Feel-good lectures at UN undermine Israel's security

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that he will attend the UN General Assembly in New York later this month, specifically to re-warn the world of the dangers posed by a nuclear Iran. Beyond that, he wants to impress on fellow world leaders -- and a global audience -- that Israel intends to use force to stop Iran's nuclear program regardless of current or potential international sanctions.

Ah, where to begin?

WRONG MESSENGER

Israel definitely faces a significant threat if Iran acquires a deliverable nuclear weapon, and the whole Middle East would be plunged into a new regime of fear. But Israel -- and Jewish organizations -- are the absolute worst bearers of these warnings. When the Presidents of the United States, France and Argentina, and the UN Secretary-General, have issued such warnings, this reinforces the notion that Iran is a threat to all nations and not only to the Jewish State. So why reduce this to a "Jewish" issue, which only helps Iran stave off even stronger sanctions? 

WRONG MESSAGE

The fact is, any sanctions are better than no sanctions, and especially the tougher variety that President Obama and former French President Sarkozy were able to convince the Security Council to adopt -- with the grudging assent of Russia and China. Every time Netanyahu dismisses the value of such sanctions, he discourages governments from ENFORCING the current sanctions. And every time he refers to a military strike -- before Iran even acquires an actual weapon -- he undermines the case for any sanctions. And by not giving sanctions a chance, he forfeits any possibility of immunity should Israel actually attack. 

Shift on "occupation" compels new pro-Israel strategy

More than at any time in this generation, Israel's friends will need to muster candor, creativity, and coordination. 

For true pro-Israel advocates, the Oslo process was a godsend. That is, for those of us who were then still intent on promoting and defending Israel's international standing, rather than imposing our own ideological stamp on Israel's domestic politics. Israeli policies were much easier to explain to those "undecideds" in America and elsewhere: Israel was taking clear and significant steps to resolve the status of the West Bank and Gaza, and of Palestinians everywhere.

Since the late-1990s, we have returned to pointing out the less obvious ways in which Israel remained committed to "doing the right thing," as well as justifying or downplaying actions that are less universally palatable (home demolitions and expulsions, military crackdowns, land expropriation, settlement "natural growth"). Now, perhaps for the first time since the 1982-84 Lebanon War, we face a situation that cannot be explained away by necessity or lack of alternatives, while the dangers facing Israel -- and the need for international support and legitimacy -- are not going away.

The ambivalent status of Israel's presence in the West Bank has now been officially denied by an expert panel appointed by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Past governments have cited extenuating circumstances, or applied very broad definitions of Jerusalem's city limits. But never before has the Government of Israel simply announced that there is no occupation, and that there never was.

Confessions of an Election Day volunteer

Election day is a microcosm of the whole race, and our own individual decisions can reflect what we know and what we value.

I love helping out on campaigns. I'm not talking about collecting the big checks or taking out the full-page ads from behind a comfy desk. I mean going out and getting voters to turn out, one by one. Picking up and dropping off volunteers, especially the union stalwarts who just show up -- no matter what. Knocking on doors and reminding people. And even dealing with the hard-working kings for a day, the election day field organizers (having been one myself on occasion). Senior Hill staffers and college students all popping in to do whatever it takes, with rank and privilege irrelevant. Well, ALMOST irrelevant.

Back in 1988, I spent several weeks on my first New Hampshire Primary campaign. Very long days, late-night beers, and frigid nights sleeping on a succession of floors and sofas in the homes of local supporters. Waking up every day long before dawn, feeling soooo cold. Brrrrr! Fun, and fulfilling, right down to pouring wiper fluid across the windshield just to get some visibility. Going door-to-door in waist-high snow, and driving around on streets with a permanent layer of unmelting, compacted snow. Real enthusiasm, and seemingly endless energy. But we get older and -- just possibly -- wiser.

Israel shouldn't risk for peace? So say so

Those who don't want peace will never have a shortage of statistics and anecdotes to cite in support of their rejectionism. Israel's most vocal antagonists appear politically primitive, often tribal in their allegiances, fractious, racist, absolutist, and wantonly violent. Those who reject meaningful negotiations against such a backdrop feel justified in not taking the risk. But every choice carries a risk, and continuing along the same path day after day -- and settlement after settlement, unpleasant necessity after... is equally a choice, and with real risks. Own it.

My Republican friends like to talk about being responsible for one's choices, so OK. If the "facts on the ground" are so challenging and dispiriting -- and if one is unwilling to recognize even minor blame on Israel's side -- then opponents of the peace process should be clear about their position: There should be no negotiations. Israel's current government has not been clear, at least not in English and not to Washington. The good news for the wide spectrum of Israelis who have come back around to opposing or fearing any negotiations with the Palestinians, is that many months ago U.S. President Obama gave up on any serious effort to bring Israeli and Palestinian leaders back to the table.

Is Obama REALLY pro-Israel... Now? Now? Now?

Yet another Jewish group has met with President Obama, and again the messaging is focused on his record and commitment to Israel's security. This despite the fact that analysts and Israeli leaders agree -- publicly and privately -- that Obama has been an excellent champion for Israel's security, on all fronts.

By repeatedly reassuring ourselves that this President isn't planning to abandon Israel, American Jewish media and community leaders reinforce the basic insecurity of a large and vocal minority of Jews (and a majority of Israelis) -- if he really were pro-Israel, we wouldn't need to be reminded... Also, the fact that we need to keep hearing the President say it, and to report that he said it, sends an additional message to the world: All we want to hear is the recitation of the same old formula.

Before my career went local, I used to participate in very small and extended discussions with another world leader. He always included a Mideast advisor, and he always opened by discussing the latest developments regarding Israel. We would always thank him, and then switch the conversation to some other international concern. I came to understand that, of all the official Jews he got to meet, we were probably the only ones who weren't there to beat him over the head about Israel. We were happy to support his constructive relationship with Israel, but I also had an understanding with my Israeli colleagues, who are expert diplomats -- unless they specifically asked me to intervene on their behalf, I would leave it to them to represent Israel's interests. They did oblige me from time to time, and they seemed very pleased to have a Jewish group that did not see itself as Israel's first and last line of defense. After all, Israel is a sovereign state. And American Jews are not one-dimensional.

At the White House, as well, we should be able to cover Israel as needed, but focus on what we as Americans can be doing to help the President -- any President -- achieve his (and eventually, her) goals in the national interest. Unless there are well-founded fears as to his leanings and intentions, it may be best to avoid sowing further doubts by trumpeting the boiler-plate assurances.

We doth protest too much.

Jewish organizations face transition anxiety

The New York Jewish Week has a timely article about the untimely lack of succession planning in American Jewish organizations. Sure, Communist China has more organized and frequent turnover at the top than do most of our communal institutions over here. But to be fair, when success is measured by market shares and fundraising numbers, keeping a charismatic leader in place becomes imperative. And why rock the boat, since status quo is a close second to charisma as a guiding consideration. 

[Full disclosure here: I still have latent aspirations of my own...] 

It would be nice if success were primarily measured by transparent results against a clear mission ("ROI" evangelism notwithstanding). But our community is based on voluntary participation and support, so using familiar and brand-tested personalities can be very important to keeping the Jewish public engaged. 

Reportedly, some major organizations also prefer to wait on lining up a successor until after the chief executive announces retirement, so the search process can become an opportunity to reassess the organization's mission and structure. So, in many cases, the only opportunity for a top-down review and realignment is when the chief executive (or a Higher authority) chooses his own departure date, possibly three decades out? This seems a bit antiquated, and wouldn't meet the standards of the business leaders who fund the organizations or the taxpayers who subsidize their tax-deductible donations. 

If one individual is so popular and effective that only he (still very few she's at the top) can make the organization work, then he has not done such a great job building an institution. Despite all the consultants and Planning Professionals employed by Jewish nonprofits, it's not succession planning we're missing -- it's succession and planning. 

It is what it is. (It's certainly not changing anytime soon.)

Fear, Internet, and the Jewish future

I recently attended the funeral of a major rabbi and educator from the Haredi, "black hat" sector of our community. The street was closed to traffic due to the impressive turnout, and a diverse succession of leading rabbis delivered emotional eulogy after eulogy.

Eulogy after eulogy repeated the same two memes. First, this was a man completely devoted to ensuring the transmission of Torah Judaism. Second, he was even more remarkable in his unwavering determination to oppose any change, hewing rather to the rigid traditions of previous generations. This can be a true strength, and we will always need teachers and guides who do not waver, but we also need leaders who can empower us to engage the world and repair it, and assimilate it -- not to assimilate INTO it.

"Assimilation" can refer to what we as Jews glean from the outside world -- language and literary meter, reasoning, science, manners, history. The dangerous side of assimilation has been the hemorrhaging of Jews and the dilution of Jewish identity. Our mission in this world is to assimilate, in the BEST meaning of the word: To integrate the richness of all knowledge into our dynamic and constantly evolving sense of identity and choices, as we face the ever-changing and constant challenges of life and the universe; and to get our questions and conclusions out to the widest possible audience, Jewish and otherwise, in order to make a positive impact on humanity. 

The destructive form of assimilation is very real, but it should not eclipse what has always been one of our strengths -- engaging the world in a constructive way, running the risks of diminution in order to remain relevant in the cause of expanding holiness where it would otherwise be lacking or undiscovered.

Every society and culture needs an ivory tower, and there are sectors of yeshiva life that should focus on what is immutable and unchanging. But an equally real test and mission of Judaism, as I see it, is to walk humbly with the Lord -- to walk, not just to sit. 

There will always be a facile case for demonizing and even banning interaction with the world beyond our own four cubits -- how can I get hit by a car if I stay in bed all day? The reaction to Internet is only the latest example. But effectively shutting off the Internet is also a control mechanism. And discouraging proper enforcement against sex-abusers can "protect" the community only in some perverse way, an example of how rigid control can harm the community and its members.