First, let’s drop all of the faux-surprise about Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter jumping to the Democratic Party.
Anyone who’s been paying attention saw this coming miles away; as the Senator himself said yesterday, his ideology just doesn’t fit with that of today’s strongest Republican voices.
Add to that a serious 2010 Republican primary challenge from former Congressman Pat Toomey, and Pennsylvania’s rule that a candidate who loses a primary cannot run indepedently in the same election, and the writing was on the wall in letters large enough for Belshazzar to read it unassisted.
So for an Israel supporter, where are Senator Specter and former Congressman Toomey, in terms of Israel and the Middle East?
When I first moved to Allentown (2001), Pat Toomey was our local Congressman. I met him a few times, when he came to speak at Jewish community events as well as in at least one meeting in his office arranged by the ZOA.
When Toomey ran against Specter in the 2004 Senatorial primary, I was lobbied by a national Jewish organization to support Specter. Part of their argument was that Toomey would not support Israel, but in this I believe they were incorrect.
Congressman Toomey was always staunchly pro-Israel, understanding the need for Israel’s security as well as the perfidy of the Arafat government. He did place one priority above all, and that was his focus on fiscal responsibility; I recall that at one point he voted against a Foreign Aid budget bill, which included aid for Israel, because the budget had not been slashed overall as he wished. But, still, he was a supporter of Israel, and I believe he likely remains the same.
On the other hand, Senator Specter is solidly pro-Israel as well.
I have met Senator Specter a couple of times, when he has spoken locally. There is no question in my mind that he supports Israel; AIPAC certainly thinks so, having invited him to speak at their national events more than once. He does get accused, from time to time, of being weak in his support – several months ago he was accused of unthinkingly providing Syria’s Assad a photo op while on a message-carrying mission - but I don’t give those accusations too much credence; his track record is simply too solid for that.
I do worry about the way this party-change will empower Israel’s opponents in the Senate. There are many legislators who would prefer to win the favor of the world rather than stand up for America’s values, and most of those legislators inhabit the Democratic Party. But as someone who has heard both of these men, who has tracked their careers and who has met them up close, I believe that both will solidly support the State of Israel.
I pray that I am right.
Showing posts with label Israel: Foreign relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel: Foreign relations. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Israel, with Large Hadron Collider, creates black hole to destroy Palestinians
(I hate to post this so soon after Jameel's cross-post on rotten men who are leaving their wives agunot. So please, please, scroll down or just click here and read it.)
In my ScienceDaily email the other day, I learned that Israeli knowhow has played a great role in building the largest research project ever, the Large Hadron Collider, which is up-and-running as of today under the mountains of France or Switzerland or some other non-English-speaking European country with mountains:
On September 10, 2008, Tel Aviv University’s Prof. Erez Etzion from the School of Physics and Astronomy will be in the control room of the new CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the border of France and Switzerland when the LHC is first turned on. Scientists are calling it the largest experiment in the world. It’s taken about 6,000 researchers, $8 billion and ten years to build.
Of the 50 countries that have participated in the project, Israel is among those which have made the greatest contributions. Tel Aviv University in particular has played an essential role in constructing equipment for the collider tunnel, dug deep inside the Swiss-French Alps. And when the switch is thrown in September, science may be changed forever.
...
Prof. Etzion participated in the design and construction of the trigger chambers for ATLAS, one of the two main detectors in the collider. This critical piece of machinery will decide what online data to record -- and what data to discard -- from the 1 billion atomic collisions per second. There is no storage disk space in the universe big enough to hold all the data, says Prof. Etzion, making this detector a key component in the success of the LHC.
At the same time, there are lots of litigious groups protesting that the Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole and destroy the universe. I'm not going to bother posting links to those articles, they're all over the place. Just go here.
So here's the way I see it:
1) If there's no black hole, the Israeli role in the project will be conveniently overlooked.
2) But if there is a black hole, Israel will quickly find itself blamed for its newest crime: spawning a black hole to rid the world of Palestinians...
In my ScienceDaily email the other day, I learned that Israeli knowhow has played a great role in building the largest research project ever, the Large Hadron Collider, which is up-and-running as of today under the mountains of France or Switzerland or some other non-English-speaking European country with mountains:
On September 10, 2008, Tel Aviv University’s Prof. Erez Etzion from the School of Physics and Astronomy will be in the control room of the new CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the border of France and Switzerland when the LHC is first turned on. Scientists are calling it the largest experiment in the world. It’s taken about 6,000 researchers, $8 billion and ten years to build.
Of the 50 countries that have participated in the project, Israel is among those which have made the greatest contributions. Tel Aviv University in particular has played an essential role in constructing equipment for the collider tunnel, dug deep inside the Swiss-French Alps. And when the switch is thrown in September, science may be changed forever.
...
Prof. Etzion participated in the design and construction of the trigger chambers for ATLAS, one of the two main detectors in the collider. This critical piece of machinery will decide what online data to record -- and what data to discard -- from the 1 billion atomic collisions per second. There is no storage disk space in the universe big enough to hold all the data, says Prof. Etzion, making this detector a key component in the success of the LHC.
At the same time, there are lots of litigious groups protesting that the Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole and destroy the universe. I'm not going to bother posting links to those articles, they're all over the place. Just go here.
So here's the way I see it:
1) If there's no black hole, the Israeli role in the project will be conveniently overlooked.
2) But if there is a black hole, Israel will quickly find itself blamed for its newest crime: spawning a black hole to rid the world of Palestinians...
Thursday, July 3, 2008
The Increasing Irrelevance of the American Jewish Community
In the past year I’ve watched three of my rabbinic peers, all in the 30-40 year old prime of their rabbinate, announce their aliyah. I’ve cheered on several congregants along their path of aliyah over the past few years. While much of the decision-making process for these olim has been individual, focusing on factors like children’s education or job situation or personal Zionism, I also see in it a sign of the increasing irrelevance of the American Jewish community. (Note: This isn’t a value judgment, just an observation.) Just as individual Jewish communities move their centers of gravity over time, so the world Jewish community is inexorably moving its center to Israel.
This is not a religious statement about the centrality of Israel for Torah observance, it’s not a Zionist statement about the future of Jewish life, it’s not a negation of everything American life has offered Jews for centuries. It’s just a recognition of a social shift which is already underway.
Certainly, the American Jewish community is currently the wealthiest and most politically connected in the world, but I’m looking at this community’s relevance for the future of the Jewish people, and I see three major signs of communal irrelevance: Satellitism, Entropy and Individualism.
Satellitism:
The American Jewish community is losing its relevance because, religiously as well as politically, the American Jewish community functions increasingly as a satellite of Israeli Jewry.
For education of our children, for Birthright connections, for halachic guidance, for the leadership of institutions which address issues of modernity in the context of Judaism, we look to the Israeli Jewish community. Much of our political leadership is currently in America, and much of our philanthropic is as well, but this landscape is shifting.
Entropy:
The American Jewish community is losing its relevance because its institutional infrastructure is decaying and is not being replaced.
This is true across the spectrum of religious observances. From schools to philanthropic umbrella organizations to synagogues, the problem of funding as well as communal participation (and even communal interest) is proving difficult to solve. Major challenges include the tuition crisis, the drift away from umbrella philanthropy, Jewish disaffiliation from JCCs, and the tendency of younger Americans not to affiliate with synagogues. Just look at the numbers at the Jewish Databank’s surveys; it’s all there in the community studies.
Much institutional time and energy is being devoted to finding solutions to these major problems.
Non-Orthodox movements have developed an approach of solving the problems by negating the questions. Example: Intermarriage is not a problem, because intermarrieds can now be members, are seen to be making a legitimate lifestyle decision, and are labelled as “on the cusp of Jewish confrontation with secular society.” The biggest question is how we can serve them. Another example: The choice of sports activities over religious school is not a problem, because one can engage in sports Jewishly, and religious schools can fit everything into one afternoon a week.
Orthodoxy has done no better in solving these problems. Schools are underfunded, JCCs and Umbrella philanthropies are ignored. Institutional dissolution is considered acceptable; we’ll just look elsewhere to meet our needs. Creative, effective solutions are few and far between.
Individualism
The American Jewish community is losing its relevance because American Jews seem to be more committed to the welfare of the individual than the welfare of the community.
There just seems to be little interest in guaranteeing the future of Jewish life in America. Intermarriage rates are one indicator of this problem. Affiliation with institutions is another. A third indicator is the failure of the Jewish community to adopt any sense of sacrifice for the sake of the future. George Hanus’s “Five Percent for Jewish Education” plan is a program which could work, but I’d like to see it at 10% or 15%. It’s not going to happen, of course; too many of us are more interested in Caribbean vacations and building on to our homes and purchasing fancy cars. Think back to great-grandparents who had little to spend on food, and yet they gave money to Hebrew Loan Funds and to support mikvaos, and contributed their time to Jewish community infrastructure; today’s level of consumerism would have been unthinkable to them.
Ultimately, this may just be the natural evolution of a community, from its early growth to its institutional strength to its senescence. It may be a function of the failure of Jewish education for some, and the success of Jewish education for others, leading each group to abandon this community, whether to pursue Jewish oblivion or to pursue aliyah. Call it a Divinely orchestrated pattern of events, if you like.
As I see it: American Jewry will remain as a Jewish community, at least for the foreseeable non-Mashiach era, just as there are Jewish communities in South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the FSU and Hong Kong. However, it will be a community with decreasing potency and decreasing leadership. The strongest institutions will open branches elsewhere, particularly in Israel, and those branches will eventually become their centers. Our children and their children will increase their rates of aliyah. Kibbutz Galuyot will happen naturally. בעתה אחישנה.
This is not a religious statement about the centrality of Israel for Torah observance, it’s not a Zionist statement about the future of Jewish life, it’s not a negation of everything American life has offered Jews for centuries. It’s just a recognition of a social shift which is already underway.
Certainly, the American Jewish community is currently the wealthiest and most politically connected in the world, but I’m looking at this community’s relevance for the future of the Jewish people, and I see three major signs of communal irrelevance: Satellitism, Entropy and Individualism.
Satellitism:
The American Jewish community is losing its relevance because, religiously as well as politically, the American Jewish community functions increasingly as a satellite of Israeli Jewry.
For education of our children, for Birthright connections, for halachic guidance, for the leadership of institutions which address issues of modernity in the context of Judaism, we look to the Israeli Jewish community. Much of our political leadership is currently in America, and much of our philanthropic is as well, but this landscape is shifting.
Entropy:
The American Jewish community is losing its relevance because its institutional infrastructure is decaying and is not being replaced.
This is true across the spectrum of religious observances. From schools to philanthropic umbrella organizations to synagogues, the problem of funding as well as communal participation (and even communal interest) is proving difficult to solve. Major challenges include the tuition crisis, the drift away from umbrella philanthropy, Jewish disaffiliation from JCCs, and the tendency of younger Americans not to affiliate with synagogues. Just look at the numbers at the Jewish Databank’s surveys; it’s all there in the community studies.
Much institutional time and energy is being devoted to finding solutions to these major problems.
Non-Orthodox movements have developed an approach of solving the problems by negating the questions. Example: Intermarriage is not a problem, because intermarrieds can now be members, are seen to be making a legitimate lifestyle decision, and are labelled as “on the cusp of Jewish confrontation with secular society.” The biggest question is how we can serve them. Another example: The choice of sports activities over religious school is not a problem, because one can engage in sports Jewishly, and religious schools can fit everything into one afternoon a week.
Orthodoxy has done no better in solving these problems. Schools are underfunded, JCCs and Umbrella philanthropies are ignored. Institutional dissolution is considered acceptable; we’ll just look elsewhere to meet our needs. Creative, effective solutions are few and far between.
Individualism
The American Jewish community is losing its relevance because American Jews seem to be more committed to the welfare of the individual than the welfare of the community.
There just seems to be little interest in guaranteeing the future of Jewish life in America. Intermarriage rates are one indicator of this problem. Affiliation with institutions is another. A third indicator is the failure of the Jewish community to adopt any sense of sacrifice for the sake of the future. George Hanus’s “Five Percent for Jewish Education” plan is a program which could work, but I’d like to see it at 10% or 15%. It’s not going to happen, of course; too many of us are more interested in Caribbean vacations and building on to our homes and purchasing fancy cars. Think back to great-grandparents who had little to spend on food, and yet they gave money to Hebrew Loan Funds and to support mikvaos, and contributed their time to Jewish community infrastructure; today’s level of consumerism would have been unthinkable to them.
Ultimately, this may just be the natural evolution of a community, from its early growth to its institutional strength to its senescence. It may be a function of the failure of Jewish education for some, and the success of Jewish education for others, leading each group to abandon this community, whether to pursue Jewish oblivion or to pursue aliyah. Call it a Divinely orchestrated pattern of events, if you like.
As I see it: American Jewry will remain as a Jewish community, at least for the foreseeable non-Mashiach era, just as there are Jewish communities in South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the FSU and Hong Kong. However, it will be a community with decreasing potency and decreasing leadership. The strongest institutions will open branches elsewhere, particularly in Israel, and those branches will eventually become their centers. Our children and their children will increase their rates of aliyah. Kibbutz Galuyot will happen naturally. בעתה אחישנה.
Friday, April 4, 2008
How important is Israel/Middle East Peace to Senators Obama and Clinton?
If I had to choose between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and if my deciding issue were Israel, I’m not sure I’d go with with Hillary. I am a card-carrying member of the pro-Israel “right wing,” and my gut says that Hillary would be a bigger threat than Barack to the safety of Israel.
(Note: I am not endorsing anyone in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Personally, I am a registered Independent - and rabbi of a religious institution.)
True, Barack Obama has a stable of staunchly left wing foreign policy advisers. Ex-President Carter has endorsed him, former Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer is said to be a key adviser, and the further list of left wing associates who claim to be his advisers is quite long. (This is separate from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, about which enough has already been said.)
In fact, I do think that Senator Obama supports Israel’s left wing. Based on his own public comments (which have been admirably frank; I wish others were so forthright!), it is clear to me that he believes Israel’s best interests include making lopsided “peace deals” which rely far too much on trusting the Arab world to mutate into honorable societies who keep their words and honor their agreements.
Further, I do think that Senator Clinton is less likely than Senator Obama to trust the Arab world, and less likely to strengthen terrorist sponsors in the course of “diplomacy.”
However: The issue of where these candidates stand on the Middle East is not nearly as important as where the Middle East stands with them.
For Senator Obama, based on his brief national-legislative history and this campaign, the Middle East is an issue that he must face in the course of politics, but that he doesn’t consider “front and center” in his plans. As President he would be forced to deal with terror, and with issues that affect American soldiers overseas and the American economy at home, but domestic matters like poverty and healthcare and taxes, as well as issues like environmental concerns and energy policy, seem to be at the top of his agenda. He won’t have the time, or political will, for the sacrifices needed to muscle the obstinate Middle East into his vision of peace.
On the other hand, Senator Clinton has made foreign policy a central part of her sales pitch to America. Although she has plenty of plans for domestic policy, she considers herself accomplished in the global arena, and it seems far more likely to me that she would want to achieve a landmark (dare I say legacy?) in the Middle East, than that Senator Obama would want to do the same.
I plan to attend a Monday night program at a local college, featuring Steve Rothman, a New Jersey Congressman, speaking on Senator Obama’s Middle East policy. The campaign is involved with the event, so I expect Congressman Rothman will be able to speak authoritatively.
I won’t need to ask Congressman Rothman what the Senator thinks Israel ought to do; the Senator has made that pretty clear himself. Instead, I’ll want to know: How pressing will Middle East peace be to the Senator from Illinois?
(Note: I am not endorsing anyone in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Personally, I am a registered Independent - and rabbi of a religious institution.)
True, Barack Obama has a stable of staunchly left wing foreign policy advisers. Ex-President Carter has endorsed him, former Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer is said to be a key adviser, and the further list of left wing associates who claim to be his advisers is quite long. (This is separate from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright issue, about which enough has already been said.)
In fact, I do think that Senator Obama supports Israel’s left wing. Based on his own public comments (which have been admirably frank; I wish others were so forthright!), it is clear to me that he believes Israel’s best interests include making lopsided “peace deals” which rely far too much on trusting the Arab world to mutate into honorable societies who keep their words and honor their agreements.
Further, I do think that Senator Clinton is less likely than Senator Obama to trust the Arab world, and less likely to strengthen terrorist sponsors in the course of “diplomacy.”
However: The issue of where these candidates stand on the Middle East is not nearly as important as where the Middle East stands with them.
For Senator Obama, based on his brief national-legislative history and this campaign, the Middle East is an issue that he must face in the course of politics, but that he doesn’t consider “front and center” in his plans. As President he would be forced to deal with terror, and with issues that affect American soldiers overseas and the American economy at home, but domestic matters like poverty and healthcare and taxes, as well as issues like environmental concerns and energy policy, seem to be at the top of his agenda. He won’t have the time, or political will, for the sacrifices needed to muscle the obstinate Middle East into his vision of peace.
On the other hand, Senator Clinton has made foreign policy a central part of her sales pitch to America. Although she has plenty of plans for domestic policy, she considers herself accomplished in the global arena, and it seems far more likely to me that she would want to achieve a landmark (dare I say legacy?) in the Middle East, than that Senator Obama would want to do the same.
I plan to attend a Monday night program at a local college, featuring Steve Rothman, a New Jersey Congressman, speaking on Senator Obama’s Middle East policy. The campaign is involved with the event, so I expect Congressman Rothman will be able to speak authoritatively.
I won’t need to ask Congressman Rothman what the Senator thinks Israel ought to do; the Senator has made that pretty clear himself. Instead, I’ll want to know: How pressing will Middle East peace be to the Senator from Illinois?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
On Pressuring the Israeli Government: How much pressure is justified?
Imagine your brother owes one million dollars, doesn’t have the means to re-pay it, and stands to lose his home. You, for your part, don’t have the million dollars to help him; you give him tens and twenties whenever you can, you offer lots of moral support, but you just can’t afford anything more.
Then your brother comes up with an idea: He owns a family heirloom of great value. He wants to sell it, to pay off his debt. You are horrified; your brother inherited the heirloom, but it’s significant to the whole family! Perhaps it's the sefer hayichus (book of lineage) documenting your family's link to Dovid haMelech - something truly crucial to the family as a whole.
To make matters worse: Your brother thinks he'll get a million dollars for the heirloom, and so escape debt. You, on the other hand, think he won't get that price, and that in any case your brother will just land in more debt afterward.
When you protest - based on your personal investment as well as your suspicion that the sale won't be worthwhile - your brother asks, “So tell me – should I lose my house because you won’t let me pay my debt?”
The Torah-observant Diaspora Jewish community disagrees with the Israeli government all the time on issues halachic and political, matters of religion as well as matters of security. Every time these disagreements arise, the major bodies representing Diaspora Jewry ask themselves, “May we pressure the Israeli government through public dissent?” And our tendency, albeit with notable exceptions, is to shy away from public disagreement. Basically, the rule has been that we toe the Israeli government’s line until we don’t.
The question of Ehud Olmert’s Annapolis offer has raised this issue again.
Our brother is broke, and stands to lose his home; dare we insist that he not sell the family heirloom, even as we stand by and watch him lose his home? Dare we take out ads in newspapers, make critical statements to the press, and otherwise exert pressure upon him for the sale he is legally entitled to make?
The OU has decided that yes, it is legitimate to publicly demand your brother not sell the heirloom. Rabbi Hershel Billet has taken that stance as well in a column in the New York Jewish Week. Rabbi Michael Broyde has opposed this stance, writing against it as a matter of public policy.
I have two points to add to this discussion:
1. Yes, Diaspora Jews understand the issues in Israel, travel to Israel, and support it. But that's not the same thing as living under terror attacks.
To me, we are in the position of the person who will not pay his brother’s debt, and will not permit his brother to hock the family heirloom, either. We will not expose ourselves to direct terror and to economic disaster by living in Israel, but we won’t permit Israelis to try and solve the problem for themselves. The fact that we choose to live outside of Israel means that we abdicate the right to make certain decisions.
I have my reasons for being in the golah, and I feel they are strong reasons, but whence my license to demand the Israelis do what I am not personally willing to do?
2. What sort of pressure is justified?
More importantly, where does this license-to-protest lead?
How much pressure may I put on my brother? Newspaper ads? Gossipping to his friends? Challenging the sale of the heirloom in court? Picketing outside his house?
Do we stop praying for the Israeli government (with or without ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו)?
Do we discourage congregants from purchasing Israel Bonds?
Do we discourage people from attending the Salute to Israel parade - or do we tell them to show up at the parade with protest signs?
Do we picket outside the Israeli embassy?
Do we protest outside venues where Israeli government representatives speak?
Do we implement what amounts to Sanctions?
If the OU has decided that opposition is justified, how much opposition is justified?
In truth, we have always opposed Israeli government stances; it's only a matter of what we have done to demonstrate that opposition. And to me, that last is the real question.
Then your brother comes up with an idea: He owns a family heirloom of great value. He wants to sell it, to pay off his debt. You are horrified; your brother inherited the heirloom, but it’s significant to the whole family! Perhaps it's the sefer hayichus (book of lineage) documenting your family's link to Dovid haMelech - something truly crucial to the family as a whole.
To make matters worse: Your brother thinks he'll get a million dollars for the heirloom, and so escape debt. You, on the other hand, think he won't get that price, and that in any case your brother will just land in more debt afterward.
When you protest - based on your personal investment as well as your suspicion that the sale won't be worthwhile - your brother asks, “So tell me – should I lose my house because you won’t let me pay my debt?”
The Torah-observant Diaspora Jewish community disagrees with the Israeli government all the time on issues halachic and political, matters of religion as well as matters of security. Every time these disagreements arise, the major bodies representing Diaspora Jewry ask themselves, “May we pressure the Israeli government through public dissent?” And our tendency, albeit with notable exceptions, is to shy away from public disagreement. Basically, the rule has been that we toe the Israeli government’s line until we don’t.
The question of Ehud Olmert’s Annapolis offer has raised this issue again.
Our brother is broke, and stands to lose his home; dare we insist that he not sell the family heirloom, even as we stand by and watch him lose his home? Dare we take out ads in newspapers, make critical statements to the press, and otherwise exert pressure upon him for the sale he is legally entitled to make?
The OU has decided that yes, it is legitimate to publicly demand your brother not sell the heirloom. Rabbi Hershel Billet has taken that stance as well in a column in the New York Jewish Week. Rabbi Michael Broyde has opposed this stance, writing against it as a matter of public policy.
I have two points to add to this discussion:
1. Yes, Diaspora Jews understand the issues in Israel, travel to Israel, and support it. But that's not the same thing as living under terror attacks.
To me, we are in the position of the person who will not pay his brother’s debt, and will not permit his brother to hock the family heirloom, either. We will not expose ourselves to direct terror and to economic disaster by living in Israel, but we won’t permit Israelis to try and solve the problem for themselves. The fact that we choose to live outside of Israel means that we abdicate the right to make certain decisions.
I have my reasons for being in the golah, and I feel they are strong reasons, but whence my license to demand the Israelis do what I am not personally willing to do?
2. What sort of pressure is justified?
More importantly, where does this license-to-protest lead?
How much pressure may I put on my brother? Newspaper ads? Gossipping to his friends? Challenging the sale of the heirloom in court? Picketing outside his house?
Do we stop praying for the Israeli government (with or without ראשית צמיחת גאולתנו)?
Do we discourage congregants from purchasing Israel Bonds?
Do we discourage people from attending the Salute to Israel parade - or do we tell them to show up at the parade with protest signs?
Do we picket outside the Israeli embassy?
Do we protest outside venues where Israeli government representatives speak?
Do we implement what amounts to Sanctions?
If the OU has decided that opposition is justified, how much opposition is justified?
In truth, we have always opposed Israeli government stances; it's only a matter of what we have done to demonstrate that opposition. And to me, that last is the real question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
