The ways of G-d are hidden and mysterious; they have never been crystal clear to man. Only a finite and mortal god can be fully known and understood by finite and mortal man. But who will worship a mortal god? By the same token, only an infinite and immortal mind can fathom the infinite and immortal G-d. But who among us has an infinite and immortal mind?

Given these obvious facts, it is difficult for a mortal mind to fathom the ease and eagerness with which other mortal minds presume to reveal divine secrets. For whenever some major catastrophe strikes, there are always those who leap forward with reasons and explanations. Whether it be a bridge collapse, a massive air disaster or a plague, inevitably a religious leader stands up and tells the world precisely why this happened.

Tsunamis, we are informed, strike certain countries because they disregard G-d; floods inundate populous areas because they are flooded with vice; hurricanes devastate cities because of overweening pride. It is as if every catastrophe were to have its own menu of ... Read More >>]]> I am not able to worship a G-d Whose ways are all crystal clear to me – attributed to the Kotzker Rebbe (1787-1859)

The ways of G-d are hidden and mysterious; they have never been crystal clear to man. Only a finite and mortal god can be fully known and understood by finite and mortal man. But who will worship a mortal god? By the same token, only an infinite and immortal mind can fathom the infinite and immortal G-d. But who among us has an infinite and immortal mind?

Given these obvious facts, it is difficult for a mortal mind to fathom the ease and eagerness with which other mortal minds presume to reveal divine secrets. For whenever some major catastrophe strikes, there are always those who leap forward with reasons and explanations. Whether it be a bridge collapse, a massive air disaster or a plague, inevitably a religious leader stands up and tells the world precisely why this happened.

Tsunamis, we are informed, strike certain countries because they disregard G-d; floods inundate populous areas because they are flooded with vice; hurricanes devastate cities because of overweening pride. It is as if every catastrophe were to have its own menu of cause and effect. For those who have direct lines to the heavenly throne, nothing that G-d does is mysterious or hidden. His actions are always readily understandable; simply check the menu.

THE HAITI catastrophe is the latest case in point. Even before the bodies were buried, the omniscient ones girded their loins and informed the world why all this took place. One well-known evangelist announced that Haiti was struck because of its idolatrous practices. Not to be outdone, others have added their voices to the celestial choir, each with his own explanatory litany.

One wonders: If these revered gentlemen are so certain that Haitian behavior caused the earthquake to occur, why did they not warn Haitians on January 8 – days before the earthquake – rather than on January 13, the day after? An early warning would have been very helpful, and would have underscored their credentials as true prophets. The essential difference between a genuine prophet and a would-be prophet is that the genuine ones – a Moses, a Jeremiah, an Isaiah – declared in advance that abominable behavior would lead to abominable results.

Israel, for example was warned by the prophets that their abandonment of G-d would result in G-d’s abandonment of them, and that destruction, exile and dispersion would follow. They spoke of such things before the disaster. Today’s omniscient ones contribute their insights after the tragedy.

None of this is to deny that such tragedies raise legitimate questions in the minds of mortal man. The issue of theodicy – how to explain divine providence in the face of human catastrophe – has troubled mankind from time immemorial: Where is G-d in all this? How can a good G-d permit such disasters in His universe? Why the Holocaust?

These are not new questions. Mankind has always grappled with them. An entire book of the Bible – Job – deals with this issue. No less than Moses himself, and Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yannai, and others in our sacred literature have all struggled with the ultimate questions of good and evil. Why do innocent people die? Why are there tragedies? – painful and agonizing questions from those who want to believe in a just G-d.

For it is perfectly legitimate to ask, to probe, to want to know why. There is in fact a certain majesty and nobility in man’s persistent attempts to plumb the depths of the infinite. But this must be done not with arrogance but with humility before the one above, in full realization that – although there surely are ultimate answers – these answers may remain hidden from us, just as G-d Himself is hidden from us.

The wannabe contemporary prophets who make confident pronouncements about His hidden ways would do well to consider what R. Yannai declares in Avot 4:14: It is not in our power to understand the tranquility of the wicked and the suffering of the righteous – to which Rashi adds, “The matter is not given over into our hands, but is in the hands of the Holy One blessed is He.” Even Moses, the greatest of all prophets – he who speaks with his creator face to face, and whom G-d describes as “in all My house he is the trustful one” – is not granted the answer to this ultimate question.

In Exodus 33, Moses asks G-d, “Show me Thy ways” and “Show me Thy glory.” What Moses is really asking, according to the sages in Berachot 7a, is why the righteous suffer, and why the wicked prosper.

G-d’s reply is shrouded in mystery. Go down, He says, into the cleft of the rock, and there, after My presence passes by, “you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:23). That is to say, man might dimly perceive why certain events take place long after they have occurred – after G-d passes by – but mortal man can never fully comprehend the hidden ways of how He chooses to administer His universe. As the psalmist phrases it in 36:7, “Thy judgments are a great deep…”

Were Moses alive today he would not have to bother descending into the bedrock of the universe, there to receive a fearsome lesson in theodicy. He would need only to read the daily papers, dial up some Internet blogs or read the pronouncements of some of our omniscient contemporary religious leaders, and presto! he would arrive at easy answers to all his questions.

TO BE sure, whenever disaster struck Jewish communities, rabbinic leaders tried to strengthen faith and lift spirits by calling for repentance and greater adherence to G-d and Torah. But these were not efforts to enter G-d’s infinite mind. Rather, they were classic attempts to reestablish connections with G-d where the connections had been badly frayed. Whenever disaster strikes, says Maimonides, one must cry out to G-d and not ascribe events to anonymous forces of nature (Ta’aniyot 1: 1-3). But he cautions that His actions are not subject to a one-size-fits-all formula. Those who attempt to enter the mind of G-d, he asserts at the end of Talmud Berachot (citing Bava Kama 91a) have “plunged into mighty waters and emerged with only a broken shard in their hands.”

In the fullness of time our unanswered questions will be addressed. What seems today like a random, kaleidoscopic whirling of events will slow to a halt and will reveal, to all who have the patience and the faith to wait, a divine pattern and purpose. This is what the genuine prophet Zecharia meant when he said, in 14:9, “On that day G-d will be one and His name will be one.” Until then, G-d’s ways remain concealed – even from those who would claim to have full access to His divine chambers.

This article was also published in the Jerusalem Post. The writer was rabbi in Atlanta for 40 years, and is the former editor of Tradition magazine. His latest book, Tales Out of Jerusalem: Seven Gates to the City will be published next month.

Here are the key points that he has made, to the best of my understanding:

1. The status of Belmont Abbey College as a religious institution is questionable. This is buttressed by the fact that the College “advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer and freely accepted funding that was not available to religious institutions.” Additionally, the majority of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni are not Catholic.

2. The college offered coverage for these services for 26 years, “indicating that this was a change of a deliberate policy.” It was then done immediately, unilaterally, and without discussion, and the College refused to negotiate.

3. It is not the eight faculty members, but the school, that is attacking religious freedom. “Forcing us to abide by ... Read More >>]]> I am honored that Professor David Neipert, one of the faculty members who initiated the EEOC complaint against Belmont Abbey College, saw fit to respond to my earlier article on this topic (as it appeared on the Baltimore Sun’s “In Good Faith” religion blog). Given his personal involvement in this case, it is obvious that he begins with a far greater knowledge of its particulars, and I appreciate his sharing his perspective of the facts.

Here are the key points that he has made, to the best of my understanding:

1. The status of Belmont Abbey College as a religious institution is questionable. This is buttressed by the fact that the College “advertised itself as an equal opportunity employer and freely accepted funding that was not available to religious institutions.” Additionally, the majority of its faculty, staff, students, and alumni are not Catholic.

2. The college offered coverage for these services for 26 years, “indicating that this was a change of a deliberate policy.” It was then done immediately, unilaterally, and without discussion, and the College refused to negotiate.

3. It is not the eight faculty members, but the school, that is attacking religious freedom. “Forcing us to abide by a Catholic approved health plan makes no more sense than prohibiting a Catholic plumber from eating a Pork sandwich for lunch if he works at a Jewish hospital.” Prof. Neipert was assured that he would “not be expected to adopt Catholic practices and that not being Catholic would not affect my career in any way.”

Let us address each of these in turn.

In order to question Belmont Abbey’s status as a religious institution, Prof. Neipert conflates two entirely different standards, from two vastly different sections of the law. He writes that “the college actually went to the federal court of appeals arguing that it was not religious in order to obtain state funding.” The decision in that case, however, states that “in the charter of the College, the fourth stated purpose speaks of Christian inspiration, fidelity to the Christian message and of reflection upon the growing treasury of human knowledge in the light of the Catholic faith.” [These four purposes are apparently drawn directly from Pope John Paul II's definition of a Catholic college.] The decision further quotes from the faculty handbook to the effect that BAC is a “Catholic institution.”

On the contrary, in that case the question was whether the state could legally provide tuition grants and scholarships to students attending Christian colleges in order to receive an education in the liberal arts. “A three-judge court held that the two colleges in question, although they had religious ties, were not so pervasively religious that their secular activities could not be separated from their sectarian ones; and that the program did not involve excessive entanglement on the part of the state with the religiously affiliated colleges, so that application of the scholarship program to the colleges did not violate First Amendment rights.” Under the law, the state cannot provide tuition grants to young monks joining the Belmont Abbey, but can provide them to their peers, whether Catholic or otherwise, attending Belmont Abbey College. That hardly means the college isn’t “religious.”

Even the claim that “the majority of the faculty and students are not Catholic” is problematic at best. According to the Office of the President at BAC, the majority of the Administration, the Board of Trustees, the faculty, and the resident students are all understood to be Catholic (the college does not formally survey faculty). In the same legal decision mentioned above, the Court states that “Catholics predominate on the Board of Trustees, the offices of administration, faculty and staff of the college,” and comprise roughly 70% of the students. While I hesitate to take an anonymous comment on a blog as having any credibility, someone claiming to be a junior at the college writes on catholic.org that “the student body overwhelmingly supports Dr. Thierfelder and the Abbot in this decision.” So I would say the jury is still out on that claim.

Sadly, the fact that this coverage sat on the books for 26 years, if true, is no proof that it was there intentionally. It is clear that neither the President nor the Abbot knew that their insurance coverage provided for services that violated Catholic teachings. They took action not to discriminate against any party, but to remove the college from paying for activities which violate their religion, and did so as soon as they became aware of the issue. They didn’t discuss, negotiate, or delay, because following the tenets of the Catholic church is part of the charter of the school, and not something that can be discussed, negotiated, or delayed.

Prof. Neipert is unable to understand why the Monks of Belmont Abbey might go so far as to close the College rather than pay for the violation of their religious beliefs. This is because he is only considering the importance of earthly things such as degrees, donors and college credits. While he claims to be fighting for religious principle, he fails to demonstrate an understanding of the overriding importance of religious law to those truly sincere in their faith.

Which brings us to the final, and surely the most crucial point of Professor Neipert’s rebuttal of my earlier post: his claim that it is he and the other seven faculty members that are fighting for religious freedom, rather than Belmont Abbey College. While he attempts to draw a parallel to “prohibiting a Catholic plumber from eating a Pork sandwich for lunch if he works at a Jewish hospital,” a more accurate analogy would be if the plumber were to demand use of the hospital microwave to heat his sandwich, rendering that microwave unusable for the preparation of Kosher food afterward. The college is not prohibiting an employee from undergoing voluntary sterilization or taking prescription contraceptives; it is only excluding itself from assisting financially in that effort.

There can be no confusion on this point. The college, by not paying for something which violates Catholic religious tenets, is not imposing its faith upon Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist faculty or staff. It is merely observing its own faith.

While Prof. Neipert and his seven colleagues may be confused about this, the EEOC is not. The EEOC already dealt with the claim of religious discrimination, and rejected it because “benefits were not changed based on each individual employee’s religious beliefs; contraception benefits were removed from the health plan for all employees, regardless of their religion.”

So Prof. Neipert’s response is enlightening but also perplexing. He tells us that their cause is one of noble principle, that they went to court “to protect our religious freedom not to have religious practices imposed upon us by our employer.” If that is true, one wonders why they continue to pursue a case that they have already lost.

In his essay of over 1200 words, Prof. Neipert does not so much as mention the word “gender” — the sole basis upon which the EEOC rests its case. Perhaps he recognizes that the charge of gender discrimination is logically vacuous, considering that Catholic teachings are equally relevant to any form of interference with reproduction, whether by man or woman. Perhaps he understands how incomprehensible it is for six men to continue to claim personal standing under Title VII, when all that remains is a charge of discrimination against women. Perhaps he also recognizes that if the EEOC position were to be sustained, the same tenuous logic (“Respondent is discriminating based on gender because only females take oral contraceptives”) would immediately require employers to pay for abortion on demand as well. Instead, he attempts to wave a banner that the EEOC has already discarded.

Regardless of the outcome in this particular case, the “freedom” to compel your employer to help you violate his or her own religious tenets will not be granted. As long as a condition is imposed upon all employees and does not require a religious observance, the EEOC will not call that “discrimination.” An employer affiliated with the Je-ovah’s witness might not provide for blood transfusions, or health care at all. A Muslim employer can tell you to stand facing Mecca in respect of those praying, he just can’t order you to pray. A Hindu employer, just like a vegetarian employer, can prohibit beef consumption on the premises of his or her business. And, of course, a Jewish hospital can insist that anything placed in the microwave be certified Kosher.

Prof. Neipert claims this is all a matter of principle, the EEOC has discarded that principle, and the case is lumbering forward. Perplexing, indeed.

I’ve collected the mission statements of the largest 17 Jewish federations in North America, and not one mentions “G-d,” “Torah” or “Judaism.” Nor do the mission statements of the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization, Hillel, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Wexner Heritage Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah and the Jewish National Fund. Of all the organizations I looked into, only United Jewish Communities mentions but one of the three words, Torah, in its mission statement.

Mr. Alperson’s theory is that these terms are avoided because they are “more particularistic. Tzedakah [Charity], tikkun olam [Repairing the World] and klal yisroel [the People of Israel] are considered universal and inclusive terms.” He bemoans this phenomenon, and considers this problem to be one with a uniquely Jewish angle. He believes that ... Read More >>]]> No, it’s not what you think. I am not referring to a healthy (and Biblically-mandated) fear of G-d and his Ineffable Name, but an aversion to mentioning G-d as a motivating force in our lives. Joel Alperson, a past national campaign chair for United Jewish Communities, wrote about this in a recent Op-Ed entitled “Don’t fear ‘G-d,’ ‘Torah’ and ‘Judaism’” published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. He writes:

I’ve collected the mission statements of the largest 17 Jewish federations in North America, and not one mentions “G-d,” “Torah” or “Judaism.” Nor do the mission statements of the B’nai B’rith Youth Organization, Hillel, the National Council of Jewish Women, The Wexner Heritage Foundation, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hadassah and the Jewish National Fund. Of all the organizations I looked into, only United Jewish Communities mentions but one of the three words, Torah, in its mission statement.

Mr. Alperson’s theory is that these terms are avoided because they are “more particularistic. Tzedakah [Charity], tikkun olam [Repairing the World] and klal yisroel [the People of Israel] are considered universal and inclusive terms.” He bemoans this phenomenon, and considers this problem to be one with a uniquely Jewish angle. He believes that the reason these terms induce such discomfort is because communal organizations, aiming to serve the breadth of the entire Jewish community, are afraid of any mention of a term that might highlight our numerous and profound internal divisions.

He may be right. But at the same time, I am reminded of an article written over 20 years ago by Daniel Polisar* — today the director of the Shalem Center, and at that time a fellow student at Princeton University. He described an experience in a class in Philosophy and ethics, in which the students were asked to respond sequentially to a classic question of moral and ethical behavior: when confronted by an assailant who orders you to murder another, on threat of your own life, what are you supposed to do?

Now as it happens, Jewish ethics offers clear and unambiguous guidance on this matter: “who says your blood is redder?” Thus the Talmud prohibits murdering another person, even in order to save your own life. And this is what Dan, when asked, proceeded to tell the class: that Judaism teaches us that G-d Commanded us to react this way.

It so happens that Mr. Polisar was somewhere in the middle of the group of students. At the end of the class, he realized that he had triggered a sea change in the way the class answered the question: not one of the students asked before him had mentioned G-d in his or her response… and all, or practically all, of the students responding after him also mentioned G-d.

This encounter, along with numerous others, led him to argue in The Princeton Tory that G-d has been exiled from the college campus — that students are inculcated to regard belief in G-d as anti-intellectual, the realm of irrational fundamentalists rather than the enlightened students of the Ivory Towers. And thus, while the vast majority of students clearly regarded G-d as a force in their lives (based upon the answers following his), no one wanted to be the first to admit that he or she sought the guidance of a higher power.

The directors of our communal organizations are generally well-educated, and if there is considerable truth to Mr. Polisar’s argument — and I believe there is — this offers an alternate and more inward-directed reason why the mission statements of Jewish organizations might be averse to mentioning the Jewish religion. It is not that the writers fear highlighting our divisions, but that they do not want to highlight terms with which they themselves are uncomfortable.

At the same time, this is not necessarily the (only) reason why the students were reluctant to use G-d in their answers in that classroom. While in retrospect it may seem almost instinctive to call upon G-d’s Name in a discussion of ethics, it is also fair to say that most people could not be nearly so unequivocal about what G-d would want them to do. Most religions, including the modern Jewish movements that do not regard the Talmud as an authoritative source, do not state an absolute, required answer to that precise question.

It could similarly be argued that many in the Jewish community feel this sort of ambiguity about their religion overall. How should they observe, or not? What should they, or shouldn’t they, believe? Having departed from the moorings of Jewish tradition, they aren’t quite sure which way to point themselves when the waves start crashing around them.

In the end, I think all three of these factors — a reluctance to highlight divisions, ambiguity about religion, and a reluctance of the educated class to express religious feelings — combine to explain why Jews outside the Orthodox community are apt to avoid mention of G-d, His Word, and our religion.

Where Joel Alperson and I certainly agree is regarding the consequences of that silence.

We must be the only people on the planet who believe we can transmit a message to future generations without saying specifically what that message is. Is it any wonder that most Jews cannot articulate Jewish purpose beyond some catch phrases or beyond merely expressing a desire that we survive as a people?

As with so many areas in life, religion is about making choices. We cannot be all things to all people, and we serve no one if we try to pretend otherwise.

* As I half-expected, Daniel Polisar isn’t sure he wrote the article. “It’s possible that I wrote that, but I really don’t remember if I did.” I’m trying to find out who did, if not him.

The war that Israel keeps losing is the war of world opinion, the war for individual hearts and minds. Consider recent stumbles.

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza should have been named “8,000 is enough!” This would have communicated a determination to stop the barrage of missiles from Hamas, using surgical precision to destroy its arsenal, but destroying all of it, not just a part. Enough was enough: 8,000 missiles launched on the nation’s civilian population would no longer be tolerated.

Unfortunately the operation was dubbed, “Cast Lead.” The resulting image in the English-speaking world was not helpful. Lead is a soft metal associated with poison. The implication, then, was an unprofessional plan with ambivalent determination, biased motives and toxic methods.

Which is exactly how governments and media judge “the Gaza war.” Israel and her defenders respond by arguing, “Israel has the right to defend herself.” This is true, but flawed. Why? Limiting Israel’s self-defense to a right makes it an option. Little wonder, then, that Israel’s enemies portray her as a ruthless bully. In the matter of Gaza, for example, she could have chosen to refrain.

In fact, Israel has more than a right to defend her citizens and existence. Along with ... Read More >>]]> by Brian Schrauger

The war that Israel keeps losing is the war of world opinion, the war for individual hearts and minds. Consider recent stumbles.

Israel’s military campaign in Gaza should have been named “8,000 is enough!” This would have communicated a determination to stop the barrage of missiles from Hamas, using surgical precision to destroy its arsenal, but destroying all of it, not just a part. Enough was enough: 8,000 missiles launched on the nation’s civilian population would no longer be tolerated.

Unfortunately the operation was dubbed, “Cast Lead.” The resulting image in the English-speaking world was not helpful. Lead is a soft metal associated with poison. The implication, then, was an unprofessional plan with ambivalent determination, biased motives and toxic methods.

Which is exactly how governments and media judge “the Gaza war.” Israel and her defenders respond by arguing, “Israel has the right to defend herself.” This is true, but flawed. Why? Limiting Israel’s self-defense to a right makes it an option. Little wonder, then, that Israel’s enemies portray her as a ruthless bully. In the matter of Gaza, for example, she could have chosen to refrain.

In fact, Israel has more than a right to defend her citizens and existence. Along with every sovereign state, she has a mandate to defend against invaders, murderers, thieves, poverty and disease. And from enemies who declare war and wage it.

The Hamas unamended charter of 1988 is a declaration of war. It explicitly calls for destruction of the Jewish state of Israel through jihad – against Jews and Christians (Article 13). Any member who abandons this struggle is guilty of “high treason and cursed” (Article 32). Accordingly, any “initiatives… so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to [these] principles” (Article 13).

Even so, the United States is on the verge of engaging Hamas as entity that is on par with Israel. No, not on par: morally superior. Consider the recent image splashed across America by political cartoonist, Pat Oliphant, portraying Israel as a headless, heartless, jack-booted Nazi devouring helpless, little Gaza.

Where did that idea come from? Look at Article 20 of Hamas’s 1988 charter and see who is winning the PR war.

Of course it is more than public opinion that is being lost; it is the death of common sense; it is defeat in the war for truth.

EVEN EVANGELICAL SUPPORT is eroding. A vocal minority remain effusive on Israel’s behalf. But the broader community is not monolithic. Many of its members are hungry for change, not unlike the political appetite that won Barack Hussein Obama the presidency. Among evangelicals the religious equivalent is a movement led by people like Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christian; Stephen Sizer, a pastor who has gained popularity by condemning “Christian Zionism”; and, of course, Jimmy Carter, who accuses Israel of committing a “holocaust.” How widespread is the erosion of evangelical support for Israel? Google this: “Letter to President Bush from Evangelical Leaders.” Look at those who signed it – and the organizations they represent. Their claim to “represent large numbers of evangelicals” is true.

And behind it all? A resurgence of replacement theology, an ideology that, for almost 1700 years, has been used to ignite atrocities against Jewish communities.

So what can Israel do to win its global PR war, a war for truth?

One of Judaism’s greatest traits is that, while the rest of world talks, it acts. The government of Israel has beefed up media relations and lobbying efforts to Western countries. It makes a special effort to reach Christians through its Tourism Ministry and the Knesset’s Christian Allies Caucus.

Religious Israeli organizations do a first-rate job in taking their case to gentiles. And a host of secular entities, most of them nonprofits, are second to none in telling the truth about Israel and exposing its enemies’ lies.

But it is not enough. What else can be done? How can Israel be a more effective light that draws the nations to her?

First, recruit the world of commerce. Independent, for-profit media companies must present the broad canvas of Israeli news. Expanded investments in Israeli technologies will yield medical breakthroughs, unleash alternative energy sources and provide water and food for the world’s population.

Second, aim directly to inform the potential “grassroot” supporters of the Jewish state. Bring Israel to them and they will come to Israel, both as tourists and supporters of the state.

Yes, methods include the Internet and its social networking tools. Still, there is nothing more effective than firsthand encounters.

So. Sponsor events. Send invitations to others instead of seeking invitations from others.

Deploy first-class conventions and shows and fairs, events hosted on civic platforms around the world. Get endorsements from influential people to market these events. Use them to showcase Israel, not defame it.

Begin these tours where demographic support is strong. Respect religious sensibilities. But use secular venues so that people from different backgrounds will feel comfortable and welcome. Participants with a variety of interests – business, social, political and religious – will enhance grassroot support for Israel and her people.

Most importantly, seek wisdom from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Listen for the whisper of His counsel. He alone is God of all the nations. Under the banner of His leadership, Israel will win.

Brian Schrauger is director of radio broadcasting for Israel World TV. I thought his article relevant to our audience because of his recommendations for us.

“Insanity is hereditary. I got it from my children.” So read an old bumper sticker. If insanity can be hereditary, then errors and blunders can perhaps be contagious. We seem to be in the midst of an epidemic of gaffes, and they started at the Vatican.

Days after the deed was done, no one seems to have come up with a plausible explanation for why the Pope decided to make himself a lightning rod for criticism. A week ago Saturday, he revoked the 1988 excommunication of four individuals who had contravened the authority of the Vatican by being consecrated as bishops by maverick French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre had acted completely outside the jurisdiction of the Church. One of the four, Richard Williamson, had distinguished himself a short while earlier by claiming that there was ... Read More >>]]> [The following piece contains a long consideration of beliefs of other religions. Some of our readers are uncomfortable with such material. They are hereby warned to skip to the next post. The piece is an expansion of one that I coauthored and appeared on the Washington Post and Newsweek blogs last week. All new material is solely my own.]

“Insanity is hereditary. I got it from my children.” So read an old bumper sticker. If insanity can be hereditary, then errors and blunders can perhaps be contagious. We seem to be in the midst of an epidemic of gaffes, and they started at the Vatican.

Days after the deed was done, no one seems to have come up with a plausible explanation for why the Pope decided to make himself a lightning rod for criticism. A week ago Saturday, he revoked the 1988 excommunication of four individuals who had contravened the authority of the Vatican by being consecrated as bishops by maverick French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Lefebvre had acted completely outside the jurisdiction of the Church. One of the four, Richard Williamson, had distinguished himself a short while earlier by claiming that there was no Holocaust; that a much smaller number than six million Jews perished and nary a one in a gas chamber. The Pope went ahead and reached out to him nonetheless, cozying up to a confirmed revisionist and Holocaust denier.

Why did the Pope do it? Pope Benedict has made Church unity a key area of his concern. Lefebvre started an organization of RadTrads – radical traditionalist Catholics – called Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). Today, their ranks have swelled to the tens of thousands, especially in areas in which Catholic enthusiasm is waning. The Pope would like to see these people return to the ranks of the Church. Lifting the ban of excommunication was both an olive branch, and a first step to a negotiated return of SSPX to the authority of Rome. It was aimed far more at the laypeople of the organization than at the four bishops themselves. It is likely that he believes that if they are brought into the orbit of the Church, that many can be weaned away from some of the more bizarre teachings of the RadTrads.

Why did he seem to do it, however, in the worst possible manner? Will Durant, that master of pithily summing up whole civilizations in an economy of words, taught, “To say nothing, especially when speaking, is half the art of diplomacy.” Certainly the other half is knowing when to say, and when not to say, the things that must be said. The Vatican move towards reconciliation with traditionalist Catholics is understandable in a vacuum, but politics, like nature, abhors vacuums. The reaction of the world community was entirely foreseeable. The move could not have come at a worse time. He appeared to be going soft on antisemites in the midst of a global tidal wave of anti-Semitism, led by both Islamist and far-left anti-war groups, in which Jewish synagogues and places of business have been attacked, and demonstrators openly carry signs – “Jews to the ovens!” “Upgrade to Holocaust 2.0” – that reflect what millions believe, but were reluctant before a few weeks ago to shout out openly. There is also something terribly ironic in making the announcement in the days approaching both the fiftieth anniversary of the Convocation of Vatican II, and January 27th, the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which is the day marked throughout Europe as Holocaust Memorial Day. How could the Pope not have seen the protests coming?

Condemnation of the move was swift, from government officials to media figures to religious leaders. The criticism was wall to wall in the Jewish community. This included the major Jewish organizations [full disclosure: including the one I serve], Elie Weisel, figures associated for decades with fruitful dialogue with the Church – all of them termed the Pope’s action a major affront to Jews, a seeming repudiation of the historic bridges to Jews erected by the Second Vatican Council and concretized by the late Pope John Paul II.

The Pope, however, was not the only one to have blundered. Mistakes were made all around.

Most outsiders got all the specifics wrong. The Pope did not “reinstate” the four as bishops. All he did was lift the excommunication ban placed upon them for having become unlicensed bishops without the consent of the Vatican. In the eyes of the Vatican, they are still not bishops licensed to act as bishops; just what they are remains to be worked out. The Vatican therefore did not embrace them as legitimate spokespeople for the Church, nor did it say that they were not going to hell for their sins. They were just no longer on an express lane there for the one particular sin of being illicitly consecrated as bishops.

Some apologists for the Vatican used this to minimize the severity of the Pope’s action. They, too, are wrong. It is impossible to dissociate the high-profile statements of Williamson and others from the particular breach for which they were excused. The Vatican has a longer history of careful diplomacy than virtually any government on the face of the earth. It understands that it cannot act on principle alone, but must consider the consequences of its deeds, and the way in which they are perceived by others. (This is, after all, its explanation for the silence of Pope Pius XII (not the Pius of SSPX) during the Holocaust. His apologists argue that speaking out more forcefully against Hitler would have endangered the lives of millions of Catholics. Pragmatically, they say, he could do more for Jews surreptitiously than by openly declaring what was on his mind. Historians are still locked in mortal combat regarding whether the wartime Pope was treacherously mute, or whether he was a great hero who saved a large number of Jews.) The Pope was seen as cozying up to some horrid stuff, of trying to find room for it under the Vatican umbrella, even if it meant overlooking the Jews. The protests, therefore, were entirely appropriate.

Almost everyone got the extent of the problems wrong. Williamson drew most of the fire, but that provided cover for all the other bad guys. Williamson’s primitive hatred of Jews is a symptom of much greater illness with SSPX itself. The issue is not one bad apple, but a whole orchard. True ideologues in their hatred, their group’s website still conveyed its sentiments a week ago. Jews, it tells us, are directly responsible for the crucifixion. Jews are cursed with the “blindness to the things of G-d and eternity.” As a people, they stand “in entire opposition with the Catholic Church.” “Christendom and Jewry are designed inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing.” Jews “should neither be eliminated from among us, nor given equality of rights.” SSPX bookstores sell the anti-Semitic screeds- The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and Henry Ford’s The International Jew. But Jews, we are told in an essay by SSPX icon Fr. Denis Fahey, should not worry. He explains why he is not an anti-Semite. Antisemites hate Jews, which he does not. He hates the Jewish naturalism, which is the plot of Jews (who have secretly abandoned God for the last two millennia) to take over the world. Williamson should not be seen as a problem for SSPX. SSPX itself is the problem.

By last Wednesday, the Pope reacted to the fireworks regarding Williamson with a forceful statement about the Holocaust. (The director of SSPX himself ordered Williamson reined in.) It was a positive step. The office of the two Israeli Chief Rabbis, which had earlier cut off talks with the Vatican in protest, reacted appropriately and swiftly with measured encouragement. If Williamson were the chief issue, the Pope would be well on his way to a resolution of the problem. Since the Pope’s goal is to bring back the group and its followers to the embrace of the Church, it will be much more difficult to rehabilitate an organization with strong leanings that are completely at odds with Church teaching.

Not everyone was pleased with Jews criticizing the Pope. Some saw this is as arrogant meddling with their religion. Ordinarily, there might be something to their objection. Traditional Jews are especially loath to tell others how to practice their faith. We who take faith seriously know that outsiders cannot tell believers what they should or should not believe. Matters of the spirit are not bargaining chips.

Those who voiced their disquiet about Jews speaking about the Pope, though, were also in error, because Jews were hardly alone in their criticism. There were agonized cries (not perfunctory protests) from within the Catholic world. Jews are most familiar with Vatican II because of the document Nostra Aetate, which banished the notion of Jewish collective guilt for the sin of deicide, affirmed that anti-Semitism is not just offensive but a sin, and left some still largely ill-defined room for the validity of Judaism, at least for Jews. It ultimately paved the way for recognition of the State of Israel. But Vatican II addressed many other issues in Church practice and thought. Just as there are Catholics who despised the rulings of Vatican II, seeing them as a break from legitimate tradition, there are those for whom Vatican II’s findings represented the success of the Church in negotiating the challenges of modernity while preserving the treasured past. Its spirit is the Catholicism they have practiced and preached for a lifetime. They would see any back-pedaling on Vatican II as the beginning of a slide into a medieval abyss of obscurantism. They have protested loudly and vigorously.

“Such gibberish is unacceptable,” said German Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations, referring to Williamson’s Holocaust denial. Bishops in France, Germany, England, Canada, the United States and elsewhere issued strongly worded statements against the Pope’s action. A group of German theologians was particularly harsh in arguing that there was no place within the Church for the baggage that SSPX brought with it.

Within this reaction lies a good deal of silver lining in a very dark cloud. The extent of Jewish protest points to the confidence Jews have in the essential good will of the Church of Rome, and that this state of affairs will not be reversed.

Several reasons motivate religious groups once hostile to Jews to mend their ways. Some feel guilt for complicity or worse in the horrors visited upon Jews for two millennia in the name of their faith. Others have new-found regard for the Jewish community, and wish to live with it in respect and tolerance.

These two reasons have changed the attitudes of major Christian denominations towards Jews, and we (especially in the traditional Jewish community, where the past is not quickly forgotten, and where we appreciate shifts of attitude to Jews as part of G-d’s handiwork) are grateful. Both of these reasons, however, are problematic and changeable. Guilt fades with time. Too many people within those denominations today feel that they have paid their dues to the Jews, and it is now time to move on. The respect argument relies on relationships that are far from uniform. They are often related to demographics. Protestant denominations that are strong in areas where Jews do not reside are the most hostile to Israel today.

The bottom line is that when good feelings towards Jews depend on guilt or a small number of degrees of separation, the future becomes impossible to predict.

A third reason for friendship towards Jews is more inviting, and far more enduring: the realization that Judaism bestowed spiritual gifts upon the world that it still eagerly consumes. Jews and Judaism can be appreciated because all the negative stereotypes about them are realized to be wrong. This reason is based on what is assumed to be true, not on what is pragmatic. Truth can also be subverted, but it is harder to do so. Since Vatican II, two generations of Catholics have grown up with different facts about Jews, different truths, than many of their forebears.

The Pope’s actions remain troubling and uncomprehended. (The DaVinci Code may have promoted Opus Dei to a position of sinister mystery it does not deserve; the real Church is far more inscrutable.) They should not erase the reality of what happened in the Catholic Church four decades ago. Vatican II erased the charge of collective guilt; it proclaimed that anti-Semitism was a sin; it acknowledged a covenant between G-d and the people of Israel. The huge chorus of sincere voices within that Church that has risen to the defense of these teachings is no small consolation. Jewish criticism of the Pope would have had to be more muted had we not depended without reservation on a huge reservoir of support from the Catholic world. We are troubled by what is happening around us, but at the same time subconsciously acknowledge that, by G-d’s mercy, Vatican II blunted much of the hatred of centuries, and in many, many cases, turned foes into dear friends.

We hope that Pope Benedict – himself one of the important contributors to Vatican II – will find the insight to achieve his goals without harming this legacy. He can do so by making it clear to both SSPX and the world that hatred of Jews in the name of the Church will not be acceptable, and must be left at the door before people can feel fully reintegrated. There will be no compromise, and no turning a blind eye to what millions of other Catholics will not accept.

A statement by US bishops, citing Nostra Aetate itself, put it succinctly: “G-d holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues…Anything reminiscent of the teaching of contempt, including the charge of deicide, is unacceptable from the standpoint of Catholic teaching today.”

[Postscript - Within the last few days, statements have emerged from the Vatican that have said everything that should allay the genuine fears of the Jewish community. We should consider the matter closed. At least two of my sources - both in Rome - have plausibly explained the events as owing to a breakdown of the usually well thought-through diplomacy of the Vatican. This has occurred because of the shift in personnel at the Vatican Secretariat that came with the election of the new Pope. The Vatican has hopefully learned its lessons; the lesson for the Jewish community is that the effects of Vatican II on attitudes towards Jews and Judaism are long-lasting and reliable.]

We hope that this statement will turn out to be an accurate reflection of the future actions of the Vatican.

The U.S. on Saturday blamed the militant group Hamas for breaking a cease-fire and attacking Israel, which retaliated with strikes of its own during what became the single bloodiest day of fighting in years…

It was “completely unacceptable” for Hamas, which controls Gaza, to launch attacks on Israel after a truce lasting several months, said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

“These people are nothing but thugs, so Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas that indiscriminately kill their own people,” Johndroe said in Texas as President George W. Bush was spending the week before New Year’s at his ranch here. “They need to stop. We have said in the past that they have a ... Read More >>]]> We’ve already gone several rounds on how Bush, McCain and Obama stack up when it comes to Israel. Now that Olmert has finally decided that Kassam rockets raining on Sderot deserve a bit more than improved bomb shelters in response, all our statements about Bush’s amazingly pro-Israel position, and our concerns about Obama, are all-too-rapidly being verified. First, let’s look at the current US Administration’s response to the violence on the Israel-Hamastan border:

The U.S. on Saturday blamed the militant group Hamas for breaking a cease-fire and attacking Israel, which retaliated with strikes of its own during what became the single bloodiest day of fighting in years…

It was “completely unacceptable” for Hamas, which controls Gaza, to launch attacks on Israel after a truce lasting several months, said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

“These people are nothing but thugs, so Israel is going to defend its people against terrorists like Hamas that indiscriminately kill their own people,” Johndroe said in Texas as President George W. Bush was spending the week before New Year’s at his ranch here. “They need to stop. We have said in the past that they have a choice to make. You can’t have one foot in politics and one foot in terror.”

Asked if the United States would back a continuation of the retaliatory strikes by Israel, Johndroe said: “The U.S. doesn’t want to see any more violence. I think what we’ve got to see is Hamas stop firing rockets into Israel. That’s what precipitated this.”

“The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the cease-fire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza,” Rice said in a statement.

That is a diplomatic green light for continued military action by Israel. Now, lest any of our liberal commenters continue to believe that Obama might possibly see things the same way, Brooke Anderson, Obama’s national security spokeswoman, is willing to dump the bucket river of cold water necessary to awaken them. “She said Saturday that Obama ‘is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza, but there is one president at a time.’” In other words, if you think Obama and Bush see eye to eye… well, iy”H this war will be over long before January 20.

[Update Dec. 28, 12:30 PM:] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is reportedly a “close Obama ally,” said the following (hat tip: Politico):

“Peace between Israelis and Palestinians cannot result from daily barrages of rocket and mortar fire from Hamas-controlled Gaza,” she said. “Hamas and its supporters must understand that Gaza cannot and will not be allowed to be a sanctuary for attacks on Israel.”

And AIPAC Spokesman Josh Block added:

Obama said during a visit to Israel last summer that he didn’t “think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens. If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

So… maybe not. We shall see.

For many decades now, the secular Jewish establishment and non-Orthodox religious movements have invoked the Constitution’s Establishment Clause to fight tooth-and-nail against government aid to yeshivos. Yet, along came a candidate named Barack Obama and the tantalizing possibility of a liberal Democratic rise to power, and, suddenly, this hallowed concept disappeared from the collective American Jewish consciousness.

This year’s Democratic convention was so suffused with religious content that it could have been mistaken for a camp revival meeting, except that this one featured even more rabbis than pastors. Then again, it was that convention’s nominee, Barack Obama, who told a Greenville, South Carolina church last year that he is “confident that we can create a kingdom right here on earth,’ and asked the congregation to “pray that I can be an instrument of G-d.” Hillary Clinton, for her part, told a campaign forum that “you can sense ... Read More >>]]> As the dust settles on this year’s election season, it’s worth reflecting on one aspect of the campaign that holds particular relevance for the Jewish community: the way in which the principle of separation of church and state, a longtime sacred cow of Jewish communal life, was unceremoniously put out to pasture.

For many decades now, the secular Jewish establishment and non-Orthodox religious movements have invoked the Constitution’s Establishment Clause to fight tooth-and-nail against government aid to yeshivos. Yet, along came a candidate named Barack Obama and the tantalizing possibility of a liberal Democratic rise to power, and, suddenly, this hallowed concept disappeared from the collective American Jewish consciousness.

This year’s Democratic convention was so suffused with religious content that it could have been mistaken for a camp revival meeting, except that this one featured even more rabbis than pastors. Then again, it was that convention’s nominee, Barack Obama, who told a Greenville, South Carolina church last year that he is “confident that we can create a kingdom right here on earth,’ and asked the congregation to “pray that I can be an instrument of G-d.” Hillary Clinton, for her part, told a campaign forum that “you can sense how we are attempting to inject faith into policy.” Nary a peep was to be heard from Jewish proponents of strict church-state separation in response to either statement.

A prominent Reform clergyman, David Saperstein is tapped to give the invocation before Obama’s acceptance speech to 80,000 at Invesco Field? No problem, since, as Saperstein explained, it is “so ingrained in American life that it cannot be perceived as a political endorsement.” Nine separate faith-related events during the convention? That’s OK too, according to Saperstein, since “people can choose whether or not to go” and there “are forums being held on other topics.” That sure is a new tune – or should we say “hymn”? – the Reform movement is singing.

Then, after the speech, evangelical Christian pastor Joel Hunter led a “participatory prayer” which he concluded with the words “in Jesus’ name.” But that too was just fine with Saperstein, because, as he put it, we need to accept the fact that if evangelicals are invited to deliver public prayers, “[t]hey’re going to pray in the name of Jesus.” And, after all, he noted, Jews can also treat Jesus as a teacher. Such admirable, and newfound, tolerance.

When John DiLulio, first head of President Bush’s office for faith-based initiatives, spoke at the convention, he pronounced himself “exceedingly encouraged” by Obama’s “extraordinary” vision of government assistance for faith-based programs. Saperstein’s reaction? “I have three responses: amen, amen and amen.” Anyone remotely familiar with Saperstein’s decades-long views on religion and state can only shake his head incredulously.

The ADL’s Abe Foxman did, to his credit, criticize the extreme religious makeover as “excessive . . . aggressive . . . and not where religion belongs,” and declared himself “very much disturbed that the Jewish community isn’t disturbed.” Yet even Foxman said he had “no problem” with the emergence late in the campaign of Rabbis for Obama, a group comprising over 600 non-Orthodox clergyfolk, which, according to Brandeis historian Jonathan Sarna, was unprecedented in American Jewish politics. Indeed, Noam Neusner, who served as George W. Bush’s liaison to the Jewish community, has said that the Bush campaign never encouraged any such effort by rabbis specifically “because of the sensitivity of the church-state issue.”

No such concern apparently perturbed Rabbis for Obama, because as founder Sam Gordon put it, “we’re not doing this as rabbis of synagogues . . . [but] as private citizens,” and that he “would never presume to tell congregants how to vote.” Yup — and if you buy that, can I interest you next in purchasing a certain bridge spanning the East River?

(A sermon Gordon delivered just after the Democratic convention makes for a fascinating study in cognitive dissonance. Gordon waxes lyrical about Robert Kennedy’s death 40 years ago. He then vows never to endorse a candidate from the pulpit, and tells the assembled that “having said that, [Obama’s nomination] was, for some people, the end of the 40 years in the desert. . . . Bobby Kennedy’s death put an end to many of our dreams, but [Obama’s nomination] was thrilling for many of us because we saw some of those dreams come to fruition. . . . He dreamed of things that never were, and said why not? Why not indeed.”)

In a 1996 Commentary symposium, renowned constitutional attorney Nathan Lewin wrote:

I consider the greatest obstacle to the continuity of Judaism in America to be the slavish, mindless and reflexive devotion of American Jewish leadership to the “Wall of Separation” between church and state, [which] is more revered by American Jewish organizations than is the Western Wall in Jerusalem, the authentic and lasting symbol of Judaism. Crushed under the Wall of Separation, which, to my mind, is built on a misunderstanding of the values protected by the First Amendment, are many yeshivas and other Jewish religious institutions. that cannot survive in today’s world without the support that government should provide nondiscriminatorily for religious and conscientious convictions and practices.

As a parent of yeshivah students who, along with virtually every other middle-class yeshivah parent I know, strains under the almost unbearable burden of tuition, even as our children’s teachers go unpaid their meager salaries for months at a time because the schools are themselves heavily in the red, I wholeheartedly agree with Lewin.

The damage caused by the denial of government assistance to Jewish families and Jewish education has been real and lasting, while the doomsday scenarios of religious domination that animate the strict separationists are the stuff of fantasy. As the theologian Michael Novak has observed regarding school prayer: “For a state to ‘establish’ a religion . . . takes some heavy lifting. Permitting a moment of prayer in the public schools doesn’t do it, and didn’t do it for the more than 120 years between the founding of the public schools (in about 1840) and the concerted attempt to secularize them that began some 40 years ago.”

Similarly, the reading vans that, for decades, were parked outside yeshivos were a very costly and unwieldy result of then-prevailing Supreme Court doctrine prohibiting public school personnel from setting foot in parochial schools to render remedial services, lest the “pervasively religious character” of those institutions influence the hearts and minds of impressionable teachers. In the mid-90s, however, the Court reversed itself and permitted publicly funded remediation on religious school grounds and — wonder of wonders — the new policy didn’t result in a steady stream, or even a trickle, of public employees heading for the baptismal font — or the mikvah.

Through it all, however, many of us have given the secular and non-Orthodox Jewish establishment the benefit of the doubt that their die-hard opposition to any form of government aid to our schools was based on firmly-held, albeit misconceived, principle. Although we disagreed strenuously, we could understand where they were “coming from,” that their irrational fears of creating a slippery slope culminating in forcible conversions by Pat Robertson’s armed hordes was rooted subconsciously in the sum of Jewry’s darkest historical fears.

But now along comes election season 2008, featuring a candidate who was the liberal Jewish community’s great, longed-for hope. Suddenly — and inexplicably – in service of the overriding goal of ensuring his election, decades worth of hypersensitivity to the slightest perceived breach in The Wall vanished without a trace.

It’s enough to make a Jew skeptical.

This article appeared in the December 3 issue of Hamodia.

Jews make up less than two percent of the American population and less than one quarter of one percent of the world’s people. Each year, assimilation and low birth rates lower the Jewish population, both in relative and absolute terms. We are becoming fewer and fewer and yet there are some among us who would reject the handful of brave souls who wish to identify as Jews.

One can only wonder how the above writer would disparage the attitude towards conversion of Rabbi Tzion Levi, zt”l, who led the Jewish community of Panama for fifty-seven years. A short news item in Mishpacha, December 3, remarked on his petirah (passing), and included the following:

Rabbi Levi laid down the law on conversions. He decreed that no conversions were to be performed in Panama; whoever wanted to convert would have to go ... Read More >>]]> A Letter to the Editor in the Baltimore Jewish Times, December 5, restates a common theme in modern Jewish thought: whereas assimilation and low birth rates are lowering the Jewish population, we should be as welcoming as possible to prospective converts. Now, they argue, is the time to lower the barriers to entry for anyone wishing to identify with the Jewish people.

Jews make up less than two percent of the American population and less than one quarter of one percent of the world’s people. Each year, assimilation and low birth rates lower the Jewish population, both in relative and absolute terms. We are becoming fewer and fewer and yet there are some among us who would reject the handful of brave souls who wish to identify as Jews.

One can only wonder how the above writer would disparage the attitude towards conversion of Rabbi Tzion Levi, zt”l, who led the Jewish community of Panama for fifty-seven years. A short news item in Mishpacha, December 3, remarked on his petirah (passing), and included the following:

Rabbi Levi laid down the law on conversions. He decreed that no conversions were to be performed in Panama; whoever wanted to convert would have to go to an Orthodox beis din (religious court) outside the country. Afterward, the person would be required to demonstrate for two years that he/she lives a Torah life, before being accepted as a Jew by the community.

Far from lowering the barriers, Rabbi Levi made conversion far more difficult than the Halacha requires. Any prospective convert would presumably have to spend a considerable amount of time in a foreign country, as no beis din will conduct a conversion before they themselves are convinced as to the individual’s sincerity. Then, upon returning to Panama, the newly-minted convert had to live a Torah life for two years before being recognized as a Jew.

Rav Eliyahu Raful, Rosh Yeshivas Neve Ha’aretz, told Mishpacha that Rabbi Levi created a religious community “out of nothing.” With that sort of “intransigent” and “unreasonable” attitude, should it have flourished? The record speaks for itself:

Today the community has 6,000 Torah-observant members, and is known internationally for its chesed (kindness) and tzedakah (charity). But the community takes special pride in the fact that, unlike other western cities, there is essentially no intermarriage.

There is no study, projection or even armchair guess claiming that the Jewish community can sustain its numbers through conversions. The number of conversions is, regardless of the standard used, insufficient to make up for assimilation and the low birth rate. It might be argued, though, that making Jewish identity such a trivial thing to acquire sends precisely the wrong message to Jewish youth.

“Dumbing Judaism Down” is not the answer.

But no, the demonstrations – and church vandalisms and business boycotts – were in protest of California voters’ passage of the November ballot measure known as Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Any two Californians can, as before, register as “domestic partners” and have the very same rights and responsibilities as married couples under state law. All Proposition 8 sought to do was preserve in law what the word “marriage” has meant for millennia.

Those, though, who were unhappy with the electorate’s decision wasted no time in taking to the streets of dozens of American cities and towns to rail against the audacity – the bigotry, as they proclaimed it – of considering gender germane to marriage.

In some cities, tens of thousands turned out for raucous rallies; in many instances, epithets were hurled at counterdemonstrators and even uninvolved bystanders. Although ... Read More >>]]> From the agitation and anger of the crowds, the din of the car horns and the shouts of “Civil rights now!” and “Bigots!” one would have been forgiven for thinking that the protesters were denouncing some horrific assault on human freedom.

But no, the demonstrations – and church vandalisms and business boycotts – were in protest of California voters’ passage of the November ballot measure known as Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Any two Californians can, as before, register as “domestic partners” and have the very same rights and responsibilities as married couples under state law. All Proposition 8 sought to do was preserve in law what the word “marriage” has meant for millennia.

Those, though, who were unhappy with the electorate’s decision wasted no time in taking to the streets of dozens of American cities and towns to rail against the audacity – the bigotry, as they proclaimed it – of considering gender germane to marriage.

In some cities, tens of thousands turned out for raucous rallies; in many instances, epithets were hurled at counterdemonstrators and even uninvolved bystanders. Although protesters claimed the mantle of the American civil rights movement, several black observers of the Los Angeles demonstration had what has been called the “N-bomb” dropped on them by infuriated demonstrators – a presumed tribute to the fact that blacks voted 2-1 in favor of the proposition. A San Diego family with a “Yes on 8” sign on their front lawn had their car’s tires slashed. A San Francisco area group launched a campaign to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church because of its support of the marriage initiative. Graffiti was spray-painted on a Mormon church near Sacramento. A group of about 30 activists from a group called “Bash Back!” stormed into a Lansing, Michigan church, unfurled a rainbow flag at the pulpit and proceeded to disrupt services by banging on cans and shouting.

Some, even among those who assign meaning to traditional morality, are not greatly bothered by the push to expand the meaning of marriage. They are content to let people call things whatever they want, and regard the societal push to revamp social mores as benign. The vehemence, violence and general obnoxiousness that characterized some of the protests, though, should give them pause.

As should Scott Eckern’s forced resignation.

Mr. Eckern was the artistic director of the California Musical Theater. He no longer holds that position because anti-Proposition 8 activists uncovered and publicized the fact that he had made a contribution to the other side’s campaign. Mr. Eckern explained that his donation stemmed from his religious beliefs as a Mormon and expressed sadness that his “personal beliefs and convictions have offended others” and caused “hurt feelings.”

But neither his words nor resignation were enough to mollify the mob. An award-winning composer called Mr. Eckern to tell him that he would not allow his work to be performed in the theater with which the ex-director had been associated; and an actress called for a boycott of the institution.

It seems clearer than ever that gay activists are not, as was once thought, interested only on being left alone, or, as was later thought, on being granted the same privileges as others. They are fixated, in fact, on creating a society where traditional religious perspectives on homosexuality and marriage are regarded, in law and in social dialogue, as the equivalent of racial or ethnic bias.

The scenario of religious people – and institutions like churches, synagogues and mosques – being branded as bigoted simply for affirming deeply-held religious convictions is around the corner. And eventual prosecution of the same for voicing those convictions is only another corner or two away.

What began as a plea for “rights” is rapidly, and noisily, morphing into an assault on freedom of speech and conscience.

Jews who take their religious tradition seriously will not allow the shifting sands of societal mores to obscure the fact that the Torah forbids homosexual acts, and sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. They know, further, that the Talmud and Midrash teach that a saving grace of human society throughout the ages has been its refusal to formalize unions between males.
Which made a scene at one of the recent protests particularly poignant.

Rebecca Kaplan, a newly elected Oakland, California city council member, told those gathered outside City Hall how upset she was with the passage of Proposition 8. According to a news report, she “roused the crowd by blowing a shofar, a ram’s horn blown as a wind instrument in Biblical times. She said it represented a call for solidarity.”

Only it doesn’t. It represents a call for teshuva, the Hebrew word for repentance, literally “return” – to the teachings of the Jewish religious tradition.

© 2008 AM ECHAD RESOURCES

[Rabbi Shafran is director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America.]

All Am Echad Resources essays are offered for publication or sharing without charge,
provided the above copyright notice is appended.

“Shabbat Shalom, rabbi,” they said, and asked to have a word with me.

I sensed that they were missionaries and asked them what the subject was. They replied that they wanted to talk to me about the “Son of God.”

I suggested that while I respected their personal beliefs, in Judaism there is no such thing as a son or mother of God, that ours is a very strict monotheistic faith, and that our God is one, not two, and not three. I added that before attempting to convert Jews, they should consider converting Christians to Christian teachings, because throughout history, Jews had seen very little of Christian love and of turning the other cheek.

End of conversation.

WELL, AT least they were honest. Today, missionaries are much more subtle.

For one thing, they often pose as Jews themselves. And, most significantly, they do not initially ask Jews to accept Jesus as the son of God, nor mention that in Christianity, Jesus is worshipped as a divine being.

Contemporary missionaries realize that Jews – even secular, non-religious ... Read More >>]]> Many years ago, while a rabbi in Atlanta, I answered a knock on my door one Shabbat afternoon. Standing in front of me was a fine-looking couple – obviously non-Jewish.

“Shabbat Shalom, rabbi,” they said, and asked to have a word with me.

I sensed that they were missionaries and asked them what the subject was. They replied that they wanted to talk to me about the “Son of God.”

I suggested that while I respected their personal beliefs, in Judaism there is no such thing as a son or mother of God, that ours is a very strict monotheistic faith, and that our God is one, not two, and not three. I added that before attempting to convert Jews, they should consider converting Christians to Christian teachings, because throughout history, Jews had seen very little of Christian love and of turning the other cheek.

End of conversation.

WELL, AT least they were honest. Today, missionaries are much more subtle.

For one thing, they often pose as Jews themselves. And, most significantly, they do not initially ask Jews to accept Jesus as the son of God, nor mention that in Christianity, Jesus is worshipped as a divine being.

Contemporary missionaries realize that Jews – even secular, non-religious Jews – have a visceral revulsion at the idea of a human being as divine. They also realize that, for Jews, the figure of Jesus symbolizes a church that has for millennia condemned Jews to purgatory and eternal damnation; that the church, in the name of Christian love, has been responsible for oceans of Jewish blood because of the Jewish refusal to accept Jesus as a divine being; and for the belief that Jews deserve to suffer because of this refusal.

Aware of all this, many contemporary missionaries have apparently altered their strategy. They are now appealing to Jews from a pseudo-Jewish perspective. In order to entrap Jews, in other words, much missionary activity has been Judaized. Jesus is no longer Jesus; he is now “Yeshua,” a nice, Jewish-sounding name – as seen in recent missionary ad campaigns on Jerusalem’s buses.

A close reading of some of today’s missionary material shows that the central belief in the divinity of Jesus and his role as “lord and savior” is hardly mentioned. Today’s emphasis is on his supposed role as messiah. Further, many missionaries themselves now refer to themselves not as Christians but as “messianic Jews.” They wear yarmulkes, don a tallit, and even have their own “rabbis.”

The State of Israel is a crucial target for such missionaries, and many so-called messianic Jews are actually born Christians who have given themselves Jewish names and moved to Israel for one reason: to proselytize Jews.

THIS NEW strategy is illustrated by several recent media articles. The Washington Post ran a news article on June 21, picked up from the Associated Press, about “messianic Jews” who claim that they are discriminated against in Israel – a questionable accusation. The article’s description of messianic Jews made not a single reference to the divinity of Jesus. It slavishly followed the news release of the missionary group that issued it – which was careful not to mention the fact that so-called messianic Jews believe Jesus is the son of God.

Even The Jerusalem Post made no mention of the divinity of Jesus in its article last Thursday about the three-day messianic conference taking place that weekend.

An innocent reader comes away from such articles with the impression that “messianic Jews” are simply another group within Judaism. There are Orthodox Jews, hassidic Jews, haredi Jews, and there are messianic Jews – all part of one big, happy Jewish family

WHAT WE see here, in effect, is a renewed assault on the fundamentals of Judaism – not the traditional frontal assault, but, in a shift in tactics, one that attempts to infiltrate through indirect means by blurring the Jesus-as-God aspect of Christianity and stressing the Jesus-as-messiah aspect. Many missionaries feel this roundabout approach is less threatening to Jews, more “Jewish-friendly.”

In view of this renewed offensive against the basic beliefs of Judaism, some obvious truths must be reiterated:

First and foremost is the cornerstone belief of Judaism: God is a pure and unadulterated One. He is singular, the unity of all unities, alone, unique, and indivisible. He cannot be transformed into two or into three – and certainly not into statues or figures. He is not and never was human, and he has no physicality, no father or mother.

Millions of Jews have gone to their deaths proclaiming Shema Yisrael – Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Over and over again the Hebrew Bible prophetically warns against the inevitable attempts to dilute and distort this unity (see Deut. 13).

Further truths follow from this cardinal principle:

1. It is a distortion to claim that one can be a Jew and at the same time believe in Jesus as a god or as a messiah, or a prophet or savior.

2. It follows, therefore, that terms such as “Jews for Jesus,” or “Jewish Christians” are grotesque perversions. Such terms are misleading, misguided, misconceived, and ultimately a miscarriage of truth – for no Jew can believe in any divinity other than the One God, and no Jew can view Jesus as anything other than a teacher of another faith system.

AS FOR the true identity of the Messiah, we have no specific knowledge, as Maimonides states in his Code, in Hilchot Melachim. In Judaism, the Messiah will not be a divine creature but a man born of a man and woman; he will inaugurate an era of universal peace, spirituality and enlightenment, and will gather in all Jewish exiles to the land of Israel, as outlined in Isaiah 11.

Jesus has not fulfilled any of these prophecies. Furthermore, he is worshipped as a deity by another faith. For converts to Christianity to claim that they are “messianic Jews” is thus another pathetic distortion.

Having said this, it is important to state that Judaism has no quarrel with those who choose not to follow the pure monotheism of our faith.

We are not a missionary religion, and the benevolent behavior of the modern State of Israel toward non-Jewish religious minorities demonstrates Jewish magnanimity to those who do not follow Jewish ways. We have only respect for those who wish to worship their own deity in their own way, and to live ethically and lovingly with all people. We condemn those who would demean or use violence against believers of another religion.

AT THE same time, missionaries should know that Judaism disdains those who would entrap unlettered Jews through deception and falsehoods. To try to persuade innocent Jews that there is no real difference between Judaism and Christianity – even when these attempts stem from “love and friendship” for the Jewish people – is an example of such deception.

We welcome genuine evangelical love and friendship and cherish evangelical support for the State of Israel. But evangelicals must realize that words like “love and friendship” are very hollow when they come at the price of apostasy and betrayal of the millennia-old faith of the Jewish people.

Jews understand that the conversion of the Jews to Christianity is a central tenet of many Christian sects. We know that missionary societies around the world budget many millions of dollars annually in order to “save” Jews. If this is a basic teaching of evangelicals, so be it. But Jews can learn from them. We too should be budgeting millions to save fellow Jews around the world, and especially in Israel, from ignorance and Jewish illiteracy.

The old secular Zionist order, in its haste to be accepted by the outside world, deprived entire generations of Israeli Jews of even elementary knowledge of our Jewish heritage – with the result that too many Jews have no idea of what Judaism stands for, or of the deep chasms that separate Judaism from Christianity.

We must become missionaries to ourselves. It is long past time for us to deliver serious Jewish learning to our people. This is particularly needed for newcomers to Israel from lands like Russia and Ethiopia, who are particularly vulnerable to the artful blandishments of clever missionaries. They, together with all Jews, need to know how to reply when the doorbell rings.

Printed in the Jerusalem Post, July 3.

When I opened them, however, I got a surprise in the opposite direction. Not only were the parshiyos (the written parchments) in decent condition, but the writing was truly beautiful. I showed them to an expert sofer, who restored them. They are perhaps 150 years old, and the writing, he said, was only used by a pretty elite group. The batim were constructed from multiple pieces of leather, which we wouldn’t use today with such fine parchments. But what we found inside them were hidden gems. “He spent his money on the writing,” said the sofer. And who knows… what spiritual impact might have been felt from that level of sacrifice for the sake of a Mitzvah, four ... Read More >>]]> I have a son approaching Bar Mitzvah age, which means he will be needing Tefillin shortly. My mother mentioned that her grandfather’s old Tefillin were in a package in a basement. I had never known of them before, but as you can imagine was excited to learn that they existed. Well… when I opened the bag my wife and I were dismayed. The batim, the boxes, were green. Mold green. We thought that after years in a wet basement, all was lost.

When I opened them, however, I got a surprise in the opposite direction. Not only were the parshiyos (the written parchments) in decent condition, but the writing was truly beautiful. I showed them to an expert sofer, who restored them. They are perhaps 150 years old, and the writing, he said, was only used by a pretty elite group. The batim were constructed from multiple pieces of leather, which we wouldn’t use today with such fine parchments. But what we found inside them were hidden gems. “He spent his money on the writing,” said the sofer. And who knows… what spiritual impact might have been felt from that level of sacrifice for the sake of a Mitzvah, four generations later?

The parshiyos are written in the Ksav, the font, attributed to the Alter Rebbe of Lubavitch.

When I read the responses to my earlier post, “A Hopeful Sign for Chabad?“, I was extremely pleased to see the fiery denunciation of the ‘Meshichist’ wing from commenters who identify with Lubavitch. I think a tad more forbearance is appropriate towards those other commenters who previously encountered opinions similar to Eli Soble’s from far more prominent figures within the movement. The fact that the JPost found no one better known than Soble to voice this tripe is a hopeful sign, but we cannot pretend that it has always been so.

The marginalization of the Meshichist viewpoint must be repeated until it is no longer espoused not merely in public, not merely in private conversation, but in the hearts of all ma’aminim, those faithful to Torah. Because, at the same time, Lubavitch has a long and distinguished Chassidic line, and thousands upon thousands of people willing to be moser nefesh, to give up their very lives, on behalf of all Jews and, indeed, all humanity.

Two newspaper articles, both published today, are good examples, and Rabbi Adlerstein deserves the credit for pointing them out. One is in the New York Times, the other the Concord Monitor, and both represent a Kiddush HaShem. Both of the gentlemen featured are Ba’alei Teshuva who found their way home via Lubavitch. Both have careers in the secular community. Both are unafraid to be who they are, beards, black hats, and all, in very foreign environments. And both have bridged the divide with great success.

Chabad shluchim are creating these types of success stories every day. There’s much to learn from them, and much that could be accomplished with more unity.

Frankly, there’s a divide to be bridged within the Orthodox world. Yes, the Yechi-niks are far too numerous, and far too visible. Yes, in Lubavitch there is a school of thought that other frum Jews have to be brought into Chabad. There are those who give their time, energy and money only to Lubavitch, who quote only Lubavitcher Rebbes, etc., etc., etc. The relationship has been rocky, and to a large extent that must be attributed to Lubavitchers rather than those who have criticized them. There is far too much of this to be dismissed as “the enmity of centuries of Misnahgdim.” There are serious issues here, and you certainly don’t see this sort of criticism leveled against Bobov, Stolin, Satmar, Ger, or any other Chassidic group. My aforementioned son is named after my wife’s grandfather, who was a Belzer Chossid, descended from the Noam Elimelech via the Dinover Rebbe. We all have our own parochial hang-ups, but you don’t find any similar level of friction between Belzers and Litvaks.

I would put it this way: there is mold on the outside. The public displays of the Meshichistin and these other issues stain the image of Lubavitch. The gems are less visible, less obvious, hidden inside. Having heard only positive things about Rabbis such as Dovid Eliezrie (and those positive things, quite frequently) one can only say keyn yirbu — may Rabbis such as he increase both in number and in influence.

I know this might sound strange coming from a father who’s far from a religious Jew, but now that you’re dating, there’s something I need you to understand.

The single most important decision you’ll ever make in life will not be about your education or career but about whom you’ll marry.

Because who your wife is will determine, more than anything else in your adult life, the person you become, the family you’ll raise, what you’ll leave on earth when it will be time to go. I know the end of life isn’t something you probably give much thought to. Not many of us do, at least not until we became sick or old enough to see it hovering on the horizon. But a final day does arrive, sooner or later, for each of us. And when it comes, very few of the things we thought made such a big difference will seem to matter at all anymore. And other things we never gave much thought to will suddenly be very important. We’ll want to look back at our lives and feel that, in those areas, we pretty much did the right thing.

Sean, the right thing ... Read More >>]]> Dear Sean,

I know this might sound strange coming from a father who’s far from a religious Jew, but now that you’re dating, there’s something I need you to understand.

The single most important decision you’ll ever make in life will not be about your education or career but about whom you’ll marry.

Because who your wife is will determine, more than anything else in your adult life, the person you become, the family you’ll raise, what you’ll leave on earth when it will be time to go. I know the end of life isn’t something you probably give much thought to. Not many of us do, at least not until we became sick or old enough to see it hovering on the horizon. But a final day does arrive, sooner or later, for each of us. And when it comes, very few of the things we thought made such a big difference will seem to matter at all anymore. And other things we never gave much thought to will suddenly be very important. We’ll want to look back at our lives and feel that, in those areas, we pretty much did the right thing.

Sean, the right thing for a Jewish person is to marry another Jew.

Not only because our religion requires it. But because when Jews “marry out,” they disrespect who they are, they are disloyal to the Jewish past and they chip away at the Jewish future.

Whether or not our family kept strictly kosher or celebrated the Sabbath or attended services often enough is all one thing. But the thought of bringing about the end of a proud Jewish line stretching back in time for centuries is something else. It’s more than some religious transgression.

You never asked to be a Jew, I know. You were born one. But being Jewish isn’t a burden. It’s a gift. It means you are part of something bigger, much bigger, than yourself.

Each of us Jews represents the hopes of so many Jewish ancestors. Don’t forget, you’re not just Sean, you’re Shmuel too. And even if you only used your Jewish name when you made the blessings over the Torah at your bar-mitzvah, it is still who you really are, an inheritance from your grandfather. And it was the same thing to him from an ancestor of his. You can’t just ignore the meaning of something like that. It’s a responsibility. All of my ancestors and your mother’s, all those Jews who came before us, lived, and sometimes died to keep their Jewish identity and heritage going.

I know that love is a powerful emotion. That’s exactly why I’m writing this as you begin to date. The young women you become close to will form the pool where you’ll find the person you want to spend your life with. Don’t give yourself the opportunity to fall in love with someone you cannot, as a Jew in good conscience, marry. And never forget that what the world calls “love” isn’t all there is to a successful and happy life. Every marriage that ended in divorce or worse, after all, started in a rush of love. For a marriage to really work, there has to be not only attraction and care but shared ideals and goals. And part of a Jewish man or woman’s goals has to be to take their Jewish identity seriously, and to instill it into their children.

I don’t care whether the girl you marry is white, black or yellow. I don’t care if she speaks English, Hebrew, Yiddish or Swahili. I don’t care if she was born a Jew or became one, legally, properly, and sincerely. But if she isn’t Jewish, I know there will be tears, in your mother’s eyes and mine – and also in heaven.

They say these days that most Jewish parents in America don’t care if their children marry other Jews or not. I hope it’s not true, but even if it is, we do. Remember what I’ve told you many times: Being a Jew means being ready to buck the tide, to say no to others – even a lot of others – when something important’s at stake. Sean, you’re the future of our family. I hope you’ll have the courage and the strength to do the right thing.

Love,

Dad

When all hope is lost, a Jew about to be killed “al Kiddush Hashem” — as a Jewish martyr — is indeed to reach for serenity, even happiness, at the opportunity to give up his life because of who he is. When Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, the great Lithuanian Jewish religious leader and scholar, was murdered by Hitler’s henchmen in 1941, he reportedly told the students about to be killed with him that “In Heaven it appears that they deem us to be righteous because our bodies have been chosen to atone for the Jewish people… In this way we will save the lives of our brethren overseas… We are now fulfilling the greatest Commandment… The very fire that consumes our bodies will one day rebuild the Jewish people.”

But Jewish martyrdom is not something to be courted. And so Mr. Gandhi’s advice for Jews during the Holocaust was, ... Read More >>]]> In a 1938 essay, Mohandas (“Mahatma”) Gandhi, the spiritual and political leader of the Indian independence movement, counseled Jews in Nazi Germany to neither flee nor resist but rather offer themselves up to be killed by their enemies, since their “suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy.”

When all hope is lost, a Jew about to be killed “al Kiddush Hashem” — as a Jewish martyr — is indeed to reach for serenity, even happiness, at the opportunity to give up his life because of who he is. When Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, the great Lithuanian Jewish religious leader and scholar, was murdered by Hitler’s henchmen in 1941, he reportedly told the students about to be killed with him that “In Heaven it appears that they deem us to be righteous because our bodies have been chosen to atone for the Jewish people… In this way we will save the lives of our brethren overseas… We are now fulfilling the greatest Commandment… The very fire that consumes our bodies will one day rebuild the Jewish people.”

But Jewish martyrdom is not something to be courted. And so Mr. Gandhi’s advice for Jews during the Holocaust was, even if consonant with his personal beliefs, from Judaism’s point of view profoundly wrong.

And Gandhi’s advice was even more disturbing in light of his admission, in that same essay, that the “cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me.” Jews, he said, should “make… their home where they are born.” It is, moreover, he went on, “inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.”

Apples, they say, don’t fall far from trees. A rotten one fell with a loud splat recently over at The Washington Post. On a weblog — “On Faith” — sponsored by that paper in conjunction with Newsweek Magazine, Arun Gandhi, a grandson of Mohandas and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence at the University of Rochester, opined that “the Jews today” are intent on making Germans feel guilty for the Holocaust (which he chose to spell with a lower-case “h”) and that they insist that “the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews.”

“The world did feel sorry,” he reminded his readers, “for the episode.” But “when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on, the regret turns into anger.”

Ah, yes, that unpleasant “episode,” more than 60 years ago. And those Jews still can’t bring themselves to forgive the Nazis.

Like his grandfather was, Mr. Gandhi petit-fils is also concerned with Israel. Addressing those who defend the Jewish State’s security barrier and use of weapons to fight terrorism, he challenged: “[Y]ou believe that you can create a snake pit — with many deadly snakes in it — and expect to live in the pit secure and alive?”

And so the man of peace, grandson of the same, reached the conclusion that actions like Israel’s “created a culture of violence, and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.”

Interesting. Although his own concern about Jews was not exactly their militarism, Mr. Hitler similarly saw them as jeopardizing humanity’s survival. Well, whatever.

Grandson Gandhi subsequently apologized for his “poorly worded post.” In the course of his apology he even took care to capitalize “Holocaust.” But his apology itself, unfortunately, consisted solely of his regret at having implied that “the policies of the Israeli government are reflective of the views of all Jewish people.” Many Jews, he explained, “are as concerned as I am by the use of violence for state purposes…”

Well, thank you, Mr. Gandhi. But no thanks. I cannot speak for all of the Jewish people, of course, but for my part I must decline your apology. Not because I bear you any grudge or ill will, and certainly not because I am hard-hearted. I don’t think I have ever rejected an apology in my life, until now.

It’s not because I am blinded by some ethnic rage over the unpleasantness of that World War II episode. And not because I am a knee-jerk defender of Israel in whatever her leaders decide to do; I am not.

No, I reject your apology simply because you seem to have missed the entire point of why your original post was so offensive — frankly, revolting. It is astounding that you still don’t seem to realize your insult and error.

They lie in where you directed your words. You are welcome to criticize Israeli decisions, even the wisdom of Israel’s establishment itself, if you agree with your grandfather’s views. But if your ultimate concerns are in fact peace and humanity’s survival, then in a world where Jews are regularly attacked simply for being Jews and Israelis simply for being Israelis, where Jewish tombstones are defaced and broken, where Arab countries will not permit Israelis to enter their borders and Arab textbooks teach children to hate Jews as a matter of religious and cultural obligation, where a United Nations routinely ignores murder, mayhem and unspeakable cruelty in scores of countries but just as routinely condemns Israel for defending herself, the primary focus of your ire should have been not those living in the snake pit, but rather the snakes themselves.

January 19th is one of the most important contests in the Democratic and Republican quests for their parties’ nomination for the presidency. It is also Shabbat.

This year, the Nevada Democratic and Republican parties have decided to hold their primary caucuses on a Saturday, with citizens required to report by 11:30 and 9:00 AM respectively, right during morning religious services. When I called the political parties in Nevada to inquire as to whether or not there were measures being taken to help accommodate those observant Jews who wished to participate in the caucuses, I received mixed results… Neither had an adequate answer as to why the caucuses had to take place on a Shabbat morning.

Nevada has one of the fastest growing Jewish populations in the country, and its 65,000-80,000 Jewish community members are expected to have a disproportionate impact on the results. I do not know how many of these Jews are observant enough to be effectively barred from participating in the caucus. I do not know how many of these Jews will be pushed into the uncomfortable position of choosing between attending synagogue and participating in a cherished American civic tradition. I DO ... Read More >>]]> From the Jewish Council for Public Affairs:

January 19th is one of the most important contests in the Democratic and Republican quests for their parties’ nomination for the presidency. It is also Shabbat.

This year, the Nevada Democratic and Republican parties have decided to hold their primary caucuses on a Saturday, with citizens required to report by 11:30 and 9:00 AM respectively, right during morning religious services. When I called the political parties in Nevada to inquire as to whether or not there were measures being taken to help accommodate those observant Jews who wished to participate in the caucuses, I received mixed results… Neither had an adequate answer as to why the caucuses had to take place on a Shabbat morning.

Nevada has one of the fastest growing Jewish populations in the country, and its 65,000-80,000 Jewish community members are expected to have a disproportionate impact on the results. I do not know how many of these Jews are observant enough to be effectively barred from participating in the caucus. I do not know how many of these Jews will be pushed into the uncomfortable position of choosing between attending synagogue and participating in a cherished American civic tradition. I DO know that it is highly unlikely that the state’s political parties would choose to hold these caucuses on a Sunday morning during church services.

Because of the need to caucus during a pre-designated and inflexible time, this form of primary contest inevitably will leave out large swaths of potential voters… However, there are two elements of Nevada’s political parties’ decision to hold the caucus on Shabbat that make it especially disturbing: the fact that it is entirely avoidable (the caucuses could have easily been held on a weeknight or even after Shabbat ended), and the fact that it categorically excludes an entire group of people based on their religious identity…

Nevada’s observant Jews will be asked to make a false choice between practicing their Judaism and participating in a defining American moment. To all Americans, not just American Jews, this should be seen as a disappointment.

While I agree it is obvious that they wouldn’t caucus on Sunday morning, the number of observant Jews (and, for that matter, Seventh-Day Adventists) in the state of Nevada makes it likely that organizers were either entirely unaware or considered the numbers insignificant. Nonetheless, the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, says it best: “In a country that values religious liberty, no person should ever be forced to choose between practicing their religion and participating in their democracy. America is the most religiously diverse nation in the world, and the political process should be open to all on equal terms.”

Let’s not forget how fortunate we are that in America, others consider the disenfranchisement of religious Jews to be such a serious matter.

There was “Jerusalem, praise G-d,” “May You shine a new light on Zion,” “the Builder of Jerusalem,” and many more throughout the Jewish morning prayer service.

And then there were the other references to Jerusalem but without her name, like “May it be Your will… that the Holy Temple be rebuilt, speedily in our days” and “the city called by Your name.”

After a bowl of cereal, the blessing “Al Hamichya” would mention Jerusalem two more times. And for any meals including bread that might have followed, one of the main blessings that comprise the grace after meals would have the Holy City as its subject as well, beginning with a reference to “Jerusalem Your city” and ending “Who in His mercy builds Jerusalem.”

And, then, in each of the day’s two remaining prayer services, as in the morning one, the silent “Amidah” prayer includes a similar blessing.

It is hard to believe that any people, entity or government could arrogate to claim a closer connection than the Jewish one to the city nestled in the ... Read More >>]]> This morning I counted. There were at least ten times the Hebrew name of Jerusalem, or its synonym Zion, passed my lips. Before breakfast.

There was “Jerusalem, praise G-d,” “May You shine a new light on Zion,” “the Builder of Jerusalem,” and many more throughout the Jewish morning prayer service.

And then there were the other references to Jerusalem but without her name, like “May it be Your will… that the Holy Temple be rebuilt, speedily in our days” and “the city called by Your name.”

After a bowl of cereal, the blessing “Al Hamichya” would mention Jerusalem two more times. And for any meals including bread that might have followed, one of the main blessings that comprise the grace after meals would have the Holy City as its subject as well, beginning with a reference to “Jerusalem Your city” and ending “Who in His mercy builds Jerusalem.”

And, then, in each of the day’s two remaining prayer services, as in the morning one, the silent “Amidah” prayer includes a similar blessing.

It is hard to believe that any people, entity or government could arrogate to claim a closer connection than the Jewish one to the city nestled in the Judean hills, the city toward which praying Jews for millennia have faced thrice daily, and face to this day.

And it is even harder to believe that a government of a self-described Jewish State would even consider, much less announce, its contemplation of placing Jerusalem on the cutting block of negotiations with an enemy.

Yet that is what is happening before our incredulous eyes.

There are Jews who, whether on religious or nationalistic grounds, reject without qualification the very idea of territorial compromise. Many of the religious leaders of the haredi world, however, have clearly stated that political sovereignty over land does not trump the attainment of peace and security. None of us haredi Jews deny, G-d forbid, the holiness of any part of the Jewish Land. But we know that the true, complete (territorially as well as spiritually) “Jewish State” will arrive only when the Messiah does, and that the Third Holy Temple will be built by the hand of not man but G-d. Thus, the reflexive form in our prayer: “May it be Your will that the Temple be [re]built.”

That said, though, “territorial compromise” with an adversary that includes duplicitous, hate-filled elements – elements that celebrate violence and make no secret of their goal of destroying Israel, elements that have time and again asserted themselves at will, brushing away the ostensibly more moderate among them like so much lint – is, to put it mildly, foolhardy. And the Israeli leadership’s apparent readiness to treat even Jerusalem, the very wellspring of the Holy Land’s holiness, like a salami to be shared merits an adjective considerably less mild.

Mere days before this writing, we were reminded of what lies on the “other side.” A Fatah rally in Gaza was attacked by Hamas forces who killed six and injured dozens. The PLO’s chief negotiator publicly rejected the notion that the Palestinians would ever recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Israeli leaders would have to be seriously deluded to imagine that offering such people a part of Jerusalem will result in anything like a secure city.

One can only add to our prayers the hope that those political leaders somehow experience some flash of recognition of what they are contemplating. That they blink a few times, shake their heads and remember just what Jerusalem means to the Jewish People. That they come to open a Jewish prayer book and not only read the words but pay attention to them; and say the grace after meals, doing the same.

And that they then turn to their adversaries and say, without rancor but with full determination: “No. We’re sorry. Not Jerusalem.”

To be sure, from a haredi perspective, it doesn’t make any inherent difference what temporal flag flies above the hewn stones of Jerusalem’s walls. The city’s holiness is neither heralded nor preserved by such banners. But it is a fallacy of the most dangerous sort to imagine that the cause of peace could possibly be advanced by surrendering the heart of the Jewish People.

Time examines a different side of Mother Teresa. A veritable icon of spiritual strength and confidence in the eyes of the public, she spoke privately of a spiritual angst over the last fifty years of her life, in which she could not feel the presence of G-d. Remarkably, this dry period began just as she had extracted permission from her superiors to begin her ministry to the poorest of the poor on the basis of the direct communications she claimed receiving from G-d. Till the end of her days, she wrote to a string of confessors and confidantes about her unrequited love and her inability to pray. She questioned her very belief at times, but her faith trumped her doubts. During the entire period, she knew only one period of spiritual peace – five weeks in 1959.

Response to these revelations is predictably varied. Atheists like Christopher Hitchens believe that she secretly had discovered the “truth” (c”v); believers see her story as the triumph of faith over inner darkness.

Here’s the experiment. What if a Jewish ... Read More >>]]> Time Magazine’s cover story this week provides an opportunity for what Einstein (and others) called a “thought experiment.”

Time examines a different side of Mother Teresa. A veritable icon of spiritual strength and confidence in the eyes of the public, she spoke privately of a spiritual angst over the last fifty years of her life, in which she could not feel the presence of G-d. Remarkably, this dry period began just as she had extracted permission from her superiors to begin her ministry to the poorest of the poor on the basis of the direct communications she claimed receiving from G-d. Till the end of her days, she wrote to a string of confessors and confidantes about her unrequited love and her inability to pray. She questioned her very belief at times, but her faith trumped her doubts. During the entire period, she knew only one period of spiritual peace – five weeks in 1959.

Response to these revelations is predictably varied. Atheists like Christopher Hitchens believe that she secretly had discovered the “truth” (c”v); believers see her story as the triumph of faith over inner darkness.

Here’s the experiment. What if a Jewish Teresa had reported the same feelings? What would we have told her? What concepts and images would we have invoked for her, to help her through her crisis? I ask the question not because it is our place to comment on the inner workings of a faith system that is not ours, but because answering it may help us better understand the tools we have available to us as Jews, and to help those in similar straits.

When I framed the question in my own mind, three ideas instantly came to mind: the Maharal on Hallel; Shabbos; and the Nesivos Shalom on Gershon, Kehas and Merari. I present them in the hope that readers will come up with more – and better – ideas.

In Chapter 61 of Gevuros Hashem, Maharal considers the Gemara’s (Shabbos 118B) frowing upon the individual who wishes to recite Hallel each and every day. Such a person (apparently intoxicated with the beauty of life, and the display of G-d’s closeness within it) does not really bring glory to G-d, insists the Gemara.. To the contrary, he is מחרף ומגדף, he blasphemes G-d. Hallel, Maharal explains, is recited upon recognition of the miraculous Hand of G-d doing His bidding. If one recites Hallel every day, he sees this intervention in everything. But surely not everything we observe is consistent with the characteristics of G-d we know to be true: His goodness, justice, fairness, etc! Terrible things happen in this world. If they happen within the context of a natural order of existence – a natural order valuable enough to Hashem for other reasons so that He is loathe to disturb it, except at very special times – this detected evil is at least dimly comprehensible. But if we argue that the Hand of G-d (not just the remote Will that keeps everything going) actively coordinates all the phenomena we see (which is what that daily Hallel presumes), then we are attributing to Him some pretty nasty stuff, inconsistent with His real nature. Better to come to grips with cruelty and deprivation as a consequence of Hashem showing too little of Himself, than from displaying too much.

Mother Teresa chose to frequent the places that Hashem, k’vayachol, makes Himself the most scarce. She spent her waking hours, 365 days a year, in places where human beings were designed to least recognize Him, where He was the most hidden. (The Sfas Emes explains מרבה נכסים מרבה דאגה (with increased possessions comes increased worry –Avos 2:7) in a similar manner. Hashem is by and large hidden from immediate perception in the pedestrian objects of the physical world. Our encounters with these objects leave us unconnected from Divinity. The more such objects we possess, the more periods of spiritual disconnect we experience.) Teresa, while hanging out in the right neighborhood to do much good, was in the wrong part of town to sense the immediacy of G-d. If explanations can offer some relief from spiritual malaise, then I imagine people would show the Jewish Teresa just why her sense of separation from G-d is understandable.

For the Jew, there is a traditional antidote to spiritual depression, one that offers far more than understanding and recognition. Shabbos was the antidote for centuries for all that could deflate and crush the average little guy. On Shabbos, if a person was not a melech, a king in his own house, he was certainly a ben melech, a prince sitting at the well-set table of the Monarch. Life could be oppressive for six days; looking towards a day of uplift and reconnection with G-d made the other days of the week livable. A Jewish Teresa, I would think, would be counseled to carefully upgrade the quality of her Shabbos experience.

This will not work for everyone. Alas, some people, try as they may, never experience the sense of connection they so desperately seek. They don’t feel the closeness over a blatt Gemara, they don’t sense it during davening, they don’t even bask in the afterglow of an uplifting Shabbos. After a while, many such people simply give up on the idea of spiritual growth – or even on Yiddishkeit itself.

One master recognized just how common this syndrome is today, and had both the foresight to address it, and the depth to put it in a theological context. The Slonimer Rebbe zt”l visits and revisits this phenomenon in his writings. My favorite locus for discussion is his discussion of the three sub-groups within Levi, found in his first piece on Naso.

Kehas gets top billing, deservedly so. He carries the holiest appliances of the Mishkan – the shulchan, the menorah, the mizbachos. He can count on constant connection with ruchniyus of the highest order.

Gershon occupies one notch lower. His name comes from the root גרש, and indeed he feels that he is sometimes pushed out from the presence of G-d. He has his good days and his bad days. The challenge is to keep equilibrium on the seesaw.

Then there is Merari. His very name implies bitterness. In the Rebbe’s words:

He finds himself perpetually in darkness. He feels nothing savory in his Torah and his service of Hashem. He lives like the ox in its yoke, and the donkey under its burden, with a labor that breaks him. All his days are impoverished – even Shabbos and Yom Tov. [Unlike his two brothers,] the Torah does not use the term נשא את ראש regarding Merari, because for him there is no ראש, (no transcendent vision) to speak of.

These three archetypes are widespread, certainly not limited to the sons of Levi. We can easily identify all three types in the people we know. Moreover, most people will go through each of these phases. Merari’s task, says the Rebbe, is exactly what the Torah specifies for the original group: carrying the burden. Merari had the least exalted job. They were shleppers. They shlepped the least exalted part of the Mishkan – the disassembled timbers that formed the walls. The Merari personality is charged to do his job faithfully, loyally, and responsibly. Any spiritual high – or lack thereof – does not enter the equation. If the job is boring or uninspiring, Merari shows up for work regardless.

The Jewish Teresa, then, might benefit from a crash course in the dignity of labor – of uninspired but faithful labor for the sake of Heaven, without any strokes from the Boss.

The Rebbe’s best line, though, is yet to come.

At the end of the parshah, the Torah combines all three sons…על פי ד’ פקד אתם ביד משה איש איש על עבודתו The amount of pleasure that each Jew brings to his Creator is a result of his doing what is within his ability to do….

No role in life is a priori more cherished than another. The Jewish Teresa can be assured that there is nothing theologically jolting about finding oneself in a Divine shadow, rather than a Divine light. Sometimes, Hashem asks that we continue to plug away, without the payback that we have come to expect should follow.

Seen through Jewish eyes, Christianity invests an inordinate amount of theological energy on the idea of Love. Jews, to be sure (and to the surprise of many Christians) have at least the same expectation of finding love (or Chesed, from where it comes) as the most important element of the inner essence of G-d. Jews, however, are aware of other midos, other facets within Hashem, at least insofar as we puny mortals can see. Mother Teresa may have had a particularly difficult time in reaching out with love, and not sensing it returned to her. A Jewish Teresa would likely not be as devastated, knowing that Hashem has many other ways of relating to humans.

What he imagined was that, in its embrace of both Judaism and elements of contemporary culture, the “Modern Orthodoxy” of his youth granted Jews license to abandon as much of Jewish religious observance as they deem appropriate. Expressing his anger – coolly, to be sure, but the hurt seeps thickly through the poised prose – in a recent New York Times Magazine piece, “Orthodox Paradox,” Professor Feldman describes how the Boston Jewish school he attended as a child and teenager went so far as to crop a class reunion photograph to omit him and his non-Jewish Korean-American fiancée , whom he later married.

But the Photoshopped portrait is only the professor’s anecdotal hook. What he really resents is that his erstwhile school, along with some of his mentors and friends, spurn him for his decision to marry ... Read More >>]]> One can’t help but feel sad for Noah Feldman. In spite of his considerable professional accomplishments – a law professorship at Harvard, three books, a slew of well-received essays and a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations, to name a few – the young Jew is clearly stewing. A bubble of his own imagining has burst in his face.

What he imagined was that, in its embrace of both Judaism and elements of contemporary culture, the “Modern Orthodoxy” of his youth granted Jews license to abandon as much of Jewish religious observance as they deem appropriate. Expressing his anger – coolly, to be sure, but the hurt seeps thickly through the poised prose – in a recent New York Times Magazine piece, “Orthodox Paradox,” Professor Feldman describes how the Boston Jewish school he attended as a child and teenager went so far as to crop a class reunion photograph to omit him and his non-Jewish Korean-American fiancée , whom he later married.

But the Photoshopped portrait is only the professor’s anecdotal hook. What he really resents is that his erstwhile school, along with some of his mentors and friends, spurn him for his decision to marry outside his faith.

No one, he admits, is rude to him. None of his former teachers or friends, he writes, would refuse to shake his hand. But he knows that they deride him for the life-path he has chosen. And that offends and perplexes him.

Does not “Modern Orthodoxy,” after all, embrace the “reconcil[iation of] Jewish faith with scholarship and engagement in the public sphere”? Should it not, therefore, regard his intermarriage as an expression, if somewhat extreme, of his effort at such reconciliation? Were he and his classmates not taught to see themselves as “reasonable, modern people, not fanatics or cult members”?

Leaving aside whether un-“Modern” Orthodox Jews are in fact disengaged from the public sphere (a visit to any of a number of financial firms, law offices and hi-tech retail businesses in New York or other places with large “ultra-Orthodox” populations might yield evidence to the contrary), much less whether they are fanatical or cultist, Professor Feldman’s umbrage is misplaced. There is a reason why, to Orthodox Jews (and many non-Orthodox no less), no matter how embracing they may be of the larger world, intermarriage represents a deep betrayal. It is more than a violation of Jewish religious law. It is an abandonment of the Jewish past and an undermining of the Jewish future.

Because marriage, arguably the most important choice in a Jewish life, is not a partnership but rather a fusing – “and they shall be as one flesh,” in Genesis’ words. Since a spouse is part of oneself, the personal consequences of intermarriage are profound. As, in Professor Feldman’s case, are the communal ones; his children are not Jewish.

Judaism views the Jewish People as a special and hallowed entity. Members of the nation are to care for all – “we are to support the poor of the nations along with the Jewish poor,” as the Talmud directs. And the righteous among the other nations, the Talmud goes on to teach, will receive their eternal reward. But the Jewish faith is clear about the ultimate redemption of the world: It is dependent on the Jewish People’s remaining a nation apart in fundamental ways. One way is in our basic beliefs – for instance, that G-d gave our ancestors His law, and never subsequently changed it. Another is in our commitment to the integrity of the Jewish people qua people. Our commitment, in other words, to marry other Jews.

A celebrated Orthodox television personality and pundit reacted to Professor Feldman’s article in a Jerusalem Post opinion piece with words of welcome. While he considers intermarriage “a direct threat to the very continuity of the Jewish people,” he nevertheless considers Professor Feldman “a prince of the Jewish nation”; and suggests that intermarrieds be treated no differently from the in-married, that they be offered our “love and respect.”

His suggestion stems from his Jewish heart but his Jewish head should have been more carefully consulted.

Yes, there is ample reason to feel sympathy for Jews who intermarry. Transgressions performed from desire, Jewish tradition teaches, do not reach the level of those intended to be transgressive. And on a personal level, there are reasons to not cut off connections to intermarried friends or relatives. (It is not unheard of for non-Jews married to Jews to actually guide their spouses back to Judaism and to themselves convert; precisely such a couple is the subject of “Migrant Soul,” a biography I was privileged to write.)

At the same time, though, there is simply no way – not in the real world – to warmly welcome intermarrieds without welcoming intermarriage. No way to make Professor Feldmans feel accepted for who they are without making potential Professor Feldmans view intermarriage as innocuous. No way to “devalue” the gravity of intermarriage without dulling the truth that every Jew is an invaluable link in the Jewish chain of generations.

If one begins with the premise that intermarriage is dangerous to the Jewish people and the Jewish mission, the intermarried cannot enjoy our acceptance. There may be quibbles about the means by which we express our rejection of their choice. But the absence of any communal expression of reproach is nothing less than an invitation to intermarriage.

To my lights, it doesn’t seem extreme in the least for a Jewish school to make clear to an intermarried alumnus that, despite his secular accomplishments, it feels no pride in him for his choice to intermarry. I wouldn’t expect an American Cancer Society gathering to smile politely at a chain smoking attendee either.

It is painful, no doubt, to be spurned by one’s community. It is painful, too, for a community to feel compelled to express its censure. Sometimes, though, in personal and communal life no less than in weightlifting, only pain can offer – in the larger, longer picture – hope of gain.

I was especially taken with the calligraphy, the accuracy and beauty of which defy description. I am not particularly skilled with my hands: I actually struggle to read my own handwriting. In comparison, the control, artistic flair and accuracy required to produce an illuminated manuscript are quite breathtaking. I am, of course, familiar with beautiful safrus (Hebrew sacred calligraphy), but I have never been exposed to exquisite scripts from other religions written in other alphabets; I found learning ... Read More >>]]> Encouraged by a number of my congregants, my wife and I recently visited the impressive ‘Sacred’ exhibition at London’s British Library. Billed as ‘the rarest and most exquisite sacred books and manuscripts presented and explored, side by side, in a major UK exhibition for the first time’, it didn’t disappoint. Balanced between Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy books, the 202 exhibits are absolutely magnificent (get a taste of them here) and left me wanting to return to see them again soon. As the exhibition doesn’t end until 23rd September, if you live in the UK or are planning to visit, do make it a priority. I hope to get there at least once more.

I was especially taken with the calligraphy, the accuracy and beauty of which defy description. I am not particularly skilled with my hands: I actually struggle to read my own handwriting. In comparison, the control, artistic flair and accuracy required to produce an illuminated manuscript are quite breathtaking. I am, of course, familiar with beautiful safrus (Hebrew sacred calligraphy), but I have never been exposed to exquisite scripts from other religions written in other alphabets; I found learning about their manufacture fascinating (see here) and consider the final products a remarkable testimony to human ingenuity.

The layout of ‘Sacred’ is also most attractive: the manuscripts are interspersed with religious artefacts, all of great beauty and some of major significance (for example, an original entrance-curtain from the Kaaba in Mecca). There is also tasteful background music, as well as carefully arranged lighting and projections; it’s clear that a huge amount of thought and effort has gone into arranging the exhibition.

While, understandably, great care was taken to avoid mentioning areas of violent religious conflict, the curator was bold enough to address an obvious question: why there are so few very early Jewish manuscripts. In at least one place, the display informs the reader that the extreme rarity of early Jewish manuscripts is explained by the practice of mediaeval Christian authorities of collecting them up and burning them.

The exhibition is not perfect, of course. I was irritated by some of the display panels referring to aspects of Judaism in a rather simplistic and only partially-accurate manner: I also felt that some of the interactive computer displays about Judaism lack depth and substance. I am insufficiently knowledgeable to assess the quality of the displays and computer materials dealing with Christianity and Islam, but I could well imagine a scholar from one of these traditions expressing the same frustrations.

My enthusiasm for ‘Sacred’ is also tempered with some reservations about its objectives. The exhibition is supported by a number of foundations whose mission is to promote understanding between members of different faiths. In a difficult world, where religious tensions run high and especially in the UK, where the benefits (or otherwise) of multiculturalism are the topic of weekly high-level concern, this is certainly a vital and responsible ambition. However, there is a huge gulf between developing mutual respect, understanding and intelligent dialogue between the faiths (an objective that I whole-heartedly endorse) and advancing the notion that what divides the faiths is slight, perhaps even only a matter of style and cultural expression (one that I reject).

One can assert one’s beliefs without compromise, even reinforcing why one rejects other religious convictions, without losing one’s tolerance and even acceptance of those who strongly disagree. The differences between the beliefs, practices and aspirations of the different faiths are huge; even the nature of God Himself is hotly disputed, never mind how one ought to live one’s life. We deal ourselves and our attempts at interfaith harmony a serious blow if we pretend otherwise. Reducing religious differences to externalities is unhelpful and misleading.

Perhaps I am over-sensitive, but ‘Sacred’ smells to me a little like an attempt to promote the ‘we’re-all-really-the-same-it’s-just-a-question-of-style’ ideology. Rather than being grouped by faith origin, the manuscripts are displayed according to eras, progressing from Jewish through Christian and Muslim tracts. One of the reasons for this is clearly to allow a comparison of the calligraphy of different periods, but to me it also conveyed a sense of ‘look how similar they all are.’ Moreover, I felt that some of the displays went out of their way to present the small number of similarities between the three religious traditions, rather than offer a more balanced picture. For example, as depicted in one of the video displays, Jewish, Christian and Muslim wedding ceremonies do indeed have more than a passing resemblance to each another. However, when it comes to any kind of serious issue, such as basic theology, festival celebration, Messianic belief, and even the value and function of the Bible itself, they differ vastly. And the final computer at the exit leaves the visitor with the explicit message that there is so much that the faiths share, much more than what divides them: in some ways this is true, but in so many other senses, it is not.

They did, and that’s pretty much what happened. The fortieth anniversary of the Six-Day War was supposed to be marked last weekend by large protests in cities around the world. They were hoping for massive crowds. Instead, the scheduled mass hate-fest against Israel could better be described as a wake for serious Palestinian support.

The DC gathering – hyped for months in advance – was a complete bust. Reports from sources sympathetic to the pro-Palestinians claimed attendance at 5000, which would have been pitifully insignificant. People who were there (and some subsequent pro-Palestinian reports) claimed that the more accurate figure was below a thousand, which is risible. Photos and eyewitness reports support the smaller number. It looked like a high-school reunion for baby-boomers who were coping with early-onset senility by joining ANSWER, cheered on by the usual assortment of Communist and Socialist Party lifers.

The turnout in London, although higher, amounted to just a few thousand. The papers, not too many of which are exactly friendly to Israel, did not seem to mention it. If events scheduled in ... Read More >>]]> What if the Palestinian lobby threw a party, and no one came?

They did, and that’s pretty much what happened. The fortieth anniversary of the Six-Day War was supposed to be marked last weekend by large protests in cities around the world. They were hoping for massive crowds. Instead, the scheduled mass hate-fest against Israel could better be described as a wake for serious Palestinian support.

The DC gathering – hyped for months in advance – was a complete bust. Reports from sources sympathetic to the pro-Palestinians claimed attendance at 5000, which would have been pitifully insignificant. People who were there (and some subsequent pro-Palestinian reports) claimed that the more accurate figure was below a thousand, which is risible. Photos and eyewitness reports support the smaller number. It looked like a high-school reunion for baby-boomers who were coping with early-onset senility by joining ANSWER, cheered on by the usual assortment of Communist and Socialist Party lifers.

The turnout in London, although higher, amounted to just a few thousand. The papers, not too many of which are exactly friendly to Israel, did not seem to mention it. If events scheduled in other parts of the world – Rome, Brussels – even occurred, no readers (at least English language ones) found out about them.

It seems that some sympathy for or patience with the Palestinians waned, at least for one weekend. This may or may not have had something to do with the internecine slaughter going on Gaza. Palestinian popularity probably did not grow in the days following, when the visuals coming out of the Palestinian world were of Palestinians dispatching each other by dropping them off tall buildings while a mother of eight in her last month of pregnancy tried crossing into Israel (under an Israel-granted humanitarian permit) to blow herself up.

Is this cause for celebration? Hardly. It’s not even occasion for letting our guard down.

By now, I suspect that I have lost readers who have no idea what the bad guys here are up to. It turns out that I have a short and elegant explanation of the global PR and political strategy of the pro-Palestinian camp, that connects the dots between past, present and future. I wish I had written it myself. (Disclaimer: it was written by a Shimon Samuels, a colleague at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, although I have met him in person no longer than sixty seconds.) It comes in the form of an address to a Bucharest meeting of the High Level Conference On Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding Follow-up to the Cordoba Conference on Antisemitism and Other Forms of Intolerance, sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

Mr. Chairman,
As the only Jew elected to the NGO Steering Committee of the UN World Conference Against Racism in 2001, I there witnessed the birth of the new antisemitism.

In the years since that cataclysm in Durban, the blueprint turned the
traditional charge of “all that is Jewish is evil” on its head to “all that
is evil is Jewish”, and a claim that the Holocaust had empowered the Jew in exonerating his multitude of crimes – the greatest being “the Naqba” of
Palestinian misfortune.

The Durbanites moved on to Porto Alegre, Brazil, where in the central
stadium, banners decked the World Social Forum, proclaiming “No to Nazis, Yankees, Jews – No More Chosen Peoples!”

There the blueprint was refined to the prescribed correction – the slogan
B.D.S. – “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions”.

A carefully crafted strategy is fed through the vectors of the media and,
especially, the Internet, NGO’s and Inter-Governmental Organizations,
universities, trade unions, churches, sports and cultural associations,
scientific research and tourism authorities.

Two thousand years of stereotypes and bigoted fixations were to be
telescoped and focused on ghettoizing the Jewish State, with pernicious
impact on attitudes towards Jews globally.

Through blackmail and brainwash, individuals will boycott; companies,
universities and churches divest, and governments are to impose trade and communications sanctions. This momentum is harnessed to a critical mass that delegitimizes all those associated with or sympathetic to the purpose-built icon of evil.

Academic and architectural boycotts garner a self-perpetuating publicity.
Church divestment cannot be quantified in terms of its repercussions on
attitudes and concepts.

The process is incremental, for a campaign increasingly born in London has a mimetic effect in Paris, Geneva, Athens or Oslo.

The process is driven exponentially by the calendar: summer 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War; 2008, Israel’s 60th anniversary as “the year of the Naqba catastrophe”; a global mobilization is planned to begin with this event and to grow until Durban II in 2009.

These boycotts are clearly in violation of the EU’s and the World Trade
Organization’s provisions on freedom of commerce. The singling out of
Israel contravenes the prohibition of “national discrimination” in Article
13 of the EU’s Amsterdam Treaty.

“BDS”, in laterally demonizing the Jews through Middle East blowback,
negates the principles of the EUMC “Working Definition of Antisemitism” and the OSCE’s Berlin Declaration.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre’s telephone hotline in Paris for victims of
antisemitic assault receives an average of 3 to 4 calls per day. When
events from the Middle East capture media priority, they rise to between 60 and 70.

The OSCE, as an assembly of democracies, can act as the bulwark against the next Durban. To do otherwise, would betray its exemplary path from Berlin to Cordoba and here to Bucharest.

Hitler called the Jews “our misfortune”. Then it was “Ungluck”. Now it is
“Naqba”.

The prelude to the Holocaust was sounded by the order “Kaufen nicht bei Juden” – “Buy Not from Jews”. Today it is “BDS”.

May that tragic period in what we now call “the OSCE region” be a warning and not a precedent.

In other words, much of the thrust of the Palestinians to demonize Israel has taken the formal trajectory of BDS: boycott, divestment, sanctions. In that order. That is the battle plan. The British academic boycott is just one step. (In South Africa, a labor union – albeit without support from the government – is talking about an actual embargo on Israeli goods, by refusing to handle them.)

Two organizations to look out for as engines to this policy are End the Occupation (ETO) and Enough. They are the bad guys, but there are other bad guys who bolster and enable them. Among them are parts of some mainline Protestant church groups.

I stress “parts of” for two reasons. The first, and more important, is that in virtually all of the churches that act with complete contempt for Israel, there are lots of members who are extremely upset with the actions of their leadership. In some cases, the members sympathetic to Israel amount to a majority; in others, at least a sizeable minority.

The second reason is that some of these churches, even on the leadership level, are moving in opposite directions at the same time. The Presbyterians, for example, seem to have pulled out of ETO. On the other hand, some of their leadership doggedly insists on ignoring the 2006 vote by the general membership to pull back on divestment.

The worst of the churches make no pretense of balance or fairness, and consistently beat-up on Israel without showing any concern for the safety of her citizens or the historical facts surrounding her creation or her wars. They include the Quakers (operating politically in the US as the American Friends Service Committee) and the Mennonites. Time permitting, we will return to them in another essay, BE”H.

The effect of the BDS campaign so far has been zero on Israel, but it has emboldened the most radical elements of the Palestinian world. They have been brought to believe that even the Americans can come around to see the “truth;” they should tough it out in the meantime, and eventually, inshallah, everyone will come around to their way of looking at things. Who knows how many Palestinians died this week because the churches that wished to aid them had naively sent the wrong message, thereby bolstering and emboldening their killers? While it is impossible to completley determine this, one would think that church leaders, for whom matters of conscience loom large, would not want to take the chance, and learn to stay out of the complexities of global politics where they may do more harm than good.