Sermon on Remembering the Difficult Journeys
May 8, 2009
Rabbi David Kaufman
This week’s Torah portion, Emor, continues the explanation of what it means to be Holy. Specifically, it concentrates on the priests maintaining a status of purity. Emor also contains the liturgical calendar including all of the festivals. Missing on that calendar are two events marked in the Jewish world recently, Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Heroes and Martyrs Remembrance Day, and Yom Ha’atzmaut, Israel’s Independence Day. I thought of talking about those modern Jewish holidays tonight.
I also considered talking about the hate-filled protest against the Jews and Gay and Lesbian community of Des Moines this week by a handful of crazy people from Westboro Baptist Church and about the fact that their pitiful protest paled in comparison to the opposition against it. Had we wished to allow them a modicum of attention, we could have arrayed hundreds of people standing on our side of the street, shouting in our support.
I thought about talking about the AIPAC Policy Conference and about the relationship between Israel and the United States today and the threats and challenges that Israel faces. I’ll leave that for some other time as well.
I actually began the day with the idea that I would discuss the dramatic changes that the financial crisis has brought to the Union for Reform Judaism and the threats that it poses to my beloved Hebrew Union College. I have spent no little time in the past couple of weeks working with other rabbis, lay leaders, and faculty members in the defense of the Cincinnati campus which was threatened with closure, but another thought came to mind.
I even thought of doing a sermon on the now widely circulating joke:
“They said that a black man would become President of the United States only when pigs fly and now, 100 days into his administration: Swine Flu!”
I thought to myself about all of the major changes that are going on in the world, all of the major issues, all of the sands that seem to be shifting beneath our feet. Then I decided to tell another story.
Dafer’s family’s story is like many in places where Jews were tolerated in the best of times and threatened during the worst. His mother’s family lived in Baghdad until the great Exodus of Jews from the Arab world to Israel from 1948 to 1952.
Once the nation of Israel was created, Jews living in Arab lands suffered tremendous persecution. The Iraqi government forced most of the Jewish population to leave the country. The majority fled to Israel but others went to any nation that would accept them.
Dafer was an exception. His mother had married an Iraqi Muslim and the government did not force them to leave. When the rest of the family was forced to flee with no notice, his mother and father were not, and did not find out that the family had gone to Israel until it was too late to keep in contact.
Why did they lose touch? Because anyone trying to reach out to someone in Israel from Iraq after that time would have been seen as a spy or traitor and been executed. They could possibly have contacted their relatives in other nations such as in Britain, but Dafer’s family didn’t have relatives or friends who could serve as bridge contacts with them to Israel.
Ammar, Dafer’s niece, relates in a letter that Dafer carries with him, that after the death of Dafer’s father in 1967, Farha, his mother, tried to reconnect the family with Judaism. The Baath party started to monitor them, no doubt wondering whether or not they were Israeli agents, and in order to protect her family, Farha had them once again stay away from the Jewish community.
After a long hiatus from Judaism, Ammar and Dafer’s family was emboldened after the 2003, US invasion to once again pursue rejoining the Jewish community. The guard at the Temple there told them that once there is a new government, they would reopen the Temple. Then new problems faced Dafer and Ammar’s family. The Mahdi Militia and Bader Militia, both Iranian backed organizations, found out that their family was Jewish and persecuted them, forcing them from their homes.
They ended up in Syria, where they sought out the Jewish community in El Hara El Yahodia, but the government of Syria had ordered the synagogue closed. Finding out that they were Jewish, the Syrian Intelligence Services then hounded them. Some Jewish people in Syria who heard of their plight then suggested that they escape to Jordan. The Jordanians refused to accept them because of Jordan’s own security problems with the Iraqis, so the family was sent back to Baghdad.
Back in Baghdad, the family was attacked by the militias that threatened them before. Two members of the family were killed and two others kidnapped and held for ransom.
At that point the family decided to appeal to go to Israel. They were eventually able to get to Turkey and Dafer made it to Des Moines, how and why I still do not know, where a Bus Trainer, someone who trains refugees in how to use the local buses to get around, brought him to Temple B’nai Jeshurun on a Friday afternoon.
When I arrived at Temple this afternoon, we had three guests. Two were from Lutheran Refugee Services and a third was an Iraqi Jewish immigrant who spoke almost no English, but knew enough to have his helper bring him here.
“We need someone who speaks Arabic!” Kathy, a volunteer at the Temple, told me as she spoke with the volunteers. “Arabic?” I thought. “Arabic?”
I thought of two people to call: my Sudanese friend, Francis Chan, who works with Arabic speaking refugees, and Nashi K., who is a member of Tifereth. I called them both. No answer. Mark Finkelstein of JCRC helped me tracked down Nashi while I spoke with the aid worker.
While we were talking, Dafer, handed me the letter written by his niece Ammar, that told the story of their plight.
Then Nashi arrived.
I cannot begin to tell you just how strange a place Des Moines is. Nashi, as far as I know the only Arabic speaking Jew in Iowa, happens to also be a Baghdadi Jew and has relatives who may know Dafer’s relatives in Israel. He promised to speak to them about Dafer’s family. Nashi was able to talk to Dafer and to relate to him in ways that no refugee aid worker could. Dafer now had a Jewish friend and an Iraqi Jewish friend at that! Talk about Mazel!
Three weeks ago, we were visited by Shlomo Molla, a Member of the Knesset of Israel who immigrated to Israel from Ethiopia. He talked of literally walking hundreds of miles to be able to be flown to Israel, to freedom. Two weeks ago, we heard from Marion Blumenthal Lazan about her journey during the Holocaust, eventually coming to this country. Hopefully, all of us have heard the story of our own Peter Pintus.
I was struck as I thought about all of these stories, just HOW easy, HOW good, HOW blessed my life has been and continues to be.
I live in a place where when hateful people come to protest against me because I am a Jew, more people come to my defense and virtually everyone considers the hateful people to be ignorant idiots. I live in a place that is not threatened by war or sectarian violence. I live in a place where a wandering Jew from a foreign land is brought to synagogue by helpful Christians wanting to aid him in his practice of Judaism! I live in a place and in a time when I truly need to seek out stories of those Jews who were not and are not so fortunate.
I truly need to remember. We need to remember.
It was not long ago that Jews faced tremendous discrimination in this country.
It was not more that two generations ago that Jews marched alongside Martin Luther King Jr. and sat with members of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee at lunch counters where they were refused service and forcibly removed.
It was not long ago that virtually every country club not founded by Jews denied their admittance as members.
It was not long ago when indeed people would have thought that pigs would fly before America would elect a President from a racial minority.
It was not terribly long ago that in every Jewish gathering could be heard the accents of Eastern Europe. It was not long ago. But today, my friends, it is too easy to forget.
The stories of the journeys from oppression to freedom become almost mythical, something that happened THEN to THEM, not NOW and not to US.
This afternoon, I was reminded of just how special it is to live in this nation of freedom and security.
At the AIPAC Conference, I had the opportunity to hear from Clarence Jones, who was Martin Luther King’s attorney and a close friend. Clarence Jones related Dr. King’s story of his visit to a Conference with Conservative Rabbis in honor of Abraham Joshua Heschel’s birthday. Dr. King said that as he and Rabbi Heschel entered the room, the convention, 1,000 rabbis began chanting, “We shall overcome” in Hebrew.
The words are:
Anu nitgabeir, anu nitgabeir, anu nitgabeir bevo hayom.
Ani ma'amin be'emunah shleimah, nitgabeir bevo hayom.
The last verse combining the principles of Maimonides with the anthem of the Civil Rights movement.
“I believe with perfect faith that we shall overcome someday.”
I thought that it would be appropriate to conclude with those words.
[Sing]
Anu nitgabeir, anu nitgabeir, anu nitgabeir bevo hayom!
Ani ma'amin be'emunah shleimah, nitgabeir bevo hayom!
We shall overcome, but we still have a lot of work to do.
Shabbat Shalom
-D
Friday, May 8, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
An Impression of AIPAC Policy Conference 2009
Shalom All,
There is a false perception that AIPAC is somehow an organization of the political right. Anti-Israel groups have worked hard to give people that false impression. Many in the Jewish community, see AIPAC also WRONGLY as an advocate for the Israeli political right. In many ways, Jewish peace groups are responsible for that falsity. One need only look at the depth and breadth of the AIPAC Policy Conference to see the dramatic error in those false conceptions of AIPAC.
AIPAC is a BI-PARTISAN organization seeking to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel. It DOES NOT advocate for or against specific policies of the nation of Israel. AIPAC's lobbying agenda this year included three things, all of which were sponsored by leading Senators and Representatives from BOTH parties.
First, efforts need to be strengthened to increase the diplomatic pressure put upon Iran to cease its development of nuclear weaponry and to allow its nuclear efforts, regardless of whether they are intended for peaceful purposes as Iran contends or for military purposes as others contend, to be monitored far more closely by the IAEA. Failing this effort, should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, the Middle East will become a new home for nuclear proliferation as other nations will follow in their footsteps. Additionally, as a grossly destabilizing force in the Middle East, Iran's power and influence would be strengthened, something that bodes ill for the future of the region. To have the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world in possession of nuclear weaponry will enhance the threat that all terrorist organizations backed by Iran pose to Iran's enemies, which includes at the top of the list, Israel and the United States. Furthermore, to have Iran, which has threatened Israel's demise, in possession of the means to execute that plan is simply unconscionable. Thus, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is being introduced in the House and Senate by leading members of BOTH parties in the hope of achieving an end to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions short of military action by strengthening sanctions against Iran.
Second, as there is a new administration and new Congress in Washington, there is a desire to reiterate the basic points essential to maintaining a positive working relationship between the United States and Israel regarding the peace process. To that end, a letter was written to President Obama, again with Bi-Partisan origin, asking that the fundamental principles of the peace process be maintained, namely that the US must continue to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, that they renounce terror, and that they abide by previous resolutions. This is particularly important considering efforts to form a unity government including Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, promotes and practices terror, and refuses to abide by previous resolutions. Additionally, the administration is asked to promote a bi-lateral solution to the crisis between the Israelis and Palestinians with the understanding that imposed solutions have failed to achieve positive results. The parties must negotiate face to face with each other.
Third, maintaining the Security Assistance to Israel and passing the entire Foreign Aid bill is essential. The assistance is vital to Israel's security and since 75% of the money given in aid is spent in the US, Foreign Aid also provides a stimulus to our economy.
These three issues have overwhelming BI-PARTISAN support.
As I listened to the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, once vilified in Israel for his dovish attitudes by its political right and who spent almost his entire speech talking about Israel's pursuit of peace, being shouted down by American Jewish peace protestors chanting "Free Gaza," as if this Nobel Prize winning peace maker wanted something other than freedom for the people of Gaza , I felt strengthened. Peres' voice of peace, honored by AIPAC, was far more powerful than the "peace protesters" voices in support of ignorant hatred. I wanted to call out to those souls blinded by hatred of their fellow Jews, "Free them from Hamas! Free them from hatred!" But, to have interrupted Shimon Peres again would have been to insult the desire for peace, because that desire was the central theme of his speech that day and that desire has been the central theme of his life. Three misguided protestors brought that point home all the stronger.
The first protestor shouted without listening as he said, "It is clear in our eyes that peace may require painful compromises, difficult concessions. Compromises require two conditions. First, peace must be real, lasting, mutually respected. We have to guarantee that our children -- actually, all children -- will be free from war, will breathe the fresh air of peace -- all children, from all nations, from all parties. And then, secondly, peace should enable Israel to protect its people, to realize the fundamental responsibility of a free government, namely to defend its people from harm, to enable them to meet opportunities."
The second jeered without caring as he said, "The same is true for the future of the Palestinian people as well. I say it loudly, because I believe in it more fondly. The Palestinian people have the right to govern themselves. We don't want to be their masters. They have the right to invest their resources, to direct aid to civil high tech, not military rocket -- to books, not bombs -- to their people, so their people can be both free and prosperous, free from fear, free from hunger."
The third stood and blotted out his memory when he remembered, "I can still see with my eyes and feel with my heart when President Sadat landed from Egypt. We thought he came from the moon. If Anwar Sadat had not courageously taken the one-hour flight between Cairo and Jerusalem, I doubt peace would be achieved. We were ready. He showed his readiness."
And at the conclusion of his speech, he might as well have been speaking to those protestors when he said:
Ladies and gentlemen, to know the future you have to remember our history. Calling history is actually remembering the past. But as you know, we are pragmatic people. So when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he turned to his people and called them. "People, listen, Israel. Shema Yisrael." He asked them -- he asked us to listen, so we shall be able to hear the prophetic message, the mountainous music of peace and justice to this very day. But as you know, we are pragmatists. So the people replied, "We shall do and listen. Naaseh Venishma."
AIPAC is an organization that includes large numbers of Christian supporters of Israel from every ethnicity in America, of every economic level, and of walk of political life. It is an organization for all of those who support Israel's security and advocate for its peaceful future. It's membership does not by any means all agree on the ways to go about achieving those goals, but that membership understands that the friendship between the United States and Israel is essential to them and mutually beneficial. If only more of us listened, perhaps more of us would do the right things. Naaseh v'nishma!
Od yavo shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisrael v'al kol amim.
Someday peace will come for us, for all of the people of Israel, and for all peoples.
-David
There is a false perception that AIPAC is somehow an organization of the political right. Anti-Israel groups have worked hard to give people that false impression. Many in the Jewish community, see AIPAC also WRONGLY as an advocate for the Israeli political right. In many ways, Jewish peace groups are responsible for that falsity. One need only look at the depth and breadth of the AIPAC Policy Conference to see the dramatic error in those false conceptions of AIPAC.
AIPAC is a BI-PARTISAN organization seeking to maintain and strengthen the bonds of friendship between the United States and Israel. It DOES NOT advocate for or against specific policies of the nation of Israel. AIPAC's lobbying agenda this year included three things, all of which were sponsored by leading Senators and Representatives from BOTH parties.
First, efforts need to be strengthened to increase the diplomatic pressure put upon Iran to cease its development of nuclear weaponry and to allow its nuclear efforts, regardless of whether they are intended for peaceful purposes as Iran contends or for military purposes as others contend, to be monitored far more closely by the IAEA. Failing this effort, should Iran obtain a nuclear weapon, the Middle East will become a new home for nuclear proliferation as other nations will follow in their footsteps. Additionally, as a grossly destabilizing force in the Middle East, Iran's power and influence would be strengthened, something that bodes ill for the future of the region. To have the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world in possession of nuclear weaponry will enhance the threat that all terrorist organizations backed by Iran pose to Iran's enemies, which includes at the top of the list, Israel and the United States. Furthermore, to have Iran, which has threatened Israel's demise, in possession of the means to execute that plan is simply unconscionable. Thus, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is being introduced in the House and Senate by leading members of BOTH parties in the hope of achieving an end to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions short of military action by strengthening sanctions against Iran.
Second, as there is a new administration and new Congress in Washington, there is a desire to reiterate the basic points essential to maintaining a positive working relationship between the United States and Israel regarding the peace process. To that end, a letter was written to President Obama, again with Bi-Partisan origin, asking that the fundamental principles of the peace process be maintained, namely that the US must continue to insist that the Palestinians recognize Israel's right to exist, that they renounce terror, and that they abide by previous resolutions. This is particularly important considering efforts to form a unity government including Hamas, which does not recognize Israel's right to exist, promotes and practices terror, and refuses to abide by previous resolutions. Additionally, the administration is asked to promote a bi-lateral solution to the crisis between the Israelis and Palestinians with the understanding that imposed solutions have failed to achieve positive results. The parties must negotiate face to face with each other.
Third, maintaining the Security Assistance to Israel and passing the entire Foreign Aid bill is essential. The assistance is vital to Israel's security and since 75% of the money given in aid is spent in the US, Foreign Aid also provides a stimulus to our economy.
These three issues have overwhelming BI-PARTISAN support.
As I listened to the President of Israel, Shimon Peres, once vilified in Israel for his dovish attitudes by its political right and who spent almost his entire speech talking about Israel's pursuit of peace, being shouted down by American Jewish peace protestors chanting "Free Gaza," as if this Nobel Prize winning peace maker wanted something other than freedom for the people of Gaza , I felt strengthened. Peres' voice of peace, honored by AIPAC, was far more powerful than the "peace protesters" voices in support of ignorant hatred. I wanted to call out to those souls blinded by hatred of their fellow Jews, "Free them from Hamas! Free them from hatred!" But, to have interrupted Shimon Peres again would have been to insult the desire for peace, because that desire was the central theme of his speech that day and that desire has been the central theme of his life. Three misguided protestors brought that point home all the stronger.
The first protestor shouted without listening as he said, "It is clear in our eyes that peace may require painful compromises, difficult concessions. Compromises require two conditions. First, peace must be real, lasting, mutually respected. We have to guarantee that our children -- actually, all children -- will be free from war, will breathe the fresh air of peace -- all children, from all nations, from all parties. And then, secondly, peace should enable Israel to protect its people, to realize the fundamental responsibility of a free government, namely to defend its people from harm, to enable them to meet opportunities."
The second jeered without caring as he said, "The same is true for the future of the Palestinian people as well. I say it loudly, because I believe in it more fondly. The Palestinian people have the right to govern themselves. We don't want to be their masters. They have the right to invest their resources, to direct aid to civil high tech, not military rocket -- to books, not bombs -- to their people, so their people can be both free and prosperous, free from fear, free from hunger."
The third stood and blotted out his memory when he remembered, "I can still see with my eyes and feel with my heart when President Sadat landed from Egypt. We thought he came from the moon. If Anwar Sadat had not courageously taken the one-hour flight between Cairo and Jerusalem, I doubt peace would be achieved. We were ready. He showed his readiness."
And at the conclusion of his speech, he might as well have been speaking to those protestors when he said:
Ladies and gentlemen, to know the future you have to remember our history. Calling history is actually remembering the past. But as you know, we are pragmatic people. So when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, he turned to his people and called them. "People, listen, Israel. Shema Yisrael." He asked them -- he asked us to listen, so we shall be able to hear the prophetic message, the mountainous music of peace and justice to this very day. But as you know, we are pragmatists. So the people replied, "We shall do and listen. Naaseh Venishma."
AIPAC is an organization that includes large numbers of Christian supporters of Israel from every ethnicity in America, of every economic level, and of walk of political life. It is an organization for all of those who support Israel's security and advocate for its peaceful future. It's membership does not by any means all agree on the ways to go about achieving those goals, but that membership understands that the friendship between the United States and Israel is essential to them and mutually beneficial. If only more of us listened, perhaps more of us would do the right things. Naaseh v'nishma!
Od yavo shalom aleinu v'al kol Yisrael v'al kol amim.
Someday peace will come for us, for all of the people of Israel, and for all peoples.
-David
Monday, April 27, 2009
Two States for One People
Shalom All,
I have noticed a trend recently that is exemplified by the article from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html. Arab leaders are now calling for a two state solution, while OPPOSING one of them being a Jewish state. Rather than calling for a single Palestinian state, Arab leaders advocating for the Palestinian side are PRETENDING to be supporters of "two states for two peoples" by agreeing to "two states." However, their intent is that BOTH states will become Palestinian states. They drop the "for two peoples" part of the statement. This is to be accomplished by insisting on the Right of Return of Palestinians to what is now Israel. As the Palestinians would then only be slightly less than a majority and have a much higher birthrate than the Jewish population, in a manner of short period of time, Israel will end up with a Palestinian majority. Thus, BOTH states would become Palestinian dominated states.
The statements by Abbas are strong indications that he is NOT as moderate as many on the world stage would like him to be. The only difference between his position and Hamas' position is that Hamas is unwilling to wait to eliminate the Jewish state through the Right of Return.
The biggest problem that those desiring peace now face is that Israel seems to have a choice between maintaining a single state in which Jews dominate Palestinians, many of whom live in occupied territories, or agreeing to peace terms under which there will not be a Jewish state into the future. Even the political left is beginning to see this problem. The issue is not simply a question of a one or two state solution, but of "two states FOR TWO PEOPLES" meaning that one of those states would be a Jewish state. Even Ahmadinejad supports Abbas' version of two states in which in essence both would become Palestinian in short order.
Simply put, what is going on now is that leaders who seek the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are SUPPORTING a TWO state solution, only doing so in such a way that ultimately NEITHER of those states will be Jewish. Their support for "two states" allows them to APPEAR to be moderate, when they are very much not and continue to seek the end of the Jewish state.
They really want two states for one people.
-David
I have noticed a trend recently that is exemplified by the article from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3707501,00.html. Arab leaders are now calling for a two state solution, while OPPOSING one of them being a Jewish state. Rather than calling for a single Palestinian state, Arab leaders advocating for the Palestinian side are PRETENDING to be supporters of "two states for two peoples" by agreeing to "two states." However, their intent is that BOTH states will become Palestinian states. They drop the "for two peoples" part of the statement. This is to be accomplished by insisting on the Right of Return of Palestinians to what is now Israel. As the Palestinians would then only be slightly less than a majority and have a much higher birthrate than the Jewish population, in a manner of short period of time, Israel will end up with a Palestinian majority. Thus, BOTH states would become Palestinian dominated states.
The statements by Abbas are strong indications that he is NOT as moderate as many on the world stage would like him to be. The only difference between his position and Hamas' position is that Hamas is unwilling to wait to eliminate the Jewish state through the Right of Return.
The biggest problem that those desiring peace now face is that Israel seems to have a choice between maintaining a single state in which Jews dominate Palestinians, many of whom live in occupied territories, or agreeing to peace terms under which there will not be a Jewish state into the future. Even the political left is beginning to see this problem. The issue is not simply a question of a one or two state solution, but of "two states FOR TWO PEOPLES" meaning that one of those states would be a Jewish state. Even Ahmadinejad supports Abbas' version of two states in which in essence both would become Palestinian in short order.
Simply put, what is going on now is that leaders who seek the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state are SUPPORTING a TWO state solution, only doing so in such a way that ultimately NEITHER of those states will be Jewish. Their support for "two states" allows them to APPEAR to be moderate, when they are very much not and continue to seek the end of the Jewish state.
They really want two states for one people.
-David
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Muslims and Jews United
Shalom All,
Rabbi Marc Schneier has a dream to bring together Jews and Muslims, to seek our commonality and especially in this country, to fight racism and discrimination. He has been successful in linking Jewish congregations with Muslim congregations in dialogue.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3701387,00.html
In Des Moines, we have had fewer opportunities than I would like to see in the future for interaction. Mark Finkelstein and I have made an annual visit, at least one, to the Islamic Center each year, usually around Ramadan. I have been the guest of the Muslim community and spoken at large scale Islamic celebrations here, at the Eid-al-Fitr festival and at Iowa Muslim Day celebrations. A couple of years ago, Ako Samad invited me to join with him and my state senator at the State House to deliver the invocation, the first time a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian had ever stood on the podium for the prayer in the history of the state.
We do have many things in common. We are minorities who wish to combat hatred and prejudice as well as to advocate for a separation of church and state. Religiously, we share many common beliefs and similar practices (though I would argue that Islam is FAR MORE closely related to Orthodox Judaism than to Progressive Judaism). We can certainly find commonality in our language, seeing relationships between Shalom and Salaam and other paired words from Hebrew and Arabic. Yet religiously, as a Progressive Jew and specifically as a Progressive Reform Jew, there are enormous differences in our beliefs and practices.
Discussing religious issues with religious Muslims is very similar to discussing them with Orthodox Jews or devout Catholics. We are on different ends of the spectrum on virtually the entire array of social issues from homosexuality and choice to the opportunity for women to be religious leaders. Additionally, when we deal with the history of the "Abrahamic Faiths" we run into problems. Why? Because while Muslims believe that they share our history and that of Christians as related in the Quran, Jews do not believe the history found therein. Worse, the treatment of Jews in the Quran is horrific. Thus, when we dialogue about being "Children of Abraham" we tend to avoid the stories of Mohammed's encounters with the Jews of Medina and we certainly avoid the more troubling statements in the Hadith. The reality is that there are significantly troubling issues that are almost universally avoided.
The reason for this is that while progressive Jews are willing to look at troubling passages in the Torah and other texts and attribute them to human origins and human prejudices, Muslims cannot. There is no Reform Islam. For all Muslim leaders with whom I have ever dialogued, Mohammed's revelation comes from Allah, not from Mohammed or other people. It is God's word, much in the same way that Orthodox Jews view texts in our tradition and fundamentalist Christians view them in theirs. Where we have had extreme difficulty is in finding Muslims who speak for Muslim organizations who are willing to express contrary views. Those Muslims who I know hold views on social issues similar to mine, such as marriage equality or choice, are secular Muslims. I know of no religious leaders who share them.
As Liberal Jewish institutions, it is not only with Muslims that we have this problem. We need to dialogue with Catholics, we need to dialogue with fundamentalist Christians, and we need to dialogue with Orthodox Jews. We differ on many of the same social issues. Building bridges to the broader community cannot be solely about doing the politically correct thing. We need allies across the spectrum. Having 14 million Jews serve as the mediators between 1.2 billion Muslims and 1.3 billion Christians has never been comfortable. Both sides have at times persecuted and massacred our people. On Israel issues, we find ourselves right in the middle with a giant target on our heads.
There is, in the West, a false assumption that all Muslims oppose Israel. This is largely the result of negative media coverage and propaganda. It is certainly true that Arab Muslims tend to oppose Israel and that Shia Muslims (Iran) do, but there are two very prominent groups that need to be mentioned as strong allies. First are the Druze, who consider themselves to be an Islamic reformatory sect. Israeli Druze are some of the strongest advocates for Israel, serving in its military in disproportionate high numbers as well as in its diplomatic corps. Second are Sudanese Darfurian Sufi Muslims, whose genocide at the hands of Islamist Arabist militias is the result of their being African rather than Arab in orientation. The conflict in Darfur is between black Muslims who follow African traditions and black Muslims who follow Arab traditions. Many of these Darfurian Muslims have come to see Israel as the Southern Sudanese Christians came to see them, namely as their protectors against raging evil. One could easily add progressive Muslims throughout the Arab world who are simply afraid to speak up. The Islamic Society of North America, the most progressive Islamic national organization, supports a two state solution to the crisis, but is not by any means a strong supporter of Israel's security needs as it negotiates with the Palestinians. ISNA advocates for the Palestinian side.
What I have found is that those sects that have been persecuted in the Arab and Persian world, the Druze, the Sufi Muslims (slaughtered by the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Darfur by the government there), and the Bahai (a new religion formed out of the Islamic milieu) are some of the strongest supporters of Israel. They see Israel as the defender of the weak, as the defender of religious freedom, as the beacon of religious tolerance and as a land of peace and prosperity. While perhaps the dream is better than the reality, many Darfurian refugees have found far better lives in Israel than any that they could have imagined in the Sudan, though admittedly things could improve still more.
Take the time to watch the trailer for B'nai Darfur http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHUoFVf5ZKk .
It lets the Darfurians speak for themselves about what Israel means for them.
-David
Rabbi Marc Schneier has a dream to bring together Jews and Muslims, to seek our commonality and especially in this country, to fight racism and discrimination. He has been successful in linking Jewish congregations with Muslim congregations in dialogue.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3701387,00.html
In Des Moines, we have had fewer opportunities than I would like to see in the future for interaction. Mark Finkelstein and I have made an annual visit, at least one, to the Islamic Center each year, usually around Ramadan. I have been the guest of the Muslim community and spoken at large scale Islamic celebrations here, at the Eid-al-Fitr festival and at Iowa Muslim Day celebrations. A couple of years ago, Ako Samad invited me to join with him and my state senator at the State House to deliver the invocation, the first time a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian had ever stood on the podium for the prayer in the history of the state.
We do have many things in common. We are minorities who wish to combat hatred and prejudice as well as to advocate for a separation of church and state. Religiously, we share many common beliefs and similar practices (though I would argue that Islam is FAR MORE closely related to Orthodox Judaism than to Progressive Judaism). We can certainly find commonality in our language, seeing relationships between Shalom and Salaam and other paired words from Hebrew and Arabic. Yet religiously, as a Progressive Jew and specifically as a Progressive Reform Jew, there are enormous differences in our beliefs and practices.
Discussing religious issues with religious Muslims is very similar to discussing them with Orthodox Jews or devout Catholics. We are on different ends of the spectrum on virtually the entire array of social issues from homosexuality and choice to the opportunity for women to be religious leaders. Additionally, when we deal with the history of the "Abrahamic Faiths" we run into problems. Why? Because while Muslims believe that they share our history and that of Christians as related in the Quran, Jews do not believe the history found therein. Worse, the treatment of Jews in the Quran is horrific. Thus, when we dialogue about being "Children of Abraham" we tend to avoid the stories of Mohammed's encounters with the Jews of Medina and we certainly avoid the more troubling statements in the Hadith. The reality is that there are significantly troubling issues that are almost universally avoided.
The reason for this is that while progressive Jews are willing to look at troubling passages in the Torah and other texts and attribute them to human origins and human prejudices, Muslims cannot. There is no Reform Islam. For all Muslim leaders with whom I have ever dialogued, Mohammed's revelation comes from Allah, not from Mohammed or other people. It is God's word, much in the same way that Orthodox Jews view texts in our tradition and fundamentalist Christians view them in theirs. Where we have had extreme difficulty is in finding Muslims who speak for Muslim organizations who are willing to express contrary views. Those Muslims who I know hold views on social issues similar to mine, such as marriage equality or choice, are secular Muslims. I know of no religious leaders who share them.
As Liberal Jewish institutions, it is not only with Muslims that we have this problem. We need to dialogue with Catholics, we need to dialogue with fundamentalist Christians, and we need to dialogue with Orthodox Jews. We differ on many of the same social issues. Building bridges to the broader community cannot be solely about doing the politically correct thing. We need allies across the spectrum. Having 14 million Jews serve as the mediators between 1.2 billion Muslims and 1.3 billion Christians has never been comfortable. Both sides have at times persecuted and massacred our people. On Israel issues, we find ourselves right in the middle with a giant target on our heads.
There is, in the West, a false assumption that all Muslims oppose Israel. This is largely the result of negative media coverage and propaganda. It is certainly true that Arab Muslims tend to oppose Israel and that Shia Muslims (Iran) do, but there are two very prominent groups that need to be mentioned as strong allies. First are the Druze, who consider themselves to be an Islamic reformatory sect. Israeli Druze are some of the strongest advocates for Israel, serving in its military in disproportionate high numbers as well as in its diplomatic corps. Second are Sudanese Darfurian Sufi Muslims, whose genocide at the hands of Islamist Arabist militias is the result of their being African rather than Arab in orientation. The conflict in Darfur is between black Muslims who follow African traditions and black Muslims who follow Arab traditions. Many of these Darfurian Muslims have come to see Israel as the Southern Sudanese Christians came to see them, namely as their protectors against raging evil. One could easily add progressive Muslims throughout the Arab world who are simply afraid to speak up. The Islamic Society of North America, the most progressive Islamic national organization, supports a two state solution to the crisis, but is not by any means a strong supporter of Israel's security needs as it negotiates with the Palestinians. ISNA advocates for the Palestinian side.
What I have found is that those sects that have been persecuted in the Arab and Persian world, the Druze, the Sufi Muslims (slaughtered by the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Darfur by the government there), and the Bahai (a new religion formed out of the Islamic milieu) are some of the strongest supporters of Israel. They see Israel as the defender of the weak, as the defender of religious freedom, as the beacon of religious tolerance and as a land of peace and prosperity. While perhaps the dream is better than the reality, many Darfurian refugees have found far better lives in Israel than any that they could have imagined in the Sudan, though admittedly things could improve still more.
Take the time to watch the trailer for B'nai Darfur http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHUoFVf5ZKk .
It lets the Darfurians speak for themselves about what Israel means for them.
-David
Monday, April 13, 2009
Toward Peace?
Shalom All,
Since the Israeli elections and the big todo about Avigdor Lieberman's anti-peace stance, talks have been underway with the Palestinian Authority. Lieberman is certainly unpopular, but as President Abbas has stated, he speaks his mind. There is no question about what Lieberman believes. Thoughts seem to emerge unfiltered from his lips. Lieberman is also an open advocate for a two state solution.
That said, there are some problems with his version of two states, the primary one seeming impossible. Lieberman wants to transfer Arab villages within Israel to a Palestinian state in exchange for lands upon which Jews live today. While violating numerous Israeli laws, the problem is that it makes too much sense to simply discount. Why not trade land? Why not give Israeli Arabs the opportunity to go to a newly founded Palestinian state?
One of the biggest difficulties that people have with Lieberman is that he is hard to read, being neither a die hard religious Zionist who is unwilling to give up an inch of land, nor a religious Jew, nor a dove. His ideas are often awful and even hateful in many eyes, but he is willing to work toward peace in a tangible way. It is going to be a very strange few years in Israel. Shimon Peres speaks of Iran in terms I would have expected from Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak joins an outwardly right wing coalition, and Avigdor Lieberman is working toward peace.
Meanwhile things seemingly have settled down in Gaza. Egypt has stopped some of the smuggling and arrested a huge group of Hizballah fighters in the Sinai.
Things may actually be looking up on the peace front. If Palestinian institutions get the chance to work and the populations of Gaza and the West Bank get the chance simply to live in security, prosperity will begin to follow and negotiations might actually have a chance to succeed. I don't see a Palestinian state just around the corner, but I do see substantial improvement in quality of life on the way.
This week, I am probably more optimistic than I have been for months. The process seems to be going in a positive direction.
-D
Since the Israeli elections and the big todo about Avigdor Lieberman's anti-peace stance, talks have been underway with the Palestinian Authority. Lieberman is certainly unpopular, but as President Abbas has stated, he speaks his mind. There is no question about what Lieberman believes. Thoughts seem to emerge unfiltered from his lips. Lieberman is also an open advocate for a two state solution.
That said, there are some problems with his version of two states, the primary one seeming impossible. Lieberman wants to transfer Arab villages within Israel to a Palestinian state in exchange for lands upon which Jews live today. While violating numerous Israeli laws, the problem is that it makes too much sense to simply discount. Why not trade land? Why not give Israeli Arabs the opportunity to go to a newly founded Palestinian state?
One of the biggest difficulties that people have with Lieberman is that he is hard to read, being neither a die hard religious Zionist who is unwilling to give up an inch of land, nor a religious Jew, nor a dove. His ideas are often awful and even hateful in many eyes, but he is willing to work toward peace in a tangible way. It is going to be a very strange few years in Israel. Shimon Peres speaks of Iran in terms I would have expected from Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak joins an outwardly right wing coalition, and Avigdor Lieberman is working toward peace.
Meanwhile things seemingly have settled down in Gaza. Egypt has stopped some of the smuggling and arrested a huge group of Hizballah fighters in the Sinai.
Things may actually be looking up on the peace front. If Palestinian institutions get the chance to work and the populations of Gaza and the West Bank get the chance simply to live in security, prosperity will begin to follow and negotiations might actually have a chance to succeed. I don't see a Palestinian state just around the corner, but I do see substantial improvement in quality of life on the way.
This week, I am probably more optimistic than I have been for months. The process seems to be going in a positive direction.
-D
This Far, No Farther
Shalom All,
David Samuels article http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/ is all too cogent for my taste. He makes a very good argument for why Israel not only might attack Iran, but probably should. That scares me. Samuels also does a superb job of demonstrating why Israel cannot possibly rely on the United States all of the time, or even any of the time.
Where I tend to differ slightly from Samuels is that while he seems to argue that the conflict is for favor of the United States in the Middle East between Iran and Israel, I believe that it is more complicated.
If you go far back, let's say to just prior to WWI. You had the Ottomans in power over much of the region. Then the Brits and the French, who basically left a power vacuum in the wake of WWII. The USSR stepped in then as did the United States. The US and USSR both hoped that Israel would be their ally in the region. Israel seemingly chose the US, which is why the 1956 war in which it was backed by Britain and France against the will of the US startled the US. The US wanted control of the distribution of oil to Europe and Israel had the opportunity to screw that up by handing that control to Britain and France or even to assert its own power over it by controlling the Suez. The US then courted Turkey and placed missiles there in 1961-1962 in order to gain a foothold in the region. But distant battles took its attention away from the Middle East during the Mid-1960s and when Israel was threatened by the Arab armies, the United States sat back and watched. Soviet client states were armed to the teeth and ready to strike, but the US was far more worried about the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.
When Israel struck and won decisively, the game changed. Now, Israel was the dominant military power in the region. Direct US power in the region paled by comparison. The US now looked to use Israel's influence to combat Soviet influence, at least until President Carter decided to use Israel's concessions to combat it. US foreign policy for most of the last three decades has consisted of forcing concessions upon Israel while not doing anything in its favor other than vetoing votes at the United Nations and providing it the ability to purchase weaponry. Meanwhile, Israel has become so vastly superior to its enemies militarily that US influence West of the Persian Gulf is largely related to its ability to influence Israel to direct its power.
In the 1980s, the US decided to prevent either Iraq or Iran from achieving dominance by supporting both sides. It backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the USSR. It exerted influence by maintaining conflicts. Meanwhile, ultimately all of these players were functionally opponents of what the United States wanted, namely future security for the dispersal of oil. The Taliban wanted to end US influence in the region. Both Iraq and Iran wanted to control the flow of oil. Ultimately Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait tipped the balance to the point wherein the United States had to insert itself into the battle between Iran and Iraq by attacking Iraq. It had to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iraq forced the hands of the US into making a decision in a DIFFERENT conflict that had equally bad, if not worse, consequences. The US decided that it had to stop the winner of the Iraq-Iran conflict from becoming a serious competitor for control of the region.
The US ended up turning a conflict between Iraq and Iran into a conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia by removing Iraq from the picture with the US backing Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, many Muslims saw Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, in the role of US puppet and that more than any US involvement in the Middle East caused radicals all over the region to react and to further radicalize. That the US continues to strongly support Saudi Arabia is not seen by radical Muslims as a positive thing, but as an insult to Islam. The US became their biggest enemy, not their best friend. Striking out or at least acting in some serious fashion against Iran, which is not well liked in most of the Arab and Muslim world, could help.
While there are many reasons that have been suggested for why the United States went back into Iraq and took out Saddam, the only ones that really make any sense have to do with stabilizing the region by maintaining a dominant US presence that directly threatens Iran. Unfortunately, right now, while the US is holding its own in Iraq, it is losing ground in Afghanistan (where it is seeking "moderate" Taliban with whom to bargain, something akin to looking for progressive liberal radical fundamentalists), watching Pakistan (already a major nuclear power) deteriorate into lawlessness while cultivating there the very kind of fundamentalist radical extremism that resulted in 9/11,and is talking nice with the Mullahs of Iran, who cannot but laugh that the United States is crawling to their doorstep so weary from fighting that it refuses to even consider utilizing the massive firepower sitting on its border to force Iran to back down from its nuclear ambitions. It even allowed North Korea to build a nuclear reactor and form a nuclear weapons program in Syria, a nation under the Iranian sphere of influence, after allowing Iraq to build one decades earlier, both destroyed by Israel.
For Israel, whose people have historically endured persecution after persecution and many of whose people specifically endured the torment of the Holocaust when nations that could have fought chose instead to appease, is difficult not to see modern day Neville Chamberlains trying to bargain by giving up modern Sudetenlands, one of which is the 1967 border of the West Bank and the other being Israel's security. I am not calling President Obama, who I believe does support Israel's security, Neville Chamberlain. Rather, I am calling almost all of the leaders of the Western World, Neville Chamberlains. In virtually every discussion of every conflict, leaders around the world from America to Britain, from France to Canada, from Australia to Germany, speak of concessions and appeasement.
Radical extremism, particularly in the Muslim world, but far from solely therein, is being confronted by nations who believe that intolerance should be tolerated as an alternative world-view, that advocacy for freedom, capitalism, and democratic principles are sins of arrogance for which the West should apologize, that the dramatic oppression of women and the persecution of religious minorities are allowable and even valued cultural differences and that the foreign policies of all of those nations in the West should primarily involve making those who wish to destroy them and undermine everything for which they stand happy. This seems most often to be accomplished by abandoning of principles in exchange for easily broken promises. We dangle carrots, rewarding our enemies, giving them confidence to seek more and bigger carrots. "If they are willing to give us that, why not also...?" The opponents of freedom simply up the ante and we repeatedly give in. Freedom is losing around the world to totalitarian and rogue regimes, even to pirates, because we refuse to say "No, or else" and mean "OR ELSE!!!" What ever happened to "This far, no farther?"
This attitude is stifling moderate populations all over the world as they watch radicals make demands and see them granted by those who should be demanding the liberty of the moderates. Those who wish to simply live happy and prosperous lives are abandoned to tyrants and tyrannical regimes. We are not propping up dictators through covert arms shipments as in days of old. Instead we are publicly conceding and appeasing them, allowing them to acquire weaponry and to turn it upon their populations. We appease governments spouting anti-Jewish, not only "anti-Zionist" statements, pretending that if only Israel were willing to join the appeasement game, its enemies who wish for it to have nothing left to concede, not even its very existence, will be sated.
I believe much more strongly than David Samuels that there is a legitimately beneficial relationship between Israel and the United States. I have however long believed that the US could become less of a friend and less of an influence. While I do not believe that is necessarily occurring now, it has clearly been the case that Israel has courted other allies including India, China, and recently Russia. The sale just this past week of Israeli drone aircraft to Russia, the first ever military deal between the two nations, is a strong sign of changing relationships.
Right now, Israel, not the US, is preventing Iran from acquiring the Russian missile defense system. Israel, not the US, has taken out the only nuclear reactors operating outside its borders in the entire Arab world. Only Israel, not the US, is threatening military action against Iran. Only Israel gives Iran even a moment's pause. The US is seen as war weary and unwilling to fight and Europe even more so.
Diplomacy without the real threat that it could end, and that grave consequences would follow, will never work. The phrase is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Speaking softly without any stick gets you beaten up by the guy with a stick. That is what is happening all over the world today.
The liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people around the world depend upon our willingness to stand up for those things in which we believe. If only when threats come to our borders will we react, we can be assured that threats will come to our borders.
This is not about Israel's role as the dominant ally of the US or the primary focus of our attention in the region. It is fundamentally about the future of freedom and security in our world.
-David
David Samuels article http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/ is all too cogent for my taste. He makes a very good argument for why Israel not only might attack Iran, but probably should. That scares me. Samuels also does a superb job of demonstrating why Israel cannot possibly rely on the United States all of the time, or even any of the time.
Where I tend to differ slightly from Samuels is that while he seems to argue that the conflict is for favor of the United States in the Middle East between Iran and Israel, I believe that it is more complicated.
If you go far back, let's say to just prior to WWI. You had the Ottomans in power over much of the region. Then the Brits and the French, who basically left a power vacuum in the wake of WWII. The USSR stepped in then as did the United States. The US and USSR both hoped that Israel would be their ally in the region. Israel seemingly chose the US, which is why the 1956 war in which it was backed by Britain and France against the will of the US startled the US. The US wanted control of the distribution of oil to Europe and Israel had the opportunity to screw that up by handing that control to Britain and France or even to assert its own power over it by controlling the Suez. The US then courted Turkey and placed missiles there in 1961-1962 in order to gain a foothold in the region. But distant battles took its attention away from the Middle East during the Mid-1960s and when Israel was threatened by the Arab armies, the United States sat back and watched. Soviet client states were armed to the teeth and ready to strike, but the US was far more worried about the Persian Gulf and Southeast Asia.
When Israel struck and won decisively, the game changed. Now, Israel was the dominant military power in the region. Direct US power in the region paled by comparison. The US now looked to use Israel's influence to combat Soviet influence, at least until President Carter decided to use Israel's concessions to combat it. US foreign policy for most of the last three decades has consisted of forcing concessions upon Israel while not doing anything in its favor other than vetoing votes at the United Nations and providing it the ability to purchase weaponry. Meanwhile, Israel has become so vastly superior to its enemies militarily that US influence West of the Persian Gulf is largely related to its ability to influence Israel to direct its power.
In the 1980s, the US decided to prevent either Iraq or Iran from achieving dominance by supporting both sides. It backed the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the USSR. It exerted influence by maintaining conflicts. Meanwhile, ultimately all of these players were functionally opponents of what the United States wanted, namely future security for the dispersal of oil. The Taliban wanted to end US influence in the region. Both Iraq and Iran wanted to control the flow of oil. Ultimately Saddam Hussein's decision to invade Kuwait tipped the balance to the point wherein the United States had to insert itself into the battle between Iran and Iraq by attacking Iraq. It had to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In other words, Iraq forced the hands of the US into making a decision in a DIFFERENT conflict that had equally bad, if not worse, consequences. The US decided that it had to stop the winner of the Iraq-Iran conflict from becoming a serious competitor for control of the region.
The US ended up turning a conflict between Iraq and Iran into a conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia by removing Iraq from the picture with the US backing Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, many Muslims saw Saudi Arabia, the center of Islam, in the role of US puppet and that more than any US involvement in the Middle East caused radicals all over the region to react and to further radicalize. That the US continues to strongly support Saudi Arabia is not seen by radical Muslims as a positive thing, but as an insult to Islam. The US became their biggest enemy, not their best friend. Striking out or at least acting in some serious fashion against Iran, which is not well liked in most of the Arab and Muslim world, could help.
While there are many reasons that have been suggested for why the United States went back into Iraq and took out Saddam, the only ones that really make any sense have to do with stabilizing the region by maintaining a dominant US presence that directly threatens Iran. Unfortunately, right now, while the US is holding its own in Iraq, it is losing ground in Afghanistan (where it is seeking "moderate" Taliban with whom to bargain, something akin to looking for progressive liberal radical fundamentalists), watching Pakistan (already a major nuclear power) deteriorate into lawlessness while cultivating there the very kind of fundamentalist radical extremism that resulted in 9/11,and is talking nice with the Mullahs of Iran, who cannot but laugh that the United States is crawling to their doorstep so weary from fighting that it refuses to even consider utilizing the massive firepower sitting on its border to force Iran to back down from its nuclear ambitions. It even allowed North Korea to build a nuclear reactor and form a nuclear weapons program in Syria, a nation under the Iranian sphere of influence, after allowing Iraq to build one decades earlier, both destroyed by Israel.
For Israel, whose people have historically endured persecution after persecution and many of whose people specifically endured the torment of the Holocaust when nations that could have fought chose instead to appease, is difficult not to see modern day Neville Chamberlains trying to bargain by giving up modern Sudetenlands, one of which is the 1967 border of the West Bank and the other being Israel's security. I am not calling President Obama, who I believe does support Israel's security, Neville Chamberlain. Rather, I am calling almost all of the leaders of the Western World, Neville Chamberlains. In virtually every discussion of every conflict, leaders around the world from America to Britain, from France to Canada, from Australia to Germany, speak of concessions and appeasement.
Radical extremism, particularly in the Muslim world, but far from solely therein, is being confronted by nations who believe that intolerance should be tolerated as an alternative world-view, that advocacy for freedom, capitalism, and democratic principles are sins of arrogance for which the West should apologize, that the dramatic oppression of women and the persecution of religious minorities are allowable and even valued cultural differences and that the foreign policies of all of those nations in the West should primarily involve making those who wish to destroy them and undermine everything for which they stand happy. This seems most often to be accomplished by abandoning of principles in exchange for easily broken promises. We dangle carrots, rewarding our enemies, giving them confidence to seek more and bigger carrots. "If they are willing to give us that, why not also...?" The opponents of freedom simply up the ante and we repeatedly give in. Freedom is losing around the world to totalitarian and rogue regimes, even to pirates, because we refuse to say "No, or else" and mean "OR ELSE!!!" What ever happened to "This far, no farther?"
This attitude is stifling moderate populations all over the world as they watch radicals make demands and see them granted by those who should be demanding the liberty of the moderates. Those who wish to simply live happy and prosperous lives are abandoned to tyrants and tyrannical regimes. We are not propping up dictators through covert arms shipments as in days of old. Instead we are publicly conceding and appeasing them, allowing them to acquire weaponry and to turn it upon their populations. We appease governments spouting anti-Jewish, not only "anti-Zionist" statements, pretending that if only Israel were willing to join the appeasement game, its enemies who wish for it to have nothing left to concede, not even its very existence, will be sated.
I believe much more strongly than David Samuels that there is a legitimately beneficial relationship between Israel and the United States. I have however long believed that the US could become less of a friend and less of an influence. While I do not believe that is necessarily occurring now, it has clearly been the case that Israel has courted other allies including India, China, and recently Russia. The sale just this past week of Israeli drone aircraft to Russia, the first ever military deal between the two nations, is a strong sign of changing relationships.
Right now, Israel, not the US, is preventing Iran from acquiring the Russian missile defense system. Israel, not the US, has taken out the only nuclear reactors operating outside its borders in the entire Arab world. Only Israel, not the US, is threatening military action against Iran. Only Israel gives Iran even a moment's pause. The US is seen as war weary and unwilling to fight and Europe even more so.
Diplomacy without the real threat that it could end, and that grave consequences would follow, will never work. The phrase is "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Speaking softly without any stick gets you beaten up by the guy with a stick. That is what is happening all over the world today.
The liberty and prosperity of hundreds of millions of people around the world depend upon our willingness to stand up for those things in which we believe. If only when threats come to our borders will we react, we can be assured that threats will come to our borders.
This is not about Israel's role as the dominant ally of the US or the primary focus of our attention in the region. It is fundamentally about the future of freedom and security in our world.
-David
Thursday, April 2, 2009
What Lieberman Actually Said
Shalom All,
The world's media have taken Avigdor Lieberman's speech and are spouting propaganda around the world, misrepresenting it. I'm not saying that Lieberman's speech was somehow a mushy gushy pacifistic ode rather than a strongly worded one, but neither is it anti-Peace with the Palestinians. That is a FALSEHOOD. What Lieberman said as you will see below is that the Road Map is binding and still the guide for the peace process and that BOTH Israel and the Palestinians have obligations under it that must be followed.
On a personal note, the FIRST obligation that the Palestinians have in the Road Map is to stop attacks against Israel. Israel is not obligated to address any other clauses until that happens. Here is the full text of the Road Map http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm. The Palestinians have accomplished NONE of their obligations and in fact the situation has worsened from the one they held so that the PA has work to do just to regain the position in which it was when the Road Map was created. Once that is done, Israel was to follow through on its obligations which include ending settlement construction including natural growth, but that obligation is time-based AFTER the Palestinians accomplish a number of tasks of nation building and ending violence against Israel.
I have highlighted some of the text below that I believe is most relevant. The full text of Avigdor Lieberman's speech follows below.
-David
Statement by incoming Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman at the ministerial inauguration ceremony
1 Apr 2009
Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,
When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks - the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries - have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems are coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister - all based on mutual respect.
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest disdain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead - and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council - I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including - as I said - the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we - in those circles that espouse peace so much - are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, will be our policy.
The world's media have taken Avigdor Lieberman's speech and are spouting propaganda around the world, misrepresenting it. I'm not saying that Lieberman's speech was somehow a mushy gushy pacifistic ode rather than a strongly worded one, but neither is it anti-Peace with the Palestinians. That is a FALSEHOOD. What Lieberman said as you will see below is that the Road Map is binding and still the guide for the peace process and that BOTH Israel and the Palestinians have obligations under it that must be followed.
On a personal note, the FIRST obligation that the Palestinians have in the Road Map is to stop attacks against Israel. Israel is not obligated to address any other clauses until that happens. Here is the full text of the Road Map http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2989783.stm. The Palestinians have accomplished NONE of their obligations and in fact the situation has worsened from the one they held so that the PA has work to do just to regain the position in which it was when the Road Map was created. Once that is done, Israel was to follow through on its obligations which include ending settlement construction including natural growth, but that obligation is time-based AFTER the Palestinians accomplish a number of tasks of nation building and ending violence against Israel.
I have highlighted some of the text below that I believe is most relevant. The full text of Avigdor Lieberman's speech follows below.
-David
Statement by incoming Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman at the ministerial inauguration ceremony
1 Apr 2009
Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,
When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks - the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries - have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems are coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.
What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister - all based on mutual respect.
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest disdain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead - and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors - Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" - if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council - I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including - as I said - the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we - in those circles that espouse peace so much - are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, will be our policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)