We celebrate, we grieve

Since the holidays ended, we have done both.



The week after Sukkot, we were invited to a friend's bar mitzvah in Bnei Brak, followed the next night by a cousin's wedding in Jerusalem. Then my sister in the states announced her engagement (to a New Yorker, oddly). Over Shabbat we celebrated the birth of a girl to friends from shul, and the following week we attended the bat mitzvah of a relative.



The next morning I was informed of the death of a remarkable young man after an illness which struck him suddenly just weeks earlier.



Rabbi Selim Dweck z"l was about my age. I knew him some 15 years ago when we were not long out of high school. We spent a year in yeshiva together. I haven't seen him much since then. I remember his gentle humility, his sharp analytical mind, his warmth towards others.



Living in New York until recently, Rabbi Dweck taught at the Yeshiva of Flatbush high school and the Drisha Institute. This summer he fulfilled a dream and came on aliyah to Israel with his wife and two daughters. Within months, he was taken.



Hundreds of mourners crowded the funeral hall in Jerusalem to bid farewell to young Selim, including countless former teachers, classmates and students. Eulogies were delivered in English and Hebrew, seasoned by the elegant Hebrew of his family's community of Aleppo, Syria.



There is something chilling about the loss of someone your own age. I suspect this is true no matter how old you are. It touches a different place in the soul than the loss of a parent, God forbid, or even a child, lo aleinu. The grief may be less intense, but it is accompanied by a shudder: "That could have been me."



That shudder gives life an added urgency. Long-term planning seems a bit naive. Who knows what tomorrow may bring? Think about the legacy you hope to leave future generations. Use today wisely; accomplish what you can while you still can. Cliches, yes, but nonetheless true.



Life can be seen, to wax philosophical, as a constant struggle against the inevitability of its deterioration. Shortly after we reach physical maturity we already begin to decline. We are destined to fight entropy, and we prevail - not by reversing the laws of physics or biology, but by employing them to create new life. Hopefully, we can leave the world with more life than we take from it when our time ends.



To me, this explains why Adam and Eve are described in the Torah as having children only after they learn of their own mortality. Isaac, too, finds comfort for his mother's death only when he marries. The inevitability of death is the surest impetus to create life. The two are inseparable.



Thus, the negative population growth prevalent in most of the developed world today - and most of the Jewish world, outside Israel - is itself tragic. It indicates a collective forfeiture of the will to live, a succumbing to death. It implies a certain selfishness, a preference for a comfortable life today over sacrificing to make tomorrow's world more vibrant.



(Going out on a limb, I might suggest that this difference in priorities, between creating new life and making existing lives more comfortable, between positive and negative natural population growth, correlates with differences in political and religious attitudes between Europe and the U.S. and perhaps between "blue" and "red" America. But that may be taking things too far.)



In this balance, Jews traditionally come down firmly on the side of the creation of new life. So we'll be attending another wedding this week and a baby shower next week (not for the same couple!). And we look forward, please God, to being blessed with children of our own.



Faced with the inexplicable untimely deaths of young people full of potential, the only response is to choose life.

Terrorism: only for consenting adults - II

Blogger Dov Bear has taken me to task * for my critique of Human Rights Watch's press release on child suicide bombers.



I've taken my time in responding partly because I've been busy, partly because I want to get it right, and partly because I suspect he's trolling for attention.



First, I did not say that HRW "approves of suicide attacks on Israel". I even quoted their perfunctory remark that "any attack on civilians is prohibited by international law".



I admit I was remiss in not noting that the organization has consistently condemned Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. This is true, and should be commended.



But my claim was not that HRW approves of terrorism against Israelis, just that it "doesn't seem terribly concerned" about it. In other words, that their concerns are misprioritized. The press release on child bombers is an excellent example of this.



First, the language of the press release does not indicate substantial concern. Noting that attacks on civilians are "prohibited by international law" is a statement of fact, not an expression of concern or disapproval. It includes neither condemnation nor calls to action to prevent such attacks. By contrast, the statement does call on "Palestinian armed groups" to "immediately end all use of children in military attacks".



Attacks against Israelis are not even specifically criticized, but merely subsumed among "any attack on civilians". The press release lists many child suicide bombers by name, but not a single Israeli victim.



Second, I reject HRW's assertion that a suicide bombing by a minor is somehow more "egregious" than one committed by an adult. What is egregious about a suicide bombing is the deliberate targeting of civilians. It is no less egregious when committed by an adult, nor is the bomber the victim. Focusing on the age of the bomber rather than the identity of the victims seems grossly distorted.



Third, the press release manages to address various issues tangential to its main point - just not this one. Along with criticizing Palestinian terror groups for endangering Palestinian children, it criticizes Israel for endangering Palestinian children (as I noted previously, without pointing out that they may be combatants). It calls on Israel to ratify an international treaty on childrens' rights and describes Ariel as "an illegal West Bank settlement". Somehow, though, there is no room in the text for a condemnation of suicide bombings against Israel, sympathy for Israeli victims of terrorism, or a call to the Palestinian Authority or terrorist groups to end all attacks on civilians unconditionally. All of these are more directly relevant to the topic at hand than some of the issues which were included in the statement.



In short, I stand by my assessment that HRW "doesn't seem terribly concerned with the continuing terror attacks against Israeli civilians".





Coincidentally, last Friday the Jerusalem Post ran an interview with HRW head Kenneth Roth, in which he defends his organization's record on Israel.



On the other side, critiques of HRW's record on Israel can be found in this Jerusalem Post editorial, these commentaries by Anne Bayefsky, and this one by Gerald Steinberg. Readers can, of course, draw their own conclusions by browsing HRW's repository of press releases on Israel and the Palestinian Authority.



I think it's pretty clear where their priorities lie.

---

* Actually, that's putting it mildly. He's accused me of an "amateurish hack job", says I've "been demolished", and "can't see straight." On the last point, I confess he's correct - I've worn glasses since fifth grade. I guess I should add "glasses-wearing" to the chain of hyphenated descriptors in "About Me".



Still, it's odd to be charged with a hack job by someone who describes Bush supporters as "bible-thumping hillbillies" and "the great unwashed out in the American Gobi who dearly love the baby Jesus". Such subtle wit! Such intellectual precision!



Maybe he should adjust his own glasses while he's at it?

BBC reporter cries for Arafat

In today's lead editorial, London's Sunday Telegraph writes:

Unseemly tears



Many listeners to the BBC were rightly outraged last week by the broadcast from its Middle East correspondent, Barbara Plett, in which she cloyingly described how she wept as Yasser Arafat was airlifted from Ramallah for medical treatment.



She said: "When the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry . . . without warning." Almost as a footnote, she later admitted that an "ambivalence towards violence" was one of his failings.



When Mr Arafat took over the PLO in the 1960s, he supported a campaign of hijackings and bombings which acted as the foundation for much of the escalating Middle Eastern terrorism of today. He summarily rejected the 2000 Camp David deal, which offered a generous compromise between Israelis and Palestinians, and his Palestinian Authority has since been linked to funding Palestinian terrorists.



Ms Plett's flood of feeling is just the most overt and recent manifestation of a pro-Palestinian bias endemic within the BBC. As a publicly-funded organisation, it should remember that it is not paid to take sides. As things stand, however, we might conclude that Mr Arafat's culpable "ambivalence towards violence" is echoed by our national broadcaster.

As they say in the House of Commons: Hear, hear!

Locusts, yum!

Israel is not-so-eagerly awaiting a potential invasion of locusts. Swarms of the crop-devouring insects originated in northeast Africa in September, and have recently reached nearby Cyprus. Yesterday, scattered locust sightings were reported along Israel's Mediterranean coastline. Hopefully they will be controlled before they spread. (Report sightings to the Agriculture Ministry at 03-968-1500!)



Locust plagues are rare in recent decades, with the advent of international radar tracking and effective pesticides. The last plague to hit Israel was in 1959.



In normal circumstances, desert locusts live on their own like other kinds of grasshoppers. Rainy conditions encourage them to multiply, sometimes faster than the available food. When this happens, they change their behavior and start to swarm, migrating large distances in search of new food sources - which they devour in turn.



Fortunately, locusts are kosher. A swarm of locusts can destroy all vegetation across vast areas of land. Before modern food preservation techniques and large-scale food importation, virtually the only food available during a locust plague would have been locusts.



In practical terms, however, most Jewish communities outside Yemen and North Africa gave up eating locusts centuries ago. Whether they should be permitted today is a question for Israel's rabbis. I don't know whether any leading authorities have ruled on it. (Like fish, locusts are parve and need not be slaughtered before cooking.)



I also doubt I'd have the courage to sample this high-protein nosh.



In case the locusts arrive and your rabbi says yes, you might try some of these recipes. B'teyavon!

Terrorism: only for consenting adults

Occupied Territories: Stop Use of Children in Suicide Bombings



(New York, November 3, 2004) -- Palestinian armed groups should immediately end all use of children in military attacks, Human Rights Watch said today, following a Tel Aviv suicide bombing by a 16-year-old that killed three Israeli civilians Monday.



....



“Any attack on civilians is prohibited by international law, but using children for suicide attacks is particularly egregious,” said Jo Becker, children’s rights advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “Palestinian armed groups must clearly and publicly condemn all use of children under the age of 18 for military activities, and make sure these policies are carried out.”

Aside from noting by-the-way that "any attack on civilians is prohibited by international law," Human Rights Watch doesn't seem terribly concerned with the continuing terror attacks against Israeli civilians - so long as they're committed by consenting adults! The Palestinian "armed groups" aren't called on to end such attacks in general - and the Palestinian Authority is not, even implicitly, called on to try to prevent them.



Israel is, however, criticized for endangering minors:

Human Rights Watch further called on Israel to take effective measures to protect the lives of all civilians, particularly children. During the October incursions of the Israeli army into Gaza one quarter of the more than 130 Palestinians killed were aged 18 years and under.

"All civilians, particularly children"! From the first half of the press release, it's abundantly clear that Palestinian children are not necessarily civilians; they may well be combatants. How many of the "children" killed in October were participating in the fighting at the time? HRW doesn't even ask the question.



Do they realize press releases like this one undermine their own credibility on human rights?

Subverting Israel's constitution

Seeing what us mere mortals fail to see, Jerusalem Post columnist Evelyn Gordon points out that "Sharon has already stretched the rules [of Israeli democracy] dangerously close to the breaking point" by forcing through his disengagement plan despite the opposition of his own party and government, and the loss of the Knesset's confidence. She writes:

None of these issues greatly bother Israel's chattering class, where the dominant view is that the end of dismantling settlements justifies any means, even the subversion of Israel's constitutional structure.



With a few exceptions – Yuli Tamir and Yossi Beilin come to mind – almost no one on the Left has dared to say that the rules of the game have value in and of themselves, regardless of whether or not one likes the outcome.



But they do, and this ought to be of supreme concern to all Israelis – because it is only the rules of the democratic game that have allowed a politically and religiously fractured nation to live together for half a century.



If these rules are shattered beyond repair – if too many Israelis become convinced that all that matters is seizing power, by any and every means – this country will not long survive.

She concludes by urging either new elections or a referendum on disengagement to reestablish democratic legitimacy.



Unfortunately, a referendum would be just as constitutionally problematic as the current situation. Israel has no constitutional provision allowing for referenda. Holding one would require special constitutional legislation for the sole purpose of rescuing Sharon's disengagement plan.



Amending the constitutional structure to suit the needs of the moment is always a bad idea. It is an option chosen too frequently by Israeli governments. I'm surprised to see Evy endorsing it.

Morning-after observations

• Congratulations, Mr. President! May you lead your nation wisely for the next four years.
  
  
  
  
• Well done, Senator Kerry! You ran a great campaign, came back from behind and nearly won. There will be plenty of Democratic hand-wringing; they should try to maintain some perspective. It basically came down to a coin toss.
  
  
  
  
• The Republicans should avoid triumphalism. They came this close to losing the election, despite a majority of the popular votes. Though their congressional accomplishments were impressive and should prod some Democratic rethinking.
  
  
  
  
• It's nice to be right once in a while. I'm also glad not to have to see the results I expected from a Bush loss.
  
  
  
  
• I watched the results on CNN, the only American network I see here in Israel. CNN's main commentators were Wolf Blitzer, Jeff Greenfield, Larry King and Bill Schneider, along with occasional statisticians and lawyers. Once in a while they brought in some goyim for diversity.
  
  
  
  
• Despite the smears, this campaign was, for the most part, serious and issue-focused. Election day glitches were minimal. Overall, a model of democracy.
  
  
  
  
• After four tumultuous years, it's striking how close this year's results were to 2000's. Nearly every state voted the same way. I'm guessing this pattern will break next time around. It will be interesting to see the candidate and party which make that happen.
  
  
  
  
• Bush's solid majority of the popular vote, ironically, points to one of the strengths of the electoral college. Bush won his states by larger margins than Kerry won his. It's a good thing for democracy that he wouldn't have helped his position by trying to run up even larger majorities in his core states, rather than reaching out to the battlegrounds.
  
  
  
  
• On average, the polls were accurate. Bush led by 3% in the popular vote; most of the expected battleground states were in fact close, and all of the close states were on the list of battlegrounds. The polls couldn't meaningfully forecast the overall winner because there were too many contested states. That's why we govern by elections, not opinion polls.
  
  
  
  
• On the other hand, the exit polls were disastrous. Whether that's due to sample size, or sample selection, or something else, I don't know. But the claim that exit polls are more accurate than random surveys appears to be bunk. If the exit polls were so far off regarding voting preferences, why should anyone believe their figures regarding demographic breakdown?
  
  
  
  
• Unlike some Americans in Israel, I have no ethical qualms about voting in American elections: 1. It's my constitutional right. Why shouldn't I? 2. The results affect me directly - not the same way they affect American residents, but then again no two residents are affected the same way either. 3. No taxation without representation - the U.S. reserves the right to tax expats. But mostly: 4. My wife and I cast our votes in solidly Democratic states, so our votes couldn't possibly affect the election results anyway!
  
  
  
  
• Bush shouldn't celebrate for too long. He faces some tremendous challenges in governing, and has long outlived his honeymoon. In the long run, Kerry might be grateful to have lost. Few presidents have started a second term in such a divisive environment, though the sympathetic Congress will help. Americans generally tire even of popular presidents after six years, and Bush is hardly that popular to start with. Without knowing who will run on each side, I would say the Republicans are unlikely to hold the White House in 2008.
  
  

The terminal is closed; long live the new terminal!

Landing yesterday morning at Ben Gurion Airport, we taxied past a gleaming new building, eagerly anticipating its first visitors. The plane came to a stop on the tarmac, and we walked down the stairs into the dawn sunlight to board the shuttle bus to Terminal 1 (there was a time when I naively assumed this was for security reasons). For the last time, we walked from the bus through the doors to the passport control hall, and waited with exhausted patience as the border control agents stamped travel documents.



This morning, Terminal 1 closed. Takeoffs and landings relocated to the new Terminal 3, a modern international terminal with moving sidewalks, closed walkways between the terminal and the planes, and world class duty free shopping. A new rail line links the terminal directly with central Tel Aviv. No longer will travelers to Israel arrive in a building resembling an overgrown bus terminal.



Passing the airport on my way to work this morning, I watched the landing of what must have been the last flight to arrive at the old terminal. Shehecheyanu v'kiyimanu v'higiyanu lazman hazeh.

Remember: Bet b'November

The U.S. elections may be overwhelming the headlines, but Jews should remember that today was once observed as a quasi-holiday by Jews around the world. Balfour Day, known in Hebrew as Bet b'November, marks the November 2, 1917 issuance of the Balfour Declaration by the British government.



Its text:

"His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

This was the first declaration of official support for Zionism by a world government. On its basis, Britain was awarded the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after World War I, with the explicit purpose of implementing the Balfour Declaration and building a Jewish national home in the ancient Jewish homeland.



The Balfour Declaration was a key achievement in the process of establishing the State of Israel. Naturally, the actual establishment of the state has overshadowed pre-state milestones, but still it is a shame that Balfour Day has been nearly forgotten by Jews today, in Israel and abroad. If we forget the historical basis for Israel's legitimacy, we concede one more front in our struggle for survival to our enemies.

Coexistence in the desert?

In her latest "Letter from Israel", Leiah Elbaum visits a Judean desert oasis, listens to the radio, and observes various forms of "coexistence".