5/8/12
A fascinating development in Israel with the establishment of a new unity government last night. PM Benyamin Netanyahu and now Deputy PM Shaul Mofaz will oversee a government comprising 94 members of the 120 member Knesset. Such a government will have stability and therefore power to move ahead on the critical issues facing the country. In theory it will be able to do so without being held hostage by the often parochial demands of small parties and minority factions, which have perennially made it difficult for Israeli governments to function effectively.
The centrist Kadima party has now joined the right of center Likud leaving the left leaning and far right parties largely on the sidelines. As one who believes that if any democratic society is to thrive the center has to hold, this is potentially a very healthy development. Let’s give this new government our best wishes for success and hope that its achievements measure up to its potential.
5/7/12
Here are three pieces that are pretty much guaranteed to depress you on the state of the nation. Sorry but I think they are pretty much “must reading.”
The first is by author E.L. Doctorow titled “Unexceptionalism: A Primer.” He wrote it for the NYT and it was published on April 28. If there has been a more concise and cutting short essay written that details exactly what has been ailing us I have not seen it. Please read it by clicking here.
Dan Rather, speaking about his new book “Rather Outspoken” on the Diane Rehm show on May 3 told three stories that confirm some of our worst fears about how the news media are functioning in late 20th and early 21st century America.
He recounts how his controversial report about George W. Bush’s absence without leave from National Guard duty during the Vietnam war was accurate in its essence, even though an element of the documentation was faulty. But a “smokescreen,” as he called it, generated by partisans that focused on the faulty documentation prevented the AWOL behavior itself from becoming the campaign issue it deserved to be. In the face of that organized effort to obscure, Rather and others were unsuccessful in returning public discussion to the original charge.
He also told how during the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002-3, journalists were told to “get on board” with the Administration’s program or face being branded as “unpatriotic.” To his credit he accepts that his conduct in the face of this government intimidation was a journalistic failure.
Rather also tells how Viacom (CBS parent company) majority owner Sumner Redstone, who felt that a second Bush Administration was in Viacom’s best interest, intervened to minimize in the network’s news coverage of the Abu Ghraib scandal. He did so (successfully of course) for fear that fuller reporting would harm the President’s re-election prospects.
These three stories that Rather told illustrate in turn how partisan attack efforts, journalistic cowardice and corporate influence, far more than journalistic independence, to say nothing of excellence, are determining the quality of the news we receive. This in turn has a direct effect on the quality of our democracy, which brings us back to the Doctorow essay at the top of the page.
And while we are on the subject of intimidation, I recommend that you see this report on former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert’s recent trip to New York. Urging caution (about attacking Iran) before an audience of American Jews,
“Mr. Olmert was booed…when he declared that while Israel should prepare the military ability to strike Iran’s nuclear program as a last resort, it should first push for American-led international action against Iran, including sanctions and possible joint military action.
[In response,] Olmert responded caustically. As a concerned Israeli citizen who lives in the state of Israel with his family and all of his children and grandchildren,” he said, “I love very much the courage of those who live 10,000 miles away from the state of Israel and are ready that we will make every possible mistake that will cost lives of Israelis.”
Say what you will about Ehud Olmert, as a Knesset veteran, he knows how to deal with rude and cheap criticism that is designed to intimidate. He also knows how not to wilt in the face of it. Would that our some of our media leaders show some of the same mettle.
Finally, do me a favor by scrolling down to the RDA Blog entry of 3/11/12 for evidence of how great minds think alike. 
I hope to have something more upbeat to share next time.
4/15/12
In a letter published in the NYT, my friend and colleague Rabbi Dennis Ross takes up the current discussion on the role of faith and religion in public life and politics. His conclusion, that “we should promote policies that protect private belief and practice in a way that does not burden, restrict or impose upon the larger spiritually diverse community” is one that I affirm as well. Of course the devil is in the details, the specifics and the commentary, but that is as good a place as any to start. Read his letter and follow the subsequent dialogue here.
If you are not going to read the whole thing, here are my favorite excerpts–and yes, they do affirm the side of the issue that I find most compelling.
“Rabbi Ross is correct that people of faith have every right and indeed have an obligation to participate in the public square and to advocate for public policy on the basis of their religious convictions. What they do not have the right to do is to insist that their views — because they are based on their faith’s teachings — are privileged…
So long as these actions are based on fact and reason, the protections afforded by the First Amendment are secure. But when a public official bases decisions that affect us all solely on the tenets of his or her religious faith, that person jeopardizes the religious liberty of all.” RACHEL STRAUBER, New York, N.Y.
“When a religion is convinced that it knows what God wants, it is hard to resist the urge to demand that it be put into law. We Protestants did it to the nation with Prohibition, and many churches now want to do it by putting into law their religious beliefs concerning women’s reproductive lives.” TOM DAVIS, Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
“…Barack Obama … wrote in a 2006 article in USA Today: “My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policy making must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door.” (Rev.) MICHAEL P. ORSI, Naples, Fla.
“Those opposing same-sex marriage, contraception and reproductive rights — as well as those demanding equal time for teaching intelligent design or the display of religious symbols in the public square — don’t seem to be especially interested in protecting diverse religious beliefs.
They want to have it both ways: to use the political process to impose their views on others while claiming the moral high ground of protected religious freedom.” STEVEN BERKOWITZ, New York
Again, you can read the full discussion here.
4/2/12
Here’s 450 words that I put together on the Afterlife. It’s a new and even somewhat humorous perspective for me, maybe for you as well. Enjoy.
3/27/12
Here’s another New Yorker cartoon, this one with more theological sophistication, from the issue of 3/26. If it needs any commentary you could say that it is a mockery not only of the putative sport-God connection we hear about so often but also the whole notion of intercessory prayer. You can use this one for a chavurah group discussion starter. Enjoy.
———————————–
3/20/12
This should speak for itself. From the 3/19/12 New Yorker:
3/14/12
You may have heard about the Jewish school that would not play in the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools basketball tournament because the game was scheduled on Shabbat. A protest ensued, the game was rescheduled, the conflict was resolved and everyone lived to see another day.
But TAPPS may have done itself one better in its relationship with an Islamic school. The Iman Academy SW, a Houston institution, was seeking admission to the group. Among the questions it was asked on the application included the following:
¶ “Historically, there is nothing in the Koran that fully embraces Christianity or Judaism in the way a Christian and/or a Jew understands his religion. Why, then, are you interested in joining an association whose basic beliefs your religion condemns?”
¶ “It is our understanding that the Koran tells you not to mix with (and even eliminate) the infidels. Christians and Jews fall into that category. Why do you wish to join an organization whose membership is in disagreement with your religious beliefs?”
¶ “How does your school address certain Christian concepts? (i.e. celebrating Christmas)”
I’ll say this plainly. The level of ignorance that these questions betray is stunning. At minimum, it calls for a level of interfaith dialogue to a degree much higher than has evidently been entered into heretofore.
The school chose to withdraw its application in the face of these particulars. Perhaps they too will live to play another day.
————————
Okay, time for a smile. This from the NYT Sunday Styles section, of all places. Trust me and read it through to the bottom:
AFTER a lengthy interview with President Obama in the Oval Office two weeks ago, Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for the Atlantic, had one more question, and it had nothing to do with Iran.
“I know this is cheesy …” Mr. Goldberg started, but before he could finish, the president interrupted him. “What, you have a book?” Mr. Obama asked. Turns out, Mr. Goldberg did, but “it’s not just any book,” he replied.
Mr. Goldberg reached into his briefcase and handed the president an advance copy of the “New American Haggadah,” a new translation of the Passover liturgy that was edited by Jonathan Safran Foer and contains commentary by Mr. Goldberg and other contemporary writers.
After thumbing through the sleek hardcover book, Mr. Obama looked up and asked wryly, “Does this mean that we can’t use the Maxwell House Haggadah anymore?”
For the rest of the article, click here. FWIW, I’ve heard the Haggadah in question would be an excellent addition to any thoughtful seder. Chag kasher v’sameach to one and all.
————————-
3/11/12
The specter of a nuclear Iran is legitimately disconcerting and yes, dangerous. But for those over here who are cheering the loudest when the subject turns to Israel attacking Iran, I would like to raise the following points.
1) It is Israelis, not Americans, who will bear the brunt of the war that an attack on Iran will precipitate. Retaliatory missiles will almost certainly fall on Tel Aviv and most of Israel’s major population centers. Do Americans who will pay almost no price (except perhaps increased oil prices) really want to be held accountable for pounding war drums that will lead to extensive suffering and death in Israel? I also find it notable that those who placed the human cost above all when the issue was (peacefully) evacuating homes from Gaza in 2005, are some of the quickest to discount or ignore the inevitably greater human cost now.
2) Von Clausewitz wrote that war is politics by other means. And we can easily say the same about the call for war. It is legitimate to ask, how much of this is politics by other means? How much of it is tied to the American Presidential election? It is not difficult to answer. The candidates for the nomination are attempting to outdo one another–and the President–in being supportive of Israel. Support is most welcome. But belligerence and recklessness is something else. Again, this is a decision for the Israeli democracy, not the American one, to make.
3) How much do we really know? Really now. Do we really know what the Israelis can do? Do we really know how far along the bomb making process is? (Our track record on this question is dismal. viz. Saddam Hussein, 2003 and many more.) Do we really know what the consequences of an attack will be? Do we really understand how quickly things can spiral out of control? Etc., etc., etc.
I am here to raise questions, not to provide answers. But until these questions are answered, can we be just a little bit less militant in calling for militancy?
RDA
———————-
3/9/12
David Remnick, Editor of the New Yorker magazine, is a long-time and a most astute observer of Israel. His Talk of the Town article on Israel leads the March 12 issue of the magazine. You can click on it here and read his thoughts on democracy in general and its current state in Israel in particular. In a brief essay, he touches on all of the major themes in the country today. Go for it.
3/6/12
Happy Purim everyone. And if you’d like to see a snippet from a Purim shpiel by the students of the Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem click here. It’s a parody on the current Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon” and is called, appropriately enough, “The Book of Purim.” Enjoy!
3/4/12
Here is the link to the Dahaf survey referred to in the story below.
3/1/12
With Israel’s PM Netanyahu coming to Washington next week to meet with President Obama and to address AIPAC, the subject of a nuclear Iran is sure to be on the front burner. With a US election year overlapping the so-called “zone of immunity” that some Israelis claim is the (short) time in which Iran’s nuclear facilities can be successfully attacked, the fur is sure to fly.
One of the things that many supporters of Israel dislike is the co-option of the term “pro-Israel” by one segment of the actual pro-Israel community. On that theme and another equally if not more important, is an article quoting a survey on what Israelis think about a possible Israeli airstrike on Iran. Click here and keep it in mind through next week’s rhetoric and you’ll have plenty to talk about with your pro-Israel friends.
12/9/11
Here’s some must reading for all who believe President Obama is insufficiently pro-Israel. It comes from today’s issue of Ha’aretz and is by blogger Chemi Shalev. Click here for the entry.
5/22/11
On President Obama’s Speech on the Middle East—May 19, 2011
Why Israel’s Supporters Should Be Happy—And Why They Shouldn’t
Why Supporters Of Israel Should Be Happy
The President affirmed support for virtually all of Israel’s long held positions.
A two state solution based on the 1967 borders with appropriate land swaps has been the foundation of all negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians for several years now. American and Israeli governments of both parties have acknowledged that any future peace agreement that creates “two states for two peoples” must be based on this principle.
The President affirmed that any future Palestinian state must be demilitarized. This is consistent with PM Netanyahu’s demand as set forth in his major speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009.
President Obama said that any settlement must “end the conflict.” The Palestinians have yet to agree with this. Israel of course insists upon it.
The President said that the proposed attempt to have the UN General Assembly declare a Palestinian State this September is not the way to go. Israel holds the same.
The President challenged the Palestinians on the fundamental question of how Hamas, which rejects Israel’s existence, can participate in the government of the Palestinian Authority and negotiate peace at the same time.
On the core issues of Jerusalem and the Palestinians claim for the “right of return” the President said that these issues must be negotiated by the parties. This happens to be the case with this–and for that matter all–of the significant issues.
Why Supporters Of Israel Should Not Be Happy
Tension between the occupant of the White House and the Prime Minister in Jerusalem is always uncomfortable. However it is hardly new. Jimmy Carter was not at all fond of Menachem Begin. (Yet they still managed to produce the historic Camp David accords.) George H.W. Bush was not on warm terms with Yitzhak Shamir. (Unfortunately, nothing so positive came out of that pairing.) The relationship between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu is fraught. That does not mean that it is bad for Israel or good for Israel. But it is uncomfortable.
The focus of public attention on the relationship between the President and the Prime Minister is unhelpful. Israel would be much better served if it was on the Palestinians and their positions that are incompatible with peace talks, much less a peace agreement.
Benjamin Netanyahu speaks for perhaps half of Israel. The main opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, endorsed the President’s message and the principles behind it warmly. There is much broader and fuller debate in Israel over these questions than there seems to be in the United States. Discussion needs to be much freer and more sober than it has been.
———————
One of the questions that people often raise when the subject of Jewish-Muslim interfaith dialogue comes up is “Why aren’t the moderates more vocal in speaking out against the radicals?” As someone who has been active in this field, I can tell you that they speak up much more often than people are aware. I lay the blame for the inaccurate perception largely at the foot of the media, who are much more interested in the sensational than the moderate.
In any event, here is a story from the Wall Street Journal on Fethullah Gulen, the spiritual leader of a group with whom we have had outstanding relations in recent years. Not only is he critical of extremists, he is a Turk who criticized Turkey over their role in the Gaza flotilla affair this summer. Read, learn and enjoy.
——————–
June 2
In very brief:
The “Gaza Flotilla” was a deliberate provocation and its organizers were playing a dangerous game—one for which they bear ultimate responsibility for the tragic loss of life. Sadly, a number of well-meaning human rights activists were co-opted by those with a more radical agenda. Even more sadly, Israel did not handle the situation well–at all. Let us hope that diplomatic efforts defuse the tension in the days ahead.
I encourage you to continue to follow the story through Ha’aretz, The Jerusalem Post and the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
————–
May 12
I recently came across this Buddhist teaching: “After you have achieved Enlightenment, return to the marketplace and treat everyone you meet with compassion.” I was struck by its beauty–and also by a Jewish counterpoint.
The Buddhist teaching reminds us that the ultimate purpose of “Enlightenment” is not personal, but communal. Enlightenment’s fruits must be shared with those around us if they are to be genuinely meaningful.
Judaism concurs but might phrase the proposition differently. Rather than saying, “after you attain Enlightenment return to the marketplace,” Jewish practice never really leaves it. For the most part in Jewish life, “Enlightenment” takes place not in some secluded setting but within “the marketplace” itself.
Jewish teaching bids us, in countless texts and teachings, to treat everyone we encounter with consideration, compassion and respect. This is what leads to “enlightenment,” menschlichkeit and a better world for all concerned. And again, it takes place during–not after–the time we seek the higher path. I wish us all a good—and compassionate—journey.
———————–
March 28
Some further thoughts on the current state of affairs between the US and Israel. Whatever else there is to say, the Netanyahu government, through its clumsy handling of the Jerusalem settlement issue, has allowed the world’s focus to be diverted from the core defining issue of continued Palestinian rejection of Israel as a Jewish democracy. Whatever one’s political sympathies, it must be recognized that this is a diplomatic failure of the first order.
The US and Israel are strategic partners and that partnership is not about to be broken. At the same time we should recognize that the US is currently pushing both sides from their respective comfort zones to see if they are serious about reaching an agreement–soon. We should hope for the sake of all concerned that they are.
———————————–
March 22
How long has it taken us to become a country in which health insurance cannot be withdrawn from people who become sick? How long has it taken us to become a country where people do not have to fear bankruptcy and fiscal ruin when they become seriously ill? How long has it taken us to become a country in which people are protected from the harmful policies and practices of insurance companies more interested in their profits than they are in providing actual insurance? How long has it taken us to become a country in which people cannot be denied insurance protection because of “pre-existing conditions?”
Until now it seems. Long overdue and for all the bill’s flaws–and they are many and serious–not a minute too soon. Glory be.
————————————–
March 17
Some thoughts on the current contretemps between Israel and the U.S. on settlement expansion. From a response to a congregant who questioned whether or not Israel has a friend in the White House.
It’s definitely a mess and as a proud Zionist and supporter of Israel, I regret to say that [the current issue] is one that is entirely of Israel’s making. Regarding friendship it is essential to remember that great powers (and even small ones) do not have friends, they have interests. When those interests are at stake, they take precedence over whatever may pass for diplomatic “friendship.” Embarrassing your most important patron and ally the way Israel’s Interior Ministry did is not a way to sustain any form of “friendship,” diplomatic or otherwise.
If there is good news on this it is that the US remains committed to a two-state solution that will enable Israel to function as a Jewish democracy with a Palestinian neighbor hopefully functioning as a viable Arab democracy. I am more certain of the Obama Administration’s commitment to this than I am of the Netanyahu Administration’s. But time will tell.
I encourage you to go to www.haaretz.com or www.jpost.com for Israeli reactions to the issue.
—————————————
January 22
It seems that there is no better way to get the world’s attention than by televising a cataclysmic tragedy.I’m writing this in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake. It has been a horror of the first magnitude, as we are all aware. When the earth moves, as it has been doing since time immemorial, those of us who build our homes on its unsteady and unpredictable foundation (pretty much all of us) are upended and uprooted. And those are just the survivors.
I wonder why people act so surprised. What will we do if/when the next “big one” hits, say in California? Or when the next monster hurricane comes through South Florida?
The first question is “Will we be prepared?” Not in the sense of having enough drinking water, batteries and emergency supplies. Rather in the sense of having enough emotional reserve to enable us to focus on what we need to do to survive and aid others without wasting precious mental energy wondering “How could this have happened?” or “How could G-d do this to us?”
The answer to the first question can be answered by anyone who studied Earth Science in grade school. The answer to the second is more complex.
After studying that second question for many years I have come to the following conclusion: I don’t know. At the same time, I believe that those who claim a more definite answer are further off base than I am. We have heard people say that the earthquake hit Haiti (or the hurricane hit New Orleans or the tsunami hit Indonesia, etc.) because God was punishing the people there. Then there is the view, Biblically based I might add, that no earthly mortal knows the mind of G-d well enough to say. (Moses, Isaiah and Job, for starters, are in that company.) I encourage people to run, not walk, away from people who claim to know G-d’s thoughts better than those Prophets of old.
Still, if “G-d is truly everywhere,” then where is G-d in tragedies like these? The answer to that is relatively easy as well. G-d is in the response of the decent people who moved heaven, earth and rubble to rescue, feed, clothe, shelter and heal the victims. To cite but one example, G-d was in the Israeli Army’s rapid response team who, upon notice of the catastrophe, dispatched a mobile field hospital to Port au Prince and immediately got busy doing G-d’s work. It’s not easy to be recognized as a “Light Unto the Nations” these days but that act associated the phrase with Israel in fair-minded people around the globe. We should take pride, be inspired by the example–and yes, be grateful for the favorable PR.
Disasters are inevitable. They are a fact of life on the planet we inhabit and they come to touch all of our personal and family lives. We would be wise to carve out the psychic-spiritual space we will need to cope with them before they occur. And we should be prepared to do G-d’s work for others at a moment’s notice as well.
——————————————————————
Dec. 31
168. Does that number mean anything to you? It should. I’ll give you a moment to think about it.
At a recent conference I attended at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, one of the presenters, a former CEO of a major corporation, wrote the number “168” on the board and asked if it meant anything to us. We collectively scratched our heads. Finally, someone in a large room filled with rabbis and synagogue executive directors came up with the answer: 168 is 24 x 7–the number of hours in a week.
The CEO went on to teach us a truth that is self-evident, though many of us disregard it nonetheless. No matter what we do, no matter how hard we try, none of us has more than 168 hours to do everything we need to do, everything we want to do, everything we hope to do, during each and every week of our lives.
Let’s pause/shudder and reflect on how many of those hours we put to less than optimum use. How much time do we really need to be watching television? How much of our online time is productive as opposed to wasteful? How much time (and this one was painful for me) should we be devoting to watching other people play games e.g. our favorite sports teams? Etc., etc., etc. I don’t go to the movies that often but I saw one this week that I had hopes for (Avatar.) The special effects were spectacular but when all was said and done I said to myself, these are 2 ½ hours of my life that I am just not getting back.
My pledge to you on the RDA Blog, indeed on the entire website, is that I will do everything I can to make sure you say that the time you spend here will be worthwhile, good use of a small portion of the 168 hours we receive every week.
May it be a healthy and happy 2010, filled with useful productivity and blessing, for one and all.
Best and shalom, R
———————————————————————–
Dec. 20
Thought I might as well offer a few words on Tiger Woods. His statement that he was going to take a leave of absence from professional golf to work on “becoming a better husband, father and person” struck me as powerful. While it hardly negates what led up to it, if he is sincere, it is grounds for wishing him and his family well.
Forgiveness is essential in Judaism. Without it, we would have an unrecognizable faith. It is the focus of our year’s holiest days and observant Jews pray for it three times each weekday. Judaism understands that it is a given that human beings will sin, sometimes grievously. But without repentance, the Rabbis taught, it would be impossible to sustain community, friendship or family.
Genuine repentance is neither easy or cheap. It requires at least three elements. 1) Recognition by the wrongdoer of the wrongdoing. 2) Sincere regret and apology to those hurt. 3) Cessation and non-repetition of the behavior in question.
Sometimes, even when those steps are taken sincerely, too much damage is done for a relationship to be repaired,. How it will play out in Tiger’s family, only time will tell. (It is a shame that he does not have the ability to work this out in private but we’ll leave that topic for another day.) In the meantime, if the rest of us learn what not to do–and what we need to do when we do what we shouldn’t do–he will have given us all a valuable object lesson. Too bad that for him it was such an expensive one.
——————————————————————————————————–
Dec. 17
So on this morning’s NYT Op-Ed page, Paul Krugman and David Brooks weigh in on the Senate health care bill. What was interesting to me about their respective analyses was that while both fully discussed the shortcomings and complexities of the proposal, Krugman noted that the bill would prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and from cancelling it when people got sick. Brooks did not mention this at all and if I am not mistaken, it has been absent from virtually all of his writing on health care reform this year.
As disappointed as I have been with all the legislative sausage-making, and there is a huge amount to criticize, the provisions that will prevent insurers from denying coverage to those who need it most make passage of the bill imperative. These same provisions should also greatly reduce the number of people who fall into bankruptcy because they have no, or too little, health insurance. That these kinds of things happen in a country like ours is simply inexcusable.
Yes, it needs to be improved as time goes on but for now, this is an historic opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. Do what is right senators–thank you.
P.S. I have written more extensively on this topic and if you are interested you can find it at the 8/28/09 entry here.
