This Ad Isn't Helping Israel, Guys

‘Killing Jews is Worship’ posters will soon appear on NYC subways and buses

So first off, I don't understand the judge's decision. Must the MTA accept all advertising? So if I want to create an ad featuring a naked woman straddling an armadillo with the message, "Time to ride the horny armadillo," the MTA can't say no? They've just got to roll with it?

I'm all for free speech, but there's nothing in the 1st Amendment that says a publisher HAS TO publish anything it receives. Otherwise, my very convincing article about how we actually evolved from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles who were warped back in time (as alluded to in the classic video game, "Turtles in Time") would have been published in the New York Times.

Secondly, Washington Post reporter Michael Miller writes, "Making the case all the stranger is that the posters are not the work of an Islamist group, but rather a pro-Israel organization." But is the "American Freedom Defense Initiative" even pro-Israel? Because this ad does nothing to convince anyone to support Israel. It does the exact opposite.

The most convincing argument among liberals inclined against Israel is that "the country is not a place of freedom and justice, but a place where Arabs and Muslims are subjugated, segregated and subjected to discrimination and prejudice." All this ad does is, well, reveal that this supposedly pro-Israel group believes "all Muslims are terrorists." Which plays into the hands of Israel's critics. If critics call you a country founded on prejudice... maybe don't launch an ad campaign that highlights your prejudicial viewpoint?

If you want to place an ad convincing people to support Israel, then why not create an ad like this:

That took me all of 2 seconds, so excuse the clunky language. My ad team will refine it in our brainstorming sessions. But hell, it makes a much better point. It's easy to say Israel shouldn't exist, that Israel is an apartheid state. But what do you want instead? Gaza?

What other country in the Middle East would you hold up as an example of equal human rights? What other place could an Arab and a Jew even consider having a friendship? That's the best argument for Israel-- its government may be a right-wing nut factory, its rights record sometimes spotty, its military sometimes overzealous (sounds kinda like a country closer to home) but Israel is the only functional democracy in the Middle East that doesn't punish its people with Sharia law and allows freedom of expression (Israel is the only country in the region to have a free press, according to freedomhouse.org). It's not an evil country, hanging gay people, stoning women, arresting and torturing dissenters. It's an imperfect country, but so is the United States.

And yet the American Freedom Defense Initiative's ad plays up the viewpoint of the far-right-wingers, the messianic settlers, many of whom--just like the far-right-wingers in America---are xenophobic, racist, bigots. There are some people in Israel who believe all Muslims are terrorists, just like a lot of people in Texas do. But they're not representative of Israel. As much as the American Freedom Defense Initiative's ad makes them out to be.

I looked into this group (again, something that took me 2 seconds) and I have to disagree with reporter Michael Miller's characterization of the AFDI as a "pro-Israel group." Up until recently, the organization was actually called "Stop Islamization of America," which, as the name suggests, had little to do with supporting Israel and everything to do with spreading anti-Islamic rhetoric. Knowing this, it's clear the ad isn't aimed at convincing anyone to support Israel. It's aimed at spreading anti-Islamic hatred. Something the judge in this case should have realized.

If I were the MTA, I'd defy the judge's order. But since I'm not, I can only urge this. Deface every one of these stupid ads you see. Tear them, write over them in permanent marker, cover them in stickers. Because this ad is not how to support Israel. Not if our desire is for peace and prosperity for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Hate may grab attention. But love wins hearts.

Benjamin Netanyahu's Unsustainable Bubble

The most dangerous threat to Israel isn't the Palestinians, or Iran. The gravest threat is Benjamin Netanyahu.

I've written before about my skepticism that Netanyahu really believes in the peace process. A day away from elections that could cast him out of power, he removed all doubt. There will be no two-state solution as far as he's concerned. Ever.

The mask is off now. For all of Netanyahu's protestations that Israel lacks a true partner in the peace process, that Fatah is corrupt and powerless, that Hamas will quickly undermine any deal-- it's clear now that Netanyahu was never paying anything but lip service to the idea of a peace plan. From his public statements, it's clear he believes that there can never be a Palestinian state that doesn't jeopardize Israel's security.


What then, is the answer he proposes? It's very clear from the policies he's supported as Prime Minister.

1. Restrict Palestinians' travel and ability to organize.

2. Strengthen and expand Iron Dome to prevent rocket attacks.

3. Secure borders with walls and high-tech monitoring.

4. Expand settlements to establish buffer zones and drive Palestinians out of strategic areas.

5. Use American money and diplomatic power to keep other countries out of it.

Netanyahu's 5-points of darkness security strategy, from his perspective, and the perspective of many Israelis, has worked so far. Israel is suffering far less casualties from terrorism than it suffered in the past. It faces no real conventional military threat. It's safer to live in Israel now than at any point during its history. Basically, Netanyahu has enclosed Israel in a bubble, and he doesn't care much about what's happening outside of it.

Yet it's a remarkably cruel and short-sighted strategy. The long-term downside to living in a bubble  should be evident to anyone who bothers to think about the future-- for Israel and the Palestinians.

With no Palestinian state on the table, Israel continues its control of the Palestinian territories, expands Jewish settlements, ignores the basic needs of the Palestinians and crowds them into ever worsening conditions-- effectively confirming the beliefs of all those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state. Meanwhile, Israel isolates itself diplomatically and ostracizes its only reliable ally, the United States. Billions of dollars are wasted on maintaining security structures. The Palestinian territory remains a thorn in Israel's side that erupts in flares of violence, followed by severe, disproportionate crackdowns that resemble, more and more, acts of ethnic cleansing (drawing international condemnation and provoking acts of antisemitism towards Jews worldwide). In this scenario, "peace" only comes when Israelis effectively subjugate the Palestinians to the point where their population numbers and passions no longer pose a threat and the territory can be officially absorbed into Israel. And that's really the best case scenario for how this all shakes out-- it's a long, violent, conflict-riddled road to even get to that horrifically xenophobic vision of the future. It's much more likely that eliminating peace as a viable option ends up further radicalizing both sides until an all-out war erupts and forces other countries to intervene.

That's what most of us Jews have sworn would never happen. We're not the Nazis. We've suffered thousands of years of persecution, we would never seek to decimate another group. "We don't want the Palestinians gone, we want them to stop attacking us." That's always been the noble refrain: Israel doesn't want to destroy the Palestinians, the way many of them want to destroy Israel.

The only justification for Israel's management of the Palestinian territories has been to assure Israel's security while working to establish permanent peace. If you ditch the second part, then you basically concede the argument to all the antisemites and Israel-haters--"You're right, we don't want the Palestinians here."

Is that the Israel that Israelis want? To drop the noble intentions of living side by side in peace, and instead declare manifest destiny--Israel, and only Israel, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan? Israel in a bubble, blowing bigger and bigger, while those standing in the way get smothered?

That may be Netanyahu's plan, but we'll soon see if the voters agree. Right now, polls have Netanyahu trailing his more moderate rivals. That gives me some hope that the noble cause is not yet lost.

After all, bubbles, as we know, have a tendency to pop.

-----
Update 3/18: Well, Bibi appears to have enough support to form a coalition. Jonathan Chait published an article today that echoes my concerns:

"Netanyahu’s comments present a coherent and chilling vision of his long-term strategy. His intention is to maintain singular Israeli control in perpetuity over the entire territory that the early Zionists were once happy to partition into two states. This course will eventually lead to pressure for Palestinians to gain a democratic voice within the institutions that control their lives, but Netanyahu treats that as illegitimate, as well. He proposes to snuff out every peaceful outlet for Arab political aspirations."

Somehow, America survived the lunacy of George W. Bush (even though his actions gave the world ISIS and destroyed our economy). Hopefully, Israel will survive Netanyahu.

Is Birthright is Responsible For An American Kid's Death? No.

My Birthright Israel Group (guy with the gun is our security guard)

According to Allison Benedikt, the death of an American boy who joined the Israeli army in their battle against terrorists is partially the fault of Birthright Israel, the program for young American Jews that sends them to Israel, all expenses paid, for 10 days and teaches them about the country and its people. If Max Steinberg hadn't gone on Birthright, she says, he never would have joined the IDF, and would still be alive today.

There's a lot of finger pointing going on as the latest Gaza-Israel crisis drags on, but this is a new low.

The mission of Birthright, as quoted by Benedikt, is to "ensure the continuity of the Jewish people by strengthening Jewish identity, Jewish communities, and solidarity with Israel." Nowhere in this mission statement is joining the army mentioned. Yet Benedikt writes, "Though most trip alumni do not join the IDF (Birthright’s spokeswoman told me they don’t keep track), to do so seems like the ultimate fulfillment of Birthright’s mission—the ultimate expression of a Jew’s solidarity with Israel is to take up arms to defend it."

Yes, apparently "solidarity" = becoming an Israeli soldier.

Soldiers in training, according to Benedikt

This couldn't be further from the truth. Birthright Israel is really about one thing, and that's getting Jewish boys and girls to make babies together. Everything about the trip points out the precariousness of the Jewish people, our shaky place in the world, something not always evident within the upper middle class Jewish communities of the United States, where, by and large, we're free from antisemitism and generally accepted. The biggest threat to Jews today is not Hamas, but intermarriage, conversion and secularism, which is achieving over many generations what Hitler attempted to do in just one. For many Jews today, being Jewish is watching Curb Your Enthusiasm and enjoying lox on a bagel... and if that's the extent of it, then what about the next generation? What kind of faith will they pass on?

Orthodox communities are growing--with the amount of children they produce, that's a given. But the middle-of-the-road, Conservative Judaism movement that gave me my upbringing and once served as a model for modern Judaism is falling apart. This brand of Judaism doesn't pretend someone is dead if they marry outside the faith... and while that's the right thing to do, it means that subsequent generations are one step further removed from the culture and beliefs that withstood the Spanish Inquisition, the crusades and Hitler. It means as time goes on, American Jews are becoming simply Americans. The Jewish part, the part that survived centuries of persecution, is being lost.

Birthright Israel attempts to restore a sense of duty to maintaining this Jewish identity-- that even if we do choose to intermarry, even if we don't share the religious beliefs of our ancestors, we have a responsibility to keep the ideals and beliefs of Judaism alive. For most Birthright participants, this may mean going to synagogue a bit more often, celebrating Shabbat on Friday nights, or simply educating themselves more about Judaism and Jewish history. For others, they may seek out a Jewish spouse (maybe the girl they hooked up with on their trip).

Joining the IDF is something apart from that. Yes, on my Birthright trip, we spent time with kids our own age who wore IDF uniforms. But none of us joined the IDF. Instead, one member of our group fell in love with one of them. Teddy from California and Shilana from Tel Aviv have been together for close to five years now. That's the endgame.

Benedikt writes, "What makes an American kid with shaky Hebrew and no ties to the state of Israel suddenly decide he is ready to make this sacrifice? Maybe Max was especially lost, or especially susceptible, or maybe he was just looking to do some good and became convinced by his Birthright experience that putting on an IDF uniform and grabbing a gun was the way to do it."

Max Steinberg's sense of duty extended to fighting for Israel, the same way so many young Americans join the military here, in the United States. But it's a decision separate and apart from a 10-day program aimed at getting Jewish kids to bone each other. Max could have moved to Israel later in life, waiting until he aged out of military service (age 30). Instead, he chose to join the IDF even sooner than he legally was required to as a new immigrant (olim, as they're called, have 1 year of acclimation-- Max signed up six months after his Birthright trip), and joined an elite sharpshooting force voluntarily. He didn't have to do any of that. Birthright certainly didn't tell him to, unless I was in the bathroom when everyone else was taking target practice.

It's clear Benedikt sees Birthright as a brainwashing organization: "It turns out that it’s not that hard to persuade young people to see the world a certain way and that Birthright is very good at doing it. You spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince young Jews that they are deeply connected to a country that desperately needs their support? This is what you get."

Except it's not what you get. You get Teddy and Shilana. You get me. You get the thousands of other participants who did not join the IDF, but have a deeper appreciation for their roots. Max's brother and sister, who were on the same Birthright trip, did not make the same decision. Perhaps they were just snoozing when Birthright made the "take up arms for Israel" pitch?

Max is dead because of a Hamas gunman. That's it.  Pointing a finger at Birthright is shifting blame away from the people with guns, rockets and bombs. And that's where the blame should lie.

Is It Too Late For Peace In The Middle East??

"The two great tragedies in modern Middle Eastern politics, which make you wonder if God wants Middle East peace or not, were [Yitzhak] Rabin's assassination and [Ariel] Sharon's stroke." --Former President Bill Clinton

I agree with Bill 100%. He points out that Rabin and Sharon were the only leaders of Israel willing to make a hugely unpopular decision in order to secure a peace deal: give up the vast majority of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

If you've ever been to Israel, you know why this proposition is so frightening to Israelis. Israel is not a large country--at its narrowest point, only 9.3 miles--and every inch of territory they give up provides potential terrorists with a variety of new targets easily reachable by rockets and suicide bombers. East Jerusalem is literally on top of the holiest place in the Jewish religion. The Arab market and the Jewish one are only footsteps from each other. If the Palestinian Authority has control of such strategic areas, then all of Israel is threatened should Arab armies try to destroy the country (as they've already attempted to do at least twice).

These are legitimate fears, but they are fears that come with a cost. That cost is a lasting peace agreement, Israel's only realistic hope for continued survival.

As a leader, Netanyahu has used these fears to justify settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which has accelerated at a pace not seen since Israel's initial founding. The territory these settlements occupy are like long roots reaching deep into the West Bank, and they complicate the reality of a viable Palestinian state. Just look at this mess:

(VIA the New York Times)

The orange areas are the largest concentrations of settlements (red dots are all the settlements). Can you see why the Palestinians are a bit bothered by Netanyahu's stance? The settlements are a land grab, even if you want to call it a "buffer zone."

It is Netanyahu's actions--primarily his support and encouragement of the growing settlements-- that led to today's dramatic events: Palestine has asked to be formally recognized as a country by the U.N.

The request from Abbas comes amidst a U.N. that is increasingly willing to accept it. And that willingness doesn't arise from anti-semitism, it arises from Israel's failure over the past few years to show even the slightest willingness in negotiating a settlement. Netanyahu hasn't even maintained the status quo-- he's actively been promoting new settlements which make a peace deal that much harder to reach.

Such a policy may be popular among right-wing Israelis, and even moderate and liberal Israelis do not exactly trust the idea of "land for peace." But by acting as an instigator, instead of a voice of reason, Netanyahu has seriously undermined any real effort to bring Israel and Palestine to a workable compromise at the bargaining table.

What has Netanyahu's hard line stance accomplished? Besides win him votes? Israel's popularity and negotiating position within the world community has declined, the Palestinians are closer than ever to creating a nation on their terms, rather than a negotiated settlement with Israel, and the relationship between Israel and its greatest, most important ally, the United States is strained considerably.

Assuring Israel's security is one thing. Undermining Israel's security to win elections and score points with the powerful ultra-religious lobby is another. A peace agreement assures Israel that it has a leg to stand on. The current situation leaves Israel continually twisting in the wind, at the mercy of politics and the whims of world leaders.

Clinton, Rabin and Sharon all understood this. They recognized that a peace deal wouldn't just create a Palestinian state... it would forever legitimize the Israeli one.

Israel Is Not A Threat To Peace, Hamas Is



I shouldn't have to write the statement above. It should be obvious. Israel is a democratic nation with a long history of attempts to make peace with its neighbors. Hamas is a terrorist organization with a long history of blowing people up in nightclubs and buses.

But recent events have even got Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blaming the Israelis for derailing the peace process. And I wonder just what Barack and Hillary are basing that on. That Israelis are building some new houses in a part of Jersusalem that would most likely be part of Israel anyway if a peace plan came to pass?

Let's get the facts straight. The Jerusalem suburb of Ramat Shlomo is NOT an Arab suburb. It's not a Palestinian suburb. Ramat Shlomo didn't exist before 1995. It was built and settled by Haredi Jews. It is NOT in the disputed East Jerusalem territory, which Palestinians want for their capital. It might be close by, but it is not in any territory that was once settled heavily by Arabs.

Furthermore, Hamas, as justification for their "Day of Rage" (which involved rock throwing at soldiers and general rioting), claimed that the Jews built a synagogue next to the Al-Asqa Mosque, as part of a fiendish plan to eventually annex the mosque territory and destroy it. Nevermind the fact that the Al-Asqa mosque is more than four football fields away, on top of the Temple Mount (which Israel has placed in the hands of the Muslims ever since its independence), that the synagogue was built in the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, and that the synagogue replaces the one built in the 1800s that was desecrated and destroyed by Jordan in 1948. When Israel rebuilt the synagogue, they maintained, rather than destroyed, the Muslim minaret that the Arabs had built on the site.

So what has Israel done wrong? They've built more houses for Jews in a place where Palestinians NEVER lived, in a place where more than 18,000 Jews already live. They've built a synagogue in the JEWISH quarter of Jerusalem, where a synagogue already stood. My God! What ANIMALS!!!!!

Hillary and Obama have to get their facts straight. They reacted to a pro-Hamas press release, and by declaring Israel to be out-of-line, gave Palestinian extremists ammunition to rally their cause. It would be a non-issue if Obama had said, "We're looking at the new building activity and examining whether it runs afoul of the peace process." Instead, he regurgitated the first thing he was told by some anti-Semite.

I just returned from Israel. In Jerusalem, I saw a city where anyone who wants to worship can worship in the way they please, without the threat of violence. I walked through the Muslim quarter, where a mob of little arab children, fresh from school, ran through the streets chanting "Allah Akbar," "God Is Great," with not one Israeli soldier batting an eye (even when a few of the kids spat on and pushed members of our tour group). I witnessed an Israeli government that strives to create a place where all religions can operate freely and pray in peace. Even when some of those people throw rocks at them.

Can we say the Palestinians would do the same? If, when, they receive East Jerusalem, will it be a place where any tourist from a non-Muslim nation can ever go? Will it be a place where any Christian or Jewish ruins or holy sites will be safe from desecration and destruction?

We've seen how they respond to a slight that wasn't even a slight. How will they respond once the Israeli soldiers pull out, and there's no one stopping these riots from exploding?

Personally, I fear for the day. And any reasonable person should too.

You tell me: Is Ramat Shlomo (A) in EAST Jerusalem?

Human Rights Watch Is Just A Bunch Of Nazis

I've complained before about the organization, "Human Rights Watch." I never signed up to receive their literature in my mail, but somehow, after donating to John Kerry (Boy, was that a mistake), I got put on their mailing list. The majority of the stuff they send me compares Israel to apartheid-era South Africa, accuses the Jewish state of slaughtering Palestinians, and then asks me for money.

There are legitimate reasons to criticize Israel, and a definite imbalance between the power held by Jews and the considerably less power held by Israeli Arabs. However, the extreme tactics of divestment and anti-Israel boycotts ignore the complex problems of the region and seem to place the blame squarely on the Israeli government and its people. Anyone with a high-school level understanding of the Middle East knows its not that simple. Let me put it this way: Israel doesn't strap bombs to its citizens' chests and send them into packed Palestinian discos. They also don't randomly launch rockets into civilian city centers.

Instead of urging both sides to reach a compromise solution, Human Rights Watch seems determined to demonize and bring down Israel, or at the very least, dissolve it as a Jewish state. Now I finally know why.

They're Nazis:

A leading human rights group has suspended its senior military analyst following revelations that he is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia.

The group, Human Rights Watch, had initially thrown its full support behind the analyst, Marc Garlasco, when the news of his hobby came out last week. On Monday night, the group shifted course and suspended him with pay, “pending an investigation,” said Carroll Bogert, the group’s associate director.

What is there to investigate??

Let's pretend for a moment that Marc Garlasco isn't a Nazi fan, that he is simply a fashionista who admires the stitching on the Swastika patches. Somewhere along the line, that Nazi uniform Garlasco lovingly caresses at night was worn by a man who killed Jews. And somewhere along the line, it was sold. Where did that money go? Very likely, at some point it went to a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer. Marc Garlasco, representative of a group that claims to be against genocide, SUPPORTED PROPONENTS OF THE WORST GENOCIDE MANKIND HAS EVER KNOWN.

Does that really need an investigation?

How could Human Rights Watch even have "initially thrown its full support" behind Garlasco? When you hear somebody's harboring Nazi memorabilia, is your first instinct, He's a good guy? I would hope not. The idea that somebody gets his rocks off purchasing Nazi merchandise and displaying it proudly sickens normal human beings. Apparently, not those at Human Rights Watch.

The blog-led investigation can be read here. He's actually a lot kinder to Garlasco than I would be. There's no excuse to be a part of a community that celebrates Nazis. He was "fascinated?" The kid in "Apt Pupil" was "fascinated" with Nazis too.

A Two State Solution Is The Only Solution For Israel

Stephen Walt of Foreign Policy magazine lays out the case simply. The only way Israel can continue to exist is the two-state solution: Israel right beside a Palestinian state. Anything less, and Israel risks becoming a country much like South Africa, willfully subjugating a group of people in order to maintain power.

There is concern that Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, does not want a two-state solution. After all, he's one of Israel's most prominent right-wing hawks. But Walt's article points out that an Israel divided into Israelis and Arabs cannot stand. The only way Israel can remain a Jewish nation is if the majority of its people remain Jewish. And the only way to do that, outside of Nazi-like relocation or genocide, is to cut off the parts of Israel which aren't Jewish, and let those parts form a Palestinian state. Two states, side by side, or no Israel at all.

So if a two-state solution is inevitable, assuming the leaders in Israel want to maintain the Jewish state, then all efforts must be made now to make it happen. For years this has been cast as the Palestinian fight-- they're the ones "fighting for freedom." But perhaps it is Israel, and Jews everywhere, that should be fighting for a Palestian state.

It's a radical idea-- that Jews should help the Palestinians. But perhaps its the only idea that makes sense. The Arab countries have paid lip service to the Palestinian cause. With all their money from oil, they'd rather build show cities like Dubai than build roads in Palestine. Jews have been generous to Israel, but perhaps their aid is misplaced. As my guide on my Israel trip said: "Israel doesn't need money. It needs Jews." And while I'm sure he didn't mean "give your money to the Palestinians," maybe that's where aid should focus-- to hasten the day when handing the keys of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to Palestine won't be an unmitigated disaster.

After all, a healthy, stable Palestinian state is in Israel's best interests. And if that state owes a debt of gratitude to Israeli and Jewish outreach, it's less inclined to act violently against the remaining land of Israel.

We can be cynics, and say that the Palestinians will use their own country as a staging ground to "finish the job" and destroy Israel forever(if you've ever been to Israel, you know how tenuous a strip of land the remaining Jewish state would encompass). Certainly the Gazans have shown what happens when Israel leaves and the crazier parts of the Palestinian cause take over. But its clear that Israel can't continue to be an occupying force, no matter how benevolent it tries to be. At some point, a Palestinian state has to be created... and it might as well be created on firm ground, on favorable terms, by an act of Israeli generosity.

Perhaps instead of putting the nation's energies towards expanding already thin Jewish settlements into hostile territories, Israel should implore the world to contribute to building a stable nation of Palestine. Ask the Arab countries first. Lets see if they put their money where their mouth is. Once the proper infrastructure is built, then Israel can begin the troublesome, more difficult task of making a peaceful transition of power.

Unrealistic? One needs only to look at the Balkans, once torn by hatred between ethic groups, which now has achieved a measure of stability. Separate ethnically-based nations can be carved out of one mixed bag, but it can't be a haphazard job. Palestine isn't nearly developed enough to stand on its own yet. The economic state of the Palestinians must be improved before they can be trusted to make decisions based on the common good, and not age old grudges. And it will take commitment from the people who have the most to lose--the Jews-- to make it happen.

"Welcome Home," To Israel

They were the first words we heard when we arrived at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel, 40 young Jewish adults, 18-26, here to enjoy a free trip courtesy of an organization called Birthright: "Welcome Home." Over the next ten days, we were to learn exactly what those two words meant.

In our orientation on the first day, Momo Lifshitz, the president of Oranim, the tour operator that organized our trip, told us that "everybody in Israel is Jewish." While not literally correct, (as one loudmo..er... opinionated girl in our group pointed out) his point was clear: In America, being Jewish can mean you're the one kid in class eating matzah while everyone else shares Easter candy. You're the guy who awkwardly has to correct someone when they wish you a Merry Christmas. In Israel, you're someplace where you don't have to explain why you've never eaten bacon or what a bar mitzvah is. Just like everybody in America is Christian, everybody in Israel is a Jew.

Was this what they meant by "Welcome Home"?

Yariv


Our guide, Yariv, introduced himself, and Israel. "Israel is a tiny country," he pointed out, cutting off segments on the map with a red pen that Israel had either given up or withdrawn from, plus uninhabitable desert, and places which will inevitably become part of a Palestinian state.

I knew that map well. In fact, I was pretty bored. I learned all this stuff... when were we going to do something?

Tsfat


Our first stop was the town of Tsfat, in northern Israel. One of the four holiest cities in Judaism, it is the home of Jewish Mysticism-- otherwise known as Kabbalah. Sadly, there were no Madonna sightings.

We did, however, meet Avraham, a guy from Detroit who, unlike other Detroit youth, got hooked on Kabbalah instead of drugs. No matter. Kabbalah seems to have had a similar effect on Avraham. He's grown out his hair, become an "artist" and has devoted his life to his addiction.

Thankfully, the side effects of being addicted to Kabbalah seem minimal. Avraham hasn't yet broken up A-Rod's marriage or starred in any movie as bad as "The Next Best Thing."

"Kabbalah believes that there is nothing but G-d," Avraham said. "Nothing in life is a coincidence. Everything we go through in our everyday lives is actually a spiritual transformation, helping us get closer to G-d and his infinite goodness. How awesome is that?"

So that time I got "pantsed" at high school football practice in front of the girl's soccer team was a spiritual transformation? Gee, thanks big guy!

Still, interesting, and much more complex a concept than I've described here. For instance, Kabbalah states that despite this idea of divine fate, there is free will: how we exercise it gets us closer (or further) from others and the spiritual workings of the world.

Something that interested me the most was what Avraham said about Kabbalah's beliefs about people's names. "Every person's name has a deep meaning about that person," he said. Names can say alot about someone's personality.

I was skeptical. First of all, I'm nothing like the two other Adams that were in my class in middle school. Secondly, a name is given to you just as you're getting the afterbirth washed off. Sure, we all know Picabo Street is named so because her parents were hippies and let her name herself at a young age, when "Peek-a-boo" was her favorite game. But when normal parents name you, they don't know how you'll turn out...

"But G-d does," Avraham would answer.



Ok, I'll give him that. Even more interesting was what he said about our names being a link to the past. Every Jewish child, in addition to an English name, is given a Hebrew name. In some cases, they are the same. In my case, not. Much like the Christian tradition of naming children after their father, Hebrew names tend to be taken from either a parent or grandparent. My Hebrew name is Y'hezkel. It was my grandfather's. Avraham pointed out that it was most likely my grandfather's grandfather's Hebrew name as well, since they were likely strong followers of Jewish tradition.

If a name says a lot about your personality, and I have in my possession a name that an ancient ancestor of mine had, then through my Hebrew name, I can connect with my ancestors. I can find out the meaning of my Hebrew name, and get an idea of what my great-great-great-great grandfather was like. It's an interesting concept. And even if its complete hooey (for all I know, my great-grandparents picked my grandfather's Hebrew name at random), it did make me wonder about who my ancestors were. It's something I never really thought about.

At some point in the distant, distant past, my ancestors were here, in Israel. Probably herding goats. And a young, strapping, Y'Hezkel was writing his blog entry on some parchment, hoping that one day, someone would invent the internet and he'd finally be able to share his thoughts on the Philistines with the world. In the centuries to come, his children and children's children would be flung to the far parts of the world. Far away from the land that would one day be known again as Israel.

Maybe that was what they meant by "Welcome Home." Y'Hezkel was back! (in DNA, at least)

As we left Avraham's, Yariv pointed out a building riddled with bullet holes. The steep narrow staircase we stood on was the original border between the Arab side of the town and the Jewish side. The Jews living in Tsfat were like Avraham... except even more religious. There were 1,700 of them. There were 12,000 Arabs.

According to the UN partition plan (the one that Yariv drew for us on the map earlier), Tsfat was to become part of the Jewish state. But when the British pulled out, the Arabs took over control of the city. They cut off the Jewish Quarter and tried to force its residents out with mortar attacks and gunshots, which they fired from their positions at the highest points in town.

The religious Jews couldn't defend themselves. Their only defense were 200 Haganah fighters and 50 fighters from the Irgun (both of which had resisted British rule).

Then Shabbat came.

On Friday night, when every good Jew should have been at home observing the Sabbath rest, 35 additional soldiers snuck into the city. The next day, the rabbi in the city had a decision. Tell his followers to keep the Sabbath, or to help the soldiers fortify the city.

He ordered his congregation to break the Sabbath, cooking for the soldiers and helping them build up the defenses. Despite being completely outmanned and outgunned, they held off the attacking Arab army. Yariv told us that the Israelis only had piece of heavy artillery, the Davidka, and it made more noise than actual damage. But the noise frightened the Arab soldiers, and those in town. Myths were spread around that the Israelis had some serious firepower. So the Arabs fled.

Why flee, when they had superior numbers? Yariv put it like this: "They had someplace else to go," he said. "We didn't. So when things got tough, they left. We stayed. We had no choice."

"Welcome Home." For many Jews in 1948, Israel was the only one they had.

It was one thing to see the lines on the map, know the history. It was another to see those bullet holes, to see how small a space divided the Jews from the Arabs, to see just what a huge advantage the Arabs had, firing from the top of the mountain, determined to wipe their enemy out. A victory for Israel truly was a miracle.

That night our group slept at a Kibbutz, a communal village in which the residents share all and work together in a common enterprise. Israel was built on the strength of these kibbutzes, which gave early settlers of the land security in an insecure part of the world.

In 1948, they must have had better food. Choking down a soggy spring roll and avoiding my hair-strewn salad, I wondered how Kibbutz-living Jews could have fought for independence back then on such gross stuff.

Long after most of the group had gone to sleep, a girl from NY, a guy from Cali and me stayed up drinking and playing cards with five young Israeli guys from the Kibbutz [all of us over 21, of course].

[The rest of this entry was deemed un-kosher by the Birthright authorities. So I removed it. Let's just say five Israeli guys went home that night disappointed.]

Stay tuned, if you're still out there. More Israel comin up.

Clowns To The Left of Me, Jokers to The Right,
Here I Am, Stuck in the Middle with Jews



It's amazing how the situation in Israel has flared up the passions of pundits on both sides of the political aisle. Even more shocking is how American Jews have been thrust into the spotlight by those pundits, each side telling us what we should do or how we should feel about the situation. The Righties are calling American Jews wimps, and the Lefties are calling us terrorists. Read on...

According to David Gelernter of the Weekly Standard, Jews who don't support President Bush must, obviously, not support Israel. He writes:

For years I have watched the Palestinians do absurdly self-destructive things and have never understood them until now. But watching the Bush administration stoutly defend Israel this week against the background of an American Jewish population that vocally (often sneeringly) dislikes him and his administration, and consistently votes by massive majorities for his Democratic opponents, I start to understand the Palestinians just a little.

According to Gelernter's version of the the truth, Republicans are the great defenders of Israel and Democrats are Nazis. Not only that, Gelernter characterizes American Jews as a homogenous entity, and evokes, with the words "sneeringly" and "vocally," anti-semitic stereotypes of the "loudmouth Jew" and "contemptuous Jew" so often found in pro-Nazi propoganda. Yes. That's right. Amazingly, in one brief paragraph, Gelernter manages to accuse the Democrats of being anti-semites while making anti-semitic statements himself!!!!

Apparently, we Jews are ungrateful of all the Republicans have done for us. Like accusing us of starting a "war on Christmas." Remember that? No? Well we'll be accused of it again this year, just wait till December.

Gelernter doesn't stop there. Apparently, by removing a crooked politician from office, we Jews only hurt ourselves.

The fall of Tom DeLay silenced one of the best friends Israel ever had in American politics, and one of the most effective symbols of Republican support for Israel.

So a criminal is Israel's best friend in American politics? I must have missed DeLay's huge role in the peace process. All I heard was "pander pander pander."

By far the most humorous paragraph is this one:

American Jews (especially the intellectual leadership) have a tragic history of acting against their own professed interests. In the years before Pearl Harbor, U.S. intellectuals on the whole (especially New York intellectuals) vehemently opposed American entry alongside Britain into the war against Nazi Germany. Of course many New York intellectuals were not Jews, and many American Jews didn't care for New York intellectuals.

This is a load of horseshit. 99.9% of Jews were all for going into the war. Democrats were for going to the war. It was the Republican leadership who wanted a more isolationist policy. Gelernter says "New York intellectuals" were against going into the war but then says that many New York Intellectuals were not Jews. So why even bring that up? He cites a very very small group of people within the Jewish community who were opposed to entering the war. This is our "tragic history"?? A couple of people writing an unpopular statement in an academic journal?

"As the left-wing agenda dries up, nothing remains to feed on (if you are used to getting your nourishment left of center) but the bitter weeds of hate.

Shakespeare just vomited in his grave. What a meaningless concoction of words.

Let me make this clear. Democrats support Israel. They always have. It's a stable democratic country in a very unstable, undemocratic part of the world. Campaigning against Israel's existence or right to defend itself is lunacy... which is why few people, on either side of the political spectrum, have done it. The "voices from the left" that Gelernter cites represent a far from mainstream view in the Democratic party. They're equivalent to the far-righters in the Facist... I mean Republican party who think we must secure the Middle East for the holy war and Christ's second coming.

And thus the tragic, pathetic surge of hatred for George Bush on the left, including among left-wing Jews. As I heard someone say last week, "I think Bush is doing great on Israel. Naturally, I still hate his guts."

Ah, when in doubt, resort to a straw man. "Heard someone say" is classic Republican argument. The truth is, a lot of Jews blame Bush for the current crisis in Israel. There were numerous opportunities for peace in these last 5 1/2 years. Yet Bush did not even offer a hand to help mediate a lasting peace. If Bush has had any policy on Israel, it has been "Do Nothing." Bush's inept dealings with Iran's growing nuclear capability and the mess he created in Iraq have increased the threats to Israel, not diminished them. Already, chief analysts within our own government suspect that Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were carried out on behalf of Iran, who sought to distract from nuclear negotiations. In the past, President Bill Clinton (a democrat) tried to do something about the violence in the middle east, and managed to establish periods of relative calm in the region. Who knows what would have been acheived if Yizhak Rabin had not been assasinated?

Gelernter gets bored around this point in his piece, which is the only explanation I can fathom for this next sentence:

...of course, the origins of no two nations more resemble each other than Israel's and America's, both created by Europeans clutching Bibles, searching for freedom, prepared to fight for a room of their own. Both populated by human beings, a species not noted for perfection.

Wow! Both countries are populated by human beings?? As opposed to... populated by man-eating insect creatures from Mars? Oh, and might I add, the Europeans who came to Israel were carrying different bibles than the ones carried by the pilgrims.

Just in case Gelernter really does wonder why Jews don't support Republicans (I suspect he's just chastising us for not "falling in line"), I thought I'd enlighten him.

Judaism teaches us the importance of takun olam (environmental stewardship) and tzedakah (charity), two things Republicans have ignored, and indeed, sought to undermine through constant giveaways to environmental polluters and the wealthy. Our Jewish history has taught us the importance of civil rights and social justice, things the Republicans are quick to take away (Patriot Act anybody?).

When Republicans say they want "prayer in schools" and "evolution is still up to debate," we Jews get nervous. Because we know all that is really code for "Christ in schools" and "Teach Jesus, not Darwin." We all know it people. The jig is up. You want us to convert. You weren't exactly subtle about it.

This is not to say that Israel is not an important issue to Jewish voters. But on the subject of Israel, for the most part, the political parties don't differ. It is not a divisive issue like abortion or gay marriage. Both Republicans and Democrats see the value of Israel's existence in the Middle East, both as a strategic democratic foothold and Jewish safe haven.

Finally, there are many political parties in Israel, but Gelernter seems to overlook this. The far right in Israel tends to favor unilateral actions, and often deals with the Palestinians forcefully (sometimes violently). But just as in the US, where we have different opinions about what our government should do, the middle and left in Israel tend to favor a more dynamic, thoughtful approach, full of mutual concessions and compromises. Contrary to Gelernter's beliefs, Jews are not homogenous. While he may pin yellow stars to us all, in reality, we're not so easily defined. Some of us choose to support Israel by encouraging it to seek ways in which it can achieve a peace without causing Palestinian casualties or compromising security. Does that make us idiots? For thousands of years our people have been oppressed... some of us empathize with the many innocent Palestinians who just want to live in peace.

But I guess I prefer Gelernter's rant to the musings of Cenk Uygur, who, in his blog on the Huffington Post, calls Israelis terrorists.

Uygur obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word.

The label of "terrorist" is a not a label of moral relativity. I've heard it said that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. In some contexts, that can be true. For instance, if you're Pol Pot, you may call the people resisting your rule, "terrorists." But the definition of "terrorist" is, in fact, static. There is a line seperating freedom fighter and terrorist. It's a difference in intents and targets. The difference between a military force and a terrorist group is even greater:

1) Terrorists kill innocent people on purpose. Their plans involve the targeted killing of unarmed civilians. Hamas and Hezbollah rockets have rarely been targeted towards Israeli military installations. Instead, they've targeted civilian communities.

2) The goal of terrorist actions is to inspire fear, and inflict punishment upon their enemies-- not to cause change. While they may make pie-in-the-sky statements about overthrowing a government or vanquishing a foreign army, they more often than not go after the easiest target-- the unarmed and innocent. Killing innocent people is hardly an effective method in acheiving independence.

3) Terrorists sacrifice their own members to kill men, women and children. Members of Hamas and Hezbollah have been known to strap bombs to their chests and, instead of going to the nearest military base, they go to the nearest discoteque, falafel joint, or bus stop to detonate themselves.

4) Terrorists use civilians as human shields. There are only two reasons why casualties on the Palestinian side are greater than on the Israeli side. The rockets Hamas and Hezbollah use are not that accurate, and Israel has kept its people away from the areas where the terrorist missiles can reach. Hamas and Hezbollah, on the other hand, fire rockets from the centers of civilian neighborhoods, hiding among innocent civilians to use them as human shields.

How can Uygur not see the difference between Israel and Hezbollah? By Uygur's standards, every nation on earth is run by terrorists, since all have, at one point or another, been involved with warfare that has claimed innocent lives.

As I commented on his post, the difference between Israel and Hezbollah is a simple as this:

Israel will stop its attacks when its people are safe. Hezbollah will only stop their attacks when Israel is wiped off the face of the earth.

Who's fighting the good fight here?