Saturday, February 27, 2010

Klezmer + Funk = Gooooood !!



To get you in the Purim party mood.

From 2008. But I just came across it now.

Lessons of Purim


Below is the text of a dvar Torah I gave to day in my Synagogue.


Shabbat Shalom

Today’s Parsha is Tetzaveh which deals with details of the Tabernacle, the priests clothing and some very specific sacrifices. But I won’t be talking about Tezaveh today: other than to note that it starts with laws relating to oil for lamps – oil lamps that brings to mind Hannukah, a holiday I hope to touch on at the end of this dvar.

In addition to being Parshat Tetzaveh, today is also Shabbat Zachor. And it is my Bar-Mitzvah portion. Today is the 46th anniversary of my Bar Mitzvah, by the Hebrew calendar.

Shabbat Zachor is one of the five special Shabbatot that come before Passover, where we read special maftir and haftarah readings.

On this Shabbat, our maftir reading is taken from Deuteronomy Chapter 25, and it commands us to simultaneously remember and to blot out the memory of Amalek: Amalek, the embodiment of evil in the Biblical imagination: Amalek, who attacked our ancestors on their way out of Egypt.

The Haftarah reading for Shabat Zechor is taken from the book of Samuel, and it tells us about King Saul’s war against Amalek, where he is commanded to literally wipe out the Amalekites, and where he fails to do so – leaving alive, only temporarily it turns out, the Amelikite King, Agag.

Parshat Zechor always falls on the Shabbat before Purim – and indeed this year Purim will start tonight. Parshat Zechor falls just before Purim, because in the Megillah (the Book of Esther), Haman is said to be an “Agaggi”, a descendant of the Amalekite King Agag. The very same king not killed by King Saul in today’s haftarah. Moreover, Mordecai is said to be a descendant of King Saul. Thus Mordecai fulfills Saul’s obligation to physically wipe out the Ameliktes. And we, when we celebrate Purim, get to fulfill our obligation to simultaneously remember what Amalek did to us, (the Bible’s quintessential act of evil – attempted genocide), and to wipe out their memory, by reading the Megillah but at the very same time drowning out the name of Haman, the last of the evil line of Amalek.

That is a current popular explanation of why we celebrate Purim and read the megillah.

But was this always so? Was Purim always understood this way? In fact, the answer is, “No.”

Purim was not formally adopted as an official holiday, and the Book of Esther was not formally accepted as sacred scripture, until the 2nd century AD: That is, at least 400 years after the events the Megillah purports to describe. And even later than the 2nd century, there was a vocal minority that questioned the Megillah’s status.

The only holiday with a later origin than Purim is Hannukah. And its official record – the Book of Maccabees – was rejected from inclusion the Hebrew cannon.

What I want to explore today, is why Purim became an officially sanctioned holiday, and why its official record – the Megillah – was accepted into the Tanach, despite its late and Diasporic origin. I want to base our exploration on a record of the debate over the canonization of the Megillah that is recorded in the Talmud. I also want to contrast the fate of the Megillah with that of the Book of Maccabees, which was not canonized.

I should add at this point that I first discovered these Talmud passages, and got the idea for this dvar Torah, from an essay by the French Jewish Philosopher and Talmud commentator, Emmanuel Levinas.

I should also preface our study of Talmud text with two important points.

First, that there is a strict hierarchy of authority in the Talmud. Quotes from scripture are the highest authority – though these can be, and often are, fancily interpreted. Opinions of Mishna era Rabbis – called Tannaim – are next in line, and have authority over the later Gemara era Rabbis – who are called Amoraim.

Tannaim lived roughly between the year 30 BCE and 220 CE. They usually have the title Rabbi. Amoraim lived roughly between 220 and 550 CE. They usually have the title Rav. The entire Talmud was finally edited and sealed between the years 550 to 600 CE, and the editor used his role to create anonymous commentary, and to weave together dialogues between sages who lived century’s apart.

Second, the Talmudic sages spoke in a short and cryptic style. Their sayings are full of hints and allusions, and assume an encyclopedic knowledge of the Bible and the rest of the Talmud in order to fully grasp these sayings’ often multiple and multilayered meanings. Though their arguments often appear to be narrow legalistic ones, or to be based on seemingly silly references to Biblical
proof-texts, there is often a deeper meaning, and an important point of principal that the Rabbis are trying to make.

With that in mind, if you could look at your hand outs [The hand out is reproduced at the end of this blog posting], lets study the texts and see the arguments that lead to Purim’s formal inclusion in our ritual life, and to the canonization of the Book of Esther.

Passage A:
R. Samuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Commemorate me for future generations.” They replied, “You will incite the ill will of the nations against us.” She sent back a reply: “Am I not already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media?”
The Rabbis writing circa 400 CE imagine a time when the feast of Purim has not been officially sanctioned. Esther wants to obtain a permanent place in our liturgy. She pleads her case to the sages. But she is told that her request is inopportune.

Do the rabbis already fear anti-Semitism? Commenting on this passage Levinas writes:
“Do the Rabbis already think that the Purim affair, in which the Jews had no choice but to fight to avoid extermination, will saddle the Jewish people with the reputation of being imperialists, and ruthless conquerors if the memory of the failed genocide and our resistance to it is perpetuated…? Or do they, perhaps, foresee the future indignation of sensitive souls, who in our time are wearied of our commemoration of the Shoah?”

Or perhaps the Rabbis doubt the universal significance of the events of Purim. Is it not merely a chapter in a single nation’s history? By claiming Holy significance for the particular are we not perhaps undermining the universal that is, after all, supposed to be the true realm of the Holy? The sages are, perhaps, of the opinion that national history alone, even Jewish national history, does not, in and of itself, give an event religious significance.

Thus Esther’s reply: This story already belongs to universal history, as it is written in the chronicles of a Great Power. And is not universal history just a collection of many small narratives? Can there be a Grand Narrative without its instantiations in particular incidents.

We are not told if Esther’s reply convinced the sages. At this point, the future status of Purim is still in doubt.

Passage B
Rab and R. Hanina and R. Johanan and R. Habiba said [some say R Jonathan and not R Johanan] … Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Write an account of me for posterity.” They sent back an answer, “ ‘I have given you three writings’ [Proverbs 22:20 ] — three writings and not four?”

So, perhaps having been rebuffed the first time Esther tries again. Or perhaps this passage records another tradition regarding her first try.

Levinas, commenting in this passage writes:
“The first part of the passage is concerned with establishing the names of those who transmit the account of Esther’s appeal to the religious authorities of her time. I have often insisted … on the importance given in the Talmud to knowing who taught, who stated and who transmitted such and such a truth. I have spoken of the importance … of the person of the author in relation to the words. This is not only to stress the … subjective character of all truth, but also to avoid losing, in the universal, the marvel … of the personal [of the particular]: to avoid transforming the domain of truth into the realm of [objective] anonymity.”
And what does Esther ask for this time? Not a sanctified holiday, but a sanctified book: a new piece of Holy Scripture. Isn't this a more chutzpahdik request than her first one?

And let us look at the text, from Proverbs 22, which is quoted by the sages to rebuff Esther. You can see its full context in the footnote on page 1 of the handout. You can see that the translation of Sheleshim as three is a stretch. Sheleshim sounds like Shalosh (the Hebrew word for Three), but that is clearly not its plain meaning. And so the Sages’ response - “Three writings and not four” - would appear to be a mere word game.

But would the Rabbis really have rebuffed Esther based only on clever punning? Perhaps there is something more serious here. The plain meaning of Sheleshim is “sovereign” or “governing” or “superior” – or only slightly less literally “archetypal.” What the sages mean to say, therefore, is that God has decreed that three archetypal recounting of our encounter with ultimate evil is enough.

Beyond that we risk adding nothing new – just piling on more and more examples. If we allow four, tales of encounters with evil, why not five, six, seven, … one hundred. Jewish history, they seem to sense, will not be lacking for terrible tragedies and national survival against all odds. Perhaps the sages are worried about setting a precedent. If we canonize the Megillah, why not a new holy book and new holy day for the destruction of the Second Temple and the revival at Yavneh, the massacres of the middle ages and its great rabbinic commentaries, the expulsion from Spain and the creative explosion that was Tsfat. Why not a new holiday and a new scripture for the Holocaust and the Birth of the State of Israel? If we allow more than the mandated three, there will be no end to this! We will soon be in danger of losing the forest for the trees!

So - no! Only archetypical stories should be privileged with Holy books, and only three are required. And in passage “B” the Rabbis are sure that these three already exist in our scripture.

Passage C.
[They refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this, a memorial, in a book” [Exodus 17:14] [which they expounded as follows]: ‘Write this’, namely, what is written [in Deut 25:17] … ‘for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets [1 Samuel, 15]; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah.
Ah! But now the Rabbis discover that they are not so sure that the three required telling are in the Tanach without the addition of the Megillah. It seems the three telling must be distinct types, namely: the story itself, the memory or echo of it, and “a book” – a full length analysis of a similar event but in a different context. Do these three types in fact exist in the Tanach without the story of Purim? We certainly have three sections about Amalek: In Exodus (the original incident), in Deuteronomy (today’s maftir portion), and in Samuel (today’s haftarah). But isn’t the story in the book of Samuel not merely an echo of the original story of Amalek’s threat to the Jewish people. No new threat is presented in Samuel, and no new salvation. It is just a failed attempt to follow up on the commandment to blot out Amalek, which was given in the original Torah story.

So it seems that the Book of Esther is indeed required to fulfill the obligation of analyzing evil and the victory against it, in a separate book length analysis and in separate and new circumstances.

Passage D.
[But others said, we already have three.] ‘Write this’, what is written here. [Exodus 17:14] ‘For a memorial’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy. ‘In a book’, namely, what is written in the Prophets. So says Rabbi Joshua. [who argues against the canonization of the Book of Esther] But Rabbi Eliezer of Modi'in countered, says: Write this’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy; for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah.

So we see, as is often the case, that not all Rabbis agree. Here we have Rabbi Joshua, teacher of Rabbi Akiva, in the late first or early second century AD, arguing that the account of Amelek in First Samuel is not merely an echo. It is a new and significant telling of our encounter with Amalek/evil. It counts as the “book” called for in Exodus. Therefore, everything we need to know is already in the Scripture we have. There is no need for any additions.

And who do we have countering Rabbi Joshua? Who is arguing that the Book of Esther does bring a new and important perspective, and therefore belongs in the Tanach? It is Rabbi Eliezer of Modi'in.

Is it a coincidence that he is from Mod’in, the hometown of the Maccabees, whose own book is ultimately rejected from inclusion in our holy texts? Let’s leave that as an open question for now?

Passage E.
Rab Judah said in the name of [the Amorah] Shmuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not make the hands unclean. [as do other books of holy scripture.] Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How can this be, seeing that [elsewhere] Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? — Rather the Holy Spirit recommended that it be told, but did not consecrate its writing.
First we need to understand the phrase “makes the hand impure”. Without going into details of why, let me just say that touching a holy scroll – hand written by a scribe on parchment – causes the hand to be unclean. This is why we use a “yad” – a pointer – when we read from the Torah scroll. So asking if the Scroll of Esther makes the hands unclean, is tantamount to asking if it is a canonized text. We learn from this passage, that Shmuel, a leading scholar of third century Babylonia is not convinced. He accepts Purim as a holiday, and accepts that we should recount the story of Esther and Mordecai and the Jews endangerment and their salvation in the days of Shushan. But he thinks we should do it in an informal way: perhaps as we recount Hannukah, or Holocaust Memorial Day, or Israel Independence Day – with no fixed texts, and no guidance re the lessons to be learned. Shmuel denies the holiness of the Megillah, and rejects its inclusion in the Tanach.

Passage F.
The following objection was raised: ‘Rabbi Meir says that [the scroll of] Koheleth does not render the hands unclean, and that about the Song of Songs there is a debate. Rabbi Jose says that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, and about Koheleth there is a debate. Rabbi. Simeon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were more lenient and Beth Hillel more stringent, but [we rule that] Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther do make the hands unclean’! — Shmeul [in the previous passage] concurred with Rabbi Joshua [who was in the minority in ruling that the Megillah was not meant to be written.]

Here we learn that, as late as the end of the second century AD, there were still many books whose inclusion in the Tanach was in debate. We learn that this debate had been going on since the days of Hillel and Shammai – perhaps 200 years at that point. We learn that Shmuel – of the previous passage – is not totally out on a limb in his denial of the Megillah’s holiness. He bases himself on at least one authoritative Mishna Rabbi.

Passage G.
It has been taught: Rabbi. Simeon b. Menasha said: “Koheleth does not render the hands unclean because it contains merely the wisdom of Solomon [and was not divinely inspired.” They said to him] “Was this then all that he composed?” Is it not stated elsewhere, And he spoke three thousand proverbs [1 Kings 5:12] ...

In this passage we learn that at least some things – that are ‘merely’ the wisdom of human beings – can be divinely inspired. We also learn that not everything said– by even the wisest among us – is divinely inspired. Obviously it takes some human discernment to decide what is, and what is not, “Torah MiSinai” – God given insight.

And what clues might give us guidance in discerning the holy from profane? We are not told that here. But the next passage will help us in this regard.

Passage H.
It has been taught: Rabbi. Eleazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart.” [Est 6:6] Rabbi Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favour in the eyes of all that looked upon her.” [Est 2:15] Rabbi Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the plot became known to Mordecai.” [Est 2:22] Rabbi .Jose … said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands.” [Est 9:27]
Here we come to the heart of the matter, as I see it. Four Mishna era Rabbis – all major figures – give their reasons for the inclusion of the Book of Esther in the Tanach. But what exactly are they saying? Is it trivial or is it profound?

On the one hand, they are all saying the same thing: that God’s hand is seen in the book of Esther because both the narrator and the characters know things that cannot be known except from an omnipresent omniscient point of view – a divine standing point. Thus, who but God can know what’s really in Haman’s, or any human being’s, heart? How can the narrator know if every single person who looked on Esther thought of her favourably? Only God could have that breadth of vision? How could Mordecai have learnt of the plot against Ahashveirosh if not by a divine vision? And how could a human narrator be certain that in all 127 provinces not a single Jews took spoils after they overcame their anti-Semitic neighbours? Surely only God, or one divinely inspired, could know all this.

But is that what these four famous Mishna Rabbis are really saying? That seems to be the understanding of some later Amorahim, as we shall soon see. But are these four, no Talmudic slouches, not perhaps saying something more profound. Is not Rabbi Eliezer saying that human sensitivity – the ability to understand another human’s heart – is a divine gift, one that make humans Godly. Is not Rabbi Akiva saying that the fact that the Jewish Queen Esther found favour in the eyes of all the residence of the vast multi-ethnic Persian empire, a sign of a universal trans-national harmony – surely demonstrating the Godly potential in all people, even in the midst of a tale of ultimate evil: attempted genocide. Is not Rabbi Meir saying that Mordecai’s natural curiosity, intuition and political intelligence, which allowed him to uncover the plot and act on it: Are these not Godly gifts, and ones we wish that all our leaders possessed, even if only a very few do. And finally, is not Rabbi Jose marvelling at a people, who having fought a battle of self defence against an enemy bent on their murder, takes not a scrap of the spoils. Violence is strictly limited to that which is necessary. Property is left to the rightful heirs: the innocent children, siblings, spouses, parents of our foes. No land is taken, no water diverted, no one driven from their home, no houses are demolished, no collateral damage is sanctioned. Is this not a miracle of the human spirit, more so because of the very real danger: A model for the generations!

Passage I
Shmuel said: Had I been there, [among the Tannai Rabbis discussing the matter] I would have given a proof superior to all, namely, that it says, “They fulfilled and they accepted” [Est 9:27] [This means] they [God] fulfilled above what they [the Jews] took upon themselves below.”
Here we have Shmuel again – the die-hard Amorah who still argues for only the acceptance of the Purim holiday, but not the canonization of its book – making light of the earlier Rabbis arguments. This is a bold move within the Talmudic tradition. Interestingly he chooses to defend Purim, not based on value propositions of the Mishna Rabbis, but on a sort of proto-Reconstructionist quasi-sociological argument. He bases his comments on the seeming difficult of a verse in the Megilah telling us that the Jews of Shushan “fulfilled and accepted” the precepts of Purim. How, he asks, can one fulfill a mitzvah before having accepted it? The verse should read “they accepted and they fulfilled.” But it doesn’t. Therefore, Shmuel argues, the verse must be talking about two different parties – God and the Jews. God confirms above - what the Jews have done below. In other words, the obligatory nature of Purim flows not from Heavenly commandment to Jewish practice, but from Jewish practice to Heavenly commandment - and then back again to future Jewish practice.

According to Shmuel, Purim is commanded because the Jews of Shushan practiced it.

Passage J
Raba said: All the proofs [offered above] can be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. [Thus,] against Rabbi Eleazar it may be objected that it is reasonable to suppose that Haman would think so, … . Against the proof of Rabbi Akiba it may be objected that perhaps … to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation. Against Rabbi Meir it may be objected that perhaps … Bigthan and Teresh were both from Tarsis [and spoke Aramaic between themselves, thinking no one in Shushan would understand.] Against the proof of R. Jose … it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers [to observe.] But against the proof of Shmuel certainly no objection can be brought. Said Rabina: This bears out the popular saying, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins.

Here we see an unusual arrogance of later Amorahim towards earlier Tannaim. Raba either really doesn’t get the deeper meaning of the Mishna Rabbis justifications for canonization of the Megillah, - or he is deliberately setting up a straw man, so as to knock it down.

In any case, he assumes that all four Tanaim are making the same point, that mere mortals could not have known what the Megillah purports they knew, and he then proceeds to shows that this is not necessarily the case. But his larger point, as is that of Rabina, is to support Shmuel – both in his proto-Reconstructions argument for Purim, and, by extension, in his denial of the holiness of the Megillah itself. Raba and Rabina lived very late in the Talmudic era, and so we see that Megillah’s intrinsic worth and official sanctification were still in some dispute as late at the 6th century AD.

Passage K
Rabbi Joseph said: [That the Book of Esther is divinely inspired] can be proved from here: “And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews.” [Est 9,28] R. Nahman b. Isaac said, “[We learn it] from here: “nor the memorial of [Esther and Mordecai] perish from their descendants.” [ibid]
The editor of the Talmud chooses to end this discussion of the status of the Megillah by quoting Rabbi Joseph, a Tanna of the Mishnah era, and Rav Nachman, an Amorah of the Gemara era. Both make essentially the same point: That both the holiness of the day and of the text can be proved from fact that the Megillah predicts that the Jews will never stop celebrating Purim, and in fact that has been the case. This is a justification based on a bit of prophecy and a lot of empirical sociology. In effect, it is another proto Reconstructionist argument. – Judaism is whatever the Jews do, or at least whatever they sanctify.

* * *

At this point the Talmud’s discussion of the topic seems to end. Purim is sanctified, and the Megillah is sanctified. But the final reasoning presented to us seems vaguely dissatisfying.

Is Purim, and by extension all of Judaism, merely whatever Jews practice? That is no doubt true. But it is also a tautology, that doesn’t really explain anything. It doesn’t explain why the Jews of old started this celebration or why we should continue it. It gives us no central lessons to take from the holiday, other than the preservation of tradition. For me, personally, that is unsatisfying.

Perhaps the Talmudic editors had the same qualms. Because 9 pages later they return to the issue of the holiness of the Megillah.

Passage L
“Words of peace and truth.” [Est 9:30] R. Tanhum said: … “This shows that the Megillah requires to be written on ruled lines, like the true essence of the Torah.”
The end of this passage makes a remarkable claim: That not only is the Megillah canonized scripture – but it is on par with the Torah itself, which is the only part of our scripture which must be written neatly and on ruled lines. One letter out of place invalidates the entire document.

More remarkable than the exalted status proclaimed for the Megillah is the reasoning – as quoted at the beginning of the passage. “Words of truth and peace.” – This how the letters that precede the original Megillah are described. The full context of the verse can be found in the footnote 2 on page 2 of your handout. Let me read it:

Esther Chapter 9 ...
30 . And he [Mordecai] sent the letters to all the Jews, to the one hundred and twenty seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, in words of peace and truth,
31. To confirm these days of Purim in their times appointed, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, with regard to the fasting and their lamenting.
32. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in this book.
Esther Chapter 10
1. And the king, Ahasuerus, laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the islands of the sea.
2. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?
3. For Mordecai the Jew was next to king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude, seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace.
This is how the Megillah ends. With Mordecai the Jews accepted by all the peoples of the vast multi-ethnic Persian empire, ruling for good and pursing peace. Not seeking further redress or revenge. Not proselytizing to the Gentiles and not imposing his will on others: neither Jew nor gentile. Not seeking to expand Jewish privileged or influence, and not seeking sovereignty nor establishing a dynasty. Peace and prosperity are achieved primarily by political means. The violence of Purim, once used, and used only once, is put aside.

Compare the status of Purim with that of Hannukah. Hanukah is a holiday that the Talmudic Rabbis where very conflicted about - One which they ultimately sanction, perhaps, because like Purim, it was already a popular custom. But one whose book – the Book of Maccabees – they refused to canonize: which they pointedly reject from inclusion in the Tanach.

And what story does the Book of Maccabees tell? In addition to the perhaps necessary violence of the revolt against the Greeks – violence in defence of the cult, not of Jewish life itself, a fact that already makes it of a questionable status – it tells about violence against fellow Jews who were not deemed Jewish enough. It tells about the establishment of Jewish sovereignty under an ethnocentric and inward looking leadership. It tells of the expansion of that Jewish state by war. It tells of the forced conversions of the vanquished. It tells of the establishment of a dynasty and a leadership class that has questionable legitimacy, that quickly becomes corrupt, and which soon undermines the very Jewish values it originally fought to save.

Is it a wonder that the Rabbis suppressed this book and this story. This allowed them to make the holiday of Hannukah all about the miracle of the oil, and to ignore all that other nasty stuff.

And historically, Purim has been the more important of our two post Biblical holidays. It is Mardi Gras and Christmas rolled into one: Wild parties and gifts. It has a communal ritual – the reading of the Meggillah . And it has a holy sanctified text that we can study and try to learn from.

And what can we learn?

To recap from our Talmud text:
  • that quite often we sanctify what we ritualize, and not vice-versa;
  • that human sensitivity and insight into the hearts of our fellows is a Godly characteristic, one which is attainable by all of us;
  • that multi ethnic and multi religious tolerance and harmony are Godly blessings that are now, and have been in the past, achievable by humankind;
  • that curiosity, political intelligence and calm strategic thinking are Godly traits we should expect from our leaders – and that we are bless when, in fact, we have such leaders;
  • that even when fighting our most vicious enemies we can limit collateral damage and refrain from taking material advantage – and that we are blessed when we do so;
  • that we can achieve security and thrive without resort to ongoing violence or an ethnocentric polity;
  • and that all our struggles for survival must be motivated only by peace and truth, that we must avoid revenge and bitterness, and that the ends we seek be rooted in peace and in truth.
Shabbat Shalom & Chag Purim Sameach

* * *
below is the hand out that was distributed along with this dvar Torah



Tractate Megillah 7A


A

R. Samuel b. Judah said: Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Commemorate me for future generations.” They replied, “You will incite the ill will of the nations against us.” She sent back reply: “Am I not already recorded in the chronicles of the kings of Persia and Media?”


B

Rab and R. Hanina and R. Johanan and R. Habiba said [some say R Jonathan and not Johanan] … Esther sent to the Sages saying, “Write an account of me for posterity.” They sent back answer, “ ‘I have given you three writings’ [Proverbs 22:20[1]] — three writings and not four?”


C

[They refused] until they found a verse written in the Torah, “Write this, a memorial, in a book” [Exodus 17:14] [which they expounded as follows]: ‘Write this’, namely, what is written [in Deut 25:17] … ‘for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets [1 Samuel, 15]; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah.


D

[But others said, we already have three.] ‘Write this’, what is written here. [Exodus 17:14] ‘For a memorial’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy. ‘In a book’, namely, what is written in the Prophets. So says Rabbi Joshua. [who argues against the canonization of the Book of Esther] But Rabbi Eliezer of Modi'in countered, says: Write this’, namely, what is written in Deuteronomy; for a memorial’, namely, what is written in the Prophets; ‘in a book’, namely, what is written in the Megillah.


E

Rab Judah said in the name of [the Amorah] Shmuel; [The scroll] of Esther does not make the hands unclean. [as do other books of holy scripture.] Are we to infer from this that Samuel was of opinion that Esther was not composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? How can this be, seeing that [elsewhere] Samuel has said that Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit? — Rather the Holy Spirit recommended that it be told, but did not consecrate its writing.


F

The following objection was raised: ‘Rabbi Meir says that [the scroll of] Koheleth does not render the hands unclean, and that about the Song of Songs there is a debate. Rabbi Jose says that the Song of Songs renders the hands unclean, and about Koheleth there is a debate. Rabbi. Simeon says that Koheleth is one of those matters in regard to which Beth Shammai were more lenient and Beth Hillel more stringent, but [we rule that] Ruth and the Song of Songs and Esther [certainly] make the hands unclean’! — Shmeul [in the previous passage] concurred with Rabbi Joshua [who was in the minority in ruling that the Megillah was not meant to be written.]


G

It has been taught: Rabbi. Simeon b. Menasha said: “Koheleth does not render the hands unclean because it contains merely the wisdom of Solomon [and was not divinely inspired.” They said to him] “Was this then all that he composed?” Is it not stated elsewhere, And he spoke three thousand proverbs [1 Kings 5:12] ...


H

It has been taught: Rabbi. Eleazar said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Haman said in his heart.” [Est 6:6] Rabbi Akiba says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And Esther obtained favour in the eyes of all that looked upon her.” [Est 2:15] Rabbi Meir says: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “And the plot became known to Mordecai.” [Est 2:22] Rabbi .Jose … said: Esther was composed under the inspiration of the holy spirit, as it says, “But on the spoil they laid not their hands.” [Est 9:27]


I

Shmuel said: Had I been there, [among the Tannai Rabbis discussing the matter] I would have given a proof superior to all, namely, that it says, “They fulfilled and they accepted” [Est 9:27] [This means] they [God] fulfilled above what they [the Jews] took upon themselves below.”


J

Raba said: All the proofs can be refuted except that of Shmuel, which cannot be refuted. [Thus,] against Rabbi Eleazar it may be objected that it is reasonable to suppose that Haman would think so, … . Against the proof of Rabbi Akiba it may be objected that perhaps … to every man she appeared to belong to his own nation. Against Rabbi Meir it may be objected that perhaps … Bigthan and Teresh were two men from Tarsis [and spoke Aramaic between themselves, thinking no one in Shushan would understand.] Against the proof of R. Jose … it may be objected that perhaps they sent messengers [to observe.] But against the proof of Shmuel certainly no objection can be brought. Said Rabina: This bears out the popular saying, Better is one grain of sharp pepper than a basket full of pumpkins.


K

Rabbi Joseph said: [That the Book of Esther is divinely inspired] can be proved from here: “And these days of Purim shall never cease among the Jews.” [Est 9,28] R. Nahman b. Isaac said, “[We learn it] from here: “nor the memorial of [Esther and Mordecai] perish from their descendants.” [ibid]


Megilah 16b

L

“Words of peace and truth.” [Est 9:30[2]] R. Tanhum said: … “This shows that the Megillah requires to be written on ruled lines, like the true essence of the Torah.”



[1] Full text in Proverb reads:

CAP 22:

19. That your trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to you this day, even to you.

20. For your sake I have given to you sovereign, [Hebrew “Sheleshim” also superior, governing, or maybe three] writings as teachings and knowledge,

21. That I might make you know with certainty the words of truth; that you might answer words of truth to those who question [send] you?

[2] The full context in the Book of Esther reads:

30 . And he [Mordecai] sent the letters to all the Jews, to the one hundred and twenty seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, in words of peace and truth,

31. To confirm these days of Purim in their times appointed, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had decreed for themselves and for their seed, with regard to the fasting and their lamenting.

32. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in this book.

Chapter 10

1. (K) And the king Ahasuerus laid a tribute upon the land, and upon the islands of the sea.

2. And all the acts of his power and of his might, and the declaration of the greatness of Mordecai, to which the king advanced him, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia?

3. For Mordecai the Jew was next to king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the multitude, seeking the good of his people, and speaking peace.


Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Conflict? What Conflict?

"Vistas of Judea and Samaria: Where's the Conflict?" That's the caption that appears under the above photo in a new pamphlet issued by the Israeli government. It is aimed at Israelis travelling abroad. It attempts to recruit them in Israel's propaganda war.

It contains such gems as:
"Say with confidence that Israel will never give up its hope for peace."
or
"No Arab or Palestinian State ever existed in the Land of Israel"
(Reminds me of Golda Meir's claim that "there is no such thing as Palestinians.")

And it offers inspiring photos like the ones below:

Israel: Exotic successes in the field of agriculture


Its not like they think: Israel is beautiful

I guess if the coloured cauliflower don't convince them that Israel is in the right, then maybe the pretty girls will!

Hebrew readers can learn more about this ridiculous campaign here.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Not Funny!



What where they thinking !!??

This video is not funny. It is sexist, racist, and most certainly tasteless.

Also get a load of the map of Israel. It includes the West Bank and Gaza: which makes this video even more hard line expansionist than the current Israeli government.

The video was produced for, and is featured on the web site

The video itself is at


Apparently this site is the funded by the Canada Council for Israel Jewish Advocacy (CIJA). Your Canadian UJA money at work!

Friday, February 12, 2010

Fear of Looking in the Mirror


My old friend Bradley Burston writes a regular column for Haaretz. I don't always agree with him. But the column that appears today is right on the money. I have reproduced it in full, below.
His main insight is that Israel is SO freaked out by the Goldstone Report precisely because it holds up a mirror to Israeli society. And Israelis do not want to look in the mirror. They do not want to admit that they have become a brutal society – at least when it comes to non-Jews and Palestinians in particular. They do not want to admit, that just beyond the green line, a short commute from the glitter of Tel-Aviv or the spiritual heights of Jewish Jerusalem, other people live (and die) horrible lives, largely dues to Israeli policies. They do not want to admit that their government, their army, their sons and daughters, they themselves, sometime commit acts as heinous as the Palestinian terrorists they so rightly decry.

I know this is true. Denial of this sort is of course not a uniquely Israeli trait. But I have had first hand experience of this sort of thing in Israel. When I served in the Israeli army in the early 1980s in the West Bank, I witnessed what by today’s standards were minor humiliations and harassments of local Palestinians. And I heard many racist remarks (“The only good Arab is a dead Arab”, “Kill them while there young”) from our officers and NCOs.

I was disturbed and shocked. I mentioned these things, with some consternation, to my then boss, a born Israeli who had served his full 3 years in the army, mostly in the Sinai, and had fought at the Suez canal during the Yom Kippur war. He was a right winger, but also a real nice guy. Decent in all my dealings with him, and one of the better bosses I have had.

He wouldn’t believe me. I must have misunderstood. There must have been extenuating circumstances I did not understand. “Ani yodeah et Ami” he said by way of explanation: “I know my people.”

Well, of course, he did not know his people. He only knew his small window on his people. Perhaps his army buddies had not acted in this way – there were no Palestinian civilians to deal with in the Sinai dessert – so no one else could possibly do so. But when I though about it, even this could not be true. Racist slurs don’t require their targets to be in view. And anti-Arab racist slurs where so pervasive in Israel, and particularly in the Army where civilian norms of behaviour are put on hold, at the time that it is impossible that he did not hear them at least during his stints in reserve duty. But he forgave them. Didn’t think they were significant. Didn’t realize how they reflected on him and his buddies. It took and outsider – me in this case – to take notice, to take offence, and to hold up a mirror. And he did not like what the mirror was showing him. So he denied it all.

I didn’t make a big deal of this or press him on it. And I didn’t publish a report. So he could persist in his denial and we could continue to be friends.

Goldstone has published a report. And the bad behaviour I experienced pales against what Goldstone reveals. And it is this public airing of what most Israelis know to be true, that really galls and frightens them. It’s not so much that it shows them in a bad light to others, it’s that it forces them to admit that they are not the paragons of virtue and morality they would like to think they are. It forces them to see themselves as other see them. And that is what is really frightening.

I should add that a very similar thing is happening in the Jewish world at large. Jews are having a hard time being told that “their” army - their fellow Jews - committed war crimes, just like other armies do. That we have supported these terrible crimes, just like citizens of many nations have support the crimes if their armies. It shatters that myth that we Jews are all virtuous and would never stoop to the immoral methods used by others. And that is too much to bear.

But looking honestly in the mirror: recognizing and admitting your errors and sins is the only way to correct them. The alternative is to continue on the same path. Schar averah, averah.

Below is Bradley Burston’s article in full:

* * *

Shock: a major medical emergency, often seen after serious injury. Among its signs and symptoms are mental changes including a sense of great anxiety and foreboding, confusion and, sometimes, combativeness.

This is about fear of the dark. Of the monstrous. In this case, the terror of finally uncovering what we ourselves are really made of.

This is about the lengths we will go, and the depths, in order to protect what we so desperately need to believe about ourselves. This is about how many others we will need to blame, vilify, assault, scapegoat and smear, before we actually take one wholly honest long look in the mirror.
This is about the war we made in Gaza, and what it did to Israel. This is about how Israel's conduct of the war has done more damage to the Jewish state than all the thousands and thousands of Palestinian rockets and mortar shells put together. It has been a year and more since a truce was called in Gaza, and - thanks in no small part to Israel's freely admitted policy of hamstringing and stonewalling UN investigators - the world is still at war with Israel.

The result is only now becoming felt. In a thousand ways, in new ways every single day, we have brought the war home.

Israel's battle plan, which effectively called for bludgeoning Hamas and the whole of Gaza into a state of shock, had the further effect, intentional or not, of inducing shock in Israel itself.
We have been sensing the symptoms for a year now. In shock, the first sign to appear is often confusion. A curious sense of weakness can be felt. A restlessness that is little understood. A coldness. Mental clouding. Apathy. Inactivity. There may be blurred vision.
We think: It's not the war. The war is over. The war was over there. The place we can't see. The place we're not allowed to see. The place, that is, that we don't want to look.
The place that makes us much prefer dreading the truth, to the truth itself.

In some cases, shock expresses itself in combativeness. A lashing out even at those who are trying to help.

In our state of shock, we were unable to see that Richard Goldstone was trying to save us. And that the Goldstone Report is exactly what Israel needs. We fought him every step of the way, convincing ourselves - just as in Gaza - that the unfolding catastrophe was the best of the available scenarios.

Had Israel cooperated with the panel, it might have begun to learn how to prevent another war like this one, and how to fight future wars entirely differently. Only now, with the shock beginning to subside, have Israeli military and legal officials begun publicly to concede


We fought Goldstone with everything we had. As if our very identity depended on it. More than Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaida, Ahmadinejad - Justice Richard Goldstone became the enemy. In a bizarre twist of something very akin to self-hatred, far-rightists began routinely, intentionally, sneeringly mispronouncing his name as Goldstein.

Even people whose business it is to know better, people who consider themselves temperate, moderate, lost their minds in calling Goldstone the worst names in the Jewish book.

What is most instructive in this context, is the fact that of all the epithets which Alan Dershowitz hurled at Goldstone in an interview to Israel's Army Radio, the one viewed as the worst of them all - so grave that he later retracted it - was the word moser, used to condemn one who betrays his people by, yes, informing. Divulging privileged information to the outside world.

There is a reason why we so recoiled in horror when Goldstone touched a nerve. It was the nerve that we had done everything in our power to avoid.

Critics of the Goldstone Report have noted that its methodology is deeply flawed, that it fails to adequately acknowledge, assess, and evaluate Israel's side of the conflict. Of late, rightists have gone further, blaming the New Israel Fund, its president Naomi Chazan, and its constituent non-profit organizations for acting as sources of information to the Goldstone mission.

But the attacks have spared the one non-profit organization that, far more than any other, was responsible for the flow of information to the Goldstone panel, and for the tenor of the final report: the government of Israel.

It was Israel which deprived the committee of access to Sderot and Israeli victims of Palestinian rocket attacks. It was Israel which kept the committee from hearing testimony, including rebuttals, from government and military officials. It was Israel which - even before the committee began its work - blackballed any cooperation with the panel, in the process guaranteeing an unbalanced result.

It was the same Israeli government which provided, in the bluster of public statements by the deputy prime minister, the foreign minister, and senior IDF commanders, the most damning evidence of a strategy which would bring devastation to the whole of the Gaza Strip, civilians and armed groups alike.

It is this Israeli government - lending credence to those who believed that it had much to hide - which resisted until the last possible moment the Goldstone Report's most crucial and also its fairest finding: the recommendation that both Israel and Hamas establish independent investigations into its allegations of human rights violations

And it is this Israeli government, in continuing its siege of Gaza, in denying Gazans access to concrete and other materials needed to rebuild homes destroyed by Israeli fire during Cast Lead, that lends further credence to the Goldstone Report's suspicions that Israel's policy has been and continues to be one of collective punishment of a civilian population.

Despite the nightmarish numbers of civilians killed in Gaza, the right has argued again and again that the problem with the war was that it was not pursued aggressively enough. Now, at home, they are getting their way. Finally, the war is being pressed to the full - with peace activists and human rights workers as the primary targets.

The Dahiya Doctrine of overkill and unimaginable, unremitting force, is being applied against the elements of Israeli society most strongly defending democracy and elemental rights. Finally, the war at home is being run the way the right wants. No holds barred. A fresh new onslaught on democracy every single day.

The Goldstone Report is, indeed, deeply flawed. But it is exactly what Israel needs. A deeply flawed report for a deeply flawed country. A country which will not, and cannot, begin to heal itself, repair itself, right itself, unless it faces with honesty and courage the issues and allegations raised by the report.

As long as Israel ducks the report, and keeps buried the whole truth about Cast Lead, it will not recover from this state of shock. Israel will be more vulnerable than ever to destruction from within. And Gaza, ruled by a Hamas which wants to see Israel exterminated - and which has only grown richer, better armed, and more popular as a result of the Israeli embargo - will continue to hold the whole of Israel in a crippling, withering, ultimately destructive state of siege.

Saturday, February 06, 2010

Davar Acher: Another View


Yesterday I posted, an open letter from Rabbi Arik Ascherman on l'affair NIF. I acompanied it by my own pessimistic commentary on Rabbi Ashcherman's closing remarks that maybe gam ze l'tovah - maybe this too is for good.

Well, I don't know if it is a Rabbinic thing (do they feel compelled to give us hope?), or if the view of progressive people living in Israel really is less pessimistic than my own, but an essay by Rabbi Dow Marmur also takes the glass-half-full view of the latest right wing attack on progressive NGOs in Israel.

Marmur is Rabbi Emeritus of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto - the largest and richest reform congregation in Canada. He has always been one of the more progressive Rabbis within Canadian Jewry. He now lives half the year in Jerusalem and half the year in Toronto. Below is his take on the NIF story.
Deficient in statesmanship - made more obvious each day by Israel’s foreign minister whom the prime minister seems unable, or unwilling, to tame - the Government of Israel has clearly erred by not cooperating with Judge Richard Goldstone when he was compiling his now notorious report. ...
I surmise that government supporters are embarrassed and want to divert attention by finding scapegoats “on the left.” Perhaps that’s why an obscure group, described as Zionist and rumored to have been financed by American evangelicals (!), has turned on the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its president Naomi Chazan because the NIF supports agencies that may have cooperated with Goldstone and/or now favors his findings.
The intention may have been that, as the NIF is on the margin of pro-Israel philanthropy in the Diaspora, Jews would turn against it to “explain” why Goldstone went wrong, whitewash government ineptitude, and celebrate why they don’t support the NIF. In some instances it may have worked; e.g., Chazan’s visit to Australia has been cancelled. In general, however, it has been the other way around: the NIF has gained new, almost unprecedented, far and wide recognition and encouragement.
Not only have many and diverse Jewish organizations in the Diaspora – including the American Reform movement – issued strongly worded statements in favour of NIF, but Israeli papers carry full-page ads signed by many of the country’s writers, artists, actors, academics, some business people, and the chair of the Israeli Reform rabbis condemning the vilification of Chazan and praising the NIF.
The attacks have been vicious. One cartoon, for example, in a lame attempt to exploit the double meaning of keren, both “fund” and “horn” in Hebrew, depicts her in a way reminiscent of Der Sturmer. But they’ve misfired. A lot of people have come to pledge renewed support for the NIF, which should probably now be grateful to the group that attacked it, and perhaps even make a contribution to its budget.
There’re reasons to be upset about the forces of darkness that appear at the slightest provocation in Jewish life in general and Israeli society in particular. But there’s no reason for despair, because there’re many good people around. They’ve been alerted to the new and compelling arguments for doing more for – and with – all groups that reflect the noblest values of Judaism, many of which the NIF encourages and supports.

Jerusalem 5.2.10 Dow Marmur

One the other hand, we have the opinion of Noam Sheizaf expressed in his PromisedLandBlog. Sheizaf is an Israeli journalist, clearly on the left - but the Zionist left to be sure;

He notes that the anti-NIF street demonstrations and newspaper ads and self censorship by the Israeli media, are being followed up by committee investigations in the Knesset. And these are being lead by members of both the government and the opposition parties. He sums up his reporting on the NIF affair by saying

Something very big, and very deep, is going on in Israel. Human right and peace activists feel, maybe for the first time, real anxiety, even fear.
I tend to agree with Prof. Eyal Gross, which views these development as a “shooting the messenger” syndrome, which has to do with the growing pressure on Israel to end the occupation of the West bank and remove the siege on Gaza.
Since my feeling is that both the public and the government are not ready yet for real concessions, the public anger is likely to increase in the near future. No doubt, the tiny Israeli left and the Arab minority are about to face some very difficult months, probably even years.

Friday, February 05, 2010

Can Good Come From Evil ?


After living in Israel for 15 years, we decided to leave: partly because we saw the political situation as immoral, self-destructive, and getting worse year by year. We felt it was basically hopeless, or close to it.

Then (in December 1987) the first intifada broke out. And I had a change of heart. Maybe there was hope. Maybe, just because of the awful violence (by the standards of those days - today that kind of violence, Palestinians throwing rocks and Israelis shooting them, is considered normal), and the ugliness of the Israeli response, people - Israelis and Jews in particular - would finally wake up to the cancer that is the occupation, and put and end to it.

After a few months it became clear that the intifada - at least in 1987, and 88 was only "hardening Pharaoh's heart", and the most of the Israeli people were learning nothing positive. We left in August 1988.

Now, a new evil is upon the land. The right is in complete control of the Israeli political landscape. The former Likduniks of Kadima are the moderate opposition. (In any normal country they would be the right wing.) The parliamentary Zionist left is reduced to a co-opted and divided rump of the Labour party - doomed for further decimation in the next elections - and a demoralized and largely irrelevant Meretz. The real left, both in and out of the Knesset, is tiny and marginalized.

And now, the right - whose desire for totalitarian loyalty can never be sated, who always needs enemies, external and internal, in order to thrive - has decided to crush the feeble voices of dissent and public moral conscience that do continue, bravely it must be said, to call out. Loyalty to the Jewish Nation, and Spartan vision of that nation to boot, is all that counts.

I reported on the campaign against the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its president, Naomi Hazan, in my previous blog post. Things have gotten rapidly worse since then. And the attack on NIF is only part of a wider campaign, against any Jewish organization that speaks out against the army, or government policies vis a vis non-Jews, or which fails to display sufficient loyalty to the State and the Jewish Volk. The ad shown above appeared in the Jerusalem Post. Naomi Hazan has been accused by TV news anchors of being an agent of Hamas - and not just metaphorically. The Australian Jewish Community cancelled a planned speaking tour by Hazan, and the Jerusalem Post has cancelled her weekly column. (Hazan was one of only two left wing opinion writers at the Post.)

In addition, in the last few weeks both the head of the Israeli Civil Liberties Association and the Israel Religious Action Center have been arrested and face flimsy (some would say trumped-up) charges. While the army has been intensifying its crack down on non-violent Palestinian activists for many months now, rightists, both inside and outside the Knesset have recently been calling for investigations and/or outright banning of a half dozen Israeli NGOs - including Breaking the Silence, B'Tzelem, Adallah, etc.

But in the end, it is the attack on the NIF that is the most telling. The NIF, for the most part stays out of the Israel/Palestine conflict. It spends most of its money funding women's groups, immigrant aid groups, environmental groups, and generally working with marginalized groups within "Israel proper" - within the "green line". Yet, its small funding support for "pro Arab" groups has raised outrage. They have broken the nationalist consensus. They have shown "sympathy for the enemy." They have crossed the line and become "race traitors."

It is also the attack on the NIF that has awoken, at least some, liberals. The NIF would be mainstream center left in any other society. The values it espouses are those of the Canadian Liberal Party or the centre left of the Democratic Party in the U.S. Hardly revolutionary or radical stuff.

Some people think that things are so bad they will lead to good: that finally the good people will wake up to the obvious evil around them.

I hope they are right, and not be disappointed as I was in 1988. Because sometimes evil just leads to more evil. Sometimes evil becomes the new normal. Sometimes people wake up too late, or just continue their slumber while the house all around them burns down.

Arik Asherman, of the excellent Israeli NGO Rabbis For Human Rights, in the open letter reproduced below, sums up the current dire situation, but ends with a hopeful spin. From his lips to God's ears.
Dear Friends and Supporters,

In light of the smear campaign being run by a group called "Im Tirtzu," ["If You Will It" from Herzl's famous quote about a future Jewish State: "If you will it, it is no dream"] it should be clear to all that we are engaged in a struggle for Israeli democracy. That is not an exaggeration. This is also a not to be missed opportunity, because many people are waking up and realizing the just how dangerous the situation has become. Please find below a description of the situation, a list of things that every one of us must do that was developed in an emergency meeting with the New Israel Fund and fellow Israeli human rights organizations on Monday, and helpful links. Many of the links in the body of this message are to Hebrew websites, but there are English language links below.
To paraphrase Mattathias the Macabee, "Everyone who is for democracy with us."

Many of you know that the de-legitimization campaign being waged against Israeli human rights organizations was taken to another level on Friday when Ben Caspit attacked the New Israel Fund (NIF) and many Israel NGO's (Including RHR) in the newspaper Ma'ariv and on the NRG news website. The attack was based on the vicious and inciteful report issued by the extreme right wing organization, "Im Tirtzu," claiming that most of the information in the Goldstone Report incriminating Israel was supplied by Israeli NGO's supported by the NIF. A second Ma'ariv/NRG journalist, Ben Dror Yemini, added an additional article in Maariv on Monday. On Wednesday the chair of the Knesset Constitutional Committee MK David Rotem threatened to set up a sub committee to investigate funding from abroad, and, during a special Knesset debate on the Im Tirtzu report, MK Otniel Schneller called for a Parliamentary Committee to look into what Israeli NGO's passed on to the Goldstone Committee.
On Channel B radio this morning (Thursday) MK Yisrael Hasson went so far as to say that he intends to check whether Israeli HR organizations are receiving money from enemies, and that if he were Hamas he would be setting up three organizations to do what Israeli HR organizations do.

The smear campaign has included expensive banners on the YNET and NRG websites (the banners are still on the NRG website), a full page ad in the Jerusalem Post, and who knows where and what else. The various statements in the ads, banners and on the Im Tirtzu website include an ugly caricatureof former MK Naomi Chazan (currently NIF chairperson) with a large demonic horn with "NIF" written on it is growing out of her forehead (In Hebrew, "keren" is both "fund" and "horn."). This caricature sends shivers up my spine as I recall the pictures of Yitzhak Rabin z"l dressed in an S.S. uniform at that infamous demonstration in Zion Square in Jerusalem not so long before he was murdered. A sampling of the texts accompanying the caricature include:
  • "Now it is a fact: Naomi's fund endangers the State."
  • "We love Naomi Chazan and hate the IDF" (Signs at an Im Tirzu demonstration outside her house dressed as Hamasniks with keffiyas.)
  • "Fact: the NIF headed by Naomi Chazan is behind the Goldstone reports defamation of the IDF"
  • "In the past three years Naomi Chazan's fund granted 8 million dollars to 16 anti-Zionist organizations that gave the ammunition to charge Israel with war crimes."
  • "Naomi Goldstone Chazan"
True, it is difficult to know where to draw the line between harsh but legitimate criticism, and incitement. However, Im Tirtzu has clearly crossed red lines, lied and mislead. I find it very disturbing that YNET sold banner space to Im Tirtzu, but in December refused to run a "B'Tselem ad campaign on Gaza, saying that "they did not want to offend the public."
I have only quickly read through the section on RHR [Rabbis for Human Rights]in the Im Tirtzu report, but the "proof" that we are anti-Zionist and are responsible for the Goldstone report was the fact that the report mentions the letter we send to the Israeli attorney general calling for an independent and transparent Israeli investigation, the petition we published in HaAretz and on the mini-website we set up for our Gaza campaign and our High Court appeals and other activities on behalf of Palestinian human rights.

Nothing in our activities, those of the NIF, or in the activities of the other targeted organizations justifies Im Tirtzu's vicious and dangerous campaign. The Im Tirtzu campaign crosses so many red lines that even the controversial Christian Zionist Reverend Hagee is repudiating it. As I write, there are initial reports that Reverent Hagee has now announced that he will stop funding Im Tirtzu.
I could be content to simply issue a call to defend democracy and claim Lashon HaRa (slander). We could minimize our connection to Goldstone and disassociate ourselves from the NGO's who contributed information to the committee. However, that would be wrong. The struggle of RHR and our partners is just and essential for the future of Israel. Our struggle is a just and Zionist struggle. It is the struggle over "Who are we" and who we want to be. It is a painful struggle, and we pray that an independent investigation will prove that all of our suspicions were wrong. And yes, our struggle is faithful to what we and our partners have said consistently from the outset, "Citizens must not be targets - not Israelis in Sderot and not Palestinians in Gaza."
We care about every human being because, by virtue of being human, we are all created in God's Image. I am proud of all that we and our partners have done and are doing here in Israel to achieve an independent and transparent Israeli investigation. I only wish that we were doing more.

The de-legitimization did not begin on Friday. As always in these matters, evil grows when good people prefer not to know. At our Gaza conference in May, Im Tirtzu demonstrated outside with "Matza dipped in blood." We of course invited them in to be a part of the conversation. (A few came in, asked one question, and then left.)

Im Tirtzu's report cites Gerald Steinberg's "NGO Monitor," an organization which for years has smeared any NGO which Professor Steinberg defines as "anti-Israel" or "extremist," without ever giving the public a definition of these terms which they throw around. This is but one example of how The Monitor pretends to be holding NGO's to standards of reliability, but consistently violates these very same standards. I once asked Professor Steinberg how it is that they advertise themselves as an organization holding all Middle East NGO's to standards, but in practice only reports on NGO's that deal with Israeli HR violations. He answered that Israel is in a battle for her survival and that the real goal of his organization was to be a part of the PR battle. The Monitor has been working in the Knesset and abroad to dry up funding sources for Human Rights organizations, as well as left wing organizations.

We must take action along two lines:

1. All those who value Israel's democracy, especially those who do not agree with us regarding Gaza, must say as one, "Sharp public debate yes - Incitement no!"

2. We can not expect the entire public to defend our position calling for an Israeli independent and transparent inquiry into the Gaza War. However, we can not accept a situation in which all that is said publicly after this attack is "Well, you are right that what HR organizations did was controversial and we don't agree with everything either, but that is democracy." We must say loudly and clearly:
a. The positions taken by Im Tirtzu, NGO Monitor, Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini endanger the State and abandon our children.
b. A moral army is not handed to us on a silver platter, but is achieved through constant vigilance, willingness to investigate, ask questions, and educate in ways that make it clear that we do more than pay lip service to our declared values.
c. If former attorney Mani Mazuz had not waited until the day after he stepped down to support an independent investigation, but had ordered one a year ago when Israeli HR organizations first wrote to him, there might never have been a Goldstone Commission. If today the Government would not allow Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Perhaps the person with the most to lose if an investigation would sadly find that there had been systematic violations of international law and Jewish values.) to block an Israeli independent transparent investigation, we might yet avoid an international investigation.
d. We are Israeli patriots and Zionists who believe with all our heart that what we are demanding is not only the just and Jewish thing to do, but is what is best for our country.

The Talmud tells of Nahum Ish Gam Zo, who whatever ill befell him would say "Gam zo l'tova," (This is also for the good.) There is no pleasure to be gained from this threat to our democracy and the danger both to our society and to targeted individuals should in no way be dismissed. However, for too long, too many have been unaware of what is happening in our society. If history will record that this was the moment in which supporters of Israeli democracy and human rights united to defend those values they held most dear, then Gam zo l'tova.

B'Vrakha (In Blessing)
Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director Rabbis for Human Rights