A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Ten Years Ago

The following letter appeared in The Jerusalem Post on May 25, 1995. It was written at a time when tensions over Oslo were boiling, in objection to Prime Minister Rabin's call on Bob Dole to refrain from calling for the U.S. embassy in Israel to be moved to Jerusalem.


In three disastrous years the Labor Party, led by Yitzhak Rabin, has done little right. The government's asinine reaction to Bob Dole's "initiative" to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, therefore, comes as no surprise.

Having served as ambassador here, Rabin believes himself to be an expert on American politics. If he is, he would understand that Dole, like Phil Gramm and just about every candidate for the presidency, promises to move the embassy in an effort to gain Jewish money and votes. Bill Clinton, for example, sounded very much like a Likudnik during his campaign, but now, unlike King Hussein, refuses to meet with Binyamin Netanyahu. As a result, few of us take campaign rhetoric seriously; most of us are offended by these insults to our intelligence. Dole seems to be especially lacking in sincerity; his hostility toward Israel as a senator makes George Bush look like a Zionist. (Bush, by the way, also promised to move the embassy.)

Perhaps Rabin is not an expert on US politics, but he surely understands the art of election-year pandering. Indeed, his broken promises to the residents of the Golan rank among the all-time greats.

Instead of hysterically lobbying Dole to refrain from promising to move the embassy, Rabin should have simply ignored the issue and stuck to lobbying for aid to the PLO. Rabin can rest assured that if Dole is elected, he will not, heaven forbid, move the embassy to Israel's capital, even if Labor is then in opposition. All Rabin has accomplished is to place the issue of Jerusalem onto op-ed pages all over the world, granting yet another victory to the PLO.

JOSEPH SCHICK, NEW YORK
posted on 5/26/2005

 
Religious Zionism and the First Flowering of Our Redemption

I had been planning to write about this topic around Yom Haatzmaut (Israel's Independence Day), but have had no time to post over the last couple of weeks. Things are still rather hectic, so I'm drafting this quickly, without giving it the amount of consideration that I'd like.

None of the yeshivas I attended expressed a positive view toward Zionism. However, around the time of the 1991 Gulf War - when I was 18 - I came to the conclusion that the mainstream charedi position toward the State of Israel is, at best, incoherent and inconsistent with contemporary realities. I have recently written about the topic here and here, and won't expand on that matter.

I strongly identify as a religious Jew and as a Zionist. I say hallel - quietly at the end of davening and without a blessing - on Yom Haatzmaut. Nevertheless, I'm not comfortable with the ideology known as Religious Zionism.

My approach to Zionism is rather simple. The State of Israel's formation was a very positive event in Jewish history. As a religious Jew, I therefore believe it is appropriate to express gratitude - both to G-d and to Israel's founders and its heroic figures - for the State of Israel on both a political and a religious level.

My problem with Religious Zionism is its messianic aspects. I believe Rav Kook was one of the great rabbinical leaders of the 20th century; his pre-state support for Zionism - at a time when most of the religious world opposed Zionism because of its secular leadership and goals - was not only bold and courageous, but has been proven to be historically correct.

Nevertheless, I'm not comfortable with the reference, in the prayer for the State of Israel recited in most modern/centrist Orthodox shuls, to the State being reishit tzmichat g'ulateinu, the first flowering of our redemption. I have no idea if the State of Israel has messianic ramifications, and object to unnecessarily creating an issue of religious dogma on the matter.

I know that there are some pro-Zionist shuls that omit these words from the prayer for the State, but the large majority of such shuls include the reference.

When I express my objection to the inclusion of reishi­t tzmichat g'ulateinu, almost invariably I get one of two responses. Some people insist that it is obvious that Israel does have messianic overtones. After all, they say, the formation of Israel in 1948 was a miracle, the fact that a majority of the world's Jews will likely be living in Israel within two decades is a miraculous fulfillment of the promise of the ingathering of the exiles, and, most of all, Israel's dominant victory in 1967 was a miracle.

All that might well be true, but I still don't see how that means that Israel is necessarily connected to a messianic redemption. And furthermore, I still object to adding dogmatic language to the religious liturgy that, at the very least, is not accepted by many observant Jews.

The more common response that I get from those who identify as Religious Zionist is not to take the words reishi­t tzmichat g'ulateinu so seriously. It's just a phrase, most people don't really mean it, we just hope Israel is the start of a messianic era, it's just a way of distinguishing "us" from the charedim who do not support Zionism.

A recent post by Gil Student of Hirhurim illustrates this type of thinking. Gil quoted Rabbi Michael Broyde's outline of three issues of particular importance for identification as modern Orthodox. The first issue, according to Rabbi Broyde, is that: "I am a religious Zionist and a member of the religious Zionist movement... I accept that the establishment of the State of Israel -- imperfect as it is -- could be the beginning of our redemption, and is an event filled with religious significance, that should be noted accordingly." (italics added)

Rabbi Broyde's formulation is much more palatable that the emphatic and absolute statement that Israel is - not could be - the beginning of our redemption. Furthermore, I think many more people identify with his statement than with a dogma that requires one to believe that Israel is the flowering of our redemption. Nevertheless - or perhaps, precisely for this reason - I actually found R. Broyde's approach to be disturbing. Indeed, I think it is heretical when viewed from the prism of the Religious Zionism espoused by Rav Kook and his adherents.

My guess is that in Rabbi Broyde's shul, the words reishi­t tzmichat g'ulateinu still appear in the liturgy. And even if Rabbi Broyde omits these words, is he right that one can identify with Religious Zionism and call himself or herself "a member of the religious Zionist movement" even if they are, as Rabbi Broyde apparently is - and I am - agnostic on the question of whether Israel is the beginning of our redemption? If so, isn't that an acknowledgment that these words, which on a theological level are extremely consequential, are actually meaningless? After all, no observant Jew would say that it "could be" that the Torah is eternal. No Christian religious leader would say that Jesus "could be" the messiah. Once an absolute statement is reduced to a matter of "could be", it becomes no more than a matter of personal preference.

Once the messianic portion is omitted, what exactly makes someone a Religious Zionist? Nothing more than that Israel's establishment "is an event filled with religious significance?" Is that really it?

Why does all this bother me? Precisely because Israel's formation was indeed a seminal event in Jewish history, yet it appears that the vast majority of religious Jews - whether non-Zionist charedim or pro-Zionist modern Orthodox - have no coherent theological approach to, and understanding of, the State. As much as I reject their anti-Zionist ideology, it seems that only Satmar has a religious approach to Israel that is at least clear and coherent.

It is a shame that every shabbos, many serious modern/centrist Orthodox Jews join in a prayer that they do not believe in. There is an alternative (non-messianic) positive approach to Zionism, such as that of Rav Soloveitchik, that is much more consistent with the worldview of rational religious Jews.
posted on 5/24/2005

 
Good Shabbos Greetings In Boro Park

Today's New York Times has a long feature, beginning on the front page of the B (Metro) section, about Reform Jews in Boro Park.

The feature quotes Rabbi Karen Kaplan of Boro Park's sole Reform temple as follows:

"When I say 'Good Shabbos,' some of them say it back to me," Rabbi Kaplan said. "Some of them."

Boro Park residents are notorious for too often failing to reciprocate greetings of Good Shabbos; indeed, two years ago, The Jewish Press had a long and vigorous debate on the topic in its Letters to the Editor section. If some Boro Park residents say 'Good Shabbos' to Kaplan, it sounds to me like she's doing just fine, certainly no worse than anyone else in the neighborhood.

In any event, I'll be in Boro Park this shabbos at my parents' home, and will be sure to say Good Shabbos should I come across Kaplan or any of her congregants.
posted on 5/13/2005

 
Happy Independence Day

Although 5 Iyar is not for another two days, Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israel's Independence Day, is being observed today.

When I have time, I plan to post my thoughts about Religious Zionism. In the meantime, following is a column written a decade ago by Yosef (Tommy) Lapid, in honor of Israel's 47th anniversary in 1995. Today, Lapid leads Shinui, Israel's ultra-secular, anti-religious party, but whatever one thinks of Lapid, this column was superb.

TO MY CANDID, ENVIOUS FRIEND
by YOSEF LAPID

THE Independence Day edition of Tel Aviv's local Ha'ir weekly ran an article by the Palestinian-Israeli writer Anton Shamas, penned with his usual fluency.

"Ladies and gentlemen," he wrote, "the time has come, on this festive day, to admit with complete candor, without shame or downcast eyes, that the whole business has turned out badly. The Zionist adventure has been a total failure."

It's a good thing Shamas came out and said it. Because an article like this, by an authoritative Arab intellectual, is a fine opportunity to express a few truths one hesitates to voice without a suitable pretext.

Shamas, my friend: Zionism is the greatest success story of the 20th century. Fifty years after the defeat of Hitler and the mufti of Jerusalem, Zionism is thriving in the heart of the Middle East, in a state of 4.5 million Jews - Jews whose survival was, for a moment, in doubt.

The Hebrew language (one of Zionism's wonders) has bonded sabras and refugees from the camps, Sephardim and Oriental Jews. Within half a century, the Zionists, starting with almost nothing, have forged a state which launches its own space satellites and provides the US Navy with pilotless drones. It exports sophisticated computer programs and teaches Latin Americans how to grow melons.

Every month this state exports goods worth a billion dollars and more to Western Europe, the US and even Japan; it has an exemplary democracy, one in which cabinet ministers fear the state comptroller, and judges fear only God.

This state has produced an army deemed one of the world's best; there is little violent crime, and many fine concerts. People of all religions enjoy freedom of worship, and non-believers are welcome too.

Ten percent of the country's citizens are new immigrants; and 89 percent think that, despite all the hardships - and the Jewish Agency - it's a good place to live in.

This is a state in which an Anton Shamas is free, on a national holiday, to publish a virulent attack on everything that the Jews living in the state hold dear.

Shamas might be able to forgive us for all this, perhaps. But what he cannot bear is the fact that, held up in the light of Zionism's achievements, the Arabs' failure appears so humiliating and depressing.

HOW MANY Palestinians are there, my friend? One million - two, three? And how many Arab states are there around you? Twenty? Twenty countries of kings and dictators, of terror and bloodshed. There isn't a single Arab democracy, one with freedom of expression and civil rights.

You talk about the failure of the State of Israel. Compared to what? Algeria? Egypt? Iraq?

How many Arabs live between the Atlantic Ocean and the Persian Gulf? A hundred million? Two hundred million? And how many Moslems are there? A billion?

All of them pray to the same Allah, in the name of the same prophet, Mohammed. And all of them together can't solve Gaza's sewage problem.

For 47 years you've been preparing for Palestinian independence, and yet you're still not collecting the garbage in Jericho.

With all the oil in the world, you can't muster the Arab brotherhood needed to build a hospital in Deir el-Balah. And all the gold faucets in Saudi Arabia and all the jacuzzis in Kuwait aren't enough to provide clean drinking water for Jabalya.

When all's said and done, my friend, you know very well that if almost a million Jews lived in Gaza, surrounded by 20 Jewish states, Jewish Gaza would be paradise on earth. Palestinian laborers would be lining up at the Erez Junction facing the other way to get work in Gaza.

If there were a billion believing Jews in the world, Gaza's Jews wouldn't need handouts from the UN; the world's Jews would have taken care of Gaza's Jews, and they would long since have converted Gaza into the pearl of the Mediterranean.

You know all this, Anton Shamas, and that's what's eating you. Envy has led you into irrationality.

Thus the time has come, with complete candor, without shame or downcast eyes, to conclude: It hasn't worked out, this whole business: The Palestinian adventure has been a total failure.
posted on 5/12/2005

 
When we opened on Staten Island thirty years ago, we faced the question of whether to accept children from non-Shomer Shabbos homes. Rabbi Yaakov Feitman, our principal, and I sought the counsel of his Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yitzchok Hutner, ztl, who built Chaim Berlin into a great Torah institution and who was a genius in matters of chinuch. We presented the question. The Rosh Yeshiva responded vigorously, insisting that we must not have a policy of refusing such children. He emphasized that some of his outstanding students had come from homes that were not Shomer Shabbos. Where would they be now, he asked, had they not been accepted?

In sharp contrast, a decade later, when I starting attending Chaim Berlin's high school in 1986, there was little evidence of R. Hutner's policy. (R. Hutner had already passed away.) The only students from non-shomer shabbos homes that I can recall were one kid who had escaped from Iran, and a Syrian kid. The yeshiva expelled a number of students for relatively minor infractions, particularly after 11th grade. There also was little tolerance of, or interest in, those from a "different background." A friend of mine whose family had just moved from Israel interviewed at Chaim Berlin wearing a knitted kippa. He was advised to go to a different yeshiva. Suffice to say that his learning would easily have qualified him to be in Chaim Berlin's upper echelon.
posted on 5/09/2005

 
Two Years

Two years ago today and 658 posts ago, this blog was created.

Two years is a very long time in the Jewish blogosphere.

In this blog's early days, the quality of my posts was superior to the more recent ones. That's not meant as self deprecating; it seems that many bloggers do their best work when they start. Ironically, nobody reads the earliest posts.

My first post was about the future of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Also on the blog's first day, I posted about Mike Piazza's move to first base, writing that he'll probably "be even worse than Mo Vaughn at first" and about charedi Zionism, among other posts.

My first post about the Jets came a couple of weeks before the start of the 2003 season, when I wrote that "the Jets have provided me with 25 years of aggravation, frustration and misery." Prior to that 6-10 season, in which Chad Pennington missed the first six games, I predicted that the Jets will "lose a lot, but most of their losses will be close. When we're ready to give up, they'll win two in a row, before losing another close one."

On the same day as my inaugural Jets post, I wrote about a chasidic man I met in an Upper West Side shul the previous shabbos. A few days earlier, a suicide bomber blew up the Number 2 bus returning from the Western Wall. 23 were killed - including many children - and more than 130 were injured, some permanently maimed. What I didn't write at the time was that this man was crying during the services, and initially I figured that either he was extremely pious, or a bit eccentric, probably both. But then during a break in the Torah reading, he told me that his son's wife's mother and infant brother - visiting Jerusalem from New Square - were on that bus and were murdered in the bombing, with a sister seriously wounded.

Far too many others who were alive on May 8, 2003 have since been murdered by Palestinian terrorists.

Let's hope that the next two years bring security for the people of the U.S. and Israel, along with the resumption of NHL hockey. More than that (such as a Jets Super Bowl or real peace with the Arabs) would be too much to ask for.
posted on 5/08/2005

 
MoChassid Watch Update

Following an exclusive interview with MoChassid over mushroom pizza with extra sauce, The Zionist Conspiracy can report that the press release about MoChassid's latest order of pizza, entitled Maybe MoChassid Will Finally Gain Some Weight, came out a little more than 2 hours ago.

MoC's phone has not stopped ringing since and he is getting all kinds of emails. He has even heard from two people whom he hasn't seen since 1991.

MoChassid has already set up power lunches with 8 (now 9) people so far, all at kosher pizza joints in Manhattan and the Five Towns.

MoChassid had lost 12 pounds training for last year's bike ride, and, despite not training nearly as hard since the ride, has actually lost a couple more pounds. He knows this is a problem a lot of people would like to have but he has reached the point where he's ridiculously thin and need to put on a couple of lbs.

Maybe the pizza is the answer.
posted on 5/08/2005

 
MoChassid Watch

Three days after announcing, "I'm Done," MoChassid returned on Thursday night with a brand new post. MoC informed his readers that "I haven't had pizza in over two weeks. Gotta get some tomorrow."

Hopefully MoC will let us know if in fact he get some pizza on Friday, and if so, what, if any, toppings were added to his pizza.

MoC assures us that "I'm not back, I just had to get that thought off my chest."

Under the extenuating circumstances, we certainly understand.
posted on 5/08/2005

 
If The Zionists Establish It, It Must Be Bad

I recently wrote about the incoherent official charedi line on Israel, according to which strong support for Israel is in, but anything associated with "Zionism" is still shunned.

On Cross-Currents yesterday, Toby Katz wrote a long post about "why we [i.e. charedim] don't do Yom Hashoah." Katz criticized "the Zionists" for being embarrassed by the Holocaust and establishing Yom Hashoah on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. She also argued that a special day for Holocaust remembrance is inappropriate, because "we have a date for remembering and grieving and weeping over our losses. That date is Tisha B'Av."

In reality, we also mourn during sefirah for the students of Rabbi Akiva who died, and we observe various fast days to remember tragic events in Jewish history. The only real reason Yom Hashoah is shunned is because of the purported association with secular Zionism.

In a response to Katz, Yaakov Menken, agreeing with her, wrote that "Yom HaShoah was created, and its date selected, by secular Zionists with a clear agenda of their own" and therefore has to be rejected.

It's true that Ben Gurion's government established Yom Hashoah in 1951, and that Ben Gurion and other secular Zionists indeed appeared embarrassed by the Holocaust, believing, shamefully, that the 6 million Jewish victims were essentially "weaklings", to use Katz's term.

But what does any of this have to do with whether Yom Hashoah should be recognized in 2005? The date for Holocaust remembrance is observed by most of the Jewish world, and there are no real halachic problems with recognizing the day, or at least not brashly shunning it.

The truth is, plenty of people who identify as charedi do recognize Yom Hashoah. For example, next year, stop by the modern Orthodox shuls in Boro Park, and you'll find many charedi men and women attending Yom Hashoah programs.

Most of the individuals constituting the charedi world are aware that it's 2005, Ben Gurion is gone, and that the "Zionists" created an imperfect state that nevertheless is a source of pride to both religious and secular and indeed, to both its Jewish and non-Jewish friends. The "Zionist" state is also a place in which thousands of American young men and women head each year for Jewish studies, and overall, its Jewish population is far less secular that their counterparts in the United States.

Unfortunately, too many who purport to speak for the charedi community are still stuck in the past, fighting battles that long ago became irrelevant.
posted on 5/07/2005

 
Baseball Folklore

A few minutes ago, I heard, yet again, the old saying that only in baseball can someone fail 70 percent of the time, and still be considered a star.

Why isn't this inaccurate myth ever challenged? Assuming that failure means an out, then a player who fails 70 percent of the time would have an on base percentage of .300, hardly star quality.
posted on 5/07/2005

 
Rabbi Adlerstein on Pope Benedict XVI

Recently on Cross-Currents, Yitzchok Adlerstein praised Pope Benedict XVI, f/k/a Joseph Ratzinger, explaining that, in Rabbi Adlerstein's view:

Benedict is among those religious people who "will not water down their religious principles, their strong conviction that the Word of G-d trumps all other arguments. But they are also resistant to sacrificing the voice within that they understand to be G-d given as well, that hearkens to the tzelem Elokim, the image of G-d that they find in all human beings."

Rabbi Adlerstein wrote that "Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was a theological conservative, unwilling to let go of what he believed to be G-d given truth merely because social mores had changed." He therefore "feel[s] a certain affinity for Joseph Ratzinger, and I more than suspect that it is reciprocated."

While on a human level Pope Benedict might indeed respect someone for sticking to their religious beliefs, I am very skeptical that, on a theological level, Catholicism has room for "affinity" for Jews who cling to their beliefs.

Cardinal Ratzinger clearly rejected Judaism. As he stated in a lecture, Ratzinger held that in "the Bible ... God places himself against certain expressions of the religiosity and religious culture of Israel ... Israel must constantly be drawn away from elements of its own cultural identity and religious desires; that is, it must leave the worship of its own nationality ... Israel's faith requires a continual selftranscendence, an overcoming of its own culture, in order to open itself and enter into the expansiveness of a truth common to all ... In a sense, when St. Paul departs from the law, a departure based on his encounter with the risen Lord, this fundamental trajectory of the Old Testament is brought to its logical conclusion; it expresses fully the universalization of the faith of Israel, released from the particularity of an ethnic structure."

In his book, God and the World, Ratzinger wrote: "We wait for the instant in which Israel will say yes to Christ, but we know that it has a special mission in history now ... Our Christian conviction is that Christ is also the messiah of Israel. Certainly it is in the hands of God how and when the unification of Jews and Christians into the people of God will take place."

None of this is particularly earth-shattering stuff, but it renders very dubious the notion that Benedict would reciprocate R. Adlerstein's "affinity". If anything, the maintenance of Jewish belief - particularly its rejection of Jesus's divinity - is something that, at most, can be tolerated by Catholicism, with the timing of what is seen as eventual abandonment of Judaism's religious tenets being left to God.

A much better approach for observant Jews toward Catholicism can be found in a piece Shalom Carmy wrote in First Things. Carmy recognized that observant Jews and Catholics can and should work together to the extent they have mutual interests, including in opposing militant secularism, but writes that on a theological level, "the most tolerant Christian ... firmly believes that I would be a lot better off if I accepted the divinity of Jesus; the most tolerant Jew firmly rejects the idea of a human being who is divine."
posted on 5/03/2005

 
Rav Lichtenstein's Political Views

In a long piece in the May issue of First Things, a monthly Catholic journal, entitled For Torah and Culture, David Singer of the American Jewish Committee focuses on Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein.

The piece is not yet online, but it appears that First Things tends to place material from past issues on its website once a new issue is published, so it is likely that the article will be online next month.

I may have more to say about the piece once it is posted online. In the meantime, I will quibble with one statement submitted by Singer, that:

Lichtenstein identifies with the religious Zionist camp in Israel... In terms of practical politics, however, Lichtenstein's pronounced dovishness makes him a dissenter within the ranks of religious Zionism.

To be sure, Rav Lichtenstein has long supported territorial compromise. Within the ranks of religious Zionist rabbis, his political views on ceding land are indeed on the left.

But while at one time Rav Lichtenstein's views could be considered dovish, that is no longer the case, not in this post-Oslo world in which a Likud government has accepted the road map, accepts the formation of a Palestinian state, and even initiated a process of unilateral withdrawal.

Furthermore, in a piece directed at readers who are unlikely to have ever heard of Rav Lichtenstein, it is disingenuous to refer to his "dovishness" while omitting the fact that he founded Yeshivat Har Etzion, a flourishing yeshiva in Alon Shvut. While Alon Shvut is located within Gush Etzion, which Israel is expected to annex as part of any agreement, it is outside Israel's pre-June 1967 borders, and in the meantime, most of the world considers it a "settlement" and Rabbi Lichtenstein a "settler."

Rav Lichtenstein may be well to the left of most of his rabbinical peers, but he rejected - in strong terms - the concessions egregiously agreed to at Camp David by Ehud Barak. Indeed, Rabbi Lichtenstein was among the rabbis who sent a letter to Barak during the Camp David negotiations. The letter stated, in part:

In light of the government's plans to transfer large portions of Eretz Yisrael, including dozens of Jewish towns, to the control of the Palestinian Authority, we wish to express our concern and dread over the dangers and the severe consequences that are liable to result.

A policy that forces the residents of Yesha to choose between either the destruction of their life's work - dozens of flowering towns that were established with blood, sweat, tears, and the approval of Israeli governments - or living in constant danger to their lives and their families and being at the mercy of terrorist enemies of Israel, is seen by many as an impossible choice, in that it stands in contrast to human morals in general and the Jewish conscience in particular...

The abandonment of Yesha settlers stands in opposition to the principle of mutual responsibility in Israel, and is liable to undercut one of the pillars upon which the State of Israel stands. A desecration of this sublime value is liable to traumatize the entire Israeli society, which is already splintered and torn, and cause a great rift.

We call upon you, as Prime Minister of all of us, to stand firmly for the elementary fundamental ethic of mutual responsibility in the nation, and ensure that it is not shaken, Heaven forbid, by the destruction or abandonment of Jewish towns.

"Be strong and let us be strengthened on behalf of our nation and on behalf of the cities of our G-d."

Rav Lichtenstein recognized that one can support territorial compromise but reject the wholesale abandonment of Israel's right to Judea and Samaria. If he is a dove, then so am I, and so is Ariel Sharon and most of Likud.
posted on 5/02/2005

 
Follow-up to Charedim and Zionism

My post last Thursday about Charedim and Zionism stated that "little or nothing about Israel - positive or negative - was spoken at the Siyum Hashas."

I have since been reminded that a prayer for IDF soldiers and others in distress (albeit not "the" prayer for soldiers) was recited at the Siyum Hashas. While I don't believe this affects the main point of my post, it is relevant and appropriate to note.
posted on 5/02/2005