Today's Israel News...

Reminder, Mike Sachs, TSTI member andNortheast Regional Director of AIPAC will once again be offering an update on Israel between the morning and afternoon services on Yom Kippur

Israel Through European Eyes - Yoram Hazony
Every few months, Israel is publicly pilloried in the international media and on university campuses around the world for some alleged violation of human rights, real or imagined. Whatever the ostensible subject, we know for certain that there will be another campaign of vilification in the media and on the campuses and in the corridors of power - a smear campaign of a kind that no other nation on earth is subjected to on a regular basis. We will again see our nation treated not as a democracy doing its duty to defend its people and its freedom, but as some kind of a scourge.
    Israelis and friends of Israel can reasonably be divided on the question of whether the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, or the parallel withdrawal from the security zone in South Lebanon in 2000, was really in Israel's interests. But one thing about which we can all agree, I think, is that these withdrawals did nothing to stem the tide of hatred and vilification being poured on Israel's head internationally. Whatever it is that is driving the trend toward the progressive delegitimization of Israel, it is a trend operating more or less without reference to any particular Israeli policy on any given issue.
    The modern State of Israel was founded, in terms of the understanding of the international community, as a nation-state, the state of the Jewish people. And the birth of Israel was followed by the establishment of dozens of additional independent states throughout the Third World. But now the nations of Europe have established a new paradigm in which the independent nation-state is seen by many intellectuals and political figures in Europe as a source of incalculable evil. Thus the new paradigm understands Israel, and especially the independent Israeli use of force to defend itself, as illegitimate down to its foundations. The writer is founder and provost of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. (Jewish Ideas Daily)

U.S. Wants Agreement Now, Peace Later - Shimon Shiffer
The Obama administration plans to present Israel and the Palestinian Authority with a new outline aimed at ending the Middle East conflict. Yediot Ahronot has learned that the Americans will pressure the parties to sign a framework agreement for a permanent settlement within one year, but that the agreement itself would be implemented within 10 years.
    A protocol summarizing a conference call between leaders of American Jewish organizations and Daniel Shapiro - the National Security Council's top Middle East expert; Dennis Ross, and David Hale - deputy to U.S. special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, provides a fascinating peek into the administration's plans in the near future. According to the American plan, the Israeli and Palestinian negotiation teams would hold intensive talks in isolated sites to discuss the core issues of the permanent agreement: Jerusalem's future, borders, settlements and refugees. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas would be required to hold frequent meetings in order to solve concrete problems and advance the negotiations' stages.
    If the talks reach a deadlock, American officials would intervene and attempt to bridge between the sides. In addition, the U.S. would try to convince the Arab states to offer goodwill gestures to Israel and influence the Palestinians to compromise. (Ynet News)

The President and the Peace Process - Lexington
Why, you have to wonder, do they bother with the "peace process." The present conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine has been going on for about a century. Yet every American president is implored upon entering office to bring the quarrel swiftly to an end. Most have a go - or at least go through the motions. Jimmy Carter owes his Nobel peace prize in large part to the peace deal he brokered between Israel and Egypt in 1978 (and has never let the world forget it). Bill Clinton got Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat to shake hands on the White House lawn, but no peace, and no prize, followed the unhappy Camp David summit of 2000. After his own election in 2000, George Bush took one look at the blood and muddle and decided that America had better things to do.
    After the dinner Mr. Obama intends to host at the White House on September 1 for Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, the two sides are supposed to start talking directly again, relieving George Mitchell, Mr. Obama's envoy, of the need to shuttle between them. That is progress of a sort, albeit not the sort that poses the slightest danger of raising high expectations. It merely restores matters to where they stood after Mr. Bush inaugurated a previous set of direct talks in Annapolis at the end of 2007. These were expected to fail, and lived up to expectations. This next lot of talks is expected to fail, too. (Economist-UK)

Reassessing U.S. Military Assistance to Lebanon - David Schenker
In the aftermath of the Lebanese Armed Forces' (LAF) August 3 cross-border shooting of two Israeli officers, one fatal, U.S. military assistance to Lebanon has come under increasing scrutiny. The State Department and congressional appropriators should work out clear, transparent, measurable, and verifiable benchmarks by which all sides - including the Lebanese - can evaluate the merit of maintaining assistance to the LAF.
    Are LAF officers who share intelligence with Hizbullah disciplined or congratulated? Does the LAF play a role in preventing the import of weapons from Syria or their flow south of the Litani or in facilitating it? Do officials of Hizbullah's militia transfer directly into the LAF? Does LAF weaponry end up under Hizbullah control? Do LAF units follow Hizbullah guidance in obstructing the operations of UNIFIL? Will the LAF arrest and transfer Hizbullah officials that may be indicted by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon on the assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri? (Washington Institute for Near East Policy)

Mike Sachs

Northeast Regional Director

212-750-4110 • Fax 212-750-4125

msachs@aipac.org

AIPAC • The American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Join us at the AIPAC National Summit, October 24-25 Visit www.aipac.org/Summit2010 for more information.

אֱלוּל

We are just past the midpoint of the Hebrew month of Elul (אֱלוּל‎). During this month of preparation prior to the Holy Days we are called upon to set time aside time to look back on the last year and take a personal accounting of our activities over that year. This act of doing such accounting- cheshbon hanefesh in Hebrew, sets the stage for us to make amends during the Yamim Noraim for the wrongs we have committed and tocommit ourselves to doing better in the year to come. 


At the same time, however, during this period of preparation we can also take time to recognize and give thanks for all the blessings in our lives. Too often we focus on the hurts, the wants and the lacking in life. By spending time to recognize and give thanks for all the many gifts we are given we truly can enter the New Year with eyes that can better see the good in one another and the world. It certainly works for this 91-year-old...


She made me smile... I hope she does the same for you.

My Response to the Answer Offered by the NJJN "Expert" in "Must we pay to pray?"

The following appeared in the New Jersey Jewish News on August 18th. It struck a cord with me and... well let me share some thoughts with you after "reprinting" the original article...

Must we pay to pray?

Ask the Expert

Special to NJJN
August 18, 2010

My wife and I decided not to buy High Holy Day tickets this year because they’re so expensive. What can we do to mark the holidays at home on our own?

— Norman, Chicago

The "Expert's" Response...

Every year as the High Holy Days approach I hear people grumbling about the price of tickets. And it’s true — at some synagogues it’s upwards of $500 a head. But why is it so expensive? It’s only a few hours, right?

First, in most synagogues, High Holy Day tickets are included in membership fees. So if you join the synagogue as a member, there is no need to pay for tickets. It’s only if you want to go without paying membership fees that your tickets are so costly.

Think about it like a membership to a gym or health club. If you only go three times a year, then yes, what you pay is a lot per visit. But if you regularly visit your gym, then the monthly fee probably breaks down to only a dollar or two per visit. And the gym needs your membership fees to pay for machines, classes, maintenance, etc.

It’s the same with a synagogue. If you only go three days a year, it does work out to be a high fee per visit. But if you want that synagogue to be around for you to visit on your three days, then the synagogue needs to collect money to make it viable. That money goes to help pay for the building, staff, rabbi, cantor, children’s programming, classes, even food for kiddush.

In addition to being places of worship, synagogues are businesses. They need to stay afloat financially if they want to be able to provide basics such as holiday and Shabbat services to their members. That said, your synagogue almost certainly offers a sliding scale of ticket prices if the price is really the only thing keeping you away. And some synagogues offer a special service for non-members with more affordable tickets.

I consulted with the executive director (who requested to remain anonymous) of a large synagogue in the Washington, DC, area about this issue, and he explained that it’s worthwhile to invest in synagogue membership. While you may think of yourself as a “limited user” of the synagogue, there really is no such thing as a one-, two-, or three-day-a-year Jew, he said.

“Even though someone may not attend services religiously, they still attend synagogues for b’nei mitzvot, weddings, funerals, and other occasions, and often call upon rabbis at times of need,” this executive director said.

That’s just a little background on why tickets can be so pricey.

If you’re definitely not interested in buying tickets, there are a number of other ways to get to services. A nearby university may have free services at Hillel on the High Holy Days. A few Hillels do charge for those who are not students, but most don’t. It’s best to call before you go.

Your local JCC also may be holding services; members may get heavy discounts on tickets. For a more traditional service, Chabad houses are known for welcoming all. For a less traditional service, try the on-line streaming High Holy Days service via the Jewish TV Network.

If you want to do something that doesn’t involve any kind of service or rabbi, I can make some other suggestions. First, you can certainly purchase a High Holy Days prayer book and pray from home. How about taking the day off from work to spend a full day volunteering for a worthy cause?

Alternately, you can go on a long reflective hike, and bring along a mahzor or some other spiritually relevant book to read. Try buying a shofar and blowing it yourself. Gather your family and friends for a festive meal, and eat the symbolic foods of Rosh Hashana, apples and honey.

There’s a Sephardic custom to do a short seder-like ritual before the Rosh Hashana meal, so you could try that even if you’re not Sephardic. Think about what has been most meaningful to you about past Rosh Hashana celebrations and try to duplicate and expand on that with your family.

Rosh Hashana ultimately is about reflecting on your past year and improving yourself for the year to come. Any way you can do that, whether or not you end up in a synagogue, is in the spirit of the holiday. Hag sameah!

So that was the article that appeared in the Jewish News. I read this and shook my head. I wasn't shaking my head because of Norman from Chicago's question. He has every right to ask such a question and, if he is not going to belong to a synagogue it is good that he is still looking for alternative ways to connect to his Judaism. No, I shook my head because the so-called "expert" missed an opportunity to help Norman see the bigger picture. He bought right into Norman's "fee-for service" mindset and a teachable moment was lost.

The "expert" used the analogy of a gym membership when answering Norman from Chicago. Belonging to a gym is a good thing... if you go. And yes, if you go regularly to the gym the "per visit" cost is quite inexpensive while if you only go three times a year the cost per visit is exorbitant.

The same actually goes for Netflix. Get the membership that gives you three DVDs at a time and, so long as you are constantly watching movies and immediately returning them, the price PER DVD is quite low. If, however, you are like me and forget to send the DVDs back once you watch them the price per DVD goes up significantly.

After a while I realized what bothered me. You see the expert has a
good point BUT IT IS THE WRONG ANALOGY. It is the wrong analogy because by using it the "Expert" bought right into Norman's "fee-for service" mindset. It is the wrong analogy because belonging to a gym and having a Netflix subscription is all about you and you alone while being part of the Jewish community is about you, and me and every other member of the community, past, present and future. It is the wrong analogy because involvement in a synagogue community is about helping to support the on-going existence of the Jewish people and, as such, it extends far beyond the walls of the specific synagogue one supports.

So if using a gym membership is the wrong analogy what's the right one?

To my mind the right analogy is Public education. That's right, a far better (but still imperfect) analogy would be the responsibility of paying local taxes to support public education.

If Norman has children who went to public school their K-12th grade education was not paid for directly by Norman. No, it was paid for by the entire community whose property taxes largely went to pay for the educational infrastructure of his Chicago neighborhood. And once Norman's kids were through High School Norman continued to pay local taxes and support the school system. He and his family are no longer deriving direct benefit from the dollars they put into education but just as they had benefitted from the support of others now it was their turn to return the favor, or more accurately, the obligation to do so.

Similarly Elana and I don't have children. That means that, as adults, we have never directly benefitted from our support of the local school system. That doesn't mean we should have been exempt from supporting public education. After all, when we were kids we both attended public schools. Now as adults it is our turn to make sure other kids get the same benefit.

That's what it means to be part of a community. That's what social responsibility is all about. You do your part and others do theirs. Sometimes you are the beneficiary and sometimes others are. Regardless, you do your part.

Two households that strike close to home in this regard are my parents and my in-laws. Long after Elana and her brother Rob were out of the house Mark and Debbie were members of Temple Shalom in Aberdeen. They rarely went and, in fact, when they did go to synagogue for the last 18 years it was more likely TSTI that they attended than their synagogue. Still, they remained members of Temple Shalom. Why? Because they believe in supporting the Jewish community and they understand that the foundation of the Jewish community is the synagogue. Moreover they felt strongly that the synagogue had been there when Elana and Rob were kids and they wanted to make sure that other families would have the same now that their kids are growing up. In fact they only left Temple Shalom when they moved north seven years ago to be closer to us. Now they belong to a little synagogue in South Orange. :)

The same can be said for my parents. We grew up at Temple Sinai in Summit. Long after my sister Martha and I were out of the house my parents maintained their membership even though ever since I first came to TSTI when they attend synagogue they come here. They never USED Temple Sinai but they still supported it.

That's what it means to be part of a community. That's what Jewish responsibility is all about. You do your part and others do theirs. Sometimes you are the beneficiary and sometimes others are. Regardless, you do you part.

A few years ago my parents left Temple Sinai. They left, but only to join TSTI.

Norman from Chicago opened the door for the "Expert" to teach this lesson on responsibility and commitment. Would it have changed Norman's mind? I doubt it. But at least it would not have reinforced the mindset that the synagogue is only about what I as an individual receive at this moment.

Two final points that the "Expert" could have made to Norman from Chicago.

The first is that with his individualistic mindset Norman will never have something that long-time TSTI members Harriet and Everett Felper understand and share with their family and everyone who knows them. Harriet and Everett celebrated their 60th anniversary on August 6th. They had family and friends gather for dinner and then they abruptly ended their meal. Why? Because everyone then walked down the hall and into the chapel for services. The Felpers wanted to celebrate their milestone anniversary surrounded by family, surrounded by friends and surrounded by the larger community. They understood that while their 60th anniversary was about them, it was not ONLY about them. Their kids were all there. And all but one of their grandchildren were there to help bless them. Where was the missing grandchild? She was attended Crane Lake Camp… one of our Reform Jewish summer camps. Clearly the Felpers have planted the seed of commitment. They know it isn't just about them and they have done their part to ensure that Judaism is here generations from now.

In answering Norman from Chicago the "Expert" could have pointed to people like Harriet and Everett. There are a lot of them in this community. There are a lot of them in every community.

One final lesson the "Expert" could have shared with Norman from Chicago. It comes from a friend of my mother-in-law's who, when speaking about supporting her synagogue said, "I may not be religious. I may not go to synagogue a lot. but my synagogue has a fair share approach. No one is ever turned away because of financial need. I belong to a synagogue and always will because even if I don't go I want to make sure others can."

I hope that Norman and his wife, whoever they are, have a sweet new year. And I do know this, whether they are at home or somewhere else for the holidays when the look in the machzor, the high holy day prayerbook, they'll find that the majority of the prayers are n the plural. Why? Because while belonging to a gym and having a Netflix subscription is all about you and you alone while being part of the Jewish community is about you, and me and every other member of the community, past, present and future.

We Are For Israel- Centrist Advocates for Realistic Peace

Even as numerous musical performers jumped on the Israel-bashing wagon this summer a new sort of Israel-advocacy was taking root. As mentioned in the New Jersey Jewish News last week, the organization Rabbis for Israel was begun by Israli Reform Rabbi Micky Boyden as a centrist, pro-Israel group. 200 Rabbis from across the world immediately signed on. I was one of them. Since then the group has expanded to include Cantors, Educators and more. It is now called We Are for Israel.


I signed on because the group is seeking to strike the right balance in a debate that is often far too skewed in one direction or the other. As the Mission Statement begins-

We Are For Israel is a forum of Jews who support Israel, who are deeply concerned by the drift in much of world opinion that has made it legitimate to single out Israel for blame and censure in respect of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

While we recognize that Israel shares some responsibility for the current state of affairs, we believe that the roots of the conflict and its broader dimensions are much more complex than is generally presented.

Attempts by Israel’s detractors to lay the blame for the lack of progress toward peace at her door while pressing her alone to make concessions are not only unjustified, but frequently motivated by political interests, naivety, ignorance, misinformation or even anti-Semitism.

That strikes me as a far more balanced approach than is too often taken on the all-too-important subject.


Below I share the latest blog post from Micky...

Peace Cannot Be a One-Way Street

I have friends, who today are supporters of J-Street, and were involved in Peace Now back in the 1960’s. I was there too, back in the old days. I voted for Yitzhak Rabin z”l and remember him saying: “We shall fight terror as though there were no peace, and make peace as though there were no terror”.

I still have a bag bearing the stickers “Peace Now” and “A Whole Generation Seeks Peace”. But then came the 2nd Intifada, Intifada Al- Aqsa, which claimed the lives of over 1,100 Israelis and left many thousands more wounded, some of whom still bear the physical and mental scars of their injuries to this day.

None of us will forget how the Palestinians danced on their rooftops as Scud missiles fell on Tel Aviv, and rejoiced as the Hizbollah rockets pounded our northern towns and villages.

I understand them. They are weary of an Israeli occupation, which they have had to endure for over forty years. Not that they had ever enjoyed independence. Prior to 1967, the Jordanians were their masters, while prior to 1948, the British had held the reins of power, which they in turn had wrested in 1917 from the Ottoman Empire, who had conquered Palestine four hundred years earlier.

But today the Palestinians want a state of their own, although there are few signs that they are able to work together, or that such a state will be democratic. When and if it is ever established, it will most likely join the ranks of the dictatorships and the theocracies in our region. Nevertheless, most Israelis support them in their quest for independence.

However, statehood comes at a price. The Palestinians will have to forgo their ambitions to destroy Israel. They will need to recognize that no Israeli government will allow the Jewish state to be swamped with hundreds of thousands, if not millions of the grandchildren of those who claim to have been displaced by the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.

One year earlier, in 1947, the United Nations had presented its Partition Plan for the division of the territories west of the river Jordan between a Jewish and an Arab state. We reluctantly accepted the plan in spite of all of its disadvantages and limitations. After all, half a cake is better than none. However, the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, supported by the Arab League, rejected it.

More than 60 years later, the Palestinians are faced with the same dilemma: Compromise and accept less than what you want, or remain where you are.

As the US Administration tirelessly works to cajole Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) into direct negotiations with Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is to be hoped that the President of the Palestinian National Authority will be more pragmatic than his predecessors. Were we seeing Palestinian moderates calling upon him to compromise for the sake of peace, then the chances of success would be greater. But I don’t hear them.

Micky Boyden

Rabbis For Peace

www.WeAreForIsrael.org

Today's Israel News August 17, 2010

Reminder, Mike Sachs, TSTI member and Northeast Regional Director of AIPAC will once again be offering an update on Israel between the morning and afternoon services on Yom Kippur

U.S., Israel Build Military Cooperation - Charles Levinson

While U.S. and Israeli diplomatic relations weather their choppiest phase in years, behind the scenes, military commanders from the two countries have dramatically stepped up cooperation. U.S. military aid to Israel has increased markedly this year. Top-ranking U.S. and Israeli soldiers have shuttled between Tel Aviv and Washington with unusual frequency in recent months. A series of joint military exercises in Israel over the past months has included a record number of American troops.

This month, about 200 U.S. Marines joined a battalion of Israeli soldiers for an all-night march through the Negev desert, the culmination of three weeks of joint drills - the biggest U.S.-Israeli joint infantry exercise ever. In October, a missile-defense exercise between the U.S. and Israeli militaries brought in more than 1,000 U.S. soldiers. In the exercises, the two militaries have been drilling as a coalition force, battling a common enemy for the first time, just as the U.S. does with its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.

U.S. military aid to Israel reached a high of $2.78 billion in 2010, up from $2.55 billion in 2009. It is slated to jump to $3 billion in 2011. The Obama administration has also requested an additional $205 million to fund the Iron Dome short-range rocket defense shield. (Wall Street Journal)

Israel Sees Battlefield Hidden in Southern Lebanon - Matti Friedman

Israel's military says Hizbullah is moving fighters and weapons into the villages of south Lebanon, building up a secret network of arms warehouses, bunkers and command posts in preparation for war - under the nose of 12,000 international peacekeepers. Hizbullah is armed by Iran and Syria and is more powerful than the Lebanese military.

Israel has begun releasing detailed information about Hizbullah's new border deployment to show the reach of their intelligence and to stake their claim that if another war breaks out and many civilians die, it will be because Hizbullah placed its armaments and fighters in their midst. An IDF officer said Hizbullah now has 5,000 fighters operating south of the Litani River, an area which is supposed to be free of militant activity under the 2006 cease-fire.

South Lebanon is festooned with posters of the bearded, turbaned Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and local residents, mostly Shiite, tend to support Hizbullah. Hizbullah members or supporters often attach themselves to journalists entering villages, shadowing them and discouraging photography. Peacekeepers are barred from searching private property, where the Israelis say much of the evidence of the guerrillas' presence would be found. UNIFIL's performance in the face of the Hizbullah buildup undermines Israel's trust in international forces to police other volatile areas, such as Gaza and the West Bank, under a peace treaty. (AP-MSNBC)

Has U.S. Policy on Israel Changed? - Zalman Shoval

President Obama came into office with strong preconceptions about foreign policy and especially about the Arab-Israeli conflict. The main result of the administration's new policy was to encourage the Palestinians to take more hard-line positions. Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas began to insist on preconditions for direct negotiations which never existed before. The Obama administration now appears to have concluded that the tactics it employed against the Netanyahu government were self-defeating. But it is premature to establish that it has revised its overall strategic outlook. The writer served as Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. from 1990 to 1993 and from 1998 to 2000. (Institute for Contemporary Affairs-Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs)

Mike Sachs

Northeast Regional Director

212-750-4110 • Fax 212-750-4125

msachs@aipac.org

AIPAC • The American Israel Public Affairs Committee

Join us at the AIPAC National Summit, October 24-25 Visit www.aipac.org/Summit2010 for more information.

Worth Reading- Embodying The Values We Cherish Most

First Posted: 08- 7-10 08:12 AM | Updated: 08- 7-10 08:12 AM This article first appeared on the Huffington Post

By Rabbi David Saperstein
Religion News Service

(RNS) The most effective response America can give to the 9/11 terrorist attacks is to affirm our nation's core values of freedom and liberty for all--including the religious tolerance, freedom, and equality that the perpetrators so vividly repudiated.

The debate surrounding a planned Muslim community center and mosque, known as Cordoba House, two blocks from ground zero has been plagued by fear, intolerance and politics, reshaping it into something ugly.

The religious community--including the Jewish community, which isn't of one mind on the matter--has a special stake in putting forward this vision.

I am proud that most Jewish organizations have supported the right of this mosque to be built near the site of ground zero. We Jews, as the victims of religious extermination and persecution, know all too well the pain that comes from being told that our community and our houses of worship will be treated differently than others.

The Jewish commitment to the right of Muslims to build at this site reflects the admonition of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere. If any group can be subject to discrimination, then no religious group is safe.

The minority of opponents, however, should not be lumped together. They range from those who are driven by animus to Islam, to groups like the Anti-Defamation League (who have long been champions of religious liberty and consistent opponents of anti-Muslim bias), to those who oppose the location out of sensitivity to the 9/11 victims and their families.

Indeed, we all must respect the sensitivities of the survivors and the families of victims, but even they have been sharply divided in their views.

However well-intentioned, the opposition of some has been manipulated as a political wedge issue. To be sure, there are growing numbers who seek political gain by stirring up fear about Islam: Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey characterized Islam as a cult; a church in Gainesville, Fla., plans to host a Quran burning on the 9/11 anniversary; Sarah Palin and some New York politicians are using Cordoba House to further their political ambitions.

Such critics inflame interfaith tensions and seek to reduce Muslims to the most extreme and violent expressions of Islam. In the process, they inculcate the false impression that this project is a monument to the radicals who attacked us on 9/11.

Accusations also have been made about Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who heads the Cordoba House project. Rauf has worked to promote interfaith harmony and has collaborated with religious leaders and community members in creating a peaceful society.

It is incumbent on mainstream religious groups to portray this mosque and community center for what it really is: a home for those who seek insight, solace and peace. It is a symbol to the radicals within Islam (and other religions) that they will not be allowed to dictate the policies or values of America.

Cooperation is difficult unless we address each other's fears as well as our respective dreams and aspirations.

Three years ago, the Union for Reform Judaism and the Islamic Society of North America launched a dialogue initiative among local mosques and synagogues called Children of Abraham to help overcome such tensions. Our joint effort has built bridges, spurred cooperative endeavors, strengthened trust and enhanced understanding. Cordoba House creates a national symbol of those same values.

The entire religious community has worked together for 20 years to write and pass laws that enshrine the principle of free exercise of religion, and to ensure the right of EVERY religious community--including Muslims--to locate and build houses of worship where they see fit unless there is a truly compelling reason to prevent it. We do not abandon that right, or that fight, when emotions run high.

Our nation is strengthened by the faith of its citizens and their houses of worship. Cordoba House should rightfully join the countless churches, synagogues, mosques and temples that populate our landscape and enrich the spiritual lives of their congregants--and of our nation.

(Rabbi David Saperstein in the director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington, D.C. He is also a professor of First Amendment/church-state law at Georgetown University Law School.)

From the NJJN- Local rabbis reject one-sided criticism of Israel New group supports two states, opposes unilateral pressure

by Johanna Ginsberg NJJN Staff Writer August 11, 2010

The original article can be found here on the New Jersey Jewish News website.

More than a dozen local rabbis have signed on to a new group supporting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but critical of Jewish groups they consider too quick to criticize the Jewish state.

Founded by a Reform rabbi based in Israel, Rabbis for Israel has collected signatures from over 200 rabbis from all streams across Europe, North America, and Israel. Of the 22 NJ rabbis on board, 15 come from areas covered by NJ Jewish News.

In its mission statement, Rabbis for Israel supports a peace involving “two independent states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, security, and prosperity.”

It also acknowledges “that Israel shares some responsibility for the current state of affairs,” presumably the stalled peace process.

At the same time, the petition declares the signatories “are particularly concerned by the manner in which some organizations within the Jewish community, which profess to care for Israel and her well-being, advocate that pressure be applied upon her to make unilateral concessions.”

Although no organizations are named, observers assume the petition is referring to J Street, the two-year-old group that has positioned itself as a left-leaning alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.

Rabbi Michael Boyden, a Reform rabbi in Hod HaSharon, said he founded the group in reaction to the coverage of the Gaza flotilla incident and the response it engendered.

“I was appalled not only by the way in which most of the international media covered the story, but also by the fact that some sections of the Jewish community, particularly in North America, seemed to have accepted that version of events and were calling for an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip while not demonstrating a realistic understanding of Israel’s security needs,” Boyden wrote in an e-mail exchange with NJJN.

“While much was being written about the harsh lot of the Palestinians of Gaza,” he continued, “the citizens of Sderot had been forgotten and the plight of [kidnapped Israeli soldier] Gilad Shalit was simply given a passing nod.”

The mission statement rejects criticism of Israel that does not recognize the Israelis’ right to self-defense and its “real security concerns.”

Much of the statement is directed at Jewish groups it considers one-sided in their criticism of Israel.

“We believe that such advocacy, which results in intransigence and increased demands from the Palestinians, does not advance the cause of peace,” according to the statement. “In discrediting Israel publicly, such organizations not only weaken support for her but also serve the interests of her detractors and enemies.”

Although no organizations are singled out, J Street seems to be on everyone’s mind.

“I will not say I’m opposed to J Street because we have J Street members and leaders at our synagogue, but I find Rabbis for Israel more reflective of my position toward Israel,” said Rabbi Joshua Goldstein of Temple Sha’arey Shalom in Springfield, one of the signers.

“I have observed over the last few years growing numbers of my colleagues who find it necessary to bash or criticize Israel whenever they want. I think we need to put some limits on that,” said Goldstein. He added, “I don’t believe Israel is without blemishes, but in a world where it is so easy to pile on criticism of Israel, I think it is counterproductive.”

Rabbi Joel Abraham of Temple Sholom in Scotch Plains worked on several drafts of the document. “Although, as do many of my colleagues, I agree with many of the ideals of J Street, I do not feel comfortable in how they have presented themselves or that message,” he wrote in an e-mail exchange with NJJN.

“On the other side, I am uncomfortable with the idea that a maximalist Israel must be supported without any dissent. [Rabbis for Israel] says what it believes — in a two-state solution, lays out reasonable expectations of any partners for peace, and asks the critics of the Israeli government to engage in that conversation with the government itself, rather than through and with third parties.”

Rabbi Douglas Sagal of Temple Emanu-El in Westfield is a supporter of both Rabbis for Israel and J Street. He does not see any conflict. “Maybe Rabbis for Israel was formed in part as a response to J Street. But I think J Street serves an important purpose in providing an alternate voice for those who support Israel. I think they have made errors recently, overstating Israel’s culpability. But I find both organizations worthy,” he said.

Sagal said he joined Rabbis for Israel in part because of his “strong personal admiration and respect” for Boyden. “My experience has been that when Rabbi Boyden has something to say about supporting the Jewish state, I find it’s worthwhile to listen.”

Rabbi Daniel Cohen of Temple Sharey Tefilo-Israel in South Orange pointed out that Rabbis for Israel offers a middle ground — one that is often hard to find among Reform rabbis.

“With so much immediate international condemnation of Israel when anything happens, even before the facts are known, the need for public and loud support for Israel that takes a middle road approach is more important than ever,” Cohen said, adding, “We begin from an assumption that we support Israel but are not blindly supportive.”

Rabbis for Israel also urges Muslim and Christian leaders to teach tolerance and Muslim leaders to denounce violent jihad. It urges the international community and media to recognize “that any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will demand that Israel’s very real security concerns be addressed, particularly in the light of the key role played by Iran and Syria in arming and training Israel’s enemies.”

Abraham underscored the increased credibility the document has earned simply by having been drafted in Israel. “This is an organization led by an Israeli rabbi who has invited his colleagues from around the world to join together — rather than each community accusing each other of not understanding what it is like to live in Israel or, conversely, to defend Israel from afar.”

Rabbi Laurence Groffman of Temple Sholom of West Essex in Cedar Grove applauds the group’s goal of raising the level of discourse over Israel in the media.

“The message that tends to get out is biased,” said Groffman. “The impression you get is that the reason we have a problem in the Middle East is Israel. ‘If only Israel would not do this or would not do that, we’d have no problem.’ It’s not just Israel is the oppressor and the Palestinians are the victim. Israel is far more complex than that, and we should look at it as the complex situation that it is.”

Groffman likes the idea that Boyden’s organization is for rabbis of all stripes. “Having a rabbinic organization standing for Israel makes a certain impression,” he said.

Of the 15 in the NJJN catchment areas, however, just two are Conservative and none are Orthodox; the rest are Reform.

Goldstein said that Rabbis for Israel offers “a voice we didn’t hear expressing solidarity for Israel. It’s a model for the rest of the community to emulate.”

So far, Rabbis for Israel is a mission statement with signatories, but Boyden said the group is in the midst of establishing a forum for those with a centrist view, and future plans include disseminating information and developing an advocacy program based on its beliefs.

Rabbis for Israel: Mission Statement

Preamble

Rabbis for Israel is a grassroots movement of rabbis from all streams, who are deeply concerned by the drift in much of world opinion that has made it legitimate to single out Israel for blame and censure in respect of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

While we recognize that Israel shares some responsibility for the current state of affairs, we believe that the roots of the conflict and its broader dimensions are much more complex than is generally presented.

Attempts by Israel's detractors to lay the blame for the lack of progress toward peace at her door while pressing her alone to make concessions are not only unjustified, but frequently motivated by political interests, naivety, ignorance, misinformation or even anti-Semitism.

We are particularly concerned by the manner in which some organizations within the Jewish community, which profess to care for Israel and her well-being, advocate that pressure be applied upon her to make unilateral concessions. Similar demands are not made of the Palestinians to respond in kind, if at all. We believe that such advocacy, which results in intransigence and increased demands from the Palestinians, does not advance the cause of peace. In discrediting Israel publicly, such organizations not only weaken support for her but also serve the interests of her detractors and enemies.

At a time when it has become fashionable to castigate Israel for unrest in the Middle East and elsewhere, we appeal to Jews everywhere to respond to criticism of Israel with support and to advocate on her behalf.

Mission Statement

A Lasting and Secure Peace for Israel

We, the undersigned, believe that Israel has a legitimate right to exist as a sovereign, democratic Jewish state in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. We support a peaceful and just resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that will recognize two independent states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace, security and prosperity.

We call upon the Arab and Muslim world to accept unequivocally and publicly Israel's permanent right to exist in peace.

Sovereignty

We believe that any resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will require Israel to cede sovereignty over most of the West Bank and will need to address the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians concerning Jerusalem, a city that is holy to three religions.

Palestinian claims for a right of return will need to find their resolution within the Palestinian state once established.

Teaching Tolerance and Peace

We call upon Muslim and Christian religious leaders to establish frameworks in their own communities to oppose messages of hatred and violence against Israel, to work toward developing a spirit of mutual understanding, tolerance and peace with Jews, and to encourage the strengthening of peaceful relationships and partnerships between Israelis and Palestinians.

We call upon the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and their agents to cease using the media, mosques and textbooks to foster and incite hatred against Israel and the Jewish People.

Support for Israel

We call upon leaders in the Jewish community to support Israel in their public statements and express any concerns they may have with great caution and considerable forethought given the manner in which their views are likely to be manipulated to Israel's detriment by those who use every opportunity to vilify her.

The Use of Violence

We call upon Palestinian political and religious leaders to denounce the use of violent Jihad, and demand that the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and their agents cease all forms of support, complicity and participation in or glorification of terrorist activities.

Moral Equivalency

We recognize Israel's moral right to defend her citizens against attacks emanating from the Palestinian territories. To demand that Israel forgo the right to defend her citizens in order to improve the lot of the Palestinians, without the latter abandoning their call for violent resistance, is neither moral nor ethical. As such, we reject the moral equivalency that some would draw between the suffering of the Palestinians and the lasting psychological trauma not to mention literal endangerment of life with which Israelis have to contend.

Israel’s Defense

We call upon the international community and media to recognize that any resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will demand that Israel's very real security concerns be addressed, particularly in the light of the key role played by Iran and Syria in arming and training Israel's enemies.

We urge rabbis who agree with this statement to sign on to it, demonstrating their support for a reasonable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.