New opportunities for Zionism

25 Iyar 5772/May 17, 2012

The new government presents new opportunities for Israel, and new opportunities for progressive Zionists to formulate constructive positions that reflect what we want to achieve.  Progressive advocacy on Israel should be based on a positive vision of what Israel can achieve.  We should aim for Israel to be admired, not merely tolerated.

Those of us outside Israel should still ask that its government make its decisions based on practical goals and respect for democracy, not nationalist ideology.  As long as this is the case, we should avoid criticizing military and security measures.  There are too many facts that we (and many Israelis) aren’t privy to.  A government aiming for peace and security may need to make harsh decisions to get there.

The left often has a tendency to ask for too much, too soon.  But with a long stretch of peace, security and tolerance, Israel can develop new Jewish approaches that achieve more than we can imagine.

Israel needs a unity government

March 25, 2012

2 Nisan 5772/March 25, 2012

Israel is facing a nuclear threat from Iran, possible strategic disagreements with the US, missiles from Gaza, eroding Jewish support, and now the possibility of coordinated diplomacy between Egypt, Fatah and Hamas. A government of all its mainstream democratic parties can make, and enforce, peace offers that serve the country’s security; turn divisions among Israel’s neighbors to its advantage; preserve Israel’s democratic system whether or not peace is possible; and make pragmatic decisions on military operations. Time for Netanyahu, Livni and Shulimovich to put aside their egos and their supporters’ wish lists and join together for a secure, democratic future.

My audacious hopes for Israel

6 Tevet 5772/January 1, 2012

Last Saturday was the Shabbat of Chanuka, and in the prophetic reading, God shows the prophet a vision of a menora and olive branches, and expresses surprise that the prophet didn’t understand the vision’s message of hope (Zech. 4:1-6).  I think this usage is uncommon in the prophetic books.  Perhaps the message is that the prophet, and his community, were responsible for acting with the conviction that the future could be better.

This year, Americans, Europeans, Israelis and democratic progressives the world over will be challenged to show faith that freedom, tolerance and justice are the wave of the future, and that nations can rediscover their past greatness to serve this future.

For Israel and its supporters, this means maintaining Israel’s commitment to democracy and determination to be an equal part of the international community.  Supporters of Israel should be wary of criticizing specific military and diplomatic steps — too much of the background information is unavailable to us — but we can and should have certain expectations.  The purpose of these expectations is not just to correct wrong steps and avoid dangerous consequences, but to restore the Zionist vision of a Jewish state as a world leader.

We can and should expect that all Israelis who support democracy and openness will join together to put forward realistic proposals for peace — and to preserve these values if peace cannot be achieved.

We can and should expect that the Israeli government will protect law-abiding citizens and prosecute violent protesters as provided by law.

We can and should expect the Israeli government to protect Israel’s democratic institutions and the independence of its media and judiciary.

I am convinced that if Israel can take these steps, it can cultivate Jewish perspectives on the issues facing the world, allowing Jewish beliefs and traditions to help create new intellectual and spiritual approaches for humanity.  If Israel can develop a role as a creator of new perspectives that recognize the image of God in all people, it can achieve not just secure existence, but a greatness not yet dreamed of in Washington – or in Jerusalem.

Passing on a beautiful piece

Published 09:00 07.11.11 Latest update 09:00 07.11.11
Wearing my kippah for Rabin
By wearing a kippah at the rally commemorating the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, I was questioned intensely and searched more fully. I wanted to scream, ‘I’m not one of them, don’t worry!’

By Arie Hasit
Tags: Yitzhak Rabin
Every year, since the first year I moved to Israel, I have spent the eve of the 12th day of Heshvan at the same place: Rabin Square. Rabin had been my childhood Kennedy. I remember exactly where I was when I heard he was murdered, I felt the loss of his leadership – even as a twelve-year old American – and I have often wondered how life would have been different had he remained alive.

And so, six years ago, during my first year living in Israel, it was no surprise that I made my way to Tel Aviv on a Saturday night for the tenth anniversary of Rabin’s assassination. Like those around me, I sang along with Miri Aloni to “A Song of Peace,” cheered when Tzipi Livni said that people across the political spectrum were hurt by Rabin’s murder, and was moved by the words of Bill Clinton to take up Rabin’s work.

What surprised me was what happened when I entered the rally. In the years since Rabin’s murder, I had become more religiously observant, and a few years earlier, I had started wearing a kippah regularly. By wearing a kippah at the rally, I was questioned intensely and searched more fully. I wanted to scream, “I’m not one of them, don’t worry!” But my having a kippah placed me in the religious camp, and therefore suggested I may have been a threat.

In the aftermath of that rally, I considered taking off my kippah. While I had my religious convictions, I was not ready for the assumptions that people made about me as a religious person. I did not want people to assume things about my politics and my ideology. But I did want to continue to acknowledge God’s presence in my life, and so my kippah remained a part of my daily dress.

In wearing my kippah, I cannot hide from the associations people have with religious Jews in this country. Beyond that, I cannot pretend that it was not a kippah-wearing, supposedly “religious” Jew that assassinated Rabin. And that is precisely why it is so important for me to continue wearing my kippah as I commemorate the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.

I do not disown the minority of religious Jews who encouraged the assassination, nor the one who did the deed. I do not say, “They are not me. They are not my people.” Instead, I say that it is the responsibility of all religious people to take ownership of the horrible action, to say that we have a responsibility to make sure that disagreements are solved in a non-violent matter, and that no religious Jew decides to take his own corrupt view of justice into his own hands.

At the same time, I would like to reclaim the label of “religious,” so that in Israel, religiousness is associated not only with the strict observance of the Sabbath and Kashrut, but with good deeds, charity, and a desire to make the world a better place.

In the Talmud tractate of Yoma, we are taught about two priests who race to be the first to offer a sacrifice in the Temple. As one priest approaches the altar, the other stabs him, leaving him bleeding on the ground. The dying priest’s father approaches, removes the knife, and announces that because the priest is not yet dead, the knife has not been made impure, and the sacrifices may continue. It is taught that God sees that in the Temple purity of a knife is more important than the life of a human being, and the Temple lost its holiness.

So too with the murder of Rabin, a religious Jew decided that the holiness of the land was more important than the life of the prime minister. It is my job, as an outwardly religious Jew, to publicly live a life that values human life above else. It is my job to encourage all other religious Jews to do the same. Whether one agreed with Rabin’s path or not, all religious Jews – and all people – should agree that the way to disagree is not through violence.

And so, as in years past, I will continue to commemorate the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, whether together with rest of Israeli society or in small groups. And I will continue to do so not despite my being a religious Jew, but because I am a religious Jew.

Arie Hasit is an educator at Ramah Programs in Israel and is beginning the Israeli bet midrash program at the Schechter institute. The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone.

Occupy Congress….

18 Tishrei 5772/October 16, 2011

… by getting elected to it, and to your statehouse and state legislature.  I generally support the OWS supporters and their counterparts around the country and around the world.  But the next step must be to frame a constructive and achievable agenda, and run candidates who will promote that agenda.

A comment and my reply

22 Av 5771/August 21, 2011

A friend commented on Facebook that I

“would find a need to put a limit on what the government can do for it’s citizens – his line may just be at a different point than those of a more fiscally conservative inclination. Further, his analogy to a family is similarly well taken. If I had to, as we all would, I’d incur debt to make sure my family was well taken care of, but where does it end? At some point I’d become crushed under the burden of that debt and the kindness of family & friends. In a perfect world elected representatives can negotiate in good faith on who should be taxed and for how much much and whether that money goes for guns or butter. I have to believe in the end there reaches a point where taxes become so excessive that they limit a corporations ability to grow and do violence to the spirit of hard working entrepreneurs. Americans are on the whole a good people. Nobody, left or right, wants to see our most vulnerable citizens suffer.” This is the sort of concern that must be met partway if we want a significant majority to support government’s role in  improving people’s lives and ensuring a level of social justice.  We cannot decide what government can or cannot afford before we decide what it needs to achieve, but sometimes that will mean there are some things government and its taxpayers actually can’t afford. I would say that when taxation does hamper business development, often it’s not an excessive tax rate but the complexity of several different kinds of taxes.  A more progressive solution of higher marginal rates on high-income households might well be less burdensome on small businesses than our current tax structure (just as creation of a public option for health insurance might have been less intrusive than the 2010 health reform). Finally, maybe most Americans don’t want to see our most vulnerable citizens suffer, but we must stop catering to those (some individuals but more often large corporations) who would rather see that than be inconvenienced or regulated in any way. See the comment thread Reply to this email to comment on this link. Thanks, The Facebook Team

Within its means

18 Av 5771/August 17, 2011

We often hear that government must live “within its means” just as ordinary people do.  I agree as far as that goes, but this statement is meaningless without a definition of what government is meant for.  Cash-strapped parents could quickly live within their means if they just sold away their children or at least refused to pay for food, clothing or school, but obviously this would contradict the whole meaning of a family.  Similarly, if the purpose of government is to ensure basic needs and equal opportunity to excel, it makes no sense to balance budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens.

 

Yes, we must

9 -11Av 5771/August 9-10, 2011

This blog is by the author of Chovev Amim (chovevamim.wordpress.com) , which began discussing religious topics from a modern-observant Jewish perspective but became more political than intended (and, I must admit, has been neglected).  Chovev Amim will still be supplemented from time to time with more religious themes.  This is meant to be political, from a progessive viewpoint, without letting our fondest dreams get in the way of complicated realities.

What do we do between now and November 2012?  We want to renew the political philosophy that stands for social justice, using government policy as one way to improve people’s lives; and that condemns the idea that the many must sacrifice basic needs so that the few can live in luxury.  But at the same time, the need for cooperation and compromise in American politics has never been clearer.

Thus, the long-range goal needs to be creating a new consensus, as America had from about 1952-54 to 1980, to last beyond a few election cycles.  This consensus would accept fair and progressive tax rates and government involvement in key domestic programs, while addressing the concerns of many Americans about the size of government.  Although any compromise that could be reached now would be further right than we would want, we must support one.  But to create a consensus that is fair and favorable to working people, we need strong progressives to run against all vulnerable Republican opponents in federal and state races.   In the meantime, we also need to protect voting rights so that nobody can be barred from voting.

With enough progressives in Congress and state legislatures with as much conviction and passionate intensity as any Tea Partier, we can pull the debate leftward to achieve a reasonable middle ground, as opposed to a middle ground halfway between Harry Reid and Michele Bachmann.

President Obama has advocated sensible policies in office, but there’s no point in dwelling on any shortcomings in his personality.  Whatever America needs to achieve is the responsibility of each and all of us.