A Rabbi's World: A Little Reality Check
 



There are few more banal ways to open any kind of blog, article or sermon about Israel than to say "These past few days have been extraordinarily difficult ones for Israel."  But- that having been said- these past few days have indeed been extraordinarily difficult ones for Israel.


The painful reality of the death of both Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, coupled with the necessary release of a horrific terrorist and child-killer, Samir Kuntar, has unleashed a torrent of emotion both here and in Israel.  Grief, mixed with anger and frustration, is so real and immediate as to be a palpable, immanent presence.  From where I sit, the celebration that greeted Kuntar's return to Lebanon only served to highlight the sharp distinction that is to be drawn between a culture that glorifies violence and death, and one that will go to remarkable lengths to pursue peace.  I am only grateful to be a part of the latter; Baruch She'asani Yisrael!


Where I live in Queens, the weekend editions of all the major newspapers in Israel are available for purchase on Friday, and they constitute my Friday night required reading.  Ma'ariv, Ha'Aretz, and pretty much anything I can get my hands on enable me to get a real-time sense of what Israel and Israelis are feeling and thinking. 


Needless to say, there's been a lot of soul-searching in those papers about Israel's willingness to release such a notorious terrorist, even for the sake of redeeming the bodies of two soldiers.  Many have pointed with pride to the IDF doctrine of lo mafkirim bashetach- the inviolable principle of not leaving a soldier behind in the field, regardless of condition.  For every soldier and reservist, the lengths that Israel has gone to to bring Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser home are an important reminder that, when they go into the field of battle, all of Israel and its government go with them.  It is no small comfort as you are called on to risk your life.


But, of course, there are also those who think that the imbalance of the exchange compromises Israel's security, and further complicates the delicate negotiations to secure the release of Gilad Shalit, who still languishes in Gaza.


This is an important debate, and both views have merit.  Thank God that Israel is a country where such debate is part and parcel of the body politic, and one is free to passionately agree or disagree with a decision of the government without fearing reprisal.


But as I see it, where this debate does not belong is here in the Diaspora.  It is a discussion for Israel and her citizens, which, no matter how passionately we might identify with Israel, most of us are not.  And as long as we are not, and we live here and not there, who are we to offer judgment on what the right thing is for Israel to do in a painful, no-win situation like this one?


Not far from where I live in Forest Hills, in the Jewishly dense neighborhoods of central Queens, I occasionally see windows that proudly display banners with some of the more ubiquitous slogans of Israeli politics.  One in particular that has always caught my attention is Lo Zazzim MehaGolan- We are not moving from the Golan Heights!  Every time I see it, I can't help thinking to myself "Hey, you're not moving from Jewel Avenue… how can you make claim to have what to say about the Golan Heights?"


I have three children who are of Israeli army age more or less, and a fourth who will be in a few short years.  As long as my major decisions and theirs are about how they might be able to afford living on the Upper West Side, which most young Jews their age consider to be Yerushalayim shel Mattah anyway, or which gap year program in Israel to go to before they come back to their dorms and homes here, I don't see any of us having the right to offer Israel the benefit of our comfortable armchair wisdom.  On some religious policy issues, yes.  Those issues affect us directly.  On security issues like this, no.  It's not our security that is at risk.


My whole birth family lives in Israel.  My sister and her family made aliyah almost thirty years ago, and her children have all fought (and still do) in the IDF.  One nephew-in-law, about whom I've written in this paper, nearly lost his life in the second Lebanon War.  My parents made aliyah about six years ago.  All of this may grant me some added measure of empathy with what goes on there, along with my own familiarity with Israel from the years when I lived there.  But empathy is not citizenship, and neither I nor my children are putting our lives on the line.  Crossing Queens Boulevard is about as dangerous as it gets for me. 


It is, indeed, a good time for a reality check.

PermaLink

Political Insider: Another Take on Hagee Conference





Last week the Political Insider reported on the curious fact that leaders of Christians United for Israel had decided to make most of their "Washington Summit" this week off limits to the press.

Apparently some members of the Fourth Estate didn't get the memo. In today's Washington Post the irrepressible Dana Milbank has a tart item about what happened to reporters who showed up to hear Pastor John Hagee, whose controversial comments and writing may be the reason CUFI didn't want reporters snooping around.

Read Milbank's story here.

In the meantime, the Political Insider is heading to the Washington Convention Center for the group's gala Night to Honor Israel, which will be open to the press -- we think. 


And there should be plenty of press in attendance, thanks in part to the keynote address by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who this week was handed a petition with some 42,000 signatures urging him not to address the Christian Zionist group.  The petition was organized by J Street, the new pro-peace process lobby and political action committee which is also no fan of Hagee, who in the past has opposed land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians.

PermaLink

Political Insider: Big News During Obama Israel Visit?  Don't Count On it





Pro-peace process groups are hoping Sen. Barack Obama will use this week's trip to the Middle East, which will include stops in Jerusalem and Ramallah and talks with top Israeli and Palestinian leaders, to lay out more explicitly how he will intensify U.S. efforts to mediate the conflict if he wins in November.

They're almost certain to be disappointed. If all goes according to plan, the Obama trip will generate some front page stories and lots of pictures of him with world leaders, but no controversy. And when it comes to the Arab- Israeli conflict, almost any substantive statement ignites controversy.

Officially, the  presumptive Democratic nominee is going to the region to listen and to introduce himself to Mideast leaders.

What this trip is really about is laying the groundwork to rebut GOP charges that Obama is a foreign policy naïf ready to wave the white flag of surrender around the world.

It is about refining his public stance and image on Iraq and Afghanistan,  potentially deadly minefields for both presidential contenders.

It is about looking presidential and statesmanlike, a critical step in changing the perception among some voters that he is too young and too inexperienced for the job, a view Republican strategists are working feverishly to solidify.

It's about generating positive photo ops and bolstering the impression he can interact with world leaders as an equal.

Against that backdrop, the Israel-Palestinian issue will be relatively easy for the Democratic contender.

Look for the broadest possible statements about his unwavering commitment to Israel's security, the horrors of terrorism, his determination to help the parties come to an agreement but also about how peace can't be imposed from the outside.

He will seek to reassure nervous Israel-focused voters that he connects with Israel and its leaders on a gut level, without offering details that the Republicans will use to stir up those anxieties.

Obama's Jewish advisers aren't stupid; they know that if he went to the region and laid out a detailed plan for Palestinian statehood identical to that of President Bush - still touted by Republicans as the best-ever pro-Israel president - the Republicans and the Jewish right would savage him as a mortal danger to the Jewish state. ("What do you mean, he supports a viable Palestinian state?"  "He thinks the status of Jerusalem should be negotiated? He must be anti-Israel.")

Look for mild sympathy for the Palestinians but nothing too specific; no doubt he will also speak sternly to Palestinian leaders about the need to do more to curb terrorism and end incitement.   Obama will issue strong warnings about Iran, but with an emphasis on sanctions and diplomacy, not war.

Look for Obama to be extraordinarily well briefed when speaking about anything connected to Israel and its efforts to find a route to peace.  That's why former Mideast negotiator Dennis Ross is tagging along.  Ross, associated with the pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, knows both the intricacies of Middle East peacemaking and the even more complicated realities of Jewish politics.

But while the Jewish press and pro-Israel groups across the political spectrum will understandably focus on what he says about Israel and its neighbors, those issues are not Obama's top priorities as he takes his campaign to the global stage.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World:  Hearing God in Music

I've just returned from spending the past two days at the 19th annual North American Jewish Choral Festival in upstate New York. I am an officer of the Zamir Choral Foundation, which sponsors the festival, and spending time there is something I look forward to every year.  This year, as always, I am so proud of what it has accomplished.

This festival- the only one of its kind in the Jewish world- brings together many hundreds of accomplished and aspiring singers of Jewish choral music from around North America, and a few from Israel as well, to sing and celebrate the best of Jewish music.  In a world where Carlebach melodies are reverentially considered high art, this festival uses the vehicle of choral music to remind the Jewish world that there is culture beyond the easily singable melody.  Not that there's anything wrong with singable melodies- I love them like the next person- but there's more and better music out there, part of our cultural legacy.  And this festival is a resounding reminder of just how incredibly beautiful that music can be.

The festival has a little of everything.  There are pick-up choirs that rehearse together for three days and then perform on the last day.  There are master classes with great singers and conductors, and performances by some of the most prominent performers of our time.  This year, Theodore Bikel entertained us all with his amazing Yiddish and Hebrew repertoire, and some French, too!   There are premieres of new music commissioned by the Foundation, and, of course, there are also chances to network with other like-minded people and to create new friendships.  At this year's program, Dr. Ruth Westheimer received a special award for her devotion to the Jewish cultural arts and support of the Zamir Choral Foundation and its work.  All of this is the brainchild of my dear friend Matthew Lazar, a musical giant whose incredible energy has transformed a "nice dream" into an overpowering reality. 

But I think what consistently amazes me the most about the festival is its transdenominational appeal. 

In a Jewish world so fractionalized and contentious that sometimes even simple conversation becomes impossible between Jews of different ideological stripes, the Choral Festival uses the medium of music to transcend senseless hatred and find common ground. 

There are religious services of every stripe available, and I would wager that other than a place like the GA, this is one of the few venues in the Jewish world where Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Jews not only attend the same conference, but actually interact and learn to enjoy each other's company and passion for Jewish life.  

Both literally and figuratively, they make beautiful music together.  In harmony.  Jewish texts come alive in ways that speak to all participants without concern for turf or legitimacy.  In ensemble music, no one note matters more than another, for all of them are a part of a whole that is simply incomplete without all the others. 

Block that metaphor, you must be saying… but really, the metaphor is exactly and entirely what today's Jewish world needs.  Music provides us all with a common vocabulary that transcends words.  Soaring harmonies set to sacred texts and Hebrew folk songs can take you places that you never dreamed of.  It's all the power of great music, with the power of Judaism factored in.

Matthew Lazar does what no one else in the Jewish world does today, fusing his passion for great music with an unequaled devotion to the Jewish people, the State of Israel, and Judaism itself.  And he does it with style- great style and class.  Both he and the festival are precious gifts to us all.

PermaLink

Political insider:  J Street Poll: Jews Eager for Compromise but Wary on Jerusalem; Good but not Great News for Obama

PermaLink

Political Insider: Hagee Pro-Israel Conference to Bar Reporters

PermaLink

Political Insider:  McKinney Gets Green Party Nod, Pro-Israel Activists Yawn

The Green Party has apparently decided to accelerate its plunge toward political irrelevance.

Last week the party, most remembered for its spoiler role in 2000, nominated former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) as its presidential candidate.

McKinney, you will recall, lost her House seat in 2002, in part because pro-Israel campaign givers, angered by her persistent criticism of Israel, helped finance her Democratic opponent. Her father, speaking on local television, explained on a local television station why she lost:  the "J-E-W-S," he spelled out, adding to the former lawmaker's reputation with Jewish voters.

McKinney regained her seat two years later - but lost it again in a 2006 primary.

The response from the pro-Israel world to her nomination as the Green Party standard bearer? Mostly, a collective yawn. Not a single organization sent out a press release or made a statement criticizing the nomination, mostly because almost nobody believes it will have any significant impact on the election. 

The Greens have come a long way from their initial focus on issues like the environment and energy, analysts say, and American voters don't seem much interested.

While the party, with perennial candidate Ralph Nader at the top of the ticket, snagged about 2.7 percent of the vote in 2000, it didn't even get to .2 percent four years later as many Green voters apparently decided that their earlier vote - with a little help from the Supreme Court --  had just ensured the Republican victory.

The Greens apparently hope McKinney will win a substantial portion of the African American vote, but that seems pure fantasy with Sen. Barack Obama heading up the Democratic ticket.

And Nader, who long ago revived memories of Harold Stassen, is running once again, this time as an independent, thus promising a split in the miniscule Green vote.

Anybody care to guess how much of the Jewish vote McKinney will capture in November?

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World:  In Appreciation of Jewish Early Childhood Education

More than twenty years ago, when my now twenty-five-year-old son was in Nursery School, I learned how little I understood about how the minds of young children work.

Instead of walking him to school one rainy morning, I decided to drive.  We were sitting at a red light when I noticed that the vehicle in front of me was a police van, and there was a horse inside.  "Hillel," I said to my son.  "Look at that horse in the police van!"  There was a long pause, after which my son said, half to himself, "I wonder what the horse did…"

It was at that remarkable moment that I realized how much more than "child care" quality early childhood education is.  And as I progressed as a parent and grew as a rabbi as well, I came to understand how precious the contribution is that quality Jewish early childhood education makes in the developing Jewish identity of a young child.

When I watch parents coming to the orientation that opens each year of our Jewish Early Childhood program, I am always keenly aware that, for many of them, it's the first time they're setting foot in a synagogue since their bar/bat mitzvah.  Ambivalence abounds.  Some very powerful rooting instinct pulls them back, but it's not an easy step for them, and their mixed feelings about their own Jewishness are written on their faces.

Their children, however, have no such ambivalence, and it is the magic of great Jewish early childhood educators that makes their first encounters with Judaism and Jewish living magical and enriching.  At the most basic level, they learn to associate the very act of walking into a synagogue building with a pleasurable experience. What a concept!  But of course they learn much more.  They learn the joy of anticipating Shabbat's arrival, and how even Friday feels special because of it.  They learn the wonderful rituals that make Jewish holidays special and unique, the importance of tzedakah, the special place of Israel in the life of a Jew, and maybe- just maybe- by learning how to play nicely with each other, they can extrapolate the importance of Jews learning to play and work nicely with each other as well.

Our Nursery School director of fourteen years, a wonderful woman named Adrienne Cohen, just retired following the completion of this past school year.  As I stood with her at a dinner in her honor, I tried to come up with the right words to pay her tribute.  I think I spoke nicely, but I realized as I was speaking that I couldn't really say enough.  There's really no adequate way to acknowledge the contribution of a Jewish educator whose life's work has been to teach our youngest children how to love being Jewish.

Undoing the cynicism and alienation that some adult Jews bring with them to synagogue life is a terribly difficult challenge.  I hope it's as difficult to lose the good feelings that are produced by a great Jewish Early Childhood program! 

PermaLink

Political Insider:  Good News for McCain -- or Polling Mush?

Here's a political shocker for you: Jews who say religion is "an important part of my daily life" are more likely to vote for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, than those who say religion isn't as important.

How do you spell "Duh?"

This nugget was part of a Gallup poll released this week that shows the same dynamic working in the broader population, but even more so.

According to Gallup,  only 39 percent of  Jews  surveyed say religion is important to them, far behind the national average of 66 percent. That minority of Jewish is evenly divided between McCain and Sen. Barack Obama supporters, both at 45 percent.

The majority of Jews who say religion is not that important - 61 percent - break strongly for Obama,  68-26 percent.

Among voters in general,  50 percent of those who say religion is important chose McCain, 40 percent Obama; those on the other side of the religious divide break for Obama 55-36 percent.

So what do the data on presidential preference and level of religious observance mean? Statistically, that's a hard one to answer.

Numerous studies have indicated that as levels of observance go up, voters tend to be more conservative and more Republican, and that the same dynamic holds true in the Jewish community, albeit at a lower level.

Nathan Diament, political director for the Orthodox Union, said there are elements of good news in the Gallup data  for both presidential candidates.

"For Sen. McCain, it is indicative that he is doing better among Orthodox or otherwise traditional Jews," he said  "It shows that McCain is at least competitive in this group."

But the data also shows that Obama "still has persuadable voters" among Jews who take their religion seriously.

He said Gallup's definition of what it means to be a religious person leaves something to be desired.

"The problem is that the definition they use of 'observant' is somebody saying religion is 'important' in their life," he said. "That's pretty fuzzy."

University of Florida political scientist Ken Wald, who studies Jewish politics, agreed, calling it a "truly mush question."

Wald  offered an interpretation of the survey much more hopeful for the Democrats.

"Jewish support for Obama is still almost 20 points higher than among Protestants and almost 10 more than among Catholics," he said. "This tells me that Jews will probably continue to vote 25-30 percent more Democratic than the  electorate as a whole."

So extrapolating from that,  if Obama wins half the overall vote in November he could get 75-80 percent of the Jewish vote, bringing him right up there with recent Democratic candidates.

But extrapolation is a risky business - especially months in advance of a volatile election and especially in view of a question on religion that won't win any awards for precision.

Read the poll results here.

PermaLink

Political Insider:  Jesse Helms and the Pro-Israel Divide

Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), who died on Friday at the age of 86, was a perfect lightning rod for one of the critical divides in Jewish life.

For many pro-Israel activists, Helms' conversion from staunch foe of their agenda  -- in 1983 he suggested breaking diplomatic relations with Israel because of the war in Lebanon, and he was a consistent foe of foreign aid  - to ardent Likudnik was the stuff of legends and a turning point in pro-Israel politics. 

After Helms traveled to Israel and saw the Zionist light, many pro-Israel leaders came to the belief that their strongest support in the future would come from conservative Republicans with ties to the evangelical movement.

That belief seemed confirmed in 1995 when Helms took over as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a post he used to oppose Clinton administration involvement in the Oslo peace process.

For many liberal Jewish activists, Helms' elevation to iconic status was a symbol of everything they see as wrong with pro-Israel politics today.

Helms, they said, was a fierce foe of all their top priorities, starting with civil rights, hate crimes protections and strict church-state separation. Helms was seen as an unrepentant son of the white southern segregationist system and the most influential supporter of the Christian right in Congress.

It infuriated liberal Jewish groups that the North Carolina lawmaker would be welcomed as a hero by major pro-Israel groups even as he was working effectively to undermine much of the domestic agenda of Jewish groups - and as he opposed the policies of the Israeli government during the Oslo years.

And so it goes. 

Single-issue pro-Israel groups argued that defending Israel should be the top priority of the organized Jewish community, and that in that fight, you ally yourself with whoever can effectively advance that agenda without regard to their views on other issues. 

Multi-issue Jewish activists said that's a dangerous kind of parochialism that undercuts traditional domestic coalitions, alienates a majority of Jews with broader political interests and ultimately strengthens politicians and groups that, while pro-Israel, work against other community priorities.

Jesse Helms, and the chasm between his Jewish admirers and detractors, was the perfect reflection of that divide.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World:  I Can Do That… Can I?

It doesn't happen all that often, but occasionally I do go to funerals where I'm not officiating.  As a professional, I "enjoy," if I can use that word in this context, the opportunity to see how colleagues do what I am so often called upon to do.

Just a few days ago, I attended the funeral of a close friend, and it was one of those instances when I got to sit with friends and pay my respects as a private citizen.  At this particular funeral, the primary eulogy was delivered not by any professional clergy, but rather by the man's son.  An Assistant District Attorney, he obviously had a great deal of experience speaking in public, and I can say without any reservation at all that it was one of the finest eulogies I had ever heard, including those delivered by seasoned clergy.

More and more these days, family members and friends are speaking at the funeral services of their loved ones, to the degree that it has become pretty much the norm.  When I first began the practice of my rabbinate almost thirty years ago, it was relatively rare.  That's not the case today.  There are still instances when I'm the only speaker at a funeral, but it's become the exception as opposed to the rule.

The eulogy I heard earlier this week was the clearest proof that, when it's done by a capable writer and speaker, the people who knew the person who died the best are most certainly the right ones to eulogize him/her.  But I also am obliged to admit that I've sat through some eulogies by family members that made me cringe.  In some rare but memorable instances, sons or siblings have used their eulogies to "work through" issues that have no place being worked out in public.  And since I can't ask people to vet their eulogies with me before they deliver them, either for content or length, I always run the risk of wishing- too late- that I had.

We Jews are not alone in this trend.  It's become very much the norm in Catholic funeral masses as well, and the Church is none too happy about it.  The funeral mass is a sacrament that priests alone can administer, and there is a question as to whether or not lay participation is even allowed, much less a good thing.  We have no such problem in Judaism.  Nothing that I or any rabbi does is a "sacrament."  Any layperson with the appropriate knowledge may do what a rabbi can do- teach a class, deliver a sermon, even officiate at a marriage (although the state would not recognize the marriage as binding).   It's not a question of intruding on a rabbi's space.  The goal at a funeral is to honor the person who died.  In theory, the people who knew him/her best are uniquely positioned to do that.

The only question that I ever have goes to the unanticipated difficulty of standing in front of the casket of your loved one and keeping yourself in good enough shape to actually say what you would want to say in a way that people can hear you.  My friend's son did it like he'd been doing it his whole life, and I was appropriately humbled by his skill.  There's so much talent in the laity that rabbis would do well to embrace!

But it's harder than it looks.

PermaLink

Political Insider: The Presbyterians Meet, Talk About Israel, Who Cares?

Recently the Jewish Week reported on a new dustup between Jewish leaders and the Presbyterian Church (USA), the mainline church that played an early role in promoting the idea of targeted sanctions aimed at Israel.

The latest controversy involved the revision of a "resource paper" on anti-Semitism that started with a draft widely praised by Jewish groups but ended up including what critics saw as a backhanded endorsement of anti-Semitism based on hostility to Israeli policies.

Now, at the conclusion of the group's marathon "general assembly" in San Jose, Calif., we learn from Jewish groups that the church actually took a few steps forward by approving a resolution - or "overture," in church lingo - calling for more balance in its approach to the Mideast conflict.

At the same time, delegates approved as resolution endorsing the "Amman Call," a 2007 document calling for a full right of return for all refugees that critics see as a roundabout way of calling for the end of the Jewish state.

Do you see a pattern here? Every time the Presbyterians meet they take some steps forward, some backward,  and the Jewish groups that invest huge amounts of time in the debate are left with results that are, at best, ambiguous.

And that leads to this question: how many Jews across the country are sitting up nights, worrying that the Presbyterians may be taking positions on a conflict that has almost nothing to do with them?  Is there any evidence that positions on a distant Mideast conflict by a church that is hemorrhaging members and facing grave internal conflicts overt issues such as gay rights are having an impact?

The Presbyterians, it seems, are no longer particularly influential on the national political scene. So do they wield a bigger bat when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or are their Mideast debates just a lot of noise about something only small handfuls of church activists care about?

But left to their own devices - to the devices, actually, of a tiny church minority that is passionately involved in the issue - won't that inevitably hurt Israel's standing in the world and give solace to those who now support a one-state solution to the conflict?

The questions aren't facetious; after reporting on the issue for several years, it's still unclear to me how deeply the issue resonates with your basic Jew on the street, or how influential Presbyterian positions on Israel really are.

Have views on the subject? Email them to jwblogs@gmail.com and let's talk about them.

PermaLink

Political Insider:  Joe Klein vs. Abe Foxman on Iraq, Iran and "Jewish Neoconservatives"

Jewish leaders are understandably nervous as they continue pressing for a stronger U.S. and international response to Iran, while trying to avoid stirring up recurrent charges that Jews somehow caused the seemingly endless Iraq war and are now trying to do the same with Iran.

So it wasn't surprising that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) reacted sharply to the charge by Time Magazine analyst Joe Klein that "Jewish neoconservatives" interested mostly in protecting Israel are distorting U.S. foreign policy.

What was a little more surprising is that Klein didn't take the ADL rebuke lying down.

In his June 24 commentary, Klein wrote that President Bush's troop surge in Iraq seems to be working, not because of the numbers of additional troops but because of a "change in tactics" and a lot of luck.

But he also argued that "this war is simply too expensive and too exhausting for our military."

Then he touched a raw nerve for Jewish leaders.

"The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives--people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary--plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel," he wrote.

"Divided loyalties?" "Plumped" for war?  Not exactly subtle, and it quickly caught the attention of ADL chief Abraham Foxman, who shot a letter to Klein.

"Whether or not one feels that America's war on Iraq was justified, the charge that it is being fought by the United States on behalf of Israel is both offensive and categorically false," Foxman wrote.

The ADL leader pointed out that some of the biggest boosters for the Iraq war "hardly fit the mold of a 'Jewish neo-con' - Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell being the most prominent among them."

And he said Klein's charge that "'divided loyalties' were behind the decision to go to war is reminiscent of age-old anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish conspiracy to control and manipulate government, which has unfortunately gained new currency of late."

But Klein didn't back down; in an acerbic response, he said that while they were not the "primary reason we went to war in Iraq…Jewish neoconservatives certainly played a subsidiary role in providing an intellectual rationale for the war."

And now, he said, there is an "even more dangerous tendency among Jewish neoconservatives to encourage a pre-emptive attack on Iran's nuclear program. Their gleeful, intellectual warmongering-given the vast dangers and complexities of an attack on Iran--is nauseating."

Then he got personal. 

"I am disappointed, but not surprised, by your claim of anti-Semitism," Klein wrote. "But that's what you do for a living, isn't it? I find your 'outrage' particularly galling because the people you defend are constantly spewing canards against those who favor talking to the Palestinians, or who don't favor witless bellicosity when it comes to Iran. Their campaign of defamation has cost people jobs, damaged reputations and careers. I am very tired of having reasonable people accused of being 'soft on terrorism' or 'unpatriotic' or favoring 'surrender'--Joe Lieberman's favorite-by Jewish neoconservatives who seem to have a neurotic need to prove their toughness.

Foxman's quickly fired back: "Contrary to your assertion, ADL is extremely careful in making accusations about anti-Semitism and we spend every day in our work all over the country assessing the validity -- or lack thereof -- of such accusations," he wrote. "The notion you posited that ADL is looking to find anti-Semites everywhere in no way reflects the reality."

Neoconservatives, Foxman said, "have the right to make their case without having their religion brought up." 

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World: Playing the Wedding Game… Literally

Close to two weeks ago, Israel's Masorti movement, the sister movement of North America's Conservative Judaism, launched a new campaign to interest non-religious Jews in Israel in considering a Masorti wedding- fully grounded in tradition, but also sensitive to issues of egalitarianism and the particular wishes of the couple.  There is a website set up for the campaign, and the media blitz of print ads and radio commercials directs interested Israelis to the site.  There they can play "The Wedding Game," featuring an interactive, colorful format to personalize their traditional but innovative wedding.

Within the first three days of the launching of the campaign, there were 25,000 hits on the website, and now, that number is closer to 30,000.  There have also been many dozens of phone calls.

If the great medieval commentator Rashi were here, he might be moved to say Ein hamikrah hazeh omer elah darsheini.  This text demands interpretation.  Thirty thousand hits on the website in a few days??  What is going on here?

Estimates are that, on a yearly basis, some twenty percent of Israeli couples  either choose to live together without any wedding ceremony, or travel to Cypress, the Czech Republic or elsewhere for a civil ceremony, which the State of Israel will recognize.  It does not recognize a ceremony officiated at by a Masorti rabbi.  A civil ceremony celebrated outside the State of Israel qualifies you to be registered as married in Israel.   A religious ceremony officiated at by a Masorti rabbi does not.

The sad reality is that most young secular Israelis are so profoundly alienated from Judaism that they want no part of the State's official rabbinic arm.   Those rabbis sanctioned by the state too often exacerbate the situation by the careless and insensitive way they relate to the couple- or don't relate.  This is not an unknown reality in Israel, even to the Orthodox sector. 

"Modern" Orthodox Jews in Israel also lament the stranglehold of the very right-wing rabbinate on rites of passage, and religious life as a whole.  But the absence of clear political consensus in Israel on much of anything virtually guarantees that small, ultra-Orthodox parties will be needed to cobble together a governing coalition, and the portfolio that those parties invariably demand is of the Interior.  All matters of personal status, where Jewish law is the law of the land, are controlled by Misrad HaPnim, and if you want religious power, that's where it's to be found.  Hence the current situation.

What do we learn from thirty thousand hits on the wedding website in one week? 

Well, the first thing we learn is that there are obviously many so-called "secular" Jews in Israel who are not quite as secular as we might think, and the religious establishment is not only not servicing them, it is preventing others from servicing them.  That is a situation that is not good for Israel.   In a country with more than enough problems not of its own making, why use religion to create more- other than to stay in power?

I would also draw the conclusion that, as is so often the case, broad brushstrokes are inadequate to paint a picture of a complicated reality.  Israel is not a country where eighty percent of the population is ideologically secular and anti-religious.  It is, rather, a country whose citizens have never had the opportunity to learn what true religious pluralism is about, for a variety of unhappy reasons.  In this particular area, we here in the diaspora do Judaism better than our brothers and sisters in Israel.  Even with multiple options, you can still make the choices that you want, or none at all.  Maybe we should be sending shlichim to Israel instead of the other way around…

PermaLink

Political Insider:  Evangelical Group Expresses "Love" for Jews, Takes Indirect Swipe at Hagee's Christian Zionism

Jews tend to view the evangelical community as a political and religious monolith, but that segment is every bit as diverse as …well, the Jews.

What brings this to mind: Thursday's ¾ page ad in the Washington Post business section by the World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) politely informing Jews that they like us and everything, but have a duty to try to convert us.

"As evangelical Christians we want to express our genuine friendship and love for the Jewish people," the group says, but added "we believe the most loving and Scriptural expression of our friendship toward the Jewish people and to anyone we call friend, is to forthrightly share the love of God in the person of Jesus Christ."

And oh yes, they also support ministries "specifically directed to the Jewish people."

What gives? Why take to the nation's biggest newspapers - the ad has been running for months in a number of major publications - with this message?

The answer centers on huge rifts in the evangelical world, many of them centering on Pastor John Hagee, the founder and president of Christians United for Israel (CUFI).

As he has cranked up his pro-Israel political organization, Hagee - a megachurch pastor from San Antonio with a radio and television ministry believed to reach more than 100 million worldwide - has deemphasized the mandate to convert Jews to Christianity.

Indeed, CUFI activists say conversion has never been on the group's to-do list, although critics say that dire apocalyptic prophecies about what happens to the Jews during the Second Coming ARE major motives.

In any event, critics within the evangelical community say Hagee has crossed the line and now espouses a "dual covenant" theology, in which Jesus Christ was not actually sent as the Jewish messiah.

That was how many Christian critics interpreted his last book, "In Defense of Israel" ;  that caused a firestorm of controversy in evangelical circles and forced Hagee to revise the book and issue a clarification about exactly what he meant by the word "messiah."

But that clarification didn't close the gap in the evangelical world between those who believe evangelism "to the Jew first" remains a priority - and those like Hagee who, for reasons of biblical commandment, apocalyptic prophecy or both, seem to believe the focus now should be on supporting Israel.

Translation: American evangelicals may be increasingly supportive of Israel, as polls indicate,  but Hagee's particular brand of Christian Zionism is far from universal within that movement.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World: Thoughts on Tim Russert's Death

The sudden, shocking death of Meet the Press host Tim Russert last Friday has unleashed a powerful torrent of grief from a very wide swath of Americans.  I readily admit that I, too, was horrified and saddened greatly by his untimely death.

Although my work most often prevents me from sitting in front of a TV on Sunday mornings, programs like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and The McLaughlin Group have long been among my favorites.  For those of us seeking greater insight into America and its politics, those programs are indispensable, and Tim Russert consistently displayed a remarkable commitment to speaking truth to power that I both admired and respected.  I will miss his voice, and his unbridled enthusiasm for his family and his work.  He always seemed like a guy you would love to go out for a beer with… or two.  And he understood American politics and politicians as well as anyone.

As the days have passed since Russert's death, I have been intrigued by the degree to which Americans of all stripes have responded with such sadness, and also by those who seem equally stupefied by exactly that response.  I read some comments yesterday complaining that the spate of news coverage devoted to the story was another example of the media's love affair with itself, assuming that we would care so deeply about what is essentially the loss of one of their colleagues.  But clearly, Russert's death, and how he died, is more than that.

I think there are a few dynamics at work here, and each of them is significant in its own way.

The first and most obvious is about death itself, and how we respond to it.

I've been around sudden death enough to understand that the powerful sadness and sense of dislocation that we feel when someone dies so unexpectedly is our mind's way of coping with what is, essentially, a severe blow to our sense of reality and balance.  Like sweating helps an overheated body cool down, shock, disbelief, and a terrible feeling of emptiness are the ways our minds gradually absorb a new, painful and unexpected reality.  When you factor in that Russert, at age 58, appeared to be excellent health, you add another layer of existential dread, particularly for all of us fifty-something boomers.  There's nothing like staring at your own mortality to unhinge you a bit.

The second issue is television itself, and the nature of the connection we have to people who appear regularly on it.

I know it is true that the internet is changing the way Americans get their news, and the networks' news divisions are all in crisis.  But that reality notwithstanding, we still have powerful if unconscious connections to the people who, to use the old cliché, come into our living rooms and kitchens each day and night.  I would wager that, on 9/11, most New Yorkers watched coverage of the events of that day based on which news anchors brought them some sense of solace and predictability.  Walter Cronkite was, in his day, more trusted and admired than any American president.  And if you watched Meet the Press every Sunday morning, or remember Tim Russert's "Florida, Florida, Florida" little white chalkboard from the 2000 presidential election, then you came to see him as a trusted member of the family.  And losing a trusted member of the family hurts- badly.

Last but not least is Tim Russert himself, and what and whom he appeared to be.

There is a wonderful rabbinic commentary on the ancient ark that was to reside in the desert sanctuary and hold the tablets received by Moses on Sinai. The Torah teaches that the ark was to be coated in pure gold on both the inside and outside, leading the rabbis to see this as a metaphor for the person learned in Torah.  He, too, needed to be pure, and beautiful, on both the inside and the outside, not presenting as a gentle person to the public and showing a darker side when "off camera," so to speak.

Tim Russert was, by all accounts, the same on the inside and the outside.  All who knew him attest to the unaffected nature of this very powerful man.   What you saw was what you got.  He was a genuinely devoted father and husband, a loving son, a religious Catholic for whom faith was an anchor, a loyal friend and wonderful boss, and a celebrity who never forgot his humble roots in Buffalo. 

I think we mourn for him not least of all because he was real, despite his fame.  So many people in the public eye these days are creations of their handlers and "image people."  Tim Russert didn't need an image person, because he was an authentically integrated personality, and Americans intuited that.  We miss him for who he was both on and off the screen.

To be sure, the world continues to spin on its axis, the sun is shining by day and the moon by night.  Life goes on in its petty pace, and the real challenge here is not ours, but the Russert family's.  My heart goes out to them, as it does to all who suffer such a grievous loss.  But I, for one, have no trouble understanding why we feel his death so intimately.  TV can make you feel like you know a person when you don't.  But I think we actually did know Tim Russert, and like him.  And that's why he'll be missed.

PermaLink

Political Insider: ADL and Hagee Make Nice. But Will That End the Controversy?

So will the exchange of make-nice letters between ADL chief Abe Foxman and Pastor John Hagee tamp down the controversy swirling around the Christians United for Israel (CUFI) leader once an for all?

Don't bet on it; while Hagee seems to be winning growing support from top Jewish leaders, or at least acceptance of his sincerity as a supporter of the Jewish state, critics are unrelenting, and bloggers keep turning up new material mined from Hagee's sermons guaranteed to make some Jews uneasy.

Last week Foxman responded to a Hagee letter about the pastor's comments in a sermon suggesting that Hitler was a "hunter" sent by God to help bring the Jews back to Israel.

"In a sermon in 1999, I grappled with the vexing question of why a loving God would allow the evil of the Holocaust to occur," Hagee explained in his letter to ADL.  "I know how sensitive the issue of the Holocaust is and should be to the Jewish community and I regret if my Jewish friends felt any pain as a result.'"

Foxman responded with thanks.

"We are grateful that you have devoted your life to combating anti-Semitism and supporting the State of Israel," he wrote.  "We wholeheartedly support your efforts to eradicate anti-Semitism, including its historic antecedents in the Christian community. We especially appreciate your extraordinary efforts to rally so many in the Christian community to stand with Israel."

Foxman said ADL leaders "look forward to meeting with you to promote a dialogue between Christians and Jews based on mutual respect, reconciliation and the recognition of God's eternal covenant with the Jewish people."

(Read both letters here )

A leading Jewish critic brushed off Foxman's words.

"Hagee's apology is meaningless and Foxman is not forgiving Hagee's true offense -- his thought process," said Rabbi Haim Beliak, co-director of JewsOnFirst.Org, a Web site that  criticizes the domestic and foreign policy activism of the Christian right.  "Hagee has made it clear that he still believes that God is a cosmic bell boy who doles out punishment to whomever Hagee sees as an offensive sinner. He's just promised to tone down his statements."

And blogger Bruce Wilson, a relentless Hagee critic, said Hagee wasn't exactly telling the truth when he said the sermon in question dated from 1999.

"Hagee's 'God sent Hitler' sermon, the actual source of the controversy, was in fact given in late 2005," he wrote in the Huffington Post this week.  "In short, despite Pastor John Hagee's claims to the contrary, his 'God sent Hitler' sermon was anything but 'historic'. It was shockingly contemporary."

And Hagee's ministry organization continues to sell tapes of the sermon, he said.

Wilson also dug up a 2003 Hagee sermon "heavily loaded with anti-Jewish themes, stereotypes, slurs and conspiracy theories," the blogger wrote, including allegations about international banking cabals controlled by the Rothschilds.

There is also grumbling about Hagee coming fro Israel.

Writing in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz,  Knesset member Colette Avital referred to Hagee's Hitler sermon.

"The outrageous statement by Reverend John Hagee, an evangelist who disseminates his opinions not only in his church in Texas, but also through popular television broadcasts, is an example of extremist views that are being ignored by those who laud the support Israel gets from evangelicals," she wrote.

But anti-Hagee forces appear to be preaching to the choir; among major Jewish leaders, only Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, has been critical.

And efforts by anti-Hagee groups to convince Sen. Joe Lieberman to cancel his appearance as keynote speaker at Hagee's upcoming Washington conference have been unsuccessful.

Why is Hagee gaining ground?

 "People don't deny he writes this conspiracy stuff, but they see it as just kooky," said a prominent pro-Israel activist who said he has reservations about the expanding relationship with Hagee and his pro-Israel organization. "So it's easy to discount his conspiracy theories and his books about the apocalypse, and just welcome his support for Israel. People are able to separate the two."

"Jewish leaders believe he has repented for what he has said, and that he is now trying to deal sensitively with the Jewish community," said Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn.  "Having said that, there is a fundamental Jewish principle that says: give him honor, but be careful. Respect that the person has changed his mind, but keep your guard up."

PermaLink

Route 17: A Community Raw And Unformed

There will be hundreds of articles still to be published in Jewish newspapers and magazines in the next six months, but I have already identified one that is surely to be one of the most ridiculous of 2008.

The new issue of the very glossy "Jewish Living (June/July) has a big cover story, "Where We Live Now: Top Ten Neighborhoods" in North America to "raise a family, get involved, meet a mate, score a great nosh."

According to the magazine, "it's not merely size or even longevity that counts. Along with quantifiable criteria like the number and variety of synagogues, proximity to kosher restaurants, and options in day schools‚ all of which are included in our descriptions‚ we unearthed the qualifiable, as well. We have identified neighborhoods across the continent that are growing, rebuilding, reinventing themselves, unifying their disparate parts, and exploring our traditions in unconventional ways."

Fair enough. Here's the one neighborhood they pick in all of New York City, in the entire tri-state area: Soho-Tribeca.

In fact, other than Lower Merion in Philadelphia, we're told that Soho-Tribeca is the hottest Jewish neighborhood in the United States north of Florida and east of St. Louis.

Let's see, is it lacking kosher restaurants? Check.

Lacking a mikveh? Check.

Lacking a strong variety of shuls? Check.

Lacking day schools? Check.

In the magazine's own words, "the community is raw and unformed."

In the magazine's own words, the people are trying to create a Jewish community "where there has never been one."

What do the have? A Chabad - like 5,000 other neighborhoods.

They have a "post-denominational" shul "without walls," the SoHo Synagogue, "attracting a largely unaffiliated crowd," which means these people - sweet though they surely are -- have little to no experience with the nuts and bolts of community.

And those are the bragging points.

Oh, in the fall, "the 92nd Street Y will bring its hip uptown Makor arts and culture programs down to Tribeca." Makor is so hip it couldn't survive uptown where "there are more Jews per square inch than some parts of Israel," but we're supposed to believe that in Tribeca, where there are far fewer Jews, Makor will thrive. We're told of several other arts and culture options in Soho-Tribeca.

Look, I love Jewish arts and culture as much as the next guy, and probably more than most, but no Jewish neighborhood in New York ever thrived for long based on art but absent any day schools or serious big-time shuls appealing to the affiliated. That's right, the affiliated.

Art won't make the unaffiliated affiliate. It won't make too many people into serious Jews. I love James Joyce, the Boys of the Lough and the Clancy Brothers but that won't make me Irish. I can tell you lyrics to Leadbelly and The Temptations but that won't make me vote for Obama. The Lower East Side had the greatest Yiddish theater but the Yiddish theater closed and the Lower East Side shuls are still open for davening.

I don't think of myself denominationally - as Yitz Greenberg says, "I don't care what denomination you are as long as you're ashamed of it" - but I've never really been sold on shuls that get too cute about being post-denominational. A synagogue's denomination tells me what to expect. It tells me the shul has some basic theological coherence.

Of course, I wish Soho-Tribeca all the best and I admire what the people there are trying to build, but to tell me that this is already one of the "Top Ten Jewish Neighborhoods" is just silly, if not insulting to both readers and at least 30 other Jewish neighborhoods in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut that are not "raw and unformed" but terrific places to live and find community.

There's another list in the new issue of "Jewish Living," a guide to salami. The third best salami is "completely not kosher." Thanks, pal.

That's why I need a Jewish magazine, to help me find non-kosher meat, sure.

If "Jewish Living" made a list of the kind of Jewish reader they seem to have little use for, I'm their man: I'm kosher, I'm affiliated, I give a damn.

Of course, most Jews aren't and don't. I get it. Any kind of Jew is worth a loving look. A general newspaper or magazine would do a story on any of Abraham Lincoln's descendents, even if none of them were interested in politics. A Jewish newspaper or magazine can justify a story on any of Father Abraham's descendents, even if none of them were interested in God. I'm fine with that.

I almost never pass a baseball field where I don't stop to watch and even pick a team. I almost never see a new Jewish newspaper or magazine that I don't root for.

But I don't get where "Jewish Living's" kind of Jewish journalism is going. You don't see football magazines aimed at people who aren't really interested in football, or cooking magazines aimed at people who prefer eating in Wendy's.

It's hard to figure a specialty magazine aimed at people who don't think the specialty is all that special.

PermaLink

Political Insider:  J Street PAC Makes First Endorsements to Group of Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Process Candidates

J Street PAC, the new political funding group created to help candidates who support a more active U.S. peacemaking role in the Middle East, is moving quickly to put itself on the political map.

In a teleconference on Monday, executive director Jeremy Ben-Ami announced the group's first seven endorsements -- a mixed group of House incumbents and candidates who have one thing in common: they all want stronger action to advance the two-state solution President Bush insists is still a goal of his administration.

The group is bi-partisan - just barely, with one Republican.

For its initial electoral push, the group "specifically sought out newer voices in the American political scene - members with one or two terms of service, and candidates seeking election for the first time in November," said Ben-Ami.  "We believe fresh voices are needed on the national political scene to carry the message that a strong, sensible American foreign policy that will make resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict quickly and diplomatically is a priority."

What does the J Street endorsement mean in terms politicians understand the best - campaign dollars?

Ben-Ami said the new group's Web site will be an "online hub for large numbers of small donors who will contribute to the candidates we support.  We will also be actively soliciting funds from our network of supporters to provide financial support for the candidates we endorse."

And J Street's finance committee will be "committing up to $10,000" in donations to a "limited number of candidates we endorse,"  he said.  Decisions about  who will get the larger donations, he said, "will be made in the fall based on competitiveness and a range of other factors."

The list of initial endorsees includes Rep. Steve Cohen, the Jewish Democrat who represents a black majority district in Memphis, and Dennis Shulman, running to defeat a veteran House member from New Jersey.  Shulman, who recently won his party's nomination in the race, is a psychologist, a rabbi - and blind.

Also endorsed:  Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), a Lebanese-American lawmaker who last  year authored a letter with Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) calling for a reinvigoration of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process;  Darcy Burner, a Democratic House contender from Washington;  Donna Edwards, who was expected to win a special election to the House from Maryland this week; Debbie Halvorson, the Majority leader of the Illinois State Senate who is running for an open House seat ; and  Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio), also running for an open seat.

Ben-Ami said the group, which has raised $1 million so far, will eventually endorse "several dozen" candidates before voters go to the polls in November.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World:  Songs of Youth

PermaLink

Route 17:  RFK - 1968 And 1948

Regarding the previous post, "Sympathy for the Devil," here's a good piece in The Boston Globe that looks at the increasing awareness - 40 years late - of Bobby Kennedy as America's first victim of Palestinian terror.

In 1948, 20 years before his death, young Bobby was in Jerusalem covering Israel's War of Independence for another Boston paper, the old Boston Post.  Here are several of his interesting dispatches - insightful about Kennedy as well as Israel's birthpangs -- and some photos of young Kennedy in Israel.

PermaLink

Political Insider: New Air Force Chief a MOT

Remember the recent controversy over proselytizing at the U.S. Air Force Academy? And charges by some groups that the service branch has become a very uncomfortable place for religious minorities, including Jews?

That could change with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' appointment last week of a new Air Force chief.

His pick: Lt. General Norton Schwartz, a 1973 Air Force Academy graduate,  onetime cargo aircraft pilot and official Member of the Tribe.

According to the Web site Jews in Green, which serves Jewish members of the armed services, Schwartz received a Jewish Community Centers Armed Forces and Veterans Committee leadership award in 2004, at which time the general told the group he was "proud to be identified as a Jewish as well as an American military leader."

The changes at the top - Gates also appointed Michael Donley, currently a senior Pentagon official, as Secretary of the Air Force, the service's top civilian position -- come in the wake of several embarrassing incidents suggesting something less than competent management in the service.

Schwartz and Donley must still be confirmed by the Senate.

PermaLink

Political Insider: The Next Senator from Minnesota: A New York Jew, For Sure

It's official: Minnesota's Senate contest in November will feature two Jews, and that's no joke even though the Democratic challenger is a former Saturday Night Live humorist.

On Saturday comedian Al Franken won the right to challenge Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican who is seeking a second term.

There was a time when national Democrats saw Coleman -- a GOP loyalist in a state that was turning sharply against President Bush's policies in Iraq - as one of the most vulnerable Senate incumbents. Franken, a liberal with more than the  usual star quality, was supposed to cruise to an easy victory.

But Coleman, one of two Jewish Republicans in the U.S. Senate, has put some daylight between himself and the Bush administration, and the Franken campaign has been uneven.  Recently the comedian-turned-politician has been on the defensive  because of complaints about some of his sexually suggestive humor.

Many women in the state didn't find it particularly funny.

On Saturday he offered an apology at the convention of the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL), saying "It kills me that things I said and wrote sent a message ... that they can't count on me to be a champion for women, for all Minnesotans. I'm sorry for that. Because that's not who I am."

Most political oddsmakers say he now faces an uphill battle against Coleman in a state deeply divided between the liberal Twin Cities metropolitan area and deeply conservative western Minnesota. But a strong showing by Barack Obama, fueled by opposition to the Iraq war,  could boost the Franken campaign.

Jews are less than 1 percent of the population of Minnesota, so it's noteworthy that the next senator is guaranteed to be a New York City-born Jew.

PermaLink

A Rabbi's World:  You Are What You Eat

The recent federal raid at the Agriprocessors kosher meat plant in Postville, Iowa, and the accompanying allegations brought against the Rubashkin family and brand, represent a particularly sorry and damaging episode in the cause of religious Judaism in this country.

The Agriprocessors story, at least for me, is not about the hundreds of illegal aliens who were arrested.  That is a separate issue, and a very sad statement on the inability of our government to enact any kind of sane immigration policy.  That they were allegedly mistreated is nothing short of tragic, and a black stain on those who employed them. 

Nor is it about kosher meat or food.  One particular family business is at the center of this story, not kosher food.  That there is Chillul Hashem involved in the story- embarrassment to the cause of religious Judaism in general, and kashrut more specifically- is the collateral damage, if you will, of a particular business' lamentable labor practices. 

The truth is that the Agriprocessors story is but an egregious example of a much bigger issue for us in the traditional Jewish community, namely: what is the connection between the food that we eat, and the values that we espouse as Jews?

To be sure, this is not a new issue.  Vegetarians have been preaching this lesson forever, and many people within the kosher community long ago gave up eating veal, and some all red meat, because of ethical concerns.

But the Agriprocessors incident has brought into sharper focus a different dimension of the same issue, having to deal not with the animals themselves, but with the workers involved in the plants where the food is produced. 

The fundamental question is not whether the food is kosher; that is actually not the question.  No one is questioning the kashrut of the product.  The issue now before us is whether the means by which the food is produced need to meet ethical standards, and whether or not those standards are also part and parcel of Judaism's understanding of what kashrut is all about.

It is exactly this issue that, in the Conservative movement of which I am a part, gave rise to the creation of the Hekhsher Tzedek Commission, a joint project of the Rabbinical Assembly and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. 

The raison d'etre of Hekhsher Tzedek is to state clearly and unambivalently that issues like wages and benefits, employee health and safety, environmental impact and the like must also be a part of the kosher equation.

Our natural instinct when we think "kosher" is to associate the term with whether or not we may put the food in our mouths.  But kashrut is about holiness- it's all about holiness.

And it stands to reason that if the goal of kashrut is to sanctify ourselves and our lives, then closing our eyes to the abuse of those who are asked to produce the food is simply not acceptable.  The Hekhsher Tzedek Commission's goal is to create a new symbol to be placed on those kosher products whose producers are found to be corporately responsible, and adhering to proper treatment of workers and related employment issues.

Some have alleged that we in the Conservative movement are trying to "muscle in" on the Kashrut industry.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  Others have said that rabbinic supervisors are ill equipped to do what they see as human resources work, and that we are naïve.  Further, they argue, the kinds of standards that we are asking for in the industry will drive the price of kosher meat up.

Well, that just might be.  But if a lower price for kosher meat and poultry (such that there is such a thing) is possible only by exploiting the most vulnerable sectors of our society, not to mention violating the kinds of laws that virtually every food provision corporation in America is legally obliged to adhere to, then perhaps the time has come to either tighten our belts and pay more, or find other ways to satisfy our appetites.

Yes, I remember Nike, and I deplore sweatshops and unfair labor practices in whatever contexts or countries they rear their ugly heads.  But Nike and its ilk do not pretend to wrap themselves in a proverbial tallit and be about the quest for holiness.  For them, it's all about the money.  And when the kosher food industry becomes all about the money, and loses track of the other values that are inherently a part of the kosher equation, then we are all in trouble, and so is religious Judaism.  Yes, businesspeople are in business to make money.  But how?

Hekhsher Tzedek is an idea whose time has come, and Agriprocessors is the proof text.

PermaLink