"The US-Israel Relationship is in Tatters" and Other Hyperbole

So, it appears that the US Israel relationship is in tatters.  Harsh words are being spoken between administration officials and the pressis  placing Israel under pressure, making American Jews either very nervous or very angry. (And some, actually relieved).

There certainly is a lot of bluster going around.  The Prime Minister is expressing remorse to the Obama administration, apologizing on one hand, but maintaining that the policy of building in Jerusalem will continue.

What are we to make of this "crisis in US Israel relations?"

This latest kerfuffle indicates that things are different these days, both in Washington and Jerusalem.  While this would appear obvious, many of us in the center maintained for a long time,  that with Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod in Obama's inner circle that the relationship between United States and Israel would continue the way that it always had.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  But not for the reasons that everybody thinks.

The White House is a very busy place these days.  Congress appears to be out of control, Democrats are running scared, they continue to fight 2 wars, and, by the way, there are no jobs and the economy, while improving slowly, is at best in a "hidden" recovery.

So why is the administration focusing so much attention on negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians?  Traditionally, US presidents don't pay attention to"peace process" until the 6th year of their term.  This is because the situation is extraordinarily complicated, and after midterm elections in the 2nd term presidents generally feel that they can do complicated things. 

But the Obama administration is all about taking on complicated things.  Healthcare, jobs,education reform, and changing the way that prisoners are dealt with at Guantanamo Bay have all been high priorities for the president.  It seems that after the Bush years, the administration felt that there was so much to do and no time to waste.

So fulfilling a campaign promise, the president sent George Mitchell to the Middle East and expected some progress. 

What he found was 2 leaders with very tenuous domestic positions, both unable to move a process forward.  For a year Israel indicated it was willing to enter direct negotiations with the Palestinians.  The Palestinians on the other hand, wanted to dely those negotiations until receiving concessions from the Israeli side -- a price to come to the table.  When the Israelis called their bluff, the Palestinians folded.

So what are we to make of Eli Yishai, the new hero of the Israeli right?  Some claim that his pronouncement about building new homes in Jerusalem (East Jerusalem, Sheikh Jarrah, Ramat Shlomo) was designed to provoke the US administration.  Others claim that the Israelis would never do such a thing and that the Netanyahu government is out of control.  (This argument is also being played out regarding the assassination in Dubai -- why would the Israelis get caught even though none of them were actually apprehended?  Etc. etc.)

In truth, it doesn't really matter whether Israel intended to offend the United States or not. What matters is that the impression going forward is that despite their protestations the gulf between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government is widening.  This may be.  We need to remind ourselves that the US Israel relationship goes beyond any particular prime minister or president. What appears to have changed is the calculus among US leaders that Israel now poses a strategic liability for America's needs in the Middle East with regard to its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  No amount of partisan posturing will counter State Department and Defense Department's analysis if they conclude that progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort is a prerequisite for reducing threats to American soldiers and the war effort in the Middle East.  And, they may be right.

What really worries me is the "linkage" between progress with the Palestinians and dealing with the question of Iran. I have heard from friends on the left that, at some level,  those issues are connected.  I think it's an obscene connection, but it's very hard for many people to separate out defending Israel from nuclear attack and seeing Israel as a recalcitrant party in the peace process.

Let's hope that our community organizations resist the urge to spin out of control.  The world is not coming to an end, Israel has weathered these kinds of crises before, and perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the Israeli people that they do need to make a choice.  They can continue to support governments, both left and right, that perpetuate the status quo or, as they did in 2005, they can embrace change.  No one knows what that change is or how it should go.  But Israel can no longer have it both ways.  They need to decide what the best possible course of action is, deal with the political consequences and begin to move forward.

Ironically, this is what the Obama administration is doing regarding healthcare.  Like it or not, they are taking a risk.  Whatever they do, they will be ridiculed by a large part of the American people.  From the right, whether they pass the House bill are not, they will be considered to be abject failures -- either "ramming a bill down the American people's throats", or failing to achieve their legislative goals with a large majority in both houses.  From the left, while many will applaud the passage of the health care bill,  there are still many who will be disappointed that it does not embrace the reforms that many wanted.  Particularly on the issue of abortion.

And so the Netanyahu and Obama governments have something in common.  For both it is time to take a serious domestic risk for the betterment of the country.  Obama has already chosen his path, and, for better or worse, he will be remembered for it.   Netanyahu also needs to make a choice -- or history will make it for him.  Whatever he chooses, many Israelis will ridicule him.  But, a true leader needs to step up in the face of ridicule.

I've left the issue of the Palestinians and their leadership side.  To say that Abu Mazen is weak is an understatement.  Unilateral action, as we saw with Gaza, is risky.  But, for Israel, unilateral action that are seen as further concessions without a price is foolish.  The problem is that now, Israel has to make concessions to the Americans and that is a huge game changer.

And so, Israel now needs to negotiate with the United States.  And we have Eli Yishai to thank.

Finally, I want to say a word about another potential fallout from this terrible incident.  While I was initially skeptical, I have come to embrace the rebuilding of the Hurva synagogue in the old city.  When I lived there so many years ago, the memorial to the synagogue, the 51 foot arch above the Ramban synagogue, stood as a record of what had been in that place.  When I heard that it was being rebuilt, I was concerned that the memory of the destruction of the Jewish quarter by the Jordanians would be forgotten.  However, I now believe that it is more important to build a synagogue for the future and move beyond that terrible past.  If that synagogue is held hostage to Palestinian demands, that would truly be an outrage of historic and biblical proportions. We cannot let that happen.

  

The TSA, Christmas Day and the state of the Jews (or is it the State of the Jews?)

Many of my friends are commenting on the Homeland Security and TSA's reactive approach to combating terrorism. "Fighting the last war", they say... Shoe bomber yields no shoes. Guy tries to blow up the plane in the hour before landing yields no getting up an hour before landing (actually they have been doing this on flights to DC for a few years now) and one carry-on, laptop or purse etc. And yet, the airlines can still charge for baggage.

I agree. Not a lot to comment on here, but something more comprehensive needs to be done. MacArthur award for the person who finds the solution to this problem without making privacy and civil rights a thing of the past. I still think Tom Friedman had it right about issuing scrubs to everyone. One of my Orthodox friends suggested that they wouldn't be modest enough. Burka anyone? They are the "rage" around the world!

On to nicer thoughts. Christmas was so cool this year. A three day weekend is the way to go... quiet and serene for those of us not suffering from dysfunction and loneliness. I wonder if Brookline is quieter on Christmas or Yom Kippur. It's a pretty close tie.

To some serious things... (Not that terror and no traffic on Beacon Street aren't serious)...

I was speaking with an esteemed colleague who I really respect this week about the dilemma of bringing together the issues of human rights and Israel. We know that Israel has a mixed record here. For whatever the reasons are, Israel is unable at this time to hold itself to a "western" standard of human rights.  The security risks are just too high. But, we also know that it certainly is a rock star in this area when compared to the autocratic, religiously extreme regimes in its neighboorhood. (spelling intentional).

Does it make sense to trumpet Israel's record in the minor leagues when it tries to cast itself as a major league player? Regrettably, probably not. But aspirations count for something. While the other guys benefit from their repression, Israel can still claim the high ground of giving it its best shot in a lousy arena. That said, they have a long way to go -- but I am sitting on my couch in Brookline, so I don't make it a practice to take potshots from here. I'll let the guys at Ha'aretz who are there do their jobs. Israel has enough Diaspora critique, especially from our won people.

This leads me to the question of the state of the Jews, particularly in the State of the Jews. I've been worried about this question for a very long time. It seems to me that we haven't progressed much since the Second Temple period. When we have times of relative quiet, we turn on ourselves, reverting to tribal habits of attacking our own. This has spilled over a bit in recent times to attacking our own even in times of tension. But, to be honest, Israel hasn't faced an existential threat since the Yom Kippur war. Its soldiers (unless I am forgetting something) have fought primarily on foreign soil (depending on how you view Judea/Samaria/West Bank and Gaza). And there wasn't really full scale war in the territories except from the air -- maybe in Jenin, but it's hard to make the case that they were fighting among Jewish communities there. See what I mean?

In any case, missiles from Hezbollah and Hamas fell on Israel proper, but the soldiers fought where our enemies were.

My point here is that while things are quiet, we attack one another. Maybe that is just the way that we are.

A bit of reflection from the trenches. Cut it out! But seriously, reflection is a good thing. A wise person told me (several times, in fact) that it is not only about them. Whoever them is. So what is it about ourselves that invites turning on one another when we are left to our own devices?

Thoughts?  I invite you to reflect with me.  Otherwise I am just in the damn echo chamber again by myself.

Civility for the Uncivil

I’ve just returned from my quarterly meetings in New York where we had some quality discussions on issues of the day. Because there was so much going on, I had to make some choices about what meetings I would attend, but there were a number of combined sessions that brought the whole group (about 75 in all) together.

While the agenda covered the “usual suspects” – Israel, Iran, Church-State issues, Social and Economic Justice and the like, these meetings kicked off a new initiative on “civility” in the public discourse. While tangentially linked to the raucous and often disrespectful summer of “town meetings”, this initiative responds to the deterioration of the Jewish community’s ability to sit in the room and talk amongst ourselves when we disagree. The heat is mostly seen on the Israel agenda. Not that there aren’t deep disagreements about domestic social issues, but those conflicts are handled very differently. (I will defer discussing those).

On the Israel agenda, especially after 9-11 and the end of the Bush presidency the debate has polarized our community like never before. I experience this on a regular basis in Boston where the left has no problem categorizing the right as fascists and the right returns the favor by referring to the left as traitors. (Forgive me for oversimplifying)

Now, one of the speakers at the meetings described this conflict as being so heated because both sides believe that their survival is at stake. For the “pro-Israel” left, the soul of the Jewish people can no longer withstand the guilt of the oppression of the Palestinian people. For the “pro-Israel” right, knuckling under to terrorists spells the end of the Zionist enterprise and threatens the Jewish people with being thrust back to 1938 and the hands of modern anti-Semites, primarily of the radical Islamic persuasion.

By the way, there is merit to the arguments on both sides and therein lies the rub.

Our community pattern is pretty straightforward. The left looks at the right, turns its collective nose up and either expresses condescension or walks away from the mainstream with its tail between its legs, complaining that they have been silenced or marginalized. The right screams invective, sometimes goes on personal attacks and walks away from the mainstream cursing those who don’t agree with them or, at best, pitying the “useful idiots.”

And so it goes.

What troubles me is that this initiative on civility is being organized by the most “civil” organization in the Jewish Community. For more than 60 years, JCPA (once NJCRAC, once NCRAC) has developed and implement policy positions and a unified action agenda for the broadest spectrum of the organized Jewish community. Sometimes, they are able to achieve that by taking principled stands that not everyone agrees with but doesn’t object to enough to do anything more than “dissent” (abortion rights) and other times by not taking action when the community would be torn apart (like on ‘settlements’).

So the question that I am left with is “Why would the uncivil come to the table?” As a dear friend and colleague said at the meeting, the “public square” is virtual. One need not ever see those with whom they disagree. Snarky, vicious comments posted on websites have replaced face to face confrontation and the uncomfortable need to put a face with the ideas that one so abhors.

So if the “table” is a place where idiots sit or bullies marginalize people, why would they bother?

The speakers at the meeting offered some potential incentives, but nothing rang true to me. One young rabbi quoted Jewish texts. This is a non-starter since anyone who takes Jewish texts on civility and “derech eretz” seriously is not behaving badly. Those who do will not be swayed when the very existence of the Jewish people is at stake. And, of course, there is a text to support that (Et Laasot LaShem hafeiru Toratecha). At the time when you must take action on behalf of God, you can violate the Torah. So much for that.

I think that we can only reestablish civility when it is in everyone’s enlightened self-interest to be civil. Unfortunately, the uncivil seem to get their voices heard. (Insert cliché here about the squeaky wheel or uppity women).

It would be easy to end this with an admonishment that we must redouble our efforts to build the relationships, meet people where they are and invite them to the table to participate. That was once an option. Nowadays, that leads to nasty letters, threats to funding and out of context reporting to those with power about the (fill in the blank) process that either silenced me or threatens to destroy all of us.

Oh well, (insert cliché Jewish text here forbidding giving up or that we are not free from starting a task although we may never finish – or something like that).

Thoughts?

Until next time…

Revisiting Dissent - Why speaking with many voices can be powerful

Now this is really echo chamber stuff, so forgive me.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the rise of J-Street, Z-Street and the growing vocal and public displays of division in the Jewish community over Israel.  It seems to be, to my great chagrin, that Israel has become the most divisive issue in the Jewish community today.

Now, on one hand, that's a bad thing.  If one thing should keep us united, it's the sense that the Jewish people deserve a safe, secure and Jewish homeland should be a no-brainer.

But that's not what the divide is about.

The divide is about how to get there.  And that discussion is a good thing.  What is wrong is that the discussion, like the August congressional town meetings, is not a discussion at all.  It's a series of screaming matches that convince no one of anything except that the gap is widening.  And, that is causing most of our community to tune out, leaving the discussion to those who would seek division.  But that's a matter for another time.

What I would like to posit today is that the division and the discussion is a good thing.  After all, they do it in Israel, why shouldn't we do it here.  What are we afraid of?

That said, I think there is an actual benefit to the division.  Namely, when there is agreement on an issue -- like there is for the most part about Iran, our community is more powerful.  When people who disagree unite on an issue (like Christian conservatives and liberals do on the environment) the message is much stronger.

(J-Street is a bit out of sync on this issue - take a look at this article from JTA at this point, but I think the issue is timing rather than substance)

I won't belabor the point - but as this Rosh Hashana approaches let's find ways to be civil when we disagree and harness our power when we do.

Last Swans Dispatch

I took the plunge today, left the house and finally bought a Swans Island sticker for the car.  Not the silly SI that you see about every place from Dorchester (DOT) to USVA.. but a nice unassuming sticker that has the outline of the island.  Nothing flashy; just like it is up here.

There have been some "echo chamber" moments since arriving; little bits of the outside world interfering with our time away.  I have a work dilemma that i need to work through that I won't be discussing here and some troubling thoughts about the discussion about health care going on among my Facebook friends.  I specify Facebook friends because, as you all know, the Facebook friend is a special kind of person.  They can range from your spouse to this guy.

Most of my liberal friends have been posting the silly status update about "Everyone deserves health care..." blah, blah, blah.  Some of my conservative friends are sniping about Obama the socialist and that the space aliens who believe in the death panels couldn't be more right.

Oh well.

What troubled me more this week was the circulation of a symposium published by Commentary magazine about why Jews are liberal.  It could have been easily titles "Why the hell are these idiots still deluding themselves and disobeying the Torah"?

A note of clarification:  I am not a registered Democrat.  I have voted for Republicans over the years (sometimes as protest votes against entrenched incumbent Congressmen in safe districts who I find to be dismissive and downright hostile at times) and other times because I thought that they had it right on an issue that I cared about.  I am not so concerned about the Christian right taking over the country.  I think they had their peak and the evidence shows that they are now moving away from the divisive issues like abortion/choice and on to stuff where their agenda overlaps with the left -- like the environment.  It's about time.  Not to stereotype, but I find those on the Christian right to be mostly earnest, well meaning people.  Most aren't looking to walk over Jewish heads to achieve salvation or lock women in cages.

However, I have to say that I disagree with most of their domestic agenda.

As an old friend Dave Ross from KIRO Radio in Seattle used to say, "I am a radical moderate."

So what bugged me so much about the Commentary piece?  (FYI, for some reason, the article paginates strangely).

Well, first off with the exception of David Wolpe, they only ask conservatives.  Jonathan Sarna, while a great guy, plays his usual role of historian without tipping his hand.  Knowing Jonathan, I am not really sure where he is politically.

The other issue is that the article has a tone of derision and critique about the "other".  It sounds like the reasons given are that American Jews have forgotten what it means to be Jewish... abandoned the Torah.  Now Michael Medved (when I lived in Seattle, at least) was connected to Rabbi Daniel Lapin and Jeff Jacoby goes to the Young Israel in Brookline, MA.  But, I kind of doubt that Bill Kristol is putting on tefillin every day.

As you know, I have a real problem with Orthodox-Centricity.  (Not a word) or Triumphalism.  Liberal Jews embrace the prophetic tradition of building a society that values the downtrodden and tries to help those in need -- however imperfectly.  Orthodoxy claims to be interested in the same tradition -- but if you read me regularly, you know my feelings about that.

But no matter. The conclusion of Podhoretz' piece (that I have not yet read), is that American Jews are hopeless and will continue to vote for socialists like Obama like lemmings.  Others hope that they will do teshuva and return to a rejection of the role of woman as equals in a modern society and a rugged individualism that leaves most people behind.  Maybe that's unfair.  It probably is.  I think that to write off the majority of their people as irredeemably naive, stupid or apostates is the kind of thinking and writing that makes people want to run the other way.

So they have.

On an island with one laptop in the house there is a great deal of need for other family members to make use of its benefits... the checking of fantasy baseball scores, a visit to Facebook, reading of email and an occasional glance at a "People magazine" article of shopping for bicycle parts or shoes.

So, that's it for me.  More when I return to Boston and leave the Island after a week of relative calm.

Shabbat Shalom (or for my conservative friends -- Good Shabbos or Have a Nice Weekend!).

From the deck...

It's getting to be that time on my vacation when things begin to melt away. The boy is still asleep. It's only 11:30 after all; Liz and I are going to take our daily walk to the lighthouse and the weather is beautiful. Lily is having a good time now that she has adjusted to yet another summer home. She spent some time at her "city apartment" and now in her vacation home in Maine. Not bad for a neurotic dog.

This is a great place to get out of the echo chamber. I went to the office only two days over the last couple of weeks. It's just enough to really understand the dysfunction and insanity of the place. At this point, I have this fantasy that I can keep some of this perspective and even have a heart to heart with my boss to try to get us to commit to making the place more livable, particularly since we are going to be smaller.

A man can dream... in fact, dreams are really all we have, aren't they.

So much for the philosophy.

On a lighter note, I was teaching Dave to drive today.  He seems to be picking it up well.  He's not quite ready for Manhattan or highway driving, but the main roads of a remote Maine island seem to suit him just fine.  He asked if he could do some of the driving home on 95 to Boston.  I don't think he's quite ready yet, but I do understand the feeling of freedom that my father must have had when he turned over the responsibilities of driving to Philadelphia to me.  All in good time I guess.  He needs his license first.

Elizabeth is preparing the evening's wine and cheese and a board game is in the offiing.

It's good to be on vacation.

The daily grind can wait.

Nadav and the Bubble

I've deliberately stayed out of the fray on the Nadav Tamir discussion. Nadav is a friend of mine, someone who I have had in my home for Shabbat dinner and his daughter Maya is in my son's class at Brookline High School.

So, now that it's over -- at least for the moment -- some reflections.

I'm not going to comment on the memo, Nadav's conclusions or the motivations for the leak from the Foreign Ministry. I will only say that I am completely convinced that Nadav did not intend the memo to be leaked.

So what does this tell us about our Boston "bubble". This is another echo chamber moment for us.

Did the rest of the world care about this story? Apparently. Jim Smith at the Boston Globe did several front page stories on this. They even wrote an editorial ( Alan Berger no doubt). Reuters even covered it so it wound up in the Boston Metro.

We learn, according to Jonathan Sarna, that the community no longer speaks with one voice. No kidding.

We also learn that there is tremendous anger among conservative leaning Jews that the "mainstream" doesn't listen to them. We learned that the mainstream thinks that it listens to them -- but, in their view (and survey research backs them up) that the vast majority of the community disagrees with them. We have also learned (and not for the first time -- this author can tell you many stories) that folks are not shy about being rude, disrespectful and will attack people personally when they disagree with them. One only need read the comments posted on MSM articles about this story to hear that Nadav is a weak kneed traitor who needs to be imprisoned and a naive fool bent on the destruction of Israel. One blog referred to him as being from Mars -- etc. etc. I stopped reading a lot of this stuff a long time ago.

I do not believe that those who protest are "astro-turf". They are real. And they are smart, cunning and unafraid. (and I mean that as a compliment). For the Russians, they grew up with the belief that authority is to be distrusted (unless it shares their view -- and even then quislings are all around us!) and to be torn down, mocked and even personally denigrated. It's a shame.

As for us in the mainstream, centrist community, I think this was a good example of sticking to our guns, defending our friends and attempting to hear all views. That's a good thing.

But it does pose a real dilemma for us policy wise. In my professional life, I am often called upon to "defend Israel." Now, my personal belief is that the IDF defends Israel. Fighting against "anti-Israel" activists is important. Making Israel's case and building support for Israel among those who influence others is important. But at the end of the day, since I never put on "madim" and carried an "M-sheh esray" (except for a week when I did a Gadna program) I don't consider myself a defender of Israel (and, if anyone reads this, please don't take that out of context -- I think I have been very clear about what I think my role is and how important it is).

But, back to the point. In my professional life I have held to the standard that I advocate and explain the positions of the "democratically elected government of the State of Israel" -- particularly on matters of peace and security. So, if Israel is dissing American Jews by allowing some rabbis to invalidate their conversions or consider their marriages invalid I feel fully empowered to speak up. On matters of identity, they need to extend respect to all. On matters of security, what do I know?

So what do you do when, after 20 years fighting this fight, you come to the conclusion that the current government of Israel is getting it wrong? So, in 2000 when Ehud Barak was talking about redividing Jerusalem, it concerned me greatly. I called a respected colleague and I said to him -- "What the hell are they doing? Do they really want to abandon everything that they fought for in the six-day war?" His response was classic -- he said, "Don't worry -- they will never move this forward -- it's just too complicated.

And now, nearly 10 years later the government is taking the same position and I agree with it. But, 10 years later I also see the nuances of how to approach it that I missed before. That's a topic for another time.

But on the issue of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, I have to admit that I think that this government's heavy handed approach and saying "no" to a very popular American president is not the way to go. Again, there is nuance here. And the nuance is being lost because of the bombast being thrown around by an inexperienced foreign minister who -- like our Russian friends here -- doesn't take any prisoners and eschews nuance.

The week before the Tamir memo was leaked -- the FM was accused of a variety of corruption charges. And his response was admirable. He said something to the effect that if he was indicted, he would resign. No "Ehud Olmert nuance" here. Very straightforward, very black and white. Wonderful for being elected by a constituency that reflects that approach. Not so wonderful for a world that sees the other side as white and Israel's settlement policy as black.

Israel has striven to be in the grey in this area. Even Jimmy Carter, the spiritual leader of anti-Israel activists around the world, visited Gush Etzion a few months back and said that Israel would never have to give that area to the Arabs. Even Jimmy Carter found some nuance in his heart.

So, that's what I try to communicate to people. I usually say something like "there are Settlements and there are Settlements." And then I go on to explain the "consensus" zones and even tell them that the Arabs don't want to return to the 1949 armistice borders (commonly known as the 67 borders). Syria wants access to the Galilee and the Palestinians want a land bridge between Hamas' Gaza and Fatah's West Bank. So there will have to be some give. And most people -- even those who are center left -- get it. I've heard Nadav Tamir say it and I think it's a way to keep some sanity about all of this.

I am sure President Obama knows this and "gets it". But I think he is perceiving Israel's current diplomatic approach as obdurate and counterproductive. And, unlike his predecessors, won't stand for it. And the Congress no longer feels that there is only one Jewish game in town. AIPAC (which to its credit has no policy on settlements as do most of the mainstream Jewish organizations) is now in competition with J-Street among Democrats. The D's control the House, Senate and the White House for a reason. And no amount of screaming and personal attacks is going to turn that around for at least another year. Israel may be willing to stall that long. But I don't think the majority of American Jews will be very happy to be on a collision course with the administration. And I don't think, as some of my more conservative friends do, that they are going to abandon Obama. There is little support for settlements among the mainstream.

So, here's a plea for nuance. Publicly and privately.

What is Jerusalem? What is in Israel's best interest for both it's security and it's Jewish character? Was leaving Gaza a good idea? Is leaving far flung communities in Judea and Samaria a good idea?

It would be easy to say yes or no. And we will never really know some of the answers. But let's at least give ourselves the freedom to step out of the echo chamber (in fact the many little politically homogeneous echo chambers that we have nicely built for ourselves) and explore some non-dogmatic options. We are critical of others for using their dogma to drive their actions. Let's not do the same.

Thoughts?