Would Religious Pluralism Bring Peace to Israel?

There's a great article in Yediot on the demands being brought to the Israeli Defense Minister and IDF Chief of Staff: Progressive (Reform) and Masorti (Conservative) Jews want a Reform or Conservative military rabbi.

To any American, it would seem like a bizarre and even unnecessary request.  But, for Israelis who do not enjoy the same Amendment rights when it comes to synagogue and State, the request for pluralistic religious representation is big news that could have a major impact on both the Israeli and the Jewish diaspora's way of viewing and living Jewish life.

Currently the rabbinic services within the IDF are strictly Orthodox.  This means that non-Orthodox Jewish soldiers are required to observe an Orthodox way of life including traditions that limit women's prayer on base and denying the families of fallen soldiers the ability to hold non-Orthodox funeral services.  The argument being put forth by the Progressive and Conservative movements is that "Every soldier who dedicates his time, and sometimes risks his life for the State, is entitled to religious services in accordance to his faith."

In some ways, the argument could be seen as a slippery-slope.  While Muslims are not required to join the IDF, there are a few dozen volunteers who join the ranks every year.  Opening the door to non-Orthodox religious representation could pave the way for Muslim soldiers to call for an Imam in the ranks.  Given the gross politicization of Islam in the Middle East, and the bureaucratic undertaking the IDF would have to conquer in appointing an Islamic cleric to their staff, more than one headache could ensue.  Still, should the risks outweight the worth of religious freedom?   

Should the change take place, it would send a variety of equally important messages to Israel and the Jewish world, as well as to Israel's critics.  Firstly, the acceptance of religious pluralism within the ranks of the IDF would testify to Israel's reputation as the strongest democracy in the Middle East.  Secondly, this action of religious pluralism would send a much-needed message to Jews the world-over:  We all worship the same God and read the same Torah; we can have unity despite our different religious points of view.  Thirdly, the introduction of Jewish religious pluralism within the ranks of the IDF would sound the death-knell for the stranglehold the Orthodox Rabbinate has over the otherwise secular Israeli government.  This is, perhaps, the most politically threatening aspect of the request--and the strongest reason why it should be honored. 

To reach its full potential, Judaism needs to be de-politicized from the Right in Israel as much as the Left in America.  Judaism is, first and foremost, a faith of morals and values that simultaenously informs and transcends political outlook.  When religion itself (any religion, for that matter) crosses the line into the political sphere, human beings feel free to justify their political beliefs and actions in the name of God; division ensues when unity should be the goal.  There's a reason the only leader who ever brought us truly together sang, "Oh how good and how pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity." 

Americans pay special attention to religious freedom for a variety of reasons, all of which boil down to the simple fact that developing a relationship with God and expressing that relationship publicly is a personal choice.  For too long, the Jewish world has been pushed in a variety of directions and made to worry whether we are too Jewish or not Jewish enough.  As the national representative of Jews across the globe, Israel has taken the brunt of this burden.  For all the directions in which Israelis (the majority of whom are in the midst of some level of military service) are being pushed, they should feel the freedom to walk in the direction of faith, and reassured with the knowledge that they will be received with open arms.

ElBaradei: Israeli Facts and Fictions

What is truth?

The agreement spanning the past 140 years of definitions in my dictionary collection is that Truth conforms to fact or reality; Truth is the body of real things, events, and facts.

Yet, according to Wikipedia the popular, open-source online encyclopedia:

“Truth can have a variety of meanings… “Truth” must have a beneficial use in order to be retained within language.  Defining this potency and applicability can be looked upon as “criteria”, and the method used to recognize a “truth” is termed criteria of truth. Since there is no single accepted criterion, they can all be considered “theories”. ”

Compare the two definitions and you’ll see a striking difference.  Historically, reality is truth.   Yet, according to contemporary pop culture, truth is a subjective opinion.  Opinion is truth.

In the interest of ideological inquiry, I decided to contrast the commentary of the right-wing Caroline Glick with commentary from the left-wing Dahlia Scheindlin and Roi Maor published in +972.   

The Subject: Mohammed ElBaradei, leader of the Egyptian opposition.

The Methodology: To take the facts as they stand and compare Glick and Scheindlin’s responses.

The Goal:  Obviously these writers are paid to opine, so the objective will be to define how much of their argument relies on known fact, versus value judgment.

ElBaradei’s role as head of the IAEA

According to Glick, “As IAEA head, ElBaradei shielded Iran’s nuclear weapons program from the Security Council.”  He also, “continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran…”

According to Scheindlin, “During his 12 years as head of the IAEA, [ElBaradei] ratcheted down the increasingly nutty rhetoric calling for military action against the Iranian nuclear program (following a similarly moderate tone before the Iraq war).”  They cite Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice-president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations,  who “accused ElBaradei of covering up Iran’s true nuclear weaponization capacities while he directed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog,” and conclude, “Israelis and prominent Jews have already begun working to discredit [ElBaradei’s] image…”

The Facts:  In 2009, France and Israel accused ElBaradei of intentionally “omitting evidence that the IAEA had been given [by Western intelligence] about an alleged covert weaponization plan” that involved the building of a nuclear bomb.

ElBaradei on Iran & Iraq

Regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the WMD controversy in Iraq, Scheindlin & Maor opine, “ElBaradei certainly has experience, and so far he was proven right on both Iran and Iraq…”

Glick references a current interview in which ElBaradei, “…dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran telling the Austrian News Agency, ‘There’s a lot of hype in this debate,’ and asserting that the discredited 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 remains accurate.”

The Facts:  In 2006, the #2 official in Saddam Hussein’s air force said that WMDs were moved across the border into Syria via civilian aircraft before the 2003 war.  This came out roughly 1 month after Israeli General Moshe Yaalon made it public that Saddam “transferred chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.”

Regarding Iran, the U.S. Government recently arrested an Iranian national “accused of operating an international smuggling network that illegally exported” weapons materials back to Iran to support their ballistic missle and nuclear programs.  As of the end of January, the British Defense Secretary declared that Iran could have a nuclear weapon by 2012, calling Israel’s estimate of 2015 “over-optimistic.”

ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood

Both Glick and Scheindlin & Maor agree that ElBaradei is willing to work with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Glick observed that the Muslim Brotherhood has backed Elbaradei’s “political aspirations.”    She also quotes ElBaradei from Der Spiegel : ‘We should stop demonizing the Muslim Brotherhood. …[T]hey have not committed any acts of violence in five decades. They too want change. If we want democracy and freedom, we have to include them instead of marginalizing them.’”

According to Glick, The Muslim Brotherhood “is the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaida,” seeks to transform Egypt into an Islamic regime, and has defended Hizbullah terrorists.

Scheindlin and Maor reserve comment on the character of the Muslim Brotherhood.  As for ElBaradei, they quote the opinion of one man who had met the “pro-Western liberal moderate” and gathered the impression that the quiet intellectual had “no basis of support” back in Egypt since he’s been away for so long.

The Facts:  The Muslim Brotherhood has a history of hating Israel, having “raised an army to fight Israel in its war of independence in 1948.  Its Palestinian branch was the nucleus for Hamas.”  According to some, it was a Brotherhood agent who assassinated Anwar Sadat after he signed a peace treaty with Israel.  According to others, it was a member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which later merged into Al Qaeda.  In a related fact, the Muslim Brotherhood has also supported Al Qaeda.  Their focus isn’t solely on Egypt or the Middle East:  One of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America is to “establish an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which…presents Islam as a civilization alternative.”

ElBaradei, now officially backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, supported the group on American television, remarking to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, “You know, the Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do with the Iranian model, has nothing to do with extremism, as we have seen it in Afghanistan and other places.  The Muslim Brotherhood is a religiously conservative group.  …We need to include them.  They are part of the Egyptian society, as much as the Marxist party here.”

Conclusions

On all three counts, Glick evidenced a clear ability to quote facts in drawing conclusions.  Scheindlin and Maor evidenced the ability to hand-pick citation and tailor it to the advantage of their opinions.  For example, Glick’s strong suit was in using primary source quotes from ElBaradei to illustrate his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Scheindlin and Maor’s ability to twist facts in order to suit their personal views was most evident in the case of their “Conspiracy Against ElBaradei” theory that managed to twist a known fact into a smear campaign against ElBaradei championed by “Israelis and prominent Jews”.  As a result, the former produced analysis while the latter expressed value judgments.


My brother once shared with me a professor’s saying, “There’s your truth, there’s my truth, and then there’s the Truth.”  At the time I remember thinking, “If your truth doesn’t chime with the Truth, what good is it?”  Opinion should never be the source of Truth.  However, in the world of 24-hour news and basement bloggers, opinion often draws more attention than fact.  Not to be solely lamented, well reasoned opinion can shine a light on the Truth at hand when done right.

Unfortunately, in this world, “done right” is a matter of opinion.

Originally published @ OurLastStand.com 

A Conservative Response to the Palestine Papers

"It is easier to dismiss claims that run contrary to what you already believe than to perhaps change your beliefs, but that fact alone doesn't invalidate what could be new facts."  That was one friend's response to my questioning of the validity and purpose of the "leaked" Palestine Papers this week.  Instead of recognizing the bias involved in Al-Jazeera leaking documents that Israelis readily concede will give Abbas and the Palestinian government a good standing internationally (and, consequently, continue to frame Israel as the evil, unwilling partner in negotiations), I'm supposed to be willing to concede to "what could be new facts" and change my entire way of thinking about the peace process.


Forget the fact that I've never really talked about the peace process or my opinions of the Palestinian government.  I am Conservative, and therefore right wing, and therefore I distrust the Palestinians and will seek to frame them in as evil a light as possible by my very political nature.


And I thought Leftists were supposed to be the supporters of open minds and open dialogue.


In his reaction to the Palestine Papers, J. J. Goldberg notes the complete lack of a response from the organized Jewish community that he tends to characterize as typically right wing in nature when it comes to supporting Israel, commenting, "The one thing nobody seems able to get their minds around is the idea that Israel might be in the wrong here. That would be much too awkward." 


Truthfully, if Jewish Leftists weren't such rampant environmentalists they'd probably have printed and distributed copies of the leaked documents with instructions to rub them in the faces of any Jewish right wingers they could find hiding under rocks.  Within the next month the Papers will no doubt be published in America by at least one Jewish Leftist organization under the title "Triumph!  Triumph at Last!"


So, what have they really won?  They have papers that allege a Palestinian partner willing to compromise on the Right of Return, Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and joint control of Jerusalem.  No actual peace agreement documents were included in the Papers, which only covered Palestinian discussions.  We don't know if these comments ever reached Israeli ears because we have no documentation to that effect.  We also don't have any official Palestinian verification of the documents in question.


In fact, what we do have is the Palestinian Cheif Negotiator, Saeb Erekat, condemning the release of the Palestine Papers and accusing Al-Jazeera of slander, saying that the leaked documents make him look like a traitor to his people.  According to Erekat, the leaks are the fault of a former CIA Agent and British national who now works for Al-Jazeera.  (Perhaps this is one of the conspiracy theories J.J. Goldberg is trying to blame on the right wing, which is funny; I didn't know Erekat, who claims that the leaks are "punishment for going against the United States in the Security Council" qualified as yet another one of those annoying Israeli & American flag-waving right wingers.)


Still functioning on the assumption that the Palestine Papers are really true, Goldberg does concede that the Palestinians are slightly somewhat to blame:

But that would overlook the Palestinian leadership’s contributions to the mess. They never told their public how much they were willing to give up to achieve statehood. No doubt they wanted to hold off admitting how much they were giving away until they could announce how much they were getting in return. That’s a basic rule of negotiating.


Unfortunately, the Palestinian leaders didn’t just keep their cards hidden. They adopted an emphatic public stance that was the opposite of their negotiating position: no compromise on refugees, no deviating from the 1967 borders, no demilitarization, no Israeli presence on the Temple Mount. The result was that the Palestinian public wasn’t prepared for the realities of peace. Not surprisingly, the leak of the Palestinian negotiating positions in January caused an uproar.

You could approach this in one of two ways: If the papers are true, then the Palestinian government plays one incredible game of poker.  If they aren't true, which is the official Palestinian government stance, then we are only left with what we do see coming out of the Palestinian leadership: an unwillingness to negotiate combined with a militant attitude towards Israel.

Perhaps that is why there has been so little conversation on the Palestine Papers outside of the Left Wing.  It is the Left Wing that consistently looks for hope where there is none, just as they continually assign blame where it doesn't belong.  The one solid conclusion that pragmatic Israeli analysts could draw from the leaks is "that the document leak aimed to harm Abbas's standing within the PA, but instead will raise his standing internationally."  Suddenly, the man who supposedly was willing to negotiate but refuses to verify that claim and stands behind a wall of non-negotiation becomes the international hero. I'm sure the Nobel committee is already taking the leaks into account for this year's nominations.

 

I can't answer for the mainstream Jewish (secretly right-wing cabal) community's lack of response to the Palestine Papers.  I can, however, say that from a Conservative perspective the Palestine Papers are nothing but the same old sorry news coming out of the Israeli-Palestinian sphere.  As for my personal Conservative, crazy right-wing views, it's like I explained to my friend: Like mostly everyone I know, I'm always willing to put a little John Lennon in my CD player. I'm also far too used to these types of stories: "Palestinians are willing peace partners!" only to be followed by "More terror attacks by [insert terror front's name here] on Israelis" followed by "Crackdown on security in West Bank" followed by "[Terror Group] using special ed kid as human sheild suicide bomber" or "rockets fired over Gaza Strip into Sderot" followed by "There will be no talks until the militant action stops!" followed by "Fine then, we aren't negotiating!" 

You either get beaten into submission by this cycle, or you start to say, "You know what? When you want peace, you'll tell the terrorists to knock it off and be the bigger guy, like Anwar Sadat. Oh, wait, no one wants to be the next Sadat. Nevermind."

If you think I'm oversimplifying my case, go back to 2008 when sources claim the Palestine Papers were written.  According to an incredibly well-documented count on Wikipedia, 1,528 mortars and 1,575 rockets were fired into Israel from the Gaza Strip the same year these unverified documents claim the Palestinian government was willing to make serious concessions for peace.  2008 ended in Operation Cast Lead in which Hamas terrorists in Gaza used a remarkable amount of civilians as human shields, with no condemnation or reaction from Abbas or his government.  To the contrary, it was the soldiers of the Israeli Defence Forces who were forced to undergo an ethics investigation after the war which concluded that "soldiers maintained a high professional and moral level while facing an enemy that aimed to terrorize Israeli civilians while taking cover behind uninvolved civilians in the Gaza area and using them as human shields."

When Al-Jazeera leaks some papers that indicate Abbas and his negotiating team condemn the terrorists in their midst who use innocent civilians as shields against peace, and when Abbas and his government walk out of Fatah Revolutionary Councils instead of participating in them, then I'll believe there's a chance for peace.  Until then, I can only go with the most recent reports regarding the Palestinian government's willingness to "negotiate":

"The Fatah council derogatorily rejected recognition of “the so-called Jewish state” or any “racist state based on religion.” It reasserted the “right of return” which, if implemented, would facilitate the end of a Jewish majority within the pre-1967 Green Line by allowing about four million Palestinian refugees and their offspring to settle in Israel proper.

Land swaps as part of a peace agreement were ruled out as well. Large settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, such as Gush Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim and other cities located just over the Green Line, consisting of no more than five percent of the West Bank, where about 80% around 320,000 Jews live, must be uprooted and settlers must be expelled, it decided.

...In what sounded more like a battle cry than a declaration, Fatah essentially articulated its intent to do everything short of relaunching an armed struggle to undermine the existence of the Jewish state."

Now, that's what I call giving peace a chance.

Religion, State & the Threat of Dictatorship

How can a State determine a citizen's relationship with God?

The American government was established on the idea that no government can define or interfere in a citizen’s relationship with the Divine.  For Israel, it is an entirely different matter; not only does the State interfere, the State defines this relationship for the individual as both a religious and a national concept. 

For Americans, religion is an act of choice that does not affect their status as citizens of the United States.  For Israelis, religion defines their status as citizens of the State.  In fact, for some Israeli politicians, religion is not only a matter of citizenship; it is a matter of national security.

Americans could never understand this concept because they have never had to live with it.  In fact, their government was created to avoid it.

But how do you avoid the religion-state relationship when you are Jewish?

Why did the colonialists seek to ensure that the government of America would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?  Did they do this to escape the corrupt church-state governments of Europe where priests and monarchs played the role of God?  Did they do this in order to be able to express their faith in a public forum without fear of persecution?  These are both true reasons and, perhaps, there is another to be found in the wording of the Declaration of Independence itself: the recognition that God, not the Protestant god, nor the Catholic god, nor the Jewish god, nor any other god, but God was the Creator who endowed every individual with inalienable rights.

I don’t see God being given much consideration in Israeli politics today.  Zionism, yes.  Religion, yes.  God?  No.  Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu Party advocates a national pledge to a Jewish State for purposes of Zionism.  Shas and UTJ oppose the ratification of a Conversion Bill because it goes against the established Rabbinical authorities.  The majority of Israelis sit between a rock and a hard place, between left and right, between nations that wait for their demise and politicians who are digging the grave.  Meanwhile, the people of God know nothing of God because they are too busy being told what does and doesn’t make them a Jew—that is, acceptable in God’s presence—by a group of rather corrupt individuals with high personal stakes and extremely limited objectivity.

It is strange for an American Jew to try and comprehend the idea that the food you put in your mouth, where you set your foot on Shabbat, or who your father did or didn’t fall in love with could impact your status as a citizen of the land you’re supposed to be able to call home.  It is even harder to understand how any religious leadership could declare a person who is willing to study for their nation to be a better person than the one who is willing to risk their life for their nation.  It is hard for American Jews to understand these things because ours is a Jewishness of choice.  If we want to wear peyas and sheitels, we do; if we want to drive on Shabbat, we do; if we want to marry gentiles and still raise our kids Jewish, we do.  America has afforded us the opportunity no other nation ever has; to make the choice as to whether or not we want to live Jewish lives on our own terms.

I am of the opinion that Israel must be a Jewish state simply because that is the destiny of Israel.  What “Jewish” means and how “Jewish” is expressed, despite the wishes of certain political parties cannot be legislated through mandated pledges, a minyan’s agreement, or a forced dictatorship.  God Himself knows you cannot change a person’s heart.  You can, however, “instruct them in the way they should go so that when they grow old, they will not sway from it.”  You can encourage them with joy instead of force and love instead of judgment.  You can instill pride of nation and of self so that the decisions they make as citizens will be in the best interests of the nation.

There are solutions to the fears that Zionists like Avigdor Lieberman face regarding the future of the Jewish State.  Perhaps if he spent less time agitating the Arabs and more time praising his people, and perhaps if the religious parties like Shas and UTJ spent less time politicizing religion and more time promoting faith, they might find them. 

Israelis are Drinking the Tea

As much as Jewish American liberals like to wince at their perception of racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic WASPy, and as Barack Obama would call them, "gun toting" Tea Partiers, it appears that the trend supercedes the love of Jesus, country music, and pulled pork.  Now, Israel's right wing is starting their own Tea Party.  And in case you're wondering whether or not Obama had anything to do with this one, the JPost, has described the Israeli Tea Party as one that "promises to be just as patriotic, provocative and antagonistic to Obama as [the]American version...".

Why are some Israelis in a rush to dump their leaders overboard? According to Michael Kleiner, former Likud legislator and "driving force" behind the Israeli Tea party,

"We believe President Obama is trying to force us to do things that most Israelis believe are very dangerous... We are being blackmailed to sacrifice our security and vital interests by another country, which is unprecedented."

Their discontent is far from off-base. As Caroline Glick recounted less than two weeks ago:

On Tuesday State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked, "Do you [i.e. the administration] recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it?

As Rick Richman at Commentary's blog noted, Crowley repeatedly tried to evade answering the question. Reporters were forced to repeat the question six times before Crowley managed to say, "We recognize that Israel is a - as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes."

As for whether or not the administration will try to convince the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state, Crowley could not bring himself to give a simple affirmative answer.

Crowley's refusal to give straight answers to straight questions about US recognition of Israel as a Jewish state shows that Israel has never faced a more unfriendly US administration. After all, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means recognizing that the Jewish people are a nation, and as a nation, the Jews have a right to self-determination in our national homeland. So recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Glick goes on to do more than advocate that Netanyahu steer clear of Obama's Middle East policies; she cites poll numbers that overwhelmingly prove that Israeli and American Jews, along with American voters at large, are relatively on the same page when it comes to the Obama Administration versus Israel.
Citing A survey of American Jewish opinion published this week by the American Jewish Committee:

78% of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008
51% approve of his performance in office today

49% of American Jews support Obama's handling of US-Israel relations
45% disapprove

62% of American Jews approve of Netanyahu's handling of US-Israel relations
27% disapprove

Glick goes on to cite another poll "...carried out from October 3-5 by the non-partisan McLaughlin and Associates survey research group for the pro-Israel Emergency Committee for Israel. It is the most in-depth poll of US sentiment towards Israel in recent memory. The poll broke down respondents by political affiliation, geographical area, religion, race, age, education level, sex, income level and ideological outlook."
Check out these results:

93.5% of Americans believe that the US should be concerned about Israel's security

77% of Americans believe the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish State

50.9% of Americans are more likely to vote for a staunchly pro-Israel candidate
25.2% are less likely to do so.

53% of Americans say they could not vote for an anti- Israel candidate even if they agreed with the candidate's positions on most other issues.

42.7% of Americans believe that the president's Middle East policies harm Israel's security
29.6% believe that they are improving Israel's security situation.

51.6% of Americans believe that Obama is less friendly towards Israel than his predecessors have been.
35.4% believe that he is as friendly towards Israel as his predecessors were.

69% of Republicans are more likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate
40% of Democrats are.

15% of Republicans are less likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate
33% of Democrats are less likely to vote for a candidate who strongly supports Israel.

5% of self-described liberals are pro-Israel.

This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe a series of commentators and wonks were discussing the fact that America is at a political crossroads of sorts, where the traditional definitions of "left" and "right" are no longer the same things as they were 40 or 50 years ago. The observation is correct. We are entering into a period that no longer looks at Republican or Democrat, or even Likud or Labor-- this is the era of Capitalists versus Socialists, of Republics versus Communist states, and nowhere is this more clearly illustrated that the relationship between America and Israel.

Average voters, the non-politicians who are the most affected by policy and the most likely to pay for the politicians' mistakes, are tired of being pushed (again, to quote President Obama) "to the back of the bus".  Now, thanks in large part to that endless resource known as the Internet where nobody (and no agenda) can hide, the truth is out in the open for all the voters to see and hear in an environment where they are free to respond.  And freedom is contageous.  Goodbye, old-world political hierarchies; this is Politics 2.0.

Tea, anyone?