Israel's Constitutional Crisis

In This Moment Israel's Constitutional Crisis

Shabbat Shalom In my email yesterday I highlighted some of the serious issues facing Israel as the new government's policies begin to crystallize. I want to use this additional weekly newsletter to help explain why this is indeed a major crisis, one that has prompted Israelis from a wide swath of the political spectrum to cry out for our support. And I want to help you to better understand the complex issues at hand. Additionally, I want to show you an example of how one might simultaneously love Israel and be fully supportive of her, while at the same time oppose the policies of the current regime vocally and publicly. It's a tall order, but given that many of you have been asking how we can respond to this, it can't wait for next week's Shabbat-O-Gram. I am fully aware that this might remind some of the email I sent you just after the 2016 election, when I perceived the potential for a mortal threat to American democracy. The Jan. 6 investigations and other inquiries have proven that I was right. And it was morally right for clergy to inspire activism as well as hope, and never to ignore the dangers at hand. Some, I daresay more than a few, would have preferred that I stay silent and aim always for the path of least resistance. That has never been my way but, lucky for you, you'll get a chance to find someone more amenable to that style in the near future. Some would have preferred that I not welcome recent immigrants facing deportation or take a knee following George Floyd's murder, and certainly, certainly, never get "political" when it comes to Israel. You know that has never been my way. But whatever my critiques of this or that Israeli policy have been in the past, I've never gone "Code Red" with regard to Israel's internal actions (as opposed to actions directed against Israel, where I've often gone "Code Red.") Even the 1982 Lebanon War, which caused me deep consternation (as I described in this year's Rosh Hashanah day 2 sermon), led me to circle the wagons, as the world's criticism grew more virulent. That will happen now too. People who have been chomping at the bit to condemn Israel are poised to strike, in the media, the UN and on college campuses. Their response is, as usual, Pavlovian and devoid of context. But this time, we can't follow our own typical knee-jerk pattern and rally to the defense of policies that are simply not defensible. That's why Prime Minister Netanyahu's standing ovation when he spoke to a leadership group of major donor American Jews this week was ill-timed and inaccurate. It gave the impression that American Jews want to give this government a blank check to dismantle Israel's democracy and harm human rights. Not true. That's why we need to stake out positions now, which, because Israel needs America more than it likes to admit, might - just might - moderate Israel's approach to some of these new policies, and it might - just might - help preserve Israeli democracy. We need to act BEFORE the next terror attack, or mini war with Gaza, or God forbid, major war with Iran and Russia. And we need to act before the Knesset rams through the changes. If you love Israel, now is the time to speak up. That's what Alan Dershowitz is doing. That's what David Horovitz is doing (he called the new policies a "democratic dictatorship). Read Yossi Klein Halevi's essay in the Atlantic: Netanyahu’s Betrayal of Democracy Is a Betrayal of Israel - Decency and reason can still prevail, but more than ever Israel needs its Jewish friends abroad. All these voices are being heard - and so are many others who have always had Israel's back. How could we possibly ignore them?

1) What are the most pressing issues right now? For the answer to this, I call on old friend Marc Schulman, who wrote about this on his Substack page today (click here to read the whole thing). Just listen to his cry for help! It's difficult to fully convey the anxiety felt by my friends and acquaintances about the actions of the new government. On one hand, daily life continues as usual — we work, walk our dogs, and meet up for coffee. However, the fear that we may be losing the country we love looms over us constantly. Some may think I am exaggerating, but this fear has become very real and has only intensified in recent weeks. This week, Justice Minister Yariv Levin unveiled the first part of his plan for “Judicial Reform”. Levin’s “proposal” was not developed by the professionals within the Justice Ministry, but rather, a fully detailed plan he unveiled upon his arrival at the Ministry (likely with the assistance of the American-funded ultra-Conservative Kohelet Institute). While the general outline of Levin's plans were known in advance, seeing it written out as proposed legislation made its potential impact all the more tangible, and consequently, frightening. As a result of the compliment of sweeping changes Levin is intent on implementing, many believe the very essence of Israel as a democratic country is now at risk. Before delving into the specifics of Levin’s proposal, some background is needed to understand why this plan is so dangerous. Even before Levin took over the Ministry of Justice, Israel's democracy was rather fragile — particularly for those familiar with the democratic systems in place in countries like the United States. Unlike almost all other Western countries, with the exception of England, Israel does not have a constitution. Israel's parliament operates under a national list system, which means that no one represents their constituents directly. The Israeli parliament and government are essentially one unit. As a result, members of the ruling coalition in parliament cannot vote against the government if they want to maintain a political future. Without independent bases in specific local districts throughout the country, the parliament does not act as a balance to the government — i.e. whatever the government decides, the Knesset will approve. Israel does have what are known as "Basic Laws," which provide some form of protection for individual rights. However, these laws can currently be amended with just 61 votes — a simple majority in the Knesset. The Supreme Court is the only balance in Israel’s system of governance. Only the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws or administrative actions in violation of Israel's Basic Laws, or to declare those actions to be unreasonable. Over the course of the last 30 years, Israel’s Supreme Court has ruled that laws or parts of laws violated Israel's Basic Laws 29 times. It is because of the Supreme Court that women are now able to become pilots, and that the ultra-Orthodox have not yet been completely exempt from service in the IDF. The Supreme Court has also ruled that certain settlements are illegal, not because settlements themselves are illegal, but because certain particular settlements were built on private Palestinian land. Given this context, it is clear that those who wish to weaken Israeli courts have their own interests at heart. The ultra-Orthodox wish to pass laws that would exempt their children from Army service, and limit the rights of women. At the same time, representatives of settlers wish to remove barriers to unlimited settlement growth in the West Bank. Lastly, there are those who want to end Prime Minister Netanyahu’s corruption trial — and they know that a strong court would never allow that to happen. So what are Levin's actual proposals? They are divided into four parts. The first part states that the Supreme Court cannot invalidate any Basic Law, unless the decision is unanimous. It is important to note that almost any law can become a Basic Law even if passed by a simple majority. Under Levin's proposed terms, even if the Supreme Court invalidates a law, 61 members of the Knesset will be able to then vote to override the decision of the Supreme Court. This means that the government, which always has at least 61 votes, would be able to override absolutely any decision made by the Supreme Court. The second part of Levin’s plan relates to the selection of judges. Currently, judges are chosen by a committee made up of representatives from the government, representatives of the legal profession, and several justices themselves. This cohort regularly requires compromise by all factions to reach accepted decisions. While this system is not perfect, it is well-regarded. However, Levin’s proposed system, would ensure that the committee is made up overwhelmingly of politicians, allowing them to appoint judges of their choosing without needing to compromise. The third aspect of Levin’s plan is to eliminate the authority of judges to determine whether a law or administrative action by the government is “unreasonable”. If this facet is implemented, it means the courts will no longer be able to act as a check on the actions of the government, or provide any form of redress for citizens suing the government for its actions. The final part of Levin's plan declares the recommendations of legal advisors for every ministry — including the Prime Minister's office — no longer be binding. They will maintain a solely advisory role, and even if they state that an action is illegal, as the “duly elected official,” the minister will be allowed to proceed with no regard to the legal recommendation. Thank you Marc. Read the rest of his post at Marc Schulman's Tel Aviv Diary. And subscribe to it! He never fails to inform. 2) How do we respond to those who try to delegitimize Israel because of this? By loving Israel so much that we will stand up to those who try to destroy her from within. This past week I watched a moving interview that CNN's Fareed Zakaria did with the Dasha Navalnaya, the daughter of Alexei Navalny, who is now imprisoned in Russia. For those who believe that imprisoning the political opposition could never happen in Israel, it's already been proposed by a far right member of the new government!!! The idea was rejected by Minister Ben Gvir - for now - but we'll see how the police respond to expected mass protests this weekend. But what struck me about the interview with Dasha, currently a student at Stanford, was this exchange: ZAKARIA: So, Dasha, I want to take you to that moment where you realize after he has been arrested, imprisoned, they have attempted to poison him, he's been if a coma, he comes out of this, he decides to go back to Russia. He must have realized that what is going to happen when he goes back to Russia is not good. He's going to get arrested, possibly -- they tried to kill him just months earlier. At that point, did you tell him, dad, don't go back? You're comfortably here in the West, organized opposition from Germany, from America, from Stanford. NAVALNAYA: Well, of course, there was this little voice in the back of my head saying, you know, cuff him to your hand and never let go. You want your dad being by your side. But we never had a family conversation of whether he is going to go back. It was always something that we accepted as a family. We knew that he would want to go back. You know, he's a Russian politician. We're a Russian family. You can't do Russian politics from abroad. You can't help a country being more prosperous and free from, you know, being on the West, in the Western country and living in a flat in New York and doing politics like that. So I'm happy. ZAKARIA: And he's a great Russian -- I mean, this is obvious, but what might be worth reminding, you know, he loves Russia. He adores Russian culture. He taught you, you know, Pushkin, right? NAVALNAYA: Yes, yes. He loves Russian literature. He gave that love to me. As a whole family, whenever we travel somewhere for summer vacation when I was little, we would always rate the cities, and Moscow would always be at the top. Because, you know, it's our home, we love it. My whole family is there. My grandparents are there. My uncle is there. I -- whenever we have -- it makes -- it makes this work so much easier knowing that we're patriotic towards our country, and that we actually love the culture and the people, and, you know, I grew up in Moscow and I want to go back. I rest my case. Imagine - your government tries to murder your father and then jails him, and, incidentally, dismantles democracy and invades a neighbor. Putin's government is arguable the worst on earth - but his arch enemy loves the country and people so much that he risks his life to return there. The question should never be, "How can you still love Israel?' Just as in 2016 it was not, "How can you still love America?" The question must be, "How much are you willing to risk in order to save it?" What I am risking- and what I am asking you to risk - is paltry when compared to the Navalnys, for a country ruled by a far more malevolent force. 3) The Supreme Court's Chief Justice, chief opposition leader and other top Israelis are calling upon us to act. This is not an election campaign. This is nothing less than a constitutional crisis. I've already referenced Alan Dershowitz and the editor of the Times of Israel. How about the Chief Justice of the Israeli Supreme Court? Here's what Esther Hayut said yesterday: Unfortunately, if the plan for change that has been presented is carried out, the 75th year will be remembered as the year in which Israel’s democratic identity suffered a fatal blow. See In fiery speech, Hayut says judicial shakeup plan ‘fatal blow to Israeli democracy’ Hayut said that independence is the “soul of the courts” and without it, judges won’t be able to fulfill their roles as servants of the public. And finally, the opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote a front page op-ed in Ha'aretz today. Here's what he said (click here to read the full text).

Netanyahu is trying to calm things down while defending the judicial overhaul. He's sweating. He needs to feel the pressure from this side of the pond. That means us. If you've ever felt about Israel the way Dasha Navalnaya feels about Moscow; if you've ever loved Yehuda Amicha's poetry or the sounds of chirping birds in the Old City at sunrise, or the hummus at Abu Shukri, or the seniors who create masterpieces at Lifeline for the Elderly - or the soldiers who swear an allegiance to the purity of arms. And a Supreme Court that protects it all. If you ever felt toward Israel like Dasha does about Russia, you'll stand up for Israel now. Shabbat Shalom, Rabbi Joshua Hammerman

Share This Email   Share This Email   Share This Email

Temple Beth El 350 Roxbury Road Stamford, Connecticut 06902 203-322-6901 | www.tbe.org    A Conservative, Inclusive, Spiritual Community

Yair Lapid Column in Ha'aretz, Jan. 13, 2023

.

We are fighting a fierce battle. This is the basic, most crucial thing to know. Our full commitment and unbridled fury must be translated into effective political action and the ability to tell a new story. This government must be toppled quickly, otherwise it will be too late. Two timetables are directly vying against one another – our ability to fight this government versus its potential for destruction.

There will come a moment, in the not too distant future, when the damage will become irreversible. If this government does not fall, Israel will cease to be a liberal democracy; it will not be possible to rehabilitate its constitutional structure. The inevitable consequence will be a quiet exodus by the country’s economic and technological elites. What does it take, after all? A plane ticket, a bank transfer, a page of instructions for the agent selling the house. It has already happened in other countries. Colombia, for one. One day, the elites there understood that things weren’t headed anywhere good, so they quietly moved to Miami. No one noticed that it was happening until the country suddenly imploded at breathtaking speed.

The lure of Miami threatens us, too. The cultural and artistic elites may still speak wistfully of the gray gloom of Berlin the way the old communists used to wax poetic about Maxim Ghilan’s Paris, but the money and the tech talent are already checking out Miami. The sun feels familiar, the food is excellent, and they like the governor, Ron DeSantis.

This battle requires us to look back as much as we look ahead. Where did we go wrong, what did we miss, what exactly happened here? I’m not talking about the brash, self-satisfied questions that journalists hurl at me every day at the start of Yesh Atid’s Knesset faction meeting – “Why didn’t you manage to get the bloc organized?” (Because there is no bloc); “Will you take responsibility for the loss?” (Yes, by winning next time) – but about an undaunted Hegelian attempt to understand the fault line of Israeli society. Which thesis collided with which antithesis, and is what we are seeing now a synthesis or just massive chunks of rubble littering the floor of our lives?

It’s not the election defeat itself that is so appalling, but the feeling that we are being hollowed out, that all that is right and holy and beautiful in our lives is being held up for scorn and ridicule and crudely kicked to the side of the road. The victors’ intoxication with power is about far more than the election results. They seized control of something much bigger than the government or the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee: They seized control of the truth.

Like every anti-democratic regime in history, this is what they always wanted. Not to expose the truth, but to control it. To mold it to their needs, to make certain it is useful for ensuring their rule. They understood that the facts – the true facts that are rooted in things like demography, geography, international relations, economics and security considerations – could cause their downfall, so they embarked on an extremely ambitious mission: to cancel the truth and create in its stead a made-to-order truth that is disconnected from context, disconnected from facts and exists in its own right.

“Next time, I’ll have the media,” Benjamin Netanyahu told his associates after the first time he was booted from office. It was this line that spawned the famous poison-spewing media machine, with all of its obscure sources of financing: Channel 14, Galey Israel, Israel Hayom in its previous version, the Kohelet Forum, Sela Meir Press, Yaakov Bardugo and Erel Segal and the chorus of mouthpieces, and even their new invention, the “useful intellectual” instead of the “useful idiot” – second-tier intellectuals like Gadi Taub and Irit Linur, who traded in their critical thinking for the kind of loving and admiring embrace they would never receive in the purist left-wing milieu.

They built and amassed all of these kinds of assets and then launched a despicable offensive of alleged victimization, which caused the regular channels to capitulate and grovel to them (“Netanyahu himself calls to complain about the smallest news item,” one station director once told me with amazement. It never occurred to him that there was something very deeply wrong with this – not to mention the long-term impact on editing decisions).

Once upon a time, long ago, the role of journalism was to search for the truth. Today, the establishment media has lost its self-confidence as the 8 P.M. arbiter of what is the truth and what is not. Instead, it switched to a model of balance. For every journalist on a panel, they added one vocal Netanyahu supporter (thereby corroborating, by their own initiative, the claim that all journalists are leftists); for every journalistic revelation, the right of reply was stretched and stretched to infinity. Viewers were presented with all the versions of the truth and invited to select one they were most comfortable with.

There is just one problem with this model: The truth does not have different versions. There is no such thing as left-wing truth and right-wing truth. There is only one truth, and all the rest is a lie. Did our government transfer 53 billion shekels to the Arabs? Of course not, but if lies and the truth are given equal standing and equal exposure on the news programs, then lies will always win. A lie is more sensational, it stirs deeper fears. All it takes is the technological means, a total lack of shame, and of course the ability to repeat the lie constantly until the eye and ear get used to it.

In early March, they started saying that a Jewish and Zionist government was “supported by terror supporters.” By late May, this had become a survey question on the “Ulpan Shishi” program: Do you agree or disagree with this claim that is a shocking and blatant lie that openly incites violence? 47 percent agreed, 43 percent disagreed.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Credit: Kobi Gideon, GPO

This equalization, which presumes that the truth and lies are just two sides of the same coin, has permeated everywhere. A serious journalist whom I admire commented to me that it’s quite hypocritical for us to boycott Arye Dery but make Avigdor Lieberman a key partner, since he too was accused of corruption. The comparison took my breath away. What was he really saying? That there is no difference between a person who is exonerated and a person who is convicted? This is the famous “whataboutism” that enables them to pretend they don’t get what the problem is with wanting to separate the job of the attorney general from that of the general prosecutor: “Your government wanted to do exactly the same thing,” they assert. What’s the difference? Three criminal indictments are the difference. The fact that criminal defendants cannot appoint the prosecutors in their trial is the difference.

Everyone has their own moment when the depth of the post-truth era’s disconnect from reality really hits home. For me, this moment was the day they decided to brand police chief Roni Alsheich part of the left-wing “deep state” because he refused to suspend the Netanyahu investigations. This was a violent, unexpected and completely no-holds-barred move, precisely because Alsheich had seemed fireproof: He was a religious settler from Kiryat Arba, Mizrahi, a former deputy Shin Bet security service chief known for his ruthless efficiency, and Netanyahy’s personal appointee as police commissioner.

Turns out there is no such thing as fireproof. It may have still taken another two or three months, but from the moment the machine was directed against him, the result was unavoidable. The most striking thing about it was that they didn’t even bother to invent some reason or purported motive for why Alsheich supposedly went over to the dark side. It’s true because they say it’s true, and anyone who says otherwise is next in line to be targeted. Similar to the notorious McCarthy Committee, where if you were silent it meant you were guilty, and if you denied the charges then you were certainly guilty.

The horror felt by the other side – our side – at this total distortion of the concept of reality bores them at best and amuses them at worst. The people who surround Netanyahu knew from the start where they were going. They knew that democracy – this product that is under attack – is based on the idea that no one ever wins absolutely. That the minority not only has a place, but it has an opportunity to make a comeback the next time. This is exactly what they cannot abide by in a democracy and what they have vowed to do away with. They wanted an absolute victory, devoid of doubts. Netanyahu did not receive illicit gifts.

Period. Exclamation point. God is on our side in the election. Period. Exclamation Point. They don’t need everyone to agree with them – this the new, updated idea of the “will of the people”: accumulating the number of people that will enable you to completely ignore the other side. The present confusion and disarray are due in part to no one knowing just what to call this type of regime. One thing is certain though: A democracy it is not.

Their assault on the court also needs to be seen in this context. For what is the court if not the place where the truth is clarified? What’s so scary about it, aside from the possibility that it will insist that there are facts and there is the law and there is an indisputable reality? Judicial activism isn’t what threatens them. In any case, this activism began to evaporate from the gleaming corridors of justice the day that Aharon Barak left and was succeeded by more conservative figures like Asher Grunis and Miriam Naor (conservative in the old and decent sense of strict adherence to the language of the law). What they find threatening is the court’s treatment of reality as something that is based upon objective, examinable facts that form the basis of a hearing that reaches a definitive decision and conclusion. They cannot abide by the idea of a truth that they cannot manipulate, that Yair Netanyahu and Topaz Luk and Yonatan Urich cannot twist to suit their needs, that exists independently.

This – not only this, but mainly this – is the essence of our battle. A democracy without truth is not a democracy. If voters go to the polls without knowing the facts, their votes are meaningless. If the main media outlets are too frightened to be truly critical, the democratic process itself is defective. If big money from unclear sources was raised to distort social media – now the main conduit of information and discourse – we get a distorted discourse that leads to a distorted election. For a long time, we kept silent in the face of all this, because we didn’t want to answer the classic question: Does tolerance include the duty to be tolerant toward people who are intolerant? Now I have an answer: No. Absolutely not.



We need to fight for the truth in every way possible. We will uphold the law because that is what separates us from them, but we will fight them in every way, including ways that we have refrained from until now. We will shout, we will protest, we will argue, we will stretch the limits of protest as far as they can go. We won’t try to be statesmanlike if an adversary without conscience uses that against us; we will physically stand up to the water cannons that Ben-Gvir wants to send in. Despite everything, I believe in the power of the truth and in the power of our people to march in its footsteps. How much time will it take? As long as it takes. Our job is to ensure that the truth receives a fair, perhaps final, opportunity to reach hearts and minds. This is the only way to win.

In This Moment: ADL Antisemitism Survey, Friday the 13th, Israel's Judicial Break-Glass Moment

In This Moment "Faith is taking the first step when you don't see the whole staircase." - Martin Luther King, Jr. Shabbat Shalom This week we focus our thoughts on the legacy of Martin Luther King, and how his ideas are echoed in Jewish sources. Click here or on the photo to see King's "Talmud," several passages that link his prophetic vision with the wisdom of Jewish sages. Aside from our Friday night musical tribute, the community will have events going on all weekend dedicated to King's legacy. I'll be participating in the citywide celebration on Sunday at 3 PM at UConn. Click here for Sunday reservations. The new year is barely a few days old and already we are forced to confront a Friday the 13th. This year we’ll have two (October is the other) so conventional wisdom might suggest that 2023 is especially unlucky.   Or is it? Why must we treat this confluence of day and date as our worst nightmare? For Jews, nothing could be more promising than the combination of a Friday and the number 13. Just look at the “Friday the 13th” movies and how many Jewish values they espouse. Everyone goes to camp and sits around the campfire. The hockey mask is a nice touch for Purim. OK, so there’s a little blood, but I was at a bris recently, so I can take it. Blood happens. For Jews, no day brings a greater sense of anticipation than Shabbat, which begins each Friday just before sunset. And 13 is a very lucky number – ask any Bar or Bat Mitzvah student (some girls become Bat Mitzvah at 12, but 13 is the magical number most associated with this coming of age spectacle). Several years ago, a now defunct website of an Israeli flower distributor presented a list of reasons why 13 is so lucky. No doubt Friday the 13th it is a lucky day for flower shops because Israelis buy lots of flowers every Friday - and presumably even more on a Friday that, for some, augurs bad karma. Here is my list, which incorporates that list along with other sources, including another list at Jewish Unpacked. FOR THE REST OF THIS COLUMN, VISIT MY SUBSTACK PAGE ...and subscribe! Popular Parasha Packets for Shemot This week's Torah portion, perfectly positioned for MLK weekend, brings us to the book of Exodus and the saga of Israel's journey from slavery to freedom Moses and the Midwives: Birth of a Legend and Legends of Birth Moses birth as seen through the prism of ancient hero stories and the scholarship of Joseph Campbell, with a special focus on those heroric midwives who saved Hebrew boys. Sacred Names The title of the portion, Shemot, means names. It begins with a list of the names of the Israelites who went down to Egypt with Jacob, but also includes other important names - including God. This packet explores the significance of names. We Were Slaves: Jewish Sources on Slavery and Torture Estimates are that there are 27 million slaves around the world today, This portion sees the Israelites become slaves in Egypt, a traumatic experience that has informed Jewish ethics ever since. Waiting for Mashiach Moses was not the Messiah, but his savior status brings to mind this age-old Jewish concept. This packet features a collection of Jewish sources from a wide variety of perspectives, on Messiah and Messianism More on Abraham Joshua Heschel Above: NBC interview in 1972, taped just weeks before Heschel's death. See also the video "Spiritual Audacity", which aired on PBS. 33:46: "I'd say to young people a number of things: Remember, there is a meaning beyond absurdity, let be sure that every little deed counts, that every word has power, that we can do everyone our share to redeem the world. (...) Remember the importance of self-discipline, study the great sources of wisdom, don't read the best-sellers. (...) Remember life is a celebration. There's much of entertainment in our life (...) but what is really important is life as celebration. The most important thing is to teach man how to celebrate life." FEATURED POST: Heschel’s audacity and Hamlin’s injury (my op-ed in Times of Israel) I'm actually inclined to believe that at its root, the problem is not racism at all, because for most of us, the players aren’t even people. They are objects. This past week may have begun to change all that. I pray that it has. (1963) RABBI ABRAHAM JOSHUA HESCHEL, “RELIGION AND RACE” - On January 14, 1963, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel gave the speech “Religion and Race,” at a conference of the same name that assembled in Chicago, Illinois. There he met Dr. Martin Luther King and the two became friends. Rabbi Heschel marched with Dr. King at Selma, Alabama in 1965. The speech Rabbi Heschel gave at the 1963 conference appears here. Theological Affinities in the Writings of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Susannah Heschel) Abraham Joshua Heschel Study Materials  The Return of a 60-Year-Old Dispute between Two of American Jewry’s Leading Theologians, and Why It Matters (Tradition) In 1964, Eliezer Berkovits of the Orthodox Hebrew Theological College in Skokie, Illinois and Abraham Joshua Heschel of the Conservative Jewish Theological Seminary in Manhattan were two of the leading lights of rabbinic thought in America. Both men were born and educated in Eastern Europe (Berkovits in Hungary, Heschel in Warsaw) in the early 20th century, both attended the University of Berlin, and both were committed Zionists. That year, Berkovits wrote an essay in Tradition—then as now the flagship journal of Modern Orthodox thought in America, closely associated with Yeshiva University—sharply criticizing Heschel’s theology, and in particular his idea that God suffers in ways only humans can fix. To Berkovits, this approach came far to close to the Christian doctrine of Jesus suffering on the cross. Todd Berman, writing in Tradition, recently wrote an essay in in the same journal defending Heschel against Berkovits’s attack. More Recommended Reading Two Landmark Surveys ADL Antisemitism Report Survey finds ‘classical fascist’ antisemitic views widespread in U.S. (WaPo) Antisemitic Attitudes in America: Topline Findings (ADL) The topline results, presented in this report, show several trends that are cause for concern: Widespread belief in anti-Jewish tropes, at rates unseen for decades Over three-quarters of Americans (85 percent) believe at least one anti-Jewish trope, as opposed to 61 percent found in 2019. Twenty percent of Americans believe six or more tropes, which is significantly more than the 11 percent that ADL found in 2019 and is the highest level measured in decades. Substantial rates of Israel-focused antisemitism Many Americans believe in Israel-oriented antisemitic positions – from 40 percent who at least slightly believe that Israel treats Palestinians like Nazis treated the Jews, to 18 percent who are uncomfortable spending time with a person who supports Israel. Trope-focused and Israel-focused antisemitism appear to overlap significantly There is a nearly 40 percent correlation between belief in anti-Jewish tropes and anti-Israel belief, meaning that a substantial number of people who believe anti-Jewish tropes also have negative attitudes toward Israel. Young adults have more anti-Israel sentiment than older generations, and only marginally less belief in anti-Jewish tropes While young adults (between the ages of 18 and 30) show less belief in anti-Jewish tropes (18 percent believe six or more tropes) than older adults (20 percent believe six or more tropes), the difference is substantially less than measured in previous studies. Additionally, young adults hold significantly more anti-Israel sentiment than older adults, with 21 percent and 11 percent agreeing with five or more anti-Israel statements, respectively. Religious Attendance and the Pandemic An interesting survey of the impact of the pandemic on religion came out this week. The numbers are worst for younger and more progressive demographics. See the full survey. More Americans stay away from church as pandemic nears year three (RNS) See also Church Attendance Dropped Among Young People, Singles, Liberals (Christianity Today) Many Americans already had dropped out of church life before the pandemic. COVID-19 gave them a reason to let go completely, according to a new survey. Religious attendance was significantly lower in spring 2022 than it was pre-pandemic. In spring 2022, 33 percent of Americans reported that they never attend religious services, compared to one in four (25 percent) who reported this before the pandemic. There was less change among the most religiously engaged Americans. Self-identifying Jews represented just one percent of those surveyed. Their numbers remained essentially unchanged, but with the sample size so low, we need to look at some of the other categories to better understand the trends. See the chart below. Interestingly, a Pew survey in early 2021 - two years ago - indicated that many Americans believed that Covid-19 has strengthened religious faith. It is worth noting that in early 2021 most houses of worship were still functioning primarily remotely, and Covid fatigue had not yet set in to the degree it has now. Israel Through Hollywood’s Lens (Mosaic) - Hollywood is full of Jews. So why is it so insistent on universalizing the story of the Jewish state? Alan Lightman’s new TV series explores where humans fit in the universe (RNS) About the New Israeli Government: Is This a "Break-Glass Moment?" Take a look at Wednesday's front page of Ha'aretz (above - click on the photo for pdf), troubling on so many levels, including that white car that plowed onto a sidewalk where students were protesting. Just like Charlottesville. The driver shouted, "Anarchists! Leftists!" If you can read Hebrew, here is the list, made public last night, of five main proposals for the gutting of the judiciary. Here's a summary in English. Below you can find several essays responding to the question of how Jews (American Jews especially) should react to the radical and dangerous policies being proposed by the new Israeli government. The current situation is making for some strange bedfellows (eg Alan Dershowitz is suddenly standing up against Netanyahu's judicial reforms). Now is not the time for hot-headed impetuousness, but neither can we afford to just sit back and "wait and see," particularly in light of the draconian judicial reforms which a re signaling a dangerous slide toward authoritarianism. Other issues, including pressing matters like women's, minority and LGBTQ rights and religious pluralism, should not be ignored but might need to wait their turn in light of this current crisis. But whatever we choose to act upon, act we must; not against Israel, but against abhorrent policies of a particular government. We know how to do that. We must act out of love for Israel, just as we've protested American policies in the past out of our love for America. I've long felt that diaspora Jewry should have the chance to participate in Israeli democracy, much as US / Israeli citizens living in Israel can vote in US elections. While most diaspora Jews do not have the vote in Israel, what we have right now is even more powerful - we vote in American elections. Because of that, and because American legislators are seeing how troubled American Jews are by these anti-democratic proposals (which are being compared to the notorious 1933 Enabling Act), we have a real say in Israel's future direction. To put it bluntly, we can save Israel; we can make or break this drive to quash democratic safeguards and criminalize the political opposition (yes, see that Ha'aretz front page - arresting opposition leaders is precisely what is being proposed right now). We can't disengage. For we can make a difference, and this government will not last forever. Netanyahu to AIPAC: Time for US and Israel to ‘close ranks’ on Iran (TOI). See also The Things Netanyahu 'Forgot' to Tell AIPAC (Ha'aretz) - What could've been a rare opportunity to get Netanyahu on record about the importance of Israeli democracy was strictly a self-serving event Here comes the new regime in Israel: Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘democratic dictatorship’ (TOI - David Horovitz) EX-AGs and state attorneys issue unprecedented warning reforms may destroy judiciary (TOI) The Jewish path back to Israeli democracy (TOI - Yossi Klein Halevi) - I’ve been part of the Israeli story for too long to despair – sooner or later, this coalition of destruction will unravel. Who WIll Lead the Real Opposition to Netanyahu's Onslaught? (Ha'aretz) There is both an ideological and tactical divide hampering the opposition: a divide between those who are convinced that the occupation is both the greatest injustice being committed by Israel and the source of the anti-democratic policies, and therefore must be addressed front and center, and those who believe that the threat to Israel’s legal system is more immediate and want to create a wider coalition with centrists and perhaps even some from the “soft right” who won’t join demonstrations that are also against the occupation. See also Alan Dershowitz: I'd have been at Tel Aviv protest; judicial reform threatens civil rights. J Street’s Answer to the New Israeli Government Hurts Not Helps (Rabbi Jeremy Barras -TOI) Jewish leaders in America have a responsibility to manage this moment, providing valuable perspective and channeling passions for good. We should seek to emerge from this time with a stronger bond between American Jews and Israel, a deeper understanding of what motivates Israelis and Americans alike, and a renewed commitment to ensuring an even stronger U.S.-Israel relationship for the next 75 years. See also J Street and what it really means to be pro-Israel (TOI - Jeremy Ben-Ami) Lessons for Israelis from the turbulent Trump years (Yehuda Kurtzer, TOI) - Outrage fatigue is real, unlikely partnerships are possible, and other hard-won insights from an American Jew who’s been here…and there. See also 30,000 march in Tel Aviv against ‘coup d’état’ Levin judicial reform (JPost) Happy Friday the 13th! Share This Email   Share This Email   Share This Email Temple Beth El 350 Roxbury Road Stamford, Connecticut 06902 203-322-6901 | www.tbe.org    A Conservative, Inclusive, Spiritual Community