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. 

On day school advocacy, follow the money.

I was intrigued to learn that my colleagues at the Jewish Council for Public Affairs are holding a panel discussion on vouchers, tax credits and other forms of government aid to non-public (i.e., private) schools. The panel is scheduled for this week's annual JCPA Plenum, where community activists from around the country gather to coordinate national and local approaches to pressing issues.

As was pointed out in the latest New York Jewish Week, this is a big deal for a national umbrella that's typically left-of-center when it comes to social policy and domestic politics. Part of JCPA's strength has been its affinity with labor unions and liberal church groups, which has come in handy over the years especially in protecting Israel from would-be boycotts. Some years back, JCPA ran afoul of some of the more monied interests in the Jewish community by opposing the Bush-era tax cuts.

Could this be a sea change? Government assistance to private schools -- even yeshivas -- is usually perceived by teachers' unions as undercutting their bottom line on the public school side. Many liberal Jews have lingering concerns over separation of church and state -- even for financing of secular aspects of Jewish day school education.

According to The Jewish Week, the three panelists for the session will be two academics -- including the leading historian of American Jewry -- and the head of a major teachers' union. It's a nice "get" to have a major skeptic of government funding, and two thoughtful scholars... but no sea change yet. Hopefully, sometime soon, JCPA will be in a position to give a platform to those in the community who are actively engaging in political advocacy for this cause, at the national, state and city levels;  a constitutional law expert; and possibly, one of the many community leaders who are also on board.

For now, it may be up to the Jewish Federations to lead the way, since that's where the donors are. Who better to appreciate what it costs to fund Jewish continuity?

Piling on 60 Minutes beats Yom Ha'atzmaut

Here's a sad consideration on the eve of Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day: Hasbara (Israel advocacy) is beginning to contradict the business plan for American Jewry and for Aliyah (immigration to Israel). American Jewry's calculated over-reaction to last Sunday's "60 Minutes" story -- following on Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's own MIS-calculated over-reaction -- is just the latest example. (I posted the interview clip yesterday, along with my own readout).

About "60 Minutes": The security barrier that now runs along the West Bank may be both effective and justified, and relatively benign for the barbarous Middle East, but its negative impact on Palestinian daily life is unmistakable. The demographic shifts among Christian communities in the West Bank and Jerusalem are complex and yet equally unmistakable.

My guess is, had Ambassador Oren known that reporter Bob Simon was going to catch him out, he might have prepared more carefully for the "60 Minutes" interview. But it was just one network show, airing the same night HBO was premiering "Veep" and AMC unleashed yet another gripping episode of "Mad Men". In other words, it's a garden-variety negative story about Israel that can be pushed down the Google ladder by a whole slew of good news, and also by whatever other bad news inevitably comes our way.

This week offered a welcome opportunity to boost Israel. And yet, rather than focusing on the infinite range of positive Israel stories, American Jewish organizations have responded by doubling down on Ambassador Oren's stumbling block. 

Rather than trying to inspire confidence and move beyond the latest inevitable "bad" press, our Jewish establishment has chosen to inspire fear and resentment -- calling for a full frontal assault on CBS News. The premise seems to be that 60 Minutes needs to be censured, so that the next time Ambassador Oren won't even have to call CBS management -- they'll already be so scared, as will other media outlets -- that they won't dare to broadcast such an unfair story.

There are at least three problems with this approach. First, it won't work. Second, it will backfire by drawing further attention to the premise of the story -- that the Jewish State is causing the decline of Christians in the birthplace of Christianity. Third, galvanizing American Jewry behind such a cause will reinforce the siege mentality in our community, and bolster those who maintain that Israel's biggest problem is bad press. 

And here's a bonus question: Is anti-media frenzy all just to defend beleaguered Israel from unfair attack, or is it also a way to fill an otherwise boring public agenda? 

Telling young Jews that "60 Minutes" is the enemy seems like a bad way to encourage them to move to Israel.  If the goal of the Aliyah movement is to bring in new Israelis who otherwise aren't considering Aliyah -- who aren't already committed Zionists -- it might help to actually improve political conditions on the ground and demonstrate there's transparency and openness to criticism here in the States -- both fair and otherwise. 

But blaming CBS News? As we say on Twitter, #goodluckwiththat.

60 Minutes slaps Israel's ambassador? Not news to me.

In case you missed the original broadcast (I certainly did), here is the link to the 60 Minutes feature on the challenges facing Christians in the West Bank.

Yes, the security barrier along the West Bank, however justified (60 Minutes says it's reduced terrorist attacks by 90 percent), does not help the image of the State of Israel. Yes, the Ambassador of Israel probably over-reacted to the story by complaining preemptively to CBS management. Yes, Ambassador Oren was ambushed/manipulated by Bob Simon, since he obviously didn't expect that his phone call would become a subject of the interview.

Yes, Israeli policies are contributing and possibly primarily responsible for the climate in which the Palestinian Christian population is declining in the West Bank. And yes, the Ambassador has a fair point, that focusing on the relatively benign plight of Christians in Jerusalem and the West Bank now -- at the very moment when other Christians are being violently and systematically persecuted (i.e, killed) in across the Middle East -- carries with it a certain absurdity. And no, there was seemingly no effort by 60 Minutes to track down some of the emigre Christians to find out directly why they left and to which destinations.

And yes, Bob Simon obviously enjoys his job (and displaying the label on his Hermes tie).