Passover Thoughts -- Indiana and Elsewhere

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.” As Jews, we can take pride in the fact that it is our story of our liberation from Egypt which has, more than any other, inspired the human quest to make the world a more just place.

In the last week or so, this country has seen what I believe to be a decisive turn in the struggle for equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans. As I write this, the Indiana legislature is revising its recently passed “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” to eliminate the possibility that the law will be used to allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. The Georgia legislature is holding back on a similar bill -- after a number of Conservative rabbis were among the religious leaders testifying against it. The Arkansas legislature is revising its bill after Gov. Asa Hutchinson threatened to veto it, spurred on, he said, by a request from his own son.

I recognize that within the Conservative movement, within our congregation and in our society as a whole there is a spectrum of beliefs regarding the issue of same-sex marriage. My own position on the issue in terms of halacha is that I would if asked be willing to officiate at a same-sex ceremony between two Jews, but it is not kiddushin, consecrated Jewish marriage. This position has the “virtue” of seeming too restrictive to most gays and lesbians while at the same time seeming radically permissive to those on the more traditional end of the Conservative spectrum.

It should also be noted that federal and state laws carve out a great deal of autonomy for religious organizations to handle these issues in accordance with their own beliefs. No clergy person can be forced to officiate at a marriage he/she thinks is not religiously acceptable. No congregation can be forced to accept any person as a member or even to comply with antidiscrimination laws as long as the religious body asserts that its actions are doctrinally required. For example, a religious group that feels homosexuality is a sin is free to discriminate against gays and lesbians in hiring clergy, religious school teachers, and even church secretaries or janitors if it asserts that this is what their religion requires. This is unlikely to change any time soon, nor should it.

But a pizzeria, a bakery or a florist shop is not a church. As Charles M. Blow wrote Wednesday in the New York Times: “when you enter the sphere of commerce in America — regardless of your “deeply held religious beliefs” — you have entered a nondiscriminatory zone in which your personal beliefs are checked at the register, and each customer is treated equally.

This is not to say that a gay couple on the eve of commitment should want to patronize a bigoted baker for a wedding cake, but rather that the refusal to render services based on that bigotry is untenable.”

My paternal grandfather was one of six children but only five of them lived long enough to migrate from Belarus to the United States. According to family legend, one brother died when he fell ill during the week before Easter and the Christian doctor in their town, acting from his own “deeply held religious beliefs”, refused to treat Jews that week. So I am not predisposed to accept “deeply held religious beliefs” as a reason to discriminate against other people in commerce or the public square.

This Pesach, as we celebrate and give thanks to God for our freedom, let us commit once again to helping to “bend the arc” towards greater justice for all.

A Report from the AIPAC Policy Conference

   Earlier this week I was one of 16,000 attendees at the annual Policy Conference of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Policy Conference is the major gathering of what AIPAC calls the “pro-Israel community.” I want to share with you some of my thoughts and impressions from the Conference.

            The Policy Conference is always a newsworthy event with high-level representation from both Israel (often the Prime Minister) and the US (sometimes the President or Vice-President, always a Cabinet-level officer.) This year it was even more so as it coincided with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress and all of the controversy surrounding that event. Almost until the last minute there was drama surrounding the lineup of speakers. Would Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog also appear? (He didn’t, although he was invited.) Would the White House snub the conference by refusing to send anyone at all, as a way of showing their displeasure with Netanyahu? (In fact, both National Security Advisor Susan Rice and UN Ambassador Samantha Power spoke -- both considered Cabinet level positions.)

            Although I have attended other AIPAC events before, this was my first Policy Conference. It was an extremely impressive and well-managed undertaking. I registered for all of my breakout sessions online and received my delegate credentials in the mail several days before the conference. AIPAC’s information system knew not only that I am a rabbi but that I am a Conservative rabbi, a member of the Rabbinical Assembly, and automatically added three rabbinic programs and one Rabbinical Assembly program to my schedule. The AIPAC Smartphone App kept track of my program, told me what rooms my various sessions were in and even mapped my way to each room. All of this avoided the dreaded check-in line as well as endless announcements for room changes and so on.

            In general I was extremely impressed with all of the details of running a conference. Seating in the plenary sessions was by lanyard color -- the more you donated the closer to the stage you sat, except that rabbis got lavender lanyards which allowed us to sit with the $1200 donors rather than in the general section. Multiple sections and multiple entrances meant that despite the crowd of 16,000, there wasn’t a huge line to get in to the sessions. For other special interest programs (like those for rabbis) various ribbons attached to your credentials got you into the session, saving the necessity of checking people in at the door. A massive kosher cafeteria was set up in the basement of the convention center. There was never too long of a wait to buy food, and while the food was expensive it wasn’t outrageously so and it was decent if not gourmet.

            The production values were impressive as well. Lots of video screens, some showing the action on the stage and others showing complementary photos or graphics. The sound quality was excellent. At every session there was a bottle of water and a small snack placed at every seat.  All in all, it was like a combination of a political convention, a pep rally and a rock concert.

            The main focus of the event of course was the US - Israel relationship. Whatever the justification or necessity of Prime Minister Netanyahu addressing Congress, it was clear that his plan to do so had angered the White House and put many Democratic legislators in a difficult position. It also carried with it the potential of alienating many rank-and-file Democrats and thus making AIPAC’s job tougher. Remember, AIPAC’s goal is to strengthen support for Israel in the government and the U.S. public across-the-board, a responsibility it takes quite seriously. And so there were a number of panels specifically geared towards making the case for Israel from a progressive perspective, reminding us that for all it’s flaws and problems Israel is light years ahead of its neighbors in women’s status, LGBT rights, and in so many other measures of what makes for an enlightened society. One such panel which I attended featured CNN contributor and Al Gore’s campaign manager Donna Brazile, and another featured Israeli author Ari Shavit of “My Promised Land” fame.

            I want to share a few thoughts about some of the plenary talks and the whole controversy surrounding the Prime Minister’s congressional address. I claim no greater expertise in politics or foreign policy than anyone else in our congregation, nor do I speak for anyone but myself. The purpose of my comments is to try and interpret what I saw and heard and make the disagreements we have intelligible.

            The first thing that needs to be said, in my opinion, is that speakers across the spectrum made it very clear that the goal and necessity is preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The argument is not about whether Iran should be allowed to go nuclear but rather about what is the best way to prevent Iran from going nuclear. That fact is sometimes obscured in all the rhetoric.

            The second thing to bear in mind is that for all their disagreements with Israel, the Arab states fear a nuclear Iran as much as if not more than Israel. A number of speakers pointed out that although the whole world knows Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades, none of the Arab states have felt the need to react by getting their own bomb. But if Iran goes nuclear, they have made it clear, the Arab states will want nuclear weapons as well, thus destabilizing the entire region.

            I’ve made no secret of the fact that I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision to speak to Congress was unwise. Of course, time will tell whether this proves to be the case or not. His decision did backfire in at least one respect; Democratic senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey held up his own bill to increase sanctions against Iran until after both the Israeli elections and the March 24 deadline for the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Where it once seemed likely that Congress would pass the Kirk-Menendez bill by a veto-proof majority, it now seems that this won’t happen due to some Democrats’ dissatisfaction with the perceived insult to President Obama by the Speaker and the Prime Minister.

            Having said that, I thought the Prime Minister’s speeches at AIPAC and to Congress were both very good. (He gave essentially the same speech both days.) He made it very clear that he respects both the President and the Presidency; that he regrets his speech has been perceived as a slight to the President; and that he appreciates the support the United States continues to provide Israel politically, financially and militarily. He made the case why he thinks the proposed deal with Iran is dangerous: it would allow Iran to keep many elements of its nuclear infrastructure, it is only for ten years, and Iran has a history of violating agreements it signs.

            If this is the case -- and it certainly is -- why then is the Obama administration moving forward? National Security Advisor Susan Rice made the case in a speech studded with Hebrew phrases and references to her strong support of Israel going back to her first visit there at age 14.

            The question hinges on multilateralism. Is it important for the attempt to prevent Iran from going nuclear to be a joint project of the US with Russia, France, China, Germany and the UK? Or is it sufficient for the US and Israel to go it alone? While it would be great if Iran could be left without even civilian nuclear components, Iran will never agree and the rest of the world will not support that demand, Ambassador Rice said. If the US ramps up its demands Iran will walk away from the table, the other countries in the negotiations will drop their sanctions and Iran will actually be closer to developing nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister thinks Iran can be forced to agree to a more onerous treaty by threat of greater sanctions; the President and the State Department think that won’t work. If the talks collapse and there is no treaty and Iran continues its nuclear weapons program, the only alternative will be military action. Given our recent experiences in Iran and Afghanistan, is that something the US public will support?

            I am grateful to the anonymous Kehilat Shalom member who paid my attendance to this Conference. It helped me to better understand what is at stake in the debate over the Iranian nuclear negotiations and where the differences in the two approaches lie. It made me feel good to be in the same room as 16,000 other Americans who are deeply committed to a strong and secure Israel, even as we might disagree over other political issues as well as what is the best way to keep Israel secure and strong. And I gained increasing respect for AIPAC in its organizational abilities and its commitment to a bipartisan approach. I’ve already signed up for AIPAC’s Rabbinic Seminar in August.

The Uneaten TV Dinner

In the last few days there has been quite a kerfuffle in the Jewish press and blogs about United Synagogue Youth's International Convention deciding to amend its policy which forbade USY board members from any relationship "which could be construed as interdating." Instead of a blanket prohibition, the new language encourages USY leaders to serve as positive examples of proper Jewish dating behavior, including the importance of dating other Jews but also dealing with how we treat those with whom we are in a relationship. Sadly, this has been portrayed as USY "abandoning its standards." But why is Conservative Judaism so fixated on rules and standards?

The author Zev Chafets served as director of the Israel government press office under the late Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He accompanied the first delegation of Israeli journalists to visit Egypt, shortly after President Anwar Sadat’s historic visit to Jerusalem in November 1977.

The delegation was travelling under the auspices of the Israeli government, and all Israeli government delegations are required to eat kosher food. So at the request of the Israeli government, the Egyptians provided kosher frozen meals in the hotel where the delegates were staying. (You can imagine that in 1977 this was not an easy thing for them to do.) But the Israeli journalists were all non-observant and preferred to enjoy the hummus, tahina and kebobs from the hotel’s regular buffet, so the pile of TV dinners sat untouched. Finally one of the Egyptian officials said to Chafets that he was starting to understand Judaism. Apparently, he said, Jewish law requires that the kosher food be present but no one actually needs to eat it.

There are times when I think that the Egyptian official was onto something. Certainly he can be forgiven for his assumptions.  Conservative Judaism in particular seems at times to be primarily about enforcing policies that no one really wants to follow. Congregations will be torn apart due to arguments over including or excluding certain prayers, yet how many of the people participating in these arguments pray on a regular basis?

When I lived in Baltimore I sometimes attended an Orthodox synagogue not far from our apartment. This synagogue always had “seu’dah sh’lishit,” the so-called “third meal” between afternoon and evening services on Saturday. But one year on the Shabbat before Passover, the synagogue kitchen had already been cleaned for Passover and thus the synagogue could not provide this required meal. Congregants were instructed simply to bring their own food for “seu’dah sh’lishit.” I was astonished. Every Conservative synagogue with which I am familiar has an elaborate kashrut policy. Some do not allow any outside food at all unless it is prepared under rabbinic supervision and comes into the synagogue sealed. Others allow congregants to prepare food at home but only if they follow certain policies and procedures and if the rabbi has approved their kitchen as sufficiently kosher. No Conservative synagogue would simply tell all of its members to bring their own food to a meal, certainly not to one actually held right there in the shul.

How is it that this Orthodox synagogue could allow something that no Conservative synagogue would consider? Actually, it’s quite simple. The shul in question is not the type of Orthodox synagogue where almost everyone drives to shul on Shabbat but parks a block away. Everyone in that synagogue actually lives an Orthodox lifestyle and therefore the synagogue is able to assume that all its members keep kosher. There is no need for an elaborate policy designed to make sure that the members don’t bring non-kosher food to the synagogue. No one would dream of doing so.

Many of our rules and policies come into place precisely because of the conflict between what the Conservative Movement and its individual bodies stand for institutionally and the lifestyle that its members actually practice individually. At times the Conservative movement has dealt with this dissonance head-on and legitimized in theory what everyone was already doing in practice anyway. The classic example is the Rabbinical Assembly’s 1950 responsum which permitted driving to and from the synagogue on Shabbat. This was clearly a case of yielding to necessity. The post-World War II exodus to the suburbs meant that fewer and fewer congregants lived within walking distance of their synagogues. The synagogues often followed their members out to the suburbs (as for example B’nai Israel which was once in the District but now is in Rockville) but this of course often left a cadre of members who still lived near the old location. In addition, suburbs are often spread out and lack sidewalks, so that almost everyone came to believe that walking to synagogue was not really an option. The 1950 responsum took this reality into account, but specified that it was permissible only to drive to synagogue and back home -- not anywhere else. In 1950, there may well have been Conservative Jews who followed that limitation. Many Conservative rabbis and cantors -- including me -- still do, but I wonder how many Conservative lay people actually do so.

But wasn’t Orthodox Judaism impacted by the rise of suburbia too? To some extent, yes -- and thus the phenomenon I described above of driving to shul and parking a block away. Some Orthodox synagogues with large numbers of non-observant members chain their parking lots shut on Shabbat so their members don’t park there on Shabbat and make it seem as if the synagogue is condoning Shabbat desecration. One Baltimore Orthodox synagogue (not the one I described above!) actually sells its parking lot to a non-Jew every Friday afternoon and buys it back every Saturday night (I swear I am not making this up.) But the kind of Orthodox synagogue I am describing, with few members who actually live an Orthodox lifestyle, is rapidly disappearing. More and more, Orthodox synagogues consist mostly of practicing Orthodox Jews.

Such a person does not buy a house only to then discover that the synagogue is too far to walk. He or she finds out where the synagogue is located and then looks to find a house within walking distance. Houses within walking distance to an Orthodox synagogue sell for more than similar houses that are not within walking distance, because Orthodox families are willing to pay more for them.

The reason for this is really quite simple. Orthodox Jews actually believe that God wants them to walk to shul on Shabbat. They don’t believe that God said it’s “a nice idea” to do so. They don’t believe that it just makes for a nicer, more cohesive community if everyone lives near the shul and walks. They believe that driving to shul is a direct violation of an explicit divine command.

And we don’t. I have spoken and written before about our insistence on translating the word “mitzvah” as “good deed” when in fact it means “commandment.” But to believe in a “commandment” requires us to believe in a God who gives commands and means them to be obeyed.

The reasons why most Jews no longer believe in that type of God are complicated and varied. Some Jews feel that the Holocaust means God no longer has a right to demand anything from the Jewish people. Some people feel that discoveries in the fields of history and archeology debunk the traditional understanding of divine revelation. Some, perhaps many, Jews, don’t really think about their beliefs much at all. They do what feels comfortable because it furthers a way of life they find meaningful.

But “because God said so” doesn’t carry much weight with the overwhelming majority of Jews, because while they may believe in God they don’t really believe that “He said so.” And so, we fall back on rules and policies which we attempt to enforce, even though nobody but perhaps the rabbi and/or cantor actually observes them. There has got to be a better way. We need a theology that makes sense to modern Jews and instills in us a sense of obligation that does not fall back on invocation of an authority no one really accepts. If not, our Judaism may well end up like that pile of uneaten kosher TV dinners in the hotel room in Cairo.

Rosh Hashanah Sermon: Current Thoughts on Israel

Rosh Hashanah Morning Sermon

RH 5775

Kehilat Shalom

Rabbi Charles L. Arian

This morning we read in the Torah of God’s fulfillment of His promise to Abraham and Sarah through the birth of Isaac. Abraham of course already has a son through Hagar, Ishmael, but Sarah demands that Abraham banish him. Abraham doesn’t want to do this, as he loves both his sons, but God tells him to accede to Sarah’s wish and promises that Ishmael, too, will enjoy God’s protection and become a great nation.

3500 years later it remains to be seen whether Isaac and Ishmael can live together in peace. This summer’s war between Israel and Hamas was the latest but almost certainly not the last installment of a conflict that, at least mythically, traces back to biblical times.

And yet in some ways this summer’s war was unique. In 1982, when the First Lebanon War started, I was in Israel on a kibbutz in the northern part of the country. Many Israelis felt that the Lebanon War was Israel’s first “milchemet breira,” war of choice, violating the unwritten consensus that Israel goes to war only when there are no other alternatives. Shortly after the war broke out, a rally of over 100,000 people against the war took place in Tel Aviv. Such a protest, while the troops were still fighting, was unprecedented. But ever since 1982, whenever there has been a war or major military operation, a significant proportion of the Israeli Jewish public has opposed it.

Until this summer. Polls indicate that 95% of the Israeli Jewish public supported this summer’s war against Hamas.

As you know, I spent several days in Israel this summer as part of a Solidarity Mission of Conservative rabbis and lay leaders. When we arrived in Israel, a cease fire had been in effect for several days. Our first visit was to an Iron Dome battery near Ashdod and our second visit was to a Conservative synagogue in Ashkelon. Ashkelon is quite near Gaza and the people with whom we met told us what life had been like during the active fighting. Always having to be within 15 seconds of a bomb shelter and planning out your route to work or the grocery store accordingly. How all summer camps and any gatherings of over 50 people had to be cancelled; how the city had taken over a reinforced parking garage to use as a playground so kids could still ride bicycles or kick a soccer ball around. But at the same time, they were describing all of this in the past tense and looking forward to life getting back to normal.

But as our group was in Beersheva three Hamas rockets from Gaza landed harmlessly in a field outside the city.  We did not hear the rockets but a few minutes later we heard and saw as Israeli jets streaked overhead towards Gaza. The fighting was back on, worse than ever, and I was awakened that night in our Jerusalem hotel by an alarm and an announcement to get to the bomb shelter.

Fortunately I was never really in any danger. The Hamas rocket fired towards Jerusalem was taken out by the Iron Dome missile and though a bit of rocket debris did fall in Jerusalem, it wasn’t in the neighborhood where we were staying. But having experienced a rocket alarm firsthand helped me to understand a little more what life was like this summer for residents of southern Israel. When the alarm went off, I was in bed and had 90 seconds to get to the shelter -- whereas in Ashkelon or Sderot, it was 15 seconds. Should I get dressed or head to the shelter in my underwear, since I hadn’t packed a bathrobe?  Should I stop to take my cell phone, or would that delay me unreasonably? What if, fearing insomnia due to the change in time zones, I had taken a sleeping pill?

Although relatively few civilians were killed or injured, it was this kind of disruption of daily life that led to such broad support for the war effort. Anyone in southern Israel with young children, anyone elderly or disabled, had to either leave the area or live in a shelter. I thought of my own family -- with Keleigh disabled and using a walker, there is no way we would have been able to guarantee that she could get to the shelter in time, and we, too, would have had to leave our home.

While it was the rockets that led to the war, it was the tunnels which solidified the Israeli public’s support. Some Palestinians and their supporters have explained the tunnels as a necessary response to the closure of Gaza’s borders by both Israel and Egypt; and indeed there were many tunnels from Gaza into the Egyptian Sinai which were used to smuggle everyday goods. But the tunnels into Israel were not intended for consumer goods. They were meant to enable terrorists to enter kibbutzim and towns and murder or kidnap their inhabitants, possibly in a coordinated attack. I’ve seen reports that Israeli intelligence discovered that the attack was planned for this very day, Rosh Hashanah.

If this summer’s war served to unify the Jewish citizens of Israel, to some extent it had the opposite effect in the Diaspora.  Jonathan Chait, a New York Magazine columnist, former editor of The New Republic and generally a reliably pro-Israel voice, penned a column with the headline “Israel Is Making It Hard to be Pro-Israel.”  A media analyst  wrote “if Israel is beginning to lose people like Jonathan Chait, then it’s support in the U.S. is showing real signs of eroding.”

Antony Lerman, a British and Israeli citizen and former director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, went further, publishing an Op-Ed in the New York Times proclaiming that it was no longer possible to be a liberal Zionist. Lerman wrote that anti-democratic forces are setting the agenda in Israel, that the two-state solution was dead, and that liberal Zionists were merely providing cover for the “supremacist Zionism dominant in Israel today,” that they are “an obstacle to the emergence of a Diaspora Jewish movement that could actually be an agent of change.”

Lerman says that those who claim to be liberal Zionists ought to recognize that, in point of fact, one can be a liberal or a Zionist, but not both. He calls on liberal Zionists to “acknowledge the demise of their brand” and become part of the movement for a unitary democratic state, neither Jewish nor Arab, in what is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.

Rabbi David Hartman used to tell a story about a group of Jewish intellectuals in Czarist Russia who would sit around and discuss moving to the Land of Israel, but the  leader of the group would always tell them that it’s not time yet. One day as they were in a tavern, they were approached by a non-Jewish intellectual, a friend of theirs, who had had a few drinks. He said to them: “you know what we Gentiles dislike about you Jews? You think you’re more moral than we are, and we don’t like that.”

The group leader said to him: “but we are more moral than you are. We don’t hunt.” The Russian responded: “of course you don’t hunt. We don’t allow you to own guns.”

The leader turned to his fellows: “Now. Now is the time for us to move to the Land of Israel.” “Why now?” “We will prove that it is possible to own guns and yet not to hunt.”

I suspect that in point of fact very few Israelis hunt, because Israel is pretty densely-populated, much of the land where it would be safe to discharge weapons is already in use by the Army for training, and animals killed by a gunshot aren’t kosher.

But as with most stories Rabbi Hartman used to tell, there is a larger point. It is relatively easy to live by Jewish values, to be morally pure and unsullied, when you don’t have responsibility for the wellbeing of an entire society -- when the Gentiles don’t let you own guns. Is it possible to create a society that lives by Jewish values when you actually have power, when the problems of everyday life are not just talked about in the taverns and coffeehouses but in the Knesset and the Defense Ministry?

ITheodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, or A.D. Gordon and the founders of the kibbutz movement, had no interest in bringing the pathologies and injustices of Europe to the Middle East. They hoped to create an exemplary state, one based on utopian ideals of justice, equality and peace.

On the other hand,  the poet  Chaim Nachman Bialik wrote that the Zionist dream will be realized when a Jewish policeman arrests a Jewish prostitute who will be sent to jail by a Jewish judge.

There has been a lot of criticism of Israel’s conduct of the war this past summer. It is incontrovertible that many civilians, including hundreds of children, were killed by Israeli air strikes and artillery. When we were in Israel our group did not shy away from these issues. We discussed how the Air Force chooses targets with a reserve general who was one of the pilots who destroyed the Iraqi reactor in 1981, and artillery targeting with the commander of an artillery battalion in the field just outside of Gaza. The commander is probably the only colonel in the IDF whose mother is a Conservative rabbi. He told us that he personally approves every target and has eliminated potential targets when the risk of killing innocent civilians was too great.

We also met with Prof. Asa Kasher, a philosopher specializing in ethics and the author of the IDF code of ethics. One of the points he addressed was that of “proportionality”; given that Palestinian deaths exceeded Israeli ones by a ratio of at least 50 to 1, there has been a lot of criticism of Israel’s allegedly disproportionate response.

Prof. Kasher explained that proportionality is not a matter of the ratio of deaths on both sides; rather, the harm caused to civilians must be proportionate to the military value of the target. When you have an enemy who chooses to base itself among a civilian population, that uses schools and mosques and hospitals to store weapons and launch rockets, that uses ambulances to transport weapons, the duty to avoid harm to civilians runs up against the duty a government has to protect its own citizens.If I know that the head of Hamas is going to be attending a wedding, can I drop bombs on the catering hall where the wedding is being held?  Is it ethical to kill 100 civilians in order to eliminate the head of Hamas? What about 5 citizens? It isn’t an easy calculation to make. Israel doesn’t always get it right, but the IDF recently launched criminal investigations into a number of incidents from this summer, including the shelling of a UN school and the deaths of four Palestinian boys playing on a beach near the Gaza port. If soldiers or their commanders acted improperly or negligently, they will pay the price.

Zionism and the State of Israel were meant, of course, to solve the Jewish problem, but what problem exactly is that? For some, it was the problem of the Jews -- to create a place of refuge, where Jews would be safe from persecution. For some, it was the problem of Judaism -- a place where the language of daily life would be Hebrew, where Jewish religious and cultural creativity would flourish, where Jews could figure out how to create not only a communal but a national life using the Bible and the Talmud for guidance while also being a part of the larger region and world.

Israel is now 66  years old and the dilemmas are very much with us. Our group last month also met with Dr. Thabet Abu Ras, an Israeli  Arab who is a professor of geography and demography at Sapir Academic College, a mostly-Jewish institution in Sederot, right on the Gaza border. Dr. Abu Ras discussed the dilemmas of Israeli Arabs, Arabs who live in Israel proper, not the West Bank or Gaza, hold Israeli citizenship, vote in Israeli elections, and for the most part speak fluent Hebrew. Yet, because Israel is understood as a Jewish state; because the symbols of Israel are the menorah and the Star of David; because the Israeli national anthem speaks of the "Jewish soul's yearning"; and because most Israeli Arabs have relatives on the other side of the Green Line --Dr. Abu Ras has family in Gaza -- they are not fully part of Israel. And yet, they identify as Israelis and have made quite clear their desire to remain Israeli citizens with their villages as part of Israel, even if a Palestinian state is eventually created on adjacent Palestinian land.

Shouldn't Israel be a state with whose symbols all its citizens can identify? Shouldn't it serve the needs of all its citizens? But wasn't Israel established precisely so that it could be a Jewish state? Shouldn't it promote the well-being of Jews and develop housing and infrastructure for Jews from throughout the world who come to live in Israel -- even if this might mean that economic development in the Arab sector gets the short end of the stick?

Israel’s internal policies and its conduct of military operations raise many dilemmas. It is tempting, as many younger Jews who are troubled by these dilemmas, and some who are not so young, to simply walk away from involvement with Israel altogether. Or conversely, as many Jews who are leaders of Jewish organizations, or those who look back on the 1940s and 1950s with a certain nostalgia do, to deny that these dilemmas exist, to ignore them, to attack those who raise questions, and to retreat to the image of Israel as a biblical theme park.

But I prefer to think of Israel as the place where an important conversation is going on about what it means to live as a Jew today. Both American Jewry and Israel are important conversions, but Israel is a conversation with an army and an air force and so the stakes are a little bit higher. As Rabbi David Hartman taught, for two thousand years we did not have to deal with questions of the moral use of power. Now we do. What is the proper way a Jew, a Jewish nation, uses a gun or a tank or an airplane?  How can Israel be simultaneously a Jewish state and a democratic state for all its citizens. This is perhaps the central Jewish conversation of our time.

But Israel is more than a state or a conversation, it is also a family. And so I want to leave you with another vignette, a story that happened to me in February 2001. I was traveling in Israel with about 20 other Conservative rabbis. Our trip was what is known in tourism industry jargon as a “Familiarization Trip,” organized by a travel agency which was trying to convince us to use their services for congregational trips to Israel, and so the hotels and everything else were really top notch. We were spending the night at a hotel by the Dead Sea when we saw posters announcing that Motorola was putting on a concert for its employees that night, and some of us wanted to go.

We asked our guide to make arrangements, and he tried, but it was impossible. The event was strictly for Motorola employees, admission was by invitation only and no tickets were being sold under any circumstances. We were disappointed, but our guide said that he wanted to see the concert too and that the best bet was for us to simply show up and see if we could talk our way in. So five of us plus our guide headed off to the massive tent where the concert was held, and went to the back entrance to see if we could talk our way in.

When we got there, the guard asked to see our invitations, which of course we did not have. But somehow, one of our party, Rabbi Neil Brief from Chicago, the only one in the group who was in his 60s -- the rest of us were in our late 30s or early 40s -- had been given an invitation by one of the Motorola employees who didn't plan to attend. So Rabbi Brief showed the guard his invitation and we started to walk in.

But the guard stopped us and said "zeh bishvilcha -- mah eetam?" This is for you -- what about them? And Rabbi Brief pointed to the invitation and said "katuv po, l'chol ha-mishpacha" -- it says here, this invitation is for you and your  whole family. The guard laughed, said "beseder, beseder" -- OK, OK, and waved us all in. And we enjoyed a wonderful concert, a buffet and an open bar, courtesy of Motorola Israel and the friendly guard.

All Jews are, indeed, family, and Israel is an important part of our family. Israel is not perfect, indeed, it is far from perfect. But our family members do not have to be perfect in order to receive our love and our support.  We must never stop working for the day when Isaac and Ishmael dwell together again as brothers. We must never stop doing what we can to help Israel become the “light unto the nations” and the “first flowering of redemption” that it was meant to  be. But it’s imperfections should never cause us to walk away from her. We do not abandon our family that easily.

Israel Trip, Day Three

Shalom from Jerusalem.

The day started on a bit of an odd note as we compared notes on the Red Alert earlier that morning. It might help to know that at least in our hotel, all of the stairwells are considered shelters so our group was not all together for the duration of the alert. My stairwell had a bunch of American kids visiting Israeli relatives, a Haredi physician from Lakewood, NJ, and Deb Finklestein, the executive director of Kol Shalom Congregation in Rockville.

I want to make clear that this note and the two from earlier this week are in no way meant to be a full report -- they are just quick highlights and impressions. It takes me a while to “process” things and if you want to know more details, come to shul this coming Shabbat.

Prof. Yehuda Bauer spoke to us over breakfast on the rise of antisemism in the world. Prof. Bauer is one of the world’s leading experts on the Shoah and antisemitism, a winner of the Israel Prize -- and 89 years old but as spry and lively as ever (I have met him a few times over the years.) His talk was sobering but also gave a note of perspective -- he said that antisemitism is not all of one piece and there is a big difference between Islamist antisemitism in Europe which is essentially anti-Western and liberal antisemitism or conversely, right-wing antisemitism. Indeed some neo-fascists in Europe are actually pro-Israel and pro-Jewish.

We went to the Supreme Court and met with Justice Hanan Meltzer -- we were supposed to meet Justice Elyakim Rubenstein but he had a family emergency and got Justice Meltzer to meet us instead. Justice Meltzer captivated us with his warmth and humor and his openness -- he shared his own feelings at the recent serious injury to his son while serving in Gaza with the IDF. He gave us a fascinating overview of the history and role of the Israeli Supreme Court and how it functions -- it’s quite different than the US Supreme Court with which we are familiar. There are fifteen justices and cases are heard by panels of anywhere from three to 11 depending on the importance of the case. Justice Meltzer is on a panel which is about to hear a case on the recognition of non-Orthodox conversions. Because of this, he could not address the subject directly but did point out that as a lawyer in private practice, he himself had represented the Conservative and Reform movements in a similar case thirty years ago.

After this we travelled to the Conservative movement center on Agron St. to hear from Natan Sharansky and Asa Kasher. Sharansky is one of the great heroes of our time, As Anatoly Scharansky, he spent almost a decade in the Gulag as punishment for seeking to leave the USSR and move to Israel. He was released in 1989, the only political prisoner ever freed early by Gorbachev, and immediately immigrated to Israel. He has served as a Member of Knesset and Cabinet Minister and today is the head of the Jewish Agency. I had never met him before and I was really impressed by his warmth, his unassuming manner and his intellect. It was truly a feeling of being in the presence of greatness.

After Sharansky we heard from Prof. Asa Kasher, one of Israel’s leading ethicists and the author of the Israel Defense Forces Code of Ethics. He explained that the Code is guided by two principles, the right and duty of self-defense and the preservation of human dignity and human life. Unfortunately our group was running somewhat behind and Prof. Kasher never really got to explain, as he said he would, how this code is applied in the case of targeted killings (like yesterday’s attempt to kill Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif, which killed his wife and toddler but may not have killed Deif himself.)

We then had lunch “on your own” on the Ben Yehuda Street pedestrian mall which had less than half as many people as one would expect this time of year. I enjoyed the best shwarma since Pita Hut in Rockville closed and did a little souvenir shopping. Then back on the bus to travel to Kehilat Ya’ar Ramot in the Ramot neighborhood of Jerusalem.

We were greeted by the members of the congregation who again greeted us with warmth, gratitude, and the typical Israeli spread of three times as much food and drink as the group could reasonably consume. We heard from Dr. Thabet Abu Rass, an Israeli Arab who is a professor at both Ben Gurion University in Beersheba and Sapir College which is right on the border of Gaza. He is a co-director of the Abraham Fund, an NGO founded by an American Conservative rabbi which works to enhance cooperation between Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel. Dr. Abu Rass presented his vision of a State of Israel which is both Jewish and democratic, with equal rights and participation by it’s Arab citizens, living in peace with a Palestinian state that accepts the legitimacy and Jewish identity of Israel.

We then heard from the Leader of the Opposition, Yaacov Herzog, who is head of the Labor Party. MK Herzog spent some of his youth in New York when his father, the late Chaim Herzog (who later became President of Israel), was the Israeli ambassador to the UN. He’s very familiar and comfortable with Conservative Judaism and as Minister of Housing in Ehud Olmert’s government found money in his budget to construct two Conservative synagogues -- the only Cabinet Minister ever to have done so. Herzog was supportive of Israel’s necessity to defend itself against Hamas and its tunnels and rockets but very critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s failure to do more to promote Abu Mazen as an alternative.

We were supposed to meet this afternoon with Avichai Mandelblit, the Cabinet Secretary (roughly equivalent to White House Chief of Staff) but there was an emergency Cabinet meeting this afternoon. Instead, briefings were quickly arranged for us at the Foreign Ministry. We were specifically requested not to write about these meeting and I am respecting that request but I may speak about them in general terms this coming Shabbat. I will see that I was impressed by the professionalism and skill of the high level diplomats we met as well as another generous spread of food and drink -- a rare incidence of Israeli government funding for Conservative Judaism.

Tomorrow morning we will rise early to go to the Kotel Masorti, the newly-established area for egalitarian services at the Western Wall, where we will present a Torah scroll for the use of Bar and Bat Mitzvahs and other services. Later we will travel to Tel Aviv for meetings and then to the airport and back to the States. We’ve become used to last-minute radical changes to our itinerary so I won’t even bother telling you what is supposed to happen tomorrow, since what we actually do will probably be different.

It should be noted that everything we did today took place while Hamas was shooting approximately 130 rockets into Israel -- mostly in the areas nearest Gaza, a few into the Tel Aviv area and none near Jerusalem where we are. Hamas has, however, warned foreign airlines not to fly into Ben Gurion Airport after 6 o’clock Thursday morning (11 pm. Wednesday east coast time) and my decision to fly El Al is looking more and more wise. I’m scheduled to leave Israel at 1:30 a.m. Israel time on Friday which is 6:30 pm Thursday on the East Coast, and land at Newark Airport at around 6:00 a.m. Friday morning. So this is my last missive from Jerusalem and I look forward to seeing you on Shabbat.

Israel Trip, Day Two

It’s a little after midnight Wednesday morning in Israel. About twenty five minutes ago I was awakened by a loud announcement over our hotel’s PA instructing everyone to go immediately to the shelter on your corridor and wait there until further notice. We stayed about ten or fifteen minutes and then were allowed back to our rooms. Meanwhile the app on my cell phone which goes off every time there is a missile warning has been going off pretty steadily.

When the day started it did not seem likely that it would end in this way. Israel and Hamas had agreed to extend their five day ceasefire for another 24 hours while negotiations continued and an agreement seemed in sight. We started the morning by traveling to Ashdod to see the Iron Dome battery there. We were met by General (Res.) Israel Shafir who explained to us how the Iron Dome works and how it fits in with Israel’s overall defense system. We learned, among other things, that the Iron Dome system allows rockets that it knows will land harmlessly in vacant areas to do so, since each missile the system shoots costs $50,000. Gen. Shafir, a former fighter pilot (he was one of the pilots who took place in Israel’s raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor back in the 1980s) also explained how a fighter pilot decides whether or not to take out a target. He told us that the IDF attacks military targets exclusively and will call off an attack if the likelihood of many civilian casualties is present. He impressed me with his statement that preservation of human life, Israeli or Palestinian, is a key Jewish value and that failure to attempt to do so undermines the basic reason for Israel to exist -- which is to preserve not only Jewish lives but Jewish culture and values.

From Ashdod we traveled to the field encampment of the 55th Artillery Brigade, where we met with it’s commander, Lt. Col Gadi Dror. Col, Dror is the son of Rabbi Gilah Dror, the first Israeli woman rabbi to head her own congregation. He walked us through how he determines whether or not to target a certain objective, and again how he tries very hard to minimize civilian losses and will call off an attack when necessary.

We traveled to Masorti (Conservative) congregations in Ashkelon, Beersheva and Omer and learned of how the war has affected them. We learned, for example, that 80 percent of the Masorti Movement’s activities consist in community service and not what we might consider specifically “religious” activities. All the summer camps and classes were cancelled because it is not permitted to hold any activity that will attract more people than can fit in the nearest shelter. I was impressed by the dignified way our hosts are attempting to live as normal a life as possible and how grateful they were that we were there. When we got to Omer, a suburb of Beersheva, we learned that while we were in the Beersheva Conservative synagogue three rockets had fallen nearby without hurting anyone. Shortly thereafter we heard the engines of the fighter jets headed towards Gaza.

We left the South and headed to Modiin, a new city halfway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. We went to the Masorti synagogue there to be addressed by Rachel Frankel, whose son Naftali was one of the three teens kidnapped and subsequently killed, which set in motion the series of actions which led to this war. Rabbanit Frankel is a leading Orthodox feminist and teaches advanced Talmud in Orthodox women’s yeshivot. She set an Israeli precedent when she rose with her husband and oldest son to say Kaddish at Naftali’s funeral.

I cannot begin to put into words how meaningful this meeting was. Mrs. Frankel, despite her suffering, is a person of joy and deep spirituality. She and her family reached out to the family of the Palestinian teenager who was tortured and murdered by Jews in a “revenge attack” after the bodies of the three boys were found. It was really an honor to meet with her.

Tomorrow -- or I guess actually later today -- we will meet some top Israeli political figures, conditions permitting. We’ll also hear from Prof. Asa Kasher who wrote the Israeli Defense Forces’ Code of Ethics.

If you are my Facebook friend, our bus is equipped with WiFi and I am posting pictures and brief updates throughout the day -- feel free to check it out.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!

Israel Trip, Day One

Shalom from Jerusalem. It’s just after 10 pm here as I write this and I have been up for 34 hours straight so I will keep this short. I hope to write something longer tomorrow night.

The most recent ceasefire between Israel ahd Hamas expires in less than two hours and no one knows for sure what will happen. Israel’s Channel 2 news is reporting that the Palestinian  media are reporting that an agreement has been reached but there is no official word from anyone. Prime Minister Netanyahu says that Israel will not be the one to open fire but that if the Palestinians launch rockets again, Israel will respond strongly.

A few quick thoughts from Jerusalem. It’s seven years since I’ve last been in Israel and the face of Jerusalem has changed tremendously. There is a massive new commercial district called Mamilla Mall right around the corner from my hotel which leads all the way to the Jaffa Gate. Jaffa Road, a main commercial thoroughfare, is now car-free below King George Street except for the new, sleek, and very popular Light Rail. Both changes make the city more pleasant to stroll around.

Tourism is way down and a lot of businesses which depend on tourism are hurting. The El Al flight over was far from full. There was a birthright israel group from Northwestern University on the flight and the young woman sitting near me told me that of the original 40 who had signed up for the trip, only 22 wound up going. When we got to Ben Gurion airport, there were five lanes open for Israeli passport holders and only two for holders of other passports, a clear indication that most arriving passengers are Israelis rather than tourists. One of the rabbis in our group said that a Family Tour including three B’nai Mitzvah was supposed to take place this week, but was cancelled, so he and his wife came by themselves. Another indication that tourism is down: waiters, cashiers and taxi drivers have all addressed me in Hebrew rather than English, which means they assume anyone here is not a tourist. Ben Yehuda Street, usually packed, is, while not exactly empty, far from full.

I was able to catch up today with a few Israeli friends and their feeling is very pessimistic. Tonight our group was addressed by Dr. Shlomo Avineri, a winner of the Israel Prize, past Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and one of the architects of the Oslo Accords. He, too, is very pessimistic about any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians being achieved any time soon. He told us he still believes that the ultimate resolution lies in the creation of an Israeli and Palestinian State living side by side, but this is going to take a long, long, time.

Our itinerary is changing as the security situation changes. The latest version of our itinerary which we received today -- version 18 -- was obsolete even before we received it. We were supposed to go to Ashkelon tomorrow to tour the Iron Dome battery there, but late this afternoon the Army decided that wasn’t safe so we are going to the Ashdod Iron Dome instead -- assuming it’s safe to do so. We’ll be visiting Masorti (Conservative) congregations in the areas which have been hardest hit by Hamas missiles and learning about their situation. Tomorrow night we’ll have dinner with former Knesset Member Einat Wilf, who served on the Defense and Foreign Affairs committee. Before that, we will meet Rabbanit Rachael Frankel, whose son Naftali of blessed memory was one of the three teenagers kidnapped and killed in June by Hamas terrorists.

If you are on Facebook, go to my page to see some pictures from today. When I’ve had more sleep I’ll figure out a way to share them more conveniently.

Shalom from Jerusalem,

Rabbi Charles L. Arian