Shame on the New York Times

The New York Times publsihed and edotirial excoriating CUNY for refusing to award playright Tony Kushner with an honorary degree.  Mr. Kushner has accused the State of Israel of many things, chief among engaging in the ethinic-cleansing of Palestinians.  A member of the CUNY Board of Trustees, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, led the campaign to withhold the degree from Kushner; claiming that Kushner's accusation crossed a red-line.  It should be noted that In the past he has voted in favor of awarding honorary degrees to individuals who have voiced criticsm of Israeli policies.

If the NY Times editorial board had any intellectual integrity it would censure both Kushner and Wiesenfeld. This editorial is the exemplar of hypocrisy. It calls Kushner's comments "not all that remarkable" and under the purview of "free speech and free thought" and demands that Wiesenfeld resign for expressing his thought which were not gategorical in nature. Would anyone of us not say that people who wish death for their children aren't human? The terrorists (and parents) who idoctrinate their children with hate and encourage them to strap explosive belts around their waists or engage in other forms of terror aren't human.  

The standard should be support and protection for free speech and academic freedom for all. The New York Times has a different standard: freedom of expression only applies if you articulate beliefs and opinions with which we agree.  Shame on them.

Our Innocence, Their Guilt

I give Robert Klitzman a lot of credit for sharing his grief with a worldwide audience, but then he turns to a political critique at the end of his New York Times op-ed piece and loses me when he states:

"When the members of Al Qaeda attacked on 9/11, Americans wondered, “Why do they hate us so much?” Many here believe they dislike us for our “freedom,” but I think otherwise.

There are lessons we have not yet learned. I feel Karen would share my concerns that underlying forces of greed and hate persevere. American imperialism, corporate avarice, abuses of our power abroad and our historical support of corrupt dictators like Hosni Mubarak have created an abhorrence of us that, unfortunately, persists. We need to recognize how the rest of the world sees us, and figure out how to change that. Until we do that, more Osama bin Ladens will arise, and more innocent people like my sister will die." (You can read the entire piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04klitzman.html?ref=opinion)

Yes, Robert, they hate us; they hate anyone who doesn't submit to their brand of Islam. Al Qaeda has killed as many if not more Muslims as it has non-Muslim Americans. As an American and a Jew (a favorite target of Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists) I agree for the need for self-reflection and critique (greed, avarice and other vices are certainly a part of American society which we need to confront), but we, the victims, are not responsible for the crime that was committed against us. Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda are (were) evil. We are not. They are Islamic imperialists who will continue to seek to kill, maim, and dominate Muslim and non-Muslims alike. They are the guilty ones, the perpetrators, and they must be defeated!

The Obligation to Confront and Destroy Evil

"Jesus may have overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple, but he never brought an army into Jerusalem."  That's how the woman sitting to my left responded to my attempt to explain how translating from one language to another is in and of itself a form of interpretation.  

In the case at hand, I was pointing out during my presentation this past Sunday evening on Judaism and Jewish belief at the First Congregational Church of Port Washington that the commandment "Lo tirtzah" which is commonly and mistakenly translated into english as "You shall not kill" really means in the original Hebrew "You shall not murder." (JPS)  Rev. Jeff Suddendorf, First Congregational's minister and my friend, pointed out with Bible in hand that the Newly Revised Standard Version is in fact faithful to the Hebrew and translates the prohibition as "You shall not murder."  I was delighted to point out to the laughter of those present that my Christian brothers and sisters had finally gotten it right!

That's when the rather serious looking woman to my left raised her hand and launched into a diatribe against the taking of life in any form and specifically the intervention in Libya.  It was at that moment that I realized I was dealing with a person who had an agenda and was waiting for that moment to interject her agenda regardless of the fact that it was at best tangential to the subject at hand.  My interlocutor it turned out was a retired Lutheran minister who failed to even flinch when I calmly responded to her assertion that killing in any way, shape or form is a sin by stating that Judaism values life above all else and that our tradition proclaims that to save one life is to save the whole world.  I went on to point out that Judaism seeks only a world without war and filled with peace, but it is not a religion of pacifism.  "There are times" I said, "when Judaism requires us to use force and, regrettably, to take life.  We are permitted to kill someone in self-defence."  I looked at the minister and said, "If you stand behind a tree with a knife and ambush me to kill me, my religion says that I have every right to defend myself even to the point of killing you."  Jewish law also permits us to take the life of another if they are pursuing ( in Hebrew a rodef) someone with the intent to commit murder.  

I closed my response by saying that I supported the foreign intervention in Libya because it exemplified the appropriate use of force against a dictator and evil man who had intentionally and willfully attacked and killed his own civilian population.  "Judaism," I said, "is a religion which seeks its followers to aspire to noble ideas and holy living, but it is also a realistic faith which recognizes that the world cannot be sustained and that noble ideals and holy living cannot be tenable if evil and injustice are left unchecked."  It was validating to see members of the audience politely clapping in silence in response to what I had said (if it had been a Jewish group they would no doubt had applauded with gusto!)

I thought of that unexpected exchange with Lutheran minister who, it turned out, is known for her very vocal and public pacifism, when I learned today of the bombing that took place on a crowded Jerusalem  bus.  I wondered, "Would my friend, the Lutheran minister, object to an Israeli police officer, soldier or civilian taking the life of the bomber before he could detonate himself and maim and kill innocent people?"  I get the feeling that with a misplaced and naive integrity she would say that the actions of the bomber and the person who would kill him in order to stop him would be guilty of committing the same sin.  I would say, the bomber is evil and must be stopped, the one who takes the bomber's life is a hero and should be admired for risking his life for the sake of others, and the victory of good over evil is that much more closer to attainment. 

Does Conservative Judaism Have a Future?

I don't know Rabbi Dana Evan Kaplan, but I like the way he thinks.

Rabbi Kaplan recently wrote a compelling and thought-provoking column about the challenges facing his movement, American Reform Judaism (you can read his column in its entirety at http://www.forward.com/articles/135476/#ixzz1EVN06X92).  Last July my RLI colleagues and I were sitting around our Friday night Shabbat tables at the Shalom Hartman Institute waiting for Kiddush to be recited.  One of my Reform colleagues shouted at me, "Jacob, we're the movement that's kicking your movement's butt!"  I don't quite recall what prompted the epithet that was said in jest.  I do remember every one laughing at my challenge to him to "step outside."  Implicit in my colleague’s comment was the contention that the Reform movement is in its ascent at the expense of a Conservative movement that is in its sharp descent.

Rabbi Kaplan argues that the days of such triumphalism in the Reform movement are over; Reform Judaism is facing a significant challenge to its survival as a viable, liberal Jewish stream.  The challenge, he claims, isn't related to structure (e.g. the efficient management of movement institutions like the Union for Reform Judaism) but rather theology.  It’s Reform Judaism’s theological principal of autonomy, or more specifically the movement’s extreme application of autonomy [my paraphrase] that’s jeopardizing Reform Judaism’s future.  The most prescient point of Rabbi Kaplan’s essay is found near its conclusion:

“One might think that most people would prefer a congregation that allows each member to find his or her own comfort level rather than one that requires all sorts of obligations, theological as well as ritualistic. That is not necessarily true.

Yes, many potential members are deterred by high upfront demands. But for those who join, the commitment is much greater. Since most of the members in a demanding congregation are deeply committed and religiously active, the collective religious experience is much more fulfilling. . . .There is a devil’s bargain being made between an often self-satisfied leadership and a mostly apathetic laity. Many Reform synagogues have large numbers on the books but few active participants. This unhealthy situation cannot continue indefinitely. We are now seeing the consequences of the benign neglect that has been plaguing Reform Judaism for many years.”

I’m sure that Rabbi Kaplan will have both his supporters and detractors.  Some will claim that he is right on the mark, others will accuse him of heresy, of betraying Reform Judaism’s big tent approach to Jewish life in North America.  As a Conservative Rabbi I’m not qualified to speak for what’s best for the Reform Movement, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.  I do, however, believe that Rabbi Kaplan’s cogent argument is applicable to the movement to which I have dedicated my life to perpetuating and serving – Conservative Judaism.

As a liberal, non-Orthodox Jewish stream Conservative Judaism runs the risk of seeking to remain relevant by positioning itself as a slightly more traditional version of Reform.  This approach is an affront to both movements.  I value Reform Judaism as a valid, legitimate path for those Jews who are intellectually unwilling to subscribe to a halakhic expression of Judaism, and I deeply respect and admire my Reform colleagues for their service to God and the Jewish people. 

Any attempt to make Conservative Judaism appear to be like Reform Judaism would undercut the raison d’être of the Conservative movement; the idea that Conservative Judaism best exemplifies a classical rabbinic expression of Judaism, a Judaism which embraces both halakha and modernity.

Rabbi Kaplan’s message should also resonate with those of us affiliated with the Conservative movement. If we want to stem the flight of Conservative Judaism’s “best and brightest” to Modern Orthodoxy – Conservative Jews who grew up in the movement (i.e. those who raised in Conservative synagogues, were active in USY, attended Camp Ramah, and were involved in KOACH on college campus) and are Conservative in terms of their theology but look to the Orthodox world for a like-minded observant community – we need to challenge our congregants to aspire to live by the core values that define what it means to be a Conservative Jew.  

We do have standards and practices that define who we are and we shouldn't be embarrassed or feel the need to apologize for that.  Fair minded and thoughtful people respect and are more likely to affiliate or remain with a group that they perceive has ethical and intellectual integrity.  There is truth to the notion that a congregation or a movement that demands and expects creates more committed and invested members. If Conservative Judaism competes for “market share” by adopting a theological approach that in essence says, “We can be everything to everyone” will we tragically become “nothing to no one.”  If that happens we don't deserve to survive.




Getting Older Has Its Benefits

I'm was feeling old, really old . . .

In just four days I turn 48, just two years shy of 50.  I know, I know, "80 is the new 50."  Which means "50 is the new 18."  But I don't feel it: my body takes longer to recover from the intense physical workouts I perform on my bike, I seem to sleep fewer and fewer hours each night, and my hair is getting more thin and more grey.  I'm not much into celebrating birthdays, and this year I was beginning to feel even less so.

No, I'm not experiencing a mid-life crisis.  That's not supposed to happen until I hit that magic number 80.  I'm just beginning to take stock of my life; thinking about what I want to accomplish personally and professionally with the years I have left.  I'm also realizing that there are some wonderful benefits that come with growing older.  First and foremost there is the the gratification that comes from watching your childen grow older as well guided by the values you hold dear, and sharing the same experiences you yourself have come to cherish.

My daughter is currently visiting Israel for the very first time with her 8th grade Jewish day school class.   I've been to Israel close to 30 times and I'd always wanted to accompany her on her first trip but it just wasn't meant to be.  That's o.k. I've been savoring every moment of our daily chats (she just called to wish us a Shabbat shalom from Tel Aviv).  Hearing the excitement in her voice about her visit to Machane Yehuda, about eating a felafel at Moshiko's and climbing up on a Merkava tank at Latrun (the museum and memorial to Israel's armored division) has given me an unquantifiable amount of joy.  In short, watching my daughter fall in love with Israel has made getting older for me a tremendous b'rakha (blessing).   I now look forward to aging, to seeing my son walk on the same streets of Israel that I've walked and his older sister has tread, and watching both of my children living their Judaism and Zionism with passion.   Yes, getting older does have its benefits.

Is a Middle East Without Hosni Mubarek Good for Israel?

"Rabbi, what was it like to be in Israel during the protests in Egypt?"  I've been asked this question more than any other since I returned recently from Israel.  People are sincerely curious about how the tumult in Cairo, Alexandria and other major Egyptian cities was/is being viewed in Israel.

My answer has been and remains the same.  Israelis are deeply concerned about the unrest in Egypt.  At no time did I or anyone I talked with during my recent visit feel in any way endangered.  We walked the streets, shopped and dined with a sense of absolute peace and security.  That being said, Many Israelis were certainly glued to their televisions following the ever evolving situation in Tahrir Square.  News programs were filled with the commentary and analyses of Israel's top political experts.  And for the most part, those experts all shared the same concerns: how will the unrest impact Egyptian-Israeli bi-lateral relations?  If Hosni Mubarek falls will Israel's cold peace with Egypt come to an end?  Will an Egyptian government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood pose a grave threat on Israel's southern border?  Will Israel be able to find any friends in the Middle East now that Turkey and Egypt seem lost?

These are all serious and very real concerns, and they're held by average Israelis, not just by the foreign policy experts.  They also appear to be shared by the U.S. State Department and the Obama Administration.   They don't seem, however, to be shared by folks like Nicholas Kristoff and Thomas Friedman, both columnists for The New York Times.  Both have hailed the protests in Egypt as a harbinger of democracy in a long-standing autocratic state.  Kristoff has been so effusive in his admiration for those gathered in Tahrir Squar that he exclaimed in a recent column, "We are all Egyptians" (www.nytimes.com/2011/02/04/opinion/04kristof.html?_r=1&ref=nicholasdkristof).  I don't ever recall Kristoff claiming that "We are all Israelis" during the many years when Israel was the target of suicide bombers and katusha rockets, but that's another sermon.  Neither Friedman nor Kristoff have any real apprehension of an Islamist hijacking of the movement to oust Mubarek and replace his corrupt and oppressive government.  

I wish I could join these two venerable journalists in their naive political analysis.  The fact is the Muslim Brotherhood is a shrewd and politically adept organization; one which ably survived decades of suppression by the Mubarek government.  It knows that in its neighborhood it can say one thing while actually doing another.  I seriously doubt that the Muslim Brotherhood has jettisoned its hardline Islamist platform or its hatred of Israel.  If the Muslim Brotherhood successfully seizes control by taking advantage of Egypt's transition to "democracy" the consequences will be dire for the Jewish State.  With the exception of its eastern border Israel would be surrounded by hostile enemies bent on its destruction.  

As the facts on the ground in Egypt change with each and every minute we will soon know if Egypt will join Israel as the only other truly democratic nation in the Middle East or if it will pose an existential threat to that only democracy.

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

Good morning from Newark International Airport! 

I’m back in the States after an absolutely tremendous week of study at the Shalom Hartman Institute.  The theme of the RLI (Religious Leadership Initiative) winter session was focused on ethics.  Sessions ran the gamut from “The Ethics of Shabbat” to “The Ethics of Purim.”  My teachers were exceptional as always.  It’s such an honor to study with scholars who are at the forefront of Jewish learning.  I never thought that my educational experience at JTS would ever be eclipsed.  I was wrong.  Each time I study at Hartman I appreciate how lucky and fortunate I am to be exposed to the cutting edge scholarship which has made the Institute famous throughout the Jewish world. 

I also walked away from the winter retreat enriched by the experience of studying with my rabbinic colleagues b’havruta (in small groups prior to a teacher’s shiur (lecture), sharing ideas with them as well as learning something new and innovative from each of them.  This winter I finally had the opportunity to study with my friend and colleague, Rabbi David Cohen.  During the year Rabbi Cohen is my designated havruta partner.  We study together in preparation for our weekly Hartman distance learning sessions.  Last July Rabbi Cohen was completing his studies at the Institute for Jewish Spirituality, which prevented him from joining our RLI cohort for the beginning of the program.  It was so great to finally study with him in Jerusalem, to walk its sidewalks with him, and to hang on for dear life as he drove on its streets!  I’d even go out on a limb and say that the “trains, planes and automobiles” journey we shared to get back to Milwaukee (we’re actually still in process) in the wake of the blizzard that struck the east coast and Midwest in the last two days has been blast; although I wouldn’t want to do it again.  I’m really blessed to have such an exceptional colleague with which to share my Hartman RLI experience.  Learning and collaborating together is good for the two of us, for our respective congregations and for the Milwaukee Jewish community.

In four short months we’ll both be back at Machon Hartman for our July seminar.  I’m looking forward again to studying at the “Harvard University of the Jewish world” in the Jewish world’s holiest city, Jerusalem!