Reflections of a Lapsed Orthodox Jew

Who Is a Jew? Two Very Different New Answers

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:36:08 -0400

To the perennial question, the past month has produced interesting and potentially contradictory answers.

The July 8 issue of Nature has a paper called “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people.” In it, far-flung scientists in Israel, Spain, Portugal, Russia and elsewhere report on the first systematic genetic analysis of the various, even farther-flung Jewish populations to be based on whole-genome studies. It largely confirms previous findings, which have shown that almost all Jewish populations have a lot of Middle Eastern genes, although the Jews of Ethiopia and India are closer to their host populations.

But there is a lot of news here. First, the Middle Eastern population that the Jews of the world most resemble is that of the Druze in Israel. Second, the Ashkenazi Jews are actually very like the Jews from around the Mediterranean, while those of the Middle East and the Caucasus seem to form a second cluster, and the Yemenite Jews a third, somewhat closer to the Bedouin. But all of these are close to each other and the Druze.

All Jews have mixed genetically with surrounding non-Jewish people, but the Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel) are more like their host populations, although Y-chromosome studies show that the Bene Israel have a Middle Eastern connection on the paternal side.

What does all this tell us? Well, the Jews of the world overwhelmingly did originate where they say they did. Also, they were not shy about bringing in significant doses of non-Jewish genes over the centuries, although most Jewish groups did less of this, more often mating among themselves. The Ethiopian and Indian exceptions imported more genes.

All these groups have of course been officially designated as Jewish by the Israeli Orthodox rabbinate. Which is why the other new definition of who is a Jew is a bit strange. Also, it has the American diaspora practically up in arms.

A new law before the Knesset, already passed out of committee for parliamentary debate, will place all conversions, and therefore countless future marriages, in the hands of a tiny group of ultra-Orthodox rabbis. They will be empowered to and almost certainly will challenge the validity of not only non-Orthodox but also modern Orthodox conversions, outside of as well as inside Israel.

Large numbers of Jews converted in the United States will no longer be considered Jewish and therefore not allowed immigrate under the Law of Return or, if they have already done that, to marry in Israel, even if they have served in the army, lived in Israel many years, etc. Equally subject to question will be anyone whose mother’s conversion can be similarly challenged, or whose mother’s mother’s…

Don’t laugh. Couples trying to marry in Israel recently have had their Jewishness checked and challenged going back three generations. It’s a good thing these rules weren’t in place for the last two millennia. We’d have a worldwide Jewish population more like thirteen thousand than thirteen million.

Alana Newhouse, editor of the online Jewish magazine Tablet, wrote in The New York Times, “The redemptive history of the Jewish people since the Holocaust has rested on the twin pillars of a strong Israel and a strong diaspora…Neither the Jewish diaspora nor Israel can afford a split between the two communities…”

The Jerusalem Post, in an editorial, said the Diaspora’s should react “with dismay” and noted, “Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky called it ‘betrayal.’ The executive vice president of the Conservative Movement’s Rabbinical Assembly, Rabbi Julie Schoenfeld, referred to it as ‘destructive.’ Reform Movement head Rabbi Eric Yoffie said it was ‘astonishing, foolish, disruptive.’”

The JPost editorial goes on: “In recent years, discussion among Jewish leaders and thinkers both in Israel and in the Diaspora has gradually moved away from narrow definitions of Judaism based on religious and ethnic criteria toward a broader more inclusive concept known as ‘peoplehood.’ First coined by Rabbi Mordechai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism, peoplehood is ‘the awareness which an individual has of being a member of a group that is known, both by its own members and by outsiders, as a people.’”

Of course, this is the one definition that is consistent with the genetic and historical evidence—not to mention common sense.

I don’t mean to say that all who simply declare themselves to be Jewish should get the label; that would invite abuse of the Law of Return and dilute the Jewish people with many who don’t really want to belong to it. But surely it is not just a small band of a certain brand of ultra-Orthodox rabbis who have the sole right to judge the sincerity and determination of potential converts.

Consult the genes and read therein the more sensible definitions we have had in the past. Insistence on this new law will only fragment and weaken the Jewish people at a moment when new threats, new jeopardy, require the utmost unity.

Making Nice

Thu, 8 Jul 2010 02:42:54 -0400

The press conference on Wednesday, July 7 following the meeting between Israel’s Prime Minister and President Obama was nothing less than a love-fest. The President began by praising a ceremonial Fourth of July speech by his counterpart before coming to the U.S.:

“As Prime Minister Netanyahu indicated in his speech, the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable. It encompasses our national security interests, our strategic interests, but most importantly, the bond of two democracies who share a common set of values and whose people have grown closer and closer as time goes on…”

The president praised progress, such as it is, in Gaza, but soon moved to Israel’s highest priority:

“… [W]e have instituted through the U.N. Security Council the toughest sanctions ever directed at an Iranian government. In addition, last week I signed our own set of sanctions, coming out of the United States Congress, as robust as any that we've ever seen. Other countries are following suit. And so we intend to continue to put pressure on Iran to meet its international obligations.”

Obama thoroughly deemphasized past tensions: “We’ve seen over the last year how our relationship has broadened. Sometimes it doesn’t get publicized, but on a whole range of issues -- economic, military-to-military, issues related to Israel maintaining its qualitative military edge, intelligence-sharing, how we are able to work together effectively on the international front -- that in fact our relationship is continuing to improve. And I think a lot of that has to do with the excellent work that the Prime Minister has done. So I’m grateful.”

Netanyahu cut to the chase: “The greatest new threat on the horizon, the single most dominant issue for many of us, is the prospect that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons. Iran is brutally terrorizing its people, spreading terrorism far and wide. And I very much appreciate the President’s statement that he is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

He noted international sanctions followed by tougher U.S. ones, “And I urge other leaders to follow the President’s lead... to adopt much tougher sanctions against Iran, primarily those directed against its energy sector.”

In the question period the Prime Minister pressed the issue further: “I think the latest sanctions adopted by the U.N. create illegitimacy or create de-legitimization for Iran’s nuclear program, and that is important. I think the sanctions the President signed the other day actually have teeth. They bite.

“The question is -- how much do you need to bite is something I cannot answer now.”

Then came a two-part impolite question, in an Israeli accent:

Q “Mr. President, in the past year, you distanced yourself from Israel and gave a cold shoulder to the Prime Minister. Do you think this policy was a mistake? Do you think it contributes to the bashing of Israel by others? And is that -- you change it now, and do you trust now Prime Minister Netanyahu?

“And if I may, Mr. Prime Minister, specifically, did you discuss with the President the continuing of the freezing of settlements after September? And did you tell him that you’re going to keep on building after this period is over?”

President Obama played hardball with the questioner but softball with Netanyahu:

“Well, let me, first of all, say that the premise of your question was wrong and I entirely disagree with it… every public statement that I’ve made … has been a constant reaffirmation of the special relationship between the United States and Israel, that our commitment to Israel’s security has been unwavering. And, in fact, there aren’t any concrete policies that you could point to that would contradict that.

“And in terms of my relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, I know the press, both in Israel and stateside, enjoys seeing if there’s news there. But the fact of the matter is that I’ve trusted Prime Minister Netanyahu since I met him before I was elected President, and have said so both publicly and privately.

“I think that he is dealing with a very complex situation in a very tough neighborhood. And what I have consistently shared with him is my interest in working with him -- not at cross-purposes -- so that we can achieve the kind of peace that will ensure Israel’s security for decades to come.

“And that's going to mean some tough choices. And there are going to be times where he and I are having robust discussions about what kind of choices need to be made. But the underlying approach never changes, and that is the United States is committed to Israel’s security; we are committed to that special bond; and we are going to do what’s required to back that up, not just with words but with actions.

“We are going to continually work with the Prime Minister … as well as the Israeli people, so that we can achieve what I think has to be everybody’s goal, which is that people feel secure. They don't feel like a rocket is going to be landing on their head sometime. They don't feel as if there’s a growing population that wants to direct violence against Israel.”

Netanyahu also did not like the question, saying, “I’ll have to paraphrase Mark Twain, that the reports about the demise of the special U.S.-Israel relations -- relationship aren’t just premature, they're just flat wrong. There’s a depth and richness of this relationship that is expressed every day. Our teams talk. We don't make it public. The only thing that's public is that you can have differences on occasion in the best of families and the closest of families; that comes out public -- and sometimes in a twisted way, too.

“What is not told is the fact that we have an enduring bond of values, interests, beginning with security and the way that we share both information and other things to help the common defense of our common interests -- and many others in the region who don't often admit to the beneficial effect of this cooperation.

“So I think there’s -- the President said it best in his speech in Cairo. He said in front of the entire Islamic world, he said, the bond between Israel and the United States is unbreakable. And I can affirm that to you today.”

The President praised the slight loosening of the Gaza blockade in the wake of the flotilla disaster, evaded a question about freezing settlements, and all in all gave the impression of a man who had won 78 percent of the Jewish vote and hoped to do that again. Critics accused him of “going wobbly” on Netanyahu. He tried to make it sound like a win-win situation, but it looked like a victory for Israel and an American retreat.

For those who think Israel should have a free hand in all its dealings while being able to count on U.S. support, the meeting went well. For those looking for tough love from Obama to nudge Israel closer to peace with a future Palestinian state, it looked like a sweep for current Israeli policy, and Obama did look soft.

Some say Netanyahu is waiting for 2012, when he expects Obama gone. But American elections are notoriously hard to predict this far out. One strategy for Obama might be to bide his time, making nice until this November, but then come down hard on what he surely still sees as Israel’s intransigence in the face of an increasingly hostile world.

And Now the Apologies? Don’t Hold Your Breath

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:55:29 -0400

Some further reports about the flotilla episode of May 31st:

According to the IDF as reported by the Jerusalem Post, about 50 of the 700 or so passengers on the Mavi Marmara were prepared and trained to incite violence. Many of the 50 were carrying thick envelopes, each containing thousands of dollars in cash. Some reports put the total at a million Euros. Among the cash-bearers was a group of mercenaries recruited from the city of Bursa in northwest Turkey.

Widely seen videos from the ship’s security cameras show this group preparing to meet the Israeli soldiers boarding the ship. Preparations included wielding metal pipes, slingshots, knives, and other “cold weapons,” as well as gas masks and bulletproof vests. After these preparations the men dispersed into smaller groups and waited for the Israelis.

Each Israeli boarding was surrounded by four or more men and beaten with pipes as well as stabbed and in one case thrown 30 feet from the upper to the lower deck. This was a carefully planned ambush. All nine men killed were in this armed group attacking Israeli soldiers.

According to the Palestinian daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (as translated by Palestine Media Watch), at least three of the attackers were determined seekers of martyrdom. The wife of one said, “he constantly prayed to Allah to grant him Shahada (Martyrdom).” Of another, his brother-in-law said, “Allah granted him the death that he wished for.”

A video made by flotilla participants and seen on Al Jazeera days before the confrontation shows a woman saying, "Right now we face one of two happy endings: either Martyrdom or reaching Gaza." A group chants, “Oh Jews, remember Khaibar,” the place where Mohamed defeated the Jews, “The army of Mohamed will return!”

The Israeli account of the raid and the soldiers’ actions in self-defense are visible in widely available videos. It is also confirmed by an Al Jazeera camera man, Andre Abu Khalil, who is from Lebanon and who provided eyewitness testimony to Reuters. His account is similar to those provided by the Israelis who landed on the ship.

The possibility exists that elements in the Turkish government knew exactly what these people were about, and helped them on their way. Prime Minister Erdogan himself, who has been vehemently attacking Israel since the Gaza war, is believed by some analysts to have a program of restoring Turkish leadership in the Islamic world, as it once had during the Ottoman Empire.

This may require disengaging from the process of trying to join Europe, rejecting and verbally assaulting Israel, and distancing himself from the United States, all while trying politically to defeat pro-Western parties in his own country. It is possible, though in my view not likely, that his government played a semi-official role in the violent provocation planned for the Gaza flotilla.

In any case, the narrative of Israeli commandos brutally attacking defenseless pacifists bearing humanitarian aid is a complete myth.

It is likely that many of the people on board that ship, like those on the other five (completely peaceful) ships in the flotilla and on the Rachel Corrie, which was boarded peacefully days later, were really humanitarian activists. It is likely that many were unaware that there was a minority on the ship preparing for confrontation and martyrdom, bolstered by highly trained mercenaries. Few may have known that they were aiding such people, or that they were helping to smuggle many thousands of dollars into the hands of Hamas.

But now the world does know these things. Or does it? They are certainly not getting the sort of coverage that the Israeli “massacre” of “innocent peace activists” was getting a week ago. So will the backtracking and apologizing soon begin? Like I said, keep breathing, they’ll take a while.

Floating Nightmare

Thu, 3 Jun 2010 15:29:09 -0400

A feeling of pervasive sadness and, of course, obsession with the news. There are ways to spin this (as always) to make the world’s treatment of Israel seem unfair, since (as always) it is unfair. There are certainly ways to explain it that exonerate the naval commandos, if not their high commanders.

But there is no way to spin it that makes it any less of a tragedy for all concerned—most of all for the dead and their families; but second most of all, for Israel. Nor is there any way to spin it that makes it anything less than a victory for Hamas.

In case you’ve been hiding under a rock the past few days, Israeli navy commandos boarded six ships in a flotilla of self-styled peace activists, bound for Gaza with ten thousand tons of mostly innocuous supplies, in international waters. The operation was five sixths successful; crews and passengers on five of the six ships complied with Israeli warnings, were escorted to the port of Ashdod, held for a day or two, and released, while their cargoes were inspected and (with some exceptions) prepared for shipment to Gaza.

But that’s not the five sixths that matters. On the sixth ship, the commandos were set upon as they descended from their helicopter, beaten severely with metal rods and bats, thrown from the upper to the lower deck or into the water, knifed, and/or shot. They defended themselves, and at least nine of the six hundred civilians on the ship were killed, many more wounded.

Videos prove that this was the way events unfolded, and that the crude weapons were at the ready on the ship. Clearly the activists, or more likely some subgroup of them, had been thoroughly prepared. They had their little arsenal, and they had live-streaming video broadcast on Al-Jazeera almost in real time—showing their side of the story of course. This was a classic, planned provocation of the strong by the weak, and it worked like a charm.

As Haaretz put it, Israel walked right into the trap set by the activists. Perhaps they had ties to Hamas and even Al-Qaeda, implausible as the latter connection seems. It doesn’t matter. The world only sees, hears, and feels bleeding civilians, engaged in a humanitarian effort to break the siege of Gaza.

For now, Israel has secured the blockade, a battle won. I hope this is a very important victory, because the likely price of it includes:
--the final nail in the coffin of its special relationship with Turkey, long a natural ally and a trump card in the Islamic world;
--condemnation by France, Germany, Spain, Italy, China, and countless other nations across the globe;
--embarrassment, once again, of the United States, by far Israel’s best friend, but a friend whose patience cannot last forever;
--the burden placed on Jews throughout the world of defending, again, tactics that most people find indefensible;
--the likely postponement of organized international action against Iran to stop its nuclear program, an existential threat to Israel;
--and most important, a massive strategic defeat in the war for the hearts and minds of all humanity, and a big victory for the enemies of Israel and the Jews.

There is no blame, in my view, for the naval officers and sailors. They warned the crews of the six vessels loudly and clearly that they would not allow them to approach the Gaza Strip; they described exactly what they were going to do, which was what they in fact did with five of the ships, their passengers, and cargoes. On the sixth they were assaulted by violent mobs that greatly outnumbered them. They had a right to self-defense.

Does this matter to the world at large? No.

Therefore, Israel has two choices. One is to say, We’ve always stood alone (a dangerous falsification of history) and The world will hate us no matter what we do (most countries that counted loved Israel in 1947, 1967, 1973, and 1993) and We can only rely on God (God, Israel should have learned, helps those who help themselves, and not just with guns).

Choice number two is not to jump when the world says jump. But it’s also not to turn a deaf ear to the world’s concerns. I leave it up to Israel to decide how to listen. But stonewalling is a default to option one above, which will not work much longer. And the clock is ticking.

Shame in South Africa’s Jewish Community

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:21:21 -0400

According to a front-page article in The New York Times of April 16—fortunately below the fold—Richard Goldstone, South Africa’s most distinguished jurist, lifelong opponent of apartheid and supporter of Nelson Mandela when that was a dangerous thing to be, internationally respected prosecutor of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, Trustee of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and, yes, also the main author of the now-infamous Goldstone Report, which unfairly and one-sidedly indicted Israel for war crimes in Gaza, will be unable to attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah because South African Jews threatened to demonstrate against him and ruin the happy occasion.

For shame. Is this supposed to be good for the Jews?—literally to stand between a young boy and his grandfather, because the elder has taken a position unpopular with the community? Does the Jewish community of South Africa have no other way of expressing its opinion than to destroy the joy of what should be a blessed event in the life of a boy and a family? Is it their view that the whole family must pay for the sin or the foolishness of the grandfather?

This is not the random action of some rogue elements in the South African Jewish community, or a bunch of unruly teenagers. This was an official threat from the South African Zionist Federation, and the ultimate “deal” was brokered by South Africa’s Beth Din, or official religious court. According to reports, the head of the court, Rosh Beth Din Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag, said, "I know that there was a very strong feeling in the shul, a lot of anger. I heard also that the SAZF wanted to organize a protest outside the shul - [there were] all kinds of plans. But I think reason prevailed."

For shame. Reason did not prevail, thuggery did. This was like a Mafia operation. The great rabbi and his elevated court offered to protect the boy and his family…from what? From a sort of pogrom against a Jewish family in their midst which the Beth Din could easily have prevented with another order—a just one, forbidding the Zionist Federation from taking action against the family and the synagogue.

This will be a permanent blot on the reputation of the South African Jewish community, on Rabbi Kurstag, and most importantly on the Jewish community of the world. Is this the vaunted bravery and self-defense of the Jews today? Trashing the bar mitzvah of a completely innocent boy in order to punish the sins of his ancestor? For shame.

Make no mistake. The Goldstone Report was a grave blow to the reputation of Israel and the Jewish people, a twisted, grotesque distortion of the truth. Justice Goldstone proved himself a nar, a fool, in collaborating with the enemies of Israel to condemn it one-sidedly for defending itself in Gaza. It gave scant attention to the years of provocation by rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli civilians. It noted only in passing the fact that Hamas’s basic strategy from start to finish was and is to use the civilian population of Gaza as human shields, making casualties of the innocent inevitable.

And it did not consult the expert opinion of Colonel Richard Kemp, former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan, who testified to the U.N. Human Rights Council after the Goldstone Report was published, as he had said many times in public previously, that “the IDF did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”

Here is more of his testimony:

“The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.

“Despite all of this, of course innocent civilians were killed. War is chaos and full of mistakes. There have been mistakes by the British, American and other forces in Afghanistan and in Iraq, many of which can be put down to human error. But mistakes are not war crimes.

“More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas’ way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.”

It is fitting to repeat this on Yom Ha’Zikaron, the day of remembrance of the fallen in Israel’s wars: Israel’s soldiers have always been more, not less careful than other armies to try to avoid civilian deaths.

But what does this have to do with the right of a boy in a Johannesburg suburb to have his tateh present in shul to hear him called to the Torah for the first time in his life? Nothing whatsoever.

The grandpa’s narishkayt—foolishness—was indeed bad for Israel and the Jews. But the actions of the South African Jewish community are not just foolishness, they are instead a deliberate and nasty attack on a child, a family, and a revered Jewish tradition. They are not defending the Jewish people with these actions, they are dragging its reputation through the dirt, and confirming the worst opinions the world now has of us.

Reason prevails when words like those of Colonel Kemp are opposed to those of the Goldstone Report, not when a mob threatens a boy’s bar mitzvah, and a rabbi, acting like a Mafia don, “reasons” with that boy’s grandfather to keep the two apart.

For shame.