Rabbi Jon's Website and Blog

The Sacrifice of Yitzchak: Remembering Rabin on the Anniversary of His Assassination

October 29, 2020 is by the Jewish calendar the 25th anniversary of the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin z"l, by a Jewish religious extremist opposed to Rabin's peacemaking with the Palestinians. This is the D'var Torah I gave five years ago for Rabin's yahrzeit.

This is the week of the 20th yahrzeit for Yitzchak Rabin, the prime minister of Israel who was assassinated by a Jewish religious religious fanatic.  By the Jewish calendar it was last Sunday, and by the secular calendar next Wednesday.  His murder took place in the first hours of the week of פרשת וירא, this morning’s reading, and I will never forget one of the headlines in an Israeli paper the week of his funeral:  עקדת יצחק, the sacrifice of Yitzchak.

There is a particular story told about Yitzchak Rabin in all the biographies and memoirs from Israel’s War of Independence.  It was June of 1948, only about a month after the State of Israel officially came into being.  The Jews of Jerusalem were under siege, living truly near starvation, because the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was cut off around its midpoint by the Arab Legion, which was holding a police fortress in a place called Latrun.  The Israelis had already tried several times to storm Latrun without success.  The fortress was on ground just high enough to see the plain around it, and the Israelis did not have enough troops to take it by overwhelming force.  The battles for Latrun had been some of the costliest in the war in terms of lives lost; many of the soldiers had been refugees from the Holocaust, just liberated from displaced persons camps, with almost no training and no language in common to hear instructions in battle.

As dire as the siege was in Jerusalem, there were Arab armies threatening Jewish areas all over the country.  The Israeli commanders felt they had to make choices about where to deploy their limited number of trained forces, and they knew that attacking Latrun again would be futile  But David Ben Gurion was obsessed with Latrun and had summoned his army leaders repeatedly to demand an attack on Latrun to open the road to Jerusalem.

The commanders responsible in early June for the area of the road to Jerusalem included Mickey Marcus, an American Jew and experienced solider who had come to volunteer.  Some of you may know him and this part of the war through the film “Cast a Giant Shadow”, where he was played by Kirk Douglas.  Also Yigal Allon, commander of the Palmach, the most elite and well-trained Jewish fighting group.  Yitzchak Rabin was the young commander of the Harel Brigade of the Palmach.  Ben Gurion summonded his commanders, and Alon and Marcus knew they would be asked to divert their scarce resources to Latrun, and when they would object they would be subject to Ben Gurion’s fury.

So they decided instead to sacrifice Yitzchak.  The 26-year-old Rabin went by himself to talk to Ben-Gurion, to present an alternative proposal.  By accident, one of Rabin’s underlings had discovered a way to go around Latrun, out of sight of the Arabs, and create a path for supplies to get to Jerusalem.   Rabin would propose that they pave a new supply route and avoid Latrun altogether.

When Rabin came to Ben Gurion, the prime minister lived up to his name, son of a lion cub, and flew into a two-hour rage.  Yitzchak was astounded as Ben Gurion at one point threatened to shoot his own commander, Yigal Allon, in the head, but Rabin stood his ground.  Where other times Ben Gurion had overruled a more senior commander and ordered an attack on Latrun, not this time.  The attack did not take place, the road was built, and the siege of Jerusalem came to an end just in the nick of time.

For people who knew Rabin or wrote later about his life, that confrontation with Ben Gurion exemplified a couple key things about the man.  His wife Leah wrote in her memoir that as a commander and a statesman, Yitzchak was fanatical about his goals and but always looking for the least costly way to achieve them.  He tried to minimize risk to soldiers in battle -- by doing his own detail work of intelligence and reconnaissance to outmaneuver his enemy, by considering creative alternatives, rather than relying on superior force alone which could lose more more lives.  After Ben Gurion, Rabin was probably the most detail-oriented and methodical prime minister Israel has ever had.

The confrontation with Ben-Gurion also showed how little Rabin was interested in ingratiating himself with anyone if those things put the mission at risk.  He didn’t care overly about the feelings of his peers or his superiors, but about the many people he knew less well, the men who served under him.  So Rabin didn’t bother to join Mapai, Ben Gurion’s political party, even though he would have advanced much faster if he had.  He had no hesitation when he was prime minister about cutting his own mentor, Yigal Allon, down to size when he disagreed with him.  

Later on, as Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and then as prime minister, Rabin could be plenty sharp and critical.  He could seem detached.  But at the same time, and this was key -- as long as he could win he had no need to demonize the people who disagreed with him.

These were not the things we call people skills.  Rabin was not a jolly man, and in no way a glad-handing politician.  Leah reprints a letter she received when they were dating in the mid-1940s and Yitzchak was imprisoned by the British, and it was more like a business letter than a love letter.  Rabin was not beloved or revered, the way his peers like Moshe Dayan would be.  He didn’t unite his country when he was prime minister or when he signed the agreement with PLO on the White House lawn.  It seemed ridiculous to me when Bill Clinton called Rabin his friend.

Yet without the typical people skills, Rabin was able, at key times, to surprise people and earn their trust.  How could Rabin have possibly negotiated with the Palestinians?  For fifty years, he had not only defeated them in battle -- he had out-organized and outwitted and outsmarted them.  He had every reason to have contempt for them, as soliders and leaders, and therefore to doubt their ability to do the things they were promising -- but he chose to see them simply as opponents.  Just as in 1948, Rabin was willing to fight only the battle that was necessary, in the 1990s Rabin was clear about exactly how much he needed to be the PLO’s opponent and in what ways he could be their partner.

Rabin knew that in order to bring Israelis along with the peace process, he would have to teach through his example how to balance peace ahead with justice and grief looking back.  At first, he wasn’t going to go to the White House to sign the Oslo agreement, but eventually he figured out that if he didn’t, Israelis would write it off as a ridiculous dream cooked up by Shimon Peres.  Rabin managed every step so carefully, relating just as in 1948 not to his fellow leaders but to the average Israeli.  So he opened his speech at the White House by talking about Israeli families who would never stop grievning, he shook Arafat’s hand in the only way he could, politely but not enthusiastically.  

At the White House and in later ceremonies to sign agreements with Arafat, Rabin put on his non-Israeli-style suit and looked like an adult, and made Arafat look like a child who could not take off his costume.  Rabin made sure to have a working relationship with Arafat and to show that when they appeared together, but he was also carefuly not to portray to Israelis that he and Arafat were becoming friends.  He was perfect for the role; he wasn’t big for smiling or scolding, his natural face and voice were holding back even when he tried to do revolutionary things.

Rabin understood that leadership is not like other relationships.  He didn’t try to use on the people skills he didn’t have, because that’s not what leading his people is only about.  And Rabin could lead because he was aware that he was modeling a new way of being a Jew in a new world.  Not just modeling, but maybe inventing it as he went along.

In 1994, at an award ceremony honoring Israeli writers just a year after the White House handshake, Rabin said:  “These days we are in the midst of a battle without cannons in a war without fire, which may turn out to be perhaps one of the most significant and decisive battles in the annals of the Jewish people in recent generations.”  In that speech, he said:

Let us admit the truth: the atmosphere of siege, the hostility, and the war have elicited tremendous energies from us for almost five decades. Much of what has been achieved in the State of Israel in all areas is a direct or indirect outcome of the necessity to defend our existence, of the atmosphere of siege from which we are so glad to free ourselves these days. Ours was a productive unity, a healthy unity, standing shoulder to shoulder against the manifestations of enmity and facing a hostile world. Just between us, we have become accustomed to this lifestyle, and, already, we think we cannot do without it. Perhaps we have even come to love the pleasant warmth of power and the encircling siege.

And now? What are we to do now? What message should we deliver to our people these days? How should we avoid becoming entangled in delivering a double, and contradictory, message: are we on the brink of peace, or do we expect another war? How do we change the atmosphere that has characterized our state for generations? What should we choose – should we declaim again and again: "a state under siege," "the whole world is against us," "all the Arabs are the same"? Or perhaps we should bear a new message: "the new Middle East," "the peace of the brave," "nation shall not lift up sword against nation," "He who makes peace in heaven above..."?

How do we become accustomed to a world of new concepts, to a different culture, a different style, and at the same time not completely abandon the old world, just in case, God forbid, we might need it again? How do we maintain the invigorating rhythm of our lives, the Jewish mind, all those tremendous energies of ours, our unity – without the sword hanging over our heads?

This is the Rabin who was taken from us by his assassin. How do we become accustomed to a world of new concepts,.... and at the same time not completely abandon the old world, just in case, God forbid, we might need it again?  This is who the Jewish people lost on the 12th of Marcheshvan 5755.  Not necessarily the man who signed the Oslo agreement, which may well have stalled even had he lived.  We lost the man who fought wars until the moment he thought they were not necessary, and was prepared to fight them again if necessary.  We lost the one who hoped we might figure out how to live as Jews in the world we are in and not in the mythic worlds of dreamy peace or eternal Jew-hatred.  

Rabin’s assassin took the worst message from the Akedah -- that to be Jewish is to live as though you were always just escaping a knife at your throat; and that extreme atrocities are beloved to God.  That is a Judaism of no joy and no hope, an impossible Judaism -- and in the square 20 years ago a desecration of God’s name.

Yitzchak Rabin was the truer heir of the biblical Yitzchak.  He lived through the wars of survival and knew they were over for his people, and he didn’t pretend to know for sure what was next or how long it would take.

We would honor Yitzchak Rabin’s memory most if we could find a way as Jews of being comfortable with our power, and with taking responsibility for how we use it.  We would honor his legacy if we could take the proper measure of the threats to Israel, and to Jews, and fight them rather than our ghosts, and take satisfaction when we are defeating them  That is the true spirituality of Zionism.  To know the perfect place between the smile and the scold, to scowl appropriately while trying revolutionary things.

Yehi zichro baruch -- May Yitzchak’s memory be a blessing.

AIPAC and Democrats This Week

Writing about AIPAC, on a day when seven Israelis were hurt by a missile shot indiscriminately toward Israeli cities by Hamas. Outraged, and praying for their healing.

This week’s AIPAC Policy Conference is a gathering of about 18,000 people in Washington, DC. Many of the candidates for president on the Democratic side made a public show of staying away, and MoveOn.org called on all of them to do so, stating that AIPAC is nowhere that a progressive should be. (Sen. Cory Booker was there; I'll update this post if I hear of others.)

To me this is both a slander, and as far as leading Democratic candidates are concerned, a political blunder.

I have a few things to fill in about AIPAC, as someone who has been and is involved in the group. I am not registered with either political party in the U.S., and I do align in Israeli society with groups working on coexistence and peace, particularly within a Jewish religious framework. I wanted to add some data to the picture, particular for those more on the left, and to explain my more-than-frustration with the posture of the Democratic presidential candidates.

AIPAC is not a “PAC”, a political campaign fundraising organization. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a grassroots lobbying organization. It was founded long before political action committees (“PACs”) became a big thing. The idea that AIPAC could be targeting officeholders and candidates is an absolute lie.

The influence AIPAC members have comes far more through citizen activism than paid lobbying activities. Obviously there is a synergy between the two – but other major lobbies, such as AARP and the NRA, rely to a much greater extent on paid staff than AIPAC does and have much larger budgets. People who support other big lobbies give more and maybe much more to campaigns than people who support AIPAC, from figures I have been able to find.

The basic premise of AIPAC is “to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.”

AIPAC is a coalition. The group has hewn to a strategy of bipartisanship, working with administrations of both parties and trying to build equal support in both parties for congressional policymaking and resolutions. If you look at the U.S. senators and representatives who are speaking this week at AIPAC, a bit more than half are Democrats. Maybe this is meant to balance out the presence of members of the administration. The leaders of both parties in the House and the Senate are on the program.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was slated, before he had to return to Israel. And today his main opponent in next month’s Israeli election, Benny Gantz, spoke, and didn't hold back from distingushing himself from the prime minister.

It’s a coalition in terms of AIPAC members’ outlook on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. You wouldn’t know from the news, but “Two states for two people” is the first “talking point” on AIPAC’s web page about the peace process. I don’t know exactly how many AIPAC members or conference participants want a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians ardently, passively, or not at all. I think all three groups are substantial.

This week’s conference includes programs featuring thought leaders and activists working on all the challenges of Israeli society. There are so many of Israel’s leading idealists, for whom Israel is a lab for Jewish values in action.

The wide spectrum of Israeli perspectives at AIPAC, on the official program, isn’t window dressing. Like Rabbi Susan Silverman, who advocates dramatically as an Israeli for African asylum seekers and the rights of non-Orthodox Jews. And Yehuda Kurtzer, from the Shalom Hartman Institute, a think-tank doing incredible work on social thought, ethics, and Muslim-Jewish relations.

I am not saying of course that AIPAC itself is a progressive or a Democratic group. There are plenty of people aligned with the Israeli right and center-right who are speaking at AIPAC and who are there. What I’m saying is that if you are running for president, you shouldn’t buy into lazy thinking about any group in our society. That’s what it is to write off AIPAC members as a partisan interest group. Obviously, you should not buy into worse, into anti-Semitic stereotypes.

This is exactly a group of people that Democratic candidates for president ought to want to engage. Boycotting the conference is a blunder, and one that’s not going to fade away.

For one thing, there are tons of Democrats within AIPAC who are active on all kinds of issues. They are waiting to pick a campaign to get involved in -- and weighing whether to stay on the sidelines.

For another, if the candidates are serious about a foreign policy in the Middle East based on measurable achievements in human rights, there are many people within AIPAC who want to hear what they have to say, in depth. If Palestinian lives are a core issue, then surely a candidate for office knows they will never improve without the partnership of the governments of both Israel and the United States. What are the elements of a progressive and effective approach for American leadership, a strategy for one of the world’s most difficult regions?

I would think that skilled candidate could have mingled, attended the breakouts, networked, held their side gatherings, found ways to communicate about their perspectives in the framework of peace and security for all..

I am looking to see if the Democrats vying to be leaders are going to re-engage – for their own political self-interest, for the security interests of America, and for the good of Israelis and of Palestinians.

Ari Shavit's My Promised Land

This post is based on my bulletin column of April 2014.  At Temple Beth Abraham, the Sisterhood's book club is discussing this book on Wednesday, Nov. 5 at 8:00 PM.

The most important new book about Israel this year is called My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel, by Israeli journalist Ari Shavit. If you read only one nonfiction Jewish book, this is the one you have to have.

My Promised Land is a history of Israel and of Zionism, told through a loving and critical lens. Shavit is one of the Israel's most probing commentators. He writes for Haaretz, one of Israel's three main daily newspapers.

Shavit begins the book with the story of his great-grandfather, Herbert Bentwich, a British Jew who came see Palestine in 1897. Shavit talks about what his great-grandfather saw and experienced, and also what he didn't see or chose not to see, namely the Arabs in the villages all around the new Zionist towns.

For each decade he profiles, Shavit zeroes in on an emblematic storyline. He chooses “tragedies” in the ancient Greek sense. Moral dilemmas with no obvious right or wrong answer, dilemmas that could not be avoided in real time.

The Israelis of 1948 sent away Arabs from their homes in parts of the land. There wasn't time to figure out how to integrate Arabs into every part of Israel, with Arab armies bearing down. In order to take in hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees in the 1950s and 1960s, Israel created standardized housing and a single dominant culture. There wasn't time, with military and economic challenges, to make room for differences, or to deal with communal traumas in the open.

Shavit criticizes something about each layer of Israel's history. But he is emphatic that the ideal path is only available in hindsight. He is equally hard on those who believe in sheer military power, and those who believe in a perfect peace with all the Arabs.

For me, one of the strongest impressions from the book is just how many social challenges Israel has had to face in less than sixty-five years. Without civil war, Israel has absorbed Jews who survived the Holocaust, those who become unwelcome in Arab countries, and those who were suddenly liberated when the Soviet Union collapsed. Israel's largely secular culture has had to face a powerful religious revival.

After the near-defeat in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, suddenly Israel's army was no longer an invincible force and an automatic source of pride. As the peace process of the 1990s collapsed, the idea of coexisting with Arabs in mutual understanding was exposed.

Through all of this, Shavit keeps his faith in the necessity of Israel. He considers whether all the mistakes mean that it would be better for Jews to live only in the diaspora, or in a binational state with the Palestinians. Shavit is emphatic: There is no future for Jews in the world without Israel. The moral responsibility for the past is real. Recognizing and taking responsibility for past mistakes is what it means to be a modern nation.

My Promised Land is not an easy book to read. Shavit does not point the way out of Israel's current struggles – not with the Arabs or internally. I kept reading because despite all his research and reflection, despite all the moral questions, Shavit is never disillusioned with Israel. 

It is a tribute to the American Jewish community, and to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC, that Shavit has been invited across the country to speak as a Zionist and defender of Israel. He represents the notion that Jews are strong when we are honest and self-critical, and avoiding the honest look can only weaken Israel and the Jewish people.

We'll need some way to talk about this book. It's more than one discussion. I'll have the book in our library, but there should be a line out the door. Get a copy, and start reading.

Israel's War -- Rockets and Gaza

As a way to help people understand and make sense of Israel's war, I've started to pick out articles to recommend.  I've been tracking things that are generally not simply opinion.  More probing analysis, thoughtful moral reflection too.  I'm gathering them via a Twitter feed, @tbarav, which you can follow via Twitter.  Or you can find it on any of these pages on rabbijon.net all the time, the feed is in the lower right if you scroll down.  For other background, I have things I've written or gathered previously here too.

It is imperative to be well-informed -- bookmark Israeli papers such as Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, or Yediot Acharonot.  Reach out by phone or any form of note to Israelis you know and let them know that you and our whole community is thinking about them.  Come and be together here for an evening minyan or on Shabbat as we pray for Israel and for the lives of everyone involved in the conflict.

Shabbat Shalom -- May peace be more than a symbol or a hope,
Rabbi Jon

First Reaction: Palestine and the UN

Yesterday, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to give Palestine the status of a "nonmember observer state", represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization, within the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that bordered Israel before the Six-Day War of 1967.

This is truly a first reaction.  I decided to read a few things last evening:

• the text of the speech delivered today by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian National Authority
• the speeches delivered on Sept. 13, 1993 at the White House by Mahmoud Abbas, Yitzchak Rabin, and Yassir Arafat

The earlier speeches were delivered when, unexpectedly, Israel and the PLO decided on mutual recognition and the first phases of a face-to-face process of negotiations.

I wanted to read the speeches sympathetically, as gestures of peace from all sides.  I wanted to read with understanding that the Palestinians, for all kinds of reasons, have lived an often terrible existence since 1948, and have lived with poverty and restrictions especially lately.  You may already well know that I favor a state for Palestinians, and view the increasing settlement of the West Bank by Israel as a profound obstacle to peace.

I wanted to try to read with sympathy even though I read these speeches as a Jew, as part of the family of Israel, worried for Israel's safety today.

It is typical in speeches before the world, in speeches outside one's own land, to make gestures of peace and understanding even to one's opponents and enemies.  It is what Prime Minister Rabin, zichrono livracha, did in his speech in 1993.

President Abbas yesterday did no such thing toward Israel.  In his speech, Israel is at best something that is there.  He said nothing at all about Israelis and their homes or hopes.  He extended no olive branch, did not so much as admit that Palestinians and Arab countries have participated in wars, have been fighters against Israel.  When I looked back at his speech in 1993, when he was the P.L.O. foreign minister, essentially, it was the same.  Even on a day when things looked brighter for everyone.

And I am afraid of what this means, that the Palestinian leader most regarded as the partner for negotiations with Israel cannot bring himself even to any of the niceties or cliches about what peace would mean for Israelis, or what Israel means as a homeland for its people.

Others will elaborate on the incredible version of history that President Abbas put forth.  How unbelievable that he would invoke the U.N. partition resolution, passed by the General Assembly on the same day 65 years before -- which would have created the Palestinian state on far better terms, had the Arabs only accepted it as the Jews did.  In President Abbas' speech, the Palestinians are peaceful people who were "ethnically cleansed" from their homes, who have never engaged in war or terror, whose leaders have always stood for fundamental human rights.

Read the speeches I've linked for yourself.  This is my first reaction, and I share it in great worry and sorrow.

Bringing Home Gilad Shalit

Today the Israeli government approved a deal to bring home Gilad Shalit, a soldier who was abducted in 2006 by Hamas.  Negotiations over some kind of prisoner swap have been going on off and on ever since.  Prime Minister Netanyahu authorized, and the cabinet approved, a deal that will release hundreds of Palestinians involved in terror attacks against Israelis.

Here is the text of Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks before the Israeli cabinet meeting:

Today, I bring a proposal to the Government for a deal that will bring Gilad Shalit home alive and well; bring him home to his parents Aviva and Noam, his brother Yoel, his sister Hadas, his grandfather Zvi, and the entire people of Israel. Two and a half years ago, when the government was formed, I took upon myself, as my first priority, to bring Gilad home to his people, to his family – to bring him home safe and sound.

At the time, Gilad was already held in captivity for two and a half years, with no visits from the Red Cross, with no visits at all, and we did not know what state he was in. The first step I took, and we approved it here in the Government, was to get a video recording of Gilad, and we all breathed a sigh of relief when we saw it. We saw that he was functioning, physically, mentally and cognitively. We saw that he was functioning well. We knew that he was healthy and that he was alive. I regarded that tape as an insurance policy, because it obliged the Hamas before the international community to safeguard him, to keep him alive and maintain his health. But that was obviously only the first step.

The most important mission that we had was more challenging – to actually bring Gilad home. To that end we held long and tough negotiations through the German mediator. These negotiations were based on a framework outlined by the previous government. They were long and exhausting and despite all our efforts, a deal was not reached.

I must point out that not a day went by without us trying various ways to bring Gilad
home, any way possible, and that didn't work either. In the last few weeks, the
negotiations were renewed in Cairo, this time with the Egyptian government as mediator.

My instructions to the team were to adhere to the principles and framework that are
important for the security of the State of Israel, which I will detail in the meeting.
There is an inbuilt tension between the desire to bring back an abducted soldier, or
citizen, and the need to maintain the security of the citizens of Israel. This is my dual responsibility as Prime Minister.

The deal I am bringing to the Government expresses the right balance between all of
these considerations. I do not wish to hide the truth from you – it is a very difficult
decision. I feel for the families of victims of terror, I appreciate their suffering and
distress, I am one of them. But leadership must be examined at moments such as this, being able to make difficult, but right, decisions.

I believe that we have reached the best deal we could have at this time, when storms are sweeping the Middle East. I do not know if in the near future we would have been able to reach a better deal or any deal at all. It is very possible that this window of opportunity, that opened because of the circumstances, would close indefinitely and we would never have been able to bring Gilad home at all.

Therefore, for all of these reasons, I instructed the team to put their initials on the deal last Thursday, and today it was finalized and signed by both sides. I thank my Military Secretary Maj. Gen. Yohanan Locker, the Chief of the Shin Bet Yoram Cohen, my personal envoy to the negotiations, David Meidan and his predecessor Hagai Hadas. I thank the team that has accompanied them all these years.

I thank the IDF, the security forces for doing everything they could regarding Gilad
Shalit. I also wish to thank the German mediator, and the Chancellor Angela Merkel who supported his mission all along. A send a special thanks to the Government of Egypt and the Egyptian Intelligence Services for providing much assistance in mediating and helping us reaching this agreement.

This morning I Invited Noam Shalit to my residence, and I spoke on the phone with the mother Aviva and the grandfather Zvi. I told them that I am keeping my promise and I'm bringing their son and grandson home. I told them, "I'm bringing your boy back." I am happy that I succeeded in fulfilling the Jewish decree of redeeming captives, and if all goes as planned, Gilad will be back in Israel in the next few days with his family and his people.

The Nation of Israel is a unique people. We are all mutually responsible for each other, as our Sages said: "He who saves one soul, it is as though he saved an entire world." Tonight, I bring the Government a proposal to save Gilad Shalit, to finally bring him home to Israel after five years.

More on the Gaza Events

There are a couple of responsibilities that Jews have at this time, when Israel is under a great deal of scrutiny.  One is to know enough to explain to other people what the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is and has been about, and how it has evolved over Israel's 62 years.  There are a couple things I have written recently that are helpful for that.  In last Sunday's Nashua Telegraph is a column I wrote for the general public.  For the congregation, I recently wrote a bulletin article about the modern history of Jerusalem.

At the same time, we have a spiritual obligation not to let venom directed at Israel divert us from our fundamental values.  We seek peace, for Israel and all around her.  We seek justice, for Israel and for all around her.  We seek an end to unnecessary suffering, by Israelis and Palestinians.  No actions by critics, no failures of the Palestinians' own leadership would justify our failing to keep committed to those principles.

Here are a few more interesting things to read:

A good Israeli response/rebuttal from Ambassador to the U.S. MIchael Oren

A thoughtful critique of the raid from an American Jewish defender of Israel Leon Wieseltier

Another (heartening) angle:  What's really happening these days between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, from Thomas Friedman

More on Gaza

A couple interesting new items:

Haaretz: Possible agreement between Israel and flotilla to unload next ship at Ashdod

Today: Hamas preventing ship supplies from entering Gaza from Israel

Israel's Operation Off Gaza

Earlier today, Israel intercepted ships belonging to an organization protesting Israel's blockade of Gaza.  The ships were heading for Gaza from Turkey with relief supplies.  When the ships did not stop, Israel's navy boarded the ships, there was fighting, people on the ships were killed and Israeli soldiers were wounded.

For those who immediately condemned the attack, the defining frame is: Israel's blockade of Gaza is unjust and violates international law.  It's a continuation of "occupation" in a different form.  Any resistance is presumptively justified.

Israel has this blockade, both to put economic pressure on the Hamas regime in Gaza and out of a justified fear of weapons being smuggled into Gaza.  So -- you can watch this on tape -- Israel offered to escort the ships to Ashdod, unload and inspect the cargo, and bring the aid supplies to Gaza under the watch of the people who had come to deliver it.  To which the ship's reply was "negative."

The debate, condemnation, and defending that has begun and that will unfold are exactly the same as during the conflict of December 2008 and the subsequent Goldstone Report (and everything else).  I'll see like everyone else what the facts of this incident turn out to have been.  At this point, I don't see how to fault Israel for making an offer that defends itself and offers to deliver the aid in question.

Israel -- Remarks at Yesterday's " Community Service for Peace "

These words, which I entitled "Our Fears, Our Dreams", are what I said at the rally and service for peace yesterday at the Jewish Federation of New Hampshire. (The Manchester Union Leader published a very positive article about the program, quoting extensively from remarks by Israel's Consul-General in Boston, Nadav Tamir.)

At a time of great trouble and danger, we are here reaching out to our fellow Jews, our sisters and brothers in Israel, the Palestinians who share our ancient land, and also to our neighbors here in New Hampshire. We are here because we have dreams, and we have fears, and this gathering is about both. Especially to our Palestinian neighbors, we have to speak about our dreams and our fears.

We have for so long dreamt of living as Jews in peace and justice on this earth, anywhere, and in our homeland.
We fear there are those in the world who don’t believe us, or who won’t let us.

We dream of an end to killing, and more positively, we dream that Eretz Yisrael, which you call Palestine, and the holy city of Jerusalem, will be once again be historic places of inspiration for the entire world.

We dream that all our Arab neighbors will see us as human beings, see us for our deep human values
But we fear that you are coming to know us only by our weapons or our mistakes.

We dream that your leaders will finally say yes when we extend our hand in peace – not yes but, or yes if, but yes.
We fear this won’t happen; we fear what will happen to us and to you if it doesn’t – that we will become, forever and irreversibly, statues of hate.

We fear that our peace offers and our withdrawals, and the flexibility Israeli leaders have shown -- in 1947 at the UN, in 2000 at Camp David, in 2005 on the way out of Gaza -- will make us foolish in our own eyes and in yours.
But we dream that you will imagine what we have come to learn, perhaps with difficulty – that the blessing of peace will only be ours if we share it with you.

We fear that you don’t share these dreams. But we dream that you do – no, we have faith that you do.

Mekor Hachayyim, Adon Hashalom -- Source of all Life, Master of Peace, we pray that you calm our fears, and bless our dreams of peace. Amen.