Fed Reb

I Hate Abraham

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:26:00 +0000

I have a book from Israel called "Al Tishlkach yadkha el ha-na'ar" - or, Don't Send Your Hand Against the Boy, which is the line that the angel uses in this week's parshah, Vayera, to stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac. The book is all kinds of poetry, prose and art on the theme of the Akeidah.

I translated a couple of the pieces from the book, which I've used over time whenever we read this parshah, not only in the yearly cycle but also on the second day of Rosh Hashanah, when this story is also read.

Here is a selection from a book called Days of Ziklag (Hebrew: ימי צקלג, Yemei Tziklag), a novel by S. Yizhar, first published in 1958. It is widely considered to be one of the most prominent works in Israeli literature, but it isn't available in English, perhaps because it's over 1,000 pages long. In any case, the novel follows a squad of IDF soldiers trying to hold to a post in the Negev desert during the Israeli War of Independence. The snippet is called, "I Hate our Father Abraham":

I hate our father Abraham, who went to sacrifice Isaac. What right does he have over Isaac? Let him sacrifice himself! I hate the God who sends him to sacrifice and closes off every other option – that only the path of Akeidah is open to him. I hate that Isaac is nothing but the subject of an experiment – an experiment between Abraham and his God. This demonstration of Abraham. This proof of love. This demand for a demonstration of love. God sanctifying himself through the sacrifice of Isaac. I hate that the slaughter of sons is taken as a proof of love! To take strength and to gamble and to take life in order to settle an argument. And because the world is silent, and doesn’t rise up and rush forward to stop it. Scoundrels, why do sons need to die?
I hate the need to obtain something at the price of destruction, or annihilation, or torment, or compulsion. I doubt it’s even worth as much as a clove of garlic – that which can only be acquired through such destruction. Better to give up, to put up your hands and pull away – from battle, from kidnapping. I hate this warfare more than anything else. This arming of everything.
And I sit here waiting to murder, to kill, to destroy, and I collect all my strength and my nerve and my muscle and my mind – for that final moment when it will by my lot, according to my ability – to burst forth, and to take prey, to save my life in the devouring of what I will devour, to bite what's near, to slit a throat with a touch. And there isn’t any escape. That’s the way the world is built. It’s the way life is designed. That’s how it is – decree.
And it isn’t even possible to run away. If you are not okay with killing and being killed – there won’t be any good in the world. No justice, no love, no beauty. All of this – this is their path. If you are not ready to hand over your soul, to leap at the flame, to go out and draw near and kill, with skill, with finesse, even with bloodthirst, there is no world and there is no life, and all is chaos and emptiness. That is the way the world is made. And for me, myself, there is no other, more personal way. Only to take part.

Closing Remarks for 2010 Campaign Event (undelivered)

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:23:00 +0000

This was written to be the closing remarks at the MKJF's Campaign event on November 1, but in the end they didn't get delivered (nobody ever complained that a rabbi spoke too little). But I thought they were interesting (at least, they're interesting to me), so I'm posting them here and to the blog on the MKJF website.

I'm often looking at Jewish texts with one eye toward their use in Federation settings, writings with the themes of peoplehood, Jewish unity, charitable giving and Israel. I found a quote from Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism, that addresses all of these, and I want to share parts of it with you. Now, Kaplan can be a difficult writer, so rather I'll hit the highlights.

What are the implications, Kaplan asks – social, political, cultural, and religious – of thinking of the Jews as an international people with its cultural center in Israel?

The social implications in their relations with one another is the sense of oneness and the mutual responsibility for each other’s spiritual and material well-being. In relation to the non-Jewish community, it means the right to continue to possess and develop our identity as a unique group, “combined,” Kaplan says, “with the readiness to cooperate as Jews in all endeavors for the establishment of a free society based on justice and peace.”

The political implications of Jewish peoplehood are the concern of Jews everywhere with a responsive society that looks after the less fortunate among us, as well as our concern with the freedom, stability, and security of the state of Israel.

Culturally, Jewish peoplehood means the fostering of Hebrew language and Jewish cultural expression by Jews in both Israel and the Diaspora, as well as each community's interest in the experiences of each other. In relation to the non-Jewish world, it means, where appropriate, the integration into Jewish culture of values found in other cultures which are compatible with Judaism, and the sharing of Jewish cultural creations with other cultures. This is what Joshua Nelson does with his melding of African American musical forms with Jewish religious content, and what we're going to be doing by sharing this music with our community and with the entire city of Wichita.

Although religion as such is the direct concern of the Federation, Kaplan points out that the modern conception of Jewish peoplehood has legitimated Jewish presence in the Diaspora even when settlement in Israel is available, and recognizes that freedom of conscience, even in religious matters, has become an integral component of Jewish life.

The conception of the Jewish future as the culmination of these factors, Kaplan writes, “marks a higher stage in the development of the Jewish [people]. It places the basis of Jewish unity not in an authoritative traditional creed or code but in the common purpose of Jewish to raise the moral and spiritual level of their group life.”

That's Kaplan's take. This is a Jewish Federation text if ever I saw one. For where is it that members of Jewish community of all customs, backgrounds, and beliefs come together in the shared endeavor of building Jewish peoplehood? Where is it that we organize ourselves to care for one another, for Jews all over the world, and for the well-being of the city and society in which we have chosen to live? Where is it that we organize ourselves politically in order to represent our communal interests, and culturally, to bring Jewish cultural expression to ourselves and to the community around us? Where is it that we are free to choose the means of Jewish expression that are most meaningful to us? It is in the Jewish Federation that we accomplish all these things.

As we begin our campaign year, may we keep these factors close to our hearts, as the main motivation for the work we do. May always remember that, the adage kol yisrael arevim zeh le'zeh – all members of Jewish community, all over the world, are responsible for one another – is never as fully expressed - socially, politically, culturally, even religiously - as in the work of the Jewish Federation. And may fulfilling that adage be our goal, as it has ever been the goal of Jewish people everywhere.

Parshat Lech L'cha

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:32:00 +0000

In this week’s parshah there’s a good Biblical example of the modern adage, “good fences make good neighbors.”

When he came to the land of Israel, in addition to his wife and their company, Abram brought his nephew, Lot. As they settled in the land, the Torah tells us, Abram and Lot both prospered: “Abram was very rich in cattle, silver and gold” (Gen. 13:2); “Lot… also had flocks and herds and tents…” (v. 5). As is sometimes the case, having wealth makes it hard for them to get along: “… their possessions were so great that they could not remain together” (v. 6).

The traditional commentators tend to look at this in light of Lot’s presence in the evil city of Sodom a couple of chapters down the line; Rashi says that what was happening was that Lot’s men were grazing their animals on other people’s fields, and Abram’s men were trying to stop them.

Now here’s where Abram’s moral character comes into play. He intervenes before the situation gets out of hand, and even though he is the senior partner, his solution is both humble and magnanimous:

’Let there be no strife between you and me, between my herdsmen and yours, for we are kinsmen. Is not the whole land before you? Let us separate: if you go north I will go south; and if you go south, I will go north.’

In other words, Abram gives Lot first dibs, even though it is Abram, and not Lot, who has been led to this land – promised this land - in the first place. But not to worry, because Lot’s requirements are decidedly less lofty than Abram’s:

Lot looked around him and say how well watered was the whole plain of the Jordan, all of it… So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan, and Lot journeyed eastward. Thus they parted from each other; Abram remained in the land of Canaan, while Lot settled…near Sodom. (vv. 10-12)

Lot has the choice of where to go, and chooses - for material reasons – to go east. We know he wasn’t concerned with spiritual matters because the very next verse tells us that Lot is moving into a bad neighborhood: “Now the inhabitants of Sodom were very wicked sinners against God” (v. 13).

So Lot causes the problem, and Abram addresses it early and with care. He gives Lot the choice of where to go, and Lot’s choice is to leave Abram where he was. Abram’s Does the Right Thing throughout, and – in spite of this? because of it? – he ends up in Canaan, exactly where he was supposed to be, where his destiny and that of the people who came after him were to be.

There are times when circumstances determine that people need to separate. This could be due to all kinds of factors, and the reasons almost don’t matter: Abram certainly doesn’t seem to think any less of Lot, doesn’t treat him like someone who did something wrong, although he probably could have. The best we can do when we find ourselves in such situations is to try to be like our father Abraham: handle the situation as gently as we can, in the hopes that the relationships will be sustained, and in the faith that it will all end up as it is supposed to.

Shabbat shalom.

Parshat Noach

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:01:00 +0000

This week’s parshah is Noach. Because of the themes of environmental destruction and renewal in this parshah, many Jewish organizations (including the JCPA, the national community relations arm of the Federation movement) have designated this as “Global Climate Healing Shabbat,” an opportunity for the Jewish community to join with many others around the world in prayer and action “to prevent destruction and preserve the web of life in which the human race has emerged and created civilization.”

There’s a midrash (interpretive story) that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, because he planted the cedars, waited for them to grow, and then cut them down, in full view of everyone. When the people of his generation asked him what he was doing he said, “The Sovereign of the Universe has informed me that God will bring a flood to the world.” (Gen. Rab. 30:7). In other words, everyone had plenty of warning, they just chose not to act on it. This comes to mind because of the article that was in the Eagle today that says polling shows that fewer people now believe that global warming exists, despite all the evidence. Will we make the same mistake as Noah’s generation?

At the end of the episode, God establishes a covenant with the human beings “and with every living thing on earth.” “I will maintain my covenant with you: never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” This is a commitment on God’s part not to destroy the earth. That power, these days, is in the hands of human beings, even more than it’s in God’s hands. Can we make a covenant with each other, with God, and with our fellow living creatures, not to destroy the earth? Will we?

Shabbat shalom.

This week's links

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:57:00 +0000

Here’s a story that was on NPR the other morning about a French priest who searches for unknown mass graves in Eastern Europe and records interviews with witnesses to the Holocaust.

Ha’aretz: US special Mideast envoy George Mitchell said Thursday that it was too soon to brand his efforts to resume peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders a failure.

A couple of weeks ago, Jay Michaelson (a writer and teacher in New York and the founder of Zeek magazine) wrote a piece in the Forward entitled, “Why I’m Losing My Love for Israel.” It’s generated a lot of discussion and response, as you might imagine. Links to the original article, some of the follow-ups (including articles by Rabbi Daniel Gordis of the Shalem Institute and historian Jonathan Sarna), as well as a follow up by Michaelson himself, are found here.

Ha’aretz: A tribute to troubadour Chava Alberstein at the Tel Aviv music festival featured unconventional interpretations of her songs.

Soupy Sales, the boundary-breaking comedian who good-naturedly endured, by his count, more than 20,000 pies to the face, has died. He was 83. Original name: Milton Supman.

Remarks for "Religion and Homosexualty" Panel

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:13:00 +0000

Wichita State University, Wichita, KS
October 22, 2009

Two preliminary points: The treatment of this topic in recent years is an attempt to find a balance between the need for a legal structure to channel human impulses and the need for a compassionate approach to individuals. As our understandings of homosexuality have developed over the past 50 years, this balance has changed as well. I’ll return to this topic toward the end of my remarks, but here I would like to say that God created homosexuals and must have known what God was doing. The idea that a young person struggling with - not sexual practice, not lifestyle choice, but with identity – can be made to feel that they are somehow sinful in the eyes of God, is a tragedy, and it costs lives, and it is to the credit of various contemporary religious communities, including large portions of the Jewish community, that they have striven to revise their understandings of God’s will to make a place for lesbians and gay men in their communities.

Second: Like Christianity, Judaism has a lot of different streams which approach issues of belief and practice differently. Although the focus of my remarks will be on a particular interpretive track, this is by no means exhaustive, nor is it to say that queer Jews are looking for progressive legal interpretations to permit them to be who they are. Queer Jews will be so without worrying too much about rabbinic niceties.

Ok. Judaism is an interpretive tradition, by this I mean that, in the Jewish tradition, what is written in the Torah is filtered through an interpretive process consisting of midrash (interpretive story) and halakhah, Jewish law as construed by the rabbinic tradition. The idea that one could just read what the Torah says and take that as a meaningful guide for human behavior is not a Jewish one. For instance, in Leviticus there is a requirement that an obstinate son be taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death. I think it’s fair to say that if this were interpreted as literally as the prohibition against homosexuality has been, there would be a lot of dead teenagers. However, the rabbis interpreted this instruction in such a limiting way – in terms of age, the actual behavior in question, and the process necessary for its implementation – as to legislate it out of existence. And the same is true for many other Levitical laws, particularly the ones that call for the death penalty.

This does not mean that Torah doesn’t mean what it says, but simply that what the Torah says is the beginning of the process, not its end. There’s a midrash on the building of the mishkan, the tabernacle in the desert that I learned from my friend and colleague Rabbi Toba Spitzer, that speaks to this point. Moses asks, how will your great Presence, God, that which the entire world can't contain, fit into the limited physical structure of the mishkan? God's response is, I will diminish My Presence in order to dwell in this space, close to human beings. And the same is true for text. We can't fully understand God's reality or meaning, and all we have are small human spaces in which God's reality is diminished, in order to give us access. To put it another way, our understanding of what God is trying to teach us in a particular verse is conditional, and can change in response to our changed understandings.

The Torah is the product of its time, an attempt by our ancestors to reach for holiness and truth based on their own understandings. The rabbis, who interpreted Torah’s teachings and put them into a legal framework, did the same thing. We know that in each case some of what they wrote is true and enduring, and some of it is limited. It is our job to figure out which is which. So how do we do that?

The verses in question in Leviticus come in the context of all kinds of prohibited sexual relationships, particularly those of family members – father, mother, sister, son’s daughter, daughter’s daughter, daughter in law, brother’s wife, etc etc. There has been a bit of a cottage industry in the past few years of scholarly exploration into exactly why this prohibition was promulgated. One theory is that there was some sort of homosexual cultic practice among the surrounding peoples, and that the Israelites were being warned against participating in that. It may also be part of a general prohibition against non-procreative sexual activity, such as masturbation.

Another interpretation which I find compelling is that the prohibitions in this section of Leviticus have not so much to do with sexual behavior in and of itself but with social relationships – which is to say, property relationships. The laws of inheritance and identity as they are put forward in Torah require knowing, so to speak, who the father is. Unfortunately, this is the basis on much of religion’s historic repression of women, as well as homosexuals. Men were agents, women were property. “Your father’s wife’s nakedness is your father’s nakedness” means that you are transgressing your father’s claim to his wife – the sexual relationship and the property relationship are indistinguishable. So a man lying with a man is against the natural order of things because it would confuse this agent/property relationship. This would be why lesbian relationships are not mentioned in Torah – the powerlessness of the parties poses no threat to the clear understanding of proper social relationships.

But scholarly interpretation alone will not suffice for our purposes here. We must deal also with what the verse has always been taken to mean – how it has been interpreted rabbinically and how that interpretation has been put into action by the Jewish legal tradition known as halakhah. There’s no question that in Orthodox interpretations of halakhah, homosexual behavior is seen as prohibited. This has led to the same kinds of struggles within that community that we have seen in other strict traditions. The Reform movement is not motivated by following Jewish law, so this is not an issue for them – at least not a legal issue.

Where the really interesting process on this issue has taken place is within the Conservative movement in Judaism. The Conservative movement considers itself bound by Jewish law but is willing to be more proactive in its legal interpretations. For the past almost 20 years or so, it has been wrestling with this issue, in the form of the question of whether to admit out gays and lesbians to its rabbinical seminaries or to perform marriage ceremonies for gay or lesbian couples. I’d like to trace some of this community’s recent thinking on this matter.

One thing you need to know in advance is there are two categories of law - law which is taken from Torah, and law which was promulgated by the rabbis. They’re both binding, but Torah law is taken as more inviolable than rabbinic law. There is also a rabbinic principle known as “building a fence around Torah” – that is, prohibiting by rabbinic fiat behaviors that might lead to a transgression of a Toraitic prohibition. Many of the rabbinic prohibitions are fences built around Torah law. An example is, if one is not allowed to light candles during the Sabbath, one is not allowed to touch candlesticks either. Touching of candlesticks was not prohibited by Torah, but rather by the rabbis, attempting to make it less likely that one would accidentally break the Torah law.

So - the verse in question in Leviticus has generally been taken to be a Torah law prohibiting anal intercourse. Under the principle of building a fence around the Torah, the rabbis of the Talmudic tradition prohibited homosexual relationships generally in order to prevent the possible accidental transgression of the Torah’s prohibition against anal intercourse. Under this framework, the anal intercourse prohibition is considered torah law, and the prohibition against homosexual behavior is considered rabbinic – still binding, but not as inviolable as a torah provision.

Now we have to look at context. The Levitical author, and the classical rabbis, saw homosexual behavior as a choice - a “lifestyle”, to use the contemporary terminology - made by an individual who would otherwise be heterosexual. The prohibition against homosexual relationships was meant to push people back into heterosexual relationships. And, in fact, where bisexuality exists the halakhic inclination is to push people into covenanted heterosexual relationships. Yet today we understand, as the American Psychological Association puts it, that “human beings cannot choose their sexual orientation.” That is, sexual orientation is not behavior – sinful or not – but rather identity. Further, we know that homosexuality is not a form of mental illness, that it is not inherently harmful to individuals or their children or families, and that it is not reversible by any available therapy.

Given these facts, there are only two available choices for the gay man or lesbian under the traditional prohibitions - first, a heterosexual marriage despite homosexuality – and this, unlike homosexuality itself, is known to be harmful to both the individuals involved and their children. Or the second choice would be celibacy. Nowhere in Jewish tradition is celibacy a desired outcome. Jewish tradition has always seen the ability of a human being to be in a committed, covenantal, sexual relationship as a vital part of the happiness and fulfillment that God wants for God’s children. This is a quandary that gay men and lesbians who have wanted to live as committed Jews in a halakhic framework have had to deal with for generations, much as committed Christians with similar issues have had to deal with the intolerance of their tradition and authorities.

For the Conservative Movement’s Law Committee, the way out of this quandary was to rely on the concept of kavod habriot – the dignity of the human being. There are many examples of halakhic restrictions that are waived when their fulfillment would compromise the dignity of the person involved. This is particularly so in cases where the entire community is recognized or celebrated in a particular context, and a minority or individual is excluded, causing them shame, as is the case when homosexual members of the community are ignored or scorned.

The Conservative movement’s conclusion was basically to retain the Biblical prohibition on anal intercourse while removing the rabbinic “fence” around it which had prohibited all gay or lesbian relationships or other sexual activity. The law committee found that the dignity of the person should overrule an overly restrictive rabbinic law but not a law from Torah, which they continued to interpret in the traditional manner. But the Law Committee also stated that the observance of this prohibition would be up to the individual’s conscience, and would not be checked before allowing gay men and lesbians full involvement in communal religious activities, any more than one’s observance of Jewish dietary restrictions or restrictions on activities on the Sabbath are checked.

I happen to belong to a denomination, the Reconstructionist movement, which along with the Reform movement has been welcoming lesbians and gay men to full participation in religious life for upwards of 25 years, and supports same-sex marriage rights. I bring the example of the Conservative movement because I believe that it is a good example of a process on the part of a religious community that strives to balance the acceptance of God’s creation in all of its manifestations with the wish to stay true to Biblical truth as they understand it. This is what the Episcopalian Church has been doing as well.

I want to move toward a conclusion by saying that the holiness code is about promoting holiness, holy behaviors. The question - the only question – is, can this be applied to homosexuality?

Our understanding of the nature of homosexuality has changed in the past 50 years, let alone 3,000 years. We know now that first, homosexuality is not chosen, but rather is the result of some combination of biological and environmental influences that can determine a person’s sexuality from an early age. Second, we understand that homosexuality is not by definition degraded, to’evah – to use the Hebrew term from the text - any more than heterosexuality is. Any sexual activity can be either holy or degraded. A religious approach teaches that in order to be holy, sexuality must be channeled in sanctified ways, through dedicated partnership, mutual respect, and respect for the boundaries of commitment. And these guidelines are as available to gay men and lesbians as they are for anyone else. In fact, it would be irreligious to deny them based upon ancient prejudices.

In a midrash on the holiness code, there is a debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ben Azzai over what is the fundamental principle (klal gadol) of the Torah. Akiva says it is "v'ahavta l'reyecha camocha" - love your neighbor as yourself. Ben Azzai says the fundamental principle is "These are the generations of Adam" - that is, we are all descendants of the first human, and thus are all created b'tzelem elohim – in the image of God. Together, these two principles give us a measuring stick for what it means to be holy, to live a holy life.

So when we look at a particular text, or a particular legal stricture, we can ask these questions:

Does this practice or teaching lead to greater love of one's neighbor, or the opposite?
Does this practice or teaching affirm that which is Godly in Creation, in every human being, or deny it?

Using this principle, we can approach sacred text and tradition in a new way, making wiser choices about what laws may need to be re-interpreted or overturned, and what is God’s enduring truth.

Parshat Bereshit

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:32:00 +0000

This week we begin the cycle of reading the Torah once again, with Breishit, the first parshah in the book of Bereshit, or Genesis. This parshah, of course, begins with the story of creation. I find myself focusing this year on the Adam and Eve material. There are actually two stories of the creation of human beings, this one, from Gen. 1:27-28:

And God created man in God’s image, in the image of God, God created him; male and female God created them.

And this one, from chapter 2:

God formed man from the dust of the earth. God blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being … Then God said, “It is not good for man to be along; I will make a fitting helper for him”…. So God put a deep sleep upon the man, and while he slept, took one his ribs and closed up the flesh at that spot. And God fashioned the rib God had taken from the man into a women, and brought her to the man… (Gen. 2: 7, 18, 21-22).

There are some clear differences between these two texts: in the first one, humans are created at the end of the process; in the second, at its beginning. The first story seems to indicate that the humans were created together, or even as one creature; the second one has the woman created from part of the man.

But the “Five Books of Miriam” has an interesting take on this: maybe the two stories aren’t so different after all, as in the second story the man is instructed to merge back into the woman: Gen 2:24: “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh.” Or as the “Five Books of Miriam” puts it: “In both cases, human wholeness depends upon a Other to complete the divine image.”

What is Genesis but the story of the development of humanity from two early specimens, to a family-clan grouping, to a people in relationship with God? What I take from this is, without relationship there is no humanity – only creatureliness. Relationship with spouse or partner; relationship with parent or child; relationship with friends and co-workers; relationship with community. The Torah is telling us that, as much as we think of ourselves as individuals, and as much as our society is based on our separate identities as individuals, we need to be in relationship – real relationship, deep relationship - in order to become fully human.

Shabbat shalom.

Inter-Faith Ministries

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:37:00 +0000

It was unfortunate that the kick-off press conference for this year's Operation Holiday shared space on the first page of the Local section of today's Eagle with the news that Director Emeritus Sam Muyskens had been ousted from that position after only 34 days. But though unfortunate, the placement was telling.

I want to say what I have to say about this while being careful not to betray any confidences. You see, I have friends on all sides, and I understand the actions of all sides. But I think the situation is unfortunate on a lot of levels, and could have been avoided if anyone had had any interest in avoiding it.

Sam has been a friend to the Jewish community for years, and a personal friend to me for the two-plus years I've been in Wichita. Every time I've had a project that needed interfaith support, I called Sam, and he would do what he could to help me out. When the Methodist church had an Israel-divestment resolution on its docket last year and we were trying to initiate a dialogue with local Methodist leadership, I called Sam. When Richard Cizik was coming into town for Kansas Interfaith Power & Light and I wanted to put a clergy meeting together, I called Sam. He and his wife Ellan also took part in the interfaith trip to Israel and Jordan that took place in early 2008, and when you've been through an experience like that, well, it's not something you soon forget.

As a letter in today's Eagle also stated, over the past 17 years Sam has built Inter-Faith Ministries from a small organization housed in a church into a $2 million per year operation with its footprint all over downtown. I think it's pretty clear to everyone by now that Sam's "retirement" earlier this year was actually an ouster. As much as I feel for my friend, I realize that sometimes organizations need transitions - even Moses had to be moved out of his leadership role for the people of Israel to move on to the next stage - and I don't really have a criticism about that. I also think very highly of Sue Castile, the new exec, who did a great job with Diversity Kansas and I am sure will do a great job here as well. Sam is also more of a visionary than a functionary and I would not at all be surprised if it takes Sue months or even years even to fix the org chart and make everything run more professionally.

But I liked the fact that Sam was made an emeritus, for two reasons: 1) it honored his contribution to the organization, and 2) it actually was advantageous to the organization, in that Sam has years of connections built up with faith leaders all over the city, and Sue is not a pastor, and doesn't have those connections. So Sue could work on fixing the org chart and making sure that everything flowed the way it was supposed to and Sam could go off and do his interfaith thing, which he is uniquely capable of doing. They could fill in each other's gaps, as it were.

Until this. The way I understand it, Sam was finding it difficult to restrict himself to the role he had been assigned. I have no doubt that this is true. But it had only been 34 days! Are you telling me that the only way this could be dealt with is by taking his keys and cellphone and sending him on his way? For people who are interested in maintaining the relationship, there are many steps prior to such a drastic action, up to and including mediation.

It seems clear that whoever made this decision was not interested in resolving the situation in any way other than Sam's ouster, which in turn leads one to believe that that was the intention all along. But it's a most unfortunate conclusion. It's disrespectful to Sam, who did so much for this organization. But it's also a disservice to Sue, who will be blamed for this (and will take responsibility for it) and will now find it that much harder to build relationships in the interfaith world, which is a core area of the organization's mission and was already her area of weakness.

Most of all, it's a disservice to Inter-Faith Ministries, which should be able to call attention to the fulfillment of its mission - including Operation Holiday - without soliciting tsks of regret or snarls of anger over its actions in this matter.

PS One might be inclined to say that a faith organization should be expected to treat people better. I do not make this argument, for the simple reason that I know better. If you don't know what I mean, ask your clergy, for he or she certainly does.

Simhat Torah: The End is the Beginning

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:18:00 +0000

Here’s an interesting website which explains the history and practices of Simhat Torah. I note this passage:

Thus the readings reassert the cycle of death-into-life at two levels: the cosmic level in which Moses' death leads straight to the creation of the world, and the historical level in which it leads straight to new leadership and the beginning of a new task. We are being taught, as it were: "The building of a new society is like the creation of a new world."

It is saying that the reading of the story of the death of Moses on Simhat Torah has resonance on two levels: in terms of the Biblical story itself, and in terms of Jewish history. In the Biblical practice (or what this passage calls “the cosmic level”), this selection is followed immediately by the beginning of Genesis, the “In the beginning…” part. Thus the end of the Torah’s story – of creation, patriarchs, slavery and Exodus, lawgiving and wandering – leads right back to its beginning again: Moses’ death leads immediately to the creation of the world.

This resonates with our experience of the yearly cycle, where the conclusion of one year’s practice leads inexorably to the next year’s, or maybe even with our experience of the Tishrei (current Jewish month, where all these holidays fall) holiday cycle, where Rosh Hashanah is followed by Yom Kippur, and the fast is broken with the building of the sukkah, which is followed by the holidays this weekend. None of it – Bible story, year cycle, or Tishrei holiday cycle – ever really comes to an end: it just goes back to the beginning, leading to the next reading, the next Shabbat, the next holiday, the next lifecycle event. They’re the same, but different. Or maybe it’s we who are the same, but different.

The second sense in which end-leads-to-beginning is the historical sense. When, in our story, Moses dies, the story doesn’t end: it goes on to the later Biblical books that take up the tale: the books of Judges, of Kings, of Prophets. And even after the Bible, the story continues to unfold, new chapter upon new chapter: Jewish communities spring up all over the world, new insight brought to the tradition, new forms of folk and cultural expression, new wisdom to our people: Ashkenaz and Spharad - eastern and western; Talmud, Zohar, Maimonides; Shalom Aleichem, Yehuda Amichai, Amos Oz.

Even at cataclysmic times in our people’s history, history doesn’t end, but the story continues: the destruction of the Temple leads to the development of the rabbinic tradition; medieval oppression leads to a flowering of mysticism, in the aftermath of the Holocaust, Israel is born. Nothing “justifies” anything – as Joshua’s leadership doesn’t “justify” Moses’ death - but the story continues.

On one level, the end of the story leads right back to the beginning again. And on another level, history never ends, and every end is a new beginning. We can never really know all there is to know about our history or tradition, and we can never stop learning it, we can never stop living it. “Turn it and turn it, for everything is found within it.” These are the two perspectives that we hold, as one, on this holiday of Simhat Torah.

Shabbat shalom, and hag sameah (it’s pronounced hahg (with a guttural kh) sah-MAY-ah). But gut yontif works too!)

Ruth Brin z"l

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:35:00 +0000

Liturgist and poet Ruth Brin died this week. One of my favorite liturgical poets, according to her obituary

Ruth's poetic interpretation of Biblical texts and ancient prayers made them relevant and accessible for our lives today. A ground breaking poet whose woman's voice was crucial to creating space for women in the traditional Jewish contexts, she led the way in liberal Jewish movements. A nationally known liturgist in the Jewish world, it is difficult to find a Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist prayer book or anthology that does not include her writings.

In honor of the life and work of Ruth Brin z”l, and in honor of the holiday of Sukkot which we celebrate this weekend, I would like to share with you Ms. Brin’s poem, “For the Blessings.” Since Sukkot is a harvest festival, and thus its theme is one of gratitude for God’s gifts (Thanksgiving is based upon it), this is an especially appropriate offering.

For the blessings which You lavish upon us
in forest and sea, in mountain and meadow, in rain and sun,
we thank You.

For the blessings You implant within us,
joy and peace, meditation and laughter,
we are grateful to You.

For the blessings of friendship and love,
of family and community.

For the blessings we ask of You
and those we cannot ask,

For the blessings You bestow upon us openly
and those You give us in secret,

For all these blessings, O Lord of the Universe,
we thank You and are grateful to You.

For the blessings we recognize
and those we fail to recognize,

For the blessings of our tradition
and of our holy days,

For the blessings of return and forgiveness,
of memory, of vision, of hope –

For all these blessings which surround us on every side
dear God, hear our thanks and accept our gratitude.

May her words continue to inspire, and may her memory be a blessing.

Shabbat shalom, and chag sameah.

Polanski

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 19:22:00 +0000

The best piece I've seen on Polanski so far is this, by the Nation's Krista Pollitt. Potent quote:

Fact: What happened was not some gray, vague he said/she said Katie-Roiphe-style "bad sex." A 43-year-old man got a 13-year-old girl alone, got her drunk, gave her a quaalude, and, after checking the date of her period, anally raped her, twice, while she protested; she submitted, she told the grand jury "because I was afraid." Those facts are not in dispute--except by Polanski, who has pooh-poohed the whole business many times (You can read the grand jury transcripts here.) He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge, like many accused rapists, to spare the victim the trauma of a trial and media hoopla. But that doesn't mean we should all pretend that what happened was some free-spirited Bohemian mix-up. The victim took years to recover.

She also has some picant words for the Hollywood Liberal Elite (TM) who are defending Polanski:

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

Look, I agree with this completely, and agree that Polanksi should answer for what he's done, don't get me wrong. But in a society in which hundreds of priests molested thousands of boys for dozens of years with impunity, and where the highest echelons of political leadership initiated a torture regime just because they thought it was a good idea - again, with impunity - it's hard to get too worked up over an "equality before the law" argument in this one case. He was wrong, he should face up to it, but let's not pretend that it's anything more than that.

The Spanish Inquisition

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 02:49:00 +0000

From League of Conservation Voters, 10 Reasons to Support Clean Energy and Climate Legislation. The legislation the House passed is nothing much, and the Senate probably isn't going to go that far, which just goes to show how bad an effect corporate speech in the service of know-nothingism can have on important initiatives.

#1 on the list is jobs, and it's no coincidence that these corporate interests and their lackies are now saying that green jobs is a boondoggle. Such was a letter in the Eagle today, which cited a study that, the writer claimed, showed that Spain's green energy program, which apparently is pretty advanced, costs the government a lot of money and leeches jobs from elsewhere, "costing two jobs for every one created." If you google "Spain Green Jobs" the first 10 references or so are to right wing websites citing this study.

But the 11th is a study by the US Department of Energy debunking the Spanish study, primarily due to "fundamental and technical limitations of the analysis ... and not[ing] critical shortcomings in assumptions implicit in the conclusions."

Conclusions:

The recent report from King Juan Carlos University deviates from the traditional research methodologies used to estimate jobs impacts. In addition, it lacks transparency and supporting statistics, and fails to compare RE technologies with comparable energy industry metrics. It also fails to account for important issues such as the role of government in emerging markets, the success of RE exports in Spain, and the fact that induced economic impacts can be attributed to RE deployment. Finally, differences in policy are significant enough that the results of analysis conducted in the Spanish context are not likely to be indicative of workforce impacts in the United States or other countries.

Energy policy has always been a politically charged subject. And in today’s economy, where job creation is at a premium, questions pertaining to the impact of energy policy on employment magnify the sensitive nature of this debate. Measuring long-term economic and employment impacts is a complex task, sensitive to an array of unknowns, including future prices for both conventional fuel and renewable energy. Because this work is highly sensitive to assumptions and the quality of research, it is critical that policy makers seriously evaluate the work presented to them; and even after careful scrutiny, place jobs estimates within the broader context of energy, the economy, the environment, and the future.

In other words, worthless, politicized "research." Of course, the right wing and their corporate overlords would never let flawed methodology get in the way of a good talking point. But their debating techniques is to dazzle 'em with bullshit: "Well, didn't you see the Spanish study...?" But now you know what to answer: the Spanish study isn't worth the paper it's written on.

In related news, both PG&E and Exelon have withdrawn from the US Chamber of Commerce because of its harsh and misleading opposition to addressing carbon emissions and climate change. Potent quote:

We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.

These are companies that are attempting to stake out turf in the green economy, and they are far in front of the organizations that claim to speak for them. But the Wichita Rotary Club can keep bringing in climate deniers, I'm sure they'll find plenty of people willing to keep paying for them.

Git 'er done, Obama

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 03:06:00 +0000

There are three areas where President Obama came into office with a mandate to make significant changes, but where his initial efforts to make significant progress in a short amount of time has been bogged down by intransigence or inertia or both. The first is health care reform, and that's been chewed over plenty, including here, so I won't go into too much detail. But the idea that the major domestic agenda item of a popular Democratic president with a "filibuster proof" majority in Congress could could be held hostage by Democrats almost boggles the mind; yet that is the situation we find ourselves in.

The second is climate change. Despite the denialist hard core in this country (and really, could there be a more dependable source on climate science than Todd Tiahrt?), the science, the international community, and the political will have all aligned in preparation for the Copenhagen conference at the end of the year. There's no question that failing to do a deal now would deal a devasting blow to many of the people most at risk in the world:

The 3 billion people who live in poverty around the world will be hardest hit by climate change. The poor are more dependent on natural resources and have less of an ability to adapt to a changing climate. Diseases, declining crop yields and natural disasters are just a few of the impacts of climate change that could devastate the world's most vulnerable communities.
The world's poorest are also the least responsible for climate change: The world's least developed countries contribute only 10 percent of annual global carbon dioxide emissions.

Yet despite months of diplomacy, nothing seems to be getting done.

The negotiations for a new international agreement to curb emissions of greenhouse gases have stalled, making an agreement in Copenhagen by December difficult. In calling the conference, Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, asked heads of state and government both in public and in private to set aside national concerns and become “global leaders.”

And the third issue is Israel-Palestine. As the president made clear in his Cairo speech, he believes that pushing this situation to some sort of resolution is key to his wider goal of rapprochement with the Moslem world, and that that goal is in the direct national security interests of the United States. And he also made clear that, as a precursor to renewed talks, the United States expecred Israel to freeze all settlement activity - activity which is illegal according to international law, which Israel has previously (and repeatedly) committed to stopping, and which - it must be remembered - will completely be money down the toilet should Israel ever make an agreement that would necessitate withdrawing to something approximating the 1967 lines.

I mean, the message couldn't have been clearer:

[Secretary of State] Clinton said the "president was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here during his visit to the White House on May 18.

"He wants to see a stop to settlements. Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Clinton said.

"We think it is in the best interest of the effort that we are engaged in, that settlement expansion cease," she said.

"That is our position, that is what we have communicated very clearly not only to the Israelis but to the Palestinians and others. And we intend to press that point," she said.

But as Israel PM Netanyahu met with Obama and Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas this week, the language was decidedly different:

Sitting with Netanyahu and Abbas, Obama softened his regular language on a settlement "freeze," saying that Israel has had meaningful discussions about "restraining" settlement activity.

"But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues," he said.

"Obama told Abbas that he couldn't get the settlement freeze and promised to keep trying, but that it shouldn't be a condition for talks and it was time to move on," one Palestinian aide to Abbas said.

Several U.S. officials said that Obama told Abbas that although the U.S. believe a settlement freeze would create a better atmosphere for talks to begin, the lack of one should not be used an as excuse not to talk.

"Let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good," Obama told Abbas, according to the officials.

Despite some spin that this wasn't really that significant, it's hard to take it as anything other than Bibi giving Obama the back of his hand, and Obama taking it. (And oh by the way, what exactly is the "good" in this that we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of?)

Obama has to deliver on his promises in the areas of health care, climate change, and Israel/Palestine. In all three, the stars are aligned in a positive direction in a way that they rarely are. And the cost of failure, in all three areas, would be disastrous; not only in the particular issues at hand (and despite some claims, a failure to come to an accommodation with the Palestinians would indeed be a disaster for Israel) but in the feeling it would leave people with - the belief that if nothing can be done in the best circumstances, then indeed nothing can be done.

And that's why Bibi's intransigence is so potentially disastrous. If Obama can't bring to heel a country that depends almost entirely on the United States for its economic and military support and diplomatic protection, and if that country continues to act in ways that are so clearly diametrically opposed to the national security interests of the United States, then why should anyone else, from Max Baucus to Hu Jintao, listen to him?

Averting the Evil

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:00:00 +0000

On the High Holy Days, at the end of the Unetaneh Tokef prayer (the “who shall live and who shall die” one), there’s a final coda that says,

וּתְשׁוּבָה וּתְפִלָּה וּצְדָקָה
מַעֲבִירִין אֶת רֹעַ הַגְּזֵרָה

“But teshuvah, tefillah and tzedakah, remove the evil of the decree.”

Teshuvah is usually translated as “repentance,” but it actually means “turning” or “returning.” Rabbi Jonathan Sacks teaches that the natural state of a human being is one of connection with the Divine Source, so that teshuvah means going back to that true nature, which is connection with God.

Tefillah is “prayer.” We can expand this to spiritual practice generally – prayer, meditation, yoga (as long as it has spiritual intention), etc. It is the practice of cultivating a connection to and a communication with the Divine Source on an ongoing basis (that is, not just on two or three days in September).

And tzedakah, of course, is commonly mistranslated as “charity,” but really comes for the root for “justice” and is best understood as “righteous redistribution of (your own) wealth” for the benefit of others.

So doing these three things does what, exactly? Where I grew up the translation in the mahzor was that “they remove the evil decree,” but that’s a primitive theology. You can pray or give tzedakah and still die. I much prefer the translation I’ve used here: “Removes the evil of the decree.” Whatever the decree might be, whatever might befall us in the year to come, if we turn (return) to the good in our nature, if we develop a spiritual practice, and if we give of our abundance for the sake of others, then whatever may befall us will seem less evil. For this is a path to openheartedness, and that is always a way to “remove the evil” from our lives, and from the world.

Shabbat shalom, and chatimah tovah (a good “sealing” in the book of life).

This week's links

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:58:00 +0000

All eyes this week were on New York City, where the UN General Assembly held its annual meeting. President Obama met on Tuesday with Israeli PM Netanyahu and Palestinian PM Mahmud Abbas in an effort to kick-start the stalled peace process. In an interview with Charlie Rose, Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that the meeting “wasn’t just a photo op.”

Then on Wednesday, President Obama spoke to the General Assembly, calling (in pertinent part) for the parties to get on with it: "The time has come to re-launch negotiations - without preconditions - that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem."

The second half of the week was all about Iran: in the aftermath of Iranian “president” Ahmadinejad’s speech (once again denying the Holocaust), there was a rally outside the UN calling for freedom for the people in Iran, sponsored in part by Jewish organizations.

Katie Couric, bless her heart, confronted the Iranian “president” with pictures of the Holocaust.

And just today, revelations of a second uranium enrichment facility in Iran has made international sanctions (one hopes) more likely.

And in other news, the great Leonard Cohen performed in front of 50,000 at a sold-out concert in Israel.

Yom Kippur: The Fast I Have Chosen

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:43:00 +0000

This post is an expanded and updated version of one I wrote last year at this time. It was posted this morning on the new progressive blog, Forward Kansas.

This coming Monday is Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year. Observant Jews fast for 25 hours and spend the whole day in the synagogue, reflecting on the year just past and resolving to improve in the year to come.

The haftarah (prophetic portion) read on this day, from the book of Isaiah, is on the subject of social justice and care for those less fortunate. It is one of the most dynamic and moving and important texts in the Bible:

Is this the fast I have chosen? A day for a person to afflict their soul? ...Is this not rather the fast I have chosen: to loose the chains of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and that you bring the poor that are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you hide not yourself from your own flesh? Then shall your light break forth like morning...and God shall answer; you will cry, and God will say, Here I am. If you take away from the midst of you the yoke, the pointing of the finger, and speaking iniquity; and if you draw out your soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul then shall your light rise in darkness, and your gloom be as the noonday, and God will guide you continuously...

I find it very powerful that the rabbis chose this particular haftarah for the holiest day of the Jewish year. On a day that is focused on personal atonement and on such expiation rituals as afflicting the body through fasting, the rabbis are reminding us that repairing our own personal relationship with God is not sufficient, fasting and abstaining from work are not sufficient, even repairing our relationships with our neighbors and those we love is not sufficient. It is in how we treat those less fortunate - the poor, the naked, the hungry - that we will be judged.

Somewhere along the line the idea grew in this country that it is somehow immoral to tax one person for the benefit of another. Such selfishness may be perfectly understandable, of course, but it cannot be called moral. "Pointing the finger" is also far too common. The clear teaching of the Jewish tradition, and the Christian tradition that came from it, is that it is a societal responsibility to care for those less fortunate. The idea that in this, the wealthiest country in the world, there should be those without a home, or without food, or without access to health care, is in direct contradiction to the clearly expressed intent of our most sacred texts.

In addition to the communal responsibility, we have an individual one as well, to ameliorate suffering in whatever way we can whenever and wherever we find it. Although it sometimes seems like the problems of the world are overwhelming, and that there's nothing we can do, we are blessed through the magic of technology to be able to educate ourselves and to take action on behalf of those less fortunate here in Kansas, in the United States, or anywhere in the world.

In Wichita, a volunteer organization called Advocates to End Chronic Homelessness is about to embark on its second interfaith fundraising campaign, to make sure there are enough shelter spaces available for all the homeless we expect in this second winter of recession. Inter-Faith Ministries runs the annual "Operation Holiday" event, which makes sure that no one goes without warm coats or games during the holiday season.

More broadly, Mazon is an organization that distributes funding to food banks throughout the country. American Jewish World Service does development work in poor countries and communities around the world. And of course there's always the local United Way or Jewish Federation, doing good work from Wichita to Tblisi.

Advocacy is an important element in this as well. The Jewish Council on Public Affairs - the national communal relations and advocacy arm of the Jewish community - is part of the "Fighting Poverty with Faith: Good Jobs, Green Jobs" initiative, which it describes as "a coalition of national faith-based groups working together to ensure that our transition to a new energy efficient economy will lead to meaningful poverty-reduction and that communities are not left out of the opportunities presented by the emerging, green sectors." JCPA is encouraging us to contact our elected officials to let them know that the transition to green energy is good for the environment and for the economy.

Of course, we can't take effective action about everything that needs repairing in this world. But we can pick one issue, one place in the world, and put our focus there. As the classical rabbis said, "We are not expected to complete the work, but that does not excuse us from undertaking it."

And you may be surprised to find that when you really take to heart the directive l'taken ha'olam - to repair the world - you're not just doing for someone else: you're doing for yourself as well. You might find, as Isaiah promises, that

Your light will break forth like morning...and God shall answer; you will cry, and God will say, Here I am. And if you draw out your soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul then shall your light rise in darkness, and your gloom be as the noonday, and God will guide you continuously ...

May that light shine forth from us, and within us, in the year to come.

The Wrecking Crew

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:15:00 +0000

Last week I attended a talk by Thomas Frank, columnist for the Wall Street Journal and author of What's the Matter with Kansas? and most recently, The Wrecking Crew. I live-tweeted the events, and here are my tweets, rewritten for clarity and explained where necessary.

At Watermark Books listening to the great Thomas Frank.
Conservatives have an odd understanding of history - they were never in charge.
When you ask conservatives, they cannot define what conservative government would look like - "it's never been tried" they claim (despite the fact that the Bush Administration was the quite self-consciously "movement conservative")
When in government conservatives deliver failure, then claim that government always fails. Their greatest fear: government that works.
A failure like Katrina pays dividends to conservatives because they can use it to claim that government never works. Of course, it was their cronyism and neglect of FEMA that caused the failure, but they'll never admit that.
Keep good people out of public service so government won't work - keep civil servants overworked and underpaid, make SEC regulators make their own copies at Kinkos. You want movement loyalists in charge
Dozens of examples of biz industry figures "regulating " the industries they used to work in. They put in some time in government, and then go back. [Note: there's actually a current example of this same thing: the staffer on Sen. Baucus's Finance Committee, who wrote most of his health care legislation, is a recent staffer from a private health insurance company. How long till she goes back for her reward?]
Hand over government functions to private industry - from NOLA to Bahgdad. Each case an expensive disaster.
His presentation is good humored but the fact are horrifying.
Capitalism requires supervision. When you starve the regulators or fill them with cronies you get what we got - a world safe for predation.
He just namechecked @RajGoyle!
Interesting side point: In the 30s after the crash we had a progressive decade and then a rightwing backlash. This time we seem to have gone straight from crash to backlash - no intervening populism.
Live tweeting completed. Waiting to get my book signed.

As if on cue, the next day there was a column in the Eagle by Dallas Morning News columnist and self-described "crunch conservative" Rod Dreher. To his credit, he was bemoaning the increasing craziness coming from conservative precincts, but he still found time to promulgate the myth that the Bush Adminstration wasn't really conservative:

Unlike the president, I'm a social and religious conservative. Unlike this or the past president, I believe in fiscal responsibility, limits, localism and foreign policy realism.

Whenever they're out of power, conservatives like to claim that they're the party of small government and personal freedom. But when they're in power, conservatives grow government, put their lackeys into positions of power, and funnel as much public money as quickly as they can into the hand of private industry. Ronald Reagan did it, and George W. Bush did it. One must come to the conclusion that that is the intention, their protestations of virtue (when they aren't in any position to deliver it) notwithstanding.

Goldstone links and thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:19:00 +0000

Last week a report (pdf) was released by a four-member fact-finding commission appointed by the U.N.’s Geneva-based Human Rights Council and headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone. It found that both Hamas and Israel had committed “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its three-week military campaign in Gaza last winter. I've been following this story rather closely and want to share with you some of the links. First, the initial BBC report on the report, headlined "UN Condemns 'War Crimes' in Gaza":

The Israeli operations, the document states, "were carefully planned in all their phases as a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorise a civilian population".
The report accuses Israel of imposing "a blockade which amounted to collective punishment" in the lead-up to the conflict.
It says "the Israeli military operation was directed at the people of Gaza as a whole".

On that same day Goldstone wrote an oped in the NY Times:

I accepted with hesitation my United Nations mandate to investigate alleged violations of the laws of war and international human rights during Israel’s three-week war in Gaza last winter. The issue is deeply charged and politically loaded. I accepted because the mandate of the mission was to look at all parties: Israel; Hamas, which controls Gaza; and other armed Palestinian groups. I accepted because my fellow commissioners are professionals committed to an objective, fact-based investigation.
But above all, I accepted because I believe deeply in the rule of law and the laws of war, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm.

UNHRC, which has amongst its members some of the world's worst human rights violators, attempted to give the panel a mandate to look only at Israel's actions, which caused Mary Robinson to turn down leadership of the panel; Goldstone seems to have wrested from it the additional mandate to look at Hamas' actions as well.

One might have thought that this expansive mandate, plus Goldstone's unquestionable bona fides as a human rights litigator, would have satisfied Israel enough to cooperate with the panel, but in this one would be wrong. Israel refused to cooperate with the panel in any way, refusing even to let the panel enter Israel. In the aftermath its release, it has launched a major offensive against the report:

[Israeli spokesman] Mr. Regev said the panel was "born in sin" because "even the UN" considers the Human Rights Council which commissioned the report "to have a one-side anti-Israeli agenda".
... He also cast doubt on the impartiality of the four-judge panel, led by South African Richard Goldstone, based on comments one of its members had made before the inquiry.
Mr. Regev charged that evidence collected in public hearings in the Gaza Strip, where he said witnesses were subject to intimidation from the militant Hamas movement, had the validity of a "show trial".
And he rejected the panel's recommendation that the UN Security Council should call on Israel to fully investigate possible violations by its forces, or face possible referral to the International Criminal Court.
"In the last six months, the investigations Israel has done into its troops' behaviour in the Gaza Strip is 1,000 times more serious than this investigation," Mr Regev said.

And this is the tack the OJC has taken as well. A representative example is this post by AJC Director David Harris in the Huffington Post:

Biased UN body. Biased mandate. Biased panel. Three strikes and you're out. Once again, the UN Human Rights Council whiffs on a chance to do good.

He also mentions the criticisms of the Human Rights Council as ignoring little things like the Sri Lankan government's assault on the Tamil population and the toothless UN response to the ongoing strife in Darfur, while also claiming that if Israel is held to this standard, it would call antiterrorist actions by Western governments into question as well.

Israel, as a democratic country which places a premium on the rule of law and an independent judiciary, has the capacity to examine allegations of misconduct -- as it has in the past, and as it must.
It's also to suggest that if the international community claims a role for itself in such matters, then it needs to be consistently applied around the world and impartially structured, leaving the conclusions to the end, not the beginning.
And finally, this story ought to be a cautionary tale for the United States, indeed all democratic states engaged in warfare today, especially in asymmetrical situations against non-state actors.

Abe Foxman of the ADL, who specializes in outrage, expressed - you guessed it: "I am shocked and distressed that the United States would not unilaterally dismiss it," he was quoted as saying in JTA when he read the administration's negative-but-measured response.

While the administration didn't "unilaterally dismiss it" it's seem pretty clear that the administration doesn't really want to touch it with a ten-foot pole:

The United States says it has "serious concerns" about many of the recommendations made in the Goldstone report on the Gaza war.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, also told reporters Thursday that the United States "is reviewing very carefully what is a very lengthy document." ...
"We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given" to the Goldstone commission by the U.N. Human Rights Council "prior to our joining the Council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable," Rice said.

Given Obama's consistent insistence that his focus is forward and not backward, and given efforts to get a recalcitrant Netanyahu government to agree to a settlement freeze, it seems likely that this is all the administration is going to want to say on this subject.

In yesterday's Times, former Ha'aretz editor David Landau sees the report as a missed opportunity:

Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children, who died during “Operation Cast Lead.” They believe, therefore, that Israel is not culpable, morally or criminally, for these civilian deaths, which were collateral to the true aim of the operation — killing Hamas gunmen. ...
When does negligence become recklessness, and when does recklessness slip into wanton callousness, and then into deliberate disregard for innocent human life?
[That] should have been the focus of the investigation. Judge Goldstone’s real mandate was, or should have been, to bring Israel to confront this fundamental question, a question inherent in the waging of war by all civilized societies against irregular armed groups.
But Judge Goldstone has thwarted any such honest debate — within Israel or concerning Israel. His fundamental premise, that the Israelis went after civilians, shut down the argument before it began.
This is regrettable, for the report could have stirred the conscience of the nation. ...

This strikes me as misguided, if not misleading. If (as is the case) Israel decided in advance that the mandate of the panel was biased, and if (as is the case) it refused to cooperate with it in any way, to make its case, it's a tad disingenuous to then claim that the reason Israel isn't using the report as an opportunity for soul-searching is because the conclusions of the report are couched in a way that Israelis can't (or won't) hear. And, oh by the way, it certainly wasn't Goldstone's mandate to lead Israel into a self-reflection.

Israel has had many opportunities over the course of many years to look at the way it relates to the Palestinians, and has generally decided to forego the opportunity. Long-time peace activist Uri Avnery sees the response as typical:

The official Israeli reaction to the Goldstone report would have been amusing, if the matter had not been so grave.

Except for the “usual suspects” (Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and their ilk), the condemnation of the report was unanimous, total and extreme, from Shimon Peres, that advocate of every abomination, down to the last scribbler in the newspapers.

Nobody, but nobody, dealt with the subject itself. Nobody examined the detailed conclusions. With such an anti-Semitic smear, there is no need for that. Actually, there is no need to read the report at all.

The public, in all its diversity, stood up like one person, in order to rebuff the plot, as it has learned to do in the thousand years of pogroms, Spanish inquisition and Holocaust. A siege mentality, the ghetto mentality.

The instinctive reaction in such a situation is denial. It’s just not true. It never happened. It’s all a pack of lies. ...

Speaking of Amira Hass, it seems to her that despite the (to her) distracting criticism of David Harris' "three strikes" of "Biased UN body. Biased mandate. Biased panel," the actual facts that Goldstone uncovered, as earlier, similar reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'tzelem, etc., had uncovered, are not actually in dispute:

Israel struck a civilian population that remains under its control, it didn't fulfill its obligation to distinguish between civilians and militants and used military force disproportionate with the tangible threat to its own civilians. Air Force drones and helicopters fired deadly missiles at civilians, many of them children; the Tank Corps and Navy shelled civilian neighborhoods with weapons not designed for precision strikes; soldiers received orders to fire on rescue crews; others fired on civilians carrying white flags; and others killed people in or near their homes. Troops used Gazans as human shields, soldiers detained civilians in abusive conditions, the army used white phosphorus shells in dense civilian areas and, on the eve of withdrawing, destroyed wide residential, industrial and agricultural areas.

Despite the concerted Israeli/OJC effort to invalidate the panel and its findings, it doesn't appear the panel will be waved away as easily as all that. Goldstone recommended that if the Israelis could not put together a legally valid investigation into the IDF's actions in Gaza, the matter should be referred to the UN Security Council for possible referral to the International Criminal Court in the Hague. This, it is safe to say, will never happen. The US would veto it, for one thing; Susan Rice has already said that Security Council would not be the "appropriate venue" for this discussion, although given the out of hand dismissal of the Human Rights Commission, it's hard to imagine what venue would be considered appropriate. The second factor mitigating against the criminal court is that Israel is not a signatory to it, and therefore it has no jurisdiction.

But this doesn't mean that Israel's troubles are over. A major labor union in Britain has recommended a targeted boycott of goods emanating from the occupied territory. Although this isn't the first time this sort of thing has been proposed, they are becoming more and more common and more and more difficult to fend off, the more Israel is perceived as behaving outside the norms of international law. And as JJ Goldberg points out in the current issue of the Forward:

A wave of private lawsuits may follow in Britain, Spain and other countries that accept the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, or legal action against foreigners for crimes committed abroad. Universal jurisdiction has already kept some Israeli officials from taking some important trips. So far, Israel’s top leaders haven’t fallen under a quarantine comparable to, say, Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir. Now, however, that sort of isolation is a real threat.

And an analysis of the report on JTA notes that the possibility of prosecution isn't Israel's only worry:

This isn’t just a PR problem. For an Israel desperate to steer international focus toward the threat of Iran, the debate over the Gaza conflict is a distraction and an impediment to building a coalition for further sanctions or support for an eventual military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. It also hampers Israel in potential negotiations with the Palestinians.

So steadfast denial, and accusing its accusers, may end up hurting Israel in the long run after all.

It's the season of teshuvah, the time when we're supposed to look at our behavior and figure out where we were mistaken and where we can improve. We're told in the Torah that we're not to stand by while our brother misbehaves; rather, we are to rebuke him. I believe that even if the rebuke were to come from the most hostile person to us, if there is accuracy within the hostility we should "take what we need and leave the rest."

Whatever the damaged provenance of the UN report, Richard Goldstone is far from Israel's worst enemy. Rather, he seems to be a person with a great deal of love for Israel who was pulled by the facts in front of him to conclusions that must have caused him a great deal of pain, as they causes pain to anyone who loves and values Israel and has not given away their moral sense, as too many have done. Along with Goldstone, I would hope that Israel would take this opportunity to do a genuine pikuah nefesh (self-exploration), the kind of introspection that David Landau argues needs to be done. Given that Israel's leaders, and most of its American supporters, see the Gaza operation as a success, this seems unlikely. And that is most unfortunate.

President Obama: Warm Wishes for Rosh Hashanah

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:12:00 +0000

h/t NJDC: President Barack Obama released a Rosh Hashanah message to the Jewish community noting, "this sacred time provides not just an opportunity for individual renewal and reconciliation, but for families, communities and even nations to heal old divisions, seek new understandings, and come together to build a better world for our children and grandchildren."

Enforcing the Consensus

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 04:04:00 +0000

Interesting interaction this week between Daniel Sieradski, prog Jew and IT guru for the next generation, and William Daroff, public policy guru for the last one. (Daroff is Vice President of Public Policy at UJC, the umbrella organization for the North American Jewish Federations). At issue in the conversation, which took place via twitter and is reprinted on Sieradski's blog, is whether and how much the umbrella organizations of the Organized Jewish Communities (OJC) - UJC, JCPA, ADL, Conference of Presidents, etc. - actually represent (as they claim to) the interests or concerns of the everyday Jew in America, particularly those under a certain age and generally disaffiliated with (and disinterested in) the mechanisms of Jewish organizational life: synagogues and Federations and the like.

Which is not to say that they are disinterested in Jewish life itself; the generation Sieradski is a member of is quite active in putting together not-for-profits and less-organized minyanim which more directly address the way they want their Judaism to be - decentralized, user-friendly, not mediated by rabbis or Jewish professionals (which some of them are), as this followup by Kung Fu Jew on Jewschool makes clear. There's a certain "never trust a Jewish professional over 40" vibe to the whole thing, which I will comment no further on.

Anyway, here's the meat of the conversation:Daroff:

@isaacluria And @JStreetdotorg stands with the Mullahs and the hard left at NIAC opposed to sanctioning Iran. UR to left of Obama & everyone

Mobius1ski: @Daroff The organized Jewish community and the actual Jewish community are two completely different animals.
Daroff: @mobius1ski I represent most consensus-driven org of North American Jewish community; the consenus is w/sanctions; J Street is outside.
Daroff: @mobius1ski UJC does rep you – we care for your grandparents when they are sick, we brought them from the old country via @HIASadvocacy
Daroff: @mobius1ski UJC funds Jewish Family Service Agencies and Jewish Vocaitional [sic] Services that help millions of displaced Americans
Daroff: @mobius1ski UJC represents u by raising billions to support the social service infrastructure of #Israel & for Jews around world
Daroff: @mobius1ski UJC represents you by funding Jewish Community Centers & Jewish camps that help to ensure Jewish continuity
Daroff: @mobius1ski Lastly, UJC & the Jewish Federations of North America will represent you, even if you don’t appreciate it or recognize it

before we get to the real issue

Mobius1ski: @Daroff I’m not debating whether the UJC does good work, but whether its positions on Iran are actually in-step w/ most American Jews’.
...
Daroff: @mobius1ski Didn’t mean to be hubrisy; simply stated: organized Jewish community endeavors to represent Jewish communal interests.

Daroff also mentioned at someplace along the line that at that very moment he was on Capitol Hill lobbying for financing for the Federations' social service system.

What's really at issue here is not social service spending, or the panoply of services that UJC undoubtedly provides (though that isn't the right word; UJC doesn't actually fund anything, but rather redistributes the money raised on the local level by Federations, but I'll leave that aside for a moment) - let's say interests that UJC does effectively represent.

But it's interesting to note the rhetorical - I won't say trick, let's say trope - that Daroff uses. Because he says, UJC represents the Federation system in all of these uncontroversial matters, this gives us the right to also represent on controversial measures of foreign policy, especially (for this conversation) Iran but also Israel. The ADL is famous (infamous) for this sort of thing: because we undoubtedly do good and valuable work on bias and diversity, because we defend the immigrant, therefore it is within our rights to say that settlements aren't a problem and Obama's an asshole if he doesn't repudiate the Goldstone report. If someone - like Sieradski, say - then goes to ADL and says, hey, who told you you speak for me about the Goldstone report, the retort would come back, whatsa matter, you don't like diversity? It's intellectually dishonest, and regularly practiced.

The underlying issue here is what we might call Guarding the Consensus. The OJC has various mechanisms that it uses to promote (or as it would put it, defend) what it takes to be the interests of the Jewish community, and anyone who doesn't agree with those positions is "beyond the consensus." This has been enforced very effectively for years, hence all the geshreying about how "the Jewish community" would respond to Obama in last year's election. Would they think he's friendly enough to Israel? etc etc. Underlying this was the idea that if (largely neo-con) Jewish leadership was uncomfortable with Obama, therefore every other Jew would be uncomfortable with Obama too, because after all, we're representative. And we saw where that led: after months and months of this, as usual over 75% of the Jewish community voted for Obama, and I guarantee you that amongst the leadership of the Conference of Presidents, ADL and all the other "appointed" guardians of Jewish interests, the numbers were much much lower.

Part of the reason Jews voted for Obama is because they by and large didn't like the brinksmanship of the Bush Administration and the Israelis on the subject of Iran and its suspected pursuit of nuclear weaponry. They wanted to try another approach. The Guardians, of course, do not, and have been pressuring Obama to readjust his vision on this matter to bring it more in line with theirs. Just last week a lobbying day was held where the unified message of the OJC was to put further sanctions on Iran. And who was on the bima for the event but the same old neo-cons suspects:

AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr, Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman, American Jewish Committee Executive Director David Harris and B'nai B'rith International Executive Director Dan Mariaschin were seated at the same table on the stage next to panel moderator Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

I'm sure Dan Sieradski felt well represented by this gathering. But here comes the best part:

Hoenlein as he moderated the panel blasted those in the Jewish community “who seek to get attention by sowing discord” on the Iran issue.
“We need to put aside our differences and stand together” against the threat of Iran, said the chief executive of the Presidents Conference -- the Jewish community's main umbrella organization on Middle East-related issues.
Hoenlein did not specify exactly to whom he was referring, and declined he to do so when asked by JTA. But he appeared to be reacting to a statement released the day before by Americans for Peace Now, a Presidents Conference member, opposing “crippling” sanctions "that target the Iranian people rather than their leaders" and backing "engagement" without "arbitrary deadlines."

Why the denominations felt they had to buy into this neo-con horseshit is beyond me, but there they were. And of course when there's pressure from the left, the Consensus is Guarded by the Reform Movement - it is left to the Left to demarcate the boundaries. During the Gaza campaign it was Eric Yoffie; today it was Marc Pelavin of the Religious Action Center:

Unanimity, ideal though it might be, is simply not a realistic option, but neither is foregoing the pressing and critical opportunity to be a strong voice for the consensus views of the people who our organizations do, indeed, represent. (I would note, for example, that the specific issue which drew Daniel's attention, economic sanctions against Iran, is one that enjoys a very broad consensus within the American Jewish community.)

So, you know, take that.

We will see quite a bit of this Consensus Enforcement over the next few weeks as the OJC attempts to push through "Goldstone report is not worth wrapping fish in" meme. J Street or IPF or APN will say, maybe there's something to look at here, at which point someone - maybe it will be David Saperstein this time - will criticize them as Endangering the Consensus.

But you know what? There's something important to understand about this all-important "consensus": it becomes a consensus of fewer and fewer every day. People don't fight through the supposedly democratic decisionmaking processes of these institutions to make their disagreements known; they opt out, either forming their own organzations or washing their hands of the Jewish communal world entirely. Federation directors and UJC staff and ADL staff and all these other people sit in meetings and click their tongues about how the next generation isn't doing their part to support the organizations and institutions that the previous generations spent blood and treasure to create. They'll blame it on video games or moral failing or intermarriage. And then they'll go back to their offices, and release a statement to the press criticizing Obama for not rejecting the Goldstone report out of hand, and harshing on anyone who doesn't see it that way. And they won't see how those two things are related.

TIFF in Toronto

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:25:00 +0000

[Update: It's been pointed out to me that the Israeli government did not fund the City to City spotlight. Rather, as this post by Richard Silverstein on Alternet makes clear, the funding for the initiative was by private Canadian business interests, in response to and in furtherance of an Israeli government "rebranding" strategy, as announced by the Israeli consul general in Toronto. Whether funding by the "scion of the clan that owns CanWest, the Canadian conservative media empire [that]...owns conservative media properties like the Jerusalem Post and the New Republic" in the service of a declared intent of the Israeli government is really, for the purposes of this discussion, that different from direct Israeli government funding is debatable; nevertheless, the City to City program was not directly funded by the Israeli government, so in two places where that was stated, the post has rewritten to acknowledge that. The rewrites are in brackets.]

Ongoing in Toronto right now is the Toronto International Film Festival, a prestigious annual international film festival. This year, according the website, they received 4,209 submissions and are screening 312 films from 64 countries. One of those countries is Israel, which makes TIFF an unlikely battleground in the war over Israel.

This year there was what they called a "City-to-City" spotlight on Tel Aviv, which meant that 10 movies by Israeli filmmakers focusing on that city were included in the program. Some of the funding for the program, apparently, came from [a conservative Canadian Jewish businessman, in furtherance of the Israeli government's efforts to "rebrand" Israel.]

The protest was started by Canadian filmmaker John Greyson, who has exhibited at TIFF many times in the past, pulled his current film from the festival line-up and sent a letter (pdf) to the organizers decrying the focus on Israel, especially in the aftermath of the Gaza campaign last winter:

To my mind, this isn't the right year to celebrate Brand Israel, or to demonstrate an ostrich-like indifference to the realities (cinematic and otherwise) of the region, or to pointedly ignore the international economic boycott campaign against Israel. Launched by Palestinian NGO's in 2005, and since joined by thousands inside and outside Israel, the campaign is seen as the last hope for forcing Israel to comply with international law. By ignoring this boycott, TIFF has emphatically taken sides -- and in the process, forced every filmmaker and audience member who opposes the occupation to cross a type of picket line.
Let's be clear: my protest isn't against the films or filmmakers you've chosen. I've seen brilliant works of Israeli and Palestinian cinema at past TIFFs, and will again in coming years. My protest is against the Spotlight itself, and the smug business-as-usual aura it promotes of a "vibrant metropolis [and] dynamic young city... commemorating its centennial", seemingly untroubled by other anniversaries, such as the 42nd anniversary of the occupation.

Clearly he is supporting the cultural boycott of Israel that is part of the so-called BDS - Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - that the international left is promoting.

Greyson's letter was then supported by another letter from quite a number of literary and artistic luminaries, including David Byrne, Wallace Shawn, and Jane Fonda and Alice Walker - nearly 1,000 in all, including many Israelis:

As members of the Canadian and international film, culture and media arts communities, we are deeply disturbed by [TIFF’s] decision to host a celebratory spotlight on Tel Aviv. ... We protest that TIFF, whether intentionally or not,has become complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine.
We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City to City. Nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF. However … we object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of … an apartheid regime.

This is less focused (not at all, really) on the cultural boycott, but rather on the supposed inappropriateness of celebrating Tel Aviv while the occupation continues, as well as the appropriateness of a film festival becoming part of an Israeli "propaganda campaign" designed to burnish its image in international circles. However, there is also this:

The emphasis on ‘diversity’ in City to City is empty given the absence of Palestinian filmmakers in the program. Furthermore, what this description does not say is that Tel Aviv is built on destroyed Palestinian villages, and that the city of Jaffa, Palestine’s main cultural hub until 1948, was annexed to Tel Aviv after the mass exiling of the Palestinian population. This program ignores the suffering of thousands of former residents and descendants of the Tel Aviv/Jaffa area who currently live in refugee camps in the Occupied Territories or who have been dispersed to other countries, including Canada.

Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 specifically as a Jewish city on the outskirts of Jaffa, so it is not in any sense built on the ruins any Palestinian towns, although Jaffa did lose much of its Arab population in 1948 and was incorporated into municipal Tel Aviv in 1950, and its Arab residents are treated pretty poorly.

The involvement of Jane Fonda became a kind of lightning rod, in part because she's Jane Fonda and is easily caricatured, and in part because she's been to Israel many times and is perceived as a friend of the Jewish community. In fact, a number of leaders (rabbis, fed officials, etc) posted this to Huffington Post, defending her - and by extension, one would surmise, the petition:

Among those misrepresentations and accusations are that she called for a boycott of TIFF -- not true; that she called Tel Aviv illegitimate -- not true; and, perhaps the most outrageous one, that she supports the destruction of Israel -- absolutely not true. The claim that Fonda seeks Israel's destruction is shameless slander, pure and simple, and lobbing such an accusation makes it nearly impossible to hold an honest conversation about the present and future of Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

But that wasn't the end, because just a couple of days later Ms. Fonda herself posted this to her blog, distancing herself from the petition:

Some of the words in the protest letter did not come from my heart, words that are unnecessarily inflammatory: The simplistic depiction of Tel Aviv as a city “built on destroyed Palestinian villages,” for instance, and the omission of any mention of Hamas’s 8-month-long rocket and mortar attacks on the town of Sderot and the western Negev to which Israel was responding when it launched its war on Gaza. Many citizens now suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result. In the hyper-sensitized reality of the region in which any criticism of Israel is swiftly and often unfairly branded as anti-Semitic, it can become counterproductive to inflame rather than explain and this means to hear the narratives of both sides, to articulate the suffering on both sides, not just the Palestinians. By neglecting to do this the letter allowed good people to close their ears and their hearts.

This strikes me on the one hand as CYA (she's apparently got a not-for-profit that she's concerned will be hurt by the repercussions on this) and on the other as rather more mature than the partisans on either side - the BDSers who want to vilify Israel for defending its population, or the hyper-Zionists who refuse to see that Israel could possibly do any wrong. She also stands against the reductionistic reading of the original petition, which did not call for a cultural boycott of Israeli films but rather protested the use of TIFF as a marketing opportunity for Israel.

Other statements: JStreet:

J Street applauds the Toronto International Film Festival for choosing Tel Aviv for its inaugural City-to-City spotlight....
The cause of peace will not be served by demonizing Israeli film and filmmakers as being part of the “Israeli propaganda campaign.” In fact, anyone who actually watches popular Israeli films would know that the films are often vigorously critical of Israeli government policy.
Some critics say their objection is to the Israeli government’s role in promoting the films and not the films themselves. Israel, like many other European governments, supports its film industry financially and does not employ any political litmus test to determine which films receive funding. It is almost as if critics would have us believe that Benjamin Netanyahu personally selected these films for maximum propaganda effect. That, of course, is false and absurd....
We urge those protesting Tel Aviv’s selection to reconsider their actions. We also call upon the Toronto International Film Festival to hold strong with their selection and not be drawn into a political fight.

And then this, from a number of Hollywood luminaries, most of them Jewish, including Natalie Portman, Sascha Baron Cohen, and Jerry Seinfeld:

We don’t need another blacklist....We applaud the Toronto International Film Festival for including the Israeli film community in the Festival’s City to City program. The visiting filmmakers represent a dynamic national cinema, the best of Israel’s open, uncensored, artistic expression. Anyone who has actually seen recent Israeli cinema, movies that are political and personal, comic and tragic, often critical, knows they are in no way a propaganda arm for any government policy. Blacklisting them only stifles the exchange of cultural knowledge that artists should be the first to defend and protect. Those who refuse to see these films for themselves or prevent them from being seen by others are violating a cherished right shared by Canada and all democratic countries.

Which is not really a worthy response, because it doesn't address the pertinent issue, which was not a boycott (which Greyson, who started all this, advocated, but the larger, second petition did not), rather the focus on Tel Aviv and the support of the Israeli government.

Here's what I want to say about all this: I do not support a cultural or academic boycott of Israel. Israel is a democracy with freedom of thought and speech, and Israeli academic and cultural figures abooad are not there as representative of their governemnt, nor are they likely to defend it, given the leftward curve of most of those people. And Israelis should not be held individually responsible for the actions of their government, anymore than I should be boycotted in international forums for the crimes of the Bush administration.

However, the question of Israeli governmental support [or that of its domestic supporters in furtherance of Israeli interests or policy] is trickier, because obviously a government can be held responsible its own actions. While it's perfectly within the rights of the Israeli government (or its supporters abroad) to bring its cultural expressions to be widest possible audience, it is also within the rights of any individual exhibitor or festival not to accept funding from a foreign government or its domestic interest groups. I don't consider the (narrowly focused) protest against [the use of such special interest funding in furtherance of Israeli "hasbara" goals] to be out of bounds; rather it is the Israeli government itself that is and has been out of bounds, with the destruction of Gaza, forbidding its rebuilding, and the continued settlement project in the occupied territories.

And that's the point. If David Byrne and Alice Walker are signing petitions protesting Israel, it's not David Byrne's or Alice Walker's problem - it's Israel's. These are not Jew-haters. These are accomplished people, admired by millions, and they are not easily vilified - although, as in the case of Jane Fonda, that doesn't mean that Israel's self-appointed defenders won't try. These are people who are fed up with Israel's continued unwillingness to live in accordance with the laws that apply to the rest of the civilized world. In this they are like many others, even many Jews. Israel can continue to deny that reality, but the situation is not getting any better for it, as this incident shows.

Hell, no - Van Jones shouldn't go!

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:09:00 +0000

I've been aware of Van Jones for a couple of years now, mostly through his work as contributing editor to Yes! Magazine and more recently, from his book "The Green Collar Economy." I also saw him speak at the Chicago Green Festival in 07. I found him to be one of the most powerful and sensible voices on the need to - and the way to - move from a grey economy to a green one, and of course was quite excited to learn that he had been tapped to play a part in this effort as part of the Obama administration.

That was when progressives were looking at the list of Obama appointees and wondering where the progressives were. There are a couple, but just a couple (considering all the effort that progressives put into getting Obama elected), but I for one was willing to not play the "numbers game" as long as we had Mr. Green himself, Van Jones, on the job.

Well, that's all crashed now, of course. A couple of weeks ago, largely in response to the pressure put on Glenn Beck's advertisers by the group "Color of Change" in the aftermath of Beck's "Obama's a racist" rant, Beck hit back by going after Jones, who helped to found Color of Change and used to be on its board. Beck found a youtube video of Jones saying that the reason Republicans are able to make such trouble with such strong numbers is because they are bigger "assholes" than Obama is, and also a petition and the cosponsorship of a rally that could be demagogued to show that Jones is a 9/11 "truther."

As for the namecalling allegation, well, I don't want to preclude my further availabilty for public service, but it seems to me that the last 3 months kind of prove the point. A group that can call the president everything from a racist to a fascist, who can invent "death panels" and all kinds of other inventive invective, shouldn't be so thin skinned when they get called a bad name. And as for the second, there seems to be less there than meets the eye. From Grist.org:

For the record, Jones isn’t a truther. Five years ago, at the end of a busy paternity leave, he was asked to support the calls of 9/11 families for further investigation of the attacks (reflecting the concerns of millions of Americans). He agreed and his name ended up on a petition that contained language he didn’t support. Three others who signed the petition have also come forward to say they were deceived about its final contents. But the truth of it hardly matters at this point. Jones has always spoken freely, not in the clipped, narrow confines permitted of those who aspire to public office. He talks real talk, in colorful, provocative language. There’s plenty in his copious past writing and speaking that can be demagogued. This isn’t a civic discussion among people who care who Van Jones really is or what he really believes, after all. It’s a head hunt.

That of course is the real point: this is a three-pronged attack on the administration, and it is color coded: red, meaning the specific focus on attacking progressives in the adminstration; green, meaning the attack on the leading spokesperson for the transition to the green economy - the "cash for clunkers" program was Jones' idea from the book, and the fact that it was the most successful program this administration has yet come up with makes this a cui bono moment for sure; and black, as in plain-old racism and the fear among certain white people of losing "their" country.

The thing that drives me crazy is that the administration fell into the trap. All they had to do was sit on it for a few days and the whole thing would have blown over when Congress came back to town. Instead, Glenn Beck has a hissy fit, a lot of "Hatriots" (great word!) tweet about it for a few days, and the guy has to resign? WTF, Obama?! You have handed the worst precincts of the crazy right a victory that you did not need to give them. Do you think they're going to back off now? Ha! Now that the blood is in the water, now that they see quite clearly that you will dance to their tune, you can except other members of your administration to face this same picking on one or two items from someone past, this same manufactured outrage. And you will only have yourself to blame.

You know, George Bush appointed Eliot Abrams - who had been convicted of a felony during Iran-Contra - to a position on the NSC. He appointed John Bolton to a recess appointment after Congress had voted him down. He didn't back down when the left got hissy about it.

Yet Obama gave the right an unnecessary victory, and in the process threw a good, dedicated, intelligent man under the bus. It's a shameful, very disappointing moment.

Forest for the Trees Part II

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:34:00 +0000

I've posted before about how I think the focus by Progressives on the public option as the Be All and End All of healthcare reform is misguided. The short version is that getting universal coverage and an end to pre-existing conditions and recission (cutting people off when they get sick) is the real imperative at this point. Personally I think co-ops could be made to work, much the same way as credit unions (cooperative banking) can be competitive against large banks. But I'm shaking my head a bit at Progessives (including progressive congressmembers and, just yesterday, the head of the AFL-CIO) who say that without the public option it's not healthcare reform. Are we really going to hold universal coverage hostage to a plan that no-one really understands or knows if it will work?

To a great degree this is Obama's fault. The poor messaging of this issue - what exactly is the most important aspect of healthcare reform, Mr. President? - may well have already doomed it. I'm hopeful the address to Congress next week will give a clear message of what is and what is not necessary in this effort. Obama's oratory has pulled rabbits out of hats before.

But that doesn't negate what I take to be the deep, what one could call moral confusion on the part of Progressives who are threatening to scuttle the bill if it doesn't include the public option. Universal coverage is the big hump to get over - once that principle is established, flaws in the plan can be fixed later on. But if we don't get that in this effort it will be another 10 years before we can try again, and that's just not acceptable.

Ted Kennedy died last week, as you may have heard. To me the lesson of his senatorial career is that of the long march. You get what you can get when you can get it, and you come back to fight another day. You establish a skeletal structure, and then you build political support for adding to it, and eventually you will get close to what you want. And that's what we need to do here.

Let me say this as clearly as I can: For progressives to oppose a bill which includes universal coverage if it doesn't include the public option is morally wrong. And I say this as someone who supports the public option. I just don't think it's the most important thing right now.

I'm really worried about the coming split within the Democratic Party over this issue. The idea that the Blue Dogs in the House or conservative/moderate Democrats in the Senate can be primaried if they don't toe the line on this strikes me as absurd. Does anyone really think that Nebraska, or Arizona, or even Colorado are going to elect a progressive in the next election over the issue of healthcare reform? All a successful primary challenge would do would be to hand the seat to the GOP, and if you think that doesn't make a difference, well, you can ask Sonia Sotomayor about that.

I am not a fan of false bipartisanship, and if the Republicans want to oppose all health care reform I have no problem ignoring them. But the Blue Dogs and moderate Democratic senators are the reason the Democrats have majorities, and acting as if they are the enemy does nothing to further the cause for which we are fighting. Obama needs to design a bill that can get their support, and Progressives need to suck it up and take it, for the sake of those who need it and for the sake of coming back to fight another day for something that comes closer to what we want and what we think the country needs.

Lest we forget

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:16:00 +0000

I noticed this yesterday, tagged in on Facebook because I think it's fantastic but didn't post it here till now: Greenwald:

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. ...
...[A]ll of the above-listed people are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.
I just want to make sure that's clear.

But the reason I'm bringing in now is because of what Sullivan added to it:

[Obama] was elected on a clear platform of reform and change; and yet the only real achievement Washington has allowed him so far is a massive stimulus package to prevent a Second Great Depression (and even on that emergency measure, no Republicans would support him). On that he succeeded. But that wasn't reform; it was a crash landing after one of the worst administrations in America's history.
Real reform - tackling health care costs and access, finding a way to head off massive changes in the world's climate, ending torture as the lynchpin of the war on terror, getting out of Iraq, preventing an Israeli-led Third World War in the Middle East, and reforming entitlements and defense spending to prevent 21st century America from becoming 17th Century Spain: these are being resisted by those who have power and do not want to relinquish it - except to their own families and cronies.

Here in Wichita the teabaggers had a street party last Friday, around 700 of them showed up to protest, let's see, the biggest tax cut in American history and the possibility (at this point just that) that their medical bills may soon not bankrupt them. All the while quite conveniently forgetting that it was their chosen leaders who drove this country into a ditch. Unbelievable.

Whole Foods, Half Heart

noreply@blogger.com (rebmoti) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 20:33:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago the CEO of Whole Foods, John Mackey, published an anti-health care reform op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This led to an outcry from the crunchy-and-green precincts of the left, who make up a large portion of the clientele of Whole Foods. (Though not me, as there isn't one in Wichita and I always found it too expensive anyway.) There has even been talk of a boycott, because -the thinking goes - nothing will make Mackey realize that he can't take the sensibilities of his customer base for granted more than a kick in the wallet.

Well, here's Michael Pollan's response. It's a short piece so you can read it all but the gist of it is that Whole Foods forms a base of a more humane and sustainable food system, which is not only necessary now but will be seen to be even more necessary by health insurance companies should the health care system be reformed so as to reward them for the wellness of their clients rather than their illness. Potent quote:

When health insurers realize they will make thousands more in profits for every case of type II diabetes they can prevent, they will develop a strong interest in things like corn subsidies, local food systems, farmer’s markets, school lunch, public health campaigns about soda, etc. So Mackey is wrong on health care, but Whole Foods is often right about food...

Pollan also points out that we don't often litmus-test the politics of CEOs of the companies we do business with, and a good thing too, because we would likely find them unpalatable. So to speak.