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.”

Any time the government chooses to define what constitutes religion you’re going to have a problem. And that is so once again with the strange case of a federal appeals bench consideration as to whether a Wiccan religious leader can have his day in court to pursue a religious discrimination case. The case, McCollum vs. California, is being heard by the Florida-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

The clergy member has said that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is violating constitutional rights by limiting paid clergy positions to members of five religions, not including his faith. A court denied him the right to bring the lawsuit on the grounds that he was not the correct party to do so.

Now I’m not so keen on Wiccans as a religion. In fact, I’m not even quite sure what makes a religion, which is why I certainly don’t want the government doing so.

Nonetheless, as the Anti-Defamation League Civil Rights Director Deborah M. Lauter (an old friend my Atlanta days in the late great 1990s) has declared, “At a minimum, the plaintiff in this case deserves his day in court to challenge a discriminatory practice. He applied for a job and was told that, because of an exclusionary California policy, he was ineligible.”

She’s absolutely right. If the government is going to get involved in such messy definitions, it cannot back down from defining its terms.

Going forward with the case would force the government to define religion, which it should not be in a position to do. The only way to get around that is to not have the government be in such a position. Rather, if there are religious duties that need to be fulfilled – say counseling to those incarcerated or, better yet, those in our military – it should best be left to those who want such services to define the clergy they desire. There are ways to write statues to reflect that, which would reduce social tensions over an issue that will do more for attorneys and comment writers than help our nation move forward.

A few years ago when the Lebanese Hezbollah terrorist movement decided to enter the country’s political arena, there was some hope that – as did the Irish Republican Army and as did the African National Congress – this would lead to a moderation that could ultimately help turn the country and Hezbollah from violence.

Anyone who still believes that also likely believes that the Iranians have no desire for nuclear weapons. Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah made that more than clear last week when he declared that armed struggle is the only way to get back land captured by Israel.

He was not referring to the small sliver of land adjacent to Syria and Israel that his country still claims. That land, the eight-square mile Shebaa Farms, is still controlled by Israel. That’s because the United Nations has declared it Syrian territory and Israel hopes to return it as part of a comprehensive peace deal with Syria. Rather, Mr. Nasrallah was speaking of ALL of Israel – as he has done so often in the past.

Making this even more disturbing is that the Hezbollah leader was doing this while unveiling his organization’s new political platform – not its military strategy. Thus, the political arm of Hezbollah, which is part of the Lebanese governing coalition, is dedicated to Israel’s destruction. Indeed, as Mr. Nasrallah added, “Israel represents a constant threat and an impending danger to Lebanon.” For good measure, he took some swipes at the United States as well, saying that its “unlimited support to Israel” puts “the American administration in the position of the enemy of our nation and our peoples.”

Let us not forget that Hezbollah already has killed hundreds of U.S. Marines with the bombing of our barracks and embassy in the 1980s – when we were on the ground to try and impose order out of eternal chaos.

This comes only weeks after a 300-ton shipment from Iran to Hezbollah was intercepted in the Mediterranean Sea by Israeli forces.

Hezbollah – by its own word – is a grave threat to the security of Israel, the United States and anyone who seeks to stem radicalism of politics, a phenomenon that in the Middle East has repeatedly led to the funding of terrorist groups. Hezbollah does not have two faces – one military and one political. It is a one-face organization and should be taken at its destructive word.

With reports this week that the European Union is about to call for a divided Jerusalem, serving as the capitals of both Israel and a Palestinian state, and for the recognition of a unilaterally declared independent Palestinian State, one wonders what the fuss about negotiations is all about? After all, many parties outside of the region have come to their conclusion so why not let them settle all the core issues?

The obvious is answer is that without fundamental agreements by the principles involved, ones whose differences in interpretations can be successfully navigated, no pact will stand the test of time – let alone a few hours. Of course, there is no parallel demand that the Palestinians shift an educational system that can be harshly anti-Semitic, halt incendiary media reports about the State of Israel and be held accountable for measurable moves against terrorist groups.

The declaration by the EU, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, is set to take place at a Dec. 7 meeting in Brussels with the continent’s foreign ministers.  The draft document, authored by Sweden, is a flagrant attempt to undermine the only successful course of action – face-to-face negotiations that are cajoled along by the United States.

The predictable and understandable Israeli response was swift: Israel has done all of the compromising of late, agreeing to halt new West Bank construction for at least 10 months. The Palestinians have said this is not enough and offered nothing in return.

Until the two sides are again negotiating without preconditions – as urged by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and agreed to by the Obama administration – nothing positive will result. The only result of an EU-backed Palestinian state will be an Israeli annexation of West Bank areas surrounding Jerusalem and adjacent to Tel Aviv. That would inflame the situation even more.

If the EU wants to help, it should spend more time encouraging the joint Palestinian/Israeli hope for an improved economic situation on the West Bank and less on working to complicate an already phenomenally difficult situation.