Or haGan Blog

The holiday of Tu B’Av

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:19:52 +0000

Rabbi Dr. Arthur Segal�

The holiday of Tu B’Av, the 15th of the month of Av, is a purely Talmudic Rabbinic

Holiday is said to be the happiest day on the Jewish Calendar. It comes less than a week after the saddest day on the Calendar, the 9th of Av. As we explore it, we can see that it was and is purely Eco-Judaic, as well as promoting feminist equality, two-plus millennia before its time. �

The Gemorahs in the Talmuds Yerushalmi and Bavli have a different ”take” on the holiday and its spiritual significance as well as its historical roots.�

Talmud Yerushalmi Tractate Ta’anit 4:7 teaches that the happiest day in the Jewish calendar is the fifteenth of Av. Young women and young men would dance in the vineyards and orchards and meet each other. The girls would all wear the same white simple dress so that rich girl, and poor girl ,would all look alike, none adorned with jewelry or make up, so that the males would get to know them for their intelligence and chesed, and not for their external attributes. �

The Yerushalmi Talmud gives its historic etiology: �

”On the eve of each ninth of Av in the wilderness, Moses would announce through the entire camp, ‘Go out for the grave digging! Go out for the grave digging!’ They would go out and dig graves for themselves and go to sleep. In the morning they would get up and find themselves 15,000 fewer. But in the last year they did so and arose and found themselves whole. No one had died.�

They said: Is it possible we have made an error in counting?�

So they did the same on the 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th of Av.�

When the full moon on the 15th came, they said: It would appear that the Holy One Blessed be He, has annulled the evil decree against us. They arose and declared that day a holiday. (Talmud Yerushalmi Ta’anit 4:7)�

We need to recall, that one of the evils that befell our people on Tisha B’Av, the 9th of Av, came from our Hebrew ancestors, accepting the bad reports of ten of the twelve spies, and their loosing faith in their ability to conquer the “Promised Land.” Hence, God decreed that they would wander for 39 more years in B’midbar, and none of them would enter ”the land.”�

Hence the section of Talmud Yerushalmi is describing their deaths each year on the 9th of Av, and how these deaths stopped 39 years later on Tu B’av, the 15th of Av.�

Tu B’av, was the most joyous holiday on our calendar and somehow we have forgotten it. By the time of the Shulkan Aruk, of the 16th century, it was just another day but without the daily repentance prayers, tachanun. The other joyous day was Yom Kippur. Most look at that day as a day of drudgery, and not a day when God’s love for us is so manifest that He is the all Forgiving Parent and we should be rejoicing. �

The 15th of Av has an interesting Talmudic view from 2500 years ago, especially when juxtaposed against what we see today in our advertisements towards the horrid objectification of women. As mentioned above, Jewish single young women went out, all dressed in the same simple white dress, no make up, no jewels, so that no one could tell a rich girl from a poor girl, and only their personalities, their chesed, would be available to be discerned. This allowed Jewish young men to fall in love for the ‘right’ reasons.[ Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b-31a.] �

But women would still try to find a way around this egalitarian ruling of the sages and promote themselves thusly: �

“‘What would the beautiful ones among them say? “Look for beauty, for a woman is for beauty.”�

“What would those of prestigious lineage say? “Look for family, for a woman is for children.”�

“What would the ugly ones say? “Make your acquisition for the sake of Heaven, as long as you decorate us with jewels” (Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 31a).”�

The Gemara, ibid 26b, as always, puts a spiritual spin on this. �

“A woman is for beauty,” call these souls to God; take us as Your bride, and You will be rewarded by the pleasure You derive when Your creations realize the potential for perfection You have invested in them.�

Then there are the souls of “prestigious lineage.” They have hereditary love which God has implanted in all of us. “A woman is for children”: our relationship will bear fruit — the mitzvoth generated by our natural love for You. For is not our ultimate purpose in creation that we humans fulfill God’s will? �

“Do for Your sake, if not for ours,” call the “ugly” souls of

Israel. Only You know what lies behind our appearance, and only You know the truth of what You can inspire in us. For You know that, in truth, “The daughters of

Israel are beautiful, it is only that spiritual poverty obscures their beauty.You know that our “ugliness” is not our true essence, but imposed upon us by spiritual poverty.�

When any Jew is decorated with the jewels of Torah learning, he or she is not ugly.”�

The sages found that those who married for beauty were most often unhappy. We read that the rabbis (Talmud Bavli Tractate Bava Batra 110a) advised interviewing the brothers of the prospective bride, for they taught that sons will turn out like the brothers of the bride. The rabbis advise marrying the daughter of a Talmud scholar (Talmud Bavli Tractate Pesachim 49a). This is the reason that the Talmud Bavli in Tractate Ta’anit 26b only quotes the girls from good families, as their words were the most true in the minds of the rabbis.�

R’ Yishmael (Talmud Bavli Tractate Nedarim 9:10) said: “The daughters of

Israel are all beautiful, only that poverty makes them unbecoming.” The rabbis were teaching long along the exact opposite of what our society today teaches, i.e. the objectification of women. While beautify was not shunned, chesed and intelligence were traits to be admired.�

Note how this Tu B’Av, the releasing of a death decree, becomes a fertility ritual half way between the summer solstice and autumnal equinox. Boys and girls are not just meeting anywhere, but they are meeting in vineyards and orchards where life is continually being manifest. The above Gemorah mentions how women bear fruit, and children in the TaNaK have been called ”the fruit of the womb.” [Ps. 127:3] Without orchards and vineyards, without the earth yielding its fruit, we humans can not mate and yield our fruit. If we destroy our fruit bearing trees and our vineyards and ruin the soil from which they gain nutrients, we destroy the next generation of humankind.�

“Twenty is the age for chasing” (Talmud Bavli Tractate Pirkei Avot 5:18). Many, if not most young men chase young women for the wrong reasons and the wrong attributes. Tu B’Av teaches us what is meaningful in a person, and what is truly ‘attractive.’ We rabbis can use this holiday to teach what our rabbis tried to teach two millennia ago.�

R. Zvi Elimelech of Dinov (1783-1841), the author of the work “Bnei Yissachar, ” explains that Tu B’Av is a day of deep-rooted significance because it falls forty days before the date of the world’s creation. The sixth day of creation was Rosh Hashanah. On that day God created man. Six days before this is the Twenty-fifth of Elul, and forty days ahead of this is Tu B’Av (the Fifteenth of Av). The rabbis teach: “Forty days before the formation of the infant an announcement is made in heaven: “The daughter of so-and-so is matched up with so-and-so.” Tu B’Av, too, because it comes forty days before the creation of the world, is a day of much importance as it has a unique capacity to initiate life not only for the bride and groom, but for the orchards, the trees, and the vines, indeed the whole eco-sphere, that these young boys and girls are meeting. �

To match human fertility with the earth’s via fruit trees and fruits of the vine, which both have their own special beracoth, helps remind us, us to treat the earth with kindness and love and generosity, as we would when we are courting, and when we are in love with that special person.�

But there is something happening on a deeper level. Comparing Tu B’Av to Yom Kippur, the Mishna Ta’anit 4:8 reads: ” Likewise it says, “Go forth, O ye daughters of Zion, and gaze upon King Solomon, even upon the crown wherewith his mother hath crowned him on the day of his wedding, and on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). “On the day of his wedding”: This refers to the day of the giving of the Law. “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the

Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days.”�

This Mishnah explains the reason for joy on Yom Kippur: “‘On the day of his wedding’: This refers to the day of the giving of Torah.” Rashi explains that “‘the day of the giving of Torah” refers to the Day of Atonement, for it was in this day that the second set of Tablets of the Covenant were given. On that occasion there was great joy because the Sin of the Golden Calf had been forgiven and the second tablets were given. �

The fifteenth of Av is hinted at by the Mishnah in the phrase “‘And on the day of the gladness of his heart’. This refers to the building of the

Temple. ” This is aligned with the tradition which says that the future

Temple will be built in the month of Av and the tradition that says the Messiah will be born on Tisha B’Av. This is what the Mishnah means when it says “may it be rebuilt speedily in our days.”�

However, the Mishnah does not teach what the reason for joy on the fifteenth of Av was. So we are missing the reason for joy on the fifteenth of Av. The Talmud itself raises this question (Talmud Bavli Tractate Taanit 30b): “I can understand the Day of Atonement, because it is a day of forgiveness and pardon and on it the second Tablets of the Covenant were given, but what happened on the fifteenth of Av?” �

So while Israel’s real wedding day was to be on Tammuz 17, but instead had its Ketubah, the Ten Commandments, smashed, when Moses saw the Golden Calf, in the future, the wedding day of Israel, for all eternity, will be Tu B’Av, with the rebuilding of the

Temple and the Messianic age. In another Gemara the rabbis said that “whoever enjoys a wedding feast and gladdens the bride and groom it is as though he built one of the ruins of Jerusalem” (Talmud Bavli Tractate Beracoth 6b). When one takes part in a wedding feast and realizes the joy of this event, he is taking part in rebuilding the world. The rabbis specified “the ruins of

Jerusalem” to show that the rebuilding must be anchored in history. The rebirth must grow out of the past and not destroy the past. Our living on earth must grow out of the bounty of the earth, but must not destroy it, and better still, repair it, in the process.�

The Temple in Jerusalem is a metaphor for a perfect world, even though our history shows it was far from perfect and our rabbis said the Shechinah, God’s holy presence, didn’t even dwell in Ezra’s

Temple. �The world can be compared to a human eyeball - The white of the eye is the ocean surrounding the world - The iris is this continent - The pupil is Jerusalem - And the image in the pupil is the

Holy Temple.� [Derech Eretz Zuta 9]. Tu B’Av is another holy day leading us to the kabbalistic concept of Tikun Olam, of repairing God’s face, His holy sparks, covered over by husks, when He contracted Himself, when He created the world.�

The Talmud Yerushalmi gives the reason for Tu B’av as a ”’death decree” that God put on the Hebrews, on every 9th of Av,[Tisha b’Av] where 15,000 died on that day, that ended one year, but they did not discover that it truly ended until the full moon in the mid month on the 15th of Av (Tu B’Av).�

Now we can search through the Torah and not see this story at all.�

The Talmud does have illusions to other events involving massive death and mass burials however for this date:�

The Talmud states that there were no holy days as happy for the Jews as Tu B’Av and Yom Kippur. Various reasons for celebrating on Tu B’Av are cited by the Talmud and Talmudic commentators (Talmud Yerushalmi Tractate Ta’anit , 4:7, 4:8 and Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b and 31a),and of course, Rashi of the 11th century France.�

While the Jews wandered in the desert for forty years, female orphans without brothers could only marry within their tribe, to prevent their father’s inherited land in the

Land of

Israel from passing on to other tribes. On the fifteenth of Av of the fortieth year, this ban was lifted. This is according to Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel in Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b.�

That same year, the last of the generation of the sin of the spies which had been forbidden to enter the Promised Land, died out. This is according to Rabbah Bar Hanah in the name of R. Yochanan in Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b.�

The Tribe of Benjamin was allowed to intermarry with the other tribes after the incident of the Concubine of Gibeah (see Judges chapters 19-21), R. Yoseph said in the name of R. Nahman, in Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b. �

Rabah and R. Yoseph both said that the cutting of the wood for the main altar in the

Temple was completed for the year. The event was celebrated with feasting and rejoicing (as is the custom upon the conclusion of a holy endeavor) and included a ceremonial breaking of the axes which gave the day its name, the Day of the Breaking of the Ax. ”It is the day on which [every year] they discontinued to fell trees for the altar. It has been taught: R. Eliezer the elder says: From the fifteenth of Av onwards the strength of the sun grows less and they no longer felled trees for the altar, because they would not dry [sufficiently]. R. Menashya said: And they called it the Day of the Breaking of the Axe.” (Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b).�

So what was the reason that the joy so great? It would appear that there is a symbolic reason here. The wood for the altar is the source of the altar’s fire. And our people new then the value of forests and trees, not just for their use, but for maintaining their ‘world,’ what we would call today, their eco-system. They already had laws pertaining to not chopping down fruit bearing trees during war, which was extending to not wasting any resource. When the strength of the sun grows less , which begins to happen in the middle of Av as we head towards Autumn, fire, or in a sense ’sun’ from the inside of a dry tree’s wood is needed. By doing God’s will and keeping His earth alive, to harvest, but not to waste, makes Tu B’Av a “day of the gladness” for the heart.�

The nights, traditionally the ideal time for Torah study are lengthened again after the summer solstice , permitting more study. Rabbi Joseph said that one who studies more Torah will have his life prolonged. (Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b). After all, Torah is a tree of life to those who hold fast to her.�

The Roman occupiers permitted the victims of the massacre at Bethar of 133 CE to be buried .The bodies exposed for years had not decomposed (148 CE), according to Rabbi Mattenah. ( Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b). After some years after the battle of 133 CE, Rabban Gamliel and the Sanhedrin fasted and prayed for many days and Rabban Gamliel gave his inheritance in order to satisfy the Romans.�

Rabbi Ulla taught in Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit 30b that King Hosea ben Eilah opened the roads to

Jerusalem. Following the death of King Solomon ( 931 BCE), Jeroboam ben Nebat, ruler of the breakaway Northern Kingdom of Israel, set up roadblocks to prevent his citizens from making the thrice-yearly pilgrimage to the Temple in Jerusalem, capital of the Southern Kingdom of Judea. These were finally removed more than 200 years later by Hosea ben Eilah, the last king of the Northern Kingdom, on Av 15 (721 BCE). He only reigned for circa 10 years and was defeated by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser, starting a series of events which quickly lead to what we today call the “Ten Lost Tribes.”�

I respectfully opine that the story in Yerushalmi is a combination of Bethar and the last of the generation of the Spies dying. The 9th of Av is already a horrid day with two

Temples destroyed, and the rabbis are still adding to the Gemorah after Bar Kochba’s failed revolt and the Martyred ten rabbis circa 135 CE.�

Unlike the Bavli which places blame for the second Temple’s destruction on

Jerusalem’s non-Jewish behavior, the Talmud Yerushalmi, finds that the 9th of Av is decreed by God long ago in B’Midbar, to be a bad day for the Jews.�

So each year, 15000 Jews of the old generation all die on the same day, the 9th of Av, according to Yerushalmi. On one 15th of Av, the Hebrews realized it stopped, and hence all of the old generation had died. �

We are taught only Joshua and Caleb, not even Moses, Aaron or Miriam, were the only ones of the old generation that crossed into

Jordan. Further we are taught that 600,000 able bodied men left with Moses from

Egypt. When we add to that their wives, children, and non- able bodied parents and grand parents, plus the mixed multitude that came with them, which the Talmud said numbered 3 million, we would need , even subtracting the folks who died in Korach’s rebellion, and other tragedies, 190 years in the desert, not just 40, for 15000 to die out on each 9th of Av.�

One of the ancient and most practical reasons of Tu B’Av is according R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus of the first century (Megillat Ta’anit, 5.) is that it was the Great Day of Wood-Offering, when both priests and people brought kindling-wood in large quantities to the altar, for use in the burning of sacrifices during the whole year. This day being Mid-summer Day, when the solar heat reached its climax, the people stopped hewing wood in the forest, until the Fifteenth Day of Shevaṭ , Tu B’Shevat, the New-year’s Day of the trees because the new sap of spring entered vegetation on that day. The actual explanation is given in Megillat Ta’anit, 5. and Mishnah, 4:5, according to which nine families of

Judah brought at certain times during the year the wood for the burning of the sacrifices on the altar. According to Neh.10:34; on the Fifteenth Day of Av, however, all the people, the priests as well as the Levites, took part in the wood-offering.�

We have to look at this in historical context. At the beginning of the

Second Temple period, the

Land of

Israel lay almost totally waste, and the wood needed to burn the sacrifices and for the eternal flame that had to burn on the altar was almost impossible to obtain. Hence, these nine families took it upon themselves to bring wood to the

Temple. The Judeans and those who lived in Judea while they were in captivity in

Babylon for 70 years, were not good caretakers of the earth.�

Josephus also mentions this festival, and calls it the Feast of Xylophory (”Wood-bearing”), but places it on the Fourteenth of Av, saying that “it was the custom for every one to bring wood for the altar on that day so that there should never be any lack of fuel for the eternal fire.”�

We can see that again Judaism, using synchronicity wisely, took pagan mid-summer and mid-winter festivals and assigned them Judaic spiritual significance, which we today, can assign Eco-Judaic and social reeducation significance. {Syrians still celebrate their ancient mid summer fertility festival with bon fires similar to our mid-winter Tu B’Shevat festival. It is called Midsummer Day, De Syria Dea.} �

In reality, I think the holiday was kept alive by the rabbis, as this is also the beginning of the 7 weeks of comfort, Nachamu, to keep folks’ minds off Tisha b’Av’s events, and focus on the future. And what better way to do think of the future, then to have a fertility party, with the hopes of children and grandchildren? And what better way for us, now, when we are still in galut, and facing a true galut of being spit off the planet, and not just out of the ‘land,’ to use this day, as another day, 6 months before and after Tu B’Shevat as a holiday to remind us that we are married to the earth , to God, and to each other.�

I’d like to end on a Jewish Spiritual Renewal aspect of the

Holiday….the fact that it is in the middle of the month, and is always when there is a full bright moon.�

How can we explain Rabbi Shimon’s amazing statement that “There were no greater festivals for

Israel” in Talmud Bavli Tractate Ta’anit? In what way is the 15th of Av greater than Passover, or Shavuot, or even the other “great festival,” Yom Kippur?�

It has to do with our lunar calendar. The Zohar explains that we mark time with the moon because ” we rise and fall through the nights of history knowing times of growth and diminution, our moments of luminous fullness alternating with moments of obscurity and darkness. And like the moon, our every regression and defeat is but a prelude to yet another rebirth, yet another renewal.”�

So even though our Exodus process began on Nissan One, we celebrate it on Nissan 15 when the actual Exodus occurred. Even though One Tishrei is Rosh HaShanah, we truly rejoice on Sukkoth, the 15th of Tishrei. The Talmud tells us to ‘’sound the shofar on the moon’s renewal, which is concealed until the day of our festival, Sukkoth.” �

The full moon is a sign of comfort, nachamu, for us, after the horrible events of the 9th of Av. The full moon of Tu B’av gives Tikvah, hope, to the Jews, in Galut. More than this is that the 15th of Av is also the holiday of the ”Destruction of the Ax’s.” We used the axes to make the fire wood for the altar for the

Temple. �

Why break the axes? Why not store them for next year’s cutting? Because the ax represents the very opposite of what the Altar, and for which the

Temple as a whole, stood.�

“When you build a stone altar for Me, do not build it of cut stone; for if your sword has been lifted upon it, you have profaned it”; “Do not lift iron upon it� The altar of God shall be built of whole stones” (Ex. 20:22; Deut. 27:5-6) If any metal implement as much as touched a stone, that stone was rendered unfit for use in the making of the altar.�

Our rabbis explain: “Iron was created to shorten the life of man, and the Altar was created to lengthen the life of man; so it is not fitting that that which shortens should be lifted upon that which lengthens” (Talmud Bavli Tractate Middot 3:4). Iron, the instrument of war and destruction, has no place in the making of the instrument whose function is to bring eternal peace and harmony to the world. And we cannot have peace in the world, if we have no world. Hence Eco-Judaic concepts are built into Talmudic Rabbinic Judaism as well as Hebraism.�

The ax is a symbol of weapons used upon man versus man and man versus earth. We cannot afford to take an ax to the earth anymore, [if we ever truly could], nor can we afford to take an ax to another human anymore, [if we ever truly could], be it in war, or be it in racism or sexism.�

Tu B’Av can be recaptured as a modern holiday for Spiritually Renewed Jews to promote Eco-Judaism and the correct values regarding love, sex, gender issues, and treatment of one another.�

While, it seems to be our destiny to wax and wane like the moon, I do pray that we have more days and years like a full bright moon, with no instruments of war aimed at us, or forced into our hands to defend ourselves, and that our shovels and backs are used to plant fruit trees and not to dig graves. Amen.

Subj: David Harris Blog: Tragedy Masquerading as Farce

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:37:37 +0000

Tragedy Masquerading as Farce

David A. Harris
Executive Director, AJC
Geneva, April 23, 2009

It was tragedy masquerading as farce.
There was the Iranian president addressing the Durban Review Conference in Geneva.
Perhaps there was no better symbol of all that had gone wrong with a process originally designed to advance the anti-racism struggle than seeing the world�s bigot-in-chief at the podium.
And the fact that the hall doubles as the venue for the UN Human Rights Council made a further mockery of his appearance � and of the institution itself.
After all, while President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is busy railing against liberalism, predicting the demise of the West, seeking Israel�s disappearance, and claiming special protection for Islam, he represents a nation that has trampled on the human rights of its own citizens.
Instead of being at the podium, he should be in the dock.
Look at Iran�s record during his presidency.
Consider its shameful treatment of the Baha�i, a peaceful religious community that suffers from relentless persecution, including recurring charges of disloyalty.
Ponder the unenviable fate of gay men in Iran � yes, despite Ahmadinejad�s stunning statement at Columbia University that the country had none.
Examine the harsh treatment of those Iranian women who demand for themselves equal rights � somehow failing to believe Ahmadinejad�s claim, again at Columbia, that Iran�s women are the freest in the world.
Remember the minors on Iran�s death row, where more children have been given the death penalty than anywhere else on earth. In fact, in 2008, Iran was the only country in the world known to have executed a child.
Picture Roxana Saberi, the young Iranian-American reporter, who sits in an Iranian prison, sentenced to eight years on trumped-up charges of spying.
Ask about the fate of apostates in Iran � those who question or abandon their Islamic faith.
Probe the lives of journalists who examine corruption or expose the country�s other shortcomings.
Learn about trade union activists who are imprisoned for trying to organize strikes to protest working conditions.
Keep in mind the extremely tenuous situation of ethnic minorities, like the Kurds.
Wonder about the fate of those who courageously seek to monitor human rights in Iran.
Think about the implications of calling for the elimination of another country. Isn�t incitement to genocide itself a crime?
But there Ahmadinejad was, cockily rambling on long past the seven-minute deadline imposed on all speakers, while the sycophants in his entourage looked on admiringly.
The problem, though, wasn�t really with his sycophants.
Far more disturbing was that the majority of national delegations stayed to listen to his entire speech, some applauding.
Was it because they actually approved of his words? Or was it because their definition of diplomatic etiquette required them to remain glued to their seats?
Was it because they felt beholden to Iran for economic, energy or other reasons, and didn�t want a few �ill-chosen words� to come between friends? Or was it because of regional or religious solidarity that trumps all other considerations?
Was it because they were somehow unaware of the actual situation inside Iran? Or was it because they opted to believe the relentless Iranian spin that criticism is all an exercise in Western propaganda, and nothing more?
Human rights have never been protected by human indifference. Human wrongs have never been corrected by willful neglect or self-delusion.
Moral clarity, not cowardice, is required to bring about change. It takes persistence through thick and thin � not just lip service when people happen to be looking. And political expedience will never be the pathway to the alleviation of injustice.
So what to do?
It�s long overdue to step up the focus on Iran�s abysmal human rights record.
And if the intergovernmental institutions charged with oversight can�t or won�t do it for transparently political reasons � preferring instead to divert everyone�s attention to the convenient whipping boy, Israel � then it is up to individual governments and nongovernmental organizations to lead the way.
Moreover, the world should learn from the example of those nations � Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States � that weren�t in the hall to begin with, as well as the more than twenty-five European countries that laudably walked out when the Iranian leader once again began to indulge in his racist rantings. (The Czech Republic subsequently joined the nine countries opting out of the conference.)
I don�t pretend to know what, in the end, will change Iranian behavior or lead the Iranian people to demand leaders of an entirely different ilk.
I do know that a business-as-usual attitude toward the current leadership won�t do the trick.
If Iranian leaders can violate human rights with impunity, avoid serious consequences for repeatedly flouting binding UN resolutions, and be respectfully received in the halls of power around the world, then the forces of change inside Iran surely won�t be helped.
If a thug, whose mug shot should be on �wanted� posters around the world for violations of human rights and calls to genocide, can dine with the president of Switzerland, plan a visit to Brazil to discuss expanding trade ties, and speak in a hall once infused with the spirit of such human rights legends as Ren� Cassin and Eleanor Roosevelt, then something is wrong, very wrong.
If the lessons of history are ignored � including the need, above all, to stand up to evil and see it for what it is � it will be at our collective peril.

——————–
To comment on this blog, visit the Jerusalem Post.

Hanukkah, Oil, & 8 Days of Action:

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:56:31 +0000

Hanukkah, Oil, & 8 Days of Action:

The Green Menorah Covenant
�
�

Hanukkah this year begins with the lighting of one candle on the evening of December 21. At the dark time of the moon and sun, we kindle a growing blaze of lights. And light is the central symbol of the holy season.

In this letter we will share some of the deepest symbols that make Hanukkah a festival for sharing light by saving energy, and will also share some specific earth-healing actions for each of the eight Days.�

On the Shabbat that comes in the midst of Hanukkah, Jews traditionally read the passage from the Prophet Zechariah that celebrates the Great Menorah (literally, a Light-bearer)� in a rebuilt Holy Temple after the Babylonian Captivity.
�
Zechariah, in visionary, prophetic style, goes beyond the Torah’s description of the original Menorah . That Menorah was planned as part of the portable Shrine, the Mishkan, in the Wilderness.
�
First Zechariah describes the Menorah of the future that he sees: “All of gold, with a bowl on its top, seven lamps, and seven pipes leading to the seven lamps.” It sounds like the original bearer of the sacred Light. But then he adds a new detail: “By it are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and one on the left.” (4: 2-3)
�
And then —� in a passage the Rabbis did not include in the Haftarah - Zechariah explains that the two olive trees are feeding their oil directly into the Menorah (4: 11-13). No human being needs to press the olives, collect the oil, clarify and sanctify it. The trees alone can do it all.
�
Now wait!� This is extraordinary. What is this Light-Bearer that is so intimately interwoven with two trees? Is the Menorah the work of human hands, or itself the fruit of a tree?
�
Both, and beyond.� In our generation it might be called a “cyborg,” a cybernetic organism that is woven from the fruitfulness both of “adamah” (the Hebrew for earth)� and of “adam” (a human earthling). Just as earth and earthling were deeply intermingled in the biblical Creation story, so the Divine Light must interweave them once again, and again and again, every time the Light is lit in the Holy Temple.
�
What stirs Zechariah to this uncanny vision? Once we listen closely to the Torah’s original description� of the Menorah for the wandering desert Shrine, we may not be quite so surprised. For the Torah describes a Menorah that has branches, cups shaped like almond-blossoms, petals, and calyxes (the tight bundles of green leaves that hold a blossom). (Exodus 25:31-40 and 37:17-24)
�
In short, a Tree of Light, a Green Menorah. Small wonder that Zechariah envisioned its receiving oil directly from the olive-trees!
�
And in the legend told by the Talmud as the origin of Hanukkah, the Light itself is a miracle. One day’s oil becomes sufficient for eight days’ needs.
�
�At the physical level, this is about conserving energy, the triumph of sustainable sources of energy over the Seleucid Empire that guzzles oil and other forms of material wealth. Seen this way, the Green Menorah can become the symbol of a covenant among Jewish communities and congregations to renew the miracle of Hanukkah in our own generation: Using one day’s oil to meet eight days’ needs. By 2020, cutting oil consumption by seven-eighths.
�
We can start right away, this Hanukkah, by joining in The Shalom Center’s Green Menorah Covenant for taking action — personal, communal and political — to heal the Earth from the global climate crisis.
After lighting your Hanukkah menorah each evening, dedicate yourself to making the changes in your life that will minimize our use of oil (and coal). (And this pattern can be used for the Twelve Days of Christmas, the Seven Days of Kwanzaa, and so on.)
Day 1: Personal/Household: Call your electric-power utility to switch to wind-powered electricity. (For each home, 100 percent wind-power reduces carbon dioxide emissions the same as not driving 20,000 miles in one year.)
Day 2: Synagogue, Hillel, or JCC: Call your congregational board chair to urge that your building switch to wind-powered electricity.
Day 3. Your network of friends, IM buddies and members of civic or professional groups to which you belong: Connect with people like newspaper editors, real estate developers, architects, bankers, etc. to urge them to strengthen the green factor in all their decisions, speeches and actions.
Day 4: Town/City: Urge town/city officials to require greening of buildings through ordinances and executive orders. Creating change is often easier on the local level.
Day 5: Workplace or college: Urge the top officials to arrange an energy audit. Check with utility company about getting one free or at low cost.
Day 6 , which this year is Shabbat. Automobile: If possible, choose this Shabbat and through the year,� one day a week to not use your car. Walk. Bike. Other days, lessen driving. Shop on-line. Cluster errands. Car pool. Don’t idle engine beyond 20 seconds.
Day 7: State: Urge state representatives to reduce subsidies for highways, increase them for public transit so it becomes convenient, swift, frequent, and inexpensive.
Day 8: National: Urge your senators and congressmembers to support the strongest possible limits on CO2 emissions, and to support development of sustainable energy.� For easy addressing and a model letter to send them, go to http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/602/t/4181/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21544.
Give our planet a Happy Hanukkah!
If the necessary changes seem overwhelmingly hard to� accomplish against the entrenched power of our own oil empires, Hanukkah also reminds us: Small groups of seemingly powerless human beings can face huge and powerful institutions - and change the world.
�
But let us not stop at the economic, political, or ecological levels of meaning that hide in the Hanukkah candles.� At the spiritual level, since “eight” is the number of “Beyond,” the Infinite, the storied eight-day miracle when� One Becomes Eight� reminds us that the Infinite is always present in the One.
It reminds us that conserving oil, or coal, or our planet, is not just a political or economic or even ecological decision. It comes when we take into our hearts the knowledge that material possessiveness, hyper-ownership, is simply not necessary to well-being.
For the Infinite is always present when we choose to light the Light.
�
Blessings of shalom, salaam, peace –� and LIGHT!

–� Arthur

^^^^^^^^^

Rabbi Arthur Waskow is the author of Down-to-Earth Judaism.� For more information on the Green Menorah covenant, see -
http://www.shalomctr.org/taxonomy_menu/1/1

High Holyday Schedule for Congregation Or haGan

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:23:43 +0000

High Holyday Schedule for Congregation Or haGan

5769 2008

Or haGan, orhagan.org

Bask in the Light of Learning and Get involved in Eugene�s newest Jewish community

Traditional Egalitarian with a commitment to the Renewal of Jewish Life, Sprit and Learning. Our services are Hebrew based, with plenty of English translations and accessibility.

With Spiritual Leader Rabbi Jonathan Seidel and Guests

Rosh haShana Monday Eve. Sept. 29 7PM at Washington Park Clubhouse (20th and Washington)

Rosh haShana First Day Sept. 30 10:30 AM- 1:00 PM at Washington Park Clubhouse

Tashlikh at Alton Baker Park 4 PM

Rosh haShana Second Day Oct. 1 9:30 AM at Koinonia Fellowship 1414 Kincaid in Eugene

Yom Kippur Wed. Oct. 8 7:45 pm Kol Nidrei at Washington Park Clubhouse

Yom Kippur Day Thursday Oct. 9 at Koinonia 9:30 PM to 2:00 includes Yizkor 4:30 Minchah, Book of Yonah and Neilah followed by Break The Fast ..

Or haGan relies on your donations and contributions to survive and flourish!! Please join or help us by contributing to Or haGan for the Holy Days. Suggested donation 50.00 per individual and 100.00 per family but no one will be turned away�

Call 541-434-6551 or email Rabbi Seidel at jonseidel@aol.com for further information about High Holy Days, the congregation and our adult education programming.

shalom shalom

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel PhD
Or haGan Jewish Community
Eugene Oregon 97405
541-434-6551
jonseidel@aol.com
rabbiseidel@gmail.com

Dear Chaver/ah

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:55:19 +0000

You may find the attachment worth your while

transformativeteshuvah.pdf

Shanah Tovah Umvarechet in all dimensions of your life

Many Brakhot in Gashmiyut and Ruchniyut
Reb Zalman Schachter-Shalomi
1720 Lehigh Street, Boulder, CO. 80305
303 494 3994 - fx 303 494 4856
skype — rebzalmanhiya –
www.rzlp.org

Jewish Renewal

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 02:45:04 +0000

Jewish Renewal

From Rabbi Seidel: People ask me often — what is Jewish Renewal? While we have affiliated with the Conservative Movement, I am ordained with ALEPH, the Alliance for Jewish Renewal and here is a very good definition by one of my teachers, Rabbi Marcia Prager:

Jewish Renewal is a phenomenon, not a denomination. It resembles Reform Judaism in some ways, Reconstructionism in other ways, and even Orthodoxy — especially Hasidism — in some important ways. But it is not a formal denomination with a formal hierarchy or structure. It is the ongoing creative project of a generation of Jews who are seeking to renew Judaism and bring its spiritual and ethical vitality into our lives and communities, and at the same time embrace a global vision of the role of all human beings and spiritual paths in the transformation of life on this precious planet.

Jewish Renewal is a “movement” in the sense of a wave in motion, a grassroots effort to discover the modern meaning of Judaism as a spiritual practice. Jewish-renewalists see “renewal” as a process reaching beyond denominational boundaries and institutional structures, more similar to the multi-centered civil rights or women’s movements than to contemporary denominations.

Jewish Renewal is built on the idea that we live in a transformative moment in time, in which a new paradigm for spiritual life is being developed.

Jewish Renewal actively seeks a relationship with God as the immanent reality that suffuses all creation and from time to time calls to us from beyond creation as well.

Jewish Renewal is neither halakhic nor anti-halakhic but neo-halakhic. Just as Rabbinic Judaism involved transcending the halakhah of Temple sacrifice, so Jewish Renewal seeks to go beyond the limitations of traditional Rabbinic Judaism to forge a new halakhah in which Judaism is conscious of its place in an interconnected world.

Jewish Renewal has long been committed to a fully egalitarian approach to Jewish life and welcomes the public and creative input of those who were traditionally excluded from the process of forming the Jewish tradition.

Precisely because Renewal is such a grassroots endeavor no two definitions of Renewal are exactly alike, but this one does a good job of outlining some of Renewal’s primary qualities. My deep thanks to Reb Marcia and to the others who worked together to draft this; I hope it helps shed some light on some of the principles that Renewal holds dear.

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel PhD
Or haGan Jewish Community
Eugene Oregon 97405
541-434-6551
jonseidel@aol.com
rabbiseidel@gmail.com

New Posting Coming Soon!

chili — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 01:05:14 +0000

The Future of the Alliance

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:10:32 +0000

The Future of the Alliance
By Michael Oren

Supporters of Israel are intensely interested in which of two presidential candidates, John McCain or Barack Obama, is “best” for the Jewish state. Of course, “best” is an inherently subjective concept, colored by whether one regards settlements as beneficial or disastrous for Israel, for example, or the creation of a Palestinian state as essential or deadly. The word also assumes a substantial degree of familiarity with the candidates’ positions on issues that impact Israel either directly or collaterally. Attaining such clarity from politicians is difficult even in normal times. But during an election year, it is especially daunting. Speeches by presidential hopefuls geared to special constituencies, statements from commentators and aides, misquotes and gaffes-together these can cloud the contenders’ platforms, particularly on matters as complex and controversial as the Middle East. Moreover, more than a little disinformation on Obama and McCain has been disseminated by opponents and interested parties, further obscuring their true views.

Nevertheless, by carefully combing the mass of speeches, interviews, and press releases, a picture of the candidates’ policies can still be culled. A map of where Obama and McCain stand on the peace process and other issues crucial to Israel-the War on Terror, the Iraq War, Iranian nuclearization-may be drawn, and points of distinction flagged. And on the basis of these findings, it is possible to speculate how a McCain or an Obama presidency might interact with Israel, to its benefit as well as its detriment.

After Bush
By necessity, any analysis of the policies of the two candidates must begin with an assessment of the legacy that the president-elect will inherit. During his eight years in office, George W. Bush established new standards for the term “pro-Israel.” He repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, and praised its value as America’s primary Middle Eastern ally. He also expressed a deep ideological attachment to Israel as a democracy and, spiritually, to Israel as the biblical homeland. “You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations… [and] a mighty democracy,” he told the Knesset during Israel’s sixtieth anniversary celebrations.[1] And “you can always count on the United States of America to be at your side.” Less publicly, the president also authorized an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including intelligence sharing, anti-terror training, and the joint development of missile defense systems.

On the peace process, by comparison, Bush was less categorical. He became the first American president publicly to endorse the emergence of a Palestinian state and, to that end, he opposed the expansion of Israel’s West Bank settlements. Yet Bush also rejected a large-scale repatriation of Palestinian refugees to Israel as well as a return to Israel’s 1967 borders, insisting that any treaty take into account the “current realities” created by the settlements. He refused to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah, even obliquely, portraying them apocalyptically as the embodiments of “darkness” and “evil.” More radically still, Bush reversed the formula, embedded in UN Resolution 242, of territory-for-peace. If previous presidents required Israel to relinquish territory first and only then receive peace from the Arabs, Bush demanded that the Arabs recognize Israel’s existence and renounce violence in advance of retrieving captured land.

Bush’s policies disappointed many on the Israeli left who longed for a more activist American role in peace-making, and antagonized Israeli rightists who resented his support for Palestinian sovereignty and his demands for a settlement freeze. Still, Bush remained singularly popular in Israel-considerably more so, in fact, than in the United States. “You have been a true leader,” Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud opposition, lauded the president in Knesset. “You have never hesitated from fighting tyranny and defending freedom.”[2]

The pro-Israel paradigm established by Bush poses a hefty challenge for Obama and McCain. Neither candidate, though, has shied from meeting it. In spite of some initial questions surrounding his affection for Israel, Obama has been unexceptionally Zionist, asserting that “the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea,” and that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”[3] McCain, no less effusive, has praised Israel as a bastion of democracy and social justice. He took out time from his campaign schedule to visit Israel and toured the towns along the Gaza border that were regularly shelled by Hamas. Obama is scheduled to make a stopover in Israel in late July, en route to Iraq.

McCain and Obama have both pledged to maintain Israel’s strategic edge by supporting Bush’s proposal for increasing military aid to the Jewish State by $30 billion over the next decade. Both have called on the Arab states to recognize Israel in advance of Israeli territorial concessions; both have vowed to take an active, hands-on, role in the search for peace. Nevertheless, in their approach to that process, and their conception of its outcome, the candidates evince some subtle-and potentially significant-differences.

Parsing the Palestinian question
Take, for example, the issues of Israeli settlements and the borders of any future Palestinian state. While McCain has avoided criticizing Israel’s settlement policy and balked at delineating the contours of “Palestine,” Obama has impugned the settlements and taken up Bush’s call for a “contiguous” Palestinian state free of Israeli roadblocks and joined by West Bank-to-Gaza routes. McCain, who did not meet with Palestinian leaders during his Israel visit, has emphasized the Palestinian Authority’s duty to clamp down on terror in accordance with the Road Map “We must ensure that Israel’s people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace,” he stated.[4] Obama, by contrast, has refrained from mentioning the PA’s responsibility in suppressing terror.

Obama and McCain have also differed over aspects of Israel’s domestic politics and foreign relations. Obama has expressed strong reservations about the Israeli right, complaining to American Jewish leaders that “there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel then you’re anti-Israel.”[5] He has also welcomed the renewal of peace talks between Israel and Syria, and has urged the White House to “support the parties’ efforts to achieve their goal of a negotiated settlement.”[6] McCain, however, has not revealed a preference for one Israeli party over another and has withheld comment on the Syria-Israeli discussions. Generally, though, he shares Bush’s reservations about negotiating with Damascus “with no preconditions”-presumably, eschewing terror and forfeiting all claims to Lebanon.

Both candidates have deplored Hamas as a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. McCain’s position on Hamas has hardened considerably since 2006 when, shortly after organization’s electoral victory, he told a reporter, “They’re the government [and] sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them.”[7] His campaign subsequently retracted the remark and characterized Hamas as a force dedicated not only to Israel’s destruction but to the annihilation of the United States. McCain has endorsed the conditions set down by Bush for including Hamas in peace talks-renunciation of terror, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements-but so, too, has Obama. Yet the Democratic contender seems less adamant than his Republican rival in opposing all communications with Hamas. Obama waited five days before distancing himself from former President Jimmy Carter’s meetings with Hamas officials; McCain condemned them instantly. And while McCain withheld comment on Israel’s ceasefire with Hamas, Obama greeted it as an opportunity to “bring calm to the people of southern Israel, improve life for Palestinians in Gaza, and lead to the release of [captured Israeli corporal] Gilad Shalit.”[8]

Obama and McCain also appear to diverge on the peace process’s most divisive issue: Jerusalem. Though supportive of talks to demarcate the final borders of Jerusalem, McCain has been unambiguous in his willingness to recognize unqualified Israeli sovereignty over the city, even prior to negotiations. “Jerusalem is undivided,” he declared. “Jerusalem is the capital and we should move the [U.S.] embassy to Jerusalem before anything happens.”[9] Obama similarly announced that, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” surprising many of his listeners at a convention of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby.[10] But he quickly qualified that assertion, explaining that the city’s final status must be determined by Israelis and Palestinians alone and sealed by “an agreement that they both can live with.” Obama has not mentioned moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

The most fundamental distinction between McCain and Obama on the peace question stems from their perception of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its relationship to other Middle Eastern disputes. According to the Des Moines Register, Obama told Iowa voters that �nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people,� but later claimed that he had been misquoted and had actually said that Palestinian suffering resulted from �the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel and renounce violence.�[11] In his AIPAC speech, Obama assailed �those who would lay all the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel.� But in an interview with The Atlantic, he described the conflict as a “constant wound” and “constant sore” that “infect(s) all of our foreign policy” and “provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists.”[12] In spite of these reverses, Obama�s position seems to reflect the view, long-held by the State Department and reified by the 2006 Iraq Study Group, that the Arab-Israel conflict is a major cause of Middle Eastern upheaval. Tellingly, perhaps, Obama’s campaign has been associated with several former State Department officials and foreign policy experts known to favor intensified American pressure to secure Israeli concessions.
McCain’s position, in this critical case, is unequivocal. “[I]f the Israeli-Palestinian issue were decided tomorrow,” he has maintained, “we would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism.”[13] Defeating that fanaticism, McCain contends, is the prerequisite for-rather than the consequence of-Israeli-Palestinian peace. Neither he nor any of his advisors have indicated a readiness to apply greater pressure on Israel.

On the basis of this comparison, it is reasonable to expect a McCain administration to maintain and perhaps accelerate the Annapolis process initiated by Bush last November, insisting that both Israelis and Palestinians live up to the Road Map’s requisites. But McCain is unlikely to ratchet up pressure on Israel, to oppose Israeli claims to Jerusalem, or to link the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with any of the region’s manifold struggles. He will not deal with Hamas, even in context of the national unity government that the organization is currently considering with the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. An Obama presidency, however, may well launch an entirely new initiative, one based on zero tolerance for Israeli settlement-building and checkpoints, as well as on the belief that the road to Baghdad and Teheran runs through Bethlehem and Nablus. Obama might be expected to show deeper sympathy for the Palestinian demand for a capital in Jerusalem and greater flexibility in including Hamas in negotiations, if only indirectly, through the national unity coalition with Abbas. Obama will probably seek a broader accord, including Syria as well as other Arab countries, while McCain would focus on the Israeli-Palestinian dimension. McCain’s d�marche is unlikely to ruffle the U.S.-Israel relationship; Obama’s is liable to strain the alliance, especially if, as recent polls predict, Netanyahu and the Likud return to power.

How they will fight
In addition to the peace process, Israel has a cardinal interest in the candidates’ attitudes toward other Middle East-related issues, beginning with the war on terror. Here, too, President Bush established a new paradigm based on preemptive action against suspected terrorists and their backers. This aspect of the Bush Doctrine accorded well with Israel, which, since its establishment, has reserved the option to strike its enemies preemptively. Obama and McCain, however, are markedly divided over the policy and the means for battling terror in the future.

Though both have reiterated their readiness to meet terrorist threats with force, McCain has never abjured preemption, stressing his commitment “to uncover [terrorist] plots before they take root.”[14] But Obama’s recent comments suggest that, rather than embark on preventative military incursions, he prefers to treat terror as a criminal act to be prosecuted post-facto by the courts. “[I]n previous terrorist attacks-for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center (in 1993), we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he explained to ABC News. “I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists.” [FOOTNOTE NEEDED]

Further insight into the candidates’ divergent approaches to combating terror can be gleaned from their reaction to the Supreme Court’s June 12, 2008 decision granting security suspects the right to petition civilian courts. The ruling, Obama said, was “an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation” and “rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”[15] McCain, on the other hand, called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”[16]

The War on Terror, for both candidates, is inextricably linked to the conflict in Iraq. McCain sees the latter as a natural extension of the former; Obama views the second as a dangerous diversion from the first. Unlike the candidates’ stances on the peace process and the fight against terrorism, which are often open to interpretation, their statements on Iraq leave little latitude for debate.

Obama asserts that the Iraqi war has drained America’s resources and inhibited it from effectively fighting terror. He denies that the surge has sufficiently reduced violence in Iraq, compelled the Iraqi government to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, or helped bridge the country’s ethnic differences. In keeping with the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, he has called for a sixteen-month phasing out of the American military involvement. Apart from a �residual force� which will stay behind to guard the embassy, train Iraqi troops, and hunt down al-Qaeda, there will be no permanent American bases. Though he has acknowledged the need to make �tactical adjustments� as the withdrawal proceeds, Obama has determined that �it is time to end this end this war� and focus on Afghanistan.[17]

McCain insists that America “is winning and will win” in Iraq, which he regards as the central theater in the struggle against Islamist terror.[18] An ardent defender of the Bush administration’s “surge” strategy, he believes that withdrawal at this time will endanger Americans at home and bolster Iran and al-Qaeda. McCain has repeatedly cited 2013 as a target date for withdrawal, though he once said that U.S. forces might remain in Iraq for as long as a century, following the Korean model.

These disparities are rife with ramifications for Israel. Long-time advocates of preemption, Israelis may be disappointed by an Obama administration that abandons the tactic and recoils from further preventative action against terrorists. They will have to grapple with the fallout of an American evacuation from Iraq, which is almost certain to be perceived in the region as an Islamist triumph. Still, Israel could benefit from a United States that is less inclined to pursue polices unilaterally and more in line with international opinion.

The situation might be reversed under McCain. The U.S. would continue to press its anti-terror campaign in the Middle East and stay the course in Iraq but remain to a large extent isolated globally. The Israeli ideal of an America that is engaged militarily in the Middle East and in synch with the international community may well prove elusive.

Addressing the Iranian challenge
Yet the ultimate crucible of the candidates’ positions affecting Israel lies not in the peace process, in the War on Terror, or even in Iraq, but rather in the burgeoning crisis with Iran. The master of Hamas and Hizbollah, the dominant partner of Syria, and the rising regional hegemon, Iran poses multiple threats to Israel’s security-and, through its nuclear program, a danger to Israel’s very existence. The Islamic regime that routinely pledges to “wipe Israel off the map” could easily transfer nuclear weapons to one of its terrorist proxies while prompting other Middle East states to achieve to develop similar armaments. Israel could soon find itself in the epicenter of a nuclear neighborhood that is relentlessly hostile and volatile. On no other issue are the Jewish State’s interests in the platforms of McCain and Obama so paramount and, potentially, existential.

As McCain’s stance on Hamas once hardened, so too has Obama’s on Iran. After initially ranking Iran with Cuba and Venezuela that “do not pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,”[19] Obama later assured AIPAC members that “the danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” He swore to employ “all elements of American power,” including military force, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons.[20] Throughout, though, Obama has emphasized the need for discussions with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests,” to locate points of common interest and possibly diminish tensions.[21]

More consistently than Obama, McCain characterized Iran as a threat to the free world, “hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, [and] hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations.”[22] To deter Tehran, he has recommended a multi-tiered strategy of escalated sanctions and divestment campaigns, without ruling out an eventual use of force. “The military option has to be there,” he insisted. But contrary to Obama, McCain rejects the very notion of dialogue with Ahmadinejad. This, he argues, would weaken Iranian moderates and reinforce the radicals. “It’s hard to see what such a summit would actually gain,” McCain observed, “except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks… about starting another.”[23]

The McCain-Obama split over Iran was poignantly reflected in their reactions to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed in September 2007 and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) issued three months later. Endorsed by three-quarters of the Senate, the amendment recognized the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group and authorized the use of “all instruments of United States national power” to protect Iraq from Iran and its proxies. Though neither senator participated in the vote, McCain hailed the bill for sending “exactly the right message-to Iran, to the region and to the world.�[24] Obama, however, derided what he perceived as “saber-rattling” and a “reckless” attempt to perpetuate the American intervention in Iraq and possibly justify attacking Iran.[25] In a similar vein, Obama embraced the NIE as “a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy,” while McCain rebuffed it. “We don’t want the intelligence agencies to make the policies,” he said.[26]

The Obama-McCain split over Iran presents Israel with life-and-death dilemmas. Israel would certainly gain from a president who garnered international legitimacy by exhausting all possible options with Iran, including offers to communicate, before resorting to violence. But if diplomacy fails to modify Iranian behavior and instead furnishes Tehran with time to complete its nuclear weapons program, the outcome for Israel could be catastrophic. Compounding the stakes for Israel is the fact that-according to current Israeli Defense Forces estimates, Iran will possess an operational nuclear weapon by 2009, rendering either Obama’s dialogue plan or McCain’s sanction strategy moot.[27]

Alliance in the balance
The presidential election of 2008 is arguably the most pivotal for Israel in its sixty years of existence. The next occupant of the White House can immensely influence the course of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, the Syrians, and a range of Arab regimes. He can alter or maintain American policies on Jerusalem, the settlements, and negotiations with Hamas, and influence the shape and nature of any future Palestinian state. By upholding or disavowing preemption or by reducing or augmenting American troop strength in Iraq, he can radically sway the Middle East’s balance of power. Most fatefully, in his determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry, he can fortify Israel’s security, if not ensure its survival.

Four months is a long time in a national election, especially one so heatedly contested and close. The Middle East, the world’s most protean region, is supremely subject to change. No doubt the candidates will adjust their positions as circumstances shift; they will persist in conveying different messages to different audiences, in clarifying and qualifying their stands.

Yet, in spite of these correctives, the core platforms are unlikely to change. While both aspirants will honor Bush’s pro-Israel legacy and actively pursue peace, McCain would be less prone than Obama to pressure Israel for concessions and more inclined to take the Palestinian Authority to task for its Road Map infractions. Obama may prove more flexible than McCain in admitting some role for Hamas in negotiations and recognizing Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. McCain would preserve and Obama would renounce much of his predecessor’s policies on preemption and the war on terror; Obama intends to remove American troops from Iraq and McCain plans to retain them. Though unwilling to rule out any option vis-�-vis Iran, Obama wants first to talk with Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders. McCain rules out dialogue but prefers to levy intensified sanctions on Iran before resorting to force.

Gaining an appreciation of these aspects of Obama and McCain platforms will remain vital for supporters of Israel, irrespective of what they think is “best” for it. For them, this analysis can continue as a constructive guide throughout the period leading up to November 4th, and thereafter, a useful reference for the next president of the United States.

[1] President George W. Bush, Address to the Knesset, May 14, 2008 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html

[2] Benjamin Netanyahu, Greeting to President George W. Bush in the Knesset, May 14, 2008. http://www.netanyahu.org.il/page2.asp?topic_id=87&topic2_id=291&sub_topic_id=1

[3] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of Barack Obama, The Atlantic, May 12 2008

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php

[4] Transcript of McCain Speech to AIPAC, June 2, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

[5] Obama comments to closed-door meeting with Cleveland Jewish community leaders, February 25, 2008 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203847465591&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[6] Article on Obama�s letter to President Bush, June 25, 2008: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560118,00.html and link to the actual letter, in PDF form: http://www.aipac.org/Publications/index_13495.asp

[7] Video of the Interview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html and op-ed by the reporter who interviewed McCain, Jeffrey Rubin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[8] Obama�s letter to President Bush, June 25, 2008: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560118,00.html and link to the actual letter, in PDF form: http://www.aipac.org/Publications/index_13495.asp

[9] McCain on moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, June 7, 2008: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990903.html

[10] Transcript of Obama speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

[11] FactCheck.Org, April 27, 2007.

[12] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of Barack Obama, The Atlantic, May 12 2008

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php

[13] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of John McCain, The Atlantic, May 30, 2008 http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_on_israel_iran_and_the_1.php

[14] McCain Campaign Website Statement: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm

[15] Story of Obama interview ABC News (with link to interview video), June 17, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5184811&page=1

[16] Fox News Story, June 13, 2008: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/

[17] The New York Times, July 21, 2008.

[18] CNN News Story, May 15, 2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html

[19] CNN News Story, May 19, 2008: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/mccain.free.trade/index.html

[20] Transcript of Obama speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

[21] Transcript of Obama speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

[22] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of John McCain, The Atlantic, May 30, 2008 http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_on_israel_iran_and_the_1.php

[23] Transcript of McCain Speech to AIPAC, June 2, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

[24] Transcript of McCain Speech to AIPAC, June 2, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

[25] Press Release by Obama Campaign, as posted on The Atlantic, Sept. 27, 2007: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/kyllieberman_postgame.php

[26] NY Sun Story, Dec. 20, 2007: http://www.nysun.com/national/in-a-rare-move-kissinger-endorses-mccain/68421/

[27] YNetNews Story, Dec. 16, 2007: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3483116,00.html

Mr. Oren is senior fellow at the Shalem Center and the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, (W.W. Norton, 2007).

Hannukah Party 2007!!!

Rabbi Jonathan Seidel — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:40:40 +0000

hannukah-party.pdf

Flyer for event on Nov 18th on Jewish Spirituality & Mysticism

chili — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 01:41:27 +0000

avraham-greenbaum.pdf