Rosh Hashanah 5776: why is it so hard to talk about Israel?

Shanah tovah and welcome. It’s so wonderful to be together again for the holidays.
I wanted to talk this morning about Israel, but I need to tell you, I’m scared. I’m scared because any time you talk about Israel, hackles raise, blood pressure rises, people scrutinize everything you say.
Why is it so hard for us to have an honest conversation about Israel?
I believe it is because the anti-zionist and anti-semitic camp, especially the entire arab world, jumps on every little fault, even sometimes making up completely false accusations, and broadcasts it to the world as vindication of their cause. So if we admit that Israel has flaws, if we admit that they aren’t always right, we are lending help to the enemy.
How do we speak openly about Israel, in a way which trusts that really we are all on the same page? Can we criticize her actions without unwittingly becoming agents of the anti-zionist, anti-semitic movement which is rampant in the middle east, and, increasingly, Europe?
It is sad to me that it has become such a polarizing issue, in the pressure cooker of contemporary anti-semitism. I want to invite us today to think about how we can open up an honest conversation without becoming polarized, without letting the pressure of antisemitism divide us, because we are so small we can’t afford to become divided.
The relevant metaphor in English is the pot calling the kettle black. In the English expression, the implication is that the pot has no right to call the kettle black. How can Iran, Syria, Hamas, possibly criticize Israeli human rights violations, when these regimes systematically oppress political and religious enemies? Why should the kettle listen to the pot? The kettle says to the pot, who do you think you are to criticize us?
So what does Judaism say the kettle should do?
My take on the jewish tradition is that the kettle should say to the pot, yes, you are right, I have gotten pretty sooty. I will take responsibility for that. But now let’s look at you. You have some cleaning to do yourself.
I think of the teaching from from pirke avot:

Who is wise? Someone who can learn from any person
This isn’t telling us to learn from teachers, parents, friends. When it says to learn from all people, I assume it really means all people. Think about people you are not inclined not to learn from. We all have such people.
• People who are rude telling you to be more polite,
• people who are impatient telling you to be patient,
• people who are loud telling you to be soft spoken.
• People who criticize you in an obnoxious way,
• People who really just want to see you fail, and are giving you a good kick on your way down.
Pirke Avot is saying, you need to be able to learn from any person, even them. Can I learn even from their criticism, can I hear them and grow? Can I, the kettle, learn from the black, sooty, grimy pot, that you are right, I’m not so shiny?
This plays out on the personal and political level.
Personally, can I grow from being criticized by people I don’t like? Can I take in criticism which is not given nicely? Can I see someone attacking me, take a step back, and ask what I could have done better?
Politically, this means that when the world tries to hold Israel up to a ridiculously high standard, we take it as a moral challenge to meet that standard. And this is something that to a large extent we do: I have not heard of any other country which sends dummy missiles to warn residents of an incoming missile, the famous “roof knocks.” But it also means we need to read reports from detractors, and be willing to accept some culpability. It means that when we read about Israel planning to demolish a Bedouin village to replace it with a jewish one, we need to be able to say, ‘wait, this doesn’t sound kosher to me.’
One of the dynamics I have witnessed this year is that when a fellow jew criticizes Israel on a particular topic, they get labelled as anti-Zionist, and people assume they belong to JStreet. Anti-semitism has so stressed us that our community is fragmenting. We need to be able to engage in this process with love, hearing each other, and not labelling each other.
We are 2 days into the high holiday cycle, which actually ends not with yom kippur, but with sukkot, the time of our joy, and simhat torah, celebrating receiving the torah. Really, it began 31 days ago with the month of elul, a 30 day process of heshbon nefesh, soul searching. Elul and Rosh haShanah are about soul searching, figuring out how our life could be better. Yom Kippur is about making amends, apologizing, giving tzedakah to create ripples of positivity to counterbalance any negativity we have brought into the universe. And Sukkot is about celebrating, hanging out with family and with the divine presence embodied by the permeable roof of the sukkah. Sukkot itself is divided into 2 parts: the public celebration of the 1st 7 days, which will in the future be an intercultural day of universal worship, when all the nations are invited to the Temple. This is followed by shmini atzeret and simhat torah, a uniquely jewish holiday when we have alone time as a people with the divine, and celebrate the torah, which is our people’s unique bind with the divine.
First Soul Searching, then Apologizing, then Celebrating Publically and then celebrating privately.
This pattern is teaching us how to mend our relationships. If our spouse, or child, or friend, has been complaining, first we do some soul searching: what have I done wrong? How can I do better?
When I really figure that out, and mend my ways, then I apologize. The truth is, though, I also want the other person to apologize. So I say, I’m sorry I was mean; I’d like you to know, you were also mean, so I’d like you to apologize as well. It’s an earnest apology, not an excuse, but it’s also saying, I shouldn’t be the only one apologizing.
And then we need to celebrate, to say sorry, to hug, to go out for dinner. Sometimes we forget this part: we apologize, but we don’t make sure to have quality time at the end. We need to always be sure to fill our emotional bank accounts.
In terms of Israel, I think we can use the same pattern: soul searching, apologizing, celebrating publically, and celebrating privately:
1. Soul Searching
As I mentioned, the period up to Rosh Hashanah is about soul searching, taking an honest look at my life.
I was once asked what my stance on Israel is. That’s like asking your stance on America, or maybe American government policy. There’s no such thing as a stance on Israel. Every issue is local and also has a long history to it. If you seriously investigate every allegation of misconduct, it may turn out that some allegations are true. We do not so Israel a favor when we pretend that they are perfect. We need to admit and own our own failures.
But we also need to learn enough to realize when we are not in the wrong. Israel was often accused last summer of responding disproportionately to the missiles from Gaza, and of killing large numbers of civilians. In fact, Israel carefully targeted locations from which rockets were launched, and some of the alleged attacks on civilians may actually have been their own rockets misfiring. Do you remember the Palestinian boys killed on a beach in Gaza? They were killed by Hamas rockets, not Israeli rockets. And in fact, even though the Gaza health ministry claimed that 70% of casualties were civilians, the casualties were disproportionately men of fighting age. Hamas cooked the books. We need to be very reluctant to accept at face value criticisms of Israel.
Each of us needs to know our stuff. I hope everyone here knows the difference between the west bank and gaza. Did you know that when Hamas talks about “occupation,” they mean the presence of jews in the land of Israel, and that in fact gaza is not occupied. Israel pulled out of Gaza 10 years ago. When hamas says “liberating palestine” they mean getting rid of israel entirely. They cannot tolerate a jeqwish government on what they believe to be haram, muslim soil. This is why they have put so much emphasis on building attack tunnels and training future martyrs. I have friends, American jews, who were sympathetic partly because “occupation” sounds really bad. We need to become educated, and educate others Da ma lehashiv leapikorus—know how to respond to the heretic. Understand the details, not just the slogans.
2. Apologizing
The second phase is yom kippur, apologizing
I think the army does a fairly good job investigating, and apologizing when it is in the wrong, admitting if a soldier has been abusive, admitting if a missile went off course.
The government is not as good at admitting when it has been in the wrong, and this creates a dilemma. Problematic home demolitions, fences blocking arab farmers’ access to their fields, documented abuses none of us here would condone, do happen. When these happen, we need to take responsibility as a people: Israel stands for us, Israel is our country. It is scary admitting guilt, because the anti-semites jump on it to prove that Israel is the evil racist, etc. It takes a lot of courage, ego strength, to admit guilt. We need to be able to admit when Israel is in the wrong.
After honestly & compassionately apologizing, though, I believe we can confront other people with their own behavior. If apologizing is about repairing a relationship, then the flip side, gentle confrontation, is also part of repairing that relationship.
We have the right to hold our critics’ feet to the fire. After the kettle owns up to its soot, I believe it’s totally appropriate for the kettle to say to the pot, okay, I’ve apologized, now let’s talk about you.
The PA and Hamas have been fanning the fires of hatred, inflexibility, and unrealistic hopes, instead of building a strong nation. They call Israel racist, okay, maybe sometimes it is, and we need to do better; now let’s look the arab world:
• Let’s look at the racism in places like Iraq, where Jews were persecuted and murdered after 1948
• let’s talk about the entire Middle East not having any minority religious legislators,
• let’s talk about persecution based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, gays and lesbians getting executed.
• Let’s talk about why Jews fled the rest of the middle east, including the west bank, and thus why Israel needs to exist.
• Let’s talk about hamas building terror tunnels instead of schools.
• Let’s talk about UN schools teaching children that they have the right to the entire land of Israel, and feeding them on hopes of reconquering it through jihad.
We also need to call out those who hate and seek to destroy Israel. The Iran treaty that President Obama is forcing through congress would provide a $50-150 billion cash infusion to a terrorist regime which sponsors Hamas, Hizbullah, and Assad, which denies the Holocaust, and which consistently announces its intention to destroy Israel. Once they have the cash, there is little reason for them not to cheat, and impossible to take back the cash by “rolling back” sanctions. The treaty lifts the arms embargo on Iran in 5 years, allowing them to go on a shopping spree for weapons which, though not nuclear, will intensify the militarization of the middle east. If they buy a nuclear bomb from, say, north korea, the inspection regimen cannot detect it. And in 15 years, there is nothing blocking this enriched regime, with ramped up weapons and ramped up defense, from building a nuclear bomb under far more favorable conditions than now. This treaty strengthens Iran, and I implore all of us to speak out vocally about it.
Celebrating
The third phase is sukkot, celebrating.
I believe all of us need to become strong spokespeople for Israel. We need to speak out:
When we read a newspaper article which is unfair or biased, write in the comments, write a letter to the editor
When we see a comment on facebook, by a friend or even by a friend of a friend, challenge it with facts. Share newspaper articles about Israel and about her enemies. Don’t let antizionism and antisemitism go unchecked.
We need to develop our presence in the local schools and universities. A student here in mason was told by a teacher that if Israel just gave the Palestinians a little land, our troubles would go away. We need to teach our children, and the children in the community, a balanced perspective.
We need to call our senators, congressmen, and the white house about any issue facing Israel. We need to be speaking out.
And we need to speak out not only on contentious issues, but also to fight the negative PR by celebrating Israel.
• Did you know that Israel is the only country still helping Nepal in the aftermath of the earthquake?
• Did you know that Israel is a leader on global warming, and uses solar water heaters (dud shemesh) on 95% of homes, and has installed solar panels on the Knesset building?
• Did you know that Israel is the only truly pluralistic government in the middle east? Israel has always had arap mp’s, and currently has 16 including 5 muslims; Tunisia and Iran, by comparison, are the only arab countries with jewish mp’s-they each have 1.
• Did you know Israel is the 3rd country in the world to elect a female to lead its government,
• Did you know that Israel is the only country in the middle east to sign the 2011 un resolution affirming equal rights for members of the LGBT community?
Part of Celebrating is spending quality time. I invite you to join us, and have some quality time with Israel. We’re going to Israel! Come along!
Next July, we are part of the community trip to Israel. We have a great itinerary, combining some of the places to help us understand biblical events, with some of the best culture & food contemporary Israel has to offer. It will be a unique opportunity for us to spend time together as a Kehilla kedosha, and also to reinvigorate your ties to our spiritual homeland.

Korach: Controversy for the sake of heaven

This week's parsha deals with a controversy (really, a communal fissure) which Korach instituted against Moses' leadership. The rabbis see this as the quintessential dispute "not for the sake of heaven," which the Talmud prohibits:

Sanhedrin 110a
And Moses rose up and went in to Dathan and Abiram (Num 16:25). Resh Lakish said: This teaches that one must not be hold fast in a dispute (mahzikin bemahloket); for Rab said: He who holds fast in a dispute violates a negative command, as it is written, And let him not be as Korah, and as his company (Num 17:5).

In other words, what is prohibited is holding your ground--putting truth (or trying to be right) over peace. Why did Moses go over to Dathan and Aviram? The Talmud assumes it is to make peace, to try to end the quarrel. Pirke Avot distinguishes between this kind of uarrel, which we should end, and a kind which will never end:

Pirke Avot 5:20
Any dispute which is for the sake of Heaven will ultimately endure, and one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not ultimately endure. What is a dispute for the sake of Heaven? This is the debate between Hillel and Shammai. What is a dispute not for the sake of Heaven? This is the dispute of Korach and his assembly.

What is the difference between the two? It is not the topic-- both of these controversies are over religious issues. Rather, it has to do with the motivation--is it coming out of an authentic desire to interpret God's will, or out of selfish motives? Korach wanted to be the leader, not because he thought that was what God wanted, or because it would be better for the people; he was just resentful he didn't get to be the leader:

Rashi on Num 16:1
Korah… took: He took himself to one side to dissociate himself from the congregation, to contest the [appointment of Aaron to the] priesthood. This is what Onkelos means when he renders it וְאִתְפְּלֵג,“and he separated himself.” He separated himself from the congregation to persist in a dispute. Similarly, מה יקחך לבך, “Why does your heart take you away?” (Job 15:12) meaning, it removes you, to isolate you from others (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 2).
…Now what made Korah decide to quarrel with Moses? He envied the chieftainship of Elizaphan the son of Uzziel whom Moses appointed as chieftain over the sons of Kohath by the [Divine] word. Korah claimed, “My father and his brothers were four [in number]” as it says, “The sons of Kohath were…” (Exod. 6:18). Amram was the first, and his two sons received greatness-one a king and one a high priest. Who is entitled to receive the second [position]? Is it not I, who am the son of Izhar, who is the second brother to Amram? And yet, he [Moses] appointed to the chieftainship the son of his youngest brother! I hereby oppose him and will invalidate his word (Midrash Tanchuma Korach 1, Num. Rabbah 18:2).

So this is a controversy not for the sake of heaven--anything that is not a principled dispute, but a personal rivalry.

Avraham Ehrman, Halichos Olam/Journey to Virtue, ch 9:
...Sadly, disputes sometimes degenerate to the point where the parties are divided into two camps, with the adherents of each side united not only by their mutual loyalty but also by antagonism toward their opponents. When a dispute stops being concerned solely with particular issue (money, honor, policy, etc.) and enters the stage where either side relates to the conflict as a personal -- "us" vs. "them" situation, then it has become a machlokes (literally: division).
Mr. Gold and Mr. Silver own two competing stores. Their competition is ruthless, with such claiming that the other engages in unfair business tactics. As long as their disagreement is related to the issues and were not personal in nature, they were involved in a "dispute." However, when they shopped talking to each other and a feud developed between the Gold and Silver families, their dispute has degenerated into a "machlokes " and is strictly forbidden...

We can tell if it is a dispute by our feelings--are we resentful? do we get along otherwise? And how do we treat them--do we honor them? Often, if we fall into a disagreement with someone, we have a falling out, we don't talk to them any more, we think ill of them. What this is saying is that at that point, the mitzvahdik thing is to make peace.

On to the controversy for the sake of heaven--what is it? The quintessential example is that of Hillel and Shammai. A very interesting thing is written in the Mishnah:

Yevamot 1:4:
Bet Shammai allows ‘rivals’ to brothers, and Bet Hillel forbids. If they performed halitzah, Bet Shammai prohibits from [marrying into the] priesthood, and Bet Hillel permits. If they performed levirate marriage, Bet Shammai permits, Bet Hillel forbids. Even though these forbid and these permit, Bet Shammai did not restrict themselves from marrying women from Bet Hillel, nor did Bet Hillel from Bet Shammai. All of the pure and impure [foods] that these declared pure and these declared impure, they would not restrict themselves from placing one on top of the other.

"Rivals" are two wives of the same man. If Bet Shammai prohibited a certain marriage, then the child of such a marraige is (in their view) a mamzer! And if that mamzer went and married someone from Hillel, their children are memzerim. Eventually the whole blood line gets corrupted, and Shammai should never marry a Hillelite on the suspicion of mamzerut, and vice versa. The community would get entirely divided.

This scenario is not so dissimilar from the Israeli courts not accepting conversion outside of certain courts. It creates a division in the Jewish community, and shows a basic lack of respect of other peoples' points of view.

Bet Shammai did think they were right. But they understood that maintaining peace, maintaining community, was more important. They disagreed with Bet Shammai, but their disagreements did not divide them. They could have a principled disagreement without that coming between them.

Ehrman, later in the same chapter, applies this notion to the contemporary Jewish scene:

The principles discussed so far in this chapter apply to disputes involving personal honor, money, property, etc. However, when community leaders and other respected individuals stray from the path of righteousness and influence people to sin, then one is required to make a machlokes with them for the sake of Heaven.
When Moshe Rabbeinu descended from Mount Sinai, he found that some Jews had engaged in the sin of The Golden Calf, creating a looseness and laxness in the people as a whole. Therefore, Moshe initiated a conflict with his battle cry, "Who is for Hashem –come to me!

He continues to say that one must be sure never to overly embarrass the other party, and to treat them with respect. It is interesting reading this as one to whom (maybe) he refers--does he mean all liberal rabbis? Probably (I should ask him). And I am okay with that, as long as it is conducted like Hillel and Shammai--does he believe that my interpretations come from a deep engagement with Torah? Can we trust that orthodox interpretations come from the same, and avoid criticizing and slandering orthodoxy, something that happens all too often in liberal circles?

Isaiah Horowitz has an amazing understanding of this kind of controversy. He says that actually, they are two aspects of a deeper truth which is too complex for the limited human mind to grasp. Practically, one has to become halacha, but both are manifestations of the divine voice of revelation:

Isaiah Horowitz, Sheney Luhot Haberit, Bet Hochmah
I need to reveal secrets… to understand how all the words of sages are the words of the living God. And in this one should look into what they said in the first chapter of Eruvin: “Abba said that Shmuel said, for three years the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disagreed. These said halacha agrees with us, these said halacha agrees with us; a heavenly voice came forth and said to them, “these and these are the words of the living God, but halacha is in accordance with the House of Hillel.” …
In the first chapter of Hagigah: “Masters of gatherings—these are the sages who sit gathered together and study Torah. These declare impure, these declare pure; these forbid, these permit; these declare unfit, these declare fit. Lest a person should say, “since these declare impure, these declare pure; these forbid, these permit; these declare unfit, these declare fit, how can I learn Torah?” Thus the Torah says, they were all given by one shepherd, one God gave them and one leader spoke them from the mouth of the Lord of everything, blessed be He. As it says, “God spoke all these things.”
Avodat Hakodesh, Tahlit 23, wrote “That source is always flowing. It has front and back, and it includes all the changes and opposites and changing and reversing aspects, for pure and impure, permitted and forbidden, fit and unfit, as is known to those wise of heart. And the “great voice which doesn’t cease” (Dt 5:19) is drawn from the source and comes from it, and is comprised of all the changing aspects… and all of the prophets and sages received his own [aspect]: this one received pure and this one received impure…
All this is from our perspective… it is impossible [for us] to uphold two sides of a contradiction, and halacha is decided in accordance with one of the two opinions… They are all one from the giver’s (blessed be He) perspective, but from our perspective they are multiple, and halacha is in accordance with Hillel alone.

In other words, truth does violate the law of noncontradiction--sometimes a and not-a are both true. The human brain, though, is wired to only be able to think a or not-a at one time. So this controversy is absolutely necessary for revealing the fulness of God's wisdom. This is the manifestation of divine unity; Hillel or shammai alone only manifest part of the divine wisdom, not the wholeness. and each of us have our own piece of revelation to bring into the world, our own piece of the divine voice that only we can reveal. The challenge is, can we appreciate Shammai and completely disagree with him, at the same time.