels claimed last week that they came under attack from Saudi forces when operating near the border, a credible claim given the level of Saudi disquiet.

The evidence is relentless: arming regional insurgents and terrorists is what Iran commits its limited resources to. Arranging forward logistics for the effort in a strategically positioned port is a measure of that commitment. The same commitment is to be expected to threats like holding global shipping at risk and deploying ballistic missiles to the Red Sea coast. We are already seeing the regional initiatives Iran will feel even freerto mount once it has nuclear weapons. It is a fatal error to suppose that we will feel just as free, under those conditions, to oppose them.



Love of the Land: Regional Outreach

Love of the Land: Blumenthal Lets It Slip

Blumenthal Lets It Slip


Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
27 October
09

Jeffrey Goldberg catches Max Blumenthal telling a nugget of truth at J Street about the authors of the Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Blumenthal at the J Street fest declared:

I personally think they provided cover for J Street to be able to exist to fill this void but Jeremy capitulated, he sort of prostrated himself before the serious man, Jeffrey Goldberg, and he said yes, it’s true they wrote the modern version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, they’re anti-Semites. And to me, when you call Stephen Walt and John Meirsheimer anti-Semites — first of all it raises the question: if you’re going to capitulate before Jeffrey Goldberg, if you can’t stand up to Jeffrey Goldberg, how can we trust you to stand up against the settlers, how can we trust you to stand up against the government of Netanyahu and Lieberman?

Just think, the book that made it onto Osama bin Laden’s list also provided “cover” for J Street.

As an aside, it is remarkable that the villains in the J Street drama are Goldberg, Netanyahu, and Lieberman. Hmm. You’d think a pro-Israel group would think of the “enemies” as being those who hide behind women’s skirts and use baby carriages as barricades. But no, the focus of J Street’s ire is the Jews who disagree with J Street and criticize its grab bag of Israel-hating friends and allies. They are not, it seems, “pro-Israel” but “anti-pro-Israel.” Or maybe they should be renamed in honor of their intellectual godfathers: W and M Street.



Love of the Land: Blumenthal Lets It Slip

Love of the Land: Open Letter To Judge Goldstone: “A Judge Is Expected To Look At Least For Some Evidence And Verification”

Open Letter To Judge Goldstone: “A Judge Is Expected To Look At Least For Some Evidence And Verification”


Israpundit
posted by Daled Amos
27 October 09

In 2002, while the media and NGO’s such as Human Rights Watch accepted as fact the Palestinian claim that there was a massacre in Jenin–Dr. David Zangen couldn’t stand the lies and came forward with the facts. In the end, Palestinian claims of at least 500 killed were refuted and it was discovered that 54 Palestinians–mostly terrorists–were killed.


Dr. Zangen appears in the movie The Road To Jenin, which refutes the inaccuracies and falsifications in the Palestinian propaganda film Jenin, Jenin (read the CAMERA review).


Eventually, the truth of Jenin came out and Israel was vindicated.


Now Dr. David Zangen addresses the flaws in the Goldstone Report in an open letter to Judge Goldstone:


Dear Judge Goldstone,

My name is Dr. David Zangen, I am a consultant in Pediatric Endocrinology and diabetes at Hadassah University Hospital in Jerusalem. Over 50% of my patient population is Palestinian from Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza. I speak Arabic and initiated the first training program for Palestinian physicians in the field of Pediatric Endocrinology. The trained physicians were fully respected and were included as first authors on our studies that are published in world leading professional journals.

But, at the same time I happened to be the chief medical officer of my brigade during the Defensive Shield Operation in Jenin 2002. I was responsible for the medical treatment of our soldiers but also for enabling the hospital in Jenin to provide full medical services to the civilian population and I was personally involved in numerous medical treatments that Palestinians (including warriors) received from Israeli physicians.

During and after the operation the director of Jenin hospital was a source to what has been falsely called the “Massacre in Jenin where 5000 people were massacred” this same person Dr. Abu Rali has also claimed that one part of the Jenin hospital was destroyed by Israeli tank missiles “12 tank rockets were shot at the hospital …” etc

You should know, honored Judge that these statements have been proved and documented as straight lies not only by Israeli sources but also by the Human Rights Watch and the UN organizations counting only 52 dead people on the Palestinian side (23 on the Israeli side). These organizations and photographs of Jenin hospital following the operation showed no evidence for any destruction at the hospital buildings etc.

This Dr. Abu Rali a director of a hospital, a physician, lies and incites in the service of the Shahids. It is hard to believe that a director of a hospital can give such an obvious false testimony. I can’t understand it and you can’t understand it but unfortunately this is what has happened. Even persons who would usually be considered reliable sources become advocates of straight lies. Tragically, moral misbehavior of doctors in the Palestinian Authority is not new.

The Pediatrician George Habash sent his terrorists to kill children in Israeli schools and so did the Hamas leader the pediatrician Dr. Rantisi…and so continues to do the Pediatrician encouraging the sending of rockets from Gaza on innocent Israeli schools Dr Mahmud Zaher.

Please judge Goldstone, you should really be careful when such straight liars serve as the basis for your report. I am sure that you mean well but being an eye witness both to the events in Jenin and to the subsequent media and initial false UN reporting I do understand what happened to you. How a person of such stature and integrity could become associated with such a faulted report.

Look Judge Goldstone at your report on the Al Fakhura event on January 5-6th 2009 (paragraphs 651-688). You do report how Israel was accused for directly bombing the UNRWA school. It took 2 weeks to withdraw from this accusation but you, honored Judge, went back to get your testimony only from the same people who spread the blood libel of bombing the school.

Moreover when analyzing the scene you claim that you could not verify the numbers of 24 dead and 40 wounded but these numbers are not considered exaggerated. Finally in the Factual findings part you already determine that 24 people were killed and 40 injured!

Did you by any chance try to validate any of these invented and inciting details? Did you look at the Al Jazeera or BBC reports from the same very date of the event? Did you try to validate your “factual findings” conclusions by getting at least Emergency Room charts on the people admitted to their trauma department on this very day? Did you go over the I.D.’s of the “dead” people and the place or cemetery where they were supposedly buried?

Well you didn’t!

In all the scene of “40 dead and 40 wounded” filmed by Al Jazeera and other channels reporters and screened at the same day all over the world you could not see bodies or blood spots in the streets beside two or three casualties and one footage of a single wall damaged by a bomb. As a physician who was at terrible suicide events with smaller number of casualties I can testify how it looks like for hours following the event….The media documentation of the Al Fakhura event does not verify and definitely does not go along with the fantasy and lies of your witnesses.

As a judge I must be sure that you did not mean to hurt Israel, I try to believe that you came to Gaza without prejudice…but a judge is expected to look at least for some evidence and verification (media, ER registration, burial places etc….) of the testimonies and not accept impossible “facts”. You have let yourself to be misled by fabrications made by either terrorists or even doctors such as Dr. Abu Rali from Jenin.

I and my colleagues in Israel are proud of the medical service that is given equally to every human being regardless of his origin; we are also proud to belong to a nation that has the imprint of having higher moral standards than others.

The price that we pay for this status is very high. The Palestinians and other Muslims around the world, either common people or even respected doctors, use straight lies as part of the war against us. The Western world media criticizes us and tries to find where we were not behaving up to the extremely high moral standards that we made ourselves.

I call on you Judge Goldstone take this Al Fakhura event, look at the media coverage from the very same date…see the events in the context…try to live one day with the responsibility for the existence of this small nation of 6 million Jews threatened constantly by 300 million Muslims. I call on you to try and not draw conclusions from such lies and misleading witnesses even if they come from so-called professionals. In the modern world propaganda and lies are definitely a part of the war and as a judge you should not serve as a tool for augmenting hatred and conflicts.

We look for peace , we love peace and we do try our very best to fight for our right to exist in the highest possible moral standards even at the cost of our lives.

David Zangen M.D.

This letter is also available in a Hebrew translation.



Love of the Land: Open Letter To Judge Goldstone: “A Judge Is Expected To Look At Least For Some Evidence And Verification”

Love of the Land: Turkey: An Ally No More

Turkey: An Ally No More

Daniel Pipes
danielpipes.org
28 October 09



Love of the Land: Turkey: An Ally No More

Love of the Land: The Unfinished War

The Unfinished War


Jonathan Spyer
GLORIA Center
15 October 09

The explosion in the south Lebanese village of Tayr Felseir offers the latest evidence of the way in which Hizbullah is rebuilding its infrastructure following the Second Lebanon War in 2006. In the pre-2006 period, Hizbullah maintained its military infrastructure in open countryside areas often declared off-limits to all but the movement's personnel. The rebuilt infrastructure, by contrast, has been constructed within the fabric of civilian life in south Lebanon. This process has taken place largely undisturbed by the Lebanese and UN military personnel conspicuously deployed throughout the south.

Just over a year ago, The Jerusalem Post described some of the methods used by Hizbullah in building its new infrastructure. Fortifications were being constructed in private homes whose owners had left the south for the Beirut area. The owners were offered friendly advice not to inquire too closely regarding the alterations. Evidence suggests that this and similar practices have continued apace.

Hizbullah's decision to make use of populated areas is primarily a result of the increased presence of UNIFIL and LAF (Lebanese Armed Forces) personnel in the area south of the Litani River, a presence which was enforced under the terms of UN Resolution 1701. Of course, the movement has made use of civilian-populated areas in the past. During the 2006 war, Hizbullah often launched Katyushas from villages (generally non-Shi'ite ones). But the placing of arms caches and permanent positions within residential areas has served to render the renewed military infrastructure largely off-limits to international inspection. Past experience indicates that the embarrassing publicity deriving from the Tayr Felsair explosion is unlikely to alter this picture.

This week's explosion was not the first time in recent months that Hizbullah ordnance has accidentally detonated in south Lebanon. On July 14, a series of large explosions took place in the village of Khirbet Silm. The events that followed and the UNIFIL investigation into the explosions show the extent to which both the international forces and the Lebanese Army are adopting a "live and let live" attitude to Hizbullah's preparations for the next war.

At the time, Hizbullah actions in Khirbet Silm followed a similar pattern to those observed on Monday in Tayr Felsair. First, Hizbullah agents removed the evidence. As this was being done, a number of "outraged residents" from the area held demonstrations to prevent UNIFIL troops from inspecting the scene. Peacekeepers eventually conducted their investigation, and concluded that the site at Khirbet Silm contained large quantities of 107 mm.

Katyusha rockets, heavy machine gun rounds and mortar tubes of a type used by Hizbullah.

Investigators from the international force also discovered that the site had been permanently guarded by Hizbullah personnel. They recorded that all this constituted a "serious violation" of Resolution 1701.

Beyond this declaration, the investigation has had no discernible result. No one was ever named, much less held accountable. Nor did UNIFIL's modus operandi change to take into account the likelihood that if there was an arms depot in Khirbet Silm it probably wasn't the only one.

UNIFIL REMAINS deployed mainly in unpopulated areas. It enters Shi'ite villages only with an escort of Lebanese army personnel. Its vehicle and air patrols, taking place along recognized patrol paths and in rural areas, have produced some tangible results in terms of discovering unused bunkers and old munitions. But the international force, which maintains no independent checkpoints, does its best to stay out of the way of Hizbullah and the civilian population.

Except for cases where there are obvious signs pointing to the presence of ordnance - such as when a large explosion occurs - UNIFIL simply prefers not to act on the evidence. And there is no indication that the latest explosion at Tayr Falseir will change this situation. Rather, it is more likely that UNIFIL's investigation will be rapidly forgotten and the results quietly filed away as the media moves on.

Even more problematic is the role being played by the LAF. The Lebanese army and UNIFIL were prevented from entering the house in Tayr Falseir immediately following the explosion. Once LAF representatives were permitted to enter, they swiftly endorsed Hizbullah's version of events.

The Lebanese army, which is much more visible on the ground than UNIFIL, undoubtedly has a far better sense of what is really going on. The problem with the LAF becoming an obstacle to Hizbullah rearming and reorganizing itself in south Lebanon is that the army is a deeply divided organization. Many of its members are sympathetic to the "resistance." Thirty percent of the LAF officer corps, and a majority of its rank and file, are Shi'ite, like Hizbullah. More fundamentally, the official position of the LAF is one of "endorsement" of Hizbullah's "right to resist." The LAF defines Israel as its "primary antagonist and enemy." So neither UNIFIL, nor the LAF, nor their respective employers - the United Nations and the government of Lebanon - are going to be standing in the way of Hizbullah's program of rearming in populated areas any time soon.

Ultimately, the situation in southern Lebanon is a facet of a larger problem, namely, the existence of a Hizbullah state within a state, which is answerable to no one but the movement's leadership and its Iranian patrons. Since the mini-civil war of May 2008, it has been clearer than ever that there is no force in the country able to challenge Hizbullah's independent foreign and "defense" policies. The movement maintains a parallel army, parallel security services, a parallel communications network and also, of course, independent educational and social structures.

The winners of last June's elections in Lebanon do not like the current situation, but they are helpless to prevent it, as they have not even succeeded in forming a government since their victory. The extent to which the Hizbullah state within a state is subservient to Iran or maintains its own agenda remains debated by analysts. But there is no debate that it is entirely free of any control or supervision from the official Lebanese state.

Preparations for the next round of fighting are going on daily, undisturbed, in the heart of the populated areas south of the Litani River, and the occasional "work accident" is the only reminder the world receives that it is happening. UNIFIL conducts its patrols and doesn't get in the way, and the LAF plays an even more ambiguous role. Anyone who thought that the war between Hizbullah and Israel ended on August 14, 2006 was surely mistaken.

Jonathan Spyer is a senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Herzliya, Israel


Love of the Land: The Unfinished War

The Phoneys at "J" Street

The Phoneys at "J" Street

J Street’s Spiritual Conceit
By: David M. Weinberg
Oct 24, 2009

The pious spiritual claptrap that characterizes J Street’s conference in Washington this week is both a conceit and a new form of Jewish apostasy. Conference speakers earnestly broadcast their “profound” Jewish and “spiritual” identities in order to besmirch the mainstream Jewish community and engender a distancing in US-Israel relations. This certainly does not fool the American Muslim leaders who are speaking at the conference. They know and appreciate exactly what J Street is up to.

It was the Buddhist seders that tipped me off to the real conceit behind J Street. The sensitive “progressive” types behind the new Washington lobby are deeply concerned, it seems, for the morality and soul of Israel.

Gee, thanks.

A love for Buddhist seders, a penchant for avant garde poetry (including a ballad entitled The Queer Intifada), and an abiding concern for Israel’s spiritual quintessence – all while being intermarried down to nearly the last Jewish soul among them — is how The New York Times recently characterized the founders and key staff members of J Street. They seek, you see, justice and holiness and Jewish meaning in the world. Especially in the Arab-Israel conflict.

This explains the preponderance of numerous, vaporous spiritual types at this week’s big J Street hug-in in Washington. Rabbi Sharon, Rabbi Amy, Rabbi Tirzah, Rabbi Jennie, Rabbi Julie, Rabbi Toba and Rabbi Melissa are among the prominent speakers. They are “diversity facilitators,” “spirituality counselors,” and “interreligious leaders” at places called Neve Kodesh, Brit Tzedek, Dorshei Tzedek and Just Vision.

So much “Tzedek”! So much “Kodesh”! So much overflowing of honey, holiness and justice! At a political lobby conference, no less. Perhaps the organization should be renamed Spiritual Street.

You know that all this righteousness just needs to be exported – through tough love, if necessary — to Israel. To repair the Middle East. To spiritually save Israel in spite of itself. Or at least to salve the sacred American Jewish soul.

Well, enough, I say, of this misty, sentimental and self-serving gobbledygook. All this soft spiritual urgency, supposedly on “behalf of” Israel, belies a triple conceit; or should we say, a great deceit.

Firstly, J Street is peddling the nutty notion that spirituality has anything to do with Mideast peace. The latent chutzpa is the insinuation that authentic identification with the Jewish prophets and morality dovetails with the dovish side of the political map. If only American Jews and Israelis were more religiously dovish and in touch with the forgiving and compassionate side of their Jewish souls – we would do the “left” thing and concede more generously to the Palestinians. Then, lo and behold, peace would come to the Mideast.

The second conceit is that such J Street-peddled nonsense – along with J Street support for talks with Hamas, opposition to military action against the Hamas, and opposition to sanctions or military action against nuclear Iran — represents the majority of American Jewry. Hogwash. Patently false.

The third conceit is that, if only Israel were to change – and it is J Street’s job to get America to force Israel to change – then peace would come to the Mideast. As if Israel was the party unwilling to compromise. As if Israel hasn’t already offered the Palestinians at Oslo and Camp David and Taba and Annapolis just about everything they want of post-67 Israel. As if the Palestinians have compromised on their demands one wit since the great handshake on the White House lawn. But it is Israel that needs to be pressured, say the J Street moral oracles.

J Street is a new form of Jewish apostasy. Its adherents hasten to embrace their Jewishness (even if they don’t really know much about authentic Jewish tradition and morality) in order to besmirch Israel and the mainstream Jewish community. They earnestly declare how “profoundly” Jewish they are, in order to engender a distancing in US-Israel relations.

I guess that’s why J Street has spent most of its resources bashing long-standing supporters of Israel – calling them extremists and right-wingers and accusing them of a ’silencing’ – and listing things that Israel must be made to do. All this, instead of calling out the dangers of Iranian nuclear weapons or Palestinian genocidal anti-Semitism. That’s why they fret over the Jewish soul instead of working to save and protect the physical Jewish State of Israel.

The only people clearly not fooled by all this spiritual mumbo-jumbo are Salam al-Mayarati, Ziad Asali, Trita Parsi and other leaders of the American Muslim Public Affairs Council, American Task Force on Palestine and the National Iranian American Council – all of whom are speaking — surprise, surprise — at the J Street Jewish soul jamboree this week. They undoubtedly see past the pious claptrap, and know – and appreciate – exactly what J Street is up to.

* Originally published in
The Jerusalem Post on October 23, 2009.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...