The evidence is growing that we may be fighting the wrong battle in the struggle to support Israel these days.

The situation is grim, if not alarming: Jerusalem is increasingly on the defensive diplomatically, faced with a United Nations vote for a Palestinian state in September, and a range of outside efforts aimed at undermining the legitimacy of the Jewish State, from boycotts to flotillas. What’s more, there is concern that the circle-the-wagon response in Jerusalem to these threats can lead to more problems; witness the recent passage of anti-boycott resolution in the Knesset that has been widely criticized as undemocratic, even among mainstream Jewish organizations.

True, Israel advocacy groups are proliferating, offering programs, websites and curriculum, many of them first-rate in presenting Jerusalem’s case and countering critics. But at the same time the number of Americans who care about the Jewish State in a more than superficial way is decreasing.

Polls continue to indicate that Americans favor Israel over the Palestinians by wide margins. But the findings also suggest that most Americans would not be willing to have the U.S. involved with either side in the event of a Mideast war. Other surveys find increasing indifference on the topic.

There is a growing recognition among some American Jewish leaders that Israel advocacy is not enough because it provides answers to questions that most people aren’t asking. We need a fresh and creative approach.

First, let me be clear. I am a believer in Israel advocacy and have seen its positive impact, particularly through Write On For Israel, the program sponsored by The Jewish Week with funding from the Avi Chai Foundation. Now in its ninth year, it continues to provide a select group of high school juniors and seniors with the Mideast facts and moral confidence to be effective supporters of Israel on campus. The program has a proven track record of success as our graduates have taken on leadership roles as freshmen and sophomores at colleges around the country.

But the foundation for effective advocacy is education, and there is far too little Modern Israel education in our community. Even top day schools spend far more time focusing on ancient Jewish history than on the complex Mideast events of the 20th century that frame the current conflict.

Could it be that because of our long history as a people, the curriculum never quite makes it to modern times?

Our children learn about the ancient Maccabees but couldn’t tell you much, if anything, about key Zionist leaders like Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky, Begin and Dayan. Even an authentic, living hero of the Jewish people like Natan Sharansky is little known, and the gap in our educational efforts is taking its toll.

John Ruskay, the executive vice president and CEO of UJA-Federation of New York, says the issue “requires urgent focus.”

“We as a community need to renew Zionist education, an issue we’ve neglected, and we are seeing some of the results with younger people now,” he recently told The Jewish Week. “We are not well served by conflating Israel advocacy and Israel education. Since 1948 we’ve asked people to rally for Israel, and they did. But we didn’t provide the educational frameworks that would allow them to grapple with the challenge of developing their own vision of what Israel can and should be, and working through tough issues. For ultimately, such a process strengthens connection and commitment.

“Too many in our community,” he added, “young and old, are intellectually naked when it comes to the complexity of contemporary Zionist education, and these include many of our future professional and lay leaders.”

The results of the current focus on advocacy rather than education is that mainstream American Jewry is left uninformed and often uninterested when it comes to the complex and troublesome issue of Israel vs. much of the world. And young people who receive an advocacy pitch without a solid grounding in Israel education are particularly prone to having their beliefs challenged and shaken.

As evidence, a study by the Melton Center for Jewish Education at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, first reported on here in February, found that presenting day school students with information on both sides of the Israel issue and letting them draw their own conclusions is more effective than shielding them from criticism or being perceived as forcing on them the “correct” response.

Most students were vague and uncomfortable when asked to define “Zionism,” and were reluctant to describe themselves as Zionists.

Rabbi Donniel Hartman, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, asserts that Israel advocacy programs “often fail to achieve their end.

“When the case for Israel is grounded only on a factual narrative,” he wrote in an essay entitled “Engaging Israel: Beyond Advocacy,” “it is often unconvincing to those who hold a counter factual perception. In general, positions are rarely formed purely around facts, but rather by ideological, moral and psychological propensities which then construct factual narratives to reinforce the preexisting commitment.”

Rabbi Hartman argues that the majority of committed American Jews, and especially younger ones, “lack a language to understand or articulate their feelings about Israel” as well as a framework to combat delegitimization campaigns. He maintains that’s because the standard arguments for supporting Israel — a safe haven in event of another Holocaust; the Jewish State is in danger; and Israel is a key ally in the war against evil empires — are irrelevant and no longer apply.

According to Rabbi Hartman (the son of the institute’s founder, Rabbi David Hartman), American Jews feel safe in the U.S., perceive Israel as more Goliath than David, and are not engaged by the notion of America going to war, again.

He has developed a curriculum for his institute offering a “new Israel engagement narrative” that is not crisis-centered but based mostly on “Jewish values” and the notion that Israel is “a work in progress,” one welcoming Jews around the world to help shape.

It’s a thoughtful, sophisticated approach and recognizes that talk about Israel must maintain standards of pluralism, tolerance and morality held dear by American Jews.

It’s good to know that, in addition, other educational institutions are exploring their own ideas about how to present, teach and engage with Israel in ways that reflect the new realities, including a generation of American Jews less emotionally attached to Jerusalem than their parents and grandparents.

There is a recognition taking hold that people’s views on Israel are not just about policies, like settlements, but about people and values and connecting on a personal level. There’s no one magic approach that works for everyone, but it’s clear that advocacy is best when it is grounded in education, and we need a lot more of it.

This idea of thinking of Israel in a new and meaningful way that brings us closer to understanding, appreciating and making real the Zionist dream is not a simple task. But it’s critically important, now — for Israel and for us.

Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher of The Jewish Week, can be reached at . Check out the website at www.thejewishweek.com.

Locally-owned Sunset Grill, opened in 2004, has the feel of an Americanized Mexican restaurant — with its lime green canvases of beachy palm tree settings on one wall, bright blue drawings of leaves on another, and the vaguely Mexicanized menu. To its credit — and sometimes to its detriment — the restaurant strives to be more than that.

The Sunset Grill sits in a large space, of which about a third contains the comfortable bar area, with several televisions. Live music and entertainment is pervasive at the Sunset Grill. One night it is Joel McNulty, local folk rocker/power popper. Another night it is Tony Antonnuci (perhaps best known for performing enthusiastically at this writer’s rehearsal dinner some nine years ago), crooning the songs of Francis Albert Sinatra. Waitstaff is predominantly younger — seemingly of high school and college age. Our waitress one evening appeared to be among the more senior members of the waitstaff, likely in the ballpark of her mid-20s.

A certain risk exists for restaurants denoting particular dishes as signature items on the menu. A diner might assume that any selection not so denoted is somehow sub-standard or unworthy of consideration. We threw caution to the wind one night and ordered the Guacamole (lacking a palm tree next to it, which would have identified it as a signature dish) ($5/$6.75). Given the restaurant’s Mexicanized theme, and the fact that the menu indicated the guacamole was made fresh daily, it seemed to warrant a palm tree. Maybe the stale chips served alongside the guacamole knocked it out of contention. Or maybe it was the over-abundance of tomatoes and onions that frankly overwhelmed the nice, ripe avocados. Fresh jalapenos were a nice touch. The Tijuana Wraps ($8.75) were a decent, Southwestern take on Chinese egg rolls, somewhat spicy and served halved and stuffed with black beans, corn, cheese, red pepper, spinach and chicken — with a fair avocado ranch for dipping. Nothing especially inventive, but a reasonably good appetizer, nonetheless.

We opted to explore several entrees beyond the Sunset Grill’s Mexican/Southwestern fringe. And one of the best entrees we sampled was the Fresh Salmon ($16.50), appropriately deemed a restaurant signature item, and a keen example of the Sunset Grill stretching beyond its Tex-Mex core and succeeding. To her credit, our waitress asked a friend how she wanted the eight ounces of salmon prepared. It was requested to be on the rare side of medium, and arrived precisely so. The fish was extremely moist and flavorful, with a decent brown sugar mustard glaze, tasting more prominently of the sugar than the mustard component. The salmon was served with a rather basic wild rice, and al dente asparagus. Though the dollop of pico de gallo was consistent with the restaurant’s Southwestern theme, it seemed out of place on this particular plate. Our friend had (oddly) requested that the mediocre Caesar Salad ($4.50) she ordered be brought with the meal. Our waitress evidently also thought this was peculiar, and brought the salad out first, proclaiming, “It was ready so I brought it, but if you want, I can put it in the fridge.”

I wanted to see how the Sunset Grill handled steak preparation, so one night I ordered the Rib Eye ($17.50), a generous 14-ounce cut. I ordered the steak medium rare, and as with the salmon, the kitchen nailed it — serving the fairly thick slab of beef with a perfectly warm, red center. Sometimes a ribeye, though almost universally flavorful, can be laden with big globs of fat; but this steak was nicely marbled with thin ribbons of fat. To be clear, this was by no means a prime cut of beef — nor was that the expectation. But it was a decent steak. The mashed potatoes served alongside were quite good, with the skin from the new potatoes left on, and a prominent flavor of garlic. The vegetable medley included carrots, zucchini, green and red peppers and a little red onion. It was colorful, and cooked fine, though was perhaps a bit drab.

We were less fond of the Parmesan Cream Pasta ($8.25, $9.75 with chicken), a basic rendition of fettucini alfredo. The noodles in the dish were overcooked, and the rather bland sauce was lacking garlic (and other) flavor. Here, the Sunset Grill faltered outside its Mexican/Southwestern comfort zone. By the same token, prevailing culinary wisdom dictates that one avoid any sort of nacho platter at Cascone’s, and any attempt at chopped liver (or kasha varnishkes, for that matter) at Bo Ling’s.

We tried dessert one evening — an Apple Crisp ($6.25), which our waitress indicated was homemade (as was another dessert, the Key Lime Pie). It was an odd dessert, with a big scoop of melted vanilla ice cream in the middle of the oval plate, and only a smidgen of “crisp” surrounding the vanilla mound, strewn with just a few cooked and spiced apple slices. The non-ice cream portion of the dessert was frankly a little skimpy and disappointing.

It is worth noting that the Sunset Grill serves a pretty solid brunch on Saturdays and Sundays — offering breakfast items with a Southwestern flair.

There is something comfortable about this place, and it undoubtedly has its loyalists. It seems like only a few tweaks here and there could take this place somewhere close to the “next level”. But somehow, the Sunset Grill seems pretty comfortable right where it is.

Out of 4 Stars
Food: 2 ½
Atmosphere: 2 ½
Service: 3

Bonding at the campfire

There have been times through the years I’ve been tempted to write a letter to voice opposition to a published article or letter; however, I took no action. This time I need to express my delight in reading about the bonding experience forged by the hike of Rabbi Arthur Nemitoff and Andrew Kaplan. What a great article; what a wonderful idea. It truly demonstrated how each drew upon the strengths of the other, how each benefitted and how that bond will benefit the congregation as a whole. Maybe our Congressional leaders should follow the same path for the benefit of our country. Thank you for letting all of us ride along and vicariously sit at that campfire under the stars.

Felicia Weiner
Kansas City, Mo.

Officials of Birthright Israel are said to be worried about the impact of an in-depth, highly critical piece, written by a recent participant and published in the July 4-11 issue of The Nation.
They needn’t be.

In fact, like the biblical Balaam, the Moabite prophet who, when hired by King Balak to curse the Jews, ends up blessing them against his will (as we read in synagogue July 9), Kiera Feldman, 26, who wrote The Nation piece, has unintentionally underscored the success of the project, asserting that it turns “blank slate” young Jews into pro-Israel advocates.

Feldman herself did not qualify as a “blank slate” when she signed up for the free 10-day trip last year. Self-described as “a baptized child of intermarriage” on assignment and funded in part by The Investigative Fund, loosely affiliated with the liberal Nation magazine, she makes clear that she is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and opposed to Israel’s treatment of and attitudes toward Arabs.

“With the relentless siege of Gaza, the interminable occupation, the ever-expanding settlements, the onslaught of anti-Arab Knesset legislation,” she writes, “Israel has earned its new status as an international pariah.”

She headed for the Holy Land in search of proof that young American Jews are, in effect, being brainwashed to support Israel’s political point of view.

The breathless blurb summarizing her article (entitled “The Romance Of Birthright Israel”) on The Nation’s website reads: “By providing all-expenses paid trips to Israel for Jewish young adults, U.S. funders and Israeli politicians are creating the next generations of American Zionists.”

And this is a bad thing?

Apparently it is, according to Feldman, who writes that Birthright, now beginning its second decade and having sent more than 260,000 young people (18-26) to Israel, “no longer is … simply a project to shore up Jewish identity; Birthright has joined the fight for the political loyalties of young Jews.”

Organizers and funders tell her that is not the case, maintaining that the trip is designed to give participants an educational experience, a chance to explore their Jewish identity, an emotional connection to their people’s ancient homeland and a fun time with peers from around the world.

Feldman provides a thorough and accurate depiction of how Birthright was created, and credits it with “maintain[ing] rigorous quality control” in offering up a highly moving experience.

But she feels it does too good a job. She employs a mocking tone toward her fellow travelers, observing how, in her eyes, they swallow the Zionist Kool-Aid in becoming emotionally attached to the land and people of Israel. She describes the tears that are shed at the Western Wall, at Yad Vashem and at Mount Herzl’s military cemetery. “The moment almost always comes,” she writes, when participants come away “armed with a new ‘pro-Israel’ outlook.”

That particular reference was to a Reform 26-year-old woman from New York who returned from a Birthright trip during the Gaza war in 2008 and announced: “Israel really changed me. I truly felt when I came back that I was a different person.”

Writes Feldman: “It was mission accomplished for Birthright Israel …”

The subtext: there goes another liberal Jew lost to the cause of the Palestinians and to criticism of Israeli policy.

She takes umbrage at the fact that “welcome home” is a key message of the Birthright trip, asserting that “it serves as a pointed riposte to the right of return claimed under international law by the 700,000 Palestinians expelled in 1948 upon the creation of the Jewish state, and their descendants.”

Even Feldman admits, though, that “despite my best efforts to maintain a reportorial stance,” she experienced “a return to the intensity of feeling of childhood,” which she attributed to lack of sleep, the “mind-numbing itinerary” and the planners’ effort to provide a deeply emotional experience.

She writes that a key element of the trip “is the promotion — by turns winking and overt — of flings among participants,” and acknowledges that she, too, found romance with a bus mate “when the lights went down in the fake Bedouin tent.”

Feldman’s most stinging critique is in offering up examples of alleged biased remarks against Arabs by Birthright tour guides and the crime of omission when it comes in dealing with the occupation. And she is deeply upset that participants are encouraged to buy Ahava products at the factory’s Dead Sea gift shop, claiming the company profits “by illegally exploiting Palestinian Dead Sea resources,” a charge denied in the article by the company’s board chairman.

One of the great ironies of the Balaam story in the Bible is that in his attempt to curse the Jewish people, the prophet, looking down on the Israelite camp from a mountain, makes a statement so sublime that it has become part of our daily liturgy: “How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, your dwellings, O Israel.”

Kiera Feldman is not as eloquent as Balaam, but she, too, leaves us with the impression that despite her best efforts to demean Birthright Israel, the organization is far-reaching, effective and successful.

“A new era is dawning for Birthright,” she writes. “What began as an identity booster has become an ideology machine, pumping out not only Jewish baby-makers but defenders of Israel. Or that’s the hope.”

It certainly is mine.

Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher of The Jewish Week, can be reached at . Check out the website at www.thejewishweek.com.

QUESTION: Is it true that there are certain commandments in Judaism that only apply in Israel?

ANSWER: That is absolutely correct. One such commandment deals with the Laws of Shmita or the Sabbatical Laws. Our Bible commands us that every seventh year the land should not be worked and nothing grown in the soil in the land of Israel. That has been proven scientifically many years later to be extremely helpful to the health and well-being of the soil. This creates a very complicated situation in Israel. It has led to the development of hydro agricultural or the growing of plants and fruit products in water. There are other intricate solutions that the rabbis have developed, especially since 1948, so that the agricultural system of Israel can function despite the Sabbatical year.

When one visits Israel during the Shmita year one will see signs in most markets saying that the fruits and vegetables that one is purchasing are in the accordance with the Laws of the Sabbatical year. Also one can buy fruits and vegetables from non-Jewish sources where the law does not apply. In general, in Jerusalem the Sabbatical Laws are normally observed and in most markets that is all one will see. In Tel Aviv and Haifa and other less observant areas one has to watch for signage about the Sabbatical year.

Another Israel-only law is that when one moves into a new home or apartment, one has literally 24 hours to put a mezuzah on the doors of one’s home or apartment. Outside of Israel one has a full month to mount mezuzot on the doors of one’s home or apartment. The Torah is very specific about putting a mezuzah on one’s home immediately if one lives in the land of Israel.

Another law that applies generally speaking only in Israel is the building of railings around the roofs of one’s home, especially if it is a flat roof and it is being used for other purposes other than just topping off your home. In Israel, a lot of roofs are used for growing of plants and hanging of laundry, etc.

As I am writing this article I am in New York City and I am looking across the street and see all sorts of gardens on the roofs of the homes here in Manhattan. In Israel in particular there is a law that one must build a railing around one’s roof if it is going to be used for any purpose, so as to protect the safety of those on the roof from a possible fall.

Another law that we observe outside of Israel, but more strongly observed in Israel, are some of the laws related to the baking of challah. I am going to devote an entire column to the history of challah and the laws of baking challah in the near future.

Congressman Anthony Weiner is Jewish! On the positive side he has been a strong advocate for Israel and for liberal social values. But in the last few weeks we Jews have not been thinking of those accomplishments. We have instead said to ourselves — “he is Jewish. Drat!” It is so embarrassing and disappointing when someone Jewish is in the public eye for improprieties. We can just hear the anti-Semites of the world saying “see — I told you ... you can’t trust those people!”

As Jews we are proud when other Jews win a Nobel prize or are recognized for outstanding achievements in the world. And this happens pretty frequently — thank goodness. In fact it happens a lot more often than a Bernie Madoff or a Weiner. But in recent times some of the Jews who have fouled up have fouled up big — like the two I just mentioned. And when this happens we fear how it reflects on all Jews.

But it should bother us for another reason! We should be concerned not just for how it appears, but for what it says about that person. If we truly strive to be people of high integrity then we are disappointed when a Jew does something so wrong because he or she has not acted in a Godly way. He or she has fallen far from the ideals of our religion.

Golda Meir once said “I thought that a Jewish state would be free from the evils afflicting other societies: theft, murder, prostitution. But now we have all of them. And that is a thing that cuts to the heart.” he truth is that we Jews are not immune to the negative impulses of humanity nor the pitfalls of modern society.

The 21st century Western world is wonderful in many ways, but it does not encourage strong morals. We live in a culture that tends to be opportunistic, narcissistic and with no boundaries. We grow up wanting to “have it all.” We are from the ME generation, and we frequently hear sayings like “what others don’t know, won’t hurt them” and “just do it.”

Our religion teaches that all people have both a yetzer hara and a yetzer ha tov — bad and good impulses. And we are constantly choosing between them. Being part of a religion does not in and of itself, unfortunately, immunize us from poor choices. Still I believe religion can help us to make better choices. Rabbi Lawrence Kushner has said it so well: He teaches:

The goal of all spiritual life is to get your ego out of the way — outwit the sucker, dissolve it, shoot it, kill it. Silence the incessant planning, organizing, running, manipulating, possessing and processing that are the ineluctable redoubts of the ego. Not because these activities are bad or wrong or even narcissistic — indeed they are indispensible to living … but because they preclude awareness of the Divine. To paraphrase the Talmud, God says “there ain’t room enough in this here world for your ego and Me. You pick.”

He goes on to say “I now suspect that the real reason for religion is to help you keep your ego under control. And the principal strategy for accomplishing this is to acknowledge the reality of an even more important ego, the source of your ego, the source of everyone’s ego, a source into whom you might safely deposit and then dissolve your ego — with the natural but of course unguaranteeable hope that it might be returned to you. (p. xi-xii “I’m God You’re Not”)

Rabbi Kushner then talks about the first two of the Ten Commandments: (1)I am the Lord your God and (2)You shall have no other gods before Me. He says “on closer examination these two utterances turn out to be the flip sides of one another. You take one, you get the other. … If God is God, then there can be no others.  … it is as if God gets us all together at the foot of the mountain and says ‘I’ve got two things to tell you: I’m God, you’re not.’ Indeed it seems to me, we might distill the entire Torah down to that life changing but fleeting realization. The Torah is the story of what happens to people when they forget about that and when they remember it again: “I’m God, you’re not.”

Congressman Weiner belongs to a Conservative synagogue in Queens — but I wonder how much he was thinking of the lessons he learned there when he was sending explicit text messages. Being a congressman must be a very heady position. It would be easy to think — I can do whatever I want to. I am in charge. Aren’t I cool? It’s all about me …  exactly the opposite of the mindset Rabbi Kushner talks about. Gone is self effacement, concern for one’s spouse, thoughts of what would be a Godly way to act.

In Judaism, sexuality, eating, drinking — all these very earthy activities — are neither innately good nor bad. It depends on the way in which we do them. We can elevate our sexuality, for example, to a holy act. In our faith, sexuality is seen as a blessing from God as long as it is practiced in the right context. As long as it is about sharing love and commitment and not just thinking about satisfying one’s own desires.

Long ago in a Jewish text called Pirke Avot — Sayings of the Fathers — a rabbi asks the question: who is powerful? And the answer given there is “One who subdues his impulses.” “I’m God, You are not.” One of the most difficult things to do is to turn away from the seductions of our time or of any time. But in Judaism we believe this is part of the learning we are to do in life. We need to work hard to control the impulses we have that are not godly.

If we take the “I’m God, you’re not” perspective then we can no longer say — as long as I get away with it anything is fine. Why? Because we know what is wrong. And rather than just making ourselves happy, we need to try to do what will make God happy.

That is why Judaism is about mindfulness. When we say the Shema at night we remind ourselves to try to live by God’s guidelines. When we come to synagogue and pray or study — we often ask what would God want us to do? When we say the motzi — the prayer over our bread — we can use that as an opportunity to both thank God for our food and think how God wants us to use the energy that food gives us. That mindfulness can help us to make good decisions.

Religion does not cure one of wrong urges. There is no such inoculation anywhere. But it can help one to remember holy limits. It does keep before our eyes a vision of the world we would like to live in and help create. It reminds us that no matter what our culture says, life is not all about us.

Is religion the opiate of the masses? Does it control us and make us sheep. I don’t think so. Rather it can be exactly the opposite. It has the ability to wake us up to our best selves!

Rabbi Debbie Stiel originally presented this column as a sermon on June 17, 2011.

Worthless evaluation

In his Chronicle letter of July 1, Dr. Leonard M. Moss of Scottsdale claims that at a recent meeting President Obama “... repeated his commitment to Israeli security, stating that he knew what was best for the Jewish state.” Apparently Dr. Moss can provide your readers with the date and the direct quotation from President Obama so that we can all check out Dr. Moss’ contention for ourselves, just as in my letter I cited the location of the material to which I referred. Without proof his evaluation is worthless.
My previous letter was not about President Obama’s promises of security, as Dr. Moss claims. The letter was regarding President Obama’s reference to peace talks beginning with the 1967 boundaries. I stated that it has been widely publicized that those boundaries are, in fact, already the starting point of the peace agreement to which both the Palestinian Authority and the previous Israeli government theoretically agreed. See the feature article in The New York Times Magazine, Feb. 3, 2011.
As to deceit, remember Maimonides’ halachah in the Mishnah Torah, Hilchot De’ot 2:6 (B.T. Hulin 94a and b) regarding “g’neivat da’at,” “It is forbidden for a person to conduct himself with smooth and seductive words. And he should not be one thing with words and another in his heart. Rather, his insides should be as his appearances (tocho k’baro), and what is in his heart should be the same as is in his mouth. And it is forbidden to deceive (lignov da’at) anyone, including gentiles...” In plain words, Jewish law forbids knowingly leading someone, whether by omission or commission, to a conclusion the speaker knows to be false.

Rabbi Mark H. Levin, D.H.L
Congregation Beth Torah

Beware

It was interesting to read in The Chronicle (July 1) where Gov. Sam Brownback presented Unity Coalition for Israel founder Esther Levens with a special proclamation for the work her late husband had done in supporting Israel. And Esther is certainly to be commended for the work she has done, also. But as we all know, the governor is a “longtime religious right ally” who has had no problem “blurring the church-state line.” In January, he all but “turned his swearing-in ceremony into a religious revival.” I once read that what differentiates many religions from cults is that with a cult, if you don’t believe what they believe, you are going to be punished. Perhaps the time has come for Christians to acknowledge that you don’t have to believe in Jesus as your savior in order to get to heaven.
And kudos to Rabbi Mark Levin (June 10) for his use of the word “deceitful.”  Dr. Leonard Moss (July 1) must be getting too much sun in Scottsdale; either that, or he’s also one of those right-wing Republicans who would love to see President Obama fail. Could be both.

Marvin Fremerman
Ridgedale, Mo.

‘Deceitful’ implies lying

In a recent letter to the Chronicle, Rabbi Mark H. Levin, used the word “deceitful” to describe those who have voiced concern about the sincerity of President Obama’s promises of continued support for Israel’s security. Obama recently asked a gathering of Jewish Democratic Party donors to side with him in the coming months if he encounters friction with the Israeli government. He repeated his commitment to Israeli security, stating that he knew what was best for the Jewish state.
If that doesn’t send chills down your spines and cause you to check to see if the luggage is intact, nothing will. I would be the last to besmirch the integrity of the esteemed rabbi by suggesting any participation by him in what may prove to be the second most deceitful chapter in the history of the Jewish People.
I hope that Obama does not use similar tactics against Israel as he has used in Libya. A United Nations vote to establish new borders, and then threatening to use UN or NATO forces to implement may well be his back-up strategy if Israel does not accept the UN plan. We may never even know if such coercive tactics are employed.
I would never accuse someone of deceit in a public forum without having seen undisputed proof. Being deceitful implies lying. What could be worse than being called a liar by a widely respected rabbi? Opinions, observations, and conclusions are not lies. Perhaps the rabbi responded in haste or anger or was simply mistaken by his choice of words. Perhaps he was just lacking in clarity that day. Words can be used and taken in unintended ways.
Regardless, what can be considered to be blind political allegiance is evident in the continued acceptance of Barack Obama as a fair arbiter of the long conflict between Muslims and Jews over the mere existence of the State of Israel. That is my opinion based on observations that resulted in that clearly stated conclusion. To call it shilling for the Republicans or labeling it as deceitful would be inaccurate.

Leonard M. Moss, M.D.
Scottsdale, Ariz.

It’s almost Independence Day. And in surfing the Web, I came across this small snippet by Ariela Pelaia that talks about a Jewish connection to this uniquely-American celebration.

“Many Jews came to the New World following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. By the time the War of Independence erupted some 200 years later there were more than 2,000 Sephardic Jews living in America. Two of the most famous Jews who played a role in the revolution were Francis Salvador and Haym Solomon.

Francis Salvador was the first American Jew to die in the revolution, fighting for his country on the South Carolina frontier. A representative to Congress who was one of the earliest champions for Independence, his involvement on the battlefront began when the British started encouraging Indians to attack frontier families as a diversionary tactic. The first attack took place on July 1, 1776, and Salvador sounded the alarm by racing his horse to Major Andrew Williamson’s doorstep 28 miles away. He then took part in the battles that followed, fighting bravely until he was shot and scalped by Indians at 29 years of age.

The son of a rabbi, Hayim Solomon was a Polish Jew who coordinated the majority of the war aid that revolutionaries received from France and Holland. He also supported members of the Continental Congress, including James Madison and James Wilson. There are a number of unsubstantiated legends about Solomon, including the claim that he designed The Great Seal of the United States and that he placed the Star of David above the eagles head.

President George Washington later remembered the role Jews played in the Revolution in a August 1790 letter to the Touro Synagogue of Newport, R.I, writing:

“May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in the land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants. While everyone shall sit safely under his own vine and fig-tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

As we celebrate the Fourth of July, not only should we remember the Jewish connection, but let us pause and give thanks to all those — past and present — who risk(ed) their lives so we might live in freedom.

We know a story of a circumcision scheduled, as is traditional, on the eighth day after a Jewish boy is born. This bris was planned for the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, on the West coast. After the events on the East coast became known to the friends and family members preparing for the bris, the grandmother of the baby called to see whether the circumcision would be delayed or canceled.

“Of course not!” was the resounding response, “circumcision happens in the Jewish tradition on the eighth day. It cannot and must not be delayed.”

The only way to counter an act of hatred, violence, and sadness was to proceed with the welcoming of new life into a sacred covenantal relationship with God. The only way to highlight the gravity of the international loss and devastation was to celebrate a cherished tenant of America: the right to freedom of religious expression.

As the director and the chair of the Berit Mila Program of Reform Judaism, we are deeply troubled by the initiative in San Francisco to criminalize circumcision. If the ballot measure passes, performing a central tenant of our religion will become a misdemeanor, punishable by law.

For thousands of years, Jews around the world have practiced this ritual; circumcision is fundamental to the practice of Judaism.  Muslims also consider circumcision central to their faith.

Federal law protects parents’ rights to direct the religious upbringing and education of their children. In Jewish tradition, the eighth day of a boy’s life is when he is welcomed into the covenant of Judaism. A circumcision (or, berit/bris) is performed by a physician or a mohel (a trained expert in performing circumcisions) as a physical sign — a daily reminder upon the body— of this everlasting covenant with God.

As such, the proposed ban against circumcision is an attack on religious freedom. Passing this bill would turn back the clock on a right so fundamental to this country that its paramount valuation dates back to the very roots of colonial America.

Our Constitution does not permit government to restrict the free exercise of religion without a showing of overwhelming compelling social interest, or the saving of life. In this case there is no such justification. Though supporters of the ban claim that circumcision is comparable with female genital mutilation, this is a blatant misrepresentation.

Female genital mutilation is rightfully illegal here, as it is performed for the explicit purpose of preventing female sexual satisfaction, and often impedes the very functioning of the reproductive and urinary systems. Yet the American Medical Association is clear that there is no credible medical evidence that male circumcision is similarly impedimental to proper function of the penis, or that it prevents male satisfaction. Individuals properly trained provide a safe surgical procedure that benefits both the medical and religious purposes for which it was intended.

That said it is also endorsed by many major medical institutions and physicians because of proven health benefits, including reduced risk HIV transmission, reduced chance of urinary tract infection, and diminished risk of penile and other cancers.

People of all religions, ethnicities, and cultural backgrounds have sought new lives in San Francisco to advance the very frontiers of liberty — including religious liberty. The proposed ordinance targets a well-established religious practice of Jews and Muslims and denies parents a right to make a fundamental decision about the religious, cultural, and ethnic upbringing of their children. It is not only un-American, it is profoundly un-San Franciscan.

Dr. Michael Blum is a board certified pediatrician and mohel  practicing in Overland Park, Kan. He is the chair  of the Berit Mila Board of Reform Judaism.                  Rabbi Julie Adler received her master’s degrees from the University of Judaism and from Harvard Graduate School of Education and was ordained as a rabbi by Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion. She is the director of the Berit Mila Program of Reform Judaism.