A quick comment on Newt Gingrich’s rise in GOP presidential sweepstakes: I interviewed him several times while editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times in the 90s and in early 1995 wrote a 4,000 word cover story on him.

He is deeply paradoxical: He has a truly flawed ethical past regarding his marriages, had a number of close Jewish supporters, a highly respected intellect, fantastic speaking skills, a remarkable grasp of complicated issues and a strong Likud orientation on Israel. He also is a ruthless politician with remarkable focus.

In short, it was hard to argue with Newt because he knew so much. Rather, it was best to listen then go home and think about it—a luxury of time that politics does not often allow.

On Israel he was a center-right and not hard right. In other words, he was willing to engage in the possible. He would not think of tolerating anti-Semitism. He spoke in front of several Jewish groups—including a Conservative synagogue (Etz Chaim—across the street from his district office) and to the Haredi Orthodox Torah Day School.

I once asked him, “You describe yourself as a man of faith. How would you describe your faith?”

His response: “Total.”

Me: “Can you explain that a little?

Him: “Total.”

In other words, that’s my answer and that’s all you’re going to get. Sharp indeed. 

A huge question is whether Newt could work with Democrats on anything. The architect of the 1994 Contract With America (jokingly referred to by Democrats as Contract On America) is not one known for compromise from stated positions.

Personally, I do not think Newt will overcome his personal past and become the nominee (but who knows?). I do know that when it comes to intellect, he is hands down the brightest GOPer in the race.

Among the frightening scenarios facing Israel these days as the Arab Spring sputters and spurts along is the uncertainty of the Israel-Egyptian relationship, which some fear could ultimately result in Cairo tearing up its famed 1979 peace treaty with Jerusalem.

Only yesterday (Thursday) the important natural gas pipeline from Egypt to Israel was purposely exploded by anti-Israel radicals for the seventh time since February (when Egypt’s revolution was in its initial days. See more at: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-10/egypt-s-natural-gas-pipeline-to-israel-jordan-struck-by-double-explosion?category=%2F
).

This all raises fears that the Cold Peace between the neighbors will become a Cold War.

In truth, it’s been that way for a while. Yet holding the formal ties together – prompted by the U.S. “buying the peace” in 1979 with billions in military aid each year to both countries – have been long-time Egyptian leaders Hosni Mubarak and intelligence boss Omar Suleiman. The first is now arrested and on trial, the second out of favor (although I imagine he’s being protected from prosecution by Egypt’s new army bosses).

So what will happen? On Wednesday I met Lt. Col. (Res.) Ronnie Porat for coffee. He’s currently the Jewish National Fund Israel Emissary for Southern and Florida zones. Prior to that he served for a number of years in the Israel Defense Forces intelligence and operations branch. As his bio says, he was “conducting research on Egyptian-Israeli military history.” At various points, he worked in Israel’s embassy in Amman, Jordan and in Israel’s embassy in Cairo.

He stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of JNF, but as a private individual. And he sees a much brighter picture than many. I think it’s too early to tell, and told him that.

“The Arab Spring will be bringing, in the long run, positive things to Israel and Egypt,” he said without equivocation, noting Israeli Jewish society still suffers from the “Holocaust syndrome” of fear, which as a son of Holocaust survivors he understands but thinks has created far too much angst.

With Egypt, for example, he correctly noted that it’s not in the interest of that country’s next rulers—likely after the scheduled March 2012 presidential elections to form a coalition with former army/intelligence folks, Moslem Brotherhood representatives and secular democrats – to have tensions with Israel.

In addition to the 1979 peace treaty limiting Egyptian military forces in the Sinai Desert into three zones, he noted that tankers passing through the Suez Canal (whose closure prompted wars with Israel in 1956 and 1967) bring Egypt $5 billion a year.

With a once $12 billion a year and now tottering tourist industry (for obvious reasons), that Suez revenue is even more important.

“The main problem that should be addressed immediately by the Egyptian—current and future—regime is the internal economic one,” he said. “If the current peaceful situation will be changed into a sort of a tension between the two countries, it will badly affect the tourism, as well as the naval traffic through the Suez Canal. So it’s definitely in Egypt’s interest to maintain the peaceful—even if it described as cold peace—status quo.”

Then he added, “It looks like that even if the Moslem Brotherhood will be an influential component in the future Egyptian local politics, they will definitely need to consider the facts above.”

I noted that while I agreed with much of what he said, his is the rosiest scenario.

I’m concerned that Egypt’s rulers will let off popular steam by allowing a loser patrolling of the border with Gaza, allowing in even more weapons. He disagreed saying, “That’s already happening.”

Indeed, today there are reports that Israel will equip its El Al planes with anti-missile systems as rockets are said to be coming into Gaza from Libya (and guess where they have to cross first – yep, Egypt). (Read more at: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-to-equip-airliners-with-anti-missile-system-as-libyan-arms-reach-gaza-1.395057 .)

And, I added, it could get worse. Egypt’s rulers could use tensions in Gaza to keep Israel off balance, which would raise the popularity of those rulers with the infamous “Arab street,” which could distract from economic woes at home.

I certainly hope I’m wrong.

Long-time Jerusalem Post Diplomatic Correspondent Herb Keinon had some interesting words at a lunch meeting today, sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and the Baltimore Jewish Council.

Only days after President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were heard – when they thought the microphone was off—insulting Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Keinon gave a “so what” response. As the product of Denver’s Jewish community and Israeli since the early 1980s said, whose surprised? Sure, it’s news, he added, but it doesn’t really matter because leaders don’t have to like each other; they just need to work together and by all accounts the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the sphere that counts most – the military one – is thriving.

And, I add, if the U.S.-Israel relationship is only as strong as the person in the White House, it’s pretty fickle – which it’s not.

But Keinon’s further analysis of Obama and the Jews was spot on. He noted how the President first did outreach to the Moslem and Arab world by visiting Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the latter venue where he gave an important address to a gathering of Moslem leaders and intellectuals.

That actually was good, Keinon said, because if America is stronger Israel is strong. What was bad was that not only did Obama skip Israel on that trip (and every journey since becoming President), but he linked the creation of Israel to the Holocaust. “The Zionist movement was founded some 70 years before the State of Israel,” he said. “It wasn’t created by the Holocaust.”

He’s right. But Keinon – to the surprise of some – gave Obama a thumbs up for recent actions. Obama came into office, he said, with a very different worldview than Israelis and Netanyahu; the American believed negotiations can work while he did not understand that Israel presented a public battered and untrusting of dialogue with a people whose leaders for decades have said they want to wipe them out. (And he gave a fascinating aside as to how he – with a self-described liberal upbringing and now a resident of the West Bank suburb of Ma’alei Adumin – has strived to educate his four children to understand that not all Palestinians or Arabs are evil.)

Obama’s “good behavior” began with the September U.N. speech in which the president gave full and staunch backing to Israel’s right to exist (absurd that it even had to be mentioned), rejection of the U.N. declaring a Palestinian state (thus mocking negotiations) and strong language that the U.S. would never remove itself from Israel’s side.

“President Obama stood up and gave the most pro-Israel speech of the past three years,” Keinon said. “You can say it doesn’t matter and you don’t put much stock in it. You can say it was about the 2012 elections. You can say it came after what happened in the New York election [where a Democratic, Jewish district went Republican]. Or he didn’t mean it. Certainly some of that may be true, but I say, `So what?’

“It sends an important message to the Egyptians and the world that the President of the United States is not an autocrat, that he has limits on what he can do.”

And that is a product of American Jewish networking, lobbying, politicking and coalition building. That, in fact, is remarkable – particularly when looking at the course of modern Jewish history. Despite the ups and days and the headlines of the day, it shouldn’t be forgotten.

A new Anti-Defamation League national survey finds that 31 percent of Americans still agree that “Jews were responsible for the death of Christ.” (See more on the report here: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6154_12.htm )

On the one hand – sadly – this is progress. After all, until 1965 the Roman Catholic Church (whose policy still sets the pace for a huge swathe of the Christian world) still technically blamed “the Jews” for the death of Jesus.

Of course, then and now the notion was indefensible by any logic. That is because Jesus and his disciples were all Jews and to them, the world was divided into Jews and non-Jews (albeit on the one side “good Jews” and “bad Jews”). They always saw themselves as Jews. Period—albeit ones who followed the teachings of Yeshu ben-Yosef – a.k.a. Jesus, son of Joseph, whom we call Jesus of Nazareth (Christ deriving from the Greek word for messiah, or anointed one).

Semantics aside, today this is a deep failure not only of American Christians, but of interfaith dialogue groups of which both many Jews and Christians have invested great energy.

If there is a silver lining to the gray cloud, it is this: “only” 15 percent of Americans hold “deeply anti-Semitic views.” And as disturbing as that is, it’s an improvement from past generations (albeit a marginal increase over the past few years, which – again sadly – is not a surprise in these miserable economic times).

Upon learning such information, I reflect on what Rabbi Tarfon said in the Talmud – and what I think is a metaphor for the long march of Jewish life “Yours is not to finish from the process of creation, neither is it to desist from it.” In this case, the task of normalizing Christian-Jewish relations is massive and will not be completed any time soon (if ever), but it cannot be forsaken. Chief among the reasons why is we know that working on it can literally saves lives – particularly our own.

In what might be seen as a stunning revelation, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has told Israel TV that the Arab rejection of a separate Palestinian Arab and Palestinian Jewish state (yes Jews there were Palestinians, too, until May 15, 1948) was wrong.

“It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole,” the Palestinian Authority president told Israel’s Channel 2 TV in an interview translated by the Associated Press (according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency). “But do they punish us for this mistake for 64 years?”

It’s quite easy to scoff at the remark, and there is much to “punish” in those 64 years – chief among them never making a realistic counter-offer to Israeli concessions whose stated end result was an independent Palestinian state. Still, these words could be the start of Palestinian self-reversal of a self-righteousness that refuses responsibility for their own woes. Perhaps it is more hollow rhetoric designed to impress the West. Or perhaps it is a trial balloon to gauge Israeli reaction.

For certain, the words are meaningless without meaningful follow up action. This is where American pro-Israel centrist and left-leaning groups come in. Groups such as Americans for Peace Now, J-Street, the Israel Policy Forum and the like speak openly with Abbas and his emissaries regularly.  Other American Jewish groups – Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation league and more – speak privately with Abbas and his representatives all the time.

Some steps they can to take, which will nudge a reluctant Israeli government into response:

• Now is the time for we American Jews who believe in a two-state solution to press Abbas to repeat in Arabic what he has said; it can be done as part of a joint statement with American Jewish and Muslim groups about the need for a two state-solution.

• It also speaks of the need to invite Abbas and his emissaries to address major American Jewish groups, forcing him to say what he is not naturally inclined to say.

• Likewise, American Jewish groups should push to address Palestinian legislators in the West Bank. (Simply forget about Gaza while Hamas embraces its viciously anti-Semitic characteristics.  Rather, raise the standard of hope and living in the West Bank, showing Gazans what civil society nurtures.)

• It’s also time for Abbas to address the many issues surrounding Palestinian incitement of Israel and Jews in textbooks (of which there is much information and disinformation).

All of that (or even some of it) would be something indeed.

So rather than scoff at this as just another PR moment for Abbas, we cannot allow this to be yet another lost opportunity. We must continue to press Abbas in the right ways, not the ones that embarrass him, back him into a corner and force him to be “holier than Hamas” when it comes to armed struggle.

Will it pay off? For certain we know the result of no effort.

Here’s a brief review of the new book by Shimon Peres on David Ben-Gurion called:

Ben- Gurion: A Political Life, 2011, (Shocken Books). A link to it is here: http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Gurion-Political-Life-Shimon-Peres/dp/0805242821/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319741451&sr=1-1

David Ben-Gurion has rightly entered the annals of modern Jewish history as a prophet in his time (and perhaps for all time), and Shimon Peres can rightly claim the title of Ben-Gurion’s anointed disciple. At the height of power, both were praised and reviled – although we cannot yet know if the still remarkably vigorous 88-year-old Peres will be remembered as a visionary (for engineering the Oslo Accords) or a fool (for engineering the Oslo Accords).

So it is only fitting that Peres (with journalist David Landau) has penned “Ben-Gurion: A Political Life,” a fascinating book that offers one historical leader chronicling and analyzing the life and times of his even more important mentor.

Throughout, we are treated to an insider’s view of Ben-Gurion’s biting scorn for his opposition, calls that seemingly went against his own views (such as withdrawing from the Sinai in 1956) and multiple resignations in disgust with his own party’s colleagues—only to return because every would-be successor knew he or she could not be as decisive, the qualities of a democratically-elected benevolent autocrat so desperately needed in the tumultuous early days of the State of Israel.

Not surprisingly, Peres’s healthy ego comes through, particularly in discussing why he believes Ben-Gurion embraced him over other young Mapai party stalwarts. One can live without “Peres on Peres,” but such is the nature of the beast. Besides, the relatively brief passage when compared to the book as a whole is overwhelmed by first-person accounts of Ben-Gurion’s facing phenomenal pressure, voracious intellectual appetite, single-minded purpose in creating a state (for which his family paid a hefty price – basically living without him)  and jockeying with the day’s top European and American leaders.

As Peres sums up, “It was Ben-Gurion’s genius to embrace the pragmatic acceptance of the possible, essential for nation building, without ever abandoning the prophetic yearning for moral perfection.”

It’s a characteristic one desperately wants to see in today’s leaders across the spectrum (both here and in Israel), individuals seemingly much more interested in pleasing their fringe followers than in (re)building a solid center.

All that said, the disciple remains enamored with the mentor, and we should be grateful.

For many of us, this morning (Tuesday) it is difficult to explain the emotions of seeing Israeli Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit salute the Prime Minister of Israel, embrace his parents and speak to the citizens of the world’s only Jewish state.

Why in particular does it mean so much to so many of us who live outside of the State of Israel? Why is it so emotional? Why is it a day that we will remember where we were when we heard, just as has happened so many other times in our life?

It is because in Gilad Shalit we see the embodiment of the modern Jewish state – as well as our nephews and nieces, friends’ children and other Israeli soldiers we have met along the way in our own Jewish identity journeys. In Gilad, we see that a thread of hope can sometimes grow, that hope is not always (although so sadly often) overwhelmed by despair.

And, of course, the unspoken bond is one of fear, knowing that soon we may have to mourn and it is better to do so as one. That is because Israel is paying an incredibly high and controversial price to return one breathing soldier to the arms of his loved ones.

This can be read in opposing ways: On the one hand, it is a foolish, emotional response that enables terrorists to celebrate, which is exactly what they are doing. Hamas is a huge winner today. In fact, it is not the “more moderate” Fatah that is bringing home more than 1,000 prisoners – some who have served for more than three decades and emerge as old men, broken in body if not in spirit.

And some of these people will be engaged in terrorism again, particularly the younger ones. One cannot doubt that.

Against this, we weigh two Jewish values which are actually one: A few weeks ago we read in the Torah portion the instruction of “bacharta chaim,” you shall chose life. And in subsequent Jewish generations, we embraced the value of “pidyon hashvuyim,” or redemption of the captives.

The controversy comes from at what point does paying ransom for captives – so common in the Middle Ages – actually encourage more abductions? After all, Hamas has said repeatedly that it will seek more Israeli captives because the payoff is so big.

Does that mean that Israeli Jewish society is weak and cannot grasp realpolitik?

I think not. That is because it is a society of values. Even after listening to the victims of terror, and trying to imagine their incredible pain, I still hold these basic beliefs:

*Terrorists do not need encouragement. Let’s say Israel turned down the deal and declared Gilad Shalit dead, as some have encouraged. Does anyone think Hamas and its like-minded thugs would cease trying to inflict pain on the Israeli and Jewish people?

*I trust the security leaders of the State of Israel. The heads of Israel’s main security services – internal, external and military intelligence – backed this deal. They are obviously much wiser in such ways than I am.

*In this protracted war for the right of the Jewish people to reclaim its role in history – with its military, political and cultural fronts – this is a celebration for the People and State of Israel. We need these moments, we need these symbols, we need this sense of reinforcement of what Mordecai Kaplan in the early 20th century so correctly called “Jewish peoplehood.”

*Finally, to paraphrase what someone in Israel recently told me, “Terrorism is painful, but it is not an existential threat to the State of Israel. The unity of the nation and the army in particular is an existential threat to the State of Israel.”

And today, I also reflect on words of Yitzhak Rabin before he was gunned down by a lunatic with far too much support: “For Israel there is no path that is without pain…”

Footnote: Tonight, in our sukkah, I will speak to my children about the meaning of pidyon hashvuyim and peace. Then I will take a scissors and cut a rubber blue bracelet I have worn for about five years and two months. It has three names on it – Eldad, Udi and Gilad. The first two were Israeli soldiers taken on the Lebanese border by Hezbollah. Their bodies were returned in a previous prisoner exchange. Their bodies were given a proper burial. But now Gilad Shalit is home. Alive.

When a house of worship is firebombed, a cemetery is vandalized or protestors call for deportations, it’s vicious hatred. And it must be aggressively combated.

When it happens in the State of Israel – to Jews, Christians and Muslims within a few days – it represents incendiary agents tossed upon the region’s proverbial gunpowder of inter-religious, inter-ethnic conflicts.

So it was that last week – just before, during and after Yom Kippur – that Israeli society again found itself nursing a self-inflicted black eye. But this time, American Jews can do something by actively impressing on Israeli leaders how despite our many differences, instead of ripping each other apart we actually coalesce around loosely defined goals and at least strive to respect our differences – ones that in Israel can literally bring a government’s demise.

I speak of how last week an Israeli Arab mosque was torched, dozens of graves in Christian and Muslim cemeteries vandalized, and just after Yom Kippur, a Molotov cocktail was tossed into a synagogue.

Fortunately, and unlike elsewhere in the region, each act received unequivocal condemnation from the country’s top religious and political leaders.

Of particular note – and where we come in – is that after the mosque attack the New Israel Fund quickly garnered many signatures of Diaspora rabbis, cantors and others to condemn the act.

The document reads in part: “As religious leaders and representatives of Jewish houses of worship around the world, we wish to express our deep sadness and outrage at the desecration of a mosque in the Bedouin village of Tuba-Zangariya in the north of Israel. We condemn this act as an affront to G-d and to the values of our Torah… In this season of reflection and celebration, we pray that such acts like the attack on this mosque will not succeed in driving Israelis apart. Indeed, we pray that they will become the occasion of acts of fellowship and solidarity among Israelis from every walk of life.”

The good news is that 1,000 leaders signed. The bad news is that 10,000 did not. Local signatures included Rabbis Elizabeth Bolton, Susan Grossman and Jerry Seidler. We should urge their colleagues to follow suit. Immediately. (See http://www.nif.org/RabbisStatement .)

Why would any rabbi of any flavor not do so? There is no talk of “land for peace” or “religious coercion” or the like. Rather, it’s about enabling fellow humans to worship God as they see fit in the democratic State of Israel.

No doubt, some will be reluctant to sign a piece promoted by the New Israel Fund, which supports liberal organizations. Indeed, it is a failing that NIF – which I know had to act quickly – did not get a “right-wing” co-sponsor, such as Religious Zionists of America or the Zionist Organization of America.

It’s not too late.

When the politics are put aside, we want the same thing. Or at least we should—a healthy, independent, democratic Jewish state. Yes, there is inherent tension in the phrase “Jewish democracy,” but as one infers from the great modern Orthodox thinker Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, tension brings creativity, which enables one to live meaningfully with seeming paradoxes and alleged absolutes.

In fact, religious pluralism—or at least learning (struggling) to “live and let live”—is a hallmark of American Jewish life. Its principles enable us to set aside particular differences while embracing shared general ones. That is a gift we must help impress on the dangerously fractured Israeli society.

And if anyone has an argument with promoting it, I have an argument with them.

So I’m sitting in synagogue on a recent Shabbat morning, the familiar and comforting prayers being chanted and my joining in as scripted.

Then I get up and leave.

Like I do every single week.

And as I do so, no matter what I tell the person sitting next to me, I know it might be some time before I get back in and ask the closest person, “Did I miss anything we didn’t do last week?”

What is it about going to synagogue that drives me and other regulars (including periodically the rabbi) into the hall to talk about matters both profound and trivial?

It is simply that synagogues attract like-minded people, ones who enjoy ritual and prayer as well as chatting with fellow seekers of the unattainable “understanding the purpose of life” thing. In some way, we are all there to connect with one another on our mysterious, strange journey. Yes, there are moments in services when I yearn for that deep connection to “God-thought” and Jewish heritage, when I do get lost in the prayer and my mind wanders through the ages of Jewish history. Admittedly, such experiences are rare. But they also are precious, which keeps me coming back for more.

People who do not go to synagogue regularly miss this. Mind you, they often don’t’ go for several understandable reasons:

*They don’t believe “that stuff.” I get it. As the middle school kids asked a few years ago when I was helping lead Junior Congregation, “Aren’t all the prayers the same? God’s great, God’s great. Why so many versions?”

*They don’t like “the show,” which of course can be shifted with a change in venue.

*They do not feel comfortable saying prayers they don’t understand, which can be addressed by the same way as above.

*They have other time obligations – errands, kids’ sports, etc. But life is about setting priorities. It ain’t easy to make commitments, but when we make our choices we shouldn’t complain down the road about their results.

*They just don’t like the clergy at their congregation. Again, it’s that shift in venue thing.

So why do I go? In part it’s because I like the congregants, the rabbi and the informal structure of services where I have my “fixed place.” But it all began because I have an admitted need to be part of something larger than I am, to have a sense of roots and to do so in a place where I can seriously question, learn and enjoy. (And yes, as friends know, I’m a big Kiddush fan, too; I’ve even grown to love pickled herring, which in younger years seemed as likely as my becoming a singer for that great odd rock group the B-52s).

And unlike some, I am not necessarily in synagogue out of a sense of religious obligation. Rather, I am there because I am quite unsure of the purpose of life and need a place to explore it and I cannot find a more logical, comprehensive, compelling framework than Judaism and the Jewish experience.

So if you haven’t been to synagogue or temple or shul (or your preferred label) in a while, as we lead up to Rosh Hashanah – particularly as the introspective month of Elul that leads up to it just began) – stop by a Jewish house of worship that fits your needs, particularly one that you have yet to experience. In Baltimore, you have more choices than someone at the Texas State Fair who asks if there’s any fried food on the premises.

And somewhere out in the hallway, I hope you bump into yourself.

When Texas Gov. Rick Perry jumped into the GOP presidential sweepstakes this week, he overtly spoke of his desire to enter the Oval Office with his savior, Jesus of Nazareth, leading the spiritual way. In fact, last week alone the elected official said that he was “called” to the presidency. Then at a massive prayer rally he appealed to Jesus to save America.

One might justly ask, “save American from whom?” No one cannot deny our country’s damaged economic, environmental and employment standing. Yet, they stem from joint Democratic AND Republican leadership, which is what it will take to improve the situation. And, by the way, the country is not “lost” or in need of “saving.” Rather, it is struggling. Mightily. And by playing the religion card, Perry can only divide the nation even more, purposely or otherwise. That is not because America is a land separated into major segments of heathens and believers. Rather, it is because the country is best when it keeps overt religion – not broad religious principals – out of the Oval office.

This religious talk makes some – not all – Jews nervous. That stems from a centuries long gene implanted in the DNA due to the violent abuse of political power by non-democratic rulers. So today some Jews brush off comments such as Perry’s as politics that plays to the American mainstream (certainly not much of northwest Baltimore City or central Baltimore County) or as a hangover from the once doctrinaire Jewish iron wall against combining religion and state. But our nation’s founders correctly warned about the toxic mix of faith and government. The solid reasoning for that has not changed.

One’s religious beliefs surely do help create one’s public policies. But decisions must be made in accordance with the law of the land – ones that enshrine protection of minority beliefs and populations. What Perry believes is his business. What he – and any candidate – needs to prove to ALL Americans is that he can represent every one of us while resenting or repressing not one of us with exclusionary practices. 

As I write, the Jewish world (or at least the more traditional, observant part of it) is preparing to commemorate Tisha B’Av. It is not a holiday (as an Israeli shop keeper once lectured me when I asked him if he was closing early for the “chag”). Rather, it is a commemoration – somewhat of a committee decision to remember many of the greatest tragedies of the Jewish people. The truth is that historically many of these events did not exactly occur on the Ninth Day of Av. Yet they did occur on and around there. Never mind, the centuries blur such distinctions, which really is not problematic at all when creating national memory.

The real issue, however, is that the vast majority of Jews today do not commemorate Tisha B’Av. In fact, many have never even heard of it. (I, despite being from a very solid American Jewish family, was one of them until I was first in Israel at age 19). After all, it both takes place in the middle of the summer when Hebrew school isn’t in session and is Jewishly nationalistic in nature, which is not something many American Jews spend a lot of time on.

That’s why it should be changed. Tisha B’Av as presented is about gloom and doom, death and destruction. That is all very real and very painful for many people. But for others it seems irrelevant in an era that demands a driven optimism and a media-drive culture of the moment.

You can lament that – which would be fitting on such a day – but we should also try to do something about it.

That’s why I believe that Tisha B’Av should be reinvented/repackaged by Jewish educators as a Jewish History Day. That would help keep it religious in nature for observant Jews AND make it more palatable to other Diaspora Jews.

Again, so as not to insult, I’m mainly talking about the non-traditional types here. In Orthodoxy in particular this commemoration is quite serious indeed. Likewise, some of the hardcore in the Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist camps do observe the occurrence. However, we have to admit that outside of Orthodox the percentage of those observing is very low indeed.

What should Jews of all flavors be encouraged to do on Tisha B’av, particularly if they skip the traditional mourning modes of prayer, fasting and introspection?

• Watch a Jewish history film with the film about the Holocaust, Israel or something else. Holocaust films abound. I have to recommend the “Jazz Singer” – the Danny Kay version please (all due respect to Al Jolson and Neil Diamond). Then there’s “Munich,” which presents real ethical conundrums about Jewish power. Meanwhile, “Crossing Delancy Street” helps us remember the remnant of New York City’s Lower East side. There are just so many more great choices.

• Read a book about Jewish history. I am currently rereading Elie Wiesel’s “Beggar In Jerusalem.” Its writing is profound and provides a stirring weave through modern Jewish history. Find your own good read; it’s truly not hard.

• Invite some friends over and talk about what you admire most about a figure in Jewish history – whether it be Moses or Stephen Spielberg or Golda Meir.

• Listen to some klezmer music and reflect on a world gone by; let that evocative music penetrate your soul while you think about your ancestors. (If you are Sephardi, do the same with Ladino music).

• Sign up for an upcoming Jewish lecture or class at your area synagogue, the Baltimore Hebrew Institute ( http://www.towson.edu/bhi ) or elsewhere.

Mostly, think about being Jewish, what the label means and what you would like it to mean for your children and grandchildren. Then figure out how to dedicate or rededicate yourself anew to making that happen.

May you have a meaningful Tisha B’Av.

Here we go again. The State of Israel’s Supreme Court ruled this week that the largest illegal West Bank Jewish outpost must be disbanded. The government even admitted that Migron, which has 50 families, was built with state funds on Palestinian-owned lands. That same government has in the past agreed to evacuate the outpost (and some 101 others declared illegal) but not followed through. The court ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by Peace Now, a leading anti-settlement group.

(For more, read: http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?ID=232107&R=R1).

In this case, illegal settlements are ones that then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (a political architect of settlement acceleration from the late 1970s) declared were not begun with state approval after March 2001.

Migron’s residents have in the past consented to relocate to undeveloped land within the nearby settlement of Adam. Yet, in a pathetically sad replay of the Sharon-led August 2005 evacuation of about 9,000 Jews from the Gaza Strip, that promised housing has yet to be built.

Still, that these settlers – and more importantly their politically influential settlers’ council—have agreed to relocate without a fight speaks highly of them. Clearly they are more interested in generally living on land sacred to Jewish history than in a specific house. This avoids creating the national trauma we saw with the Gaza withdrawal).

Mind you, the state has until March 2012 to act – which means a lot can (and will) happen between now and then. The court really should have pushed action up many months, thereby forcing the speedy construction of new homes for Migron’s residents.

Still, this shows that a future consolidation of settlements, which would be integral to a possible settlement with the Palestinian Authority, might be possible. Whether that policy could be carried out on a large scale—it would require the relocation of more than 100,000 settlers—remains a very open question.

Yet, if it cannot be done now, trying later is inconceivable. By acting quickly and successfully, the Israeli government could gain points with its electorate’s most ideological extremes, as represented by the supporters of both Peace Now and the settlers. That would be a matter of pride to American Jews – increasing numbers of whom studies show are alienated from the State of Israel and its policies.

No issue further splits Israelis at home and its supporters abroad than Jewish settlement in the biblical heartland. Mindful that this exercise—a court ruling, a government agreement and then little follow up—has played itself out before, one hopes this time to see a different result.

Peace with Israel will not be on the way. Hezbollah might still be receiving weapons freely. Western businessmen will not be building new hotels. Cultural delegations will not be heading to the United States. Islamists may gain a foothold.

So much for the optimistic scenario of the outcome of the street revolutions now gripping and spreading throughout President Bashar el-Assad’s Syria. Despite now daily protests increasingly met with violent military response by snipers, tanks and occupation troops, Assad remains in control. He is, of course, following the example set by dad – the late Hafez – who in 1982 killed about 15,000 or so people in Hama (which is in revolt again) by simply surrounding it with artillery and nearly destroying the whole town.

That example held up well for nearly 30 years, but a combination of factors has led to this Assad’s government slowly losing control: The inspiration of the “Arab Spring,” the increasing importance of the Internet/cell phones in spreading information (which means government loss of controlling public information), and continually failed economic reforms that have worsened the quality of life (meaning the people increasingly feel they have nothing to lose, including their lives).

There are three scenarios that could ultimately occur:

*Assad, who has already signaled that he is willing to murder thousands of civilians, could stay in power with the backing of his military. If he can calm the situation, his torture jails again will fill with dissidents and he will brutalize seeds of political opposition.

*Assad could be forced out by that same military, which will take over just as Turkey’s brass did in the 1970s. The results of this scenario remain unknown. One way to gauge it, however, is realize that those military chiefs will not turn to the west for their weapons.

*Assad and his cronies will be forced out, leaving the country in a state of disarray and anarchy (which is potentially very bad for Israel and the west). That would occur because, unlike in Libya, the Syrian rebels have no power structure or control of limited territory to begin learning the hard work of governing. Nor do they have the air power protection of western forces. So that leaves the country open to the influence of Iran and others.

While this last case scenario – Assad and his military cronies being bumped out – is the most favorable one to the West, this is the Middle East and often you want to joust with the devil you do know.

But that realpolitik scenario seems increasingly unlikely, which means we should prepare for a long, tumultuous transition that will have numerous ups and downs. Managing it will be critical and, let’s face it, the West (led by the United States) does not have the best track record in that regard this past decade.

What we do know is the longer this drags out, the more organized the rebels will become, which is good. Whether they can hold out remains a huge unknown. But, tragically, the more people Assad’s forces kill, the more sympathizers the rebels will gain. A key moment will arrive when and if – as happened in Libya – certain military commanders go to the rebels.

Meanwhile, it’s all up to the Syrian people. The country has no oil or important industry (other than harboring terrorists and having Damascus International Airport be a conduit for weapons to Hezbollah). And with western troops bogged down in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, sanctions and angry words are the best the west will do (which it did yesterday. See http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/eu-slaps-sanctions-on-more-syria-officials-italy-recalls-its-damascus-ambassador-1.376572 ).

Stay tuned.

On Wednesday, July 27, what could be a major document in the religious world was released.

The five-page text – “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World” – was released by the Vatican (Roman Catholics), World Council of Churches (an ecumenical group of churches from across the Christian spectrum) and the World Evangelical Association (Evangelicals). It took five years to hammer out; the fact that these three huge umbrella organizations agreed on anything is in itself a major accomplishment in the ecumenical world. It is akin, let’s say, to ALL Jews agreeing on one standard for kashrut. (Yeah, ain’t gonna happen.)

The full statement is here:  http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wcc-main/2011pdfs/ChristianWitness_recommendations.pdf

The perennial parochial question: “Is it good for the Jews?”

The answer is a decided yes. How good, of course, cannot yet be known. But clearly, it is better to live in a world with this document than one without it.

For me the two most fascinating parts are:

• Point 7 – “freedom of religion and belief” includes: “Where any religion is instrumentalized for political ends, or where religious persecution occurs, Christians are called to engage in a prophetic witness denouncing such actions.”

Religion, of course, is used for political ends over and over– by Jews, Christians and Muslims.

In fact, the basis of Jewish political activity in Washington, D.C., by Jewish groups (particularly the Reform and Orthodox movements – Conservative Judaism long being AWOL in the halls of power) is an application of religious values (or at least the ones that often conveniently fit that situation, which often leads to choosing biblical text over talmudic text over subsequent teachings or some mixture).

When it comes to Christians, it’s the same thing. And let’s not forget Christians United For Israel (http://www.cufi.org ) which is all about bringing text alive in political policy.

• Point 10 “renouncing false witness” includes this: “Any comment or critical approach should be made in a spirit of mutual respect, making sure not to bear false witness concerning other religions.

In other words, feel free to say why you believe your religion is true, but do so with great humility and with the understanding that denigrating other religions is not the right path.

As Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National director (ostensibly the most influential “organization Jew”) said, ““For the Jewish people, this document is a welcome development. The history of the Jewish people is filled with tragic incidents of forced conversions, resulting in the death of untold numbers of Jews throughout the centuries.”  (See his full statement here: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ChJew_31/6090_31.htm.)

He went on to correctly note that some – far from all – Christian groups (and fellow Jews, you have no idea how diverse that world is) has seen “an increase in the use of deceptive tactics by so-called ‘Messianic Jews’ targeting Jews for conversion. This new document makes clear that Christians using deception and aggression to missionize non-Christians is not only inappropriate, but a betrayal of Christian values.”

I actually disagree. There is nothing new coming from Messianic Jews. I’ve met a number of them over the years and had numerous and generally pleasant conversations. I just think their goal is to engage in “theological ambushing” with people (read Jews) who don’t have the background/skills to have a meaningful conversation and are thus easier to manipulate than “educated Jews.”

Of course, some Jews do convert to Christianity for sincere reasons. While I personally can’t imagine why, likewise some Christian friends can’t imagine why people would not want to accept Jesus of Nazareth as their savior. And despite what many Jews believe, that’s a valid belief in the market place of ideas that defines the porous identities of modern life.

All that said – and all the historical emotion this brings up – this document is a very good and important one. It sets official doctrine of groups that have large influence in organizational religious life. And just like the Vatican II document of the early 1960s, it will take decades to truly take hold. That hugely important work, among other things, formally ended the Catholic Church’s belief in deicide – that the Jews killed their savior. Some Christians do indeed still believe that, but they are a minority that is rejected by responsible leaders. (Yes, I’m talking about Mad Mel Gibson and the theologically twisted like-minded.)

Now I believe Judaism is the most intellectually, spiritually challenge one can imagine. But that does not mean that others should not share their views as well. And if members of the Jewish community are not equipped to have that conversation, maybe it’s more of a Jewish problem than anything else.

A final note: Christians are entitled to evangelize. It is part of their mission. What this document lays out is that there are ethical, respectful guidelines in how that should come to pass.

Thank God for that.

What should be a timeless lesson about the Holocaust was yet again mocked this week by a high profile public figure. In his Monday morning segment on the Premiere Radio Network’s “The Glenn Beck Program,” the entertainer by the same name spoke of the recent tragic mass murders in Norway. They were, he said, “a shooting at a political camp, which sounds a little like the Hitler Youth. I mean who sends their kids to a political camp?”

Mind you, not only are there similar summer retreats all over the world, but at this one at least 76 people were killed, some as young as 16. They were the alleged victims of Anders Behring Breivik and were at a camp that draws young members and children of the governing Labor Party. Breivik allegedly also set off a bomb in Oslo outside a government building, killing eight.

Bringing no comfort is the ironic combination of myriad groups Breivik is said to admire. They include ones with neo-Nazi views and others that are “pro-Zionism/Israeli nationalism,” due to the Jewish state standing as a bulwark against radical political Islam. The Hitler youth, of course, was the Nazi Socialist Party’s paramilitary organization for teens and preteens. It began in 1922, making it the perfect breeding ground to manipulate young minds into future murderers of Jews and so many others.

Beck – as others have learned with harsh repercussions – must understand this: One should not talk about the Holocaust unless you are talking about the Holocaust. Period. There is no space for sentences that begin “Just like during the Holocaust… ” After all, the Shoah is history’s most documented crime, one that horrifyingly shows the depraved depths to which human behavior plunges when technology and ideology are divorced from decency.

For the record, this far from the first time that Beck has said something remarkably insensitive to most Jewish ears. In February earlier this year he had this to say about Reform Judaism: “It’s almost like Islam, radicalized Islam in a way, to where it is just—radicalized Islam is less about religion than it is about politics. When you look at the Reform Judaism, it is more about politics” (See http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/political_insider/glenn_beck_reform_rabbis_and_radicalized_islam ). 

He also referred critics of Fox News to how the Nazis treated Jews (See: http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130061 ).

Mind you, Beck has been lauded of late by some for his strong support of the State of Israel; he is planning an Aug. 24 rally in Jerusalem, his second visit in recent months there. None of that is a pass for an offensive stain on the legacy of history’s darkest chapter, one whose moral lessons continue to unwrap today. 

Another Iranian nuclear scientist has been killed, this one by unknown gunman on a motorcycle. A certain Middle East country whose leadership speaks Hebrew has had no comment.

“Darioush Rezaei, a 35-year-old physics professor involved in Iran’s nuclear program, and said he was shot dead by gunmen on a motorcycle in front of his home in Tehran,” according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. (See: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/iran-murder-of-nuclear-scientist-is-israeli-american-act-of-terror-1.374975) Apparently the physics professor specialized in neutron transport, which is integral to nuclear chain reactions (the type necessary to create a nuclear explosion).

By my count, this is at least the third high-ranking person working on the program that has met an untimely and unnatural death in the past two years. Interestingly, one has not heard much in recent months from Israeli officials about the threat of a clearly nuclear-aspiring Iran. (The standard rhetoric, of course, continues – but we haven’t heard the alarm bells raised of late.)

As is always the case in such matters, the core issue is that we don’t know what we don’t know.

But here are some facts: The world has changed dramatically regarding this issue in the past year. Even the United Nations (as reflected in stances of Russian officials) is no longer buying into Iranian denials of pursuit of nuclear weapons. Likewise, the Iranian program was setback at least temporarily last summer with revelations of the mysterious Stuxnet virus that messed up their hard drives. (I’ve been told by someone who worked in an Israeli intelligence unit at the time that he really didn’t know anything about it, but he noticed a giddiness from high ranking colleagues when the news became public).

In addition, I recall a dinner five years ago at the Johns Hopkins University with Ephraim Sneh, then deputy defense minister for the State of Israel. (For my money, he is one of the brightest – albeit least charismatic – Israelis in leadership circles). We were walking across the campus after a private dinner and toward his public lecture when I said, “I don’t understand the talk about attacking Iran. Why not assassinate the scientists involved.” He changed the subject.

The Iranian nuclear desires are no less dangerous today than five years ago. And it’s hard to believe that eventually the Iranians will not go nuclear. However, they are finding that making their program clandestine is more difficult than anticipated and the world seems to be a little less forgiving than in the past.

In other words, something out there is working.

Finally, this of course raises the issue: If Israel can have nuclear weapons – which it has never admitted but clearly possesses, why can’t Iran? That answer is basic: One cannot comprehend the Jewish state wantonly striking first. One CAN imagine Iran doing so (yes, it’s suicidal, but please look into the theological beliefs of its leadership. Mutually Assured Destruction theories do not apply in this region). There is nothing wrong with Iran possessing nuclear power for domestic energy consumption. The issue is its refusal to open up to inspection the plants of a government that funds terror abroad, is a serial human rights abuser and whose leadership has repeatedly threatened to wipe another country “off the face of the earth” – the last attribute, by the way, violates the U.N. charter (not that anyone cares).

Back in the summer of 2005, I was ushered into a swank hotel suite in Washington, D.C. to meet with Rev. John Hagee – founder of the now huge Christians United For Israel (CUFI) operation – on the first day of his organization’s first national conference. I was wearing a kippah (a habit at all Christian events so that people know that I’m a proud Jew who is willing to engage them). Moments earlier, I had been hugged and blessed in the lobby by a woman from Alabama who was thrilled to meet a real Jew.

Two days earlier, Israel had been attacked by waves of Hezbollah rockets. That sounded the alarm for this new pro-Israel Christian group, quickly lifting an expected 1,000 participants in the conference to around 3,000. Clearly, something important was happening in the pro-Israel lobby, something that most Jews still cannot comprehend – the depth of commitment to Israel amongst many evangelicals.

As for Hagee, I found him to be not only hospitable, but bright and candid – discussing the nuances of theology and politics.

So I’m quite surprised by his political blunder at last night’s CUFI banquet, which attracted 5,000 very energetic pro-Israel supporters. (I was scheduled to attend, but a last minute work matter kept me in Baltimore. However, I have spoken to some people who were present and looked at the film on the website, http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer .)

The Rev. Hagee, who always is brilliant in cadence and thundering delivery, said, “The truth that many Americans do not want to face is President Obama is not pro-Israel.” Then he accused President Obama of “waiting for Iran to extend a friendly hand” and said Obama may force Israel to divide Jerusalem.

Whoa! Now for sure most people in the room agreed. But this is Washington, D.C, a land where single interest groups – read lobbyists – oppose policies, not people. After all, not only is “the enemy of my enemy my friend,” but today’s opponent may be tomorrow’s ally.

Now on the one hand this is no surprise. As an individual – not representing his group, but the line is admittedly thin – the Rev. Hagee had endorsed President Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential race.  And most CUFI supporters (all?) will cast an ABO vote in 2012 – Anyone But Obama.

And I have a number of wonderful friends who are active with CUFI. I’ve attended CUFI events with them and admire their passions and commitment. I particularly appreciate their desire to fight anti-Semitism and stand for Israel without hesitation.

So I remind them that not only is the Middle East and Israel particularly nuanced and complicated, but – as Judaism teaches – words can lead to violence. Indeed, as Israelis know well politics and religion can be a volatile mix. I do not believe they need be entirely separate (as many Jews do), but that we must be particularly judicious in how we approach their combination.

That’s why last night’s speech is so troubling. It emboldens an influential and active group by showing them that both political decency and the possibility of future coalition work – which inherently involves compromise – is not necessary.

I’m hoping that the Rev. Hagee didn’t intend that. And I certainly hope he clears up the matter soon.

It takes a lot for the U.S. government to finally call for regime change—Afghanistan’s harboring Osama bin-Laden post 9/11, intelligence that Iraq is stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (wrong as that ultimately was) and Libya’s leader warring on his citizens. Often it leads to U.S. military involvement, which is why people should pay attention to U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton words earlier this week regarding Syria’s leader. “President [Bashar al-] Assad is not indispensable and we have absolutely nothing invested in him remaining in power,” she said. “Our goal is to see that the will of the Syrian people for a democratic transformation occurs.”

It’s about time. For four months Syrian security forces have killed an estimated 2,000 demonstrators who are fed up with the regime’s brutal beating and killing dissidents, and denial of human rights. For the rest of the world, Syria is a land that harbors terrorists, is a conduit of weapons for Hezbollah provides political protection to terrorist groups. And on Monday, the regime allowed its supporters to attack the French and U.S. embassies in Damascus. That followed visits by the ambassadors of those embassies to Hama, a hotbed of resistance.

I’m only sorry – and frankly amazed—that it took so long for the Obama administration to come around on this one. Initially, this White House reached out to Damascus, part of its overall rapprochement with the Muslim world. It returned a U.S. ambassador to the country, sought to coax Syria into direct negotiations with Israel and urged it to tighten its border with Iraq, a sieve of weapons, cash and supporters to Iraqi anti-government insurgents.

The initial U.S. policy was wrong not because it sought to engage Arab/Muslim states in ways that the Bush administration did not. Rather, it was flawed because it did not demand something in return. In short, the Obama administration was hoping that “being nice” would have dividends in the Middle East. That’s kind of like giving the eighth grade bully your lunch money in the hopes that he won’t come back and ask for more the next day.

Meanwhile, one is legitimate in asking if the U.S. should intervene militarily in Syria – as it’s doing in Libya. Well, for many reasons it is not yet the time for that. After all, there are only so many troops to go around and our country clearly has “foreign entanglement fatigue.” Besides, unlike Libya with its oil and its historic European (Italian) ties, Syria really offers the world nothing other than trouble. And decades of disastrous rule by thugs has left no credible opposition to fill a void. (In some regards, Libya mirrors that situation but ironically the prolongation of that country’s civil war is allowing civil and military alternative rule to get its act together – or at least that’s what we hope).

So what can be done? A good start is U.S. leadership pushing the world community – particularly China, the European Union and Russia – to insist on Assad’s removal, and a date for free and monitored Syrian elections. It wouldn’t hurt to get the very skittish Arab League to at least come up with a statement favoring this. (I know, they’re worthless but one does have to at least try. Remember, in the Middle East it’s when you don’t include people in the dialogue that they are not only insulted, but often show it with gunfire.)

There are plenty of real sanctions that needed to be enacted. For starters, kick out Syrians here on student visas, cut cultural ties, outlaw business, suspend bank accounts of both individuals and corporations – and get the European Union to do the same. In a very unusual twist, the French are actually on our side this time. Let’s take advantage of that while we can.

Postscript: Geez, you know it’s serious if even the U.N. criticizes Syria: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/12/2310835/un-condemns-attack-on-us-embassy.html .

What’s next – criticizing Saudi Arabia for not allowing women to drive? Concern over China’s repression of religious freedom? Condemnation of Russia’s campaign against journalists?

Oh right, it’s the U.N. Never mind.

The Moroccan people went to vote today on a historic constitutional referendum to limit the power of their longstanding (and highly respected) king and give more power to parliament. Three of the largest political parties are backing it while one that is not simply says it does not go far it. (See: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/07/01/morocco.vote.reforms/index.html?iref=allsearch ).

But the real story here is that the Arab world is undeniably more democratic today than it was one year ago – and largely without the help of the United States or the Europeans. Rather, the people – due largely to the combination of aging leaders, technological leaps and sharp leaders on the ground – are speaking up for their inherent rights.

I also wonder, and this could be a leap, if there is a residual effect of five years or so of somewhat democratic elections in Iraq as well as Palestinian municipal elections (which, as we know, went horribly awry with Hamas’s ascension).

The Arab Middle East will never be democratic in the American or even the Israeli form. However, it can become more democratic, which should be the goal. Indeed, imposing American-style democracy around the world will only backfire.

President Obama needs to help encourage the Moroccans – and by extension the region – by giving a speech praising the Moroccan people as well as its king. Whether the king will ultimately use this as a delaying tactic to push off the democratic demands in other countries remains to be seen. However, his past actions show him to be somewhat of a benevolent monarch, which is good indeed for the region.

And what should Israel do? Nothing. Just stay put. And if the many Israelis of Moroccan decent want to issue a press release praising their native land’s king, that would be fine as they have an admitted emotional stake in what takes place there (not to mention some relatives still in the country’s major cities).

Here we go again. This week 10 ships were set to sail from European ports and somewhere in the Mediterranean Seat form a relief flotilla to the Gaza Strip (See: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-begins-to-form-as-first-ship-heads-toward-maritime-meeting-point-1.370261).

In doing so, they are ignoring repeated requests to stop in an Israeli port for inspection or to simply deliver the aid through Egypt (which is still quietly helping Israel out with the Gaza blockade, albeit in a much less predictable manner than before the recent Egyptian revolution). Last week, in fact, the European aid group Miles of Smiles successfully coordinated their relief efforts for Gaza through Egypt. Mind you, the Egyptians slowed up those deliveries for almost a month. (What, you didn’t hear of the protests? Oh, right; there weren’t any. See more at http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=239282 ).

I believe the activists in the new flotilla are looking to at least create the possibility for confrontation to increase sympathy for their cause. Other wise, they could simply coordinate their relief with Israeli authorities, dock in an Israeli port and then get their scrapbook pictures taken in Gaza.

Many remember all too well last year’s similar Turkish-backed flotilla on behalf of pro-Palestinian activists to Gaza, under Israeli military blockade since Hamas terrorists took it over three years ago. That episode ended with Israeli commandos boarding the ships, on one being attacked by passengers with metal pipes. For certain, the Israelis had a flawed military plan, but the subsequent relentless media and diplomatic beating the Jewish state took for having its soldiers defend their lives AFTER being threatened – one was literally thrown from one deck to another below—was sadly predictable.

Adding to the potential troubles, six Democratic congressmen this week asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ensure the safety of the estimated three dozen Americans planning to be onboard the U.S. ship – named “The Audacity of Hope,” a clever play on the title of one of President Barack Obama’s books. 

Now Reps. Dennis Kucinich, Eleanor Holmes Norton, William Clay, Sam Farr, Bob Filner and Barbara Lee are off base in writing as they did to Clinton. They noted, “We wholeheartedly support Israel’s right, and indeed its duty, to protect its citizens from security threats [but] the measures it uses to do so, as in the case with any other nation, must conform to international humanitarian and human rights law.” One wonders why they did not bother to ask the protestors to back down from setting up a clash. Certainly one wonders what they consider to be appropriate Israeli behavior “to protect its citizens from security threats.”

In this situation, U.S. citizens are voluntarily injecting themselves into a dangerous situation and asking – in advance – for U.S. protection. People have a right to be foolish, but it is not necessarily the U.S. government’s responsibility to bail them out—particularly when they are heading to Gaza, long the subject of a U.S. State Department warning.

Now both the Israelis and the activists have undergone special training to prepare for all likely scenarios. That is important, but all it will take is one hot head to lead to another disaster. Stay tuned.

In this modern Jewish world of two superpowers – American Jewry and the State of Israel – we are struggling mightily to figure out how responsible we really must be for one another. For example, should the Israeli government fund the wildly popular Taglit-Birthright Israel trip because not only does it bring in tourism dollars, but it cultivates Jewish identity for a large swathe of Jews who are not going to wind up living in the Jewish state?

And should American Jews continue to send hundreds of millions of dollars a year to Israeli social service projects – via the Jewish Agency for Israel – when the argument can be made that the Israeli government should be doing this and, besides, it is not as if American Jewish relief agencies are flush with cash.

Amidst that debate, comes one of the sillier things the Israeli government has done regarding its Diaspora ties in quite some time. And now a new survey conducted in Israel itself should be message enough to Israeli Knesset makers to get out of the business of deciding not just “Who Is A Jew?” but “Who Is A Good Jew?”

At issue, and still resounding in some circles, is a late March hearing in the Israeli Knesset in which legislators from many parties questioned Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street – which bills itself as a Washington-based “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby. What did some of the lawmakers want to know? Whether or nor J Street was really pro-Israel. Actually, the ones most upset – just like some activists in this country – were on the right of the political spectrum. So in fact, they really wanted to know, “Are you going to muck up our positions in Washington so the Obama administration – which we don’t like anyway—is going to think it can be hard on Israel because American Jews don’t really like what the government of Israel is doing in some areas?”

Mind you, it is an appropriate conversation to have in Jewish community forums. And it appropriately happens all the time. But it should not be in the case of the lawmaking chamber of the Israeli government, a place where one figures you are not trying to alienate more Jews.

Indeed, if some American Jews want to form a group that is pushing the American administration’s version of the peace process, and that group has at its core a belief in a “democratic Jewish state” (a phrase that admittedly needs its own megillah of exploration), then it’s not Israel’s business to give it a hechsker in the noxious game of “good Jew, bad Jew.”

So along comes a survey released last week by the B’nai B’rith World Center in Jerusalem. It found that 71 percent of Israelis – a huge majority – felt that their government should meet with Diaspora Jewish groups critical of its government’s policy.

Mind you, the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Michael Oren, purposely stayed away from J Street’s national conference in Washington this year. That was wrong. If he had a message of disagreement to bring, why did he not do so in this outstanding forum?

Mind you, 20 percent of Israelis said such talk should be forbidden. Ahh, but 20 percent of Israelis (or any other group these days) will say “no” if you ask them if they think they should talk to themselves. (And, of course, you should stay away from the ones who do appear to be spending an inordinate amount of time doing just that.)

We Jews have a lot of worthy arguments to conduct amongst ourselves. In fact, we’ve being doing it ever since those recalcitrants groaned to Moses in the dessert for taking them out of the known comforts of slavery.

That said, the government of Israel should listen to those who elected them, act like adults and get back to the business of passing laws to help their people.

Strangely enough, both a mezuzah and a brit milah (or Jewish circumcision ceremony) are part of a series of legal initiatives that—unintentionally or otherwise—could hamper freedom of religion. At issue are these two efforts of note:

• In California, several local ballot initiatives to ban circumcision of males under age 18 have persuaded Los Angeles-area Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) to ask the U.S. Congress to prevent such measures. (A similar drive in Santa Monica, Cal. was dropped last week.)

• In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry has signed a law that would require homeowner associations to permit religious displays on residents’ doors, such as mezuzot.

In the first case, everything began when San Francisco activists gained enough signatures for a November election initiative to make circumcisions for males under age 18 illegal; if approved, performing such acts would be punished with a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison. That would deny freedom of religious practice to both Jews and Muslims, as well as others. The bill, the Religious and Parental Rights Defense Act of 2011, would end such challenges.

Interestingly, one positive outcome of this is that battling the measure has become an interfaith initiative. Sherman’s first – and at presstime only – co-sponsor is Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress. (Gee, I guess the Muslim hordes aren’t trying to take over America after all!)

Meanwhile, in Texas a Conservative Jewish couple was told to remove a mezuzah from the door of their rental apartment. They refused, sued and lost. They moved from the building when their lease was up, but asked State Rep. Garnet Coleman to push a bill through the state legislature enabling people to have such a religious item on their door.

Both such initiatives are absurd. Circumcision is time-honored, voluntary, deeply meaningful to many families and performed by trained professionals. Likewise, putting up a mezuzah is an important statement for so many Jews; in no way does it infringe negatively upon others. Both acts pass the common sense test, one that their opponents seem to have resolutely failed. 

Were hundreds of angry, chanting Indians to charge the Pakistani border, Islamabad’s army certainly would act to protect the nation’s sovereignty. Likewise for either nation on the Polish-Ukrainian border, the South African-Mozambiqui border, the Nicaraguan-Honduras border and so many others. So who is surprised that last week, when hundreds of Palestinians charged Israel from Syria, the Israel Defense Forces responded? And this came after warnings to Syrian counterparts about the need to prevent a planned breach, and after the use of gas on the scene to try to disperse advancing, angry crowds. Sadly, up to several dozen Palestinians were killed and many more were wounded (reportedly in part from landmines set off by Palestinian Molotov cocktails). Not shocking was the quick condemnation in some corners of Israel.

This is all inspired by the retinue of different but mutually inspired popular revolts in Arab countries against decades of autocratic rule and brutal oppression of opposing voices. That aside, Israeli security officials are warning that more such clashes could be coming.

In short, this is an extremely dangerous twist in the Arab-Israeli conflict, one that sets the Jewish state up anew to be labeled the neighborhood bully that must be stopped by the international community. For Israeli and American Jews, it calls for new political and physical responses. For the former, that includes pressing American, European and other lawmakers to speak out against Syria, as the Obama White House’s did this week on the matter. For the latter, it calls for new and better crowd control measures – including in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

A final note: By mid-week Syrian soldiers began restraining the demonstrators. How telling: Instead of wanting more provocations to divert attention from Syria’s slaughter of anti-government demonstrators, the army is in “save the regime” mode. It’s last desire is a face-off with superior Israeli troops. It needs its focus to be on brutally halting the opponents of its bosses. The meandering turns of the Arab Spring seem to be heading toward a hot summer.

Sunday, May 22, 2011
7:45 a.m.

Later today President Barack Obama will speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Conference (AIPAC) annual policy forum. It will decidedly be the most skeptical Jewish audience he has ever faced. With his speech last week, he set himself up for an unlikely cold reception – despite what we will be dutifully polite applause. (But let’s see if the 500 or so usual college students there are polite about it).

That is tragic because the truth is most American and Israeli Jews (definitely not all) agree with large chunks of the president’s recent comments on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. How he said it, however, was disastrous for him as well as for the region.

So here’s some of what I hope the president says later today:

“Dear Friends:

“I know some of you are deeply concerned with my words from last week. So let’s be candid about what I did say and what I didn’t say. I said that the United States is Israel’s close friend in good times and bad. The vast and deep ties we have in social, religious, historical and military spheres attests to this. In fact, my administration has given more military aid and cooperation to Israel than any administration, as best seen in the Iron Dome system funding, which is critical to counter a clearly nuclear-aspiring Iran and a continually recalcitrant Hamas, which rejects the tenets of democracy and freedom so integral to the vision of humanity that you and I share. We reject Hamas’s violence. Hamas can indeed come to the negotiating table – after it decides to enter the community of responsible actors. It is far from there today.

“And I noted that Palestinian pressure on the United Nations to create an independent state is doomed to failure. We will not support such unilateral actions and we know they are non-starters. Likewise, a massive right-of-return for Palestinians to Israel is a non-starter. Tragically, as so many families know, there is a cost to war and history has moved beyond that point.

“Now I also said that the 1967 borders are the starting point for negotiations. So let’s be clear. That’s obvious because it is the Palestinian starting point and always has been. It is obviously not Israel’s starting point. Fair enough. However, while the Palestinians once saw that as a springboard to the rest of Israel, I reject that premise with, as it says in sacred scripture, all my heart and all my soul. And after all, successive Israeli prime ministers have agreed to discuss the concept of not sharing Jerusalem, and not a divided Jerusalem, but a Jerusalem with new borders.

“I am not here to negotiate. That is the role of Israel and the Palestinians. But we all know what the possible agreement could look like. President Clinton’s December 2000 parameters are an excellent vision of what could be. There may be other visions as well that are worthy of conversation.  And let us get beyond the language of a peace treaty. Let us talk about a mutual co-existence agreement. Let us strive to figure out how to deal with Jerusalem with creative ideas, not rhetoric. Let us end Palestinian incitement in textbooks and media. Let us find a way to ease daily life restrictions for Palestinians. Let us find a way to better use the U.S. in observing what’s really happening. Let us push forward to create not a better tomorrow, but a better today.

“Again, I’m not here to negotiate with you. I am here to tell you that when push comes to shove, the U.S. and Israel do have an unbreakable bond, despite the rhetoric you may hear. Israel does not want to occupy another people. I understand that. I know the goal is how to break from that without threatening the preciousness of a Jewish democracy, the greatest political achievement of the modern era. I know this, understand this, ponder this, anguish over this.

“This is the message that I want to take to the Israeli Knesset soon, a visit that will have equally difficult words for the Palestinians and Arab capitals on a trip I want to make soon. Let’s not do this because of the Arab spring. Let’s not do this because of presidential politics. Let’s not do this because of domestic pressures. Let’s do this because there are five-year-olds who deserve to fight in the coming years not over land, but over who gets to pay the check when they have dinner together.

“May God continue to protect the Jewish people and the State of Israel, and may its leaders have the courage and conviction toward a more peaceful existence that is met with equal vigor by the Palestinian people.”

Let’s look at a little closer at President Barack Obama’s speech yesterday on the Middle East, whose section on Israel and the Palestinians infuriated many in the pro-Israel community.

That’s because the President said something in stark terms that no U.S. president has ever said – that the 1967 borders (the ones Abba Eban once called “Auschwitz borders”) – were the starting point for negotiations.

After that, nobody heard that he also said “… with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

In principal, most American Jews (definitely not all) have no problem with that. Likewise in Israel. The rub is that President Obama has failed miserably to show empathy for Jewish/Israeli fears, which like it or not is an important component to peace making.

Contrast him to President Bill Clinton, who is still treated like a rock star in Israel. If President Obama goes to Israel in June as is currently being rumored, he will literally have eggs thrown at him, which will be a media/public relations disaster for the Jewish world.

That said, let’s look at a few other things that were said: “For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure.” And at one point the President added, “As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable …”

That’s worthy of note. It means that the U.S. is prepared to stand by its pledge to block the Palestinian push for statehood at the United Nations in September. And well it should. After all, the Palestinian move would force Israel to annex some areas around Jerusalem that are currently in the West Bank (which admittedly will happen anyway if there ever is a negotiated settlement). The problem is the tinder box that is the Middle East could literally be set aflame by that because of a very predictable and violent Palestinian reaction.

In short, Palestinian unilateral statehood declarations will give strength to radicals and make all suffer. Who wins from that?

The President did – thank God – acknowledge the vicious nature of Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip and would love to do the same on the West Bank, let alone Jerusalem and the rest of Israel.

He said, “The recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel—how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.”

Why wait? How about now? Let’s have Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas come to the U.S. Congress and make his case that deals with unrepentant terrorists are good for everyone. Let’s see how far that gets him.

Amazingly, the U.S. President did not publicly back Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is the real hero of the region these days – building civil society (including meeting with Jewish groups) instead of focusing on media incitement and antagonizing rhetoric. The omission was a huge mistake.

Another mistake: He did not go out of his way to publicly name Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas as unlikely peace makers who can change history forever. He gave them no honor – critical in the Middle East.

Finally, a note on timing. This was politically the worst timed speech I ever heard. It was delivered two days after Jordan’s King Abdullah was in the White House, one day before Netanyahu was to arrive, and four days before President Obama spoke to the influential American Israel Public Affairs convention (which I will attend on Monday).

The President has backed the Prime Minister into a corner. (No doubt, Netanyahu aides have been busily rewriting speeches). The Prime Minister has a right-wing coalition to coax along, but the President has not given him any wiggle room. In fact, the Prime Minister will be under tremendous pressure to not budge.

Bill Clinton, in his December 23, 2000 talks in the Oval Office with the Israelis and Palestinians, came up with the “Clinton Parameters” (click here to see them: http://www.peacelobby.org/clinton_parameters.htm ).

They are now the generally agreed on outline for a final settlement – which President Obama seemed to endorse. Yet he did it so poorly that he has lost the trust of everybody. In fact, his already dismal public approval in Israel will hit record lows (which is actually impressive because they were already low). And I assure you that if a majority of the Israeli public doesn’t respect President Obama, no Israeli Prime Minister will ever feel forced to do the same.

The next few days will be as important as fascinating. This Shabbat, when in synagogue we again bless the leaders of the United States and ask God to give them the wisdom to act courageously and wisely, I will be praying a little harder than I normally do.

Amidst all the remarkable headlines of recent days—Osama bin Laden’s death, the Hamas-Fatah rapprochement, the Reform movement’s strife over the “pro-Israel” credentials of its incoming head and more – we paused this past week to commemorate Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Memorial Day. In the faces of often somber crowds, we were reminded that the era of those who experienced the depths of humanity’s self-inflicted horror is drawing to a slow close. That is a natural progression, but cause for profound sadness and deep reflection.

In a remarkable chapter in the annals of Jewish history, the American Jewish community has built the museums, created the educational curriculums, printed the books and produced the movies to remember. Unfathomably, some still deny the Holocaust, allowing their intense hatred of Jews to undermine its powerful lessons for all humanity. For certain, we must always guard against such efforts.

Yet, we also must acknowledge that with memory’s framework built, we need to focus on building the Shoah’s moral legacy. We must ask what in 50 or 75 years we want people to know about humanity’s most documented crime, and then see what we are doing to make that happen.

Whether we like it or not, many younger adults say they are tiring of hearing about the Shoah. I believe that is more an indictment of how the topic is presented than the material itself. So a core challenge is how to make the Holocaust relevant anew. That could mean opening conversations along uncomfortable lines:

• What does the Shoah say about our need to support Israel AND how the Jewish state deals with the Palestinians? (I do not equate the two, but we must be prepared for the talk.)

• Likewise, what does “never again” mean in how our approach to suffering in Sudan, China, Syria and elsewhere?

• Finally, how can we put the Shoah into the context of Jewish history without being overwhelmed by it?

The admonition of the Talmudic sage Rabbi Tarfon remains as clear now as 2,000 years ago: Ours is not to complete the task; neither is it to desist from it.

Sadly, when Israeli Orthodox leaders unite against violence aimed at Reform Jews it is news. That is both a pathetic commentary on our times and provides a ray of light as intra-communal strife continues to cast its chilling shadow over the Jewish people. That light must be allowed to shine brightly across both sides of the Orthodox, non-Orthodox divide that increasingly defines the Jewish people.

So I’m encouraged by last week’s release of a letter signed by 14 Orthodox rabbis and public figures from the Israeli city of Ra’anana (which happens to have a lot of South Africans and Americans, including some friends of mine – a.k.a. people who hopefully understand the importance of religious pluralism).

The letter condemned an attack on the city’s Reform synagogue—the third one in a year. Most importantly, Ra’anana Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Peretz—who is paid by his country’s chief rabbinate, which continues to veer right—added his name to the list. On April 14, according to the JTA Wire Service, six windows were smashed by large rocks and a black Star of David was spray-painted on the wall above the words “It has begun.” Whether it was done by rambunctious teens or worse, the education that makes such behavior possible was gained somewhere. Police had no suspects as of press time.

Sadly, there are ample opportunities for the non-Orthodox to stand against hatred as well. Legion are the biting, insulting sermons and public comments from non-Orthodox rabbis and Jews about Orthodox Jews’ behavior.

Ultimately, during this holiday season of Passover, we must remember that we left Egypt as individuals, family clans and a people in formation. There is much over which to unite while maintaining the differences that remain integral to how we see the world. 

Finally, one wonders why diverse American Jewish leaders from across the spectrum cannot unite in a blanket statement on such matters. It would make headlines of its own were this country’s Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis to stand against inter-communal violence and hatred in Israel and to call for respect for fellow Jews at home. This can be readily accomplished, if American Jewry’s titular leaders truly want it to be so.

If political birds of a feather do flock together, look for the District of Columbia police force to clean up some nasty stains after May 25.

That day ends the inaugural “Move Over AIPAC” conference in the nation’s capitol, which seeks to counter the concurrent AIPAC policy meet, always a major pro-Israel political and media event.

The Move Over goal: “to learn about the extraordinary influence AIPAC has on U.S. policy and how to strengthen an alternative that respects the rights of all people in the region,” according to its statement.

Now criticism of Israel can be both valid and helpful. But it only works when done by people who care for the Jewish state AND recognize the real suffering of Palestinian people, something not entirely due to those evil Israelis. (As any perusal of any Israeli or American newspaper/website reveals, Jews happily criticize Jerusalem’s bosses every day on everything.)

Now many heading to Move Over – but not all – would gleefully watch Israel disappear. For them, this complex ideological, historical, religious, psychological and political-laden conflict is simple: If there must be a Jewish state, at least cripple it.

That’s what multiple generations of hate, not to mention blissful ignorance, can bring.

Indeed, among the 50 plus co-sponsoring groups are Artists Against Apartheid, Jews Say No, Coalition to Stop $30 Billion to Israel and US Boat To Gaza. (The website http://www.moveoveraipac.org/ notes that Dr. Patch Adams – yeah, that one –has endorsed the event. A clown’s endorsement. Hmm.)

As the anti-Israel activists gather, their hit parade of hate will include the tunes of disgraced journalist Helen Thomas, until recently of White House press corps fame. But last summer a Jewish reporter – at an American Jewish heritage event no less – was interviewing her when she said Israeli Jews should “go home” from Palestine to Poland, Germany and the United States.

OK, she knows not of American Jews’ historical apathy about moving to Israel. Still, trotting out a mentally slipping nonagenarian –she was once more discriminate in uttering such long-held beliefs – is pathetic.

Keynote speakers Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, however, are much more persuasive. In 2006, they penned the half-truth laden book “The Israel Lobby,” one that I have read and is fascinating, but which can easily be picked apart for its poor context and attempts at intellectual ambush.

That the gathering will occur is not news. D.C. hosts all sorts of odd meets. That it is parallel to AIPAC’s big one – which convenes about 5,000 of the faithful, including gobs of enthusiastic college students and a “must show” banquet for all but politicians on the radical left and isolationist right – shows true media savvy.

It presents a wonderful opportunity for national and international media to run across town to provide “balanced coverage” of Americans’ conversation about its ties with the top U.S. ally and subsequently largest recipient of U.S. military aid.

But in truth, Americans favor tilting toward Israel with great consistency. For the past few years, in fact, reputable polls have shown more than 60 percent for Israel over a Palestinian ranking in the teens.

Friends, that is not just a matter of public relations.

In fact, the pro-Israel community here is actually growing in numbers and diversity. This is in part due to AIPAC’s incredible organizational strength, but also the growth of two groups whose members are political polar opposites –Christians United For Israel (CUFI) and J Street.

Both groups – and I have attended the national conventions of each in the past year—have struggled to stay in generally centrist territory. CUFI, founded in 2006, deals with Jewish concerns of a hidden Evangelical agenda to proselytize Jews and of standing against land-for-peace positions, the latter which would help bring Armageddon (which, darling, is not “good for the Jews”).

The much smaller and nimbler J Street, founded three years ago, remains in formation. It is quietly opposed by AIPAC, which, as a huge lobby, takes a generally and understandably conservative line. Likewise, the Israeli embassy keeps its distance. Ironically, J Street’s “pro-peace, pro-Israel” agenda is aligned with much of Israel’s mainstream Kadima and Labor parties.

Nonetheless, Israel’s enemies, and by extension often those of the Jewish people, are neither kind nor caring. But they sure are getting smarter.

In a remarkable act of poor public performance – actually, insulting behavior – a French national train company and its Maryland-based subsidiary keeps adding insult to proverbial injury.

At issue is the ongoing saga of the Rockville-based Keolis America’s ability to bid on future MARC train contracts. To shorten a long story, Keolis America is owned by the French-based Keolis, which is owned by the French national railroad (SNCF), which happened to deport 76,000 French Jews to Germany and near certain death in 1942. In fact, only 2,600 people on that hell ride survived the war, and only 650 of them are still alive. One is the wonderful Leo Bretholz of Pikesville, who just turned 90 and is an uber-mentsch.

In recent months, Maryland legislators, with the help of pro bono attorneys, Holocaust survivors and survivors’ children, put forward a bill that not in name but in intent sought to force SNCF to at least apologize (more than their stunning “we regret…” statements to outraged Annapolis lawmakers last month). It called for companies and their subsidiaries bidding on state train contracts to make a full accounting of World War II actions, reparations and their handling of the belongings of those they sent to Nazi murder factories.

(For more on this nuanced story, read here: http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/article/maryland-based_railroad_company_dealt_blow_on_parent_companys_holocaus/ . Also read my update at http://www.jewishtimes.com under “local news” (not posted as of this writing)).

(SNCF has been involved in outreach to European Jewish groups in recent years – but as sincere as some statements and actions have been, it certainly smacks of finally doing the right thing to keep the business engine rolling.)

So through the compromise work of attorneys such as Aaron Greenfield of Duane Morris LLP, Keolis finally received a bill it said it could live with. You would think they could now show some humility about the anguish caused by their parent company’s role in humanity’s most documented crime. No sir. But you be the judge. Here’s the complete statement I received in the name of Keolis American head Steve Townsend upon asking this week for comment.

“The amended bill allows Keolis to consider whether to bid for a future MARC contract to run the Brunswick and Camden lines.  Keolis operates commuter trains in Virginia and has dramatically improved on-time performance even as passenger service is breaking ridership records.  We believe we can improve commuter rail service in Maryland, too.”

That’s it. No mention of the Holocaust. No “We feel the pain and want to be good corporate citizens.” No “We’re starting an education fund.” Just more of the “We’re Keolis and not SNCF and they’re not the same.” That would fly if SNCF’s coffers weren’t eventually enriched by Keolis’s profits. 

So it’s just business for Keolis. Some corporate role model. I’m not impressed. And I hope no one is in Annapolis either.

Freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of platform. Case in point is the hate-mongering page that executives of the wildly popular social networking site Facebook – after a slew of complaints—finally shut down early Tuesday, March 29.

The “cause” page, “Third Palestinian Intifada,” sought a violent uprising against Israel on May 15, Israel’s Independence Day. As of Monday, March 28 the page had 344,828 “friends”. YouTube and Twitter links called for killing Jews and Israelis and violently “liberating” Jerusalem. In a region seething with revolution, and at a time of heightened tensions between Israel and the Palestinians, such calls really could encourage those who believe harming “the enemy” is acceptable political behavior.

Until early this week, Facebook officials said they would only “monitor” the page. That was absurd.

Would Facebook allow a page calling for a forced return to slavery for African-Americans? How about one detailing murder of policemen and their snitches? What about advice steps on how to abduct small children? If such pages went ahead, a torrent of complaints, media onslaught and pushes for Capitol Hill legislation would result. And the company, in the name of “good corporate citizenship,” would take down the offensive material, rightly noting that as a private entity it is not obligated to nurture vitriol.

Alas, when the topic is Jews and the Jewish state, rules governing civilized behavior seem to fall into philosophical ones about the rights to express noxious views.

By the way, this week’s move by Facebook is but a momentary respite in a new front on the assault against Israel and democracy. I recognize the fine line between censorship and freedom of speech should always be debated and one should err on the side of open expression. But I also ascribe to what I call The Common Sense Doctrine.

So be prepared; such challenges will occur again (and likely are as you read). That will mean that Jews as individuals and through their organizations are going to need partnerships with other organizations to have an ongoing dialogue with the media – new and old – when it comes to handling such matters.

By the way, if you’re still not convinced as to why one Web page amongst the billions on the Internet matters, and why social network monitoring is important, I have two words for you: Tahrir Square.

The sandstorms of Libya’s deserts are again giving life to the twisted adage of “to every silver lining there is a foreboding cloud waiting to burst out.” How else should one read into Sunday’s condemnation by the Arab League regarding the enforcement of a no-fly zone, which it declared the “bombardment of civilians”? (See more at: http://www.jpost.com/VideoArticles/Video/Article.aspx?id=213010 )

After all, this is the same Arab League whose support for the action last Thursday was critical in gaining the U.N. Security Council’s approval to the impressive score of 10 approving and five abstaining votes.

For the record, Arab League Chief Amr Moussa is quoted by Reuters news agency as saying,“What is happening in Libya differs from the aim of imposing a no-fly zone, and what we want is the protection of civilians and not the bombardment of more civilians.” Giving even more discomfort to those who saw the emergence of a “new Middle East,” he is widely rumored to be considering a run for the Egyptian presidency.

One cannot doubt that civilians are tragically caught up in Libya’s strife, as they are in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. And there is valid criticism of the coalition conducting the campaign for its not having well-formulated goals, which would lead to an exit strategy. In addition, there is a fair debate to be had on Capitol Hill on the role of a president in making war without approval. (At least President Obama met with bi-partisan congressional leaders first. Still, since the goals have not been defined – leading to the real possibility of long-term commitment—an open conversation should have been had in the Senate and House.)

Likewise, one wonders—and perhaps this is the real reason for the Arab League’s nervousness—why similar campaigns have not been considered for Yemen and Bahrain, whose governments also have turned on their people. Of course, they have not conducted the seemingly pre-meditated and wanton war on civilians of Moammar el-Qaddafi, who never met a dissident he did not want to torture. Nor do they have the decades-old history of antagonizing Western powers. Still, they are far from the picture of George Washington and the American revolutionaries.

Finally, some in this country are concerned about elements of al-Qaeda in Libya’s revolution. There likely is some; how could there not be in that region?

Yet, the very open question is how much influence they have and whether a new Libya (half of it at least) will have the nascent trappings of democracy – enabling freedom of the press, the formation of political parties and basic human rights. (Let’s start on that last account by ending the documented torture prisons.)

But just what was the Arab League thinking would happen after approving a resolution calling for military force? This all serves to deepen the belief of many here that the word of existing Arab rulers—the vast majority of whom remain dictators, friendly or otherwise—is only as dependable as the Arab Street allows. In terms of meaningful alliances, that speaks little of today’s Arab leadership and even less of its future.

How the United States conducts itself with the leaders of the opposition in Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and elsewhere will be felt for decades to come. And, for certain, Iran is watching, ready to step into any perceived void.

Military engagement, the region’s history informs us, is but a stepping stone to what happens next. And if we are to avoid that, we will only have a nasty involvement in the region—with even more problems—down the road (or at least until we have a meaningful, successful alternative energy program for this country; but that is another story).

The seismic waves of popular unrest sweeping the Arab world has indeed made an impact on the once-venerable United Nations – just not the one desired. After all, for decades many of the now troubled dictatorial countries have sent representatives to 1 U.N. Plaza in New York City, using their numerical superiority to diplomatically mug democracies, particularly the United States and Israel. But alas, ringing truth to the adage that no good deed goes unpunished, Libya – whose unstable leader is for the moment ostracized for wanton murder of rebelling citizens – cannot retain its seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. Yet Syria is moving to take its spot in the 47-nation group in the upcoming May 20 elections, according to the JTA Wire Service.

Let us forget for a moment that the Libya of barbarous leader Moammar el Qaddafi can currently vote on a body designed to promote human decency.
Instead, let us focus on the would-be successor. Syria has spent many decades denying basic rights of freedom of speech, public gathering and unfettered media to its citizens. Syria has flagrantly flouted the U.N.’s own rules of transparency and inspection of nuclear sites. And Syria is a veteran supporter of radical Islamic groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, its Damascus International Airport a major transit point for Iranian arms heading toward Lebanon’s radical militias.

By the way, it’s no coincidence Syria’s “Arab street” has been silent in the region’s recent tumult. With a history of shutting out the media’s watchful eye, and with an intimidated society in which the security apparatus rules supreme, Syrian citizens remember well the attempted revolt of 1982 in the city of Hama. Back then the army surrounded the town and bombarded it, killing an estimated more than 10,000 people.

Can anyone still wonder why Washington, and certainly Jerusalem, has so much skepticism toward the United Nations?

A Baltimore City paper cover story this week features the incredibly courageous work of my friend, mentor and colleague Executive Editor Phil Jacobs for exposing allegations of sexual molestation in the Orthodox rabbinate here.

As editor on much of this series, I can assure you that for Phil there has been no personal glory and a lot of emotional pain with this. Befitting his modesty, he did not even let me know that this story was coming out. This subject is uncomfortable in every way.

Please read when time permits: http://citypaper.com/news/silent-no-more-1.1116004

And if you missed the series, much of it is here: http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news_list/jt/sexual_molestation/

Anyone who has ever visited West Bank settlements knows that the vast majority of them – particularly the ones where some of my friends live—are neatly gardened, bucolic communities with multi-generational families living in a sort suburban utopia. They certainly belie the common media picture of brimming with gun-toting, brash talking Israeli militants hell bent on killing people for an unachievable, violent messianic vision.

But that darker picture, too, exists. Mind you, many such outposts are very small and adjacent to established settlements; their residents seek to expand Jewish boundaries to thwart a future Palestinian state.

So it’s no surprise that within the American Jewish community – as to a much greater degree in Israel itself—the issue of Jewish towns on West Bank lands Israel won in the 1967 Six-Day War (prompted by weeks of bellicose actions by Arab states) is the most heated one in the diverse pro-Israel coalition, which as the recent J Street national convention in Washington, D.C. showed, is far from homogenous on the topic. Indeed, raucous debates on what are known as settlements, but which also can be thriving, multi-generational communities of tens of thousands, are not uncommon in Jewish settings.

But on this all pro-Israel stalwarts should agree: As a democracy, the Jewish state of Israel must be one where its citizens follow the laws as well as have legal avenues to appeal those statutes. With that in mind, how can one seek to disobey – or support those who do so—the Israeli cabinet’s order earlier this week to demolish by calendar year’s end all illegal West Bank outposts built on private Palestinian land? 

By the way, give Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu some credit on what he’s saying on the issue – and then let’s judge him on his actions. (See more at: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-settlers-price-tag-policy-is-unacceptable-1.347941 ).

The Supreme Court decision calls for the demolition of six outposts; more than a year ago I told Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren that his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, said there were more than 100 such West Bank settlements, which he and the last three Israeli prime ministers have defined as illegal. Mr. Oren, an outstanding representative here, did his job. He diplomatically avoided the topic, noting that his understanding was that there were fewer and that the government was indeed dealing with the issue.

The court’s decision comes after clashes between Israeli troops and settlers over the demolition by the soldiers of three structures at the Gilad Farm outpost. Danny Dayan, chairman of the settler’s umbrella group, called the military’s moves “an act of provocation that will only serve to incite and anger while serving no practical purpose in bettering relations with our Arab neighbors.” He called for negotiations so the situation can be “solved amicably rather than through this provocative approach being proposed by the government.”

But the erection of the illegal structures, the political promise to take them down and the threats from both sides has gone on far too long. Mr. Dayan is right to call for talks, as a responsible leader should. Yet there is another reality that must be dealt with simultaneously: Those setting up the outposts are knowingly thwarting the law. That cannot be good for Israeli democracy, which for American Jews rightly is a cornerstone of our pride in the Jewish state.

We are either failing as a nation or there is a toxin in our national discourse that cannot be extracted from our verbal drinking water (weird metaphors, I know). Clearly, despite calls for civility since the tragic and deadly January shooting in Arizona that targeted a Congresswomen, hate talk remains a dark reality. Three recent cases, however, do not come from the political realm, but the world of entertainment:

• Noted British fashion designer John Galliano was fired this week by the prominent Christian Dior house after allegedly harassing a British couple with anti-Semitic and racist slurs. On Monday, a video of him praising Adolf Hitler also came to light. No doubt pushing Dior to move is that noted actress Natalie Portman declined to work with them when the news about Galliano became public. (See: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/01/2743106/dior-designer-suspended-for-anti-semitic-racist-slurs )

• Entertainer Glenn Beck (who, actually, is not so entertaining), said Reform rabbis “are almost like radicalized Islam.” He later apologized, which was accepted. Still, does anyone expect him to be polite at any time in the future when discussing differences with people? (See: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/02/27/2743101/beck-apologizes-to-reform )

• Actor Charlie Sheen fame wants the Anti-Defamation League to apologize for saying his rant against a producer was “borderline anti-Semitic.” His screed included calling Chuck Lorre “a contaminated little maggot,” a “clown” and “stupid” and then referring to him by his Hebrew name “Chaim Levine.” As the ADL said, “Sheen left the impression that another reason for his dislike of Mr. Lorre is his Jewishness.” (See: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/01/2743139/actor-sheen-demanding-apology-from-adl )

One can argue about the third case. Sheen has said that referring to his own Latino ancestry is not necessarily anti-Latino. Maybe so, but at best Sheen is a garden variety jerk. Besides, anti-Latinoism never formed a theological basis for a wholesale slaughter of that ethnic group, nor did it give rise to crusades, blood libels and – you know the drill.

Sheen aside, certainly the first two episodes are ignorant, insulting, offensive and, yes, anti-Semitic. Together, all indicate a culture where insults continually dance on the border of being inappropriate or much worse. Of course, it is a huge outrage to say negative things about African Americans, as should be the case. Yet, when Jews are targeted it seems more acceptable for some.

Now the response of the above perpetrators to the public reaction is most revealing. That’s because, as this week’s annual obsession with the Oscars showed, a core value in entertainment is protecting highly cultivated images. Succinctly put, being labeled an anti-Semite, racist or simply a buffoon is bad for business. Just ask Mel Gibson or Michael Richards.

Now their fans might say that’s because the Jews control the media, where many Jews as individuals are indeed in positions of power. So what? Would Jews not being in those seats mean that anti-Semitism – overt, covert or any other type – would be more acceptable? Such line of argument is inane.

Most important, in our media-saturated and celebrity-obsessed culture, the rising generation monitors and mimics those in the national spotlight. For that reason alone – let alone common decency—we cannot not let down our guard when it comes to pointing words of hate, borderline or otherwise.

Why has J Street struck such a chord – for some happy and for others cursed – in so many people? Earlier this week, I went to Washington, D.C. to attend part of the 2,000 delegate national convention for the not-quite three-year-old lobby that bills itself as “pro-Israel and pro-peace.” (Check it out at http://www.jstreet.org ).

For the most part, I found people who deeply care for Israel but do so along liberal lines. That is, they voice out loud what many American Jews I know say privately: We love Israel but we surely don’t love its actions of West Bank/East Jerusalem settlement building, policies of demolitions of homes of families of Arab terrorists and even the need to maintain a “united, eternal, undivided Jewish capital of Jerusalem.”

Of course, I know plenty of other Jews who agree with the “we love Israel” part but whose concerns are “If we let down our guard, the Arabs will try to overrun the Jewish state, which, after all, they have repeatedly tried to do and keep saying they want to do.”

Frankly put, the public talk at J Street is anathema at an AIPAC convention, the large and very successful pro-Israel lobbying group (http://www.aipac.org).

Mind you, in my view J Street has not always been its own best friend. In its less than three years, it has done real damage to its public standing with a swathe of American Jewish centrists such as myself. For example, it has: been far too late in condemning the clear Iranian nuclear aspirations; not initially admitted it receives funding from the controversial benefactor George Soros; and supported a U.N. resolution that condemned Israeli settlements but did not mention Palestinian terrorism.

In some groups that would rightly command a change in leadership, but J Street’s board has decided to stick with its very talented head, Jeremy Ben-Ami. That’s their choice and I respect his intellect and his talents.

Also, it’s for those mentioned reasons that the Israeli embassy declined to send any representative to the J Street conference, while noting that it is in a dialogue with J Street officials. That was a huge mistake. When we Jews are at our best, we talk to one another about our differences.

It’s flat out wrong for the Israeli government to not openly meet with American Jews who may have different policy views, but whom express their strong support for a strong, democratic Jewish state – a line that gained robust applause when Ambassador Dennis Ross spoke to the group. After all, the J Street advocates are only saying what, depending on the year, between 45 to 55 percent or so of the Israeli public is saying.

That said, perhaps we in the alleged mainstream of Jewish life should look at J Street with a different eye – that of a vehicle to promote responsible Jewish identity. That’s exactly what I told some representatives of the national office and a local activist when I had lunch with them in Baltimore last spring.

“You guys might not realize it,” I told them, “but you have a deep responsibility toward American Jews. The way I see it, your job is to reach out to Jews on the left and the far-left – where there undeniably are anti-Semites – and give them a Jewish organization to feel comfortable in. You guys can really help someone with their Jewish identity.”

I stand by that even more today. And the good thing is I saw people with good Jewish identities of many ages, particularly young adults. I saw some men and women with kippot, and I saw smiling college students and aging veterans of the Jewish peace movement bantering in the hallways and sessions.

They have, in J Street, found a voice. Now I may not agree (and do not) with all of their general stands, but I have something in common with them. I love being Jewish and I love Israel, and I’m not afraid to discuss all types of versions of what that means in a world of increasingly porous identity boundaries. And the rest of us need to open to that conversation as well.

As most fans of Middle East food know, Zatar is a particularly unique and wonderful spice that is tasty on nearly any meat or vegetable. So should we call the wave of unrest in the Arab Middle East a Zatar Revolution?

Yes and no. Despite what many commentators are saying, each spot – Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia and Yemen – is remarkably different.

One overall question unexplored by most commentators: Are these countries facing a Russian 1918 moment? Back then, the Great Bear was amidst civil war between a tottering democratic government and a populist communist movement willing to turn on its own. Should we replace “communist” with “Islamic fundamentalists”?

Still, there are real differences in these countries brimming with discontent.

Egypt: As of this writing, the street unrest is in day four and very serious. It could quickly turn into a blood bath with the wrong order from the wrong soldier. Unlike in the other venues, there are three distinct anti-government forces here that could unite in revolution – but only temporarily. They are: Coptic Christians, Islamic Brotherhood advocates and secular democracy activists. There is some overlap between the first and the third. None with the Islamic fundamentalists.

So if the Mubarak regime is toppled, who rules? The answer: The army. It alone has the means to control the streets. Best case scenario: Turkey in the 1970s. Worst case scenario: Lebanon in the 1970s.

Look for Mubarak to promise reforms – and be pressed by the United States to implement them. They will include that his son Gamal will not take his spot.

Tunisia: The one that started it all – way back last week – is far from over. Now that the old regime’s cronies have been kicked out, new regime cronies must cement power. In the Middle East, that always comes at the cost of another group – which could create unhealthy anger. Again, the army is in tact. Who will the commanders listen to? Look for President Sarkozy in France, bent on making his country relevant again in the world, offer to mediate the future of his nation’s former colony.

Yemen: One cannot imagine the few demonstrations going anywhere in a country where central rule is already anarchic at best. The government basically only has control of the main cities and it does not even do that well. The safest place in the country is often the port when a U.S. ship is docked there (despite the U.S.S. Cole bombing from 1999).

Jordan: Remember that Jordan’s rulers have used their faithful Bedouin soldiers in the past to deliver a bloody defeat to their Palestinian citizens, about 70 percent of the population. The King of Jordan has traditionally switched prime ministers and dissolved parliament for new elections in the past to appease radicals. That’s allowed for new blood to come in that is at times more responsive. He’ll do what it takes and his rule will be cemented until the next period of unrest. King Abdallah, in the tradition of his father, is one of the smarter rulers in the region.

Elsewhere: For sure, the Syrians have already rounded up potentially trouble makers (democracy advocates, student leaders they don’t control, journalists, etc.) They will not let this populism spread to their borders. And if by some chance it does, it will forcefully end quickly.

The Saudis? Too many people are too rich there to rock the boat. The real second class there – the women – sadly have no power to change matters.

The Palestinians? They are neither in love with the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. But, as the old song goes, “What do they have in common? They all hate the Jews.” Don’t look for discontent there to be directed in any other direction. For now, all is relatively quiet on that front and will remain so. To challenge the PA or Hamas while Israel still controls Palestinian fate is akin to national treason, a bridge that when crossed has fatal consequences for the wanderer.

Lebanon, of course, is a different ball game. For the moment, Hezbollah is much happier being out of the government but still able to pull the strings. Things are dicey indeed here. There can be no accurate predictions.

What will be? Let’s check back in next week. For sure, surprises are coming.

With yesterday’s serious snow storm giving us all a break from the normal hectic routine today, I’m digging into my preferred diet of Jewish flavored websites – http://www.jta.org , http://www.tabletmagazine.com , http://www.haaretz.com and http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg/#middle . (There are more, to be certain, but these are on the “must” lists.)

I dare say that if you look at these every few days, you’ll pretty much know what’s of importance in the Jewish world – at least to organized Jewry, the State of Israel and the leading malcontents always (fortunately) pushing Jewish life forward from just outside its traditional structure.

A few stories that caught my eye today:

1: It’s hard to click on this Hall of Fame Headline from the :Atlantic’s” Jeffrey Goldberg: “Hookers, Poverty, Desperation, Enrique Iglesias, and a Holocaust Memorial.”

Quips aside, he raises an important question in this very short entry: “Does every dumpy little American city need a Holocaust Memorial?  How about spending the money on Holocaust education? Or just education?”

Goldberg is the most interesting, intelligent and very Jewish of the national commentators. Check him out here: http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg/#middle

2. Over at JTA – the website (and singer?) formerly known as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency – a.k.a. the AP for Jewish media – skip the usual political stuff and go for the important piece on how Jewish-themed farms and gardens are coming up like daisies:

This is one of the many spokes of renewal in American Jewish life, and it’s taking place within organized Jewry, which is a very healthy sign indeed. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/01/24/2742654/across-north-america-community-gardens-blooming-on-jewish-land

Environmentalism is the new in-thing for younger Jews because it both combines volunteerism, something good for the greater world and enables you to see the results – which will benefit both yourself and others (‘cause you’re taking home some of the food and giving some of it to those who are needy).

3: Over at the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, one always has to keep an eye on Bradley Burston’s wonderfully named blog “A Special Place In Hell.” One of his recent entries is titled “When The Messiah Comes Israel Will Deport Him.”

Two of the many choice sentences: “When the Messiah comes, rabbis will treat him like Jesus. They will brand him disloyal, diseased, Reform.”

Umm, guess he’s not speaking at this year’s AIPAC conference.

4. Finally, over at Tablet – a zippy amalgamator of Jewish news – there’s an eight-minute video piece on how Jews in Poland are rediscovering their heritage. http://www.tabletmag.com/podcasts/57088/no-more-fear/ . The picture alone takes you back 75 years and gives you a very different portrait of Poland’s Jews than the typical aging Holocaust survivor one.

Happy reading – and don’t hesitate to recommend other pieces.

It turns out that the joint U.S.-Israeli Cyber War On Iran began about two and ½ years ago. And to the best of our knowledge it’s been highly successful, has pushed off an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear sites and has had the strong backing of the Obama administration (so sorry to report that to the Barrack Hussein “Must Be Part Of The Muslim Horde That Wants To Destroy America” Obama crowd). Most importantly, it has not resulted in the cataclysmic response expected from a conventional strike.

We know this in large part due to the New York Times, which this past weekend offered a remarkable piece on how the Stuxnet worm was introduced into Iranian software after being jointly tested by the Israelis and Americans. (Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=stuxnet&st=cse ).

The virus has pushed off Teheran’s nuclear timetable by up to three or four years (now confirmed by outgoing Israeli intelligence chief Meir Dagan). It gets better. The Iranians may have discovered the threat, but all of the worm’s variations are reportedly not yet active.

What happened? In 2008 the German company Siemens, whose controller devices are in computers at the Natanz Iranian nuclear site, detailed for the Americans the system’s weaknesses – a.k.a. how to attack it. The Americans and the Israelis then went to work, somehow infecting the Iranian network. Thousands of centrifuges – used in creating enriched uranium for bombs—began tearing themselves apart as indicators reported all was fine.

The plan, first initiated by President George W. Bush, was sped up by President Barack Obama. That makes sense as the latter has repeatedly declared reducing nuclear proliferation a primary foreign policy goal.

So are we still but months from a sustained Israeli air attack against Iran’s dozen or so nuclear installations, which could result in thousands of Hezbollah rockets on northern Israel, hundreds more from Gaza, a potentially a new massive uprising from Palestinians and the burning of U.S. embassies across the globe?

Israeli analysts are suggesting the picture is not clear. Defense Minister Ehud Barak – now freed from political restraints after ditching his left-leaning Labor Party on Monday (a party he nearly destroyed anyway) – is still pressing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for an expected military strike this spring.

But Barak is unlikely to have his way at this point, even as preparations do (and should) go forward.

So we return to two time-tested adages:

The first: Hope for the best, but plan for the worst.

The second: We don’t know what we don’t know.

Still, today Mideast tealeaf reading is a little easier. The Iranian nuclear project, at a minimum, has taken a hit – albeit definitely not a game ender. Let’s give credit to both the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as the Israelis, for undertaking the hard work the free world would rather ignore, but whose benefits it will reap.

Just a quick note today: This morning National Public Radio broadcast a piece on President Obama’s nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Czech Republic—Norman Eisen. He is currently the White House “ethics czar” (and once an attorney with the ADL).

Eisen’s 89-year-old mother, living in a retirement home in the L.A. area, is a Czech Holocaust survivor who made it out of Auschwitz. But it gets much better: The U.S. ambassador’s residence in Prague is the former headquarters of the Nazi General staff in the region. As Eisen said, “We have the privilege to be moving in, and we will put up mezuzot on the doorposts.”

The report went on to add, “They will make the kitchen kosher, say blessings in Hebrew and light Shabbat candles on Friday nights.”

Eisen added, “So for me, the freedoms that we enjoy — the privileges that we have as Americans — are very, very precious.”

There are few times when I truly understand how America has been different for Jews than any land in history. This is one of them. Would that more Jews in this country even loosely kept their cultural inheritance. As many others can attest, the depth and meaning that such a path gives one’s life – particularly in times of joy and trauma—is profound.

For the full NPR story, click here: http://www.npr.org/2011/01/14/132742020/dr-no-becomes-diplomat-continues-a-family-story

Denial is a river in Egypt. That’s what my Aunt Myrna, using her New York-tinged accent, likes to say. (Let’s forget for the moment that she lived in Baltimore her first 28 or so years and then New Orleans for eight or so more.) Perhaps Malcolm Hoenlein, widely seen as one of American Jewry’s top leaders, should visit Aunt Myrna for a cup of java during his next jaunt to South Florida.

Mr.. Hoenlein, the long-time executive vice president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (aka The Presidents’ Conference), spent a few hours on Monday in Damascus, Syria. While there, he met with Syrian President Bashar Assad.

He almost immediately began denying reports that he was forwarding a message from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, one designed to get Syrian-Israeli talks back on track. (See: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-s-jewish-leader-met-assad-with-message-from-netanyahu-1.335030).

As Mr. Hoenlein lamely told reporters, “The president [Assad] announced during the time we were there rehabilitation of synagogues and cemeteries.”

This brings up two issues: First, why wouldn’t Mr. Hoenlein forward a message from Mr. Netanyahu? Of course he did that– just as another Netanyahu confidante, former U.S. Ambassador Ron Lauder, did in the late 1990s for Mr. Netanyahu to Assad’s now deceased father (and fellow serial human rights abuser) Hafez el-Assad. That, too, was meant to get peace talks rolling.

But Mr. Hoenlein was right to deny it, as this is the stuff of diplomacy (and which WikiLeaks will eventually confirm – maybe by Friday). That said, with a weakened U.S. presidency due to the GOP congressional ascension, don’t expect any Syrian leader to bow to the White House’s desires. There’s simply no payoff and the Congress will fight it anyway.

Could things change? Of course. Just don’t ask Mr. Hoenlein to confirm it.

Finally, this again reveals that American Jews – with their cemented political power –are in a position to advance both U.S. national and Jewish interests. Why would anyone be against such an attempt, as some so clearly are? There is no need to trust the Syrians. There is always a need to keep talking to them, and telling them rewards await the day they decide to behave as a responsible member of the community nations.

They can start by stopping the blocking of the U.N. investigation into their likely complicity of the murder of the Lebanese prime minister in 2005, their hosting of Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and the blunt anti-Semitism that has been expressed from Assad on down.

I like my meat – even though I don’t eat it often due to kosher meat’s insanely high prices in this country. But when I do buy it, I’d like to know that child labor laws, environmental standards, communal responsibility and general decent human behavior has not been violated in its preparation. (Knowing of such things does govern where I shop, which is why I don’t care to step in a Walmart or a certain kosher market in Baltimore, which are stories I’d be happy to share…).

Now, thanks to the Conservative movement – in which I was raised and remain – I and so many others are poised to actually feel good about the kosher meat available.

Many remember how scandal rocked the kashrut industry three years ago. That’s when the behemoth (pun intended) Agriprocessors was cited for hundreds of labor violations, some involving children, and so much more. No longer could one believe the label “kosher” automatically denoted “better”. Rather, at best it meant that the food preparation hit a baseline standard of Jewish law.

Now, in good news for all kosher consumers and certainly the Jewish people’s image, what for some is an unlikely player is about to bring an ethical seal of approval into the marketplace.

The Conservative movement’s Hekhsher Tzedek Commission will in early January 2011 begin testing select companies’ domestic food production standards on five levels –labor practices, animal welfare practices, consumer protection, corporate integrity and environmental impact. After a three-month trial, the Commission will decide if the company deserves the designation of a “Magen Tzedek,” or “seal of justice,” reports “The Forward.” (See: http://forward.com/articles/133979/) Even better, the results will be made public in March.

Rabbi Morris Allen, director of the project, would not identify the companies, but called them “significant players in the food industry — and in the kosher food industry.”

How big could this get? Approximately 40 percent of food manufactured in the country carries a kashrut certification, according to “The Forward.” Thus, the potential for ethical stewardship of so much more than ingredients is massive.

We may not quite be what we eat, but how that food arrives on our plate matters to many of us. And as discerning consumers, shouldn’t we care about what Judaism instructs, our role in our planet’s health and how those two efforts intersect?

When secret documents enter the public domain – often purposely decades later – they change how we see history. Indeed, we finally have confirmation that Franklin D. Roosevelt could have bombed Auschwitz’s railroad tracks, that John F. Kennedy almost sent us to nuclear war, that Richard M. Nixon was not foreign to anti-Semitic expressions and more.

But what happens when such documents are released amidst the decision making process to which they give light? Take the two very different cases of late involving WikiLeaks and the National Archives.

In the first, revelations of Arab nervousness regarding Iran’s clear drive for nuclear weapons confirms what we have always claimed: At stake is far more than Israel’s well-being. However, publishing such cables deeply complicates the U.S. State Department’s challenge to build a diplomatic coalition to force Iran into opening nuclear sites for inspection. The release of these documents demanded a more discriminating review. However, the goal of releasing them seemed simply to be to mess up how democracies work.

It is, of course, impossible to get the documents of truly nefarious governments into the public eye. WikiLeaks China, Sudan, North Korea, Syria or Iran? Right.

I am all for more openness. I am not for stupidity. The line is admittedly a thin one – which is why a combined group with citizen input needs to better oversee what should be in the public domain and at what interval that should take place. I trust neither overzealous advocates nor political operatives working to protect their reputation.

Meanwhile, the National Archives just released a report detailing post-World War II U.S. cooperation with former Nazi officials in the hopes of gaining intelligence information. As American Jewish Committee head David Harris wrote, “To have absolute proof 65 years later about what the U.S. did in assisting notorious Nazi leaders like Klaus Barbie, Rudolf Mildner and others is sickening and painful.”

Judaism’s ancient inferences on modern matters such as government openness are informative. They teach a reliance on experts, but one that cannot be done blindly. Indeed, a Jewish court must have three judges, meaning there are multiple voices. And the ancient high court – the Sanhedrin – had 72 members, forcing robust conversation. In modern parlance, this calls for trusted oversight. That need not be done under full public scrutiny, although erring to that side is needed. And those involved must be unbiased observers, ombudsmen if you will, charged with protecting the public interest.

There are no simple rules in such matters. But when asked to help advocates of genocide or advocates of nuclear war, the appropriate response seems clear.

ADDENDUM: In a depressingly ironic twist, accusations are now swirling that one of WikiLeaks key investigators is a Holocaust denier. See: http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/14/the-assange-employees . One can debate the efficacy of WikiLeaks all s/he wants, but to me employing neo-Nazis is beyond the pale of any civilized action.

The latest shot across the bow in the global battle to capture religious sentiment regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes from the Synod of Bishops of the Middle East.

These kind fellows – and they are indeed all men – have just declared according to the JTA Wire service that the State of Israel cannot use the Bible to justify territorial claims to land in Israel. This came at the end of their recent two-week meeting in Rome. (For more of their narrishkeit check here: http://www.lpj.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=414:le-synode-des-eveques-pour-le-moyen-orient-&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=71&lang=en .)

Specifically, they rejected the use of the biblical position of the Promised Land to justify Jewish settlement of the West Bank. The statement called for a two-state solution to the conflict and to create a peaceful atmosphere that will prevent an exodus of Christians from the region. (No problem with that, but don’t Muslims have a say in what’s happening as well? Or is it just not as much fun to bash the followers of Mohammed?) Not surprisingly, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon – who hails from the hardline nationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party—rejected the statement.

Mind you, this is a well-known pro-Palestinian lot for two principle reasons: One, a number of them are in fact Palestinian and reside in East Jerusalem; and two they are locked in intense, long-term theological battle with Christian Zionists (a.k.a. Evangelical Protestants) who in the past few decades have been both the quickest growing Christian denomination and have numerically eclipsed what are known as “mainline Protestants” in many places (such as the United States).

Excuse the theologically twisted adage, but aren’t they mixing milk and meat? Is not their concern for the Holy Land principally – and understandably – because the New Testament says it is the birthplace of their savior, Jesus of Nazareth?

And by the way, I don’t seem to remember their declarations against the destruction of the Coptic Christian culture by the Egyptian government for decades, or the absolute political marginalization and even terrorism against Lebanese Christians, or the harassing (at best) of Iraqi Chaldeans and so on and so on and so on.

For sure, sane people are entitled to harshly criticize some Israeli policies. God knows I do. (Really, God does know that.) However, these folks could at least work a little harder to work within their theology to support their views instead of throwing out those of another legitimate people not willing to engage their hypocrisy and not afraid to call it for what it is.

News reports from Jerusalem this week were aflutter with a half-hearted offer from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to the Palestinian Authority to extend a [Jewish] building ban in West Bank Jewish communities. Mr. Netanyahu asked his quasi-partners in these tortuous talks to “say unequivocally to its people that it recognizes Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.”

That was met by a patently offensive response by P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas. “If we showed flexibility on these [core] issues the peace agreement would have been signed a long time ago,” he said.

Israel, he added, must agree upfront to create a Palestinian state on all West Bank territory captured in the stunning 1967 Six Day War. (Click here: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/abbas-we-ll-never-sign-deal-demanding-recognition-of-israel-as-jewish-state-1.319329 .)

In other words, give us what we want before we talk and then we can negotiate on more. (And hey, I’m for a Palestinian state and look how angry this makes me!)

And here is the nexus of the problem: Despite actual progress since August, both sides are again negotiating on how to negotiate. That is, they cannot even agree to disagree and try to work it out face-to-face.

Let’s start with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu demands that the Palestinians embrace Zionism. Doing so might help him with the increasingly reluctant Israeli middle voter – those willing to compromise but with no faith in the Palestinians, which is quite understandable seeing as how a 2005 withdraw from Gaza was met with about 8,000 rockets, the violent 2007 takeover of Gaza by Hamas and the 2010 renaming of a West Bank square for terrorists.

But come on Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Abbas was not going to accept this. In fact, he cannot in part because he has failed to cultivate a “peace camp” within the Palestinian community (which I believe cannot be achieved without a massive emphasis on people-to-people projects such as school field trips and visiting one another’s religious festivals – yes, I’m a dreamer, but such is the lot of those who love Jewish history). That’s just reality.

Now Mr. Abbas needed a response along these lines: “We don’t expect you to define us so we’re not going to do it for you. We know we have to compromise and you know it, too. So let’s get back to talking and ignore theatrics. As for extending your settlement freeze, start by taking down the more than 100 illegal, tiny settlement outposts that you, Olmert and Sharon said should be dismantled. That would show us that democracy is actually respected in Israel, which we watch closely.”

I add: Only people who smoke stuff with the Bedouins 24-hours a day think that Israel is not a Jewish state. (Surely it’s not a Buddhist one.) The Palestinians (and Israeli Arabs) know this most of all. And yes, there is inherent tension in the words “Jewish democracy.” But tension brings the opportunity for creativity, not a rejection of what is.

And what could Mr. Netanyahu have said? Perhaps this: “For the 10-month unilateral settlement freeze, which truly put me out on a limb with my base, the Palestinians did nothing but complain. Only toward the end did they agree to talk. Now they’re not getting their way and are upset. Let’s do this: We’ll keep settlement growth to a minimum, meaning natural growth that was already in the planning stages. And we’ll dismantle those illegal outposts because we’re a society of law, including jailing those who resist. And we’ll ask the Palestinians to have their text book passages on Israel analyzed by outside experts since we’re willing to do the same about how we teach about them. This is because their society must deal with incitement. We’ve repeatedly said we’ll live with a Palestinian state side-by-side. When it comes to ultimate borders, isn’t that what these negotiations are about?”

It is agonizingly rare to find a positive headline emanating from the West Bank, which recently saw a mosque burned and graffiti spray-painted on the walls in Hebrew, including the words “revenge” and “price tag,” referring to in-kind reprisal of Jews against Palestinians for attacks. It was the third Palestinian mosque to be torched, allegedly by settlers, in the past year. But the continuation of the story did not get much additional focus. A few days later, some prominent West Bank rabbis visited that same mosque, bringing Korans to replace the ones burned by the vandals.

Leading this effort was Rabbi Menachem Froman, chief rabbi of the settlement of Tekoa. He is a veteran in interfaith efforts and has even conducted face-to-face dialogue in past years with religious leaders of the Hamas Islamic fundamentalist group. (He has been heavily criticized as naive by some colleagues.) Joining him last week in the Hebron-area village of Beit Fajar were the American-born Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, head of the prominent Har Etzion Yeshiva and the American-born Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat.

Their presence, for certain, counters the one of American-born Jewish radicals being at the forefront of extremism in the area. Understandably, but sadly, the rabbis were under heavy security during the visit. One silver lining on that dark cloud is that according to media reports they were guarded jointly by Israeli soldiers and Palestinian policemen. For their to be future co-existence initiatives, the two security services will have to work hand-in-hand on operations.

As Rabbi Shlomo Brin, also from the Har Etzion Yeshiva, said, “Our goal is to share our horror at the attack of the mosque and to clearly state that this is not the way of the Torah or the Jewish way. This act does nothing for the settlements; it is morally and religiously wrong and is offensive to its core. This is not how we educated our children. Islam is not a hostile religion, even if we have a dispute with some of its followers.”

May his words ring throughout the Land of Israel – and be echoed by Jews and Arabs alike. 

What a strange Jewish New Years’ gift – a denunciation of anti-Semitism and praise of the Jewish people from the last standing (at least occasionally) giant of the Cold War.

So it was that forever revolutionary Fidel Castro sent a message earlier this week to Iranian President Mahmound Ahmadinejad via a guy named Jeffrey Goldberg, one of today’s great journalists and coincidentally a veteran of the Israeli Defense Forces. (Goldberg’s blog, which is both very smart and very witty, is a must read: http://www.theatlantic.com/jeffrey-goldberg/#middle.)

Goldberg was in Holy Havana for his publication to interview the iconic and ailing 84-year-old about life in a world with communism as a receding shadow, long-view death bed thoughts and the likes. And the topic seemed to keep coming back to the Jews – which would not be strange for the descendants of Abraham and Sarah this time of year, but is definitely out of whack for a guy way high on the list of big shot godless communists.

Here’s some of what Goldberg wrote, quoting Fidel:

“I don’t think anyone has been slandered more than the Jews. I would say much more than the Muslims. They have been slandered much more than the Muslims because they are blamed and slandered for everything. No one blames the Muslims for anything. [The Iranian government should understand that the Jews]“were expelled from their land, persecuted and mistreated all over the world, as the ones who killed God. In my judgment here’s what happened to them: Reverse selection. What’s reverse selection? Over 2,000 years they were subjected to terrible persecution and then to the pogroms. One might have assumed that they would have disappeared; I think their culture and religion kept them together as a nation…The Jews have lived an existence that is much harder than ours. There is nothing that compares to the Holocaust.” [Goldberg writes] I asked him if he would tell Ahmadinejad what he was telling me. “I am saying this so you can communicate it,” he answered.

In a strange way, it was a shanah tovah greeting from Fidel Castro. And if he can accept a Jewish State of Israel, and if he can acknowledge anti-Semitism’s pernicious historical quality, and if he can understand the profound depth of the Shoah’s eternal tragedy, maybe there is a wee bit more hope on this birth of the world Jewish holiday than I had thought.

May it be a year of health and peace to all.

For more than a millennium Jewish philosophers and theologians have pondered the mysteries of a Third Temple, the one said to be part of the long-awaited messianic era. Will it come at the start of that era, or after it begins? Will it be something concrete, or something figurative? Are Jews allowed to build it prior to a messianic era to usher in that period? Or must we patiently wait, as we have done for so long?

For some modern Zionists, the state of Israel – known as the Third Jewish Commonwealth – is known as the Third Temple.

But now it seems that construction of a large replica of King Solomon’s temple is under way – in Sao Paulo, Brazil – and not by Jews. (For the record, the one where the cafeteria was kosher was destroyed in the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 586 C.E.—not to be confused with the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E.).

Not surprisingly, the $200 million, four-year project is being financed and supervised by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, a Brazilian Pentecostal church. That’s not surprising because this group belongs to the category of Christian Zionists (which contrary to popular belief is far from every evangelical who walks planet earth).

This will be a 10,000-seat replica and about 413 feet high, according to the British newspaper The Guardian (as reported by our friends at the JTA Wire Service, http://www.jta.org ). The ganzeh project will include Jerusalem stone imported at the cost of $8 million. The project will follow the guidelines in the Bible, which will make it larger than the city’s biggest Catholic church – meaning it will take up an entire block and correspond to an 18-floor building. For good measure, it will be a green building.

Check out the picture and article at: http://www.uckg.org.au/index.php/en/what-is-on/latest-news/368-the-uckg-temple-project.html .

At least one Jewish organization seems behind the effort. Persio Bider, president of the World Zionist Organization’s youth department, is quoted as saying that the project will give Brazilian non-Jews a chance “to know more about Israel and the Jews, eliminating prejudice and anti-Semitism, still present in our society.” As he said of Bishop Edir Macedo, “That’s the reason why I found Bishop Macedo’s initiative very interesting; he seems to love Israel and the Jewish people very much.”

Also not surprising is that the UCKG is a quickly growing operation. Founded in 1977, it already has 5,000 churches in Brazil alone. The main sanctuary in Rio de Janeiro holds a mere 12,000 at one time –more than the Orioles had at many games this year. By now there are branches throughout the United States and 174 lands.

Nonetheless, I don’t think any new versions of the Passover hagaddah – at least the Jewish ones – will be ending any time soon with the phrase “Next year in Sao Paulo.” Well, at least it’s nice to know that if the Messiah does show up soon that there is a welcoming place for him to daven while on vacation.

The proposed Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero in New York City took yet another controversial turn this week. In protest of the Anti-Defamation League’s opposition, CNN host Fareed Zakaria returned his 2005 ADL Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize and an accompanying honorarium. The up to 15-story structure will house a mosque, a 500-seat auditorium, a pool and be modeled on the Y.M.C.A. and Jewish Community Center in Manhattan, according to the “New York Times.” (Ironically, the building is called the Cordoba House, which echoes the medieval era in which Islamic-controlled Spain reached the world’s greatest level of religious coexistence to that date.)

Mr. Zakaria, whose move “stunned” ADL national director Abraham Foxman, was well within his rights to protest.

It is for certain extremely difficult to defend a Jewish group that opposes a house of worship or community center nearly anywhere, let alone amidst the nation’s most diverse major city. Likewise, it is impossible to understand the fierce emotional rejection some families of 9/11 victims have to the project. Indeed, questions have been raised about the Cordoba House’s funders – as the American Jewish Committee has noted while supporting the project. Those inquiries must be fully answered.

Yet, both Mr. Zakaria and the ADL could have been much more constructive in approaching this complicated and sensitive matter. For example, Mr. Zakaria could have challenged the ADL to work with him to push for an interfaith prayer space at the building, or to create a similar one nearby. Likewise, he could have asked the ADL to help him raise funds for a 9/11 monument in front of Cordoba House. He could even have asked for the Jewish group to co-sponsor an early event at the center – a conference on how to peacefully combat religious fundamentalism.

Ultimately, we must realize that Islam is engaged in an historic struggle for its soul, one that moderate American Moslems who favor coexistence can lead. Sticking a thumb in their eye cannot help their cause.

Can the appearance in today’s world of a swastika ever be anything other than a viciously anti-Semitic act? Surprisingly the Anti-Defamation League – the nation’s premier chronicler of anti-Semitism and hate in general – is now saying that the appearance of the infamous Nazi Socialist Party symbol is not always targeting Jews. Indeed, last week the ADL took the controversial step of shifting how it records such incidents in its well-known annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents. It did so by dropping appearances from the report of what it deems “random swastikas.”

“We know that the swastika has, for some, lost its meaning as the primary symbol of Nazism and instead become a more generalized symbol of hate. So we are being more careful to include graffiti incidents that specifically target Jews or Jewish institutions as we continue the process of re-evaluating and redefining how we measure anti-Jewish incidents,” ADL National Director Abraham Foxman said.

That has troubled and outraged some, particularly Holocaust survivors and their families, a group that understandably sees visceral anti-Jew hatred when the symbol shows up.

While the ADL is right to make a distinction, it seems to be doing so too easily. The agency should include in its annual audit instances in which the swastika and perhaps KKK markings – so often the two appear jointly – arise.

Ironically, the swastika is not so new an image. There is archaeological evidence of it from as far back as the Neolithic period and it is common in some Eastern religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Back then, it was simply a design, a geographical figure and often appeared in reverse of the modern version. (For a short history of the swastika, read this: http://history1900s.about.com/cs/swastika/a/swastikahistory.htm ).

Nonetheless, in the modern world it is replete with profound and disturbing meaning. Its illustrators may indeed not understand the searing pain they are causing by its representation. That, however, neither makes its appearance irrelevant nor something left for others to note. 

Who would have thought that some of the bad guys – from the perspective of non-Orthodox American Jews –would now be the good guys? That’s one revelation from a glance at the latest round of the “Who Is A Jew” controversy.

But first meet David Rotem, a newcomer to the roughly 2,000-year-old debate. In recent months, the secular Israeli politician from the Yisrael Beitenu (“Israel Is Our Home”) Party brought forward various versions of a “conversion bill,” one that would formally define in Israel a Jew as being one who either was born to a Jewish mother or converted in the Jewish state by an Orthodox rabbi paid by the Orthodox-controlled Chief Rabbinate’s office.

Last week Rotem surprised everyone by getting out of committee and onto the Knesset floor a bill for the first of three required votes.

Fortunately, that vote was promptly delayed, which put the matter in a two-month hiatus as the Knesset summer recess began on Thursday, July 22. And on Tuesday this week, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – who performed quite poorly in the 1997-99 round on the matter – engineered a compromise for a six-month delay. Netanyahu has vowed that he will not let this bill “tear apart” the Jewish people, which indeed it could.

His compromise brings the input of a coalition of non-Orthodox groups, including the Jewish Agency for Israel, with whom the pluralistic North American Jewish federations (including Baltimore’s The Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore) is a partner. Last time around, Sharansky was charged with Netanyahu to placate angry American Jews on the issue.

What does Mr. Rotem’s new measure do? First, he says it will help hundreds of thousands of Israelis from the former Soviet Union who are not Jewish convert. That would happen by letting them “shop around” for rabbis approved by the Chief Rabbinate. At present, one must use the state-paid rabbis in their area, meaning they might be stuck with a strict one on keeping Jewish law (which has never been a prerequisite for born Jews).

Rotem’s bill also says that the new conversions can never be overturned – as has happened in recent years due to Orthodox infighting, amongst other matters.

That all sounds noble. But it’s not. In fact, it opens the door for corruption and cynicism. It’s part of the inevitable toxic mix of state-mandated religious norms. Admittedly, Israel will never deal with such matters as the United States does. But it certainly can do better than create even more animosity to all things Jewish.

Where do American Jews come in? We must continually raise this issue with Israeli leaders and friends. At the heart of such efforts must be embracing the reality that the Jewish state is indeed the center of the spoke wheel of world Jewry; that means its rulings on religious matters count everywhere. Yes, non-Orthodox religious Jews – for complicated reasons, including lack of government support – are a small minority within Israel. Yet the reverse stands true elsewhere.

The bottom line: Israel’s law certainly needs change. But cheapening religion to find a more lenient rabbi as well as ignoring non-Orthodox Jewry en masse emits an unwelcome odor. 

ADDENDUM
No one can explain to me why the compromise of 1998 – the Neeman Commission’s work – is no longer valid. It called for potential converts in Israel to study with the rabbi of their choice in an approved curriculum and then they would be validated by an Orthodox beit din (or rabbinical court). In exchange, the non-Orthodox religious groups dropped their lawsuits in front of the Israel Supreme Court.

So everyone compromised – for a while. Then some Orthodox rabbis began declaring the “conversion courts” invalid… and here we are again.

I’m betting in the end we wind up with the same thing – and the same ultimate results to this age-old Jewish spat.

It’s not often that you’re tapped for a minyan in a room full of 4,000 evangelical Christians. Nonetheless, Wednesday night one of the 20 or so Orthodox men also there—no doubt noticing the kippah on my head – walked up to me at the press table and simply said, “Minchah” and pointed over yonder.

No need for a Talmudic debate on what that meant. So I joined the group heading toward a corner of the cavernous hall turned banquet space. As we walked, Hebrew songs blared and people sitting at the several hundred large round tables waved Israeli and American flags to the tunes.

Welcome to the Christians United for Israel (http://www.cufi.org ) annual gathering in the nation’s capital, one that features two days of workshops followed by a journey to Capital Hill to lobby Congress on further cementing strong U.S.-Israel ties.

I’ll be writing more during the week about this, but I want to get a few impressions out now as in addition to hearing workshops and overhearing a lot of hall chatter, I had sit-down interviews with about a dozen people. They were sincere, diverse and well informed.

• They did not like President Barack Obama – which is a polite way of putting it. Indeed, nearly every speaker during the three-day event (and there were plenty of Jewish ones, including Republican Jewish Council head Matt Brooks) could be identified with the GOP. (Where do we fit Sen. Joe Lieberman?) The star lineup also included American Values head and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, Sen. Rick Santorum and Rep. Eric Cantor. For good measure, we’ll toss in former National Security Council staffer Eliot Abrams, US News & World Report boss Mort Zuckerman and Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. The latter’s boss – Binyamin Netanyahu – appeared on a live satellite feed, which had the delegates leap to their feet with cheers.

• The three main political points they took to the hill: Stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon; support Israel’s right to defend itself; and Israel is not the problem and pressure on it is not the solution.

• The common theological refrain: God commands us in Genesis to bless the descendants of Abraham, who are the Jewish people. “Replacement theology,” which says God’s covenant with the Jews has passed on to Christians (generally referred to as “the church”) is offensive. Jews still have that covenant and God’s protection. So anti-Semitism is a sin against God; we Christians know that we have messed that one up badly, but will not allow for another Holocaust.

And no, not one peep was heard publicly about end-time scenarios in which those Jews who survive the Armageddon will become “complete Jews” by turning to the returned Jesus as humanity’s savior. Nor was there a mixing of agendas. The words “abortion,” “prayer in school” and “family values” were not heard. They kept on message.

From a Jewish perspective, the scenes were simply wild. There was energetic hora dancing as the live band played Havanagilah, Hineh Ma Tov and more. There were scripture readings (both Hebrew and New Testament) all in English. There were roaring bible-thumping speeches by Pastor John Hagee (who founded the operation). There was a passionate, thundering endorsement by a rabbi he befriended in Texas 30 years ago. There was praise of members of Hispanic and African American churches participating as their representatives rose to much applause.

There was even an “offering” collected – this one to support CUFI’s work on college campuses (and the 400 college students there made their presence known, prompting the Rev. Hagee to smile and say, “Oh, to be young again.”)

Not surprisingly, nearly all the representatives of the media with whom I was sitting seemed to be Jewish (although a few represented Christian TV stations and operations). It’s fair to say that we were amazed by the energy of people of all ages, the singularity of commitment and the very un-Jewish flavor of the event.

Oh, the stories I have to tell this Shabbat!

Now – more than six decades after the Nazi’s “final solution to the Jewish question” rightly was crushed by civilized humanity, debates over the Shoah’s moral legacy seem to appear with increasing frequency. The latest chapter in that painful effort has come to our own state.

It’s in the form of a roughly $1 billion bid to the Maryland Transit Authority by Keolis Rail Services, which wants to operate the Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) train service lines for Brunswick and Camden – the ones thousands of people take every day.

The problem: The majority owner of Keolis is the French railway company SNCF or the Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais. That line, partially owned by the French government since 1938, transported nearly 77,000 Jews and other victims from France to Nazi concentration camps. Even more horrifying is that doing so was profitable.

The Nazis paid SNCF for the deportations per person and per kilometer.
So it’s no surprise that a group of 269 Holocaust survivors – include two living in Pikesville—are heatedly criticizing the Virginia Railway Express for awarding an $85 million contract to Keolis. Attorneys for the group want SNCF to not only acknowledge and apologize for its role in the Holocaust, but to pay reparations of some sort. And the Maryland participants are not interested in seeing the company gain from our state without the same.

MTA officials will not say when they will decide on who gets the contract, and certainly don’t welcome the publicity. Still, they are declaring the need for secrecy on such matters because other bids are coming in. That’s offensive. This is public business and no one is asking them to give out details of the proposed contract itself.

Meanwhile, the rail company should indeed apologize with sincerity. In acknowledging its complicity in humanity’s most documented crime, it should find a way to financially support educational efforts to perpetuate the profoundly tragic lessons of the Shoah. That can come in the support of the aging survivors themselves, Holocaust museums such as the ones in Washington, Israel or France, and in the underwriting of educational curriculum.

Frankly, the money is not as important as the intent – but the money does make heads turn and corporations think about the ethics of what they do (or at least let them know they can held responsible for their actions). We cannot and dare not ever forget the Holocaust. The challenge now is living with its heavy memory as we seek to forge a responsible society that both embraces the past while striving to create a more cohesive, promising future.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu may not have embraced as long-lost friends on the White House portico this week, but what’s being dubbed their “make up” summit went smoothly. And that’s good for all concerned about the Jewish state, as well as all Americans.

It is no secret that until now Mr. Obama has poorly handled the public side of his differences with Mr. Netanyahu. Meanwhile, Israel’s leader at best could not control his domestic partners’ actions when it came to ill-timed announcements relating to the building of homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.  But this week a different tone seemed to resonate.

As Mr. Obama said, a smiling Mr. Netanyahu at his side, “Israel has unique security requirements. It has to be able to respond to threats or any combination of threats in the region. And that’s why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests.”

For his part, Mr. Netanyahu gave the American what he wanted – a continued pledge to stay the course in negotiating with the Palestinians, an unpopular stand with some Netanyahu coalition partners. The Israeli also thanked the American for having the U.S. administration conduct “proximity talks” with the Palestinians – acting as a go between. And Mr. Netanyahu yet again called on Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to meet him in face-to-face negotiations, which indeed should occur.

With all that in mind, one hopes the theatre of hysteria – Obama hates Bibi, Bibi hates Obama, etc. – is now at an end. After all, the task at hand is both clear: The two democratic allies must work together to confront an emerging nuclear Iran, whose aspirations if achieved would exponentially increase Tehran’s ability to blackmail nations and create international mischief. For both leaders, that vital mission must be understood as far more urgent and important than even the remotest desire to score political points at home or abroad.

Like a bad rash that keeps coming back when it gets too hot, Nation of Islam leader the Rev. Louis Farrkhan has returned. He did so last week with a truly wacky letter to, of all people, Abraham Foxman, the national head of the Anti-Defamation League. For good measure, he sent it to some other American Jewish leaders as well. (What, Louie, my insults aren’t good enough to gain a copy? No more chocolate/toffee matzah Pesach packages for you!)

The letter was wrapped around a two-volume work called “The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews,” which was written by the Nation of Islam’s alleged “Historical Research Department,” whose staff probably attended marketing seminars put on by the posse of North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

In his June 24 note, the Rev. Farrakhan accused Jews of perpetrating “the most vehement anti-Black behavior in the annals of our history in America and the world.” And then – it’s true—he asked for a dialogue to “help me in the repair of my people from the damage that has been done by your ancestors to mine.”

Oh Louie, when will you learn?

But the real question is deeper: Does it matter? After all, is anyone surprised that the Rev. Farrakhan has yet again taken himself out of running for righteous gentile of the year?

Actually, it does matter. This is not just an unpolished idiot standing on a street corner. In fact, it’s a well-heeled idiot who lives a lavish lifestyle in a Chicago mansion in comforts of which his tens of thousands of followers can only dream. And they do come out to hear his very open anti-Semitism.

Take, for example, the Rev. Farrakhan’s June 26 speech in the Atlanta Civic Center. According to Mr. Foxman’s ADL – which has made a fine tradition of following the Rev. Fararkhan around—the black nationalist declared “[Jews] have always tied themselves to black people. They attach themselves to our talent. They are the managers, the agents and they are the accountants and that’s why our black artists loved fame and got fame but died poor because somebody else got their money… No black man or woman becomes a multimillionaire without friendship in the Jewish community.” (More excerpts from the recent talk are here: http://www.adl.org/main_Nation_of_Islam/farrakhan_atlanta_israel.htm).

As one who back in the mid-1990s attended one of his speeches – hint: make sure you have plenty of time; he was 90 minutes late and then spoke for three hours – this is far from something new.

Still, as we rightly express our outrage, we cannot allow this to paint the whole canvas of the American black-Jewish relationship.

Take, for example, the recent June 13 program at the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of African American History, one co-sponsored with the Jewish Museum of Maryland and called “On Point: The State of African American and Jewish Relations.” The conversation was part of the exhibit “Beyond Swastika And Jim Crow: Jewish Refugee Scholars At Black Colleges.” It runs through August 31 and offers a fascinating glimpse at the tensions and shared values of our two communities. It is provocative and worthy of a few hours. Find out more here: http://www.africanamericanculture.org/exhibit_special.html .

And as you walk through the displays, ponder how what’s being focused on is how blacks and Jews have struggled to live together (and not always successfully) – not the glorification of pathological racism so vital to the identity of Rev. Louis Farrakhan and his fellow worshippers of human depravity.

As the adage goes, when you do the crime you do the time. Former influential Capitol Hill lobbyist and businessman Jack Abramoff – newly of Baltimore – knows that well. In 2006, the once super lobbyist pled guilty to three felony counts related to defrauding Native American tribes and corruption of government officials. His well-funded lifestyle was part of a national scandal that led to new limitations on lobbying and much discussion about political ethics.

This week, after 43 months in prison, he began a stint at Tov Pizza on Reisterstown Road in Baltimore (Check out our story: http://www.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/news/jt/local_news/abramoff_to_work_at_tov_pizza/19332)

It’s a decidedly less glitzy gig than his past one, but hopefully one imbued with much more personal meaning. A former kosher restaurant owner himself, he will help that business focus on marketing strategies, according to its owner.

So if you stop by Tov Pizza most business hours these days, you are likely to see Jack sitting in the room on the right while working at his computer. Mind you, he won’t talk to you – he can’t under the stipulations of his still incomplete jail sentence, which should be up by year’s end.

Frankly, he should be left alone regardless of that. It must be painful enough to reconstruct one’s life after committing a crime and gaining a pass to jail as a result. To do so when your name is part of a national scandal is even more arduous. Abramoff knows best the hell he put his family and friends through, having TV cameras and reporters follow their every move and dig into the personal lives of all who surround him.

With that in mind, we urge our community – and our colleagues in the media – to go easy on Abramoff. For certain, this is a story of national interest and the initial coverage cannot be avoided. However, after that Abramoff should be allowed to live out his life in relative anonymity and with dignity. The only exception would be if he chose to speak publicly. Indeed, if the authorities believe that he has paid his price, then we should, too.

This exemplifies the Jewish value of teshuvah or repentance. Abramoff, like anyone else, is entitled to the benefits of that hallowed concept. Let’s keep that in mind.

It doesn’t take a Ph.D. to figure out that more seems to divide than unite American Jews who care about all things relating to the State of Israel. However, the fate of Gilad Shalit is finally – definitely later than should be the case – catching on here as a unifying issue.

Shalit was captured on June 25, 2006 by Hamas operatives who dug a tunnel from the Gaza side of the border into Israel. In addition to killing several Israel Defense Forces soldiers, they captured Shalit. The International Red Cross, Israeli government officials and even Shalit’s family have not been allowed to see or to speak to him. Occasionally, a letter from him is released to the media.

In exchange for Shalit, Hamas says it wants 1,000 prisoners held by Israel, including those “with blood on their hands.” For crying out loud, even the U.N. Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict has called for him to be released unconditionally.

• Orthodox and other groups have tried to keep him on the agenda for some time and deserve much credit for pushing the effort. Here is a packet prepared last year by the Orthodox Union: http://www.ouradio.org/images/uploads/Shabbat_Needarei_Tzahal_5770.pdf

• This week the, the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism began conducting campaigns on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites to raise awareness. They are calling for the display of yellow balloons in front of synagogues, organizations and residences for the week of June 21 to show solidarity. Likewise, many Conservative (and other) synagogues already mention Mr. Shalit in context with their weekly prayer for the well-being of the State of Israel. Here is a link to that prayer in English and Hebrew: http://jcrc.convio.net/site/PageServer?pagename=copy_of_Prayer_for_Gilad_Shalit

• Baltimore is preparing for the June 25 showing of the documentary “Gilad Is Still Alive,” an event sponsored by the Baltimore Zionist District and hosted by the Park Heights Jewish Community Center. (For details: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Baltimore-Zionist-District/261170861290)

• And Ami Ayalon, former head of the Israeli Shin Bet Kaf security services (ShaBaK), this week told a Baltimore crowd how he would have conducted Israel’s flotilla raid differently. He wanted to take a daytime armada of 50 Israeli ships with huge “Gilad Shalit” banners and sail right up to the Free Gaza ones, forcing their TV cameras to see the signs. Then the Israelis would say “We’ll sail together into Gaza harbor and you’ll let us meet Gilad Shalit.” (Even though that was highly unlikely to work, he said, at least the real focus would be where it should be – on Hamas’s illegal activities.)

Gilad Shalit is a captive of war, and as such it is the obligation of the Jewish people to strive to bring him home. There is a fair debate to be had over whether “paying ransom” will encourage the taking of more captives. In fact, it’s not a new conversation in Jewish history. (For an interesting article on how the State of Israel has dealt with this and how that squares with Jewish values, click here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/captives.html).

All that aside, it starts with bringing attention to the plight of a young man who is paying a horrible price for standing guard on his side of the border.

“Jews Film Back” – might be the headline of an article about the new video Gaza flotilla that’s making the rounds of the pro-Israel circuit these days. It’s called “We Con The World” and is a spoof on that ever-popular “We Are The World” one of years past in which entertainment stars raise money for valid causes. The roughly 4.5 minute video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGG_osOoVg .

This well-done spoof on the cynical anti-Israel arguments made by the pro-Palestinian crowd features American-Israelis crooning in stereotypical Arab outfits (and with stereotypical Arabic accents) about how they are duping the world when it comes to the charade of innocents in Gaza being held hostage to the evil whims of an imperialist Israel.

Hold on! Stereotypical dress and accents? What if the pro-Palestinian crowd had done something from their perspective using Hasidic garb and Yiddish accents? We would rightly be screaming “anti-Semites!” Is this any different?

Now I’ve mentioned that to some friends in Israel and here and most (not all) disagree. I’ve gotten a lot of “They do it to us, so why can’t we fight back in this non-violent way?” My response: “Like Mom told me all those years ago, two wrongs don’t make a right.”

So for the most part I have no problem with the words and the lyrics, which are indeed quite clever. But we don’t need to lower our values to the crash cacophony of the haters of Israel. Do we?

(If you are viewing this on a sight other than http://www.jewishtimes.com, to post a response, click http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/battle_of_videos_flotilla_fights_new_phase/ and go to “comments” at the bottom. Thank you.)

Surely a sign of our e-connected times, there is a battle of videos on the Internet taking place between the Israel Defense Forces and the Free Gaza movement that directed the relief flotilla.

On the radio going home yesterday afternoon, I heard Adam Shapiro – who runs the Free Gaza movement – speak on the Marc Steiner radio show about the many cell phone videos that captured Israeli soldiers beating on the “humanitarian protestors.” I have yet to find those videos on YouTube and the Free Gaza web page (http://www.freegaza.org/) or Al-Jazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com), but welcome someone sending them to me. All I can find are videos of protests like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvErJSJUWL4&feature=youtu.be&a .

There are links on something called http://witnessgaza.com/ , which are witnesses testimonies – but no live videos of the event itself. 

However, many people have already seen the video the IDF filmed of their soldiers being dropped into the mob. It was originally on http://www.haaretz.com and is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI&feature=related

Now the IDF has released a video that it says are the people on the boat preparing for conflict. It is here and is 2:25 minutes long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU&feature=player_embedded

Despite the above, I also do not want to callously dismiss the fact that nine people are dead. As Jews, we should be able to mourn that reality while defending the Jewish state – and continuing to ask hard questions about a military move that was made necessary by the flotilla, but which obviously went awry.

Thoughts?

(If you are not viewing this at http://www.jewishtimes.com and would like to post a response, please click http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/battle_of_videos_flotilla_fights_new_phase/ and go to “comments” at the bottom. Thank you.)

It all had the tragic and predictable outcome of an ancient Greek play that, despite being staged 1,000 times before, yet again evoked powerful emotions amongst its intended audiences.

For certain, the pro- and anti-Israel crowds – Jews and gentiles – took expected stands after Monday’s deadly debacle in the Mediterranean. During it, at least nine people died on a ship in a once Gaza-bound relief flotilla, one staffed by humanitarian activists who pummeled Israeli commandoes seemingly more prepared to disperse an impolite crowd than to combat a motivated enemy armed with rudimentary weapons (which still kill).

But in a subdued manner, many American Jews with whom I spoke were left grappling with what to think, how to respond and to where it would lead.

They were angry at Israel for messing up the mission – which is undeniable. They were frustrated by not having a meaningful message that spoke to them. And they were uninterested in the knee-jerk protectionism they heard from many Jewish groups and leaders. In short, they were not – and have not for a long time – been willing to accept without questions the standard pro-Israel rhetoric.

Mind you, some of them forget that such responses are actually needed in a world where so many people are far less understanding of the nuanced brutality Israel faces. Likewise, in eying the criticism from within Israel itself, much of the globe does not see in context the intense and time-honored soul-searching so intrinsic to Jewish life, which has a rhythm that beats to the notion of collective fate because, after all, we do have a history.

As this ongoing mess continues to unfold – one of which at this writing could indeed trigger the third intifadah Palestinians and others have warned of in recent years – here is some context to consider.

While I do not have a military background, it seems hard to argue that this mission’s planners had prepared their troops for every contingency. It’s fair to question why more soldiers were not sent to the ship at once, why non-lethal stun grenades were not used and why simple techniques – say nets dropped from above on protestors—could not have ended the situation more quickly.

Tuesday morning quarterbacking for sure, but Palestinians and humanitarian activists already pledge repeat scenarios in the coming weeks. After all, from their perspective all worked beautifully (although the families of those killed would disagree).

Look at the plusses from the organizers’ perspective: In addition to the waterfall of anti-Israel publicity, the Egyptians “indefinitely” ended their complicity in blockading Gaza (which saw quiet coordination with Israel); Turkey has new respect in the Arab world for aiding the Palestinian cause; other European nationals were wounded; and the United Nations fulfilled its ever-present desire to rush through an anti-Israel resolution.

Where does this leave us as American Jews? After all, part of our raison d’etre is to defend the Jewish state. And we are in fact commanded to remind the world of a double-standard regarding the Third Jewish Commonwealth. Indeed, last week U.S. State Department Hannah Rosenthal informed a Baltimore audience that in the last five years the U.N. Human Rights Commission has passed about 170 resolutions condemning the Jewish state– and five on Iran and Sudan.

If that’s balance, I’m a ballerina.

So what’s next?

Be prepared to hear of this situation for some time. It’s oats for the troughs of the United Nations. The Palestinians will make it the latest chapter in their ongoing saga against “the facist, apartheid Israel.” That could resonate loudly on the Arab/Muslim streets – and in a few other neighborhoods as well.

So what can we do? Explanations are nice, but not enough. We need to push for an U.S.-led investigation, one not stacked against Israel as was the U.N.’s Goldstone Commission, but run in consultation with – not giving veto power to – the Europeans.

And we need to not avoid this sensitive matter with Christian and Muslim allies in local and national dialogues. We need conversations, not public fiascos.

And at day’s end, were are left with this: Israel had warned of a confrontation. Israel had planned for a confrontation. And yet, Israel was not fully prepared and people died. That’s a failure of intelligence, creativity and action.

And it hurts.

(To respond to this column if you are not reading it at http://www.jewishtimes.com, click here http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/gaza_flotilla_flotsam/ and then click on “Comments” at the bottom of the page. Thank you.)

When the Israeli Army last week forbade entry into the West Bank from Jordan by American anti-Israel, hard-left intellectual Noam Chomsky, it gave a gift wrapped present to the detractors of the Jewish state. Now they could add to their false claims of Israel being a fascist, apartheid state that it also rejects free speech. What, they argue, is the use of Israel calling itself a democracy if it cannot even get that right?

Dr. Chomsky was scheduled to teach at Bir Zeit University on the West Bank, which is a hotbed of violent Palestinian Islamic radicalism. After four hours of questioning – a time in which someone higher on the military and likely the political food chain had to be in touch with the situation – he was sent back to Amman, Jordan. The next day, from there via satellite he addressed the West Bank students.

The Israeli government did apologize and say that Dr. Chomsky was welcome to reapply to enter the country the day after his was denied. But Dr. Chomsky and his friends knew a good thing when they saw it. They understood that they could get much more mileage out of his being turned away.

Dr. Chomsky, who is Jewish and grew up with a heavy emphasis on Hebrew fluency, should have been allowed into the West Bank to speak his words. Was Israel worried that he would say things against their government, things that his students wouldn’t hear otherwise? Please.

What democracies should do is insist that such people – and their detractors—behave in a civilized manner that contributes to an intellectual furthering of ideas and discussions. (For me, this differs from Holocaust deniers in Germany being penalized as Israel’s situation is political in nature and not one of promoting genocide. And this, by the way, is an argument worthy of continuing in other postings.)

Dr. Chomsky’s views are highly disagreeable, but he is not violent and has never been associated with violence (unlike his late co-thinker, Columbia University’s Dr. Edward Said – a hardcore American-Palestinian nationalist.)

For certain some of Dr. Chomsky’s words could bolster the views of violent people. Yet, one cannot police how people may react to a noted intellectual’s talks or works. To do so would lead to a banning of all books – such as the Torah (which on the surface arguably teaches genocide of the Amalakites) and the sacred works of other religions with their acts of violence. Besides, it is far better to monitor Dr. Chomsky than to seek to outlaw him. Doing so only further inflames radicals and brings him their adulation.

So just what was worse? Slavery or the Holocaust?

That’s precisely the question educators warn us that we should never ask. But it keeps coming up amongst the general public when blacks and Jews convene publicly to talk about their issues.

I yet again saw the animosity to which this inquiry can give rise when, on Monday night, I and about 100 other people gathered at Baltimore’s Enoch Pratt Central Library to hear Dr. Hubert G. Locke (who happens to be an African American) give a lecture on the responsibility of black churches after the Holocaust.

It was hard to miss the four-foot high promotional posters adorning the library’s large front windows in recent weeks. Thus, the audience was a mix of black and white, young and old, Christians, Jews and a few Muslims (one who literally shouted about the Palestinians and “today’s holocaust). There were community leaders, thanks to an array of co-sponsorships, and folks likely just looking to hear something different.

Dr. Locke—dean of the Evan School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a longtime member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Committee on Church Relations and the Holocaust – warned that his words may be controversial. What an understatement. Indeed, an hour later it’s likely that everyone present was upset about something that had been said (which the hisses, shouts and boos certainly revealed).

The comments of one African American woman stood out for me. “We should put the issue of [slavery] reparation up front and then I can cry about the Jewish Holocaust,” she said.

She was not angry; she sounded sincere. She was simply putting her communal concerns first. We Jews do that all the time and for understandable reasons.

But it begs conversation on how blacks and Jews indeed do compare the Holocaust and slavery. The standard response is “One should not compare suffering.” Clearly for some that does not go far enough. How Shoah shapes the modern psyche of Jews and how slavery molds that of African Americans is deep and profound. Indeed, they form a carefully threaded string that weaves through the complicated, diverse sub-communities within those two far from monolithic groupings.

It also presents a challenge that should be met head on and not brushed aside as a conversation that won’t get us anywhere. After all, if every difficult moment is a teachable one – and I believe it is – rejecting this opportunity will lead to deeper frustration, which paves the road to either indifference or hatred.

(Addendum: There was at least some unity present – the lead co-sponsorship of the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, with the support of the Associated Black Charities, the Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore, the Baltimore Community Foundation, the Enoch Pratt Free Library and the Open Society Institute-Baltimore. One hopes they join forces yet again to help us explore such important topics – regardless of the results.)

As even occasional viewers know, the axiom “almost anything goes” defines the Comedy Central cable network. After all, it is home to Jon Stewart’s mock news report “The Daily Show,” the raunchy cartoon “South Park,” the bizarre situation comedy “The Sarah Silverman Show,” (all of which I’ve been known to watch – for research purposes only, of course), and much more.

Many of those shows occasionally slip in humor poking fun at Jews (often barbs delivered by Jews who actually know what they’re talking about). This week, the network simultaneously took one step forward and one step backwards when answering the legitimate concerns of Jews and others about a new video game on its website.

The game, originally called “I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack,” was renamed “Drawn Together: The Movie: The Game.” Also eliminated from its program is its once incredibly offensive beginning. Until a few days ago, the lead character would declare, “You lied to me, Jew Producer.” Then the Intelligent Smart Robot Animation Eraser Lady (I.S.R.A.E.L.) was sent to murder children along with general mayhem.

Funny?

One is hard pressed to see how any one with any sensitivity would be buckled over in laughter. And why is that only Jews were the target? What, no time to write offensive language about African-Americans, Asian Americans Catholics, Muslims or others?

I’m usually the first to tell fellow Jews to relax and enjoy the joke. But there are limits. And this is one of those times.

Leading the charge against this move by Comedy Central was the media monitoring watchdog Honest Reporting. By week’s start, it had brought more than 2,700 people into its Facebook group called “Comedy Central – I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack game is offensive. Remove it.”

Still, despite the negative publicity, the game still reportedly maintains offensive material relating to Israel killing children. As of Tuesday, I attempted to tap into the game’s new version on the network’s website. That brought up this message: “We’re experiencing some technical difficulties.”

By week’s end one hopes that despite its new title, the game has been expunged from Comedy Central’s archives. If that’s not done, the network’s powers should add mental difficulties to the list of self-inflicted woes.

(To comment on this post, click here http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/comedy_centrals_joke/ , scroll to the bottom and click “Comments”.)

The Baltimore-based Jews for Judaism, a national operation, has as its raison d’etre fighting Christian missionaries seeking to convert Jews into believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. In particular, they focus on the alleged deceptive practices of such groups. Having had some experiences with Christian missionaries both here and in Israel (ironically the one in the Jewish state being the much more deceptive one), I understand the concern.

But in no way should the language Jews for Judaism is using in its new campaign to fight Hebrew Christians – a truly convoluted name for these groups – be acceptable. Jews for Judaism Executive Director Ruth Guggenheim, whom I know as a very solid and respected Jewish professional, went beyond the rhetorical pale with this quote: “There is no difference between a sexual predator on the Internet and a spiritual predator.”

To me that is remarkably insensitive. But to be certain I checked with a Jewish friend who actually is a survivor of sexual abuse from his teenage years. “I’m not in therapy for the rest of my life because of my experience with Jews for Jesus, which I had,” he scoffed. “But I am because of what happened to me sexually.”

I have no problem with Jews for Judaism monitoring the Internet and the remarkable possibilities opened by the phenomenon of electronic social networking. But let’s cool the rhetoric. Their concern is that missionizing groups are “friending” Jewish kids and targeting them for their efforts. Who should be surprised? After all, in the e-world, everybody is everybody’s “friend” and how many of us really take our sudden popularity that seriously? And if we want to engage in religious conversation, so be it.

I also probably have a lot more trust in people’s ability to discern snake oil from cough syrup than Jews for Judaism’s supporters might. I’m fond of noting that if Judaism cannot survive in the free market place of ideas then its problems are much larger than those of Jews for Jesus and similar groups – whose decades of pumping many millions of dollars into creating “complete Jews” has been the worst financial investment of modern religious life.

Besides, I know too many Christians who are good, decent people who believe in their faith with all their heart and all their soul. And they are willing to talk to me and anyone about it when asked. Some of them might even support missionizing amongst the Jews. But I have to be honest: That doesn’t bother me that much. After all, I think Judaism is the greatest, most intellectual, spiritually engaging and challenging religion in the world. And not only do I think everyone should consider it, but I’m not afraid to say that to individual Christians and Christian groups.

But when it comes to comparing evangelizing practices to sexual predators, let’s think a lot longer before we portray ourselves as remarkably less intelligent than I’d like to think is true.

In colloquial western terms, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a wacko. Alas, his heart – in such a different way than that of the famed medieval Jewish poet Yehuda HaLevi – faces east.

As he speaks in New York City today at the United Nations every five-year Nuclear Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, take a glance at past choice statements (courtesy The Israel Project, http://www.theisraelproject.org).

• Sept. 15, 2005: “With respect to the needs of Islamic countries, we are ready to transfer nuclear know-how to these countries.” (In other words, he wants to do for nuclear technology what Starbucks has done for coffee – available anywhere, any time for the right price.)

• Oct 26, 2005: “Israel must be wiped off the map.” (This makes him the only world leader threatening to annihilate another U.N. member’s existence.)

• Sept. 24, 2007: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who’s told you that we have it.” (That one is so funny and bizarre that it’s always worth rereading.)

• June 3, 2009: “The identity of the liberal democracy has been exposed to the world by its protection of the most criminal regime in the history of humanity, the Zionist regime, by using the big deception of the Holocaust.” (That’s a semi-round about way of saying that the Holocaust was as real as the moon being made of cheese.)

So who could be surprised on Monday when the Intemperate Tyrant of Tehran added this to the list:

“The Zionist regime too consistently threatens Middle Eastern countries with its nuclear arsenal.”

Actually, Mahmee, Israel has long held by its policy of “nuclear ambiguity,” only offering this statement: “Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East.” That’s not quite a threat. Nor is Israel threatening to destroy all of Iran. It would, however, like your country to stop arming Hezbollah and Hamas.

So why does Ahmedinejad keep doing it? Quite simply, it’s because his bosses – the mullahs who really run the country – let him do it. In part, that’s because he’s likely a distraction from their tyrannical rule. Indeed, while they claim allowing a multi-party, multi-candidate elections (unlike in Syria, Egypt, etc.), candidates in Iran must be approved – and can be removed if the mullahs disagree. And last June we saw how protestors of the Iranian presidential election were beaten and even killed.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is continuing the revolutionary spirit for his bosses happy while trying to drain attention from common disgruntlement at the rising fuel and food prices caused in part by somewhat porous international sanctions. (At least they have a minor effect.)

He’s even thinking long-term. If Israel or the United States militarily hit what are certainly nuclear weapons research installations, he’s hoping the sympathy aroused by the likely civilian casualties will rally the country toward him.

And if his government is on the verge of being toppled, he and his bosses know they can still count on important military commanders – with all of their loyal soldiers (those paid off as well as faithful believers), not to mention heavy arsenals. That will create serious damage before the flag of democracy ever waves of Tehran (a not-so-likely scenario to start).

A few loyal blog readers are triggering a debate regarding my last entry on the sentencing of the noxious and toxic Bishop Richard Williamson, now convicted for uttering Holocaust denial in Germany – something that would be legal in the United States. (“An Evil Bishop” http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/hes_an_evil_bishop/) 

The question: Isn’t the conviction a violation of freedom of speech? As evil as his words were – no Jews were burned in Nazi ovens and no more than 300,000 Jews were murdered by the Nazis—isn’t his right to expound such mental midgetry something we Jews and Americans should protect and even cherish? After all, we’ve always been told that when free speech is squashed, democracy itself is endangered, and that’s never good for minorities.

The easy answer, and the very Jewish one, is “yes, but…” That is, yes this is a violation of freedom of speech. But one argument that I make with a very thoughtful friend who raised the issue is that context is everything.

For example, according to the famous 1919 case Schenk v. United States, the courts here ruled that one does not have the right to enter a crowded theater and shout “fire”. However, one can scream “fire” as much as he or she wants out on the streets (and likely look like an idiot with no consequence other than what other people will think about you).

Similarly, one cannot deny the Holocaust in Germany – or even sell Nazi paraphernalia – because of the context of venue. That’s because we know where such actions could (and did) lead. One, however, can sell Nazi items all over the United States (been to a flea market lately?) because a massive, extended genocidal campaign did not turn an entire society (and continent) into those who abetted humanity’s most documented crime, or at a minimum were passive bystanders. (A few heroes aside, the Shoah was a massive failure of everyone at every level.)

The interesting question is how such laws will hold up in Germany the coming decades. When the great-grandchildren of former Nazis and Holocaust survivors rise to positions of power in 20-30 years, will they seek to change it as something now outdated?

(Please share your thoughts to this ethical dilemma. If reading this via e-mail, click this web version and go to “comments” at the end. http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/screaming_for_nazis/ . Otherwise, click on “comments.”)

As a veteran of interfaith dialogue, I’m somewhat loathe to judge another person’s religious beliefs by my standards. But the fact that Bishop Richard Williamson can call himself a believer in God’s love is unfathomable.

In fact, by now one is hard pressed to describe him as anything other than evil. How else can one approach the news that the Catholic bishop – denounced by his own Roman Catholic Church – will appeal last week’s court ruling that found him guilty of Holocaust denial?

Williamson, a bishop from the breakaway Society of Saint Pius X, keeps defending absurd declarations about how no more than 300,000 European Jews could have been killed in the Shoah. In 2008, he even told a Swedish reporter in a recorded broadcast that there is no way any Jew was murdered in Nazi gas chambers. Such claims, he said, were “lies, lies, lies.”

In displaying a remarkable level of stupidity in rejecting the world’s most documented genocide, Mr. Williamson also made the mistake of giving that interview in Regensberg, Germany. In that country, Holocaust denial is illegal. So on Friday, April 16 a court there found him guilty of denial and upheld a $22,473 fine. While the sum is paltry, the message was large: No person is immune to the consequences of denying the reality of six million corpses.

For the record, members of the Saint Pius group have made rejecting sanity twisted theological truth. The group was founded to oppose the reforms of the 1965 Second Vatican Council; its liberalizations included absolving Jews from the death of Jesus of Nazareth; prior to that, Christian anger unleashed centuries of anti-Jewish persecution, blood libel and outright murder.

Sadly, as a nod to internal Church politics, in January 2009 Pope Benedict XVI welcomed Mr. Williamson and three other Pius Society bishops back into the fold. The pontiff has unequivocally denounced Holocaust denial. Still, the latest news only bolsters claims – including voices within the Church – about how noxious it is to give any respect to such haters of humanity.

The good news is that I’ve had too many conversations with Catholics to think that the Church is a bastion of anti-Semitism. Rather, it is a huge bureaucracy in which the American contingent is vastly more liberal – and at a minimum more open to conversation – than those in Rome for whom the Middle Ages are not quite over.

Iran might want nuclear weapons, but would it really use them – which would invite massive retaliation?

After all, remember that as a huge thank you for sitting out of the 1991 Gulf War, Germany and the United States basically gave Israel a few Dolphin class submarines, which were reportedly modified to carry nuclear-armed cruise missiles. That gave the Jewish state “second strike” capability. That means that Israel now has underwater boats that can launch a series of missiles at the Republic of Iran even if – God forbid – the State of Israel were seriously damaged or basically wiped out from nuclear attack.

So would Iran really hit Israel, let alone Eastern Europe (already in its missile range) and Western Europe (which technological advances show will be in range within a few years at most)? Would Iran be willing to absorb the certain nuclear response?

Yes, it would.

Let’s look at several scenarios in which the worst could happen and what that means:

*Iran’s leaders – let alone a rogue agent with Iran – could sell nuclear technology to third parties, such as Al-Qaeda or others. Why do we think this could occur? That’s exactly what happened after Pakistan went nuclear. Former top Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan admitted a few years ago that on his own he sold nuclear technology to Libya, North Korea and Iran. We already know that Syria wants nuclear ability. What if western-oriented Arab leaders (a relative term) in Egypt and Syria are overthrown by their much more radical Islamic opposition – while not a likely scenario, definitely a realistic one?

*If Iran’s leaders feel that their revolution is threatened to a point where it will unquestionably be overturned, they could launch a going away present at the West – say at the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, or Saudi oil fields, or Tel Aviv. Suicidal people act that way when pressed into a corner.

*Nuclear technology is obviously highly advanced, which means that Iranian scientists are gaining tremendous knowledge, which will only lead them down other horrible roads. Do we really want these people, with these leaders, dealing with what is literally the most dangerous weapon yet discovered on the planet?

Those are the main reasons why Iran’s nuclear lust must be either stopped or controlled through real international inspections.

But there’s another issue that must be examined: Israel’s nuclear policy of ambiguity. I hope to cover that in the next posting.

(Please share your response here by clicking “comment” at the bottom: http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/would_iran_really_nuke_israel/ )

The quiet talk in Baltimore’s renown interfaith dialogue circles in recent years has often gravitated toward how Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien – while far from an obstacle –seemed uninterested in the rapprochement of the religious communities. That was a sharp contrast to the work of his immediate predecessor, Cardinal William H. Keeler, the Vatican’s respected North American point man on Catholic-Jewish ties. But in recent weeks, Archbishop O’Brien’s actions should be applauded for reversing that notion.

In a candid address to the Baltimore Jewish Council on March 24, he did not flinch when asked about the controversial process toward sainthood of World War II-era Pope Pius XII, whom some criticize for inaction in the face of the Nazi Holocaust. Now with Vatican archives being opened – too slowly for some Catholic and Jewish scholars – “there may have been some lacunas that occurred,” the Archbishop said. That is a rare opening for dialogue from a Church on the defensive on so many fronts.

And this past week, after offensive comments by a high ranking Vatican angered many Jews and others, Archbishop O’Brien responded, unprompted, within 24 hours. That occurred after Pope Benedict XVI’s personal preacher said that he agreed with an unnamed Jewish friend that the scorn heaped upon the Church in child abuse scandals were akin to the collective punishment of anti-Semitism.

Such an absurd notion does not deserve a Jewish response. However, Archbishop O’Brien was a national leader in denouncing his colleague. As he wrote in a statement to the Jewish Times – sent amidst the most sacred weekend on his calendar— the words of Father Raniero Cantalamessa “were unfortunate and reprehensible. They pose harm to Catholic-Jewish relations in Baltimore and around the world and I personally denounce them… Nothing justifies this insensitive, harmful and regrettable comparison.”

Such alacrity in response should be applauded and welcomed. They also should help the efforts of all who correctly recognize that while faith communities obviously have theological differences, they can and must continue to nurture their common bonds and desires to nurse our society’s open wounds.

Another season of self-imposed affliction/liberation is almost over, but lots of weird news took place before and during the holiday. Here’s a few tidbits from my friends at the JTA Wire Service Passover Blog (http://blogs.jta.org/passover/), as well as some of my own commentary:

• Amongst the seder parodies out this year was a “Wizard of Oz” one that offered the line “If I only had some chrain” (that being the Yiddish word for horse radish). (Hey writer of that: I’m guessing if you did have a chrain, you’d be writing real music, eh?)

• The Jewish state’s 120,000 dairy cows received kosher for Passover bedding. You got a beef with that?

• Then—and how does a mind conjure this?—there was a “Flinstones” parody with this theme song: “Moses, he’s our Moses/ he’s the man that took us on a tour/ out of, Pharoah’s Egypt,/ Went the children that he soon would lure…” (Does this mean that Fruity Pebbles are kosher for Pesach if you are a Sephardi Jew? After all, they can eat just about anything else other than bread.)

• There was a U.S. military “Seder Ready To Go” kit (similar to MRE’s—meals ready to eat) from the Armed Services. Each recloseable box included one disposable seder plate, eight horseradish packets, one juice bottle, two cans gefilte fish and one white kippah. Dare I offer the line about the soldier’s needing to be “their brother’s kippah?”

• Finally, among actor Sandra Bernhard’s Twitter tweets: “getting ready for Pesach in the city @chabad always in good taste. never met a Chabad rabbi I didn’t want to hug. but let’s not go there.” Yes Sandra, let’s not.

Feel free to offer your weird Passover news here:  http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin_comments/9078/

So much for Jimmy Carter’s recent brief love affair with Yom Kippur and the Jewish people. America’s most naïve former president – who had some real foreign policy triumphs (and disasters) while in office – is at it again.

The newest anti-Carter complaints come after a speech at an Atlanta conference last week. The peanut farmer turned president accused this country of being “much more attuned to the sensitivities of the Israelis” and of having “yielded excessively to the circumstances in the Holy Land as Israel has confiscated several lands within Palestine,” according to the JTA Wire Service. Likewise, he labeled the Obama administration’s shuttle diplomacy efforts “feeble.”

Heightening disappointment in Mr. Carter is that in December 2009 he publicly sought an al chet—the traditional Yom Kippur prayer seeking God’s forgiveness – due to perceptions that he was anti-Israel. In a letter this week to Mr. Carter, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abe Foxman went so far as to write, “I do not believe further discussions between us will be fruitful. I continue to hope the day will come when you have truly repented of your insensitive views of Israel and the Jewish people.”

But instead of offering a knee jerk response, let’s look at Mr. Carter’s claims. America is indeed more attuned to Israeli concerns, and it’s for valid reasons:

A) both being democracies (meaning, unlike with Arab states, tomorrow’s ruler is bound by today’s treaties);

B) both having shared historical Judeo-Christian values, which gives cultural frames of reference;

C) Israel’s being a stable ally where one can forward position military equipment (in Haifa port) in case of a regional conflict that threatens vital U.S. interests (read: oil and Russian/central Asian wars);

D) Israel’s having an outstanding and western-oriented intelligence operation;

E) and, finally, the bind reflects the domestic electorate’s concerns (indeed, there is a roughly four to one approval among all Americans for Israel over the Palestinians in the conflict, according to successive Gallup Polls).

Now as I’ve written before, Israel can indeed be loose when it comes to taking Palestinian lands for state interests. It’s fair to criticize that, but be specific – such as areas along the security barrier (which is necessary, as the plunge in suicide attacks has shown in the past few years). It cuts up some Palestinian fields. There should be financial compensation and/or new lands granted to these multi-generational farming families. And guess what? Israeli human rights advocates have pushed that issue and the Israeli Supreme Court has forced the barrier to be moved in some locations.

Meanwhile, let’s start a collection to have someone read Mr. Carter the news. Clearly he’s mixed the many reports of tensions between the Obama/Netanyahu administrations over Israel’s East Jerusalem building plans. Meanwhile, U.S. envoy George Mitchell deserves much credit for laboring to create an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue.

Not only that Mr. Carter, but the U.S. government and successive Israeli ones keep testing Palestinian intensions with peace offers. No, it’s not easy and there’s zero trust. Still, isn’t it the Israelis who are willing to negotiate without preconditions as the Palestinians refuse to sit down and see where the process goes? (Do it their way – get everything up front first – and there’s no need to talk, now is there?)

A final note: Mr. Carter’s right to criticize Israeli policies should not be questioned, nor do those words brand him an anti-Semite (a label some in our community too casually toss around). Yet, his newest words give strength to the long-held allegations of his naiveté. This conflict needs context and candor in conversation.

But there’s good news for our former president: There are still five plus months until the real Yom Kippur for him to get it right. He has his work cut out for him.

Who won? We did.

That’s the internal dialogue many of the 7,500 pro-Israel advocates were having in recent days as the two-week crisis in U.S.-Israel ties seemed to end with this week’s triumphal American Israel Public Affairs annual conference.

That is despite a seemingly chilly end to a private, two-hour meeting last night between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. At its conclusion, there was no customary meeting with the media. Still, in recognition of the inevitable close bond between the two countries, their leaders are talking tachlis, which is much more important than the usual public praise and platitude.

Back to AIPAC. During the event, activists flexed political muscle and gained national headlines. But they should be wary of gloating, which never helps. That’s because the American-Israeli relationship won due to the candor both sides expressed in talking about what ails them while respecting their deep bonds. Washington and Jerusalem still have real priority differences on East Jerusalem, ones exacerbated amidst Vice President Joe Biden’s recent visit to the Jewish state because of Israel’s ill-timed announcement of new construction.

Still, one hopes that the Obama White House learned deeper lessons these recent weeks. And that is that when you pick a fight with Israel, do it fairly. The administration failed to do so in this case. Indeed, after Mr. Netanyahu had apologized to Vice President Joe Biden regarding the building plan, the White House kept pushing the issue. That included an extended telephone berating of the Israeli by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And that left the administration managing a self-imposed political mess.

So Mr. Netanyahu came to town with his many American friends angry, AIPAC had refocused clout and Obama officials welcomed a refocusing on crippling sanctions against a nuclear-aspiring Iran. Meanwhile, the half of the Palestinian leadership that will even speak to Israel dug in against negotiating with the Jewish state without preconditions. If President Barack Obama had intended all that, he is in the wrong business.

None of this is new. Back in 1991 then-President George H.W. Bush seemed to challenge the right of Americans to lobby against his delay of a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel. By the end of that poorly managed fight, he had lost credibility with many Jews.

Mr. Obama should recall that struggle and that it’s not about power; it’s about fairness. That’s why polls keep showing the American public overwhelmingly backs the State of Israel. The White House must recognize that as it now presses the Palestinians as hard as it seemed to eagerly push the Israelis.

(Do you agree? Do you disagree? Please share your thoughts here: http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin_comments/9017/ )

This week U.S.-Israeli relations seems painted into the proverbial corner from which there is no clean escape. The question now is how to help everyone emerge cleanly from that tight spot.

Some background: Last week, Vice President Joe Biden was in Jerusalem to reassure the Jewish state about its unbreakable bond with Washington. But an Israeli government office announced plans to build 1,600 homes in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood on the city’s eastern side, a territory the Palestinians claim as their future capitol.

Mr. Biden was embarrassed and claimed it highly provocative. Mr. Netanyahu apologized, as did the minister who runs the office that offered the decree; both Israelis were apparently not aware of the pending declaration.

Still, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly berated Mr. Netanyahu on an extended telephone call, demanding more concessions. Even Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, a respected historian, said ties between the governments had plunged to a 35-year low. Mr. Netanyahu did not help on Monday when he told his Likud Party that Israel would never stop building in East Jerusalem. (Note to Bibi: Just because you can do something, and have every right to do it, doesn’t mean it’s a smart thing to do.)

And more fireworks could be coming. Next week Mr. Netanyahu arrives in Washington for the highly watched annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Yet, by mid-week some U.S. officials seemed to recognize how badly they had stalled the elusive Israeli-Palestinian peace effort. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton was talking up a “close, unshakeable bond” and “an absolute commitment to Israel’s security.”

Now it is up to Mr. Biden – widely seen as the administration’s most pro-Israel voice – to tactfully point out to colleagues how much they have miscalculated by pressing Mr. Netanyahu in this way. After all, the Israeli leader emerges strengthened amongst his right-wing base – the country’s most potent political force—and centrist Israelis feel isolated from American allies.

Likewise, much of American Jewry is angered as group after group publicly and privately pushes Washington to cool the barbs. (Some on the left are cautiously holding back, hoping Mr. Netanyahu is forced to expand his historic settlement moratorium to include Jerusalem’s eastern half.)

Meanwhile, reality marches on.

• The Iranian drive toward nuclear weapons has not slowed while much needed punishing trade sanctions against Tehran’s mullahs move like turtles plodding through molasses.
• The Syrians keep hosting Islamic terrorist groups that target both U.S. and Israeli citizens.
• The Palestinians happily watch Mr. Netanyahu squirm, refusing to come to the negotiating table, where they actually might get something – and give up unrealistic dreams.

What can be done? For starters, the White House must work harder to dial down the rhetoric. Then it needs to invigorate the quest to halt a nuclear Iran, which remains a multi-layered U.S. policy concern. Just ask the Saudis, said to be incredibly nervous about how an atomized Iran could threaten and blackmail their oil supply deliveries.

In addition, more attention must be given toward outrageous Palestinian behavior. Two stark examples:

• This week the Palestinians dedicated a public square in honor of Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist who murdered 36 Israelis and a U.S. photographer in 1978. The ceremony was delayed from its original scheduling – during the Biden visit.

• Now Palestinians are threatening a third intifada, or violent uprising. That’s because Israelis dedicated a renovated 300-year-old synagogue in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, a building the Jordanians had destroyed during their 1949-1967 occupation of the area. (The synagogue sits on a plot that under the wildest of scenarios would not be part of a Palestinian state.)

Protest of such events—other than that of U.S. Jewish groups – seemed scarce this week. One need not imagine the condemnation of Israel were its government to honor Baruch Goldstein, the murderer of Palestinians at prayer in Hebron in 1994.

Still, U.S.-Israeli ties in fact are deep and unshakeable. That’s why a February 2010 Gallup Poll found that 63 percent of Americans favored Israelis in the conflict over 15 percent for the Palestinians. There are strong social, political and religious reasons for that more than four to one margin. So U.S. policy needs to get back to reflecting what the U.S. public believes. In doing so, it will find an Israeli public willing to take calculated risks for peace – just as has always been the case. 

(To comment on this blog entry, click here: http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin_comments/8998/ )

What are we to make of VP Joe Biden’s trip to Israel this week, which just created unexpected controversial headlines, and what are American Jews – who are getting as fed up with this intractable mess as anyone – to do about it?

First the facts, Biden, long praised as a stalwart pro-Israel ally on the Democratic Party front (where there are real problems with the hard Left), nearly had a “broh-affair” with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu upon arrival in Jerusalem. He warmly noted their 30-year friendship and joked that one of them was getting older. Netanyahu, as charismatic in front of American TV cameras as one could imagine, was equally warm in his praise.

Not much later came an announcement by an office of the Israeli government – apparently not pre-approved by Netanyahu – about the building of 1,600 residences for Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem. Biden wasted no time in bluntly condemning Israel’s move as jeopardizing a peace process whose progress is currently akin to a sparrow flying against a wind tunnel’s directional current. Palestinian leaders – as they are wont to do with such ease – followed their script of being expectedly apoplectic.

(Note: This was a marked contrast to how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently avoided criticizing Israeli moves from Jerusalem but did not hesitate to do so during her next step, in Cairo. Call Biden many things if you want, but he is no political coward).

U.S. Orthodox Jewish groups slammed the VP for lashing out against an Israeli action in Jerusalem, the Jewish state’s undivided capital. Liberal U.S. Jewish groups applauded.

What should the rest of us do other than shake our heads and remember the food we have to buy at the supermarket tonight (meaning zone out from Israel’s always complex, nuanced reality)?

• First, be pleased that this U.S. administration – which isn’t exactly prancing in the meadows with free time – is keeping the Israeli-Palestinian on the front burner.

• Second, get used to the fact that the Obama administration means it when it says that it values Israel AND isn’t afraid to criticize its specific policies. (I believe that Netanyahu understands that quite well, which is why he seemed genuinely embarrassed.)

• Third, continue to adjust to the fact that Israel is a raucous democracy whose many parts – and an incredibly aggressive press—can act independently of the prime minister’s desires.

• Fourth, we American Jewish groups must continually – both publicly and privately – press Israeli officials here (and when we’re in Israel) on these matters. American Jewish pressure – as Bibi knows well from his 1997 attempt to muck with conversion laws – can matter in Israel under the right conditions.

• Finally, we American Jews must step up our internal dialogue over what this all means. Rather than keep issuing press releases and reports (how many trees can a Jewish organization kill in a year?), we must have vigorous, DECENT ongoing conversation in our own communities amongst Israel activists, which can in turn spawn broader pro-Israel activities instead of the piecemeal approach we currently adore.

What do you make of Biden’s actions? Please respond here: http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin/joe_bidens_israel_problem/

Back in the 1990s, the Rev. Louis Farrakhan seemed to make headlines left and right for choice comments such as Judaism being a “gutter religion,” his praise of Adolf Hitler as a great leader and his chastising Pope John Paul II for wearing a dress.

I have some interesting memories from attending one of his speeches in Atlanta back in 1996 in the Georgia Dome. The Nation of Islam gave me a “guide” to make sure I’d stay in the press box. I got up and walked around anyway – to the displeasure of my friend. I felt the need to stretch out since Farrakhan is notoriously late for talks (this time 2.5 hours!). My guard insisted on walking close to me as I spoke with some of the 30,000 or so African Americans at the event. Farrakhan, by the way, spoke for three hours. No joke. I left after 90 minutes as it had already been four hours plus for me in the building. (By the way, I bought a bean pie for $5 since it was 100 percent vegetarian. I told my black nationalist pal that it tasted like Bubby’s sweet tzimmes pie. He didn’t seem to catch the reference.)

The black nationalist has not been heard from of late, particularly since a health scare a few years ago in which he was said to be near death. But it appears that his hatred has taken no rest.

Indeed, he used his annual address on Sunday, Feb. 28, to tell followers in Chicago that “Zionist” control Congress and the “white right” was attempting to assassinate President Barack Obama, according to the Anti-Defamation League, which has long monitored the hate mongers rhetoric.

This time he spoke for 3 and ½ hours. His speech included choice nuggets such as “the Zionists want Barack to bomb Iran” and “And guess who made Goldman Sachs rich? Guess who made Lehman brothers rich? Did you know Lehman Brothers was a slave baron in Alabama? … Goldman Sachs was backed by Rothschild, that’s Rockefeller and the boys.” (Note to Farrakhan: Rockefeller “and the boys” don’t know from kippered herring.)

Why do such clearly delusional rants matter? Would it not be better to ignore them and not give the Rev. Farrakhan and his ilk publicity? The problem is that often tens of thousands of people gather to hear his annual talk, which these days are easier to hear than ever thanks to the World Wide Web.

Rev. Farrakhkan—who for all of his radicalism ironically on many social issues has a lot in common with hardcore conservatives, preaches anti-government self-reliance, premarital abstinence, and drug/alcohol independence—still remains a powerful symbol for some in the African-American community. While one should not run in fear, he does need to be monitored. Most importantly, the hard work of Jewish community relations in nurturing the always fragile black-Jewish dialogue needs to go on so that responsible leadership in both communities can work together on the issues that truly do matter.

That’s my view: But do you think we only help Farrakhan by continuing to write about him? Please respond here: http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin_comments/8952/

I’ve written in the past about the poor choice of the Simon Wiesenthal Center – known globally for promoting racial, religious and ethnic harmony – in wanting to build a new museum on disputed Jerusalem land. But I just can’t get over how they are continuing this fight.

To quickly recap, the Center purchased some land in the center of the city that is part of an old parking lot adjacent to a Muslim cemetery, part of whose graves were long ago moved and reburied elsewhere. Muslim challenges to the construction of the new building eventually went to the Israeli Supreme Court, which just ruled in the Wiesenthal Center’s favor. But this can only be seen this as a pyrrhic victory. That’s because the way the Center has gone about this has only given more ammunition to the haters of Israel – whose bitter cup seems overflowing these days.

Now the Wiesenthal Center has released information about how the original Arab owners of the Mamilla Muslim Cemetery wanted to sell the property to make room for a business center 65 years ago, according to a July 22, 1945 article from the Palestine Post. As Wiesenthal Center founder and director Rabbi Marvin Heir wrote this week in the New York Post, “While we would never build on the cemetery… the Supreme Muslim Council, before there was a State of Israel, did, in fact, have such plans.”

He goes on to explain that his organization’s museum will be built in part on a three-acre site that for half a century has seen “hundreds of people of all faiths have parked in a three-level underground structure without any protest.” So now we’re checking the religion of people who use a parking lot?

What a different story this would have been had the Wiesenthal Center worked with opponents instead of continually fighting them. What a difference it might have been had Rabbi Heir at least informed us that he offered a few compromises to his opponents. Were such efforts even made? More to the point, is the construction of a “tolerance center” on contested land worthy of the fight? We all know that everything in Israel is political, but isn’t the art of politics compromise? How suicidal for the Jewish people would it be for Israel and the Wiesenthal to at least attempt to gain a sense of cooperation here? Yes, prime land in the center of Jerusalem is rare indeed, but this just seems to be a fight in which there will be no winners. 

There are times when might does not make right – even when the law is on your side.

First the good news: For all the talk about how anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment in Europe and the Middle East is on the rise – and it is – out on Main Street America, Israel is now ranked fifth among countries viewed most favorably by Americans. That’s according to an update of Gallup’s annual World Affairs survey, conducted between Feb. 1-3.

In fact, a near-record 63 percent of U.S. citizens gave Israel a “favorable” (the highest mark since 1991) and 25 percent chose “unfavorable”. Meanwhile, only 20 percent viewed the Palestinian Authority favorably, actually an increase over last year’s 15 percent. Still, that’s fourth from the bottom – a position not surprisingly held by the Republic of Iran, which came in with a 10 percent favorable rating. (That proves it: One in 10 Americans are mentally unstable, which also attests to the popularity of reality TV.)

Then there’s the interesting political breakdown. Some 80 percent of Republicans as compared to 53 percent of Democrats view Israel favorably. Now this has long been pointed out by Jewish GOPers as to why their co-religionists should wean themselves from nearly a century of seemingly addictive support for Democratic presidential candidates.

Democratic Jewish stalwarts often respond that they must stay in their party to fight the anti-Israel far left, that the GOP is distorting the record and that Republican Party’s social agenda has been hijacked by the ultimately anti-Jewish conservative right-wing.

Mind you, one cannot doubt that the Republican base – a large chunk of it being the nation’s 60 million or so Evangelical Christians – are the most pro-Israel slice of non-Jewish America. For them (and in part other GOPers) it’s about theology and ideology.

• The theology could be about end-time scenarios (although not for all) when Jesus returns and the Jews either go along with the program or go away.

• The ideology is about favoring any democracy over fundamentalist/totalitarian regimes, something that worked well in the days of the Soviet Union and again in this era of radical Islam.

Interestingly, we Jews are the ones who heavily push that last argument to the non-Jews when lobbying on Capitol Hill. (Not surprisingly, we’d rather leave the theology to a latter conversation. In other words, when the Messiah shows up in Jerusalem, goes the joke, we’ll ask: “So, have you been here before? If not, let me show you around.”)

So is the GOP better for the State of Israel than the Democratic Party? The numbers say yes. Is that the only issue for most American Jews? Obviously not. And is that good for the Jews? The debate goes on. I invite your thoughts via the comments button here:

http://blogs.jewishtimes.com/index.php/jewishtimes/neilrubin_comments/8940/

As a guy who keeps promoting dialogue amongst Palestinians and Israeli Jews (and their very vocal supporters in this country), I’m baffled by how the United Nations keeps allowing the Palestinians to make so many pro-Israel advocates despise them. Consider the latest:

The U.N. Relief Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNWRA) – the world’s only permanent refugee agency (meaning they are not trying to resettle people under their care) is hosting a youth soccer tournament. The Shahid (Martyr) Abu Jihad tournament is being held in Ramallah. For those keeping score, that’s the seat of the “moderate Palestinians,” the ones who are not Hamas and say that they want to negotiate a two-state solution with Israel.

Let’s get real: If a German right-wing nationalist group named its U.N.-sponsored swimming tournament for Holocaust architect Adolf Eichmann, how would the world respond? What if a Cambodian political party named its U.N.-funded baseball tournament for Pol Pot, the country’s genocidal dictator of the late 1970s? How about if Israel named a film festival backed with U.N. money after Baruch Goldstein, perpetuator of the 1994 massacre of Muslims worshipping in Hebron?

No doubt the outrage would be loud, sustained and legitimate. Am I being hypersensitive – even paranoid—in wondering where the outrage is on this soccer tournament? 

Who was Abu Jihad? He’s the once feared Palestinian terrorist assassinated, likely by Israeli commandoes, in Tunis in 1988. Prior to that, this founder of the Fatah group of the Palestine Liberation Organization had planned numerous attacks inside Israel. They were indiscriminant in their aim at both civilian and military targets. When the first intifadah was raging in 1988, he was busy organizing the youth committees that in addition to attacking Israeli soldiers, targeted “collaborators,” or Palestinians cooperating with the Israelis.

No one is claiming that the Palestinians need to become Zionists. And we can never forget that there is real misery in the lives of many, many Palestinians. Yet one wonders how basic distancing from a terrorist past can be ignored, and how a world body supposedly devoted to advancing peace allows itself to be hijacked by extremists.

Some lessons, it seems, need to be learned over and over again – particularly by UNWRA administrators.

To say that President Barack Obama has a lot on his plate is akin to saying that Baltimore saw a little snow in recent days. But the president did have the time on Thursday, Feb. 4, to take his plate to the 58th annual National Prayer Breakfast. The audience, comprised of numerous political and religious leaders, presented a strong opportunity to share thoughts on the role of religion in public life. As expected, the president praised diverse groups, including the evangelical World Relief, the American Jewish World Service, “Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs…” Unfortunately, other than such expected generalities, he did little to advance the conversation about government’s critical role in working with such religious operations and their often successful social service programs.

After all, it was candidate Obama who agreed that the Bush administration’s loose guidelines in the area needed tightening. In the past year, Mr. Obama did make a strong start by charging a distinguished group of faith-based, secular and academic leaders to make recommendations. Among the suggestions offered by the Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships: have distinct bodies to run the programs (similar to how Jewish Community Services operates); ban discriminatory hiring practices and proselytizing; and ensuring that the operations provide beneficiaries with information about secular alternatives.

Sadly, to date those guidelines exist on paper only.

Recognizing this, last week 25 national organizations – including the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, B’nai B’rith International, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (to which the Baltimore Jewish Council belongs), the Union for Reform Judaism and the Women of Reform Judaism –wrote to the president on the eve of the National Prayer Breakfast. They asked him to prevent religious discrimination and proselytizing amongst groups receiving tax payers’ money. It’s time for Mr. Obama to do just that.

Everyone recognizes these to be difficult issues to deal with, legally and emotionally. However, faith-based operations deserve to know the rules, and the public needs such protection. Indeed, the plan is already sitting on Mr. Obama’s plate. One awaits his desire to have a nibble.

Sorry to break it to major Zionist organizations – who have transformed themselves into defenders of Israel’s every sneeze – but Zionism is a hackneyed, well-traveled ideology that long ago achieved its central goal of creating a Jewish state.

Fortunately, something has come in its stead, something American Jews need to pay more attention to. Once you get beyond the headlines of political, military and cultural strife, Israelis and Jews around the world are teaming up to change the world for the better – just like we always said we were supposed to.

In fact, if the early Zionist dream in the first decades of the 20th century was to make the dessert bloom, in the second decade of the 21st century the emerging vision is one of making the air cleaner – in the process setting a remarkable example for the entire planet.

That’s because it’s not in place such as California’s Silicon Valley, but those such as Israel’s Jezreel Valley where the world’s focus is turning for green news these days. As such, the State of Israel is helping boost a nascent industry that President Barack Obama has said is much-needed across the globe to create an economic engine of future jobs and revenues.

The latest chapter in this evolving story came with this week’s announcement by Israeli-American entrepreneur Shai Agassi’s that the latest financing round for his electric car company, Better Place (http://www.betterplace.com/), brought in another $350 million. That brings the total investment to $1.25 billion. As the 41-year-old entrepreneur told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, “This is the largest investment since the [global economic] crash in 2008 and the largest investment ever in clean-tech.” Frankly, that’s breathtaking.

Mr. Agassi’s plan goes like this: Drivers will recharge their car batteries every 100 miles or so at one of 70 special stations placed throughout Israel’s road systems. When pulling in, a robotic device will remove the empty battery and insert a full one. Total time: two minutes. Meanwhile, customers will not spend their day hunting for “10 cents off on Tuesdays” specials at various stations. That’s because they will pay a flat fee for electricity cost.

The project should be fully operation by the second half of next year. The infrastructure is estimated to cost the company about $150 million, meaning the company hopes to return the investment within 18 months.

Most of all, it is another example of how the Jewish state’s know how can combine with American investors to lead the world in safe and environmentally sound technologies. That’s worth bragging about.

With apologies to Ronald Reagan in his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter, “There they go again.”

Some Jewish organizations are madly in love with the idea that one cannot criticize Israel under any circumstances because Israel’s enemies will eat it up (as if not saying something will make them love Israel and the Jewish people). In particular, they believe you cannot criticize non-Jews who say outlandish things but are deemed friends of the Jewish state.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, America’s leading mean-spirited populist masquerading as a political commentator. (For the record, I devour intellectual based right-wing arguments in publications such as Commentary, to which I’m a long-time subscriber. It makes me rethink positions upon which I was raised. Yeah, I know… “but some of my best friends are…”)

Rush recently said on the air, “To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He’s assaulting bankers. He’s assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there’s - if there’s starting to be some buyer’s remorse there.”

OK, so Rush is an idiot. After all, 78 percent of the Jews did vote for Obama, which means one in five did not. And Rush, it’s not as if we can return the president for store credit. It’s a four-year deal, with admittedly below average satisfaction to date. And while there are some Wall Street Jewish bankers, they’re as out of touch with the rest of us as the non-Jewish bankers (whom Rush must believe all voted for McCain).

But worse for me was that a coalition of Jewish groups just sent out a press release with this headline in caps: “NATIONAL JEWISH ORGANIZATIONS COME TO RUSH LIMBAUGH’S DEFENSE”

It’s signed by American Friends of Likud, CAMERA (the pro-Israel media monitoring hawks), Emunah of America (a woman’s Zionist religious group), the D.C.-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the National Council of Young Israel (a Zionist Orthodox synagogue group), Religious Zionists of America and something called Z-Street (which is meant to respond to the peacenik young upstart J Street, which is opening in Baltimore).

The group’s statement: “While one may agree or disagree with Mr. Limbaugh’s views on many subjects, his outspoken support for Israel has been eloquent, informed and undeniable. Moreover, in commentary on the Jewish people, he has been nothing short of a philo-Semite. We are grateful for his strong and singular voice on these issues.”

Huh? Where did the State of Israel enter into this argument?

So there you have it: Israel is all that matters. Forget what some might say is borderline latent anti-Semitism (and I don’t think he said it to be anti-Semitic, but it’s an element in western society with which we must constantly wrestle). Forget everything else Rush might have said in the past. If you say what we like about Israel, you’re OK with us.

And now you know why I call myself a “neo-centrist,” whatever that means.

First, the conclusion: While we always have to watch out for it, anti-Semitism is no longer a major threat in the United States. In fact, non-Jews willingly marry us, there are two U.S. Supreme Court Justices who openly identify with their Jewish roots and Sen. Joe Lieberman (modern Orthodox) failed as a 2004 presidential candidate because he was, frankly, a really lousy candidate – not because he was Jewish. And on a much lighter note, a woman named Madonna has done more to popularize Jewish mysticism than 10 generations of scholars.

In Europe, however, a different picture emerges and American Jews better get used to being alarmed about coming to the aid of European co-religionists. In fact, a recent poll by Germany’s University of Bielefeld showed that 42 percent of Europeans agreed that “Jews exploit the past to extort money.”

The facts: In 2008, according to the Anti-Defamation League, anti-Semitic episodes in this country dropped for the fourth consecutive year. Yet, a study released this week by the Coordination Forum for Countering Anti-Semitism showed such incidents “increased dramatically around the world, particularly in Western Europe” this past year. The operation is coordinated by the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs.

Sadly, more events were recorded during the first three months of 2009 – which covered the conclusion of the 2008-2009 Israeli-Hamas War – than in the entire previous year. In France alone, there were 631 anti-Semitic incidents last year compared to 474 in all of 2008. Great Britain was a close second with 600 incidents, up from 541. Of even greater concern is the violent nature of some events, which resulted in eight murders.

What it means: This highly disturbing information is further proof that those who claim to be “not anti-Jewish, but anti-Israel” can and do encourage a culture of hatred that can lead to tragic results. While one is entitled to oppose the government of Israel’s policies, far too often that spills over into flagrant hatred of all Jews and particularly the Jewish state.

Clearly, Europe is more dangerous for Jews today than just one year ago. That’s not to declare that the community must begin fleeing – although aliyah from France in particular has risen dramatically in recent years. It does mean that more attention and resources must be put into combating European anti-Semitism. While significant efforts have been undertaken in recent years, they clearly fall short. This issue should be placed in the context of intolerance in general and not be solely about Jews. In doing so, the entire continent must confront how xenophobia is gaining ground on its blood-soaked lands.

We in the media who report on religious leaders spend a lot of time on conflict – after all, it excites people, which creates reader interest (not to mention insane letters to the editor).  But we don’t spend enough time noting those important and influential theologians who offer a different political view.

So I was intrigued to read yesterday that Syria’s foremost Muslim leader had declared that Islam commands its followers to “protect Judaism.”

“If the Prophet Mohammed had asked me to deem Christians or Jews heretics, I would have deemed Mohammed himself a heretic,” Sheikh Ahmed Hassoun, the Mufti of Syria, was quoted as telling a delegation of American academics visiting Damascus, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.

He added, “If Mohammed had commanded us to kill people, I would have told him he was not a prophet.”

Now many people will quickly point this out as long-standing Islamic theology to “protect” Jews and Christians due to their “dhimmi” or second-class status in an Islamic-ruled country. That is, as Peoples of the Book the state is obligated to protect the basic rights of these groups (as opposed to basic “infidels” who do not believe in what the Torah – the first great revelation – calls the “creator of the heaven and earth.”).

Still, the sheikh’s words are important as they clearly fly in the face of political-based drivel from Hamas and others who have twisted Islam into a sadistic, repressive and murderous understanding of what large swaths of people see as God’s word.

That’s why leading U.S. rabbis, let alone Israeli ones, should both praise the sheikh and invite him to repeat his words at a conference outside of the region – say in this country or in Europe. That could do a great deal to undermine the theological attraction of Islamic fundamentalism.

It also could kick start a project that I write about periodically – the need to create a treaty between Islam and Judaism, which I believe is critical to even the remote hopes of the much-needed political settlement between the Jewish state and its predominantly Muslim neighbors.

Award-winning architect Frank Gehry is no stranger to international acclaim for his remarkable designs. This week, however, he should be applauded for what he is not doing. That’s because he announced he will not build the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.

The center was to be placed on the site of a former Muslim cemetery in Jerusalem’s city center. While part of that land is already a parking lot, there still are some nearby Muslim graves, which is adjacent to a well-traveled park. Placing this structure here is simply incongruent with the center’s desire of spreading the broader moral messages of the Holocaust.

For the record, Mr. Gehry announced that he was withdrawing due to a request by the center to reduce the building’s scope as well as financial disagreements. Americans for Peace Now quickly wondered about that explanation. “The exit from the project of its celebrity architect offers Israel and the SWC a wonderful face-saving opportunity—a chance to change course and come up with a new plan on a new site,” noted Lara Friedman, APN’s director of policy and government relations.

Regardless, this setback for the Wiesenthal Center should serve to increase the pressure on it to select a new sight in the city – and potentially find Israeli Arab partners to ensure that such an error does not occur again.

Let’s not mince words: Millions of Jews on planet earth are about to celebrate what technically is the welcoming into the covenant of Abraham for a guy who would grow up and alternatively be called: a carpenter from the Galilee, an itinerant preacher, a rabble rouser, the son of God, God and the Messiah.

I speak, of course, of the one who would be called to the Torah as Yeshua ben-Yosef, aka Jesus, son of Joseph.

If that’s the case, how can any of us American Jews who struggle to maintain the path of Moses celebrate this event – even if most Christians see no religious significance whatsoever to the day? After all, it’s not our holiday. It’s theirs. Besides, this year it merges into Shabbat, which is infinitely more important and should be given preparation of its own.

It’s pretty simple actually. The truth of the matter is that at 1.8 percent of the U.S. population, it is impossible to avoid the broader culture. As such, the challenge is to incorporate into it our own lifestyles. That’s why this year, as in years past, my family will gather with those of friends tomorrow night to do what we do ever year around this time: Hang out, eat kosher food, watch a movie, have a “Dance, Dance, Dance Revolution” competition and eat too much dessert.

It’s not a booze fest. It’s not a time for resolutions. It’s not a time to recount the trials and tribulations of the past 12 months. We already did that (or at least gave some thought to doing that) on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Rather, we are going to celebrate being together, as we always should when within elbow distance.

And in doing so, some of us will wish each other a “happy new year,” and none of us will be offended by it. That’s because we all do want to have a healthy, joyous 2010 – which would be a nice complement to our 5770.

As for those resolutions, I like to think back on the ones I made around the Jewish New Year to see how I’m doing. OK on that front, but definitely not good enough. Such is life.

Most importantly, because I know this crowd, we’ll see each other in our Conservative synagogue about 36 hours later.

So happy whatever you want to make of it.

The pro-Israel community was hit with a particularly uncomfortable headline last week. After months of denying claims by a Swedish journalist that Israel without permission harvested the organs from Palestinians killed in the 2008-2009 Gaza War, the London Guardian declared “Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent.” Indeed, the newspaper quoted the widely respected former head of the Abu Kabir forensic Institute near Tel Aviv. He confirmed that during the 1990s staff at his operation harvested organs from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers – without the permission of the deceased’s families.

Let me be clear: There was no excuse for this action, which reportedly was halted more than a decade ago. In fact, the Government of Israel should look into compensation for the families affected. For Israel and the Jewish people to be strong, there is no need to be apologetic.

Making the story so stinging was that it came on the heels of several controversial articles that ran in Sweden’s left-leaning Aftonbladet newspaper in August. In unsubstantiated claims widely picked up by other media outlets, a journalist for that newspaper wrote that Israel Defense Forces were kidnapping young Palestinian men from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, only to have their bodies returned to families with missing organs.

Gaining much less attention is that the Swedish journalist who penned the work, Donald Bostrom, is now reconsidering. Why? Because he went to Israel and gained information that is making him doubt his original Palestinian sources. That, by the way, is a strong endorsement for not going nuts at everyone who makes a comment the pro-Israel crowd doesn’t like. Rather, engage them with decency and then see what happens.

However, there is yet another important postscript that the detractors of the Jewish state should hear: A few days later the Guardian issued a correction noting that the context of the story should not have been seen as part of the articles from Sweden. In addition, we note that the reality of Israelis being willingly to openly discuss the issue, let alone criticize their own government, is a far cry from what takes place in the Arab countries whose media so gladly reprinted the piece.

Sadly, there is no doubt that these stories – sans the corrections – are now part of the anti-Israel lore that has gained such steam on the European continent and in the Muslim world in recent years.

The announcement last week that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas need not worry about job security was disturbingly revealing. Indeed, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s ruling Central Council declared that Mr. Abbas’s soon-to-expire term will be extended indefinitely. This comes as the politically battered 74-year-old terrorist turned politician has widely said that he would stand for reelection. That’s due to his frustration with both Israel not acceding to his every demand before resuming negotiations and the control of the Gaza Strip by a violent rival, the Hamas Islamic fundamentalist group.

For good measure, the PNC delegates agreed to back Mr. Abbas’s absurd policy of not speaking with Israel without a prior comprehensive freeze on West Bank settlement expansion and East Jerusalem housing, areas Israel won in the 1967 Six-day War and which the Palestinians want included in a future state of their own. Mind you, were Israel to insist that the Palestinians publicly renounce the “right of return” to family properties in pre-state Palestine before negotiations, the screams of the Palestinian and international community would be audible from the Mideast to Owings Mills.

The worst of the Palestinian attitude was spelled out by PNC member Adnan Garib. “Negotiate? What for? For the sake of negotiations?” he asked. The response to that is clear: “Negotiate to minimize tensions and lead to creative responses that end the bloodshed of your people. Is that not your goal?”

What all this means, much as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu keeps declaring, is that while the Jewish state seems prepared to talk, nobody else is willing to sit and have the conversation.

So for now the only appropriate policy seems to be Israel’s keeping the offer for dialogue open while continuing to enable Mr. Abbas – despite the Palestinian leader’s noxious statements about Israel – build the West Bank economy as both Israeli and Palestinian security forces quietly work together to intercept terrorists.

Still, we must not allow our attitudes to harden. We American Jews should keep Mr. Netanyahu to his pledge and keep asking him and his representatives how they are improving the lot of Palestinians and how they are keeping to their promise of halting settlement expansion. We also need to keep highlighting and funding co-existence projects.

Meanwhile, Palestinian democracy will continue to be held hostage by the poor performance of its leaders.

Are we finally witnessing a maturity of approach in the Obama administration’s handling of the Middle East and particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict? One hopes and the evidence leans in that direction. Consider this:

• With a late December deadline on “reassessing policy” on Iran rapidly approaching, the White House is widely signaling that it is prepared to enlist harsh sanctions against Tehran. Likewise, administration officials are specifically saying that the military option is not off the table.

• There is a rapprochement of sorts between Jerusalem and Washington, with both President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu praising each other for recent actions – a reality absent for much of the past year.

• Last week, the president told Lebanese President Michael Suleiman that while progress has been made on enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 – a response to the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War – the process is incomplete.

Part of that resolution demands that Hezbollah disarm. It refuses to do so. Meanwhile, its Iranian-supplied weapons continue to enter the country from venues such as Syria. Recently, the Israeli army captured a boat in the Mediterranean with 300 tons of military supplies heading toward Lebanon and that were assuredly meant for Hezbollah.

Indeed, few people are as abused as the Lebanese. Their tiny nation on the Mediterranean Sea, once known as the Riviera of the region, has since the 1970s been better known as the cradle of terrorism. Indeed, it was there at the Palestine Liberation Organization fled after being tossed out of Jordan in 1970. And today is there that the Hezbollah movement – which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group other than al-Qaeda—holds sway over the country’s south as well as Beirut’s cabinet.

Mr. Obama’s team now seems to be fully engaged on the many interlinked woes facing the Middle East and the Israeli-Arab conflict in particular. Now that they are approaching the anniversary of their first year in office, they finally seem poised to move.

Every time I’ve personally heard or read about Israel Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, I’ve been impressed with this worldly, intellectual figure who has strived to reach across his nation’s divides.

The modern Orthodox Neeman advised both Prime Ministers Menachem Begin in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and then Binyamin Netanyahu in the 1990s and now again as Finance Minister.

In 1997, Netanyahu tapped Neeman when the “conversion crisis” ruptured both the Knesset and Israel-Diaspora ties. Neeman came up with a plausible option of conversion courts (aimed mostly at helping Russians in Israel). They were run by representatives of various Jewish streams and the final testing was by state-paid Orthodox rabbis. In Israel, that’s real progress.

Throughout, Mr. Neeman – a professor of law—has been measured, reflective and filled with integrity. So his remarks last week were stunning. At a Jewish law conference, he announced that “Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah, and we will turn halachah into the binding law of the nation. We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel. The Torah has the complete solution to all of the questions we are dealing with.” (Check out the Jerusalem Post article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260181017325&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull .)

After an uproar, Mr. Neeman’s office tried to clarify the remarks by saying that the talk “did not contain an appeal to replace the state’s laws with the laws of halachah, neither directly nor indirectly. The minister spoke in general and broad terms about returning the glory of Hebrew law and the importance of Hebrew law in the state.”

One hopes that is the case, but we must criticize any attempt to mandate observance, a method that is ineffective and creates tremendous dissent. Look East to Iran for Example # 1 of what happens when you push a middle class-based democracy into a dysfunctional theocracy.

The State of Israel, as defined by its Declaration of Independence, is a “Jewish democracy,” an admittedly amorphous concept. There should be a healthy debate about how to integrate halachah’s general principles – what we’ll call “Jewish ethics”—into Israeli law. After all, those principles form the backbone of what we consider enlightened legislation and are applied in this country as well. However, in a democracy built on pluralism – despite the inherent tensions – religious authorities cannot determine the legal system. 

That’s one of many messages that we American Jews from across the spectrum can help import to Israel, which could make a dent in creating a more tolerant Israeli society.

What better way to celebrate the sixth night of Chanukah than hearing the candle blessings in traditional Indian Jewish melodies, the lighting of a channukiah from Cochin Jews and then, of course, enjoying a scrumptious veggie Indian meal?

That was part of the festive scene in the Washington, D.C. last night as about 250 American Jewish and American Indian leaders crowded into the home of a gracious Ambassador Meera Shankar.

One of the more interesting aspects to me was that Indian-Israeli ties (which in Washington is a harbinger of ties with American Jewish leadership) were only cemented with full diplomatic relations in 1992 (made possible by India’s moving away from being a leader of the “non-aligned” nations, basically a diplomatic front for the Soviet Union, which itself literally fell apart in late December 1991). Since then, however, India and Israel – and by extension U.S. Jewish groups – have worked hard at securing cultural and military cooperation.

Tragically, as noted by Rabbi Levi Shem-Tov, the head Chabad Lubavitch rabbi in the nation’s capital, the ties were violently reaffirmed about one year ago when terrorists attacked Mumbai. One of their pre-determined targets was the city’s Chabad house, an assault that resulted in the murder of an Israeli-born Chabad rabbi, his wife and some children. “That day the darkness won,” the rabbi said. “But every day since then we have worked together to share the light.”

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren noted that we were fortunate to be living in a time of a tremendous flowering of the hundreds of years old U.S. relationship with Israel (aka the Holy Land) and as India – now the world’s second most populous nation – furthers its multi-layered bonds with Israel and the Jewish people.

For her part, Ambassador Shankar correctly said that there has never been anti-Semitism in India and that the country’s Jews – many of whom now live in Israel (about 5,000 or so remain) – have been integral to her nation’s success.

For more on the Jews of India, check out these websites: http://www.jewsofindia.org/, http://www.haruth.com/AsianIndia.html and http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/indians.html .

Love or hate Israeli President Shimon Peres – and both camps are quite crowded – one always has to admire his ability to look forward and imagine what could be while wrestling with what is. The latest example comes from his launching a new YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/peres.

On the site – offered in Hebrew, English and Arabic—he continues his outstanding role as the nation’s President, one in which he has sought to unite the nation while accurately spreading its perspective. And, one must note, he seems to be partnering well in this endeavor with Prime Minister Binyamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, his once rival for the nation’s leadership.

On the site, he offers the requisite Chanukah message as well as video of recent meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a BBC interview, a clip of “thousands visit presidential sukkah” and much more.

His YouTube channel greeting begins, “Welcome to my YouTube channel. I am so glad to speak to you and no less, to listen to you. I would like to share with you my dreams, my thoughts, and I would like also to hear your dreams and your thoughts.”

Indeed, now as a distinguished and still hyperactive 86-year-old – whom as late as 2001 was a serious contender to again be prime minister, Mr. Peres remains the only link to the early and chaotic years of Israel’s formation. Whether from his time at the side of legendary first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, or as the secret architect of Israel’s nuclear program, or in his stints in the 1970s through the 1980s in every major ministry, Mr. Peres remains an omnipresent figure into the Jewish state’s seventh decade.

Now, finally, after a raucous period in the 1990s when he was seen as a savior by some and a destructor of the Jewish state by others, Mr. Peres is at home in the role of dignitary. May he continue with strength in such a role in the years to come.

President Barack Obama surprised the peace community and many in the Nobel Prize audience yesterday when he spoke of how evil does exist in this world, negotiation is not always the answer (although obviously preferable) and that there is such a thing as “just war.”

Students of theology know that “just war” theories are not new to either Judaism or Christianity. (I’m admittedly ignorant of the thinking in Islam and welcome some input – beyond the crass stereotypes of “live and die by the sword,” which is akin to saying that Jews must follow the biblical law that says Shabbat violaters should be stoned to death. Haven’t done that one lately, have we?)

When it comes to us Jews, there are actually two major kinds of wars that are discussed – ones that are “obligatory”, which includes self-defense and recapturing the Land of Israel (milchemet chovah or milchemet mitzvah) or ones that are optional (milchemet reshut). Thus, war is permitted and understood as sometimes being necessary.

The question is the definition. When is one acting in self-defense? When does one have to recapture the Land of Israel (whose borders are heavily debated – and no, I don’t think Gaza is part of it and likely not the Golan Heights as well – get ready for the criticism!) When does going to war – despite the biblical/Talmudic imperative to reconquer the Land of Israel—bring more harm than good?

It’s easy to put this in modern terms regarding Israel’s dilemma, as well as that of the United States. That’s just what President Obama did. In large part, I think (and hope) we’re seeing a different, more realistic Obama emerge in recent weeks as his administration begins accepting the all-too-clear notion that the Iranian nuclear threat is real and – based in recent history – sanctions must be harsh and backed up by the real threat of imminent military action.

For more on Judaism and just war, check out this paper by Jewish scholar Rabbi Dr. Marc Gopin, who is in the conflict resolution field: http://crdc.gmu.edu/docs/j_limitsofwar_and_cr.html

Then there’s the one by my former congregation rabbi in Atlanta, Michael Broyde (a true gaon (genius) in my view): http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war2.html .

A final note:

I found it particularly compelling to hear such talk on the eve of Chanukah, which starts at sundown tonight. While we often wax on about both the miracle and the fight for freedom, we don’t want to address the nasty side of this also being a civil war that pitted Jews against Jews. In fact, years ago in Atlanta my good friend Rabbi Lou Feldstein and I used to debate whether it was good to celebrate Chanukah due to this militaristic and internecine aspect of the holiday. (We decided that it was the right thing to do – and that it was not akin to a modern Reform/Orthodox split because in ancient days the Hellenizers actually were trying to end Judaism, not “reform” or “conserve” its nature.”)

Your thoughts on any of the above?

Chag sameach!

Hard as it is to believe, anti-Semitism has been injected into a public debate over a proposed monkey-breeding facility in Puerto Rico, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

It all began on Monday, Nov. 30 when animal rights activist Robert Brito was quoted in local newspapers “Primera Hora” and the “Puerto Rico Daily Sun” as suggesting that an “Israeli company” was developing the facility as part of a campaign of “ethnic discrimination” and “genocide” aimed at the island population. He went on to blame “Jewish economic interests” for past environmental incidents, including a fire at a petroleum plant. “This is a concerted action by Jewish economic interests,” he wrote of the proposed primate facility. “This invention of bringing a facility for wild monkeys from Israel to Guayama constitutes ethnic discrimination against Puerto Ricans who live in Guayama.”   

Mr. Brito called on Puerto Ricans to boycott locally owned Jewish businesses and synagogues, both on the island territory and in the U.S., in an effort to stop the facility from opening. To date, no actual protests against the Jewish community have been reported, according to the ADL.
For the record, the company setting up the facility is Bioculture Ltd. It has facilities at 19 sites around the world and is based in the African island nation of Mauritius.

On the surface, this is simply absurd and should be dismissed as lunacy. However, scratch a little farther and one realizes this also reveals how deep anti-Semitism’s pernicious emotions go for a small segment of the population. To paraphrase a cliché, “even paranoids have their enemies.”