Reb Arthur's Latest Thoughts
Thomas Friedman , columnist for the NY Times and a stodgy middle-of-the-roader, says that the Israeli government has become a drunk driver, addicted to swallowing up more and more territory at the cost of any decent peace with Palestine.
The Torah did not know about "drunken drivers." But it did know that some people might thirst to swallow up their neighbors' land and houses: "Cursed be he who moves back his neighbor's territory-marker. And all the people shall say, 'Amen!' " (Deut 27: 17)
And of course it knew the most profound alternative to that kind of greed: "When a stranger lives with you in your land, you shall not wrong him. … He shall be to you as one of your citizens. You shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the Land of Narrows. I YHWH, the Breath of Life, am your God." (Lev. 19:27.)
Until now, US governments have firmly opposed only those Palestinians who have been addicted to violence, but not an Israeli government addicted to land-grabs and to wronging their neighbors.
It seems that the Obama administration may at last be ready to confront the drunk drivers in the Israeli government as well as the violence-addicts among some Palestinian leaders. May.
I say "may" because what we --- the American people -- do is crucial. The White House will back down if it sees little public support. It might stay firm if it hears public acclaim.
Friends, it is said, don't let their friends drive drunk. Will you back up a decision by the White House to stop drunk driving by our friends?
If you will, The Shalom Center has prepared a model letter to Senators, urging them to support firm action for peace. You can add your own words and sign it by clicking here.
Please also keep in mind: For a deeper discussion of these issues, please click to see the article "What Strategy for Middle East Peace? Grass-roots organizing -- for what?"
The basic issue is simple:
1. For Israel to have peace and security, there must be a viable, free, and secure Palestine alongside Israel, along with a peace treaty between all Arab states and Israel.
2. For that to happen, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the blockade of Gaza from receiving civilian goods must end.
3. There cannot and will not be a real Palestinian state unless East Jerusalem is its capital -- for economic, cultural, and political reasons. In such a peace settlement, West Jerusalem can and will be recognized as the capital of Israel, but the annexation of East Jerusalem must end if there is to be peace. The Israeli government must end all efforts to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, to force Palestinians to move out, and to settle Israeli Jews there.
Now back to the drunk driver. So far all the US government has done is wring its hands about the deadly results of the drunk driving. What could the US do?
If you have been paying about three billion dollars a year for your friend's gasoline AND his alcohol and you decide that his drunk driving is endangering your own life and the lives of many many people who live in your city, maybe you just cancel the credit card you gave him, and let him start going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings until he gets his head screwed on right.
Now what does it mean to cut off the credit card for gasoline and alcohol, while making sure nobody takes advantage of your friend while he's going through rehab?
In 2002 and again in 2007, the Arab League proposed a regional peace treaty that would give Israel peace and security with all Arab states, in exchange for the Israeli recognition of a new Palestine on approximately the 1967 boundaries. The Arab League proposal included unclear references to the rights of Palestinian refugees, but also made clear that the package could be negotiated. The Israeli government, with the approval of the Bush Administration, ignored the proposal. Now the Obama Administration seems (see above) to be moving toward supporting it.
Only the US government has the power and influence to work with the Arab League and its proposal for a regional peace treaty; with the Palestinian leadership, including those elements of Hamas that have said that if the Palestinian people votes for a two-state solution, they will accept it; and above all with the government of Israel, whose military policy depends on US military aid.
That aid amounts to at least three billion dollars a year. Imagine the US saying that it will put its aid in escrow, dollar for dollar for the cost of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. The US announces that the money will be made available only to pay the costs of resettling the 400,000 Israelis who are now living in Palestinian land beyond the 1967 borders, and will be paid in one-fifth sums when (a) the blockade of civilian goods from entering Gaza is restricted to preventing only actual weapons from being imported into Gaza; and (b) chunks of 100,000 settlers at a time have left the West Bank and returned to Israel proper.
Meanwhile, the US should be offering aid to a nascent Palestine on condition that leaders from at least some of Hamas and Fatah join in a government of national unity, take vigorous steps to prevent attacks on Israel, and agree to take part in a regional peace conference with the goal of achieving peace with Israel within approximately the 1967 boundaries.
This is a policy to protect and affirm the real Israel, while ending its government's addiction to wronging its neighbors.
Can we build public support in the US for this policy?
As I have written before, I think that depends on whether local and national coalitions can be built of Jews, Christians, and Muslims to that purpose.
We can start right now. If you click here you will find a model letter to your Senators: Please add your own words and send it!
Once you've done that -- please stop and ask yourself -- Is that really enough? Please consider the possibility of inviting rabbis, ministers, priests, and imams where you live to meet quietly to discuss what they can and cannot agree to do for peace, either together or individually, publicly or privately. Their conversation might be eased if they read together some writing from the Abrahamic communities (e.g. The Tent of Abraham from Beacon) and used it as a framework for conversation.
Ask them to listen to each other first as they say what their sense of God's will and desire is for the Middle East and for American efforts to help achieve peace there. Of course this requires care for each others' hopes and compassion for each others' pain. So after each person speaks, hold silence for a full minute to share the Breath of Life. If these conversations help people move forward, try to arrange meetings with your Congressperson or Senator.
Blessings that you be able to take some firm and gentle steps toward making peace for the families of Abraham, Hagar, & Sarah. -- Shalom, salaam, peace -- Arthur
For a fuller discussion of these issues, please click to see the article "What Strategy for Middle East Peace? Grass-roots organizing -- for what?" http://www.theshalomcenter.org/node/1691 .)
Comments
3 comments postedArticle you’ve wrote is just amazing, but I’m wondering when people instead of just reading articles like this and go away will do smth about that? We need changes, our planet needs it..Isn’t that understandable?
Seeing it spelled “ma-oz chittin” makes me wonder. Since the first word of that phrase ends in a “tav,” Ashkenazic Jews pronounce it “ma-oz chittin” — other Jews pronounce it “ma-ot chittin” as far as I’ve heard. Do Jewish Renewal Jews pronounce “tav” as /z/ … which “ma-oz chittin” suggests they must be doing? If so, why?
You may also have noticed I used “Shabbos” instead of “Shabbat,” the Ashkenazic rather than the Sephardic way of saying & spelling the word for “Sabbath.” (The Askenazim use an “s” or “z” sound in many places where Sephardim use a “t” sound.) Most of the time I use the Sephardic forms that have dominated American synagogues — since Israeli pronunciations followed that practice and the Hebrew schools and synagogues decided to follow Israeli practice (except among the Hassidim where Yiddish still has influence); but as a child I learned the Ashkenazic sound and my heart still loves it.
Recently, davvening [praying] in the Lomdim chavurah-style minyan in Chicago, I heard a word-form that would have been inconceivable a generation ago. The shlichat tzibbur [messenger of the congregation to Heaven — leader pf prayer] for the Amidah [central standing prayer] was celebrating not only the Patriarchs, as the tradition has done for 2000 years, but also the Matriarchs — a new and for me important emendation. The word for the patriarchs is “Avotenu” or in the traditional Ashkenazic, “Avosenu.” In every congregation I have known that does the Matriarchs, they are called “Imotenu,” “our Mothers.” In every congregation that still uses the Ashkenazic word-form, the Matriarchs are not included. But this davvener said “Avosenu/v’imosenu” — and I almost fell over in surprise and pleasure. I went over afterwards to tell him that one word had transfixed me in its fusion of tradition and transformation. He laughed and said, “That;’s who I am!”
Shalom, salaam, peace — Arthur
Comments
1 comment postedThanks Rabbi Waskow,
Here’s the Carbon Tax Center’s analysis of the CLEAR “cap-and-dividend” proposal:
Senators Cantwell (D- WA.) and Collins (R-ME.) introduced the Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal (CLEAR) Act (12/11/09). While retaining a “cap” and limited trading, CLEAR would avoid the most profound flaws of the Waxman-Markey bill (passed by the House in June) and the Kerry-Boxer bill, now stalled in the Senate. CLEAR would set a floor and ceiling (“collar”) on carbon allowance prices, authorize only “covered entities” to hold allowances and would not allow offsets to be used in place of allowances. Perhaps most noteworthy is CLEAR’s proposal to “recycle” 75% of revenue directly to households, contrasting sharply with the cap-and-trade bills’ give-away of carbon revenue and its equivalent in free allowances to an array of special interests and energy projects. With Sen. Susan Collins’ (R-ME) co-sponsorship, CLEAR begins as a bipartisan proposal.
CLEAR purports to preclude a secondary market (or “derivatives”) in carbon allowances. But analysts are uncertain about whether the bill can prevent large energy users from contracting to hedge against seasonal and cyclical price swings. Also, the low price range of bill — $7 to $21 per ton of CO2 in the initial year, 2012, rising each year at approximately 6% above inflation — is not nearly sufficient to achieve the needed emissions reductions. CTC’s Carbon Tax Impact Model suggests that this price trajectory will only lead to a 7.5% drop in U.S. CO2 emissions from 2005 levels in 2020. Instead of a substantial price signal, the bill relies much more heavily on subsidies for clean-energy investment which would come from the 25% of revenue not returned to households. CLEAR’s goal is emissions reductions of 20% from a 2005 baseline by 2020.
CLEAR’s price collar would make carbon prices more predictable and in that sense the bill is much closer to the “gold standard” of a carbon tax than cap-and-trade proposals. But its $7 – 21 range is wide enough to allow significant volatility that could discourage investment in alternatives and efficiency while generating profits for speculators. Potential volatility combined with CLEAR’s low price mean that its price signal would be “noisy” and small — not the clear upwardly trending price signal that would most strongly encourage low-carbon energy.
Finally, a volatile price makes linkage to international carbon markets (or carbon taxes) needlessly complex or even impossible.
Comments
2 comments postedI am quite surprised that you missed the crucial points about the meaning of Avatar, but I suppose that comes with the glaring blindness inherent in your political perspective. The most obvious thing about Avatar is that Jake Sully plays a role exactly parallel to Osama Bin Laden: the rebel leader of the “natives” rising up to “shake off” the yoke of the evil oppressors. In other words, in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, this means simply taking the side of the Palestinians and blaming the Israelis for their “injustice”, “oppression”, etc etc… which you obviously do, judging from your (I’m sorry to say) pathetic performance in the “debate” with Omar Barghouti on Democracy Now (20100304).
You should have begun that “debate” by pointing out to Amy Goodman that it was improper to call it a debate, since you and Barghouti both agree that the solution is to destroy Israel, but that you just differ in how to accomplish this. For his part, Barghouti was quite obvious in the presentation of his standard propaganda line (although I was impressed by the way he managed to position himself against the background of an official “UC Berkeley” podium — surely a subtle but effective way to lend legitimacy to his campaign to destroy Israel).
When asked why he was calling for a boycott of Israel, Barghouti said it was because of Israel’s “three-tiered system of oppression against the Palestinian people, its occupation …. its 1967 occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and that includes East Jerusalem, as well as its system of racial discrimination against its non-Jewish citizens, the Palestinians as citizens of Israel, and first and foremost, its denial of the right of return for the Palestinians, the Palestinian refugees in accordance with United Nations resolution 194.”
Did you, Rabbi, offer any objection to these points? You offered none, but proceeded as if you hadn’t heard what he said, instead giving your own suggestions as to how to “bring down Israel”: get the Americans to do it.
In fact, you should have pointed out that not one of his 3-tiers of oppression has any validity, and if you don’t know that, and if you can’t point out why these 3 points are untrue (and presented only for propaganda value), then you have some research to do. But I would like to point out that not only did Barghouti list Israel’s refusal of the “right of return” as the 3rd tier of its oppression, but later in the discussion he specifically contradicted you when you suggested that the USA should impose a solution to the problem by creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem. Barghouti said in no uncertain terms that this would not be enough, because the “first and foremost” thing is the right of return, and the rights of the “Palestinians” who are already citizens of Israel. Since you did not respond to his comment at the time, I assume you just didn’t hear him, but this is what he said:
“This is not just about ending the occupation. There are three basic rights for the Palestinian people. The majority of the Palestinians happen to be not in the occupied territories. They happen to be refugees, ethnically cleansed during the creation of the state of Israel in and after 1948. These are completely ignored. Reducing Palestinian rights to simply ending the occupation will not do. This is simply unacceptable.”
Barghouti went on to talk about ending the “seige” in Gaza and blaming Israel for genocide, etc., and again you offered no debate, but passed over this propagandist line in silence, returning to your (misguided, in my opinion) “strategy” to get the Americans to fix everything.
Finally, there is one other crucial flaw in the movie Avatar that I believe you missed. Throughout the first half of the movie, the script did a great job of depicting “native” spirituality, and of capturing the sense of connection with “earth” and with natural forces which is so much a part of native beliefs. But when the hammer-headed rhinoceros came charging through the trees to avenge the death of the Tree, the movie moved from the sublime to the absurd. All of the beauty, subtlety, and grace with which the native “religion” had been depicted suddenly vanished as it was revealed that the Tree was now really pissed off and intent upon ruthless vengeance. Could you imagine a better depiction of a sanction for Jihad? No wonder the Palestinians have been painting themselves as blue Na’vi when protesting Israel’s security barrier.
I would suggest to you that the movie Avatar could have been a truly great vehicle for spreading understanding about the conflicts in our world which the movie “paralleled”. The key would be to explore the dynamic driving the Crusher institutions, especially the character presented as the corporate representative, who played such a small role in the movie, but actually held the real power in his hands. But instead of looking at the real issues involved, and considering real options, the movie opted for a Hollywood white-hat/black-hat solution, and really did us all a disservice. In the same way, I believe you are doing a disservice to Americans and israelis alike — and to the Palestinians— when you let blatant lies and substanceless propaganda pass without objection because you think you see some “strategy” for a solution that (apparently) doesn’t require us to recognize bullshit as bullshit. In other words, for all its 3-D technological brilliance, the message of Avatar was bullshit.
Post-finally, I regret having expressed myself so rudely here, because I know you are a thoughtful and well-intentioned person. Moreover, I have a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that I’d like you to consider, but now that I might have insulted you, I guess that’s not likely to happen. Still, I feel that these are important issues, and need to be understood clearly, and that there can be no real progress if we replace brutal honesty in telling it like it is with a phony politeness.
P.S.
I’d like to end with a quote from Omar Barghouti in a debate (found on YouTube) which he had with a law professor at Georgetown University, when he was accused of simply desiring the destruction of Israel. He said: “If changing a state from one of oppression, racism and injustice to one of fairness and justice results in the destruction of that state, what does that say about the state?” I’ve been hard pressed to find a better example of pure propaganda: a statement that appears to be an intelligent comment, but when analyzed reveals nothing more than a propagandist assertion: Israel is an oppressive, racist and unjust state. And of course, the real response to a statement like this is to ask, “If your real concern with Israel is injustice and racism, then are you equally vocal in you objection to other states whose policies are unjust and racist? For example, Jews are prevented by law from living in Jordan, and when Jordan occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank, Jews were forbidden from even visiting. Have you been loudly protesting such racism? And how about the Islamic Republic of Islam: are you at the forefront of the battle to open that society to Jews and all peoples?” Of course Barghouti has never voiced opposition to any other Arab or Muslim state … he is simply practicing the art of propaganda.
What I wonder about the Na’vi:
Their green, organic technology includes many ways to bring death — from poisoned arrows to the ability to wield death wholesale through mind-links with the animals and trees — but the Na’vi are singularly devoid of something as important as a way to preserve life: namely, they do not appear to have any form of medicine. When one of the humans receives a deep wound, all the Na’vi can do is put her under a tree, sit around, and absorb themselves in some form of “yoga davening” till she dies.
And *these* people I should strive to admire and emulate?
Comments
1 comment posted…until we have a democratically elected, and hopefully non-religious, government established in Iran. A minor correction, Imam Ali is the Prophet Mohammad’s son-in-law…not his son, but it could have been a typo in your post. Mixing politics and religion is certainly disastrous. Any religion whether it be Judaism, Islam, or Christianity does NOT belong in politics. Organized religion (islam, judaism, christianity) = organized crime! Meanwhile, to encourage the change of the brutal islamic republic regime in Iran we can all start passing around updated information to each other and to LET Iranians in Iran know that we know how they’re suffering at the hands of their own government. As you well point out in the last part of your post, any foreign interaction, much like sanctions but even brutal force, will help to congeal ALL Iranians against the foreign occupation force.
Iran is the land of Prophets Zoroaster, and Daniel. Our ethnic religion is Zoroasterian. Islam was forced onto the Iranian plateau by the thundering herds of Arabs/Bedouins from the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia). I, personally, would like to see Islam pushed back into the Arabian Peninsula and out of the Greater Iran/Iranian Cultural Continent!
JAVID IRAN! JAVID IRAN! JAVID IRAN!
Comments
10 comments postedJust happened to see this letter, the site and some comments… these so- called rabbis granted themselves a right to pass qualifications as what is a Jewish value and what is not. How much time have they spent on learning even a single subject as ‘teshuva’? Learning, not ‘re-inventing’? Being too weak to grow, they call their shortcomings ‘getting out of the ghetto’. To be chosen is uncomfortable for them. If they only try to give an honest try and learn from the real teachers (we have a real messorah and were not called smart just in recent years)! Tthe fact is that truly observant (learned and learning!) Jews are overwhelmingly against this ‘reform’, and if this reform is so great, why they have to jam it down our throat and buy Nelsons and Liebermans? Keep in mind that the Anti-Semitism was created to remind the Jews that they are Jews if they happened to forget it themselves (the chosen kind of Jews and not the re-invented). How sad – even a goy Bart Stupak shows more ‘Jewish bone’ than these unlearned self-proclaimed teachers of immoral values which they falsify as ‘Jewish’! Shame on all of you! Jews, not interested in torah - try learning the Constitution at least.
I’ve been delighted by the vigor of the various comments, and want to assure the chaver (community-member) who proposed we withdraw the letter that we are utterly joyful that as of Monday afternoon (Dec 21) 1950 Jews, including more than 150 rabbis and chazzanim (cantors) had signed it. Many others are full-time Jewish-community professionals or Jewish-studies professors.
We have no doubts of the letter’s religious legitimacy. Anyone who thinks we were taking “pekuach nefesh” (saving life, the prime dorective of Jewish law) out of context is welcome to explain that to families of the thousands of Americans who have died because they could not afford to pay the insurance companies’ fees for health care.
Many signers wrote additional notes about how outraged they are by Lieberman’s behavior and how ashamed they are as Jews by what he has done.
In Jewish communities before the modern era, the Jewish response to violations of sacred Jewish value and mitzvot was in Jewish hands, and punishment for whatever the ghetto authorities thought reprehensible was easy to impose. Fines, even excommunication, could be invoked. And since the lives of Jews were carried on inside a Jewish framework, adherence to “Jewish values” was quite enforceable.
Even in the early generations of Jewish immigration to America, when the ghetto was gone but most Jews still lived in close-knit communities that were urgent to protect themselves against non-Jewish contempt, there were ways to enforce Jewish standards. In my childhood, for example, I occasionally heard the epithet “chillul hashem” used to rebuke a Jew who had behaved in ways the majority of non-Jews would find reprehensible.
The phrase literally means “hollowing out the Name,” or “shaming God.” It came to mean shaming the Jewish people. In days when Jews felt vulnerable, the accusation of that kind of shaming was enough to keep many would-be sinners in line.
But the great majority of American Jews today are glad to have shattered the ghetto walls, and the fear of contempt from non-Jews has withered, almost vanished. And what of Jews who are acting in ways that many non-Jews would not mind, but to many Jews feel like a violation not of the sensibilities of the broader society, but indeed of what they understand Judaism and the God of Torah demands? After all, Senator Lieberman was not acting any different from 40 other Senators when he threatened to filibuster against health care.
Perhaps that kind of behavior is “chillul hashem” in the sense of shaming God indeed, even if not damaging the public image of the jewish people?
In the past decades, Jewish public opinion has been mobilized to condemn very wealthy donors to the Jewish communioty who turned out to have garnered the money they were donating by lawbreaking. Jewish public opinion has been mobilized against a Jewish corporate owner whose corporation was logging great stands of ancient redwoods, and against an extremely wealthy Jewish donor who was the head of a major cigarette company. See “Redwoods, Tobacco, and Torah” at http://www.theshalomcenter.org/node/178
Step by step, case by case, there is emerging a pattern of effort by Jewish communities living in an open society to honor those Jews who pursue Jewish values and to rebuke those who do not. No doubt there will be disagreements among Jews as to which persons fit in one or the other category; but over time, the process will be strengthened as experience shapes the boundaries of particular choices. The Lieberman Letter is another step forward in renewing Jewish responsibility in a new kind of Jewish world.
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Director, The Shalom Center
I am a non-Jewish, spiritual person who wanted Single Payer/Medicare for all. As a health professional, I hate that patients are discharged often too soon, especially psychiatric homeless ones. As a volunteer w/homeless families, what I hear from them is that 90% would still have homes if they only had insurance to cover unexpected, catastrophic medical bills. Please reconsider and support what taxpayers want: Affordable Health care for all!
I, for one, have no need or will to see him in the democratic Party. We have enough scummy Blue Dogs, and a person who has prostituted himself to the health insurance companies should not be welcome in the big tent called the democratic Party.
You cause many of us to be ashamed you that we share the same religion, and further - you are an embarrassment to humanity. It was a big mistake to accept you in the caucuses, and it will be a bigger mistake to ignore the damage you have caused. What a despicable creature!
I believe you may THINK you are doing the right thing, but since when are you the expert about what we can afford? Jewish values, even common sense morality demands that you support health care reform so that every American can have what Europeans and others have had for years. The recession only makes it more urgent that you provide relief for the millions of us who have lost our jobs AND our health care. Stop catering to the insurance giants and do what you were elected to do!
Say it ain’t so, Joe! You are morphing into a Goldwater Republican right before our eyes. Please return to your democratic values of yore.
I help very poor Jews who often have difficulty with insurance coverage and quality medical care. My experience makes me agree with the necessity of this letter.
— David Schwartz
New Jersey
I totally agree. Don’t throw Americans under the bus. You are supposed to represent the people not big insurance industries. Stand by your people! That is why you were elected!
This letter is utter stupidity. Lieberman correctly opposed the public option because it does the opposite of what its proponents suggest - it actually increases costs, decreases choice, and ultimately lowers the quality of care. Not to mention the fact that it would create a massive deficit that would require enormous tax hikes and reduction in services to cover. To claim Lieberman is ignoring the obligation of pikuach nefesh is laughable. Tzedek tzedek tirdof refers to judges in beis din, which is of course not relevant here. More appropriately, I would apply the pasuk of m’davar sheker tirchak. The bill and its supporters represent complete sheker. Or perhaps the precept al tis-chaber l’rasha. Supporters of institutionalized sheker and oppression are moving in the direction of rishoim. At the very least, I would say Lieberman, in standing up against the party leaders and the masses of liberal drones, who mistakenly think there is something idealistic about socialized medicine, is like Yehuda HaMakabi, leading the charge against the Greek army, despite the numbers. Yes, Lieberman is like the chashmonians and refusniks who would not just go with the flow and who would not acquiesce. That’s why I say “Way to go, Joe!”
While I think Sen. Lieberman is disgraceful on this - and so many other issues - I must agree with the above poster that the letter is stupid. To quote a few generic phrases out of the context of a serious study of the text sources and their application to factual situations is at best ignorant, at worst close to blood libel. The poster has a different point of view and he can quote a few lines to support his position with as much legitimacy as the letter.
This is a counter productive effort which will discredit the Shalom Center in the eyes of Jews who take seriously the tradition of thoughtful text study and informed analysis. The letter should be retracted and sent to the genizah immediately.
Sen. Lieberman is wrong, not as a Jew but as a misguided, unfaithful politician.
Comments
1 comment postedThanks for illuminating the connections between Chanukah and this moral imperative, Rabbi! We don’t have to wait for Tu b’Shevat to rededicate ourselves to Mother Earth. As a teacher of supplementary Jewish education AND as the author of make it green: Unforgettable Tote Bags, 20 designs too cool to leave in the car, I know that healing the earth is a top priority for tikkun olam.
Comments
1 comment postedWe must work for peace w/eyes wide open. The other path is continual war and suffering. The creator loves all its children. And what @ that commandment to not bear false witness…
Comments
4 comments postedIt seems to me that after last night, writing to our Senators is like closing the barn door after the horse is out. I’ve never believed that “might makes right.” I prefer to believe as Gandhi did that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” I also believe it’s no accident that Greg Mortenson’s new book STONES INTO SOUP (I think that’s the title following his compelling book 3 CUPS OF TEA) which was released yesterday is the correct avenue—education, especially of the girls in the region. I’m having less and less confidence in the foolhardiness of men of this world (I’m including President Obama) who insist on drawing swords and more and more in the power of the women. I can’t imagine women sending their precious sons and daughters into a senseless battle after all that has been demonstrated in the past. Surge? Haven’t we already been there and done that? We missed our opportunity when we bought into the previous President’s lies about Iraq and started a war there. It’s past time to cut our losses. Haven’t we already lost more than enough?
Sandra L Cohen
Santa Cruz, CA
today, 12/2/09, 25 peace groups from around the country in all major cities and many minor cities will be protesting this terrible excalation of the Vietnam, no, sorry, the Afghanistan War.
War is not the answer, it damages people, communities, families, strangers, all human systems. We have bombed Iraq into the stoneage, and not one NGO has been let in to Iraq for the last 8 years. And for no reason!
Justice with Peace,
David Fillingham
C’mon, you wouldn’t be so sympathetic (or at least equivocal) if the victims had been abortion providers, or if the murderer had been a Jewish physician (such as Dr. Baruch Goldstein).
our army which gave Mr. Hassan his training would not let him out.
Who hears the blatant opposition he uttered in blogs, even in his classes which he both took and taught.
We hoped with Obama, we hoped hard, and now we must take to the streets again, yes.
Comments
1 comment posted• And it’s happening in the Phila. area and throughout the nation — a covert government genocide hiding in plain sight
SECRET USE OF MICROWAVE/LASER RADIATION ‘DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS’ ON U.S. CITIZENS BY MULTI-AGENCY ‘EXECUTIVE ACTION’ PROGRAM — APPARENTLY RUN OUT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ‘FUSION CENTERS’ SUCH AS THE ONE IN NEWTOWN, PA
Thousands of unjustly targeted Americans are being damaged by the devastating physiological effects of being silently irradiated by microwave and laser radiation directed energy weapons by a secret executive branch multi-agency coordinated action program…
the weaponization of the electromagnetic spectrum, a silent “final solution” that may have the nation’s political leadership in its ideological cross-hairs.
This technology is capable of altering moods, emotions, inducing fatigue, weakness, exhaustion, confusion, life-altering injury, disease and a slow-kill death.
And key elements of the federal bureaucracy — chief among them the defense/security/intel establishment — are proliferating these technologies by various modalities, reported to include terrestrial and satellite electromagnetic microwave/laser emissions — in one iteration, disguised as cell towers.
American citizens and families targeted by this covert torture matrix also are subject to financial sabotage that decimates their livelihoods and financial resources…
and relentless “community stalking” — harassment, surreptitious home entries and vandalism by government-enabled vigilantes affiliated with federally-funded community policing and anti-terrorism organizations.
Warrantless, covert placement of GPS tracking devices and misuse of cell phone technology to hunt down the unjustly targeted enables this grassroots terrorism.
But the Obama administration continues to allow these warrantless intrusions into the lives of unjustly targeted American families.
By its naivete — its unquestioning rubber-stamp approval of the deployment of these destructive technologies and programs — the Obama administration risks presiding over the destruction of democracy, the rule of law, and personal liberty.
PRESIDENT OBAMA, CONGRESS:
BAN the use of microwave/laser directed energy weapons on U.S. citizens or any human being (including experimentation) as cruel and unusual punishment and a crime against humanity.
BAN the warrantless tracking of individuals with GPS devices, or via cell phones — the electronic backbone of an American Gestapo now operating on YOUR watch.
http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-ter… OR (if link is corrupted/disabled):
http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: “GESTAPO USA”
Vic Livingston, former business reporter, WTXF-TV Fox 29, Philadelphia Bulletin
Comments
1 comment postedReb Arthur, your granddaughter is a great teacher…as most children are. thank you so much for sharing this gift of her insight with all of us! God as Community…I love that!
blessings,
Laura
Comments
1 comment postedI was reading this after I looked up The Art of Gentle Refusal and was brought to the Shalom Center in my search. Your courage, love and understanding in the face of great pain reminds me the we are all connected and to have an open heart is to be open to both. Recently I’ve been listening to Pema Chodron a Buddhist teacher who talks about releasing tears so that others may not have to. It is part of selflessness and the paradox that you spoke of I think. In the wheel of life we are born and die may times and it truly a blessing to be conscious and loving witness to this process.I pray for a world that recognizes all gods as one. Your words and the spirit behind them really touched my heart as I have been moving through a deep place in myself. Shalom
Comments
3 comments postedAgreeing with Rabbi Waskow’s basic focus, I’ll suggest one important strategy is to support
candidates for US Congress and US Senate who clearly articulate the vision of a just and peaceful
Israel and Palestine, and what it will take to help bring that into reality. Unfortunately, J Street’s PAC has adopted a policy to not endorse candidates in primaries, essentially emasculating J Street as an effective advocate for truly pro-peace candidates. We need to let all progressive Jews know when a courageous leader is running for high office, and do our best to support such efforts.
For example, Jonathan Tasini (www.jonathantasini.com) running for US Senate in New York, challenging the unelected Kirsten Gillibrand in next September’s Democratic primary. Here’s an article by Tasini printed by Huffington Post in 2006: Published on Friday, March 24, 2006 by the Huffington Post :
Why Jews Must Speak Out on Palestine
by Jonathan Tasini
Yesterday, I spoke at an event in New York City called Rachel’s Words. Two years ago, Rachel Corrie, a human rights activist, was crushed to death by an Israeli Army bulldozer as she tried to protect the home of a Palestinian pharmacist from demolition in Rafah, Gaza Strip. She was 23. A play based on her writing, “My Name is Rachel Corrie” was scheduled to open yesterday in New York City but it’s debut was postponed indefinitely, in all likelihood because of the controversy it would cause in a city with such a large Jewish audience.
As a Jew who lived in Israel for seven years and whose family still lives there and has deep roots going back more than 80 years, it breaks my heart that there is a refusal to grapple with an almost untouchable topic in our country: why does the United States have such a one-sided policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict? And it’s the reason I agreed to speak at the event which honored Rachel’s life and her beliefs.
The event took place at the historic Riverside Church. I stood in the pulpit in the very same place that Dr. Martin Luther King stood almost 40 years ago. And that’s where I began my remarks:
Almost 40 years ago, in 1967, Dr. King spoke in this very place about the need to speak up against a great purveyor of violence: his own government. He said, “If America ‘s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam…So it is that those of us who are yet determined that “America will be” are led down the path of protest and dissent, working for the health of our land.”
Dr. King also said that he was speaking on behalf “of the people who have been living under the curse of war for almost three continuous decades now. I think of them too because it is clear to me that there will be no meaningful solution there until some attempt is made to know them and hear their broken cries.”
“I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours.”
How those words, sadly, have so much meaning for us today.
Those of us who stand opposed to the war in Iraq do so as patriotic people who love our country and our communities but, because it is our country, we demand that it live up to high moral standards of peace, justice, democracy and human rights.
We speak and stand up and oppose the war in Iraq for the same reason that we speak and stand up and say the occupation of the Palestinian people is wrong, morally and legally, and must end with a negotiated, just, and peaceful solution between the lawfully elected governments of the Palestinian people and Israel.
To be honest, I don’t think most Jews — and certainly this is true of most Americans — understand the brutality of the occupation, the violations of international law and our role in perpetuating that occupation. Most Jews have never been to the area and so they either have no idea what goes on or choose to ignore the awful reality. Their perceptions are framed by the MSM and pandering politicians.
If you raise a criticism of Israel or our country’s policy towards the conflict, you immediately are targeted, within the Jewish community, as being either disloyal (if you are Jewish) or anti-Semitic (if you are not Jewish). This is nonsense and has got to stop.
In fact, those politicians who pander to our worst instincts of fear and hatred, who praise policies that violate international law, they are the ones who are hurting Israel’s long-term security and the security of all the people in the area.
So, let me state clearly: I believe unequivocally in a secure, prosperous Israel. But I also believe with the same passion that the occupation is draining the moral and economic strength of Israel and that there will only be a just peace agreement when a Palestinian state — a strong, vibrant, prosperous, independent state, able to provide jobs and a good life for its people — thrives alongside Israel.
Taking away the liberty, the humanity and the dignity of the Palestinian people takes away from the security from Israel. Targeting civilians, killing innocent men, women and children is evil — no matter who is doing it. Killing civilians is a “grave breach” of international humanitarian law.
Whatever the circumstances, such acts are unjustifiable. We have to end the violence on both sides and support the peacemakers in both Israel and among the Palestinian people.
Opposition to the occupation is showing enormous love for Israel and for the Palestinian people. For the sake of Israel and for the sake of all people in that region who are fed up with three decades of war and occupation, we have to have an honest, open discussion.
There is a physical embodiment of the occupation that we must speak up against now: the separation barrier that is being built in the occupied territories, sl icing through Palestinian communities, with the support of the U.S. government. Yes, Israel has a right to protect it citizens. But last night I asked:
How does peace come one day closer when we do not speak out against a wall that not only violates international law but, more important, embitters thousands of people for generations to come because it cuts off neighborhoods, separates families from each other, farmers from their land, the sick from hospitals, children from the schools and saps the economic vitality from an already impoverished people?
We have politicians who claim to be for the rule of law and stand before the Wall (as Hillary Clinton has done) and praise it — even though it violates international law.
For us in the United States, the question becomes what is our government’s role in perpetuating this conflict. As I said:
For too long, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, our government has had a counterproductive, one-sided policy that too often ignores democracy, human rights, and respect for international law.
Let’s get this debate going. Begin to raise it among your friends and do so with the same love and commitment that you do for our country that leads you to vigorously oppose the Iraq war.
As Dr. King said in 1967, “Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now.”
Jonathan Tasini is running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate in New York. For the past 25 years, Jonathan has been a union leader and organizer, a social activist, and a commentator and writer on work, labor and the economy.
© 2006 The Huffington Post
Please support Tasini’s campaign. He’s great on all issues. He’s got a chance, if he can raise enough money to be ‘taken seriously’ by the media.
www.jonathantasini.com— click on Donate.
Thanks!
Will Fudeman
Hello Rabbi Waskow,
I’d like to make a few comments on your strategy for peace in the Middle East, but first I’d like to apologize to you for a rash comment I previously made, asserting that your solution to the problem is tantamount to advocating the destruction of Israel. I was very glad to read here that you recognize that Omar Barghouti’s insistence on “the right of return” is in fact a strategy for dissolving Israel as a Jewish state:
“But that result would shatter any possibility of Israel’s having a special relationship with the Jewish people. To create such a state was why Israel came into existence. Dissolving it is so far from acceptable to Israelis that it means a No-Go on all negotiations. Mr. Barghouti said he has no objection to a “Jewish state,” but that’s meaningless under the conditions he proposed. His totalistic attack aimed at all aspects of israeli society is integrally connected with a totalistic demand for dismantling the only purpose for Israel’s existence.”
I’d also like to say that I agree whole-heartedly with you when you say:
“I see my task as seeking to bring about an independent, God-centered vision of a just peace. I understand God’s desire — command — to be ending the wars …”
However, I can’t agree with the final clause of that last sentence, in which you denied that God’s desire or command could be “winning victories for either side over the other”. Sometimes, in fact most of the time in human history, the only thing that stops conflict is victory or defeat. But I certainly do believe that we should apply all of our human intelligence to resolving conflict by means other than violence. For me, that means that we need to understand the issues deeply, and that we must be able to recognize the objectives, motives and strategies of all parties involved. It just doesn’t work to shut your eyes to what is really going on and cling to a simplistic desire for peace. You can’t have peace until you really understand the dynamic of what is preventing peace. If you see a boulder precariously perched above your home and you want to prevent the destruction of your house, you need to understand the laws of physics, and then you can design a way to avert the disaster. If you take an ethical approach and stand in the path of the boulder righteously hoping to stop it, all you will end up doing is proving the reality of laws of Universe — God’s Laws — at the cost of your life.
So, what is the best strategy for a just peace in the Middle East? Once again I must take issue with the strategies you have proposed, although I realize that you are making these proposals in good will and seriously desiring to bring about a just peace. I hope you will realize that I am criticizing your positions here — the ideas you have affirmed — and not you or your intentions.
First, I think it is a mistake to begin with a model of the situation depicting the two principal parties to the conflict as dysfunctional “hostile adults” who are the victims of psychological “childhood abuse”. Such a premise is based on myriad hypotheses of pseudo (or borderline) science in psychology, sociology, etc., many of which are merely veils concealing political agendas. In other words, it may be useful to deal with childhood traumas on a personal level, for self-understanding, just as it can be valuable to read literature to deepen one’s appreciation of the human condition, but this is certainly not the starting point for understanding and resolving political differences. The Israelis and the Palestinians are not children, and they are not dysfunctional adults acting out childhood traumas in some mechanistic “cycle”. Both need to be treated as responsible adults, and a brief look at the vibrant societies of both peoples is evidence of their integrity, as is the thoroughly organized and competent manner in which the conflict has been waged for 60 years.
This is really an important point. The fact that the conflict has been going on for so long is not proof that the combatants are caught in some process that is “out of control”, or that they are “unable to take the steps necessary for peace”. On the contrary, the incredible degree of planning, forethought, organization and perseverance that was necessary on both sides to maintain the conflict for so long proves without a doubt the competence of both sides. What is necessary is to address these supremely confident and competent parties with respect, acknowledging each as a responsible party to the conflict. What third party players can do is offer advice and new perspectives on how each might change their strategy in dealing with the other, leading to a compromise in which each can achieve enough of their objectives to make peace seem agreeable.
I would strongly urge you to consider, Rabbi, that any other peace, such as one imposed by a stronger 3rd party, without the total consent of both parties responsible for this conflict, is merely a recipe for disaster in the future. Thus, in my opinion, your suggestion that “focusing the power and influence of the United States to bring about a decent peace among the warring parties in the Middle East…” is supremely misguided. Of course, the United States does have a huge roll to play in helping to find a resolution to the conflict, especially by brokering negotiations, and by suggesting new options and strategies to both parties, and perhaps most crucially, by using its “power and influence” to prevent others from meddling in the conflict while pursing their own interests (which is and has been a major dynamic of the conflict, e.g., the influence of Islamic fundamentalist militants and the states supporting them).
Finally, I would like to offer a counter suggestion to your imagined scenario of the United States economically blackmailing Israel by withholding critical foreign-aid funds until Israel succumbs to the economic pressure and makes concessions such as relocating half a million Israelis out of the West Bank settlements (what planet are you living on, Rabbi Waskow?). I think my counter proposal will suffice to answer everything else you have suggested in this article, because from this point on, everything you say is based upon the idea that a “new coalition” is possible which will be able to force Israel into adopting a peace which it does not view as true peace. Again, from my perspective, it is far more fruitful to exert our energy trying to understand what are the issues and obstacles to peace IN THE MINDS OF BOTH PARTIES than trying to find ways to bully one party into acquiescence.
A New Proposal for a Just Peace in the Middle East:
First, my premises:
-1- Israel truly desires peace with the Palestinians, and with all Arabs and Muslims.
-2- Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza & East Jerusalem and the Sinai in a defensive war, fighting for its existence against a coalition of forces intent on destroying it (and on perpetrating genocide) in the 1967 war.
-3- Israel has always been willing to trade territory captured in 1967 for lasting peace. It was able to make such a deal with Egypt, but has not yet found a sincere “partner in peace” among the Palestinians willing to make the deal (although it tried mightily to make such a deal with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority).
-4- The enemies of Israel have been unrelenting for more than 60 years, forcing Israel to maintain a more or less permanent state of war with the combatants in the region.
-5- The problem Israel has had in waging this war of six decades is that its enemies, having repeatedly lost in conventional military combat, have adopted terrorist tactics, including the intentional targeting of civilians and the institutions of civil society, as opposed to military targets, and most troublesome, enemy combatants use civilians of their own society as shields for their operations, a tactic which has effectively prevented Israel from using its overwhelming military superiority to defeat its enemies.
Based upon these premises, I think a clear strategy can be devised to end the conflict permanently.
Imagine if Israel were to make an offer to all Palestinians, including those living in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, as well as those which the United Nations considers “refugees” living in the adjacent Arab states. (The offer could also apply to any Arab Israelis already citizens of Israel.) The offer would be as follows:
To any Palestinian willing to sign a Contract of Friendship with Israel, in which they agree to live in peace as neighbors and to reject all violence and “jihad” against the State of Israel and the Israeli people, the State of Israel will provide without charge the latest modern and technologically advanced housing and community infrastructure within Palestinian townships on the West Bank (and potentially Gaza), along with security services to protect these Palestinian settlements (including incorporation within the Israeli security border), as well as access to Israeli justice system, and unfettered economic exchange with Israel (meaning no border checkpoints or other barriers to free exchange).
The State of Israel would allow the Palestinians in the townships self-determination and agree not to interfere with the social institutions of the Palestinians, whether religious, political or economic, except to the extent required to insure law enforcement and security.
Also, the State of Israel would agree, ahead of time, that when the number of such Palestinian townships within the West Bank (& Gaza) reached a critical number, that Israel would grant sovereignty to them, and recognize them as the Free Palestinian State, a sovereign nation, and would then remove all Israeli security forces not retained by treaty, once Israel was certain that the new state posed no security risk to Israel.
So, Rabbi Waskow, this is my proposal, which is sort of hybrid of an interim bi-national state leading to a two-state solution. What do you think? Of course, I have left out the unpleasant part, which for the sake of completeness I should mention. Once a sufficient number of Palestinians accepted the deal, and a sufficient portion of the West Bank was included in the townships, Israel would then have given the Palestinians a clear opportunity to declare themselves as friend or foe. It would then be possible for the Israeli military to deal with those who prefer to challenge Israel as enemies, for they would no longer be able to hide behind “innocent” civilians.
Loren Castleton
oloren1@fastmail.fm
HI Arthur,
I agree with you completely that now is the time to really push Israel to dismantle settlements and make peace. You mention that there are finally strong American Jewish groups that can lobby the US government to help push the process forward, but you didn’t name those groups. Are you talking about J Street? I think they are doing fabulous work.
It is helpful to name the groups moving in the right direction as it adds to their strength.
Bruce Phillips