How the Israeli Left Was Left Behind -by Michael Argaman

voting in Hebrew and Arabic

I am a dual citizen of the Unites States and Israel and I exercise my rights to vote in both places. I arrived in Israel for the election nine days before the vote took place. Full disclosure: I have been a supporter of Meretz for many years, having been a member of a kibbutz and an activist in the peace movement. I am biased towards Meretz of course.

Here is some background information on the four election lists that are generally considered as being the Israeli left, although there is not full agreement on this. The groups/parties are: Meretz, Labor (Avoda), Hadash-Ta’al, and Balad-Ra’am. When I refer to Arabs in this article, I am speaking about Palestinians who are Israeli citizens and have the right to vote in Israeli elections. read more

Celebrating Passover With Refugees by Ayala Emmett

The Passover Seder is the retelling of our passage from slavery to freedom, a defining Jewish journey. Tonight at Temple B’rith Kodesh we will celebrate the Seder with families from Iraq and Afghanistan, brought to Rochester by No One Left Behind.

Temple B’rith Kodesh forged a partnership with NOLB, an organization dedicated to fulfill a promise to those who helped the US military and saved lives. The pledge has been to give them and their families visas at such a time when their own lives would become endangered. Tonight we will tell the story of the Exodus and celebrate our/their freedom. read more

“ It was God who made Pharaoh Obstinate.” What is our excuse? By Deborah Kornfeld

I always look forward to the plagues. That part of the Haggadah recited in a singsong ritualistic manner accompanied by the small thrill of putting my finger into the wine cup and marking my plate. It carries with it a memory that despite the power and might and Technicolor special effects accompanying our redemption, we need to be mindful that the Egyptians also suffered. In the exquisite theatre of the Seder, every participant has an active role in this custom. To make out seders lively and fun for the children, we often decorate our table with frogs and beasts and lice- a real table top menagerie. read more

The Megillah: A Cautionary Tale by Deborah Kornfeld

A whisper in the ear of the king, a decree sent throughout the land, women oppressed and plans are made to annihilate an entire population.  What a story.  Years ago I learned how to chant chapter 7 of  Megillat Esther .  As I went over the lines hundreds and hundreds of times I became impressed how in chapter 7, Esther finds her voice and was emboldened to take matters into her own hands and save the Jewish people. This year I committed myself to learning to chant verses 16-21 in chapter 1.  Learning the chanting is difficult for me, first I have to pronounce the words and then learn the chanting going over it again and again. When I listen to the Megillah as a congregant, I usually am challenged just to hear the words as the seasoned rabbi reads them so quickly. When I learn it, it is different. I stumble over and over the words and meaning jumps out at me.   read more

COMBATANTS FOR PEACE: NOBEL PEACE PRIZE NOMINEE, 2017 & 2018

COMBATANTS FOR PEACE

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE NOMINEE, 2017 & 2018

 You Are Cordially Invited to welcome our Israeli and Palestinian guests:

On Wednesday, March 6th at 7:00 pm

At Temple B’rith Kodesh, 2131 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, NY

 FREE AND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

In 2006, Israeli and Palestinian former combatants, people who had taken an active role in the conflict, laid down their weapons and established Combatants for Peace. The egalitarian, bi-national, grassroots organization was founded on the belief that the cycle of violence can only be broken when Israelis and Palestinians join forces. Combatants for Peace is the only organization, worldwide, in which former fighters on both sides of an active conflict have laid down their weapons, choosing to work together for peace and justice. read more

Where We Must Be When Netanyahu Opens The Door To Fascists By Peter Eisenstadt and Ayala Emmett

Benjamin Netanyahu, who will do anything and everything to get re-elected, especially rousing the most racist section of his base, has now crossed a red line. Fearing for his political future he engineered a merger between the current party of Kahanism, Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”) with the National Union Party so that it could enter the Knesset surreptitiously, in a consolidated right-wing party and bolster his electoral bloc. Michael Ben-Ari, a leader of Otzma Yehudit, was denied a visa to enter the US due to the State Department’s “prerogative to ban terrorists from entering the country.”  He was now promised a seat in the next Knesset.

Until this past week Kahanism was largely banned from the political process. Meir Kahane’s party, Kach, was banned from the Knesset in 1988, was outlawed as a terrorist organization in Israel in 1994, and still appears on the US State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.  Netanyahu, in a blink of an eye, just lifted the ban.

Kahanism is an American export to Israel. Peter grew up in a neighborhood in southeastern Queens where Meir Kahane was the rabbi of the local orthodox shule, before Kahane became notorious. In the late 1960s he attended a few Bar Mitzvahs in the shule. It was almost a normal synagogue except that it was surrounded by razor wire and a high fence, as if it was an auto parts store in a high crime neighborhood. When he founded the Jewish Defense League in 1969, after the bitter teacher’s strike that raised Jewish and black tensions, some of its earliest members were his acquaintances. Its initial targets were not Palestinians but African Americans. The appeal of the JDL was, to those Peter spoke to, that blacks had been pushing Jews around, and the next time black kids wanted to fight, they would be ready.

Kahane had a Betar and Revisionist background, and around 1970 he turned his attention to Israel, where he found an even bigger scope for his racism, in a situation that was even more violent, and where Kahane’s victims had even less legal protection. He and his followers wanted to expel all Palestinians, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians in the territories. They often plastered the word Transfer, a euphemism for ethnic cleansing borrowed from Nazi Germany, in places with large Israeli Arab population.

Kahane was murdered in 1990 in New York City but Kahanism in Israel survived, and engaged in a series of terrorist acts. In 1994 Baruch Goldstein, a member of Kach, originally from Brooklyn, massacred 29 Palestinians praying in Hebron, in what remains probably the most notorious episode of Jewish terrorism. Kahanism combines two virulent strains of racism, American and Israeli. Much of vigilante terrorism against Palestinians has been traced to followers of Kahanism legacy. Kahanists today oppose Jewish-Palestinian marriages, and call for the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel and the territories.

There is hard right wing politics, the sort followed by Netanyahu, Naftali Bennett, and Miri Regev, to stick to current Israeli politics, and then there is fascism. The main difference is that fascism takes right wing politics to its logical conclusion; its politics are only the politics of repression, and eliminating the targets of their hate by any means necessary. With this move, Netanyahu has openly aligned himself with Jewish fascism, and those who aid and abet fascism are fascists. And people of good will cannot have any dealings with fascists.

Israeli politics is indeed very complicated. Every election cycle, there are new parties and new names. It is too complicated for most Americans; even most American Jews who care about Israel, to follow closely. Two party democracies have their limitations but at least most people know the names of the two parties. But most American Jews know who Kahane was and what Kahanism is.

It is heartening that Netanyahu’s move has been condemned across the political spectrum, from the usual left of center Jewish groups to the center and center-right organizations like American Jewish Committee and AIPAC. More than 90 Orthodox rabbis have issued a fierce denunciation of Netanyahu’s invitation to Kahanists. While encouraged by this first step, we must prepare for the next, to make sure that Netanyahu and the Likud are unacceptable. And American Jews have a role to play. We all need to tell our representatives that any government with Jewish fascists is illegitimate, and should be treated as such.

There is a practical dimension to this. For the first time, with the merger of the lists of Gantz and Lapid, Netanyahu seems beatable. We do not know what sort of government the Gantz/Lapid ticket lead, but it would probably have to be a center-left coalition of some sort (Probably, these things can get tricky.) We do not have much faith in Gantz, but one thing is absolutely clear; if the two state solution is to have any chance, Netanyahu cannot be the PM. And Democrats that control the House need to chart their own foreign policy, and a pro-Israel, anti-Jewish fascist position seems broad enough to attract a number of Democrats, even those who previously have been defenders of Netanyahu. And if Democrats and American Jews make their views heard clearly and loudly enough, perhaps this might have an effect on the Israeli elections.

But whatever happens in the election, we must be clear about where we must be. We have a key role here, in every synagogue in America, in every Jewish organization in America, Jewish fascism, and Netanyahu’s embrace of Jewish fascism must be loudly condemned and anathemized. Kahanism, an American-Israeli species of Jewish fascism is a unique menace to the Jewish people. It must be fought, banned, and rejected. This fight is deeply rooted in a clear Torah Jewish position, “One law shall be there for you, for sojourner and native alike” and in the Founders’ Proclamation that the state of Israel “will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

 

 

 

 

Two Responses to Ilhan Omar By Ayala Emmett and Peter Eisenstadt

Where do I stand when I hear Ilhan Omar? By Ayala Emmett

Shortly after the 2016 election I talked to an acquaintance who was active in social justice about justice activities in my synagogue; I spoke of the Jewish obligation to help the marginalized that is often emphasized in the Torah and throughout Jewish history. Her response was that she was surprised to hear that Jews were committed to charity and while she was not familiar with the Torah, Jews were rich and could afford giving money.

Linking Jews and money, is an old anti-Semitic ploy. The recent statement that American Jews pay politicians to support Israel that came from a newly elected Democratic congresswoman was shocking. So where do I stand when I hear Ilhan Omar making a not-so-veiled anti-Semitic remark? On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I stand where I have always been, a peace activist. I oppose Israel’s occupation and I support a two-states solution.

I am not going to rehash the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict; I have written about it extensively and so have many more erudite writers than myself, on both sides of the conflict. I see the destruction or denial of the rights of one or the other people as senseless and cruel politics. You can’t right the suffering of Palestinians by advocating the destruction of Israel or the other way around. My hope has always been that justice for both peoples will find the right leadership. Israelis and Palestinians need each other because they have to live side by side. None of them is going away. They most certainly don’t need people who stoke more hatred between them. Progressives in America would do well to help those on the ground, like Combatants for Peace, and Women Wage Peace to build bridges across differences.

Instead, under the banner of support for Palestinians what we see now in America is a dangerous blurring of the line between criticism of the Israeli government and anti-Semitism. How far is Ilhan Omar from “Jews will not replace us” in Charlottesville? Not far enough from where I am standing. People like Congresswoman Omar actually join Trump the chief amplifier of anti-Semitism, an American president who has no interest in ending the occupation or in advancing peace. Ilhan Omar and I may disagree on a negotiated peace resolution between Israelis and Palestinians, on the solution of one or two-states, or on Israel’s right to exist. But I denounce her anti-Semitic tactics.

The Ilhan Omar Problem By Peter Eisenstadt

One of the best things about the new congress is that the Democratic Party seems to be slowly moving out its near total subservience to the political agenda of the Israeli government. This was aided considerably by Netanyahu making clear over the last few years that he hated Barack Obama and admired the corrupt malevolent buffoon who replaced him. There is a small but growing willingness on the part of some Democrats to take a more questioning role to Israel.

One of the most depressing conversations I ever had on Israel was about a decade ago, when, as a member of a J Street delegation, when I was still living in Rochester visiting the late Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in her office. We gave her the standard J Street spiel about two states, etc. Louise said, I know, I know, I’ve been to Israel, and Netanyahu is a son of a bitch. But if I ever said so publicly, AIPAC will start calling my office, demanding meetings, and I’ll never hear the end of it. It would have created too many problems for her, and wasn’t worth it politically. If the Jewish members of the House took a lead on this, she would make her feelings clear, but she would have to be a follower, not a leader. We understood.

And so, Congresswoman Omar, it’s not all about the Benjamins, though money of course greases any efficient lobbying effort. AIPAC has genuine reserves of support, and it has strategically deployed them with great effectiveness. And the way to change this is to do what J Street, Partners for Progressive Israel, and other left of center organizations have done, slowly build a constituency for a different American Jewish politics toward Israel.

You say something stupid and insulting, you apologize, as sincerely, as you can. You accept the apology, and go about your business. The Democratic leadership in the House and Congresswoman Omar handled this appropriately. The case is closed, although the Republicans will try to use this to tar the Democratic party with anti-Semitism, Islamophilia, and as someone accused me on a list I no longer subscribe to, of being a “useful idiot for Palestinian terrorism.” The Republicans of course have no standing to accuse anyone of anti-semitism, they will try to divide Jewish opinion, they will use it, as they already are, as a cover for their own racism, and they will try to make BDS a thought crime. Now is the time for Democrats to say that this episode is finished.

So Congresswoman Omar, be careful what you say; with all the damn human rights violations Israel commits almost daily, there is no lack of real things to talk about, without being needlessly inflammatory. There are real differences on the left on Israel Palestine matters. They will separate us and distinguish us, we have to try not let them divide us and make us enemies. This will take work on all sides. People on the left, Palestinians, and Palestinian-Americans are entitled to feel really, really angry toward Israel, and attitudes toward Israel can never be fully kept distinct from attitudes towards Jews in general, especially if you’re not careful, and Congresswoman Omar, you have not been. You have a unique vantage to make the case for Palestine. You do it in your way, which will be different from my way. I hope you have learned your lesson. Don’t do stupid stuff again.

We Must Choose Sides: Parshat Sh’mot by Ayala Emmett

You would think that to attack a minority community for political purposes would take time, preparation, and an extensive culture change. When we make claims to expand human rights, for example, we often get a response that we need time. Cultures, the argument goes, change slowly. To give women equal rights has taken a really long time. During that time the police arrested women, the legal system imprisoned them, politicians mocked them. To end slavery we had a civil war. And we needed even more time for “culture change” to end segregation. The common narrative has been that to make change, time is needed so that people would get used to new ideas. Indeed, American women are still waiting for 38 states to ratify the ERA.

The politics of asking us to wait for some mythical arrival of “culture change,” such as the right to say Black lives matter, flies in face of changes in the reverse. When it comes to restricting human rights change can happen in a blink of eye. No need to wait for culture to lead.

The opening chapters of the book of Exodus offer the first biblical account of a ruler who suddenly turns on a minority group. The swift change stands before us, fully grown, in one sentence and few words: “There arose a new king in Egypt who did not know Joseph.” So much of the king’s sudden attack hinges on the last part of the verse. For the new Pharaoh, to not know Joseph is a key ingredient. He needs to “not know Joseph” who was second in command to an earlier Pharaoh. Not knowing Joseph is necessary in order to dehumanize Joseph’s people, to describe them as disloyal Israelites, a threatening other. To accuse them of treasonous intentions Pharaoh must erase Joseph’s loyalty to a previous Pharaoh. Joseph, the most prominent Israelite is a proxy for his community that Pharaoh is planning to demonize as a disloyal minority. Joseph’s once large family has now become a sizable community in Egypt. The king doesn’t like minorities.

Pharaoh plots to let the Israelites know that they are no longer welcome in a place that they have lived for some four hundred years. Pharaoh says, Let’s pull a clever one over them. Let’s turn them into a potential “enemy of the people” so that we can make their lives miserable. Pharaoh sets his clever trap in a hypothetical accusation of fake reasoning, “in case of war or invasion by a strong enemy the Israelites could join the enemy.”

This is how Pharaoh turns a group of residents into a band of traitors. It is a clever trap. Pharaoh places the minority group in a hypothetical situation, impossible to refute. How could they convince the king that all they want is just to have a decent life? What could they say, that during four hundred years of residency in Egypt they have shown no evidence of rebellion or insubordination? The Exodus narrative demonstrates the Israelites’ impossible position. They have done nothing wrong. It is the single fact of being different that makes them a target. Pharaoh’s accusation is about demographics and hatred, there are too many of them and he just doesn’t like them. From then on we witness his escalation of systematic/systemic oppression.

Otherizing a minority group can happen in an instant. In our own time a swift defamation of a minority group can take no longer than coming down an escalator at Trump Tower. Has there been no resistance? The book of the Exodus does give us the first acts of civil disobedience in the bible. Parshat Sh’mot highlights an early resistance to tyranny in the courage of women. We read of the two midwives, Shifrah and Puah who refuse the king’s decree to kill the Israelite babies and are confronted by him. We encounter the daughter of Pharaoh who sees the baby and immediately says that he must be a Hebrew boy. In the royal palace she plants resistance. She takes the baby, names him Moses and raises him where more than one Egyptian woman must has known that he was an Israelite. Between the king’s cruelty and the suffering of a minority community the women of courage have taken the side of compassion and decency.

Tomorrow, in synagogues around the country we will have the opportunity to read of the moment of choice in Egypt, so that we too can choose and we must resist. We must stand with tarnished/suffering minority groups and say yes to DACA, yes to undocumented hard-working immigrants, yes to asylum seekers, and yes to children who come to our borders with so much hope for a better life.  All of us in this country can decide that here and around the world we choose sides. We are/will be like Shifrah, Puah, and Pharaoh’s daughter whom the sages named, Batyah, daughter of God.

 

 

 

A Father’s Regret and Redemption in Parshat Va-Y’hi by Ayala Emmett

What does a father do when he realizes that he has favored one of his children and created sibling rivalry and hatred among them? When it comes to favoring a child, most parents would claim that they treat all their children equally. Yet children may feel and experience the relationship differently. Some may feel special, while others feel less appreciated and not loved enough. Parents may be unaware of their own actions when they single a child by showering favors, or praises that make other sibling feel envious, slighted and resentful.

A father’s special love for a son is the underlying tragic thread in the Joseph story that occupies the last part of the Book of Genesis. Joseph is the first son born to Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel, who dies giving birth to Joseph’s younger brother, Benjamin. In the narrative of love, marriage and loss, Joseph is the son of a happy marital moment. Jacob clearly and openly favors Joseph who feels entitled. Nine of Jacob’ children are sons of three other mothers none of whom is like the beloved Rachel, and that marital differentiation has already planted resentments, and the brothers are united in hating Joseph.

Jacob has been a father who shows favoritism publicly in the coat of many colors he gifts Joseph and is astonishingly blind to the toxic dynamic he has created for his sons. He manages to ignore the feelings of anger as he decides, it seems on whim, to send Joseph to look for his brothers who are far away from home. Joseph participates in the denial. Not a word of protest from the son who could have said, “Should I go father, surely the brothers hate me.” And a doomed reunion ensues. When the brothers see Joseph they first want to kill him. They end up, with some intervention from two older brothers, to sell him into slavery.

The Genesis narrative tells us that upon returning home the brothers tell Jacob that a wild beast has attacked and devoured his son. They have the ultimate revenge proof as they bring back the special coat that Jacob made for Joseph, soaked in blood. In the years that Jacob mourns his son, Joseph has come up in the world, rising from a Hebrew slave to become a political power in Egypt, second only to Pharaoh.

Years later when father and son meet again in Egypt the narrative does not include any conversation between them about the past. The father, however, tells Pharaoh who asks how old he is, that his years have been bad, indicating that he has not measured up to his ancestors. It is an unexpected answer to a question about age, yet it is Jacob’s step in a new humility. He makes a public statement that his life was far from perfect, and would become a steppingstone in his choice to make amends at the end of his life. When Joseph hears that his father is on his deathbed he goes to Goshen to see Jacob, this time as a father himself as he brings his two sons. They may not know it, but they are there for a purpose and not just to get a patriarch’s blessing.

Jacob does something extraordinary. He takes Joseph out of the generation of the sibling group and installs instead his two sons. They take their father’s place as Jacob adds his grandchildren to the house of Israel as two tribes. He makes it clear that there is going to be no tribe of Joseph. Jacob elevates his two grandchildren, Ephraim and Manasseh and in an instant, and with no explanation, places them in the sibling group of future tribes. He anoints the nephews, to be “like brothers” to their uncles.

At this late stage, shortly before his death, Jacob understands the enormity of what he has done and the brothers’ resentment that has been so intense that they were ready to kill Joseph. To leave Joseph as a brother among his brothers would no longer be possible. He was also at that stage of their family history so elevated politically that returning to the domestic sibling group, as a brother/tribe would continue to inflame relations. Replacing Joseph with his sons would ameliorate and diffuse the sibling hatred. Joseph gets a blessing as a son, not a brother/tribe.

On this coming Shabbat as we read Parshat Va-Y’hi, [Genesis 37-50] we already know that the generational shift Jacob has created has worked. There is never a hint in the Torah that Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph’s sons, were out of order in the sibling group. In replacing Joseph in the sibling group Jacob signals both regret and redemption. Jacob realizes that he could not change the past but he could affect the future.

Many thanks to Matia Kam and Shiloh Kam for their comments.