March 26, 2015

The Cost of Religion

I love Pesach with all its laws and customs and even the preparation of cleaning out rooms, purging the kitchen, unpacking the special crockery, and pots and pans. But one thing really upsets me, and that is the cost!

My issue is that well over half the Jewish people are of very modest means and struggle to make ends meet. Increasingly, Judaism is becoming the preserve of the upwardly mobile and rich. To be Jewish and observant is getting more difficult because the cost of almost everything from food to synagogue membership to Jewish education is prohibitive. But specifically, to observe Pesach nowadays is a seriously expensive matter.

Let me start with the food. I understand that any product that appeals to a small sliver of the population is going to cost more than one that has mass-market appeal. Kosher food is indeed likely in general to be more expensive than non-kosher food. You have to include the cost of all the men and women employed working in stores, hotels, as caterers, slaughterers, butchers, supervisors, and contractors. In a way this is a sort of communal tax because providing employment, particularly for those with no qualifications to work anywhere else, which can be regarded as a mitzvah and communal obligation. But it is unfair that the burden of this should be shouldered equally by rich and poor. Reminds me of how in Medieval Europe rabbis tended to side with the rich and vote in favor of a poll tax instead of graduated income!

The Charedi world, known for its massive poverty and hundreds of thousands of men who study and whose wives earn meager wages, responds magnificently by subsidizing schooling, providing food banks, child support, emotional as well as financial aid, and altogether takes care of its own. Oh yes, and state subsidies, food stamps, and welfare help too. But for the rest, those who do not live in supportive ghettos there are real problems.

I was brought up to go to the supermarket and check ingredients, and if there was nothing un-kosher you could buy it. Later on lists of government-approved additives needed checking because often they included questionable stuff and were just shown as numbers so you might need a list of them. In those days the quantities mattered. So if the amount of a doubtful additive was minute, or if the question was whether the machinery had at one stage been used for something else, or if in the same factory non-kosher foods were present, it could still pass muster. This way you often had a cheaper option to pricier kosher supplies.

It is true that Pesach is a special case. All other forbidden food throughout the year is forbidden only above a minimum amount. But on Pesach any Chametz, however minute, is not allowed. Nevertheless, there comes a point when the law is extended to such a degree that it becomes laughable. Like worrying about microscopic creatures in the air or water. Refinements that were once considered the realm of the mystics have become the minimum. Eating one’s matzah into a paper bag for fear some might drop onto the floor is about as extreme as you could possibly wish for. If anything indicates a severe case of religious neurosis, this must be it. But nowadays some nutcases will tell you it's a halachic necessity. Totally non-absorbent materials, from stainless steel to granite countertops, are said to absorb forbidden matter. If so, you’d need a nuclear powered microscope to discover it!

The Talmud was satisfied with just looking for Chametz in places it was likely to have gone or be found. Now you have to fumigate every corner of your house from top to bottom for fear a spider might have taken a piece of bread into its web for safekeeping. The result is that cleaning for Pesach is so ridiculously extreme it gives Jewish women nightmares and nervous breakdowns. Unless, of course, once again, you are rich enough to pay others to do it for you while you relax reading “Hello”. Terror of infringing the most extreme of strictnesses has made cleaning and purging a massive burden. If a hot water urn is never used for anything but hot water, what forbidden material could ever get inside that would require one to kasher it for Passover?

People are no longer willing to buy food where the possibility that a minute drop or a drop of a drop might could have accidentally found its way into one out of a whole batch of thousands that may have accidentally absorbed a non-kosher smell. Or a drop of non-kosher lubricator from the machinery might have dropped onto one of the bottles of water, or aluminum foil, plastics, or paper towels. So to cover against all this, everything has to be supervised, and approved, and priced up.

Jewish laws states that you need to consume at least an olive’s worth of non- kosher food before you transgress. Or only worry about bugs you can see with the naked eye. Where non-kosher ingredients get mixed in or milk and meat get mixed up, if it’s a dry solid, a majority makes it permissible, and if it’s liquid, one sixtieth. But because we have raised the bar so high, most God-fearing Jews no longer want to take advantage of these let-outs for fear of losing their place in the World to Come.

Supervision itself is too often a sham. There are cases where a supervisory body has declared that for Pesach there has to be different machinery and extra supervision that explained the price difference, when in fact there was no such thing. They simply stuck on to the usual production a different label. Sadly, scams are widespread in the kosher business. Requiring kosher for Pesach water, cola, orange juice, sugar, pepper, coffee, and tea (not to mention detergents and chemicals) only makes sense if there’s a little gnome standing over the process spraying real Chametz into it all year round and you have to pay him to stay away over Pesach.

I do not want to sound ungrateful for all those pious honest supervisors who trek around the most inhospitable of places to bring kosher food to my table. But I do strongly object to the assumption that without supervision you automatically cannot have it. In other words, you have to pay more to be a practicing Jew.

If people are so well off that they can afford a Pesach cruise for the family or a milky and a meaty oven or fridge and two others specially for Pesach, then why not charge them to support religious life? But if you are struggling to support and feed your family, it cannot make sense, in the name of Heaven, to pay $1000 for a ten-day supply of food when it normally costs you $250. But that is the proportion of added costs buying supervised products for Pesach will cost you.

Sure, any basket of foods in New York will cost nearly twice as much as in Mississippi. Rent will cost many times more. But you can make choices. That's what rabbis ought to be telling us; they need to reassure their poorer congregants that they do not have to bankrupt themselves for legal refinements of refinements of refinements and stop scaring those who do not know better and are in fear for their spiritual welfare.

The Sephardi Rabbinate in Israel is very good at that. They have always had to deal with a much poorer but pious clientele. So they look for ways to make being Jewish cheaper and easier for the masses. It is worthwhile visiting Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi’s website for an alternative authoritative Orthodox list of approved products and ingredients and answers to Passover questions, for both Sephardim and Ashkenazim. I wish more Ashkenazi rabbis were so accommodating. And I wish more laypeople knew more about the law themselves so that they could make informed decisions and realize why half the specially marked Kosher Le Pesach products do not need to be!

I have no gripe at all with anyone who wishes to and can afford to be as strict as he or she wants. But for the millions who struggle, we must find ways of making Pesach more affordable and doable. The spiritual beauty and inspiration of Pesach, the instructions of the Torah to be sensitive to the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, must not be swamped by petty and minute restrictions. If kosher food is big business, religion should not be.

Enjoy the Festival.

March 19, 2015

Israeli Elections

The first Israeli election I experienced was in the summer of 1961. I was in Yeshivah in Jerusalem and heard both Ben Gurion and Begin campaign. There was no comparison. Ben Gurion was dull and uninspiring. Begin was magnetic and charismatic. But Ben Gurion won more than twice as many votes as Begin did. The left-wing socialist monopoly of power in Israel would continue until 1977. I learnt then that elections had little to do with charisma or indeed honest politicians, for there was none as honest and materially modest as Menachem Begin.

Given the Israeli system of proportional representation, there will always be a wide range of parties. And given that no party has ever got over 50% of the votes cast, it would be impossible to govern without coalition partners. Mapai, Ben Gurion’s party, would win around 45 votes and in the early years governed thanks, in the main, to the votes of the left-wing Mapam (around 18) and the National Religious party (12) who naturally were paid their prices. But times change. The old order is out.

The issues that faced Israel then were of the same order as those facing Israel today, even though the circumstances are very different:

  • What place would religion play in the state?
  • How would the government deal with housing its citizens?
  • The economy.
  • What would be the relationship with Israeli Arabs?
  • How could one make peace with the outside Arab world?

Over the years the issues have remained. Although each one has become more complex, the categories remain the same:

  • Whereas once the Charedi citizens were a despised minority, now they are growing exponentially and need huge infusions of cash to support a religious life that despises secular education and in general refuses to shoulder its share of the security issues.
  • Large, state-funded housing and building cheaply on occupied territory once helped provide affordable housing for thousands. But the switch from socialist housing to capitalism has meant that market forces determine prices. Those with money from within Israel or world Jewry want to be in Tel Aviv or nearby Haifa or Jerusalem. But housing there is now prohibitive. The only option is to live further away where housing is cheaper, but then that affects jobs in the center. Demonstrations of mainly middle-class Israelis who cannot afford Tel Aviv life have highlighted the financial divides in the country. The gap between the rich and poor in Israel, is growing wider and more problematic.
  • Relations with the Israeli Arab population are fraught. Most of them say they’d prefer to live under Israeli authority than Palestinian, but even so they feel discriminated against in Israel. They do not have to serve in the army, but this then limits job opportunities and benefits. But they can vote and sit in the Knesset. This year, for the first time, their fragmented parties of the left and right, religious and secular are uniting. Something the Jewish religious parties show no sign of achieving.
  • Once Israel was at war with all the Arab world. Now its conflict is essentially with the Palestinians. But they are divided into Hamas, which wants Israel eliminated, and Fatah, which is divided between those who want accommodation and those who prefer to hold out for more.

The one major difference nowadays is that the Israeli economy has done remarkably well. If the actual facts have changed over the years, the issues have not.

I heartily dislike and distrust politicians. Politicians are an unattractive breed of self-interested wheeler-dealers. No honest, self-respecting man or woman can survive with integrity intact in a system of constant bargaining, disagreement, and shifting alliances. It is the same everywhere of course. Israeli politicians are particularly prone to come and go, rise and fall. Each election a new “savior” arises, and each time he or she shines for a while and then fades.

The fact is that Israel is a very divided and mixed but vibrant country with lots of different minorities and interests. Outsiders like to think elections will lead to rational clear-cut decisions, but they rarely do. Politics are messy. Democracy is messy. But, dammit all, don’t we prefer democracy, inadequate as it is? So why are we such sore losers? When George W. Bush won, the liberals wept and swore to leave the country. When Obama won, the right swore he'd ruin it. Somehow we survive because we have other institutions.

Now that Netanyahu has won, the left wing is ready to up and leave. Obama sent his men to influence the election and then gets petulant like a child because it did not turn out the way he wanted. He is threatening to throw Israel under the bus. Let him, I say. Israel voted. Respect the vote, even if you hate it. Otherwise you cannot argue for democracy. It’s their country, not yours. So they are back where they started--that’s their choice.

Sure Netanyahu scared the electorate against the Left, just as the Left tried to scare everyone against Netanyahu. The Left doesn’t want the religious, the right or the Russians. The Right doesn’t want the left or the Arabs. Each partner in a messy coalition will sap the blood of the others. It’s possible (but unlikely) that Netanyahu and Herzog might form an alliance, but if they do it will only hobble them both. There is no one there who can be a game changer. It’s not completely dissimilar to the Republicans desperately trying to find a presidential candidate who can bring all wings of the party together. Change will only come when both sides want it badly enough.

It’s at moments like this that I can see the sense in the Charedi position that all of this is meaningless, it is all in the hands of the Almighty. Yet ironically the Charedi leadership still insists its people should vote, not so much for the good of the country, but because it wants to get its hands on the money.

Logically, I despair. I see no solution. And I agree, no deal is better than a bad deal. But what can you and I do? We want Israel to survive and be strong. We want peace. But we do not want capitulation. It’s like a bad marriage. Both sides are usually to blame.

It’s the Almighty who got us into this mess. Just as He did when He took us out of Egypt and landed us amongst the Canaanites. I guess He will have to solve it because we do not seem able to.

The Talmud says in Shabbat 32a: “You do not stand in a dangerous place and hope that God will perform a miracle for you.” You have to try to find a solution yourself. But what if you can’t? What else can you do but pray?

March 12, 2015

Marc Shapiro

If I say that Marc Shapiro is one of the most important and influential committed religious Jews alive today, you might think me guilty of hyperbole. I assure you I am not.

He has a Ph.D. from Harvard and directs the Weinberg Judaic Studies Institute at the University of Scranton, and he is the author of various books and articles on Jewish history, philosophy, and theology. His mastery of Jewish texts is encyclopedic. His writings often challenge conventional Orthodoxy. His Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy and The Limits of Orthodox Theology both won awards. He has been waging a battle against the egregious tendency in ultra-Orthodoxy to censor uncomfortable traditional texts and opinions and to exclude references to authors, regardless of how great they were in their day, when their opinions do not conform to current ultra-Orthodox nostra.

In days gone by, censorship was relatively easy. There were limited editions of major Jewish works of law and philosophy, often published generations apart. All religious authorities censored books and banned publications they did not approve of. Even in the UK State censorship continued into the 1960s. In Judaism the famous Rav Moshe Isserles, the Remah, had unconventional response on non-Jewish wine and cheese excluded from some editions of his work. Rav Yechezkel Landau’s collection of response Nodah Biyehudah had an introduction excoriating those who stole anything including copyrights from Jew and non-Jew alike. This was, on occasion, omitted by printers. But in those days of slow and erratic communication such omissions were often overlooked. Nowadays, thanks to the internet, all different editions are readily accessible. So we can compare texts. It’s much more difficult to get away with it. But that still doesn’t stop people trying.

The pressure in the ultra-Orthodox world is so great, the fear of being humiliated, marginalized, or even assaulted is so pervasive, that very few people have the guts to stand up to current convention. Sometimes rabbinic livelihoods are at stake. Marc Shapiro is one of a small group of scholars who actually does this fearlessly. His writings pricking the bubbles of hypocrisy can be seen on the Seforim blog and elsewhere. They are one of the intellectual joys of Jewish life. But more than that, they stand as a beacon of honesty and fearlessness in a world where fanatics everywhere try to silence anyone who stands up to them.

Shapiro's book The Limits of Orthodox Theology examines how the “Thirteen Principles of Faith” that Maimonides formulated were not accepted by everyone at the time, including some of the greatest rabbis of the generation. Nowadays even to question the wording of the Thirteen is enough to invite excommunication. But he shows, with thorough scholarship, how the formulation only much later acquired a sort of canonical sanctity.

He has traced how the magisterial Saul Lieberman, one of the greatest Talmudic minds of the previous century, was accepted as an expert by Eastern European great rabbis, but then was slowly written out of Orthodox publications that quoted him because he went to teach at the Jewish Theological Seminary that came to be associated with Conservative Judaism. He has discovered examples of the great first Chief Rabbi of Israel, Abraham Isaac Kook, a most impressive scholar and mystic, being censored out of ultra-Orthodox sources because he committed the ultimate crime in their eyes of supporting followers of Zionism.

A previous and present target is ArtScroll, one of most impressive contributions that the ultra-Orthodox world has made to general Jewish education in our times. But it is known for excluding anyone or any idea that does not conform to ultra-Orthodox norms.

One of its most controversial acts was in the way it presented the “Song of Songs” in translation. On the face of it, the book is a love song between two humans attributed to King Solomon. For thousands of years it has been regarded, by all traditionalists, as an allegory for the love of God for Israel and vice versa. If the original says “Song of Songs of Solomon” the Art Scroll says “ the Song dedicated to God Him to Whom peace belongs.” Or “Bnot Yerushalayim” in the original, Daughters of Jerusalem, is translated by Art Scroll in accordance with commentary but not literally as “Nations destined to ascend to Jerusalem.” We object to a Christian tendency to translate the prophets in ways that predicted Jesus. But this is just as bad. It dishonestly presents a text in a polemic light as if it were an accurate translation. Translations are meant to be about the accurate meaning of the words, not the ideas they try to convey. This is pure deception.

In a recent blog post, Shapiro has returned to attack ArtScroll for censoring opinions of Rashi’s grandson the Rashbam. In a recently issued Chumash with additional traditional commentators, Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis is included, but some of Rashbam’s controversial opinions are censored. When he excoriated them, their reply was:
“Let us make clear at the outset, ArtScroll has total and uncompromising respect for Chazal and the classic commentators. We do not censor them. Every one of their words is holy, and we have never deigned to tamper with their sacred texts.”
Shapiro, in turn, responed:
“Here we have an explanation from Rashbam that has been discussed and dealt with by some of the greatest Torah scholars for well over a century, yet ArtScroll feels that it knows better than all of them and thus has the authority to simply delete passages from the commentary. If that isn’t chutzpah, I don’t know what is.

Rashbam’s brother, Rabbenu Tam, famously attacked those who deleted or emended passages in the Talmud based on their own understanding. Rabbenu Tam realized that if everyone had the freedom to do with the text as he wished, it wouldn’t be long before the Talmud was irrevocably damaged. As such, anyone who has a suggestion about a mistake in the text is free to add it in the form of a note or in a commentary, but he is not permitted to alter the text itself. The only honest thing would have been for ArtScroll to have included the ‘objectionable’ passages and then explain why they feel that these texts are not authentic.”
Some of you may think that this is small stuff, petty academic infighting. It is not. It is an example of a serious battle for the integrity of Torah. In religious circles we often talk about “Restoring Torah to its Ancient Glory.” Ultra-Orthodoxy is bowdlerizing it. Marc Shapiro is restoring it. Long may he live and help preserve intellectually honest Judaism for the Orthodox community.

March 05, 2015

Purim Torah

In my student days, when I used to campaign for women’s rights, I thought that the Purim story was about the suffering of women. That drunk male numbskulls who got boozed up on excessive amounts of alcohol forced their smelly, priapic, testosterone-fueled bodies on unwilling, disadvantaged women.

King Achashverosh was a typical male chauvinist pig. A lazy slob, a sybaritic cross between an oriental potentate and a parasite, he probably never did a day’s work in his life. He is surrounded by incompetent, sycophantic advisors who come in sets of seven. When he finds himself short of financial liquidity he looks around desperately for an easy source of income. He is impressed by Haman’s scheme to kill and confiscate. He tries to buy loyalty by putting on huge lavish feasts, orgies of extravagance at which he expects his wife, Vashti, to come and perform.

One version is that Vashti had the guts to stand up to him. She risked her life—perhaps even lost it—because she refused to be treated as a second class citizen, as an object, as a beauty queen to be shown off with her body examined like a race horse or a stripper. “Good for her,” I thought, “and shame on the men who think that Vashti’s action threatens their pathetic manhood.” They insist on a proclamation that the men must be in charge of their households and the women must obey them. Achashverosh has no mind of his own. Pussy that he is, he gives in to his pathetic advisors. Reluctantly he gets rid of Vashti (probably literally). Then he misses her, poor sap. Until his young clubbing buddies advise him to gather up all the virgins in the empire and hold a beauty competition. I liked Vashti. She had guts. She is the heroine, and she pays with her life!

Esther, on the other hand, was a poor orphan who had been bullied into becoming a passive wimp and was raised by a rigid, strict, humorless cousin. He, in a Machiavellian way, uses her body to get close to the king to advance his own political career. He’s pimping her, knowing she will have to spend a night with the king with no guarantee that he will call her back. I know, he had no choice. But since when do polemics care about the facts?

Then her fate will be to join the hundreds of other concubines, used, discarded, and wasting away their lives in the seraglio. Mordechai is pulling the strings. He orders her not to divulge her origins. Anti-Semitism is everywhere. Haman was no exception. The 75,000 neo-fascists who were killed in the end amounted to a significant force. Fortunately she wins the competition and is crowned Miss Persian Empire. Even so, the addicted king keeps the virgins coming in. And as Mordechai says, there was no guarantee she wouldn’t be replaced.

It is five years later. Mordechai tells Esther of Haman’s decree and orders her to go to the king. But she can’t if she’s not been called, and she hasn’t seen the king for thirty days. Not much of a marriage if she only gets to see her husband that rarely. But then, he does have thousands of new virgins to try out. Poor Esther has to fast for three days and then risk her life. She has a plan. She invites the king to a banquet. Oh yes, he loves banquets. There she can’t come right out and tell the king what an evil man Haman is, so she uses subterfuge and seduction to titillate his curiosity to the point of bursting. But she also cleverly makes the king jealous. Is Haman a competitor for her affections? He was already wondering if Haman’s suggestion of dressing up in the king’s clothes and riding his horse wasn’t a challenge to his authority. Then when the timing is right, she comes out with it. Haman wants to kill her! The king is furious. Haman goes. Esther saves her people and gets Mordechai a promotion. She has done all this by using devious feminine wiles, whereas gutsy up-front Vashti got shown the door.

Time has passed. In our modern era women get as drunk as men and proposition basketball stars and post nude selfies and flock to see “50 Shades of Gray.” Perhaps Vashti was no idealist after all. She was insulted because only belly dancers, concubines, and girls of doubtful morals attended such drunken excesses where the drink was laced with date rape drugs. Queens had their own sedate gatherings. Or did they? Perhaps they invited male strippers and models, or some sadomasochistic football jocks. The last thing they wanted were fat, drunk, smelly politicians, bureaucrats, or eunuchs for heaven’s sake. She was nothing more than a Kim Kardashian who would do anything for money.

Now I began to see that the real heroine was Esther, who really had to make something of herself. It was not as if she had a choice. The virgins were rounded up because the King commanded. Try turning Putin down, and see where your body ends up! She realized that the way to win the king was not to use gimmicks, gizmos, or aphrodisiacs. She would simply use the God-given gifts she had. She stood for authenticity, for honesty, no games. She put her own life on the line for her people not just for herself.

She might have started off taking orders from Mordechai, but she soon learned to take the initiative. She reported that Mordecai had discovered a plot to kill the king and that halted Haman’s meteoric rise. It was her idea to fast and to order the community to support her. It was her idea to play the king, to intrigue him, to even refuse his insistence she tell him what she really wanted. She played it all so cleverly that she won the king’s confidence and became the one who gets him to do what she wants. She had an eye on power. She distributed favors to Mordechai and then instructed the Jewish people to turn the events into a national holiday and a new feature of the Jewish tradition. That's some achievement for a Jewish women, one that no one can match now, two-and-a-half thousand years later. She’s the poster woman for women’s rights, not Vashti.

Yes, of course, there’s another story here of anti-Semitism, of prejudice and irrational hatred, of what happens when leaders are weak or drunk and abdicate their responsibility to their advisors. It’s about having stupid laws, too, ones that cannot be withdrawn or overturned. And it’s about the right to self-defense. We sensitive moderns might be queasy about killing the enemy, but no one asked them to attack us. The anti-Jews could have stayed at home instead of parading down the streets of Shushan with placards proclaiming “Death to the Jews”. Sometimes you need to provoke your secret enemies and flush out the hidden foe. You need spirit and foresight to win the battle.

Above all there’s a spiritual message that, as Mordechai said, it is up to us to do our best, but if all else fails “help will come from somewhere else.” As it does. Mordechai is no ordinary exile. He has vision, and possibly prophecy, and an understanding of the problems of the empire, the dangers the Jews face. God is indeed hidden in the Book of Esther. He gets no mention. But He is there all the time, in the background and by implication.

In every generation the most unlikely heroes emerge to save us from others and from ourselves. It is not necessarily the great rabbis who make the right decisions. Sometimes it is a good political connection, a loving relationship, a business alliance, or just a person being there at the right moment that turns the course of history. That's the miracle of Purim. Anyone can be a hero.

February 26, 2015

Purim or Munich?

Purim is this coming week. It's a story that can be read as being about an ineffectual, drunken leader, a disaster just waiting to happen. Here is a king manipulated by his advisors into making disastrous decisions. Weakness always allows either dangerous, proactive demagogues to emerge or self-interested vipers to step into the vacuum. This is a lesson the USA is having to learn all over again.

“Munich” has many associations. The Munich Beer Hall Putsch in 1923 was when Hitler failed in his first attempt to gain power. The PLO massacred Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics in 1972. But in between was the infamous 1938 conference at which Britain sacrificed Czechoslovakia in the hope that it would bring peace. Hitler saw this as weakness and went on to invade Poland and Russia. Britain, instead of avoiding a small war, got dragged into a far wider and nastier one.

Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister at the time, will forever be remembered for his smug grin as he waved a piece of paper on his return from Munich declaring “peace for our time”. This was the prime example of appeasement. Appeasement is the Achilles heel of naïve, fainthearted liberals and social democrats. Much of the British aristocracy (as the American plutocracy) did not want to go to war. They thought Hitler was a good “chappie”. Even King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson were enamored. The students of Oxford University voted not to fight for King and Country. Cambridge University provided a whole network of lethal Soviet spies because they believed Russia’s Marxist claptrap would make the world a better place.

America saved Europe. Instead of gratitude, it was resented and excoriated as an aggressive bully. At least its nuclear threat gave Europe the longest stretch of peace it had in centuries. But now the USA is going through precisely the same appeasement mindset that Britain did 80 years ago.

I was brought up and educated in that post-war liberal mindset, in the warm, fuzzy belief that humans were basically reasonable and utilitarian. Socialism would help resolve all social difficulties. Normal men and women would always choose the moderate course over the extreme. Negotiations would always produce results, whereas violence and aggression never could. Universal values would always trump vested nationalist interests, and if we made love enough we could always avoid war. Mine was the generation of Sartre, Joan Baez, John Lennon, and all the other talented ingénues. My default position was left wing.

But reality, the need to make a living, the realization that people did not behave rationally and would not necessarily love you if you tried to be nice, soon set in. The world was a more complicated, nuanced place than the hippies believed. Nasty President Johnson achieved a lot more by being tough than others did by being nice.

History might never exactly repeat itself, but certain cycles do indeed keep on recurring. After eras of American imperialism, fighting dirty wars all round the world in its struggle against communism, the USA has had a very mixed record of both positive intervention and incompetence. Bush senior intervened to save Kuwait. Clinton intervened to stop Serbia (but not Rwanda). Meanwhile both Iraq and Afghanistan, after initial military victories, have remained failed, corrupt terror-ridden states, for all the billions wasted on them.

The record of current liberal America is pathetic. The administration seems to think, in abstract liberal fashion, that if you talk sweetly, are conciliatory, and spend money, this will win friends, and people will start loving you. The Obama administration has now given us a sequence of disastrous policies (or lack of them) from Libya to Syria, from ISIL to Pakistan, from Cairo to Riyadh via Teheran. And it’s not just with failed Muslim states.

Russia grabs Crimea. No, says the USA you can’t. Russia arms rebels in Western Ukraine; they down a passenger jet using Russian missiles; they break every truce and are pushing on because we know they want a land passage into Crimea from Russia proper. NATO and America’s reaction? No weapons to help Ukraine protect itself. Only hot air and ineffectual sanctions that the Russians have already found ways around.

And why is Putin feeling so confident? Because Obama couldn’t stand up to him in Syria. Would not arm moderate rebels while there were a few still left. Still won’t arm the Kurds for fear of offending Turkey (who think nothing of insulting him) or being accused of colluding in the breakup of the artificial cobbled state called Iraq. All of which allowed ISIL to thrive and take Mosul. Now that he realizes they are not Little Leaguers, he thinks he can defeat then without boots on the ground, relying on an already discredited Iraqi army or Sunni tribes who are closer to ISIL than they are to the Iraqi Shia.

I would not intervene whatsoever in the Middle East. Let them sort their own differences out. It’s as much a fundamentalist, messianic, religious sectarian battle as a political one. The Imperialist powers made a hash of it. Now let the cards fall where they may. America doesn’t need Saudi oil any longer, and its bigger challenges lie much further to the east.

Terror from Islamic fanatics is a threat, but America and the rest of the free world should focus resources on protecting themselves within their own borders, not venturing into alien territory and cultures it does not understand in the vain and arrogant hope of changing them. Let the dysfunctional Middle East destroy itself or else wake up to the fact that blaming Israel is no way to build a just society. Using scapegoats is always a recipe for failure.

The Liberal agenda refuses to see things as they are, choosing instead to see things as they would like them to be. They still believe Achashverosh’s descendants in Teheran are negotiating in good faith. It might not be a drunken fog, but it's a fog nevertheless. We all have our dreams and ideals. But we also need to be realistic and practical. In the end self-defense is always best. Nowadays no ally can trust America to come its aid.

Neville Obama may not be drunk with wine, but he is certainly intoxicated with his own dogmas.

Happy Purim.

February 19, 2015


I have just seen a film called Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem, an Israeli-French production. It is a most offensive film depicting a cartoon of Judaism. An unhappy wife, mother of four children, is desperate to escape a loveless marriage in which her Moroccan-Israeli husband adamantly refuses either to understand her unhappiness or to grant her a Get. He is simply and stubbornly insensitive to her human needs and cannot understand what she is going through. Her agony extends over a five-year period in which she has to face caricatures of hardline rabbis, hypocritical Moroccan neighbors and relatives, two-faced friends and incompetent legal experts. It is a grotesque cast of Fellini-like unsympathetic freaks.

Now I know better than most other people the limitations of Jewish divorce law, the male chauvinism of many rabbis, the incompetence of courts, and the abuses of the judiciary, wherever they are. I have consistently campaigned over the years for changes in attitude and the application of Jewish law within the bounds of the system. But to see such a one-sided distortion, containing factual errors, ignoring all the good that is done and offering the world a picture of traditional Judaism that is primitive and barbaric, simply made my heart sink and my hackles rise.

I have often written about the problems of the Agunah, a woman constrained under the law because a husband or brother-in-law refuses to release her to remarry through motives of blackmail or spite. Sometimes husbands have disappeared, either intentionally trying to escape their obligations or through accidents or catastrophes. Thankfully, there are not as many cases as people think, but even if we were dealing with only one and the rabbis failed to solve it using Jewish law I would still be offended and my sense of religious justice insulted.

Whatever my criticisms, most rabbis in Israel and abroad do a fair, sensitive, and reasonable job ensuring that women get their bills of divorce without blackmail or delay. Most Dayanim (judges) who sit on Jewish courts are humane, caring men. This goes for Ashkenazim and Sephardim (in this film the directors, in their ignorance, got terribly mixed up between the two). But there are sadly exceptions and if there is just one court, one rabbi, one judge who acts like a boor in the face of a woman in distress, or if there is one sector of the Jewish world that still clings to male domination and expects female submission, I desperately want it to be challenged and pressure to be brought to stop this betrayal of Jewish moral values.

Nevertheless, upset as I am by this distorted picture of my religion and this film that I wouldn't give tuppence for, in a way I am glad it is on general release. This is precisely why I value the freedom of the free world. Because we can go public, there can be redress. Because we can hold to ridicule the hypocrisies of those religious authorities who fail, we have a chance of getting them to see another point of view. If we lose that right, we have lost freedom.

Having been thus offended, if what happens all around us seems to work and if I want to get people to recognize how offended I am, I should now go out and kill someone and firebomb a film studio to make my point, in the hope that people will say, “There, there poor Jeremy, we must not offend you or your religion. So we will say this is not a film about Judaism, but rather about black-bearded men who behave badly. And we will stop showing the film and withdraw it from public distribution in order to protect everyone concerned from your violent reaction.” You can see where I am going with this.

Why is it that the free world seems impervious to insulting Judaism or Christianity, but bridles at anything that might insult Muslims? Meanwhile, many Imams in Islamic societies and communities, the source of so much anti-Semitism are not only refusing to cleanse their own stables but continue to heap abuse on Jews.

Whatever our obligations to immigrants of other religions, and they are and must be broad and supportive, one thing we must not compromise is our freedom to criticize and to hold to ridicule. This of course is very different to abuse and inciting hatred. That is an integral part of our civilization and culture that men like Voltaire, Franklin, and Zola fought for. There is a difference between insulting people and insulting gross acts of violence and terror and their sources. But what is at the root of this issue is the demand of one religion that it be treated as exceptional.

This is why we must fight any attempt to bring back blasphemy laws, because they will be used to prevent exposing the crimes of religious leaders who betray our moral values, just as libel laws are used to protect corrupt businessmen and politicians. Being publicly ridiculed by talk show hosts and comedians is the only safeguard we have against financial corruption and religious fanaticism imposing itself upon us all.

Liberalism, too, is a religion that must be held to ridicule. The pathetic cowardice of those who argue that using euphemisms will help solve a problem is precisely the kind of appeasement that has brought Europe to its present state of confusion. If you tolerate preachers continually preaching hatred against a group in society because you do not wish to label them, you must expect something to happen. And if you do nothing you become a partner in the crime. The more one gives in to bullies, the more one will be bullied. I hear pundits say that America, unlike Europe, in not publishing offensive cartoons has found a balance between freedom of speech and offensive speech. That's hogwash. It is Liberal hypocrisy and, frankly, defeatism.

I believe our society requires that we hold up to ridicule all religions and all ideologies when their members betray their ideals. Because that is often the only way to get a reaction, other than retreating behind closed doors. I do not object if you call a Chasid who steals a “Jewish thief” because in his dress he is clearly identifying himself as Jewish by religion, yet he is stealing. A rabbi who abuses his position is a “rabbinical abuser”. That describes him to a tee. And if someone uses Islam or the Koran as a reason to kill, he is a Muslim killer. Morality hates hypocrisy, no matter where it comes from. If there are those who fear prejudice and hatred, let them strive to remove the beams from their eyes too.

I want peace and tolerance and freedom. But if we refuse to be honest with ourselves, there is not a chance. I knew in advance I would hate this film. But I went because I thought it would do my soul good and reinforce my sense of what justice should look like.

February 12, 2015


According to the Bible, before the world was created there was chaos, Tohu VaVohu. However, it was out of chaos that something positive emerged. I am a fan of chaos. The alternative to chaos is order. But too often order is worse. Human life constantly shuttles between these two, on a personal and on a national level. Jewish life, in particular, has always been thus. But I believe we should welcome it. This state can be creative. It can throw up all kinds of new possibilities. Maybe we need to be reminded every now and then, as now, of what chaos is like.

In Judaism there are many conflicting ideologies and social groups that, by definition, are all but impossible to reconcile. Reform Jews have split from the mainstream by deciding to adopt patrilineal descent to define Jewish religious identity. Many Ultra Orthodox sects have split by making identity depend on exclusive dress and standards of practice that reject modernity and go way beyond mainstream Jewish law.

We are at odds with ourselves and at odds with much of the world. For some this alienation is religious, and for some it is political. In the Diaspora we can read, say, the New York Times, and not a day goes by without an article critical and demeaning of Israel and Jews. We can hear news and media losing no opportunity to blame Jews and Israel, themselves, for the hatred directed towards them. We do suffer demonization. Israel faces de-legitimization, from without and within. According to Pew Foundation many young Jewish Americans do not identify either with Judaism or Israel. I no longer expect the left wing to accept Israel’s right to exist any more than I expect Muslims in the Middle East to accept Israel’s right to exist. And I realize we few 14 million or so are surrounded by billions of enemies. Doesn’t this scare me? How long can so few, however talented, however determined, however brave and convinced of the rightness of their cause, hope to survive against billions?

I do not believe for one second that if Israel were to disappear tomorrow we would be any more loved or respected. And I do not believe for one minute that anything would change if Israel were to become the most ethical, caring, uncorrupt, nonviolent state in the world tomorrow. At the same time, I am depressed by the negative aspects of Israeli and Jewish society, the gap between the rich and poor, between communities, religions, and races (even if they are no worse than every other polity or state or religion or people). Yes, I do expect them to be better. Yet we can also find sites and media that are able to put Israel in perspective in relation to other states. I am elated and impressed by Israel’s achievements despite the countervailing winds. Dammit, why else would Somali refugees avoid their own Muslim states to try for refuge in a Jewish one?

The political landscape of America is changing. Eighty percent of Jews used to vote Democrat. Now it’s reducing rapidly. Jewish life in the USA used to be dominated by Reform Judaism; now the Orthodox are taking over. Obama and most Democrats are completely out of sympathy with Israel. Academia is resolutely anti-Zionist, read anti-Israel, read anti-Jewish-self-determination. Russia and China still vote against Israel at the UN. But we can also hear those who stand up for our right to exist unmolested, be we Jews or Israelis.

India is moving in our direction. While Turkish Islamic leaders spew hatred we still trade, and we help the Kurds. As ISIL decapitates and burns within miles of Israel’s borders, Israel herself is increasingly self-sufficient in gas, oil, and water, not to mention technology. And frankly Judaism has never been stronger in terms of people, learning and power for two thousand years. Do we look at the cup half empty or half full?

Chaos is everywhere. One minute Russia is down, the next it is invading other countries, and no one can stop it. Assad of Syria is the enemy; then he’s the ally. One day the EU is a powerful economic entity, and the next it is on its knees and fragmenting. The USA is the world’s policeman at one stage, and then it cannot take a stand on anything. Once Japan ruled the east; now it is China. Six months ago oil was a $100 a barrel and now it is $50. The Swiss franc goes wild. The Chinese Yuan is nervous.

Nothing stays the same. History does not end. Humans remain the complex organisms they were created to be or evolved into, whichever theory you prefer.

We have always dealt with shifting powers and alliances. Chaos is our natural state. Where are the great communities of a thousand years ago, Babylon, Spain, Egypt, Southern Italy? Others have taken their place. We never know for certain who will be our friends, who our allies. But as Mordechai said to Esther two-and-a-half thousand years ago, “If you don't act now, salvation for the people will come from somewhere else, even if you perish.” Salvation always comes, from the unlikeliest quarters. Though I do believe we need to work very hard at it!

Some focus on the negatives. I do not for one minute suggest it's all doom and gloom. But it is challenging. Those who put their Jewishness first, wherever they are, are always different. But they are the ones who step up! We have usually found a way of turning the negative into the positive. And when within a state of chaos or uncertainty we withdraw into those we think we can trust because they share our fate; we cluster into small subsections and coteries for reassurance but also for regeneration.

In conditions of turbulence and flux one looks for points of refuge, rocks to cling to, priorities. Just as in the world at large the buzz word is knowledge. Within our world that word is commitment. What is my rock? It is my people. (Judaism is a people, not just a religion.) That means supporting them wherever they may be. It is not that I cannot see our faults and failures. But it is no different than a mother who loves her son regardless of what he has done. There are billions to care about other religions, other peoples. Why shouldn’t I give priority to mine?

The question really is how much one cares. It is not in what way you show your commitment, whether it is religious or social or secular, but how committed ARE you? We will survive. When the floodwaters rise, I want to be with the committed, with the faithful, not with those who swim with fashionable tides. We need chaos. It strengthens us. It always has. Within chaos the small little atoms of cohesion survive to build another world.

I am not saying we must ignore, turn blind eyes or refuse to react. We should never let evil go un-reacted-to. But at the same time we need to focus on the positive not on the negative. We will feel better for it too.