Did The United Church of Canada Admit Its BDS Report is Anti-Semitic?

The United Church of Canada has released a report from its working group on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that will serve as a guide when the Church debates a call to participate in the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in August.


I always find it interesting to read the reports of religious denominations when they are about to justify taking controversial positions outside of theological debate and in the realm of practical politics.  Usually the resulting reports are riddled with logical contortions and problematic assertions.  This working group report is actually fairly well constructed and it is clear that the group worked very hard to acknowledge varied opinions about the conflict.  


Ultimately, however, the report fails to make its case.  I have read through it a couple of times and have three major questions about the working group report, which I will deal with in depth in future posts.  Today, however, I would like to write about the most glaring error I see.  


It seems that the United Church of Canada has defined its own proposed policy on BDS as anti-semitic.    This is their conclusion and the logic presented in their working groups report, not mine.   

In section 4.6 of the report outlining the working group assumptions, the report states that:

The working group also takes seriously charges that church actions disproportionately criticize Israel in comparison to other countries in the region or other situations globally. The working group believes that Israel can and should be held to a higher standard than surrounding non-democratic countries or authoritarian regimes. 

This is a clear and concise argument and the report lists many reasons as justification of this double standard.  However, it is equally clear that as the report continues, the committee had some serious heartburn with applying this double standard to Israel.

The Analysis and Policy Directions section of the report (5.2),  addresses the issue of the "new anti-semitism."  To distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-semitism, it references (footnote 23) and hyperlinks a three fold test of demonization, delegitimization, and double standards first articulated by Natan Sharansky.  This test is widely accepted in the Jewish and non-Jewish world as a valid way to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel.


However, this test is in absolute contradiction with the assumptions defined in section 4.6.  In the linked article, Mr. Sharansky's clearly states: 

...today we must ask whether criticism of Israel is being applied selectively. In other words, do similar policies by other governments engender the same criticism, or is there a double standard at work? 

It is anti-Semitism, for instance, when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while tried and true abusers like China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria are ignored.

It seems strange to me that the working group would take this position and then deliberately undermine it several pages later.  Most organizations would simply ignore the Sharansky definition and stick with their own justification of the double standard applied against Israel provided a few pages earlier.  


But in their effort to appear objective an reasonable they have done something quite remarkable.  They have defined anti-semitism and then recommended a Church policy that clearly meets that definition.  They never dispute or reject the Sharansky definition, in fact they seem to be using it to affirm that some criticism of Israel is justified.


If the Church adopts this working group report, the Jewish community can legitimately criticize the Church for taking an openly anti-semitic stance.  By ignoring the objective test that they have held up as a standard, the Church has not only opened the door to such accusations, but seems to be welcoming them.


It would not be the first time that in history that a Christian denomination has taken a position that is openly hostile to Jews.  In fact, if you look at the statistics, anti-semitism in Canada is much more acceptable than it is in the United States.  

I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is significant disagreement on this issue within the United Church of Canada.  There are challengers that see the call to join the BDS movement for what it is.  The Canadian news outlet, National Post published an article about United Church pastor Rev. Andrew Love who was quoted:

“I really want to believe this is the workings of a very active minority in the church,” said Andrew Love, a pastor at a parish in the town of Arnprior, 55 kilometres west of Ottawa. 

“The vast majority of people in the pews are not ready to embrace this kind of extremist and radical agenda from a small minority. There is a real disconnect between the leadership and its people.”

I wish Pastor Love all of the the good luck in the world in his efforts around this issue.  I sincerely hope that the United Church of Canada does not take this step into open anti-semitism.

The Air is No Longer Sweet at Sesame Street

Anti-Semisitm is like a virus.  It can infect even the most seemingly innocent places and this week its nefarious virulence is being felt on the childhood icon of Sesame Street.

Yes, the beloved Elmo was arrested in central park this week for an anti-Semitic rant.  He was apparently shouting aloud words taken from Henry Ford's essay, The International Jew.  We are not sure exactly why he was arrested, but some reports have it that Elmo is currently undergoing medical evaluation.

This isn't the first time that Elmo has been spotted wandering the street of New York spewing his Jew hatred.



  It has been well documented on youtube, as in the video link above.

A classic WWI image of
Bert Riding with Adolph Hitler on their
way to the Wannsee conference to
discuss the final solution.

According to sources at The Street, Elmo has recently been spending a lot of his time with Bert, whose Nazi sympathies have been well documented.  This is an extraordinarily disturbing development in the battle for the stuffed hearts and minds of the inhabitants of the Children's Television Workshop.  We are not sure how far the radicalization of the Sesame Street population will go.  Elmo's girlfriend Zoey could not be reached for comment.

Interesting times indeed.

Vox Jew Baiting Again (and Accidentally Makes a Reasonable Argument)

My favorite Jew baiter, blogger, and ubermench on the internet, Vox Day is back to his Jew baiting ways again in his post about the circumcision ban in Germany today.  It is hard for me to disagree with his main point, particularly when just yesterday I wrote about how strange the custom of circumcision was and that it was not really based on anything rational or defensible.  I also made a very similar point to his about how Jewish and German cultures were irreconcilable.

He goes on to make the completely obvious point that Judaism is not circumcision... but just yesterday I wrote:  Judaism = Circumcision.  Since Vox often does not get hyperbole I will make this a little more clear. Judaism is not actually circumcision, but there is no form of Judaism that exists without the ritual.  Even the most liberal Jewish movements would have a hard time eradicating the practice from their congregations.  Judaism and circumcision are inextricably connected... to ban the practice is to ban the religion of Judaism.  This has historical precedent, because at times when Judaism has been banned, circumcision has been explicitly banned with it.  However, here is what I found most distasteful from his post today.

One finds it hard to imagine that the Germans have not made it sufficiently clear that they do not cherish living with Jews among them any more than Israelis enjoy living with Sudanese in their midst.

Once again he draws a false equivalence between the situation of illegal African immigration in Israel and the historical persecution of Jews in Christian Europe.  Of course, he does this while we are still waiting for the response he promised to my post about how the two situations are not even comparable .... and he never bothered to respond to my post destroying his "red herring" assertion that the violence necessary to carry out the deportations on two different continents in two different centuries automatically makes them equivalent.   Don't worry, I am sure he will get to it.

Vox will probably accuse me of lacking the ability to read, because if you parse the sentence above very carefully it does not actually equate the Israeli attitude toward the African immigrants with the Nazi attitude toward Jews.  But putting them in the same sentence together is consistent with his intent to use the Israeli deportation of illegal immigrants to justify the historical expulsion of the Jews.  It is more valid to read this sentence for the emotion it evokes than its logical content.  Nasty business.

Finally, Vox makes a good point in an update he provided to the post.  I think he should have led with this because it is his strongest argument.

UPDATE: I have zero sympathy for Jews whining about this court decision. They have no grounds for complaining about finding themselves on the short end of the freedom of religion law this time given this previous German court case: "In 1973, a Jew complained successfully that his freedom of religion was violated by the obligation to speak in a German courtroom decorated by a cross." 

Do you want your traditions to be respected? Then keep your nose out of everyone else's. 

There is an element of truth to this.  I have always been uncomfortable with how zealously civil libertarians have prosecuted their desire to remove Christian prayer from the public square.  In many cases the people promoting this cause are Jewish.

True story.

In 2004, I was a volunteer for the George W. Bush campaign in Florida. All over the country volunteers were asked to observe polling places to prevent another debacle like the unbelievably close results of 2000. On election night, I was waiting in the supervisor of elections office with another volunteer. A stranger with long hair, corduroy shorts and flip flops approached me and asked for a word. He identified himself as a reporter for the local paper. I agreed to talk to him, but did not know what he could possibly want to talk with me about.

“Well” he said, “I understand that ACLU is sending attorneys to supervise the counting tonight and I was hoping to get a statement for tomorrow's paper.”

I looked at him blankly for a minute and then started laughing out loud. My friend from the RNC just laughed, punched me in the shoulder, and said “You sure look the part!”

You see, I am possibly the most stereo typically looking Jewish guy in the world. When the reporter realized we were laughing at him, he slinked away embarrassed and went to find the actual ACLU lawyer, a well dressed elderly southern gentleman, probably of Scots-Irish decent.

The reporter had looked around the room, picked the most Jewish looking guy and decided that I must be from the ACLU.  This is because whenever you see someone on TV complaining about a Christian prayer at a football game... it is usually a Jewish guy.  While the Christian community is generally too polite to say so... they don't like the fact that Jews will scream persecution when they hear a Christmas carol or someone say the word Jesus in a public prayer.  They would much prefer to sing their songs, pray their prayers, and worship God in their own way, without being accused of bigotry.

I grew up in an area that was primarily Southern Baptist and heard many of those kinds of prayers and carols in my childhood.  I learned to bow my head politely and not say Amen, if I could not agree with the prayer.  No one was ever offended by that.  I found that the very religious Southern Christian families I grew up around to be very lovely, warm, kind people who happen to eat a lot of mayonnaise.

Unlike Vox however, these people never blamed me personally (by blaming Jews in general) for the actions of a few Jews in the ACLU.  The closest they will ever get is to shake their head and ask "why is it that Jews are so liberal?"   To which I reply, I have no idea... and then bow my head politely while they bless the food with whatever blessing they choose.   I don't say amen but I do say, please pass the mayonnaise.

To Wonk or Not to Wonk

As a rule, I am generally more empathetic with someone who tells me that they are struggling with an issue than with someone who claims to have it all figured out.  This is why Jen Maidenberg is rapidly becoming one of my favorite bloggers on the web.  Last week, she attended the 2012 Israeli President's Conference and allowed herself to imagine what life might have been like if she had stayed on a career trajectory to become an Israeli policy wonk.

As the conference continued, I sat and listened to well-renowned, content producing opinion makers debate whether Americans have the right to interfere in Israel’s national security policies (applause!) or whether Israel alone knows what’s best for herself (applause!). During the few politically inspired panels I sat in I thought to myself, “Have I traveled back in time? Either it’s 1997 or these guys have been talking in circles for the last 15 years.” 

I think that there is some truth to this.  Anyone who entered into the field of Israeli policy wonkdom 15 years ago with the purpose of making a difference would be sorely disappointed with their progress.  I think that there are many reasons for this.  The biggest reason, of course, is that the problems are real and that there are no easy solutions.... no matter how much we want there to be... and no matter how much we filter the facts to prove to ourselves that those easy solutions are really there.  If only we would just [insert favorite brilliant policy solution here].

As I was reading, I immediately thought back to an online class I took on the book of Kohelet (Ecclesiastics) in the Tanach.  Kohelet is a tough read and the message is unmistakable.  Nothing that you do here in the physical world makes any difference.  Only your spiritual accomplishments will stay with you, which means that most of everything you do in a day ultimately amounts to nothing.  It is tough to get worked up about the troubles in the world today when you contemplate the all the troubles of human history.  What seems like the most important thing in the world right now can (and usually does) prove to be nothing tomorrow... and when it really is something important, you deal with it as best you can and then pick up and move on anyway... so there is really no point in worrying over it.

On the other hand, if you believe in God... (which I do) and you believe that God put us on this earth for a purpose... (which I do) you really ought to figure out what that purpose is and get to work on it.   The trouble is that you can never be certain you have it right.  In fact, you can be almost certain you have it wrong.

I mean, do you suppose that Moses looked back on the last 40 years of his life and regretted that he had made no progress?  Did he stand on the edge of the promised land worrying over his mistakes and wishing he had been a better leader 40 years earlier, when he stood in almost the same spot but instead turned around and headed back into the desert?  Or did he look at himself as a farmer patiently tending the field... waiting for the crop the ripen and the right time to harvest?

If he was human, he probably had moments of both.  Jen says it very nicely:

It’s we, the students of human relations — not international relations — who will one day help guide this region to a solution. Humans, through their need for one another and their true, deep desire to connect and to love — not just survive — are the only true hope for peace.

If there is no peace, that means that we as humans are not ready for it, yet... no matter how our leaders clamor for it.  Moses was wise to turn back into the desert.  In this sense, it was the character of the people, not the character of the leader that determined that the children of Israel were ready to enter the promised land.

When Israel became a nation in 1948 the founders of the country specifically chose the name Israel.  This did not have to be the name of the new country.  It could have easily been Zion or Judea or Herzliya any one of a number of possible names.  In Jewish tradition, the name of something is very important.  When you name a child, there is presumed to be a spiritual energy that is channeled through the name.  This energy will be present throughout the child's life and will characterize their personality in some way.  It is interesting to note that the name Israel is associated with struggle... both physical and spiritual.  As Jacob struggled with the Angel and became Israel, it should come as no surprise that the State of Israel's struggles continue.

Just as people in their 40s generally still struggle with the same personality flaws that plagued them in their 20s, nations too have a character that gives them strength and gives them troubles.  Movement from left to right on the political spectrum is ultimately inconsequential.  History is going to tell us in no uncertain terms who is right or who is wrong on the great political issues of the day.  The question is, do we have the strength to look our situation, learn from it... and grow as human beings?  ... and can we recognize the truth when we hear it?

This is the great strength of the Jew, we seem to understand that the struggle is our purpose.  While it may be frustrating to belong to such a neurotic and self critical people, it is also a blessing.  We are drawn to the great debates of the day like moths to a flame, but ultimately it is the mundane struggle of daily living that gives us the most rewards.  We often look for a Hollywood ending and a nice tidy resolution to our conflicts before the happily everafter.  But in reality, every victory generates its share of new struggles.

So, I will continue to wonk in my little corner of the internet, knowing that the impact the discussion has on me will be greater than my impact on the world... and not only is that okay, it is really the point.

No Circumcision in Germany

In The Times of Israel today there is a report that a German Judge ruled that circumcision damages the bodily integrity of a child and any parent who has one performed for non-medical reasons can be punished by the court.

I found this interesting because I am teaching a modern Jewish History course this summer and we are heavy into the subject of the development of Liberal Judaism.  One of the main points I have made throughout the class is that German culture is absolutely toxic to Judaism.  Judaism and German culture are irreconcilable.  Of course, this puts me at odds with the founders of the liberal Jewish movements as they worked very hard to reconcile German culture with Jewish practice.  It did not work out so well.

The Liberal Rabbis of Germany, such as Abraham Geiger, had no problem changing Shabbat to Sunday, repealing the kosher laws, adding choirs and organ music to the worship service, preaching their sermons in German, and eliminating all of the visible signs of a Jew... like the yarmulke and tzitzit.  But for some strange reason, the ritual of circumcision was left intact.

To be sure there was a vigorous debate about the practice.  It was universally recognized to be a superstitious, barbaric, and ancient practice.  There was absolutely no rational argument to support it at the time.  Today we try to justify it with medical reasons, but the science confirming this is far from definitive.

Abraham Geiger, who was one of the defining intellectual forces of what later became the Reform movement, would not let go of circumcision as a Jewish practice, even though he could find no rational reason to keep it.  According to the Virtual Jewish Library:  while he considered circumcision a "barbaric, bloody act," he opposed the call of the radical Frankfurt Reformverein to abolish it.


Germany is not he only place where circumcision is under attack.  Here in the US, there is a comic book hero called Foreskin Man who battles evil moyels circumcising helpless young children.  Let's face it, circumcision is pretty drastic and kind of strange.... yet it seems to be one of the most important aspects of our religion.  It was so important that even Abraham Geiger, who had no problem discarding parts of our tradition that conflicted with his scientific view of the world, still held on to it.


It has been banned before.  You only have to read the book of Maccabees in the apocrypha of the Catholic bible to see evidence that the practice was banned under Antiochus Epiphanies.  The Romans banned it as well.  Whenever you want to get rid of Jews, circumcision has to go.  


I have always been amazed by the story of circumcision in the Torah.  I can just imagine Abraham walking into his tent and addressing all of his servants.  


"Hey guys, I just had this funny conversation with God and guess what we are going to cut off today?" 


...and the tentative replies...


"yeah right... what?"


"Uhhhh... Is he serious?"


"I sure hope not."


A couple of years ago, I taught a seventh grade class and we were discussing the subject of tattoos, Jewish law, Auschwitz and Jewish burials.  One of my students asked why tattoos were not allowed by Jewish law.  I replied that with one notable exception, you are not supposed to permanently alter the body that God gave you.  


Silence.


"What's the exception?"


One student starts laughing and one by one they got it.  Hilarious.


Circumcision = Judaism.  Don't ask me to explain it, because I can't.  


Germany does not = Judaism.  Can't explain that one either, but it is just obvious to me that it is true.

De-Nile is a River in Egypt

On the subject of hearing what you want to hear... there are some particularly hilarious comments in an Op-Ed on Haaretz this morning.... oh wait, it is not an Op-Ed, I think it is supposed to be real news analysis.  Either way, Zvi Bar-el out does himself in trying to spin the Egyptian election results into something that is less than a disaster.

The movement’s victory symbolizes the goal of those behind the revolution, many of them secular liberals, to rid themselves of Hosni Mubarak’s oppressive regime. Voting for Muslim Brotherhood candidates is a way of voting against the old regime.

Right, because all of the secular liberals decided to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate instead of the secular liberal candidate.

One possibility under discussion is appointing as prime minister someone perceived as being neutral − a candidate who does not belong to any of the movements represented in parliament. One of the names raised is that of the former head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. 

Right, because the Muslim Brotherhood will see the wisdom of appointing the head of the losing party to a position of authority.  There is absolutely zero percent chance of this happening.  If they have the votes in parliament, they will appoint who they want.  If they don't have the votes, they certainly will not appoint anyone the opposing party wants.

Morsi will likely appoint deputies, both for himself and the prime minister, who belong to the movements for young people and secularists that were behind the revolution.

Why?  Because he lost the election?  No, wait, he won.. so of course he will appoint members from the losing parties to positions of authority... because that is how democracy works.

In the face of the natural anxiety over the possibility that Egypt will become a theocracy, Morsi’s small margin of victory shows that he and his movement will have to tread lightly in their political and diplomatic conduct.

Right, because theocratic governments in the Middle East have a history of moving slowly and respecting minority wishes.

Morsi will not be able to ignore the army’s strong standing on the need to have a good relationship with Washington − not just because of the financial aid Egypt gets but also because any Egyptian president who wants to improve his country’s geopolitical standing needs American − and Saudi − assistance. 

Or Washington will be forced to continue military aid to prop up the Egyptian Military in the hopes of gaining some influence in Egypt.   The Muslim Brotherhood will happily accept this assistance and then not do what Washington wants... because of internal political pressures.  Just like Pakistan.

The regional agenda of both Cairo and Washington will force Morsi, who knows America well from his studies there and the frequent meetings he had with U.S. representatives in the past year, to adopt new language − a statesmanlike language that differs from the kind that prevails in a movement.

This is true, they will adopt a new statesmanlike language... but don't expect it to change the way they act.

Yes, Morsi was a founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Committee to Fight the Zionist Project and has called Israel “the Zionist entity.” But in the strategic decision by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party to recognize all agreements that Egypt has signed with other countries, the movement’s representatives are showing that they are sticking with the Camp David Accords. 

Even if there is a hidden plan to reexamine or change the Camp David Accords, it certainly won’t be discussed any time soon.

This one made me laugh out loud.  A hidden plan?  So hidden that the headline on Ynetnews this morning was that Morsi announced that he will reexamine the peace treaty with Israel.

Here is a quote from the Ynet article:

Morsi: Peace Treaty will Be Reviewed 

In contrast to comments he made in a televised address after his victory was announced on Sunday, Fars news quoted Morsi as saying Egypt's Camp David peace accord with Israel "will be reviewed", without elaborating.

But I am sure it will not happen anytime soon.

It is unreal the lengths that people will go will confirm their own biases.

Hearing What You Want to Hear (Headlines Are Not Reality)

Yesterday, I blogged about a video that is making its way through the blogsphere.  It was a Muslim Cleric introducing the Egyptian President-Elect at his victory rally in Cairo.  In the video, he painted a vision of a United Arab States with Jerusalem as the capital.  This has long been the unapologetic vision of the Muslim Brotherhood.  While I knew that the video would stay under the radar and not bubble up into the mainstream news coverage, I was shocked and surprised by the alternate reality represented in last nights headlines... and then reassured by the headlines this morning.

When I went to bed last night this was the lead story on Ynetnews:

Egypt's Morsi: We'll uphold international agreements 

In his first address to the nation, just hours after being declared Egypt's new president, Islamist Mohammed Morsi pledged to "preserve international accords and obligations"  - a reference to the peace deal with Israel. However, Morsi did not specifically mention Israel or the 1979 peace treaty.

Talk about hearing what you want to hear.  Moments after being introduced by a man who was waxing poetic about waves of martyrs marching toward Jerusalem, the President-Elect talks about upholding international agreements and the writers at Ynet immediately jump to the conclusion that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is in safe hands.

But headlines are not reality.  News writers and PR professionals can certainly shape perceptions of events, but can not redefine them completely out of reality.  This headline was followed this morning by:

Morsi: Peace Treaty will Be Reviewed 

In contrast to comments he made in a televised address after his victory was announced on Sunday, Fars news quoted Morsi as saying Egypt's Camp David peace accord with Israel "will be reviewed", without elaborating.

Of course, these comments are not in contrast with his victory address yesterday.  They are very consistent with the nature of his speech.  They are only in contrast if you spend a lot of effort trying to read the most optimistic interpretation of his speech and remove it from the context of every statement his political party has made in the last 30 years.  In other words, Ynet got it wrong and this is the retraction.

There is still a lot of uncertainty around this issue.  It is not at all clear who will end up in control of the Egyptian government.  However, the Muslim Brotherhood has a clear set of objectives, they are very smart politically, and there are a lot of people in the Middle East with experience in collapsing democratically elected governments.

This is bad news for Israel.

It is even worse for the United States.  The Obama administration policy of throwing Mubarak (a ruthless and evil dictator) under the bus has created a democratic Egypt... whose first foreign policy objective will be to reach out to the Iranians.

"We must restore normal relations with Iran based on shared interests, and expand areas of political coordination and economic cooperation because this will create a balance of pressure in the region," Morsi was quoted as saying in a transcript of the interview.

What shared interests are those?  I am sure they are talking about economic cooperation, right?

More bad news for Israel.

Jerusalem (Al Quds) Declared the New Capital of Egypt

Last week I posted about the total collapse of the Land for Peace paradigm in the Middle East.  On Friday, I was not sure whether the scenario I envisioned would play out in months or in years... but today, blogger Vox Day pointed me to this clip on Breitbart ... so my new estimate is that it could happen in just weeks.

This video shows Egyptian Cleric Safwat Higazi introducing the new Muslim Brotherhood Egyptian President-Elect Mohammed Morsi at his victory rally.  I have transcribed a portion below, but please go watch the video for yourself.

"We can see how the dream of the Islamic Caliphate
is being realized, Allah willing, by Dr. Mohammed Morsi
and his brothers, his supporters and his political party.
We can see how the great dream shared by us all -
That of the United States of the Arabs
The United States of the Arabs will be restored, Allah willing.
The United States of the Arabs will be restored
by this man and his supporters
The capital of the Caliphate -
The capital of the United States of the Arabs
Will be Jerusalem, God Willing 

Morsi will liberate Gaza tomorrow, (Crowd chants it back) Morsi will liberate Gaza tomorrow, (Crowd chants it back). Our Capital will not be Cairo, Mecca, or Medina
It will be Jerusalem, God Willing.
Our cry shall be millions of martyrs march toward Jerusalem"

Although, I would caution you not to make too much of this too soon. Morsi has been elected as the executive of a state with no constitution and no parliament.  Well, they have a parliament, but the court declared it invalid and the military disbanded it while they write the new constitution.

As I have said before, I expect that there will continue to be conflict between the Muslim Brotherhood and the military.  The Muslim Brotherhood will form a terrorist organization to operate from the Sinai and every time the military tries to reign it in... they will threaten to bring down the government.  This will continue until  the terrorist organization is powerful enough to challenge the Egyptian Military.  It is a pattern that worked well for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This scenario was completely obvious and predictable when the Arab uprising started in Egypt.  It was only wishful thinking that led the Obama administration to put its hopes in a liberal democracy.

Land For Peace - No More

There was an interesting Op Ed on Ynetnews today regarding the the Egyptian elections and the paradigm of Land for Peace with the growing violence on the Egyptian border.  Hagia Segel writes:

There, some 34 years after Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, it suddenly turns out that we made a terrible, foolish mistake. Two leaders, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, were awarded a Nobel Peace Prize because of this folly, and it was considered to be one of the best things that happened here since 1948. Yet one clear day, we found ourselves without the Sinai, and without peace.

The Egyptian border is a complex issue.  It has long been the entry point of choice for smuggling, sex trafficking, and illegal immigration into Israel.  It has not, however, been a point of entry for terrorists.  All parties, the Egyptians, Israelis, and organized criminals had a common cause in keeping terrorists out of the Sinai.  The Egyptians, because they opposed Hamas supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, the criminals because they did not want to see their smuggling routes closed due to national security reasons, and the Israelis for obvious reasons.  

The Arab Spring and subsequent elections in Egypt have changed that dynamic.  Right now Israel is struggling to fence the Sinai desert to keep terrorists out of Israel.  As they do this, their construction workers are being attacked with shoulder fired rockets.

So far, Israel is acting as if that terror cell originated from Gaza even though they operated out of the Sinai.  This actually makes sense because the Hamas organization was started as part of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is taking tenuous political control over Egypt.  So, Israel has retaliated against targets in the Gaza strip.

The other day I wrote about the puzzling increase in rocket fire by Hamas from Gaza and after reading this OpEd, I think I understand the reason behind it.

Israel can not attack targets that have retreated deep into the Sinai without the risk of giving the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt a reason to revisit the peace treaty with Israel.  So, they attack targets in Gaza.  Hamas retaliates with rocket fire.  However, for reasons I wrote about in the linked post, I think that this is a bad strategy for Hamas.

The sequence of events to come is clear.  Attacks from Sinai will increase.  A new terrorist organization will be organized under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood.  It will operate from the Sinai, independent of Hamas in Gaza.  Israel will ultimately be forced to respond to the violence originating in the Sinai and Egypt will reject its treaty with Israel... with the justification that Israel broke the treaty... and with the support of the Egyptian people... and probably with backing from some European countries (and maybe even Russia)

Once Egypt breaks its agreement with Israel, the whole paradigm of Land for Peace will be broken.  It will be impossible for the West to pressure Israel into land concessions, because there will be a historical precedent of zero benefit to Israel.

Clearly, the Palestinian Authority has made a mistake by refusing to negotiate while Land for Peace is still a viable concept.  I don't know if it will take months or years for the above scenario to play out, but this is the direction the conflict is headed.  While this is the trajectory, there is absolutely no chance of a negotiated settlement based on giving land in exchange for peace guarantees.

Israel will probably simply wait until the global situation changes significantly.  So, if the Egyptians align with the Russians or some similar event makes the US feel threatened by realignment in the region... Israel will have US backing to annex the well settled parts of West Bank and Jerusalem.

The First Big Success of the Boycott Divestiture Movement

Editor's note:  It looks like the article that this blog post references was retracted by The Forward... here is the original press release from Jewish Voice for Peace.  It is not at all clear that the divestment from Caterpillar by TIAA-CREFF (if it happened) was related to the BDS movement.  However, that is a very large movement of funds and I think that it is just as likely to be a quiet move by TIAA-CREFF to silence some vocal critics of their investment fund.  I will keep you posted as the story develops.


UPDATE:  The Forward has replaced its original article with this one:  A Caterpillar Divestment Victory?  The new article indicates that JVP may have been exaggerating, but that the BDS movement did have some influence on Caterpillar's rating change, which led to it being removed from the fund.  I know that others disagree, but I still feel that this is a big win for the BDS movement, though not as clear as they would like.

I have been writing a lot about anti-semitism on the (alternative) right, but today I will spend a little time writing about the anti-semitic movements developing on the left.

This week the Boycott, Divestiture, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which aims to weaken Israel economically, had its first big success.  TIAA-CREFF agreed to divest $72 million from Caterpillar, an American company that sells bulldozers  to the Israeli Army.  While Caterpillar has been in the cross hairs of the anti-Israel activists for a number of years, it has been largely successful in preventing them from impacting their business, through good communications strategy and reasonable arguments.

While it is true that the Israeli Army uses the caterpillar bulldozers to destroy illegal settlements and knock down the houses of terrorists, the story of how Israel got the bulldozers is a little less clear.  The United States provides Israel aid in the form of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) money.  This money, given to Israel, must be used to purchase goods from American companies.  So, while the US provides Israel aid... the jobs to manufacture the good stay in the US.  This is why Israel buys its bulldozers from Caterpillar instead of from some Chinese or Korean manufacturer who I assume has a less expensive product.  So, it is a win-win for Israel and the United States... they get bulldozers, we get jobs.  This is one of the benefits of foreign aid that is missed by people who oppose it.  It isn't like the money disappears in to the foreign country, it returns to the US in the form of skilled labor.

FMS is one of the more sensible programs run by the Federal Government in that money is spent to help it allies and support domestic manufacturing.

Hurting Caterpillar is going to have zero impact on Israel and its policies.  If Israel can not get bulldozers through the FMS program, it will simply buy them cheaper from another manufacturer with their own funds.  The people who are going to be most impacted are the unionized workforce at Caterpillar.   Either it will have less access to capital or it will forego sales to Israel, hurting its bottom line directly.  This will also not likely change the amount of FMS money that Israel receives... so the only ones who are damaged are Midwestern factory workers.

So, why consider this a success?  This is the first time that I am aware that a major fund in the US has bought into the BDS philosophy.  The BDS group is well funded and persistent.  They have even been able to recruit a number of activist Jews to their cause and are working on ways to recruit more.  This will not be the last success of the BDS movement.

If they continue to go after targets like Caterpillar, this will have the effect of separating Israel and the West.  Israel will have to develop closer economic ties with Asia or Russia to get the supplies they need and the US will continue to lose manufacturing jobs.

The BDS movement has come of age.  It has gained a foothold in the American economy and I would expect that the trend will continue to grow.  So, what can be done in response?

• Establish a communications strategy that makes sure people understand that the BDS movement is anti-American, not just anti-Israel.  
• Establish a pro-Israel financial fund.  The TIAA-CREFF fund is marketed as a socially responsible investment fund.  If the trend is that these funds will be anti-Israel, then establish a counter fund to mitigate the potential economic impact.  Being banned from one fund means an investment from the other.
• Continue the push to be able to alternatively invest money in Israel.  For example, crowd source funding on the Kickstarter (or Jewcer) model.   
• Continue to fight the BDS movement.  Start a campaign to convince TIAA-CREFF that they have erred in their decision.
• Go buy a Caterpillar T-shirt or hat and show your support.

Don't underestimate the importance of this victory for the BDS movement.  But also remember that this is going to be a long fight.

Incomprehensible Government Regulation Kills Jobs

In Ynetnews today I spotted an article about the Apple store in Alpharetta, Georgia that refused to sell a woman an iPad because the store clerk heard her speaking Farsi (the language of Iran) and asked her where she was from and what she was planning to do with the iPad.

The Council for American Islamic Relations, of course, is claiming that the woman was discriminated against because of her Iranian background... which is true.  However, I expect this story to go away very quickly, because the Apple store employee behaved exactly in accordance with the US export law called the International Traffic in Arms Regulations or ITAR.

It is against US law to sell or export any technology that could have military applications to foreign countries without permission from the US State Department.  All of Apple's products have powerful enough processors that they can be used for military purposes.  Anyone who violates this law is subject to criminal penalties (yes, criminal penalties) or their company could be subject to heavy fines.

What is more, is that with the law you have a positive obligation to check the destination of the "military hardware," which means that you need to ask reasonable questions about the destination of the product.  You also have the obligation to watch for "Red Flags" and follow up on any obvious signs of illegal export.  That is exactly what the Apple employee did.  He heard them speaking Farsi... and asked what she was going to do with the iPad.  She told him that she was going to send it to a relative in Iran!

Did I mention that if he had sold her the iPad, he would have violated US law and could have been subject to criminal penalties!  He could have gone to jail for selling her the iPad.... and all he did was come to work that day at his job in the Apple store.

It gets worse.  If the story I read was correct and she is here in the US in a student Visa, he could not even sell the iPad to her for her own use.  It could be classified as a deemed export, meaning that selling that kind of technology to a foreign national on US soil is also considered exporting it.  She can not legally buy the iPad... or at least he can't legally sell it to her.

I would expect that Apple could be in trouble here anyway, because the customer service representative  suggested that she go onto the Apple web site and purchase it there, actively assisting her in circumventing the law.

To sum it up, a college student, legally here in the US, walks into the Apple store and tries to buy an iPad.  The store clerk behaves exactly in accordance with the law and refuses to sell it to her. This brings all kind of unwanted media attention into his life and to the store.  He could be sued for civil rights violations.  Apple can still get in trouble for violating the law because of a poorly trained customer service representative.  She does not get her iPad.  How did we get to this level of ridiculousness in government regulation?

A few weeks ago when I was at a conference about revitalizing America put on by South Carolina rRpresentative Tim Scott, I asked one question to the Congressmen on a panel.

As a business person, we have spent money to train our executives on compliance with the law.  After a four hour briefing on the law the attorneys summed up the briefing like this:  We are not really sure what the law means or how to comply with it, the interpretation can change depending on who is enforcing it, and it hasn't really been tested in the courts yet, so we don't really know how it will be applied.  How can you run a business in that environment?

This is exactly the law that I was talking about in my question.  It is so broad because anything can be classified as potentially military use, even paperclips.  It is almost impossible to comply with in the normal course of business.  This is the type of nonsense US companies have to deal with every day and it has an impact on our ability to create jobs in this country.

How is This Rocket Fire Different From All Other Rocket Fire?

Over 50 rockets were fired into Israel this week, which may not seem like a major development, but it is.

The biggest concern is that Hamas has officially taken responsibility for the rocket fire.  This is a major change in Hamas policy.  Since Operation Cast Lead, Hamas has been insistent that its tentative cease fire with Israel hold.  That has not stopped them from firing rockets into Israel, but they would do the firing through proxy organizations and maintain some form of plausible deniability that they were firing the rockets.  Israel would play along and pretend that Hamas was not really firing the rockets and that the cease fire was still in place.

It was an arrangement that worked fine as long as no one got hurt and they don't have to close the schools too often. Hamas openly standing up and challenging Israel again could dramatically change the way the conflict proceeds in the coming months.  Up until now, I believed that Hamas was favoring a more moderate policy in an attempt to gain some legitimacy in the world.

There is a lot of speculation as to why Hamas would take this step right now.  No one really has any special insight into the problem.  Some think it is internal politics in the Gaza strip (I doubt this), some think that it is related to the elections in Egypt (more likely).  At the moment, I think that it is the Muslim Brotherhood flexing its military muscle in the region in an attempt to prevent the Egyptian military from overturning the results of the democratic elections in Egypt.  Although, this is just speculation on my part.

I will be watching this closely.  If Hamas does not back down, Israel could have a summer war on its hands.  That could dramatically effect the US elections.  Hamas could not have picked a worse time to tempt Netanyahu into a major conflict.

Book Preview: Hitlerland by Andrew Nagorski

I almost gave this book a complete miss.  After all, I feel like I have read all that I need to about the Nazis.   My Hitler bookshelf is almost full, but after reading about the unique approach this book takes to chronicling the rise of the Nazis, I feel like I have to read it.  I have added this to my wish list on Amazon and to my summer reading list.

The author, Andrew Nagorski, wrote a teaser in the The Forward this morning.  In it he describes the various eye witness accounts to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.  He rejects the hindsight of the aftermath of the Holocaust and brings us Hitler through the eyes of his contemporaries.  Confusion and differing opinions about the Nazi threat plague the world... and even the Jewish community.  Nagorski writes:

In fact, some Americans living in Germany were more alarmed by what they were witnessing than German Jews appeared to be. In late 1932, as Hitler was close to taking power, Edgar Ansel Mowrer, the Chicago Daily News correspondent who was one of the most perceptive observers on the scene, attended a dinner at the home of a prominent Jewish banker. All the other guests were also Jewish bankers, and Mowrer was startled to hear that some of them had given money to the Nazis at the urging of non-Jewish German industrialists. 

When Mowrer expressed his astonishment at his dinner companions’ “strong suicidal urge,” his host insisted that Hitler shouldn’t be taken seriously. The implication: The Nazi leader would never act on his most extreme rhetoric, and besides, the donations would keep him reasonable. To Jews who were more willing to listen, Mowrer’s advice was unequivocal: “Get out, and fast.”

This is an area I have always wanted to research and am sure I will find this useful.  I am teaching a class on modern Jewish history this summer and I am sure that this will provide ample source material for my single lecture on the Holocaust.  I will review the book when I have read it.

Israelis and International Law

Naomi Chazan, former member of the Knesset and outgoing president of the New Israel Fund, published an OpEd in The Forward today.  In it she made the case that Human Rights groups are Israel's best defense against isolation in the world.

She began her case with a point that I have heard from the other NGO / Anti-Israel activists.

Only the prime minister and the dwindling number of supporters of Israel’s settlement enterprise really believe that the statement does not violate international law. Legal scholars in Israel and throughout the world cite the Geneva Conventions and subsequent instruments to demonstrate that colonizing occupied land is illegal. Only the contortions of a few right-wing legal scholars still attempt to claim otherwise.

The point is often used as what is supposed to be the final statement in any argument about Israeli policies.  Israel is violating International Law!  The end... as if it were that simple.

I love reading the work of people who have a different view point than I do.  It helps me clarify my own thinking.  So, rather than look for flaws in their thinking, I often conduct a thought experiment which starts with... what if what they are saying is completely right?  How does that fit with everything else I know about the situation.

So, for the sake of argument, I will assume that:

• There is such a thing as International Law.
• Israel is violating that law.
• Israel should be punished for violating that law.

So, the first questions that I have are if there is a legitimate International Law:

• What body can Israel depend upon to fairly enforce that law?
• Where can they go to appeal a decision?
• Where can they go to redress grievances and change the law? 

Of course the United Nations was created for that very purpose... but are they the final authority?  Perhaps it is the International tribunal that meets in the Hague?... which is located in Belgium, which has the worst level of anti-semitism of all European countries.   How has the track record of the United Nations been on punishing violations of international law.  What has their track record been on treating Israel fairly in their justice system?

By some counts, over 50% of actions of the United nations revolved around Israel's violation of International Law... are we to believe that Israel, a county of 6 million people commits 50% of the violations of International Law?  

This is where the argument quickly falls apart.  Reasonable people can ask, should Israel be bound to comply with a system of International Law that is so obviously biased against them?

Basically, any institution that would enforce International Law would be dominated by the Europeans.  A brief historical survey of European justice towards Jews usually involves ghettoizing them for their own protection, then fining them for the damaged caused by the anti-Semitic riots, and then ends with stripping them of civil rights, and expulsion (or worse).

In other words, to assume a binding International Law system, there would have to be an equally effective enforcement system and a way to fairly execute it.  I do not believe that you can find any example of that.  

International Law has a credibility problem... until it fixes that problem it makes no sense to appeal to it as an authority to be recognized by the State of Israel.  Making policy on the basis of an unfair and biased law makes as much sense as giving a bully your lunch money... it solves the problem for today, but makes it worse in the long run.

Jewish Renewal and Rabbis of the Past

At the Velveteen Rabbi, Rachel Barenblat posts a link to her review of two books by Jewish Renewal Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi.  As a member of a Reform congregation and a political conservative, I don't really follow Jewish Renewal, but I often find myself casting an eye in their direction, particularly when they go for a deep dive into the pool of Hasidism for religious inspiration.

The two books she reviews: A Hidden Light and All Breathing Life are right up my alley.  The first, is a description of the intricacies and relationships of the various early Hasidic teachers, their differences, similarities, and radical ideas are all taught through the method of hasidic story telling.  It sounds like a great read, but I can't help myself in hoping that there will be an audio version of the book available.  The second, is a listing of prayer and Hasidic teaching in a a poetic format intended to provide maximum inspiration.

When I teach this period of Jewish History and its ramifications, I try to emphasize the radical nature of the early founders of Hasidism.  The Bal Shem Tov (BeShT), who was not accepted as a learned Rabbi by the intellectual elite of his time, promoted a number of radical ideas.  One of the most important was that an average uneducated Jew was allowed to pray by addressing God in whatever terms he could muster.  This offended the sensibilities of his more academically inclined contemporaries, who had no problem modifying the order of prayer, but felt that they should be the ones to do it.  For the BeShT to do this was bad enough, but for him to encourage others with even less education to do the same was unforgivable.

A great struggle ensued in Poland and Lithuania for the soul of Judaism... while at the same time in Germany, Moses Mendelssohn was laying the foundation for what would later become Reform Judaism.

It was a confusing time to be a Jew.

Predictably, there were excesses in practice by those who took the BeShT at his word and created enough justification to excommunicate the promoters of Hasidism from the Jewish community.  Ultimately, it took the Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Ladai to take the BeShT's teachings and synthesize them into the Tanya, (the basis of the modern Chabad movement) heal the rift, and reestablish Hasidism under the umbrella of Orthodox Judaism.

I am hoping that Rabbi Schachter-Shalomi's books will give some insight into the spiritual inspiration of that confusing time.

One thing I find particularly interesting, is the tendency of Reform Rabbis to draw inspiration from the early Hasidic teachers.  Going to a Torah talk at my local Reform synagogue, you are much more likely to run into a story told by the BeShT or one of his disciples, than to encounter something written by the intellectual founders of modern Reform Judaism; Moses Mendelssohn, David Friedlander, or Abraham Geiger.  I think that this is reflective of the struggle within Reform Judaism... which as of today, has generally rejected its classical Reform roots and is moving to a more traditional religious practice.

As Jews we have covered a lot of ground since the 18th century... the struggle continues.  So, thank you Rabbi Zalman Schachter-Shalomi for your contribution to the conversation, I am looking forward to learning from you.

Jen Maidenberg Wrestles With Religious Pluralism In Israel

I was surfing the internet looking for blog inspiration this morning when I happened across a great column by Jen Maidenberg at The Times of Israel.  Jen was born into a Liberal (Conservative) Jewish community in New Jersey and is now an immigrant living in Israel.

I am assuming based on her post that she has two Jewish parents and married to a Jew of the same pedigree.  There was never a question about her Jewishness while living here in the United States.  However, the idea of religious pluralism (the buzz word for tolerance of Jews with a less strict adherence to traditional halachic Jewish observance) has become important to her while she lives in  a country with a large majority of Jews.

I love the way she described her childhood:

When I was a young child, we lived in one of those New Jersey suburbs that didn’t have Jews. Yes, such places existed, and in the 1970s when I was growing up, being a Jew in one of these non-Jewish suburbs wasn’t something you necessarily advertised. Instead, you minimalized it over cocktails at Christmas parties. 

In the United States the decade of the 70s was one of readjustment.  The Civil Rights movement had a massive impact on the Jewish community.   Many people my age don't realize that prior to this time Jews were restricted from many areas of American life.  As a Jew, there were hotels you could not stay in, clubs you could not join, professions that were barred, and neighborhoods that would rather not have you.

That changed in the 1970's and it appears that Jen's parents took advantage of it and decided to buy a house in a nice WASP neighborhood in New Jersey.

It wasn’t long before my parents realized what might happen to my brother and me if we continued visiting Santa at the mall every December.

So we moved to a neighboring New Jersey suburb known for its elevated Jewish content.  (As in, “Cherry Hill is so Jewish it requires its own division at the Anti-Defamation League.”) 

Then reality sets in and Jen's parents realized that freedom is not always free and just because you can do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.  I have to give a lot of credit to her parents... moving is a big deal and it is frankly easier to just drive to synagogue than to move closer to one.

I immediately connected this with my own story, except that strangely it was exactly the opposite.

We lived in a very Jewish neighborhood in Miami, attended Jewish preschool... and the public schools closed for the High Holy Days.  My parents decided to move across the state in the early 70s to be closer to my grandparents, who had retired.  We moved to a city in what I affectionately call redneck Florida... beautiful beaches (aka: The Redneck Riviera)... and there were exactly 20 Jewish families in the county.  Yes, in the county.

Acquiring kosher meat required a 320 mile drive to another state, which was not a problem for us because we did not keep kosher.  My father, who had not provided us with much of a Jewish education to that point, looked around and realized that if he did not make us Jewish... certainly no one else would.

He immediately became active in the what Jewish community there was, schlepped my siblings the 45 miles to closest Rabbi for Bar Mitzvah preparations, became president of the brotherhood, and presided over the construction of the Jewish Community Center.  I was the youngest of the three kids and the new JCC opened just in time for my Bar Mitzvah.    When faced with the choice between assimilation and construction of a new community, he chose the latter.  While you can never really know, I believe that if we had stayed in Miami, I would not be as connected to the Jewish community as I am today.

What these two stories have in common are that in both of them, there are parents who made tough decisions, struggled with how to best care their families, and ultimately made Judaism a priority in some meaningful and tangible way.  I am not saying the decisions were perfect... but God did not give us a perfect world in which to make our decisions.

In that imperfection, our parents set us on a trajectory towards Judaism... where the rest of the culture was pulling us away from the source,  our parents made a choice to move in the opposite direction.  I have often heard that in Jewish thought, the direction of your spiritual growth is more important than where you actually are.  

When I travel to Israel, I feel a tremendous sense of relief.  In the US, I know that if I don't make Shabbat, it does not exist.  There is no Passover if I don't have Seder.  When I am in Israel... all of that is already there.

It is the difference between constantly swimming against the current, so much that you don't even notice how much effort you are exerting just to stay in one place.  Then suddenly you come into a stream where the current naturally takes you in the direction you want to go.

Mazel Tov on your Aliyah Jen!  I wish you the best and look forward to following your journey.

The Central Planners Don't Like Free Trips to Israel?

The somewhat bizarre article Free is (not) Me appeared in the The Forward yesterday... In it David Bryfman makes the case that Jewish organizations should be careful what services they provide for free.  The article was a little strange and so I spent the 15 minutes required to watch his speech at ELI Talks on the subject to get some more background.  Unfortunately, it did not provide much for me in the way of clarity.

He did mention that he was afraid that he was committing professional suicide... although he refused to name the free programs that he thought should be cut.  In the Forward article, he mentioned free Jewish children's books and Birthright Israel trips as examples of things that might be leaving behind a trail of unanticipated consequences.

While I think that Bryfman is off base in his conclusions, I do think that this is an important subject to address.  Like everything else in Jewish history, the Jewish community reflects the world around it.  The world economy is changing and the Jewish community economy must change with it.  It is obvious that the community should give some thought to how this is going to happen.

Where Bryfman makes his mistake is his central planning model of the Jewish communal spending.  It seems that in Bryfman's view, every dollar spent on Jewish communal needs belongs to the collective and therefore, he and the other central planners should have a say in how those dollars are spent.  He ignores the fact that each program must fight for contributors who give money to fund those programs.  The question of "Who in the community decides what to give away for free?"... ignores the possibility that this Jewish communal money is not his to spend.  It belongs to someone else and that someone determined how to spend it... and understands the goals, objectives and consequences.

Birthright Israel is an example of an extraordinarily successful "free" program.  It is hard to argue with a free trip to Israel.  Many people in the community don't like the birthright trips, because it gives Israel an opportunity to put on its best face... without the bias of the Western press to color the participants' view of the country.  People like Peter Beinart actively speak out against the program.  So, it is tempting to consider Bryfan's speech just another attack on Birthright, but I don't think that is what is going on.

The Liberal Jewish community has run under the same economic model of a dues-based synagogue for over a hundred years.  Very often, in the smaller cities in America, they were the only option to belong to an organized Jewish community.  Today, I can learn about Judaism from anywhere in the world... through podcasts, webinars, and other modern communications mechanisms.  I don't need the synagogue to be connected to the world wide Jewish community.

Liberal Judaism has been slow to adapt to this reality... and has consistently stuck to a fee based model of providing services.  Additionally, while the cost of providing these services is coming down, the liberal community has been unable to lower its cost.  A good example of this is the recent decision I made to send my daughters to a Chabad run summer day camp.  There was a competitive option at the local JCC... at twice the price.  Price was not my primary consideration in the decision... it was also convenience, proximity, and programming.  But the high price tag certainly did not help the JCC's case... I would pay it if the difference in programming was great enough to compensate.  I am sure that Chabad will provide everything I am looking for from a summer Jewish day camp.

There is no way that the liberal community can compete on price.  Chabad benefits from a large supply of inexpensive, highly Jewishly educated labor.  They benefit from a cost efficient, centralized curriculum development.  They do not have to pay for the cost of the JCC building.  On some level, Bryfman must realize that he is probably paid twice what his competitors in the Orthodox world would be paid for the same work.  His education cost him more, his standard of living is higher, and if the trend continues he will be unable to compete.  This has to be frustrating, but no amount of complaining about freebies are going to change the fundamental economics.

If the Liberal community wants to compete, it needs to make sure its programs are superior.  If the price tag is higher (and it will be) then impact of their programs must be worth the cost.  It is an uncomfortable reality, but it is a reality.

The Valkyries Won't Fly in Israel

Last week, I wrote about the end of the Holocaust which is true in America, but not as much in Israel.  Almost everyone you talk to in Israel has a personal story of the Holocaust.  Just about everyone has a parent or grandparent that was a survivor.  It is ingrained in the psyche of the Israelis more than it is in the Jews of the United States.

Today, Jonathan Tobin of Commentary Magazine points out one of the absurdities of Jewish focus on the Holocaust.  According to Tobin, the music of Richard Wagner has not been publicly performed in Israel since the 1930s.  A planned performance of Wagner was cancelled last month due to public pressure, which seems reasonable... except that the same venue approved a Nabka day memorial just a month prior to the decision to cancel the Wagner concert.

For those who do not know... Nabka is the Palestinian term for the founding of Israel.  It is literally translated as catastrophe.  So, while the rest of the country is celebrating Israeli Independence Day... this venue, which refused a Wagner concert, was hosting a Nabka memorial.  

Apparently a dead anti-semite musician is worse than a room full of live political activists who see the founding of the State of Israel as a catastrophe that needs to be reversed.  Tobin writes:

The concert would have done no harm to anyone in Israel, and those who would have been offended by Wagner need not have attended. Its suppression will achieve nothing other than to satisfy a rule that honors neither the Holocaust nor Israel’s culture. 

Can the same cannot be said for the Nakba event? It was part of a concerted campaign for whose adherents the goal is nothing less than the end of the State of Israel. One has to wonder about the sanity of a university or a country that would move heaven and earth to ban music but would allow the enemies of their existence free rein to advocate their destruction.

It is much easier to live in a fantasy world  where the banning of German music means "never again," while ignoring the very real threats of anti-semitism in the Muslim world.  Symbolic gestures mean more than action... because symbolism is easier and more comfortable than acting in the real world.

TV: Judeo-Mad Men

The season ender of the hit TV show Mad Men aired last night and it did not disappoint.  Matthew Weiner is an absolute genius story teller.  It is rare when I get really captivated by a television show, but Mad Men is something of an obsession for me.

When I watch it, I feel like I am getting a window into the childhood of my parents.  Many items of Betty Draper's wardrobe were identical to the fashions my grandmother wore.  The various set dressing for the Draper home in the suburbs contained items I remember from visits to the trailer in the retirement park in Florida where she lived.  The strange and surreal world of chain smokers, heavy drinkers, serial polluters, and what we would considered today as abusive child rearing... gives me important hints into some of the more quirky behavior of my parents.

In The Forward this morning Sarah Seltzer writes about the Jewish characters in Mad Men.  She gives a great run down of the characters and their Jewishness.  None of the Jewish characters are the main focus of the story.  They are like set pieces or part of the environment in which the main characters move.  We are surprised by some and repulsed by others.

The exception to this is the character Michael Ginsberg.   He exists in the story mainly to be the anti-Don Draper.  Where Don is cool and collected, Ginsberg is spastic.  Don always says the right thing and is an expert at the art of persuasion, Ginsberg on the other hand gets angry when others fail to understand his creative genius.  Don is impeccably dressed and irresistible to women while Ginsberg is an abrasive schlep and attractive to no one.

However, they both share a literary, creative genius.  They both come from inauspicious origins.  Don is the child of a prostitute, raised in a brothel by a drunkard.  Ginsburg on the other had was born is a concentration camp in World War II and was cared for by a non-biologically related "father."

While Judaism is part of who Ginsberg is, his ambivalence towards anything Jewish is easily explained by the strange personality of his father.  After getting the job at Sterling, Cooper, Draper, and Price... his father gives Ginsberg a Baracha (a Jewish blessing) a few minutes after he suggests getting some prostitutes to celebrate.

I think that Ginsberg will have an important role to play in the downfall of Don Draper.

The writer of the series, Matthew Weiner (creator of The Sopranos), is Jewish.  It is ironic to me that he is the modern master of the Greek tragedy.   While we are rooting for Don, we all know the tragic flaw that will be his downfall.   We assume that the show will end with Don jumping to his death from his Madison Avenue skyscraper... but I find it impossible not watch the story unfold.

While Seltzer, in her article criticized the series for its light treatment of the civil rights movement, I think that is the show's strength.  It is not about politics.  The big dramatic political showdowns happen offscreen and the main characters are left to pick up the pieces.  

In short, I can't wait for season 6.

I Will Take My Red Herring Pickled With Some Onions, Thank You

I think that Vox got a little over confident in his post on Friday.  In his glee to try to make me look ridiculous, he brought up his failure to dispute the Moon landing, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The superiority of the Green Bay Packers, and the Palestinian right of return.... as if it were proof of something.  Or more accurately, as if I had made even a single passing reference regarding any of those topics.  (So, maybe it was a joke and moderately funny at that...)  In response, I will only note that given a second opportunity to dispute my characterization of the alt-right as dangerous, (here and here) Vox declined to do so.  Given the fact that he admitted he is not sure how "European Openness" about the Jews (his mode of speech) would be perceived in the US... I will leave you to draw your own conclusions.

The more important point that I want to write about today, is Vox's characterization of one of my main arguments as a red herring.  He has missed the point and has made a big mistake.

I had taken issue with the Vox's characterization of the expulsion of Jews in Europe as non-violent.  The expulsion orders were carried out under penalty of death... which is not exactly non-violent.  Interestingly, one of the commenters on Vox's site was paying attention and got it right.

Nate: Wonder if Chlem realizes that ALL laws carry the threat of violence?

This was precisely my point.  It was one that I thought would be obvious to Vox, because of his libertarian tendencies.   Then Vox goes off the rails with this statement:

...if all deportations are intrinsically violent, then obviously the Israeli deportations of the Africans are violent as well and there is no point in getting into the issue as it proves my assertion of equivalence.

Really?  It proves your assertion of equivalence?  Does Vox actually believe that the level of violence determines the legitimacy of the action?  I will present these two scenarios:

First, an armed man is walking through a park at night.  He is attacked by an unarmed assailant.  The armed man tries to escape his attacker, but can not and then shoots the unarmed man dead.  The armed man calls 911.

Second, a masked, armed man walks into a convenience store, shoots the unarmed store clerk and steals the money from the cash register and safe.  Then the armed man flees, the store clerk dies.

Are these two scenarios equivalent?  Can one be said to provide a justification for the other?  ...or is it possible that one of these shootings is justified and the other is not?  I will note that in both scenarios the level of violence is exactly the same.  An armed man shoots an unarmed man and kills him.  It is only the circumstances surrounding the shootings that make them different.  It is the motives of the shooters and the actions of the deceased that provide the critical points that allow us to distinguish between them.

This is the mistake that so many with bias against the Jews make.  Any violent action taken by any Jew is immediately equated with and used to justify the historical persecution of the Jews in Christian Europe.  For the first time in roughly 2000 years, the Jews have a state... all states necessarily use violence to accomplish their goals.  Sometimes states (all of them) use their violent authority legitimately and sometimes they don't.  It is perfectly legitimate to ask if any particular action of the Jewish State is justified, but to try to draw equivalence with unrelated incidents from history... that is totally unwarranted and just goes to show bias against Jews by the person making the comparison.

In order to prove that the deportation of 60,000 immigrants from Israel prove justification for the expulsion of the Jews from Europe in the middle ages Vox will have to provide more evidence than... both groups were told to leave... and a bogus assertion that some Jews were illegal immigrants.

Vox closes with this quote (which is not linked to a source):

"An apartment housing 10 Eritreans has been firebombed in Jerusalem, against the backdrop of rising anti-migrant sentiment in Israel. Four of the occupants were taken to hospital suffering burns and smoke inhalation. Graffiti sprayed on the walls of the building said: "Get out of the neighbourhood." During a tour of the fence on Sunday, a member of the Israeli parliament said that troops should fire on anyone attempting to cross the border illegally. "Anyone that penetrates Israel's border should be shot, a Swedish tourist, Sudanese from Eritrea, Eritreans from Sudan, Asians from Sinai. Whoever touches Israel's border – shot," said Aryeh Eldad."

 Presumably he means to equate these actions with the violent anti-Jewish riots of historical Europe.  While I have not delved into it deeply and can not verify the accuracy of this report, if it is true, the questions that need to be answered from the first half of the quote are:  What actions has the Israeli government taken to bring the perpetrators to justice?  Were the victims treated medically after the incident?  What steps will the government take to make certain this does not happen again?  As to the second half of the quote.. a random Member of Knesset does not have the authority to enforce such a policy and this statement is only juxtaposed to the first to create the impression of blood thirsty Jews terrorizing immigrants.  Since this quote is not sourced, I will assume it is from a media outlet with a history of bias against Israel... rather than from an Israeli news source.