On One Foot: Joshua Hammerman's Blog

Author of "Embracing Auschwitz" and "Mensch•Marks: Life Lessons of a Human Rabbi - Wisdom for Untethered Times." Winner of the Rockower Award, the highest honor in Jewish journalism and 2019 Religion News Association Award for Excellence in Commentary. Musings of a rabbi, journalist, father, husband, poodle-owner, Red Sox fan and self-proclaimed mensch, taken from essays, columns, sermons and thin air. Writes regularly in the New York Jewish Week and Times of Israel.

Friday, March 24, 2006

March 25, 2006 – Adar 25, 5766

March 25, 2006 – Adar 25, 5766

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman, Temple Beth El, Stamford, Connecticut

Send your friends and relatives the gift of Jewish awareness -- a Shabbat-O-Gram each week, by signing them up at www.tbe.org. To be removed from this mailing list, sent e-mail request to office@tbe.org. If you have signed up and are not receiving our e-mails, check your spam filter to make sure that TBE is not being “spammed out.”

Contents of the Shabbat O Gram:

(Click to scroll down)

Just the Facts (service schedule)

The Rabid Rabbi

Mitzvah/Tzedakkah Opportunities

Ask the Rabbi

Spiritual Journey on the Web

Required Reading and Action Items (links to key articles on Israel and Jewish life)

Announcements (goings on in and around TBE)

Joke for the Week

Purim at TBE

photos are at www.tbe.org

At our website you’ll also find my complete Passover “Guide for the Perplexed” and a downloadable Sale of Hametz form

Quote for the Week

“A religious man is a person who holds God and man in one thought at one time, at all times,

who suffers harm done to others, whose greatest passion is compassion,

whose greatest strength is love and defiance of despair.”

Abraham Joshua Heschel

JUST THE FACTS

If you have yet to RSVP for Dan’s Bar Mitzvah on 4/22,

please do so at http://www.tbe.org/dansbarmitzvah/index.htm

We want to be sure to get accurate numbers to the caterer.

Thanks

The Hammermans

Don’t forget the Book Fair this Sunday!!!! Details below

Friday Evening

Candle lighting Candle lighting: 5:52pm on Friday, 24 March 2006 - Havdalah is at 6:52 on Saturday evening. For candle lighting times, other Jewish calendar information, and to download a Jewish calendar to your PDA, click on http://www.hebcal.com/. To see the festivals of other faiths as well, go to http://www.interfaithcalendar.org/

Alef class (third grade) dinner, service and siddur presentation: 5:45 PM

Kabbalat Shabbat: 6:30 PM – in the sanctuary

Tot Shabbat: 6:45 – in the chapel - We are happy to announce that Tot Shabbat will be hosted this week by Gail G. Trell in celebration of her birthday and those of her grandchildren, Max and Hailey.

Shabbat Morning: 9:30 AM – Mazal tov to Matthew Zielinski and Jeffrey Rich, who will become b’nai mitzvah this Shabbat morning! Because it is a “double,” we expect lots of people, so plan to be here early. Extra parking at Westhill High School and shuttle transportation will be available.

Children’s services: 10:30

Torah Portion: Vayakhel-Pekuday: Shabbat ha-Hodesh - Exodus 35:1 - 40:38

1: 37:17-24
2: 37:25-29
3: 38:1-8
4: 38:9-20
5: 38:21-39:1
6: 39:2-7
7: 39:8-21

Shabbat HaChodesh
maf: Exodus 12:1-20

Haftarah – Shabbat Ha- Hodesh: I Kings 7:51 - 8:21

See a weekly commentary from the UJC Rabbinic Cabinet, at www.ujc.org/mekorchaim. Read the Masorti commentary at http://www.masorti.org/mason/torah/index.asp. University of Judaism, JTS commentary is at: http://learn.jtsa.edu/topics/parashah/. USCJ Torah Sparks can be found at http://uscj.org/item20_467.html. UAHC Shabbat Table Talk discussions are at http://uahc.org/torah/exodus.shtml. Other divrei Torah via the Torahnet home page: http://uahcweb.org/torahnet/. Test your Parasha I.Q.: http://www.ou.org/jewishiq/parsha/default.htm. CLAL’s Torah commentary archive: http://click.topica.com/maaaiRtaaRvQhbV2AtLb/. World Zionist Organization Education page, including Nehama Liebowitz archives of parsha commentaries: http://www.moreshet.net/web/index.asp?f=1 For a more Kabbalistic/Zionist/Orthodox perspective from Rav Kook, first Chief Rabbi of Israel, go to http://www.geocities.com/m_yericho/ravkook/index.html. For some probing questions and meditations on key verses of the portion, with a liberal kabbalistic bent, go to http://www.jewishealing.com/learning.html or, for Kabbalistic commentaries from the Zohar itself, go to http://www.kabbalah.com/k/index.php/p=zohar/weekly/intro. To see the weekly commentary from Hillel, geared to college students and others, go to http://www.hillel.org/hillel/NewHille.nsf/FCB8259CA861AE57852567D30043BA26/DF7D129F15B3DF0885256AB80058E9C3?OpenDocument. For a Jewish Renewal and feminist approach go to http://rabbishefagold.hypermart.net/Torah1.html . For a comprehensive Orthodox viewpoint from the Israeli rabbi, Yaakov Fogelman, go to the Torah Outreach Program at http://israelvisit.co.il/top/previous.shtml. Guided meditations for each portion by Judith Abrams at http://www.maqom.com/kavannah.pdf For online Parsha quizzes from Pardes in Israel, go to http://www.pardes.org.il/online_learning/parsha_quizzes/ Torah for Kids: http://www.torah4kids.net/ Weekly Lesson of Popular Israeli Rabbi Mordechai Elon: http://www.elon.org/archives/archives.htm - and his parsha sheets: http://www.mibereshit.org/special/download_eng_pdf.htm From Bar Ilan University: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/; http://www.torahproductions.com/weekly_article.jsp

Mincha – Ma’ariv – Havdalah: 5:30PM – Mazal Tov to Alexandra Smith, who will become Bat Mitzvah this Shabbat afternoon!

THE ENTIRE HEBREW BIBLE (AS WELL AS OTHER JEWISH SOURCES) CAN BE FOUND WITH SIDE-BY-SIDE TRANSLATION AT

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/

Morning Minyan: Weekdays at 7:30, Sundays at 9:30 AM

TO ENSURE A “GUARANTEED MINYAN” FOR THE DAY OF YOUR YAHRZEIT – GO TO THE ROSNER MINYAN MAKER AT WWW.TBE.ORG AND ALSO CONTACT ME AT RABBI@TBE.ORG.

A GUARANTEED MINYAN HAS BEEN REQUESTED FOR NEXT TUESDAY, MARCH 28, FOR A YAHRZEIT. PLEASE GO TO THE ROSNER MINYAN MAKER TO INDICATE IF YOU CAN COME!!

The Parent’s Blessing

My article from this week’s Jewish Week can be found online at http://www.thejewishweek.com/top/editletcontent.php3?artid=4923

This morning my son Dan came to breakfast with a subtle rasp in his otherwise crisp, cherubic voice.

Normally that would not be a big deal, but with his bar mitzvah just weeks away, every minuscule vocal deviation becomes a major concern.

The human body virtually reinvents itself every day, replacing billions of dead cells, especially on the skin. But a voice change, like the bar mitzvah itself, is among those landmark events that register most profoundly on the parental Richter scale. These past few months, similar no-turning-back events have been occurring in my household with alarming frequency. Dan got braces a couple of months ago, I got stronger glasses and, not long after that, I gave my other son, Ethan, 15, his first shave.

I’ve always believed in hands-on parenting – 13 years ago, I performed Dan’s brit – and as I navigated my Norelco tripleheader down Ethan’s chin and across his stretched neck, gingerly sidestepping the Adam’s apple and juking the jugular, I noticed some real similarities between the two cuttings. Sometimes the blade is necessary but no parent wants to apply a blade to any child, anywhere, at any time. Aside from not wanting to cause pain, I shuddered at being a participant in such a miraculous molting, peeling away at the layers of the boy only to reveal the man. The blade only tickled Ethan – I was the one feeling diced.

I shaved him knowing that the alternative would be to let him do it himself, something I had tried on my own teen face nearly a lifetime ago, leaving it looking like the West Side highway after a late winter thaw, littered with scrapes and potholes. So I sheared him, and since then have done it twice more, awed each time not only at my holding over him the power of life and death, but that with each stroke I was midwifing his rebirth into adulthood – and my own into obsolescence.

It is petrifying to be a parent, so much so, in fact, that since the Middle Ages Jewish parents of a bar mitzvah have recited the oddest of blessings. It reads: “Praised is God, who has relieved me of guilt for whatever becomes of this child.” Historians trace this Baruch Shep’tarani blessing back to the biblical story of Jacob and Esau, brothers whose post-adolescent lives took dramatically different tracks. Although Rebecca and Isaac were hardly exemplary parents, the blessing validates their unavoidable helplessness in opposing Esau’s wayward ways. In instituting this prayer, the rabbis were implying that there comes a point where parents simply have to let go.

I’m having a lot of trouble doing that.

I live with the dread every day, aware that each letting-go is a dress rehearsal for the ultimate Letting-Go. I know that when I die, my children’s first act will be to consummate that separation with the ritual cutting of clothing, every bit as painful as the brit milah and shaved chin, and every bit as necessary for further growth.

Everything happening now is leading up to our being left in the dust. First they crawl, then walk, then ride a bike, then drive a car. The speed increases with each new step, all the while nature is taking its entropic toll on the parent huffing and puffing behind, falling away like the spent first stage of a Saturn 5. With each passing milestone, my ability decreases to ensure their survival – and my own.

I remember exactly when Ethan’s math homework became too tough for me and my embarrassment at discovering that what used to be considered R-rated is now being packaged as PG-13. “Meet the Fockers” was an education for all of us. But still I hold on for as long as I can, for as long as they will let me.

As a rabbi who has served the same community for nearly a generation, I feel like I’ve said “Baruch Shep’tarani” hundreds of times, as week after week “my” children have paraded across the pulpit and out into the world, slipping beyond my grasp into adulthood. There is no “Baruch Shep’tarani” for clergy, however, or for God. Only parents can love children enough to let them go.

Ethan may unwittingly have been speaking for all my other students when, at his bar mitzvah two years ago, he got up before a packed congregation and said, “I’d like to thank the rabbi ... he’s been like a father to me.” I may have shaved only him, but as the kids come and go, I feel like I’ve been shearing the entire flock. I cut – they run.

This next letting-go will be the toughest. Just after Passover, I will stand at the Torah and watch Dan ascend, my baby in his fresh-cut suit, looking and sounding like a burgeoning man, with the deepening voice, the braces and the first hint of adolescent blemish on his smooth, dimpled face, I’ll whisper a measured “Baruch Shep’tarani,” clear my throat and, in a raspy, broken undertone, let him know how proud I am.

And another layer of my adult skin will slide away. Only part of me will survive this ordeal – the part that has learned how to hug with one arm and let go with the other.

Rabbi Joshua Hammerman is spiritual leader of Temple Beth-El in Stamford, Conn.

The Israeli Elections…

The Israeli elections are just a few days away, next Tuesday, March 28. While Israeli politics can always be fascinating, this year takes the cake: the party in the lead didn’t even exist a year ago and its leader remains in a coma. Whatever happens, the landscape of Israeli politics is about to change as dramatically as the landscape of Palestinian politics changes several weeks ago.

A nice guide with charts can be found online at http://btvshalom.org/resources/guide_to_perplexed.pdf. Other resources for up-to-the-minute information from the Israeli media:

Jerusalem Online will provide live coverage in English from Israel’s Channel 2 on Tuesday afternoon (evening in Israel, after the polls have closed). Go to the site at http://www.jerusalemonline.com/elections.html to subscribe (free) in advance for an e-mail code allowing you to get that coverage.

Ynetnews
The English language online version of Israel’s popular Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Ynetnews offers comprehensive coverage of the election including news, what each party stands for and reader feedback to comment. Well designed and easy to find what you are looking for.

Jerusalem Post
This English language newspaper offers a section on its website devoted to the election with a focus on news and analysis. Not as neatly designed as the Ynetnews coverage, so needs some time to find what you are looking for. But does offer some additional information on parties that some other sites do not cover.

Haaretz
Another Israeli-based site in English offering the usual mix of news, parties and candidates. A simple guide to the election which doesn't look as comprehensive as that being offered by Jerusalem Post or Ynetnews. Haaretz site seems to have left out some of the parties standing for election including Green.

If you are looking to get the election results direct from Israel, then the online Israeli media should offer the best coverage of the day. But there are some downsides to the current coverage. One annoying common feature all the above have is that they don't provide any direct links to each party after you read about them. What would have been useful is seeing a link to the party that is written about.

Official Knesset site
But while the media sites may not offer the links to the party sites, Israel's own Knesset website offers links, though to not all parties. Its site can be found here.

Also there’s Isracast, at http://www.isracast.com/index.asp - this new source of Israeli news puts current events into historical perspective. It’s a very good portal to other sites as well.

Fact Sheet: Israeli Elections

National elections to the Knesset, Israel ’s parliament, are held once every four years, unless circumstances call for early elections. This year, the election will be held on March 28.

Election day is a holiday.

Every Israeli citizen aged 18 or older has the right to vote. The number of eligible voters for the 2006 elections is 5,014,622. On average, in 17 national elections, turnout has averaged 79%.

Israeli law does not provide for absentee ballots, and voting takes place only on Israeli soil. The sole exceptions are Israeli citizens serving on Israeli ships and in Israeli embassies and consulates abroad.

Voters cast one ballot for a political party to represent them in the Knesset. The 120 Knesset seats are assigned in proportion to each party’s percentage of the total national vote. However, the minimum required for a party to win a Knesset seat is 2% of the total votes cast.

Knesset elections are based on a vote for a party rather than for individuals. In the 2003 election, 29 candidates participated. The three major parties in this election are Kadima, Labor and Likud.

According to the Basic Law: The Knesset, the Central Elections Committee may prevent a candidates’ list from participating in elections if its objectives or actions, expressly or by implication, include one of the following:

negation of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people;
negation of the democratic character of the State;
incitement to racism.

Every citizen aged 21 or older is eligible for election to the Knesset, provided they have no criminal record, do not hold an official position (the president, state comptroller, judges and senior public officials, as well as the chief-of-staff and high-ranking military officers, may not stand for election to the Knesset unless they have resigned their position at least 100 days before the elections), and the court has not specifically restricted this right (for example, in the rare case of a person convicted of treason).

Prior to the elections, each party presents its platform, and the list of candidates for the Knesset, in order of precedence. The parties select their candidates for the Knesset in primaries or by other procedures.

Knesset seats are assigned in proportion to each party’s percentage of the total national vote. If a certain party received sufficient votes for 10 seats, for example, the first 10 candidates on its list will enter the Knesset.

According to the Party Financing Law, a treasury allocation for election campaigns is granted to each faction at the rate of one pre-defined “financing unit” per seat won in the previous Knesset elections plus one unit per mandate won in the current Knesset elections, divided by two, plus one additional financing unit. New factions receive a similar allocation, retroactively, based on the number of seats won in the elections.

Since a government requires the Knesset's confidence to function, it must have a supporting coalition of at least 61 of the 120 Knesset members. To date, no party has received enough Knesset seats to be able to form a government by itself; thus all Israeli governments have been based on coalitions of several parties, with those remaining outside the government making up the opposition.

The Knesset member to whom the task is assigned has a period of 28 days to form a government. The President may extend the term by an additional period of time, not exceeding 14 days.

When a government has been formed, the designated prime minister presents it to the Knesset within 45 days of publication of election results in the official gazette. At this time, he announces its composition, the basic guideline of its policy, and the distribution of functions among its ministers. The prime minister then asks the Knesset for an expression of confidence. The government is installed when the Knesset has expressed confidence in it by a majority of 61 Knesset members, and the ministers thereupon assume office.

Read all Fact Sheets

Dr. Bard is available for media interviews and speaking engagements on this and other topics.

You can help AICE continue this work by becoming a sponsor of the Jewish Virtual Library. Click here for more information.

And now, Jan Gaines’ take…

Dear Josh, Here's what I see with 9 days to go until the election.

1. Kadima is still way ahead, hovering between 40 and 35 seats. They have no clear platform or message, and each of the leaders seems to have his/her own agenda and message. This is confusing for the voters, who don't like Olmert but who are going to vote Kadima either because they want one strong party, or because it is the least of the worst. Neither of which is a very good reason but because of this proportional representation system it is what they fall back on.

2. Both Labor and Likud are fighting to just hang on to a minimum of 20 seats. No one is listening. Pols speculate that both leaders will be thrown out after the election. Silvan Shalom is making quiet and nice because he hopes Bibi falls on his face and then Shalom can take over Likud (backed of course by the biggest paper in Israel which is the family of his pushy wife, Judy .)

3. The big debate now is who will make up the coalition which needs 61-62 seats to govern. The parties on the right- - -Israel Beitenu/Avigdor Lieberman, NRP/National Union, and Shas are all expected to get about 9 or 10 seats. That would make an easy coalition with Kadima but would upset the liberals in the country. However, both Labor (Peretz and Likud/Bibi) say they won't join Kadima under any circumstances. Of course if they are both thrown out it would be another story.

4. The saddest sight to see and hear are those thousands of disgusted and indifferent voters who aren't going to vote at all. My friend Ida Nudel is one of them. She claims she has hundreds of Russian friends who will boycott the polls "to send a message". What these Russians don't realize is that this message never works, but they don't understand the nuances of the Western political system so are standing on their principles.

5. There are 31 parties running. After the big 3 and the little 3, there are 25, ranging from the Greens to Greenleafs (legalizing marijuana) to Ethiopians, Pensioners, Divorced Husbands Rights, and so on. I am supporting one of these small parties because the candidate is an outstanding army man- - name of Uzi Dayan- -who is absolutely incorruptible, has been the national security advisor to 3 prime ministers, founder of the Kinneret Declaration, and is a person universally liked and trusted by people across the board according to the polls. I see his problem every day- - People say he's absolutely the most impressive candidate but he can't win and they aren't going to waste a vote. I can see that argument in the U.S. but here what you need is only 2% of the vote cast to gain a seat. I counter by asking these people would they prefer voting for someone they don't like or trust just because its a bigger party- - - and they say yes. They won't vote principles or conviction. Only pragmatism. As they say, "we're used to the bad guys in the Knesset- - -they are all corrupted".

6. I find a very discouraged mood in the country, especially since we are facing the Hamas challenge With the ascent of that party, many people are re-thinking the advisability of unilateral disengagement and the whole idea of the road map with 2 "independent" states. There is alot to be said for this re-evaluation. Since withdrawal from Gaza, which we had to do, has only brought Kassams dangerously close to Ashkelon, why should we give up any land to terrorists who will only get closer to our main cities? This debate will be playing out in the next months. Unfortunately Israel and the U.S. talk tough but how long can they hold the line against the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese, who will all cave in. We are not proactive in our foreign policy but can only be reactive to whatever the PA does, and that hurts us.

7.But don't let me leave you with a grim picture. The country is gorgeous, safe and filling up with tourists as I speak. On my morning walk we saw 5 tour buses from Holland, Germany, the U.S. and one of Jewish Russians from the States coming to visit relatives. So come on over and enjoy this beautiful and exciting place. Our security is better than ever, and this year has been the safest ever. L" Hitraot. Jan Gaines

The Conservative Movement and Homosexuality: the Latest

If you’ve been following the recent news on the Law Committee (for background, see March 11^th Shabbatogram at http://www.tbe.org/site/sog/060311.htm), you know that a key issue for the Law Committee is whether a new policy adopted regarding homosexuality would be regarded as a mere “teshuvah” (an interpretation of Jewish law), or a “takkanah,” (the overturning of a Torah law). In the CJLS (Committee for Law and Jewish Standads), of the twenty five voting members, only six votes on a given “teshuvah” are needed for it to become a valid position within the movement, even if it contradicts another valid opinion, and even if it receives many votes fewer than a majority. But for a “takkanah,” the threshold is much higher. That threshold in fact had been raised, very quietly, last year.

Currently there are four responsa being studied by the law committee having to do with gay marriage and ordaining gay rabbis, two for and two against. The most liberal of them has been called a “takkanah,” by the committee, even though the author did not consider it as such when he submitted it. These are the issues that faced the Rabbinical Assembly as it convened for its convention this week in Mexico City. Here’s the report I just received from the convention:

There were two matters concerning the Law Committee that were discussed during the course of the convention. On Wednesday, as previously requested, the convention voted that to establish a takkanah, the CJLS would require thirteen positive votes instead of the 80% previously required. (The Committee has twenty-five voting members.)

Today, at an early morning Executive Council meeting, a second Law Committee matter, left over from yesterday’s Convention business session, was also discussed. A motion was raised at the meeting to increase the number of votes within the Committee to declare a paper a takkanah (a legislative like decision) instead of a teshuvah. The Executive Council decided to maintain the current policy of a majority vote of those present at a CJLS meeting. The chairman of the CJLS was asked to review this policy with the Law Committee at its next meeting in June and report its deliberations and recommendations back to the Executive Council.

As mandated in the RA Constitution, six votes remain the required number of votes necessary for a teshuvah to be considered a valid halakhic opinion of the CJLS.

Kass Abelson, our CJLS chairman, reported to the convention that the CJLS was following its standard and usual procedures regarding the papers before it considering the subject of homosexuality. The papers are currently being revised and will go through a second committee reading with a vote anticipated in December.

COMING THIS FALL!!

For more information, go to www.starsynagogue.org

If you are interested in participating in our steering committee, contact me at rabbi@tbe.org

Mitzvah/Tzedakkah Projects

FROM NANCY LEFERMAN … RE. THE MILL RIVER PROJECT

Are you aware of the Mill River Playground project -- see web site http://www.millriverplayground.com

I'm sitting on the steering committee and we are looking for men and women to volunteer on all levels but one specific need would be to help out with the childcare while parents are helping to build the playground. I'm thinking that this would be a wonderful mitzvah project for the teens. For more information, contact the head of volunteers....Adriana Catlett at Acatlet123@aol.com

TBE Job Bank (the Highest Level of Tzedakkah)

I received this blurb from a student who is now teaching some of our teens at Kulanu:

A JTS graduate student and Columbia alum is available for Hebrew & Jewish Studies tutoring. Take advantage of a friendly, fun and flexible learning experience tailored to your specific needs. For details please call Ariela at 646-369-6887 or email her at APelaia@gmail.com

Beth El Cares

Cathy Satz (968-9191; csscounsel@yahoo.com)

Cheryl Wolff (968-6361; cwolff@optonline.net)

BETH EL CARES co-chairs

Blood Drive

Give the Gift of Life! Get involved in a short term mitzvah project that will save lives.

Who benefits from these blood donations?

People who are born prematurely, people with auto-immune and other blood disorders, people involved in accidents…

Many people, including temple members, have received blood transfusions in the past and some people need regular blood transfusions.

On Sunday, April 30th between 8:30 am and 1:30 pm we need 125 healthy adults who are at least 17 years old,

weigh at least 110 pounds and have not given blood since the beginning of March.

The Red Cross will provide the “beds”; we need to put “arms in the beds”.  Color War points will be awarded to your child’s color war team!

Contact Cheryl Wolff to schedule your donation time or to volunteer to help.

Lock of Love

As promised, Beth El Cares will be hosting another group donation for children and teens to cut their hair for “Locks of Love”.

If your hair is 10” or longer (in a ponytail), mark Sunday May 7 on your calendar.

Guy Sasson & Company will be coming to Temple Beth El to start haircuts at 12:00 noon

(right after Religious School). Advance sign-up is required.

Mother and daughter teams will be accepted! Rebecca and Cathy Satz are hopeful they’ll both have their 10” by then-they’re close!

Contact Cathy Satz to schedule your appointment.

Beth El Cares Shabbat

We hope you can join us at Shabbat morning services on Saturday April 15,

when we will be hosting a panel discussion regarding Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.

We will feature at least two panelists, Gabi Birkner, staff writer for the Jewish Week

who has been to the south several times since Hurricane Katrina and has written some moving reports

and Rosaline Feinstein, congregant, who has also written a moving report detailing her recent visit to the south.

The panel may also include some students who recently spent a few days performing mitzvah projects in New Orleans with the JCC.

SAVE THE DATE, SAVE DARFUR.

Rally to Stop Genocide

Sunday, April 30th

2:00 - 4:00

(Group will gather beginning at 1:00)

The Mall Washington, DC

Carl Weinberg is working with Beth El Cares to organize a group from Stamford to attend this rally.

For more information about the rally and other Darfur initiatives,

contact Carl at 539-5560 (day), 322-8675 (evenings) or carl.r.weinberg@us.pwc.com.

Passover Guides

As we begin our preparations for Passover 2006, many questions naturally arise. You can find my own “Guide to the Perplexed” at out website, www.tbe.org. There is also a downloadable form to sell your hametz to me. The Rabbinical Assembly also has a Pesach Guide, which can be found by clicking on Pesah Guide 2006.

What is Shabbat Ha-Hodesh?

As Passover approaches, there are several special Shabbats designed to get us ready. They are called the “Arba Parshiot,” the “four portions,” or special added portions (maftirs). This week is Shabbat Ha-Hodesh, the “Sabbath of the Month,” because this week we announce the new month of Nisan, the month during which Passover will fall. The special reading is from Exodus 12. There we read that “this month will be for you the first of months.” Even before the Exodus has taken place, the people are given instructions as to how to celebrate it for generations to come.

In the biblical calendar the spring month is the first of month – back then it was called literally, Hodesh ha-Aviv, “the month of spring.” The name Nisan was picked up only centuries later in Babylonia (or was it Japan?) (sorry). The Jewish calendar later was shifted so that the new year would be in the fall, where it now stands.

Here’s more on the Jewish calendar from “Judaism 101,” http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

Months of the Jewish Year

The "first month" of the Jewish calendar is the month of Nissan, in the spring, when Passover occurs. However, the Jewish New Year is in Tishri, the seventh month, and that is when the year number is increased. This concept of different starting points for a year is not as strange as it might seem at first glance. The American "new year" starts in January, but the new "school year" starts in September, and many businesses have "fiscal years" that start at various times of the year. Similarly, the Jewish calendar has different starting points for different purposes.

The names of the months of the Jewish calendar were adopted during the time of Ezra, after the return from the Babylonian exile. The names are actually Babylonian month names, brought back to Israel by the returning exiles. Note that most of the Bible refers to months by number, not by name.

The Jewish calendar has the following months:

Hebrew	English	Number	Length	Gregorian Equivalent
	Nissan	1	30 days	March-April
	Iyar	2	29 days	April-May
	Sivan	3	30 days	May-June
	Tammuz	4	29 days	June-July
	Av	5	30 days	July-August
	Elul	6	29 days	August-September
	Tishri	7	30 days	September-October
	Cheshvan	8	29 or 30 days	October-November
	Kislev	9	30 or 29 days	November-December
	Tevet	10	29 days	December-January
	Shevat	11	30 days	January-February
	Adar I (leap years only)	12	30 days	February-March
	Adar (called Adar II in leap years)	12 (13 in leap years)	29 days	February-March

The length of Cheshvan and Kislev are determined by complex calculations involving the time of day of the full moon of the following year's Tishri and the day of the week that Tishri would occur in the following year. After many years of blissful ignorance, I finally sat down and worked out the mathematics involved, and I have added a page on The Jewish Calendar: A Closer Look, which may be of interest to those who want a deeper understanding or who want to write a Jewish calendar computer program. For the rest of us, there are plenty of easily accessible computer programs that will calculate the Jewish calendar for more than a millennium to come. I have provided some links below.

Note that the number of days between Nissan and Tishri is always the same. Because of this, the time from the first major festival (Passover in Nissan) to the last major festival (Sukkot in Tishri) is always the same.

Let’s begin with GOOD NEWS from Israel 21c

Israeli documentary '39 Pounds of Love' makes HBO debut
39 Pounds of Love, an acclaimed Israeli documentary that tells the story of Ami Ankilewitz, a 39-pound Israeli-American with a rare form of muscular dystrophy and his will to live, will be broadcast throughout the US this month on the HBO/MAX premium cable channel. The message of the film? 'One must never give up hope for love and for life.' More...

Health | Israel concocts a delicious new therapy
It's common knowledge that a delicious piece of chocolate can pick you up when you are feeling low - but two psychologists at the Traumatic Brain Injury Unit in Israel's Beit Loewenstein rehabilitation hospital are taking the pleasures of chocolate a step further. They have set up the first-of-its-kind chocolate sculpture therapy workshop for outpatients who have suffered head injuries. The patients learn to melt chocolate and shape it, using it to create sculptures. They then head over to their regular group therapy session - and, indeed, the work with the chocolate appears to have a therapeutic effect beyond that of typical art therapy. More...

Profiles | Israeli Arab restaurateur is a true optimist
Jawdat Ibrahim, a native son of the Israeli Arab town of Abu Ghosh, has taken the $22 million he won in the Illinois state lottery and invested it in a brighter future for the next generation. From a landmark restaurant where he hosts world leaders to a scholarship fund for Arabs and Jews, to a tent where Israelis and Palestinians can cheer on their favorite World Cup soccer teams together, Ibrahim is certain that coexistence is possible - the proof, he says, is all around him. Come taste the humous. More...

The latest on-line writing of TBE’s own Malerie Yolen-Cohen: Click here: Taking Stories to Bed - WriterOnLine

And for some funny new Kashrut symbols, head on over to http://www.holeinthesheet.org/kashrus.htm

now for the rest

Harvard Removes Logo from Controversial Paper - Alex Safian
A controversial research report, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, no longer sports the Harvard or Kennedy School of Government logos on the version available from the Harvard website. A new, much more prominent disclaimer on the front page reads: "The two authors of this Working Paper are solely responsible for the views expressed in it." (CAMERA) (SEE FULL FACT SHEET BELOW)

Fact Sheets

#44: Pseudo-Scholarship on Israel From Harvard*

(March 22, 2006)

By Mitchell Bard

To read the entire fact sheet, or if any of the links fail to operate correctly, go to http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/talking/44_Harvard.html

Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government has published* a paper, “The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by Stephen Walt, the academic dean of the school, and John Mearsheimer a University of Chicago political scientist, that is one of the most flawed pieces of propaganda masquerading as scholarship to be produced in recent years.

This 41-page “working paper” has an astounding 40 additional pages of footnotes, many from post-Zionists and anti-Israel sources, in an apparent effort to give this diatribe against Israel and its supporters the veneer of respectability. The distortions and outright inaccuracies in the paper demonstrate, however, that documentation does not make a paper scholarly.

Relations With Israel

In the second paragraph, the authors make the astounding statement that since 1967 “the centerpiece of U.S. Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel” (p. 1). Relations with Israel have since 1948 been only one of five interests the United States has in the region. The others are oil, economics, stability, and security. From 1967 to 1989, the Cold War shaped U.S. policy far more than concern with Israel and, since 1989, a variety of other interests have occupied policymakers attention, including two wars in Iraq and terrorism. Moreover, policy toward Israel is driven largely by the desire to increase regional stability and security to insure the supply of oil and maximize trade with the Arabs.

The authors devote several paragraphs (p. 2) to discussing U.S. aid to Israel. They bemoan the amount given to Israel, but fail to explain the context in which it is given, notably the fact that Israel must compete with enemies who have virtually unlimited budgets to purchase arms. They fail to note that Israel agreed to reduce its economic aid and it will soon not receive any. They suggest that there is no accountability for military aid, but the truth is that nearly three-fourths of the money is spent in the United States, generating jobs and profits for more than 1,000 companies in 46 states.

The paper says (p. 2) that Israel received money to develop the Lavi aircraft, which “the Pentagon did not want or need.” The Lavi was not meant for U.S. use. It also claims that Israel receives access to intelligence denied to its NATO allies. This is improbable and neither of the sources listed have access to intelligence. They also are outdated. The same paragraph falsely states that the U.S. “turned a blind eye towards Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.” Even the most cursory research into this subject would reveal numerous documents showing U.S. concern and an effort to discourage Israel’s development of these weapons.

It is correct that the United States has vetoed a number of UN resolutions (p. 3), but the authors do not show that this is in any way conflicts with the national interest. On the contrary, blocking one-sided resolutions was consistent with the American effort to serve as an honest broker. The volume of vetoes is simply a function of the disproportionate number of resolutions condemning Israel. Still, what the authors fail to note is the number of times the United States has not vetoed resolutions and gone along with UN resolutions criticizing Israel. The paper makes no reference to the fact that Israel is consistently the top supporter of the United States at the UN in contrast to the Arab states, which oppose U.S. positions 80% of the time.

The statement that “the United States also comes to Israel’s rescue in wartime and takes its side when negotiating peace” (p. 3) is simply false. The United States imposed arms embargoes against Israel in 1948 and 1967, opposed its involvement in the 1956 Sinai campaign, suspended arms shipments and frequently criticized it’s actions during the Lebanon War, and resupplied Israel in 1973 only when it appeared Israel might be defeated by the Soviet-supplied Arab states that had launched a surprise attack. Contrary to the authors’ claims, the United States played no role in the negotiations that preceded the Oslo Accords and frequently took the Palestinians’ side in the subsequent negotiations, forcing Israel, for example, to withdraw from additional territory in 1998 despite the failure of the Palestinian Authority to meet its obligations under the agreements.

Even when the authors get it right, they find a way to criticize U.S. support for Israel. While correctly noting Israel’s value as a strategic asset during the Cold War (p. 4), they claim it complicated relations with the Arab world and use the Arab oil embargo as evidence. But why blame U.S. policy and Israel for an action the Arabs took for their own economic and political interests? And what would have been the cost to American interests if the United States had allowed the Soviet Union to dictate the outcome of the 1973 War? The authors have no trouble identifying the U.S. and Israeli influence on events, but pretend the rest of the world has nothing to do with them. More significantly, an objective analysis of U.S. Middle East policy would show that in direct opposition to the authors’ view, U.S.-Arab relations have improved as U.S. ties with Israel have grown progressively stronger.

They question Israel’s strategic value because it did not prevent the Iranian revolution (p. 4). On what do they base the idea that the United States relied on Israel to prevent the fall of the Shah or to defend Gulf oil supplies? This was never part of any U.S. security formula.

The authors go further and claim Israel has actually become a “strategic burden” (p. 4) because the U.S. didn’t use Israeli bases during the first Gulf War and because it diverted resources (Patriot missiles) to defend Israel. Actually, the U.S. did make use of some Israeli facilities and materials during the war. Moreover, the decision to keep Israel out of the war was not a reflection of Israel’s inability to contribute, it was a decision President Bush made based on what many believed was an unjustified fear the coalition against Iraq would break up. The shipment of Patriots to Israel did nothing to hurt the capability of U.S. forces and ultimately did Israel more harm than good as the missiles were found to be ineffective.

Apologists for Terrorism

A particularly outrageous statement is that the terrorist threat “implies that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press Israel to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead” (p. 4). It has never been the goal of Israel or the U.S. to kill or imprison all terrorists. It is actually the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority, according to the agreements it signed, to arrest all the terrorists and dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Israel has repeatedly said that if the Palestinians fulfilled their Oslo and road map commitments, it would have no need to pursue terrorists. The authors, however, are not interested at all in Palestinian obligations. Up until it became clear that neither Yasser Arafat nor his successor Mahmoud Abbas had the will and ability to negotiate peace, the United States consistently pressured Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians.

The authors repeat the canard that terror is a response to Israel’s “prolonged campaign to colonize the West Bank and Gaza Strip” (p. 5). How then can they explain the long history of terror that preceded Israel’s capture of those territories? How is it colonization for Israelis to move to areas such as Hebron and Gush Etzion where they lived before being expelled by the Arabs? Why don’t Israelis have the right to live in areas that are in dispute. Of course, Israel has now disengaged from Gaza and the terror has continued unabated, but the authors simply ignored that fact.

The paper says that the United States is not threatened by groups that terrorize Israel, but more Americans were killed by Hizballah than by any other terrorist group except those murdered on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Excluding 9/11, approximately 700 Americans have been killed and 1,600 wounded in terrorist attacks since 1970, many by Palestinian terror organizations.

Another false assertion is that “many al-Qaeda leaders, including bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians” (p. 5). The fact is bin Laden's antipathy toward the United States has never been related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak noted, “Osama bin Laden made his explosions and then started talking about the Palestinians. He never talked about them before” (Newsweek, October 29, 2001).

The authors insist the United States wouldn’t be worried about Iran, Iraq or Syria if not for Israel (p. 5). Iran’s antipathy toward the United States, however, dates back decades and has nothing to do with Israel. Iran is important because of its size, strategic location, and petroleum reserves and would be a focus of our attention if Israel did not exist. As discussed below, U.S. concerns with Iraq and Syria are also based on interests separate from Israel. The authors argue that it’s not a “strategic disaster” if any or all of these states acquired nuclear weapons. This is a view at odds with virtually every strategist in the United States and most Western nations. The fact that Britain, Germany and France have led the campaign to prevent Iran from developing the bomb shows how out of touch the authors are with those knowledgeable about the region.

The suggestion that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is the reason the other countries want them (p. 6) is also contrary to the facts. Iran, for example, has nothing to fear from Israel and first wanted nuclear weapons to offset the bomb program of their rivals in Iraq. They now are committed to this path for nationalistic reasons that have nothing to do with Israel. If Israel gave up its arsenal tomorrow, there is no reason to believe the Muslim nations would not accelerate their efforts to get their own nuclear arms in the hope that they would then have a qualitative advantage over Israel.

To try to make the point that Israel is the cause of problems between the Islamic world and the west, the authors cite a letter from 52 former British diplomats to Tony Blair (p. 6). Setting aside the historic Arabist orientation of the British Foreign Office, the proposition ignores the range of more fundamental causes of conflict such as the Arab/Islamic nations’ rejection of Western values. Blair, himself, does not believe the diplomats and has adopted a pro-Israel policy during his term. In fact, the British policy is one more example of the fallacy of the authors’ thesis that an all powerful pro-Israel lobby is responsible for all of the ills of the Middle East because the United Kingdom has no corrollary to the U.S. lobby.

The paper questions Israel’s strategic value because the authors say Israel is not a loyal ally (p. 6). Why? Because they say Israel doesn’t do everything the United States wants. Well, as a sovereign nation, Israel sometimes has to determine its own national priorities and these sometimes create conflicts with the United States. The authors might have noted that U.S. divisions are more profound with many NATO allies, such as France, but that does not lead them to question France’s value. Moreover, the American public does see Israel as a reliable ally, ranking it after Great Britain, Canada and Australia and ahead of Japan, France, Germany and other allies.

The paper asserts (p. 7) that Israel is “portrayed as weak and besieged,” but that has not been the case for decades. Israel is not weak, it is strong, but it is still facing threats from terrorists and countries that consider themselves at war with Israel (Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia). The authors are again wrong when they suggest that Israel was Goliath rather than David in the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars. In 1948, Israel was invaded by all its neighbors and its own leaders believed their chances of victory were only 50-50. In 1956, Israel was victorious in part because of support from France and Great Britain. In 1967, Israel’s quick victory came as a shock because it was perceived as David. The authors also conveniently neglect to mention the 1973 War in which Israel was nearly defeated.

Questioning Israeli Values

An outright calumny is the author’s assertion that Israel does not share America’s liberal democratic values (p. 8). They assert that citizenship is based on blood kinship and insist this is why Israeli Arabs are treated as second-class citizens. If blood kinship was the sole basis of citizenship, one-fifth of the population could not be citizens. In fact, however, all Israelis, Jew and non-Jew, are equal under the law. Israel is not a perfect society, and discrimination still exists, but that is the case in the United States as well. Americans have had nearly 230 years to address the inequalities so it should not be surprising that Israel has not resolved all of its social ills in its first 60 years of independence. Moreover, Israel stands out in the Middle East as the only country that shares American values.

The authors make the absurd claim that Israel’s democratic status “is undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own” (p. 8). Israel’s democracy is independent of the Palestinians. The fact that the Palestinians don’t have a state can be traced back decades to the first peace plans that they rejected because they allowed for the existence of a Jewish state. Palestinians who are citizens of the state enjoy full rights, but Israel has no obligation to permit those living in the territories those same guarantees. Furthermore, roughly 98 percent of the Palestinians in the territories are denied fundamental liberal values by the Palestinian Authority that is responsible for their well-being. The authors say Israel is “colonizing lands on which Palestinians have long dwelt” without presenting any evidence of any such connection to those lands or acknowledging the longstanding Jewish presence and claims to parts of the West Bank.

Distorting the Peace Process

Another falsehood is the claim that the Zionists were not interested in the partition of Palestine (p. 9). They take a Ben-Gurion quotation cited from post-Zionist authors to suggest that it was the Jews rather than the Palestinians who had a policy of stages whereby they expected to expand beyond the partition lines to take over all of Palestine. The facts show otherwise. It was the Zionists who reluctantly accepted chopping up their homeland into the kind of cantons the Palestinians now complain about in the hope that this would bring peace. While the Jews accepted partition and, today, again offer the Palestinians a partition plan, it is the Arabs who have repeatedly rejected any proposal that would not lead to the destruction of Israel.

The authors also resurrect the discredited arguments that Israel had a policy to transfer the Palestinians and drove 700,000 Palestinians into exile (p. 9). If they had read the source of these claims more closely, they would have seen that his research did not support this conclusion and that, contrary to the authors’ claims, he did provide evidence that many Arabs fled because their leaders told them to do so.

The paper falsely reports (p. 10) that “Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians’ national ambitions.” On the contrary, Israel has since 1967 expressed a willingness to trade land for security. The Palestinians, however, have rejected each overture and responded to concessions of land with greater terror. Had the Palestinians accepted the autonomy plan offered by Menachem Begin as part of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty, they would today have a state. If they had fulfilled the terms of the Oslo agreements, they would today have a state. If they had accepted the Barak offer at Camp David, they would today have a state, and if they had fulfilled the terms of the road map for peace, they would today have a state.

The authors’ repetition of the canard that Barak offered the Palestinians a set of “Bantustans” also exposes their limited research (p. 10). Clearly, they failed to read the book by Clinton’s chief negotiator, Dennis Ross, or the many articles that documented the generosity of the Israeli offer and Yasser Arafat’s unwillingness to make peace under any conditions.

The myopia of the authors is apparent in the claim that “Israel’s conduct is not morally distinguishable from the actions of its opponents” (p. 10). Perhaps they can provide a list of all the Israeli suicide bombers who have blown up Palestinian schools, buses and cafes. The evidence for the authors’ claim is that Zionists in the 1940s engaged in terror tactics. It is true that some Jews did employ terrorism at that time and they were condemned for doing so by the Zionist establishment. This is in contrast to the Palestinian Authority which is the sponsor of the terror against Jews today.

Rewriting History

The paper accuses the Zionists of “ethnic cleansing,” an outrageous claim for which there is no evidence (p. 11). To the contrary, it is easily refuted by the fact that 150,000 Palestinians were allowed to remain as citizens of Israel and that the Zionists always anticipated a significant Arab population within the state’s borders.

Once again citing post-Zionist histories, the authors claim that between 1949 and 1956 “Israeli security forces killed between 2,700 and 5,000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed” (p. 11). That’s a pretty wide margin of error and fails to put into context the terror war being waged by the Arabs at that time. The suggestion that large numbers were unarmed raises the question of why they were infiltrating. Here’s part of what the authors left out: During roughly the same period, Israel reported to the UN 1,843 cases of armed robbery and theft, 1,339 cases of armed clashes with Egyptian armed forces, 435 cases of incursion from Egyptian controlled territory, and 172 cases of sabotage perpetrated by Egyptian military units and fedayeen in Israel. These incidents killed 101 Israelis and left 364 wounded. In 1956 alone, 28 Israelis were killed and 127 wounded (Security Council Official Records, S/3706, October 30, 1956, p. 14).

The authors accuse the IDF of excessive violence in the Palestinian War because the ratio of Palestinians killed is higher than that of the Israelis (p. 11). They are now equating Israelis who are killed riding on buses and sipping coffee at cafes with Arabs killed by troops trying to prevent these atrocities. Would the authors be happier if the figures were even? Isn’t it enough for them that nearly 2,000 Israelis have been murdered? The disproportionate number of Palestinian casualties is primarily a result of the number of Palestinians involved in violence and is the inevitable result poorly-trained irregulars attacking a well-trained regular army. The unfortunate death of noncombatants is largely due to the habit of Palestinian gunmen and terrorists using civilians as shields. Moreover, Israeli troops do not target innocent Palestinians, but Palestinian terrorists do target Israeli civilians.

On page 12 we learn the authors are apologists for terror. They say the Palestinians’ “behavior is not surprising” because they “believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions.” Terrorism is not Israel’s fault. It is not the result of “occupation.” And it certainly is not the only response available to the Palestinians’ discontentment. Palestinians have an option for improving their situation, it is called negotiations. And that is not the only option either. The Palestinians could also choose the nonviolent path taken by Martin Luther King or Gandhi. They have chosen, however, to pursue a war of terror instead of a process for peace.

It's The Lobby's Fault

The thesis of the paper is not really addressed until page 13 when the authors start to make the case that it is the “Israel Lobby” that is responsible for distorting U.S. policy. They start with a distortion of their own by suggesting that Israel is not a salient issue for Jews by citing a survey showing that 36% of American Jews are not emotionally attached to Israel. The American Jewish Committee, however, has asked a similar question for several years and found in 2005 that 77% of American Jews feel fairly or very close to Israel.

Throughout the discussion of the lobby, the authors repeatedly refer to Israel’s “expansionist policies” (pp. 13-14, 25, 40) without presenting any evidence for the use of this phrase. On the contrary, Israel is the only “expansionist” power in history that has repeatedly given up territory (after the 1956 war, signing the treaty with Egypt and the Oslo agreements). Most recently, Israel evacuated the entire Gaza Strip and a part of Samaria. In addition, Israeli leaders have repeatedly offered to withdraw from as much as 97% of the territories in exchange for peace with the Palestinians, a fact never mentioned in the paper.

In describing the lobby, the paper mentions only Jews, evangelical Christians, and gentile neoconservatives as supporters of Israel (p. 14). In highlighting the evangelicals and neocons, the authors suggest a narrow base of support for Israel and pick out two groups that are particularly controversial among liberals and the more general public. What the authors fail to do is mention the broad-based support for Israel reflected by the most recent Gallup poll (February 2006), which found that sympathy for Israel was 59 percent compared to only 15 percent for the Palestinians. One remarkable aspect of the lobby they ignore is that its members cross boundaries of race, gender, age and ideology.

For a paper purporting to be based on scholarship, it is particularly weak in its discussion of the well-researched area of interest group behavior (p. 15). The authors assert that “pro-Arab interest groups are weak to non-existent,” but fail to define or examine the Arab lobby. It is true that pro-Arab organizations are weak, but the lobby also includes the petrodiplomatic complex, which is far more influential.

A major theme of the section on the lobby is that the pro-Israel community is determined to stifle debate and negative news about Israel (p. 15). It is true that the lobby, like other interest groups, wants to make its case, but to suggest that Middle East politics is not the subject of heated debate in Congress, the Executive Branch and the media is simply to put one’s head in the sand. No shortage of information is available on all sides of the issues, and much of the critical analysis comes from Israel, where the raucous democracy and freewheeling press routinely publicize the good, the bad and the ugly of Israeli society and politics.

The authors describe the effectiveness of the Israeli lobby, but make a specious logical jump to the conclusion that AIPAC, the pro-Israel community’s principal representatives to public officials, is a “de facto agent for a foreign government” (p. 17). This has been a claim of Israel’s detractors for some time and part of their campaign to place lobbying restrictions on the organization, but AIPAC does not represent the government of Israel and its employees are not paid by Israel. AIPAC represents the views of the majority of Americans who believe a strong U.S.-Israel relationship is in America’s interest. AIPAC’s policies often coincide with Israeli positions, but not always, and the organization has studiously avoided taking positions on some of the more contentious issues of Israeli politics, such as settlements.

If the authors had read the literature, in particular, The Water's Edge And Beyond, they would have seen the evidence does not support their claim that “the Lobby also has significant leverage over the Executive branch” (p. 17). The lobby’s influence is primarily over economic issues decided in the Legislature. It has very little influence on the Executive and virtually none on issues of war and peace, regardless of where they are decided.

Illusions of False Security - Hillel Halkin
The Israeli raid on a Jericho jail last week was yet another lesson in the futility of third-party intervention in situations of national conflict. The captured men - five of them convicted, in a rare Palestinian trial of terrorists, of assassinating Israeli cabinet minister Rehavam Zeevi - were imprisoned as part of an American-brokered deal that ended a 2002 Israeli siege of Arafat's Ramallah compound, in which they had taken refuge. The agreement was that they would be incarcerated in Jericho, with U.S. and British observers posted in the jail to make sure they didn't escape. It was last week's hasty departure of these observers, concerned for their safety under a Hamas government, that led to the Israeli action.
In a word, as long as the PA was committed to keeping the men in prison, the observers were unnecessary. The minute there was a need for the observers, they vanished, obeying instructions from their superiors. Such is the fate of international interventions of this kind. They work perfectly when they are superfluous and collapse the minute they are not. This was similar to the UN peacekeeping force that fled Sinai in May 1967, paving the way for the Six-Day War. For Israel, the lesson is clear. Neutral "peacekeepers" between it and the Arab states are always undesirable. (New York Sun)

Iran Crisis Could Lead to a Nuclear-Armed World - Jessica T. Mathews
The idea that "it's too late" to stop Iran's progress toward building nuclear weapons is technologically wrong. "There's nothing we can do about it" ignores a range of options between economic sanctions and going to war. This crisis is only proximately about Iran. More important, it is about the likely consequence that Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt would produce their own bombs and the nonproliferation regime would collapse. What is at stake is not a choice between 9 and 10 nuclear weapons states, but a choice between 9 and 30 or more.
If we fail to pursue this effort with unwavering, clear-minded diplomacy, a nuclear-armed world will be the Bush administration's chief legacy, no matter how the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism turn out. The writer is the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (New York Times)

Israel Lobby - Ruth R. Wisse (Wall Street Journal, 22Mar06)

The thesis of Professors Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago is that a loose association of special-interest groups has persuaded the country to sacrifice its interests to a foreign power.
Organized as a prosecutorial indictment rather than an inquiry, their essay does not tell us why the "Israel Lobby" should have formed in the first place. The 21 countries of the Arab League with ties to 1.2 billion Muslims world-wide are nowhere present as active political agents.
There is no mention of the Arab rejection of the UN's partition of Palestine in 1948; no 58-year Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel; no Arab attacks of 1948, 1967, and 1973; no Arab-Soviet resolution at the UN defining Zionism as racism; no monetary and strategic support for Arab terrorism against Jews and Israel; and no Hamas dedication to destroying the Jewish state.
The authors do not ask why Arab aggression and Muslim "rage against Israel" should have morphed into a war against the U.S. and the West. Israel's existence elicits Arab and Muslim hostility, hence in their view Israel is to blame for Arab and Muslim carnage.
When the authors imply that the bipartisan support of Israel in Congress is a result of Jewish influence, they function as classic conspiracy theorists who attribute decisions to nefarious alliances rather than to the choices of a democratic electorate. Their contempt for fellow citizens dictates their claims of a gullible and stupid America. Their insistence that American support for Israel is bought and paid for by the Lobby heaps scorn on American judgment and values.
Americans don't support Israel because of the strength of any lobby; Israel earns American support the hard way.

See also Study Decrying "Israel Lobby" Marred by Numerous Errors - Alex Safian
"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer is riddled with errors of fact, logic and omission, has inaccurate citations, and displays extremely poor judgment regarding sources. Is it true that U.S. policy in the Middle East, and specifically our support for Israel, is due almost entirely to the activities of the "Israel Lobby?" The authors are hardly the first to so argue, though their report ignores all prior serious work on the subject, including the seminal book refuting such claims by the late Professor A.F.K. Organski, The $36 Billion Bargain: Strategy and Politics in U.S. Assistance to Israel.
The report is a deep embarrassment to both Harvard University and the University of Chicago. While Mearsheimer and Walt are free to make any assertions they like, no matter how baseless, Harvard University should have nothing to do with such shoddy, biased work. (CAMERA)

Hamas Unlikely to Moderate - Interview with Matthew Levitt by Bernard Gwertzman (Council on Foreign Relations)

Terrorism expert Matthew Levitt is deputy assistant secretary for intelligence and analysis at the Treasury Department.

"Being the government, I don't think, is going to moderate Hamas in the least. And the reason for that is they have a model they have already articulated that they intend to follow, which is the model of Hizballah in the north."
"Months before the election, Hamas announced it was going to be setting up a standing militia, the Qassam Brigade; it would not take the place of, but would sit parallel to, existing terrorist wings."
"Abbas al-Sayyid is the convicted mastermind of the Passover bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya....[He told me:] 'I as a Muslim cannot cede any part of what I believe to be an Islamic endowment - all of Israel, presently Israel - to the Jews or anybody else. If I were to agree to a temporary truce, that would be exactly what it is, temporary.'"
"Al-Sayyid said 'temporary' can mean a generation or two, but he added: 'If I were to subscribe to one of these long-term ceasefires, don't think that I would not continue to train my son, who would enable his son to eventually consider the struggle, the fight, to regain all of this Islamic endowment that is now Israel.'"

Israel May Be Next Al-Qaeda Battleground - Steven Gutkin (AP/Washington Post)
Signs are mounting that al-Qaeda terrorists are setting their sights on Israel and the Palestinian territories as their next jihad battleground.
  Al-Qaeda's inroads are still preliminary, but officials fear a doomsday scenario if it takes root.
  Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Lebanon have established contacts with al-Qaeda followers linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, according to two Israeli officials.
  See also Al-Qaeda, Zarqawi, and Israel: Is There a New Jihadi Threat Destabilizing the Eastern Front? - Dore Gold and Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi (JCPA)

ISRAEL: MYTHS AND FACTS

MYTH #213

"The Jews have no claim to the land they call Israel."

FACT

A common misperception is that all the Jews were forced into the Diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years.

The Jewish people base their claim to the Land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 2) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people; 3) the territory was captured in defensive wars and 4) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham.

Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in the Land of Israel continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea. The Crusaders massacred many Jews during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years.

By the early 19th century — years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement — more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel (Dan Bahat, ed. Twenty Centuries of Jewish Life in the Holy Land, Jerusalem: The Israel Economist, 1976, pp. 61-63.). The 78 years of nation-building, beginning in 1870, culminated in the reestablishment of the Jewish State.

Israel’s international “birth certificate” was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel’s people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

This article can be found at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/Israelsroots.html#a1

Source: REVISED Myths & Facts Online -- A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Mitchell G. Bard.

To order a copy of the NEW paperback edition of Myths and Facts, click HERE. The previous edition of Myths & Facts is also available in Spanish, German, French, Russian, Portuguese, Swedish, and Hebrew.

Dr. Bard is available for media interviews and speaking engagements on this and other topics.