Oak Park Temple
B'nai Abraham Zion

1235 N. Harlem Avenue
Oak Park, IL 60302
(708) 386-3937

BIMHEIRAH B'YAMAINU - SPEEDILY, IN OUR OWN TIME

Yom Kippur Morning 5762

Since last year, when the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians came to a halt and the Second Intifada began, many of you have spoken with great poignancy about your anger and your despair. At no time do I remember the Jewish community being so disheartened. For some of us, emotional numbness and withdrawal are setting in - as though the brain were prescribing anesthesia after too much pain.

And many of us are deeply conflicted. On the one hand, we are outraged by the deaths of innocent Israelis, the specious accusations that Zionism is racism, and the one-sided news reports that fail to do justice to the Israeli side of the equation. On the other hand, we may be distressed with the right wing religious and political establishments in Israel, which have been gradually transforming her into a colonizing power insensitive to the legitimate aspirations and human rights of the Palestinian people.

And so I embark on this sermon with some significant trepidation, knowing that to this situation there are many truths, and that whatever I say will probably please some of you, and at the same time, anger others. That being said, I will try to honor the words of Rabbi Leo Jung, words that I have had made into a watchword that I keep before me in my office: "The rabbi owes to his people not only his industry but his judgement, and he betrays instead of serves them if he sacrifices it to their opinion; a rabbi who asks only whether a thing is popular or unpopular instead of seeking to know whether it is right or wrong, is a coward to begin with and a menace always."

Let there be no doubt that I am committed to the State of Israel as the homeland, refuge, and repository of the collective memory of our people. I was raised in a home that honored the vision, the industry, and the ideals of her founders. After the War of Independence in 1948, the Sinai Incursion of 1956, and the Six Day War of 1967, Israel's refusal to return Gaza and the West Bank to Arab control was intelligible. Who can forget the Arab desecration of Jewish holy sites, the harvesting of Jewish tomb stones to pave roads, and the piling of garbage and dung at the Western Wall? But given Israel's military strength today, and the suffering that the Palestinians are increasingly experiencing at the hands of an ever more obdurate Israeli government, I can find no logic that justifies building Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory, and displacing innocent people, particularly the Bedouins, who have fought and died for Israel in prior wars.

Unfortunately, some of my colleagues see no shades of grey in the Middle East --only black and white. Listen to the words of one rabbi who writes, "The hostility that produces suicide bombers, arising from the deepest level of consciousness, is intractable because it is primitive; it is instilled at birth. The encounter is between a progressive eclectic civilization, Judaism, and a retrogressive Islam." He then goes on to cite Ecclesiastes that "there is a time for war." And he is telling his congregation that now is the time for it. And there are other rabbis, who also feed into this sentiment. On Tisha B'Av, one prefaced the reading of Lamentations with an hour long harangue defending the creation of new settlements as an appropriate response to Israel's enemies. This Rabbi praised the "faith" of families who had lost loved ones in these senseless attacks. In his mind, they were martyrs whose contribution should be celebrated with "joy."

Of course the circumstances were different, but it's not so very far from this perspective to that of the Palestinian father who would rather his son were killed in a successful terrorist attack against innocent Jews, than his having been caught and remain alive in an Israeli prison. Both approaches celebrate a culture of death and oppression that justifies almost any response. Under these circumstances it's easy to become an extremist, and this is the challenge that Israel and World Jewry face: not to be blinded by hatred; that while Israel may and should use force to hold back the violence, violence should never become a means unto itself.

Over the past year, under Prime Minister Barak and now Shimon Peres, Foreign Minister under Ariel Sharon, Israel has attempted to return to the negotiating table with the Palestinians. But Israel, and all of us who are Ohavei Tzion, Lovers of Zion, ask: "With whom is there to talk? Why aren't there any leaders with whom Israel can sit at the negotiating table in good faith?" Though I possess no special knowledge to support this view, I suspect that Yassir Arafat has been cowed by Fatah and Hamas and Hezbollah and Jihad, and is mindful of the fate of Anwar Sadat and Yitzchak Rabin, who had the moral courage to seek peace, but were assassinated in its pursuit. I would not at all be surprised to learn that Arafat rejected Prime Minister Barak's undreamed of concessions, and failed to offer any kind of alternative, less because the offer wasn't a good place from which to start, than because his signing onto it would be his death sentence. It is my hope that there may be at least one positive outcome to the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon - that moderate Arab nations, now recognizing how it is in their best interests to quash terrorism, will restrain Arab extremists and Moslem Fundamentalists. Thus, a Palestinian leader would be enabled to return to the negotiating table, this time, hopefully, in good faith.

We hear a great deal about the Arab hatred of Jews but we know very little about the Jewish hatred of Arabs. Of course we can understand why Israelis resent their neighbors. But if there is ever to be peace, we need to understand the other side as well. And so I've tried to ask myself what created the culture that seems to dominate the Palestinian community. How can someone throw their life away? It's easy for us to dismiss such actions as "blood thirsty," as "savage," and "evil." But we can't address this culture unless we understand it. There's a history here. What we're witnessing is a product of generations of suffering in this community.

Does that justify murder? Absolutely not. But if you had your home taken away as many Israeli historians now acknowledge, and if you've lived your entire life amid the filth of a refugee camp and if you've been spat upon by Israeli soldiers and stood by as they demolished your home, then you might become resentful and hateful, too. And if you had nothing to live for, it would become so much easier to sacrifice your life particularly when there's a promise of eternal life.
Knowing this, now let us remember the words of Leviticus we will read this afternoon: "When strangers live with you in your land, you must not oppress them. The strangers who live with you shall be to you like citizens, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt; I, the Lord am your God." (Lev. 19:34)

The way I see it, Israel has two choices. One is to follow the dark vision of Meir Kahane and the other is to remain resolute and determined in its desire for peace. There's no telling how long this will take. But to choose Kahane is to become a nation little different from the worst of Israel's neighbors: Syria, Libya, South Yemen, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. And this can only lead to spiritual suicide.

My concern that we do not fall prey to right wing rhetoric and extremism is guided as much out of my fear for the soul of Israel and the Jewish people as it is for the human dignity and rights of the Palestinians. As I see it, the two most extreme groups in Israel today - the secular right followers of Ariel Sharon, and the Ultra Orthodox right of the Haredi Jews compromise the core values of Judaism and of the cultural and labor Zionists who pioneered the land. Given the fortress mentality that is consuming Israel, I am afraid that the voices of moderation will be the first to go - not only because of Palestinian terrorist attacks, but because of the loss of the Jewish soul in the Jewish state.

We can learn a wise lesson from Shimon Peres, who says that the choices are not black and white. In a conference call several weeks ago, he said, "If we do not negotiate with the current Palestinian leadership, we will push the Palestinian people into the arms of Hamas or Islamic Jihad and the growing arms of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. We need to distinguish between Palestinians and Palestinians. The leadership is not always the same as the people. We need to remember that not all Palestinians are the same. Palestinians are victims of the situation as well."

So what should we do? First of all, we must not give in to apathy and despair, for these are forbidden to a Jew. We ought to resume our travels to Israel and sending our young people to well-marshaled programs out of harm's way. We should also join with Israelis in singing the words of a song based on a saying of Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, "Kol haolam kulo gesher tza'ar me'od," "The whole world is a narrow bridge, and the main thing, the most important thing is not to be afraid."

Secondly, I would have us draw counsel from the watchword of our congregation, the words inscribed on the front of our Temple building: "Al shloshah devarim haolam kayyam, al haemet, ve'al hadin, ve'al hashalom," The world is sustained by three things: by truth, by justice, and by peace." Without truth, there can be no justice, and without justice, there can be no lasting peace.
TRUTH: For us to be able to act, we must have knowledge, the full range of perspectives on what might be done. For action to be judicious, it must be well informed. I know that some of you believe that this congregation ought to adopt a single position so as to enable the most focused response and support for Israel. I do, in fact, believe that eventually, we will arrive at a predominant position, but I do not think it should be out of a lack of understanding of the range of views that obtain in Israel. Rather, let us be like Israel itself, where that range of views is heard in Knesset daily. If it is good enough for the irrepressible, argumentative, passionately democratic Jewish state, which has proportionately sustained far greater loss of human lives at the hands of terrorists, then it should be good enough for us as well.

What would I have you know? First of all, that Israel isn't about to go away. It is a reality -- a historical and a religious truth that will not change. One can't read the Torah without recognizing the centrality of the land to Jewish life. From 'Lech Lecha' to 'V'zot Habrachah,' it's about the promise of the land. For thousands of years we have been dreaming about Israel, traveling there or trying to remain there. Israel was never far from our thoughts and our hearts.
Secondly, I would have you know that the assertion that Zionism is racism is a lie - an enormous lie. Consider that in this past year, Black Jews continued to come to Israel from Ethiopia. You should know that no African state, no black state, was willing to take in a single person from Ethiopia, even though the people there are suffering from drought. Israel did. You should know that not one European state was willing to take in a single person from Ethiopia, even though the people there are starving. Israel did. You should know that none of the countries that went to Durban and voted to call Israel racist was willing to take in a single person from Ethiopia this year. Israel did.

Zionism is a form of nationalism, and the forming of the State of Israel was an act of affirmative action on the part of the United Nations to rectify a history of the oppression of Jews. And were it not for the rhetoric of the Arab bloc and the power it exerts through intimidation and the currency of oil, the United Nations would be far friendlier. If Israel and racism are to be coupled, it is the illegitimate and racist actions by Palestinians who sought to prevent Jews from immigrating to Palestine when the Jews were the refugees climbing out of the crematoria and gas chambers of Europe or fleeing from racist mobs in Islamic countries. In light of this, the establishment of a specifically Jewish state with special rights for Jews, including the right of return, is not anymore racist than other policies in other societies which seek to rectify historical oppression by giving special rights to the group that has been previously oppressed.

It was no less than the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who wrote to a detractor of Israel saying, "You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops . . . . When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews . . . . And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the globe."

Finally, I would have you know the range of Israeli opinion on how to proceed is now roughly divided into four positions. The ever-harder right wants to reoccupy the territories, crush the Palestinian Authority, and force Arafat into exile if not eliminate him. A popular new Kahanist slogan on the back of tee shirts worn by right-wingers is "Im ein aravim, ein piguim," "If there are no Arabs there will be no attacks."

A second position held by the majority in the government, including the Likud, is wary of an all-out mini-war against the Palestinian Authority.
The third position is held by the majority of the left, center, and center right wants to disengage unilaterally from the territories, abandoning many of the settlements in the process, and to be a wall to keep the Palestinians out.

And the final position is taken by a small part of the dovish left, led by Yossi Beilin, which remains committed to the Oslo process and to the goal of a negotiated settlement with the Arafat-led Palestinian Authority. Beilin argues that an Israeli withdrawal from the territories will not end the violence, but will rather give the Palestinians a basis for interpreting the withdrawal as weakness, and foster still more attacks. No wall will be high enough to prevent artillery bombardment, terrorist attacks, and the kidnaping of Israeli soldiers as was the case in Lebanon.

JUSTICE:
Now what would I have you do? First of all, I would ask you to act on behalf of the truth. We need to challenge the media which consistently present only the Arab side of the Israeli-Palestinian equation. I am thinking, for example, of the Chicago Tribune. Do you remember the front page article a number of weeks ago which spoke sympathetically of the poor Palestinian father who was distraught that his terrorist son was not able to give his life destroying innocent Jewish lives?

Or consider the supposedly objective reporting of Tribune Foreign Correspondent Hugh Dellios. What he reports really belongs on the Editorial page. Last week, for example, he wrote a front page piece in which reported that: "Under pressure not to interfere with American efforts to build a global coalition to combat terrorism, the Israeli army began withdrawing tanks from Palestinian cities Tuesday." In doing so, Dellios continues his stance that Israel is an obstruction to American interests. Now listen to how the same events were reported in the New York Times by James Bennet: "The Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat instructed his security forces today to hold their fire even in self-defense, and Israel then said it would refrain from any offensive action, pulling its tanks and troops out of Palestinian-controlled territory." Perhaps having been caught in his distortion, on the next day, buried on page 24 of the Tribune, Dellios reversed what he said previously on the front page and stated: "Under U.S. pressure to end the violence, Arafat on Tuesday ordered his security forces to halt all shooting at the Israelis, even in self-defense. Israel responded by withdrawing tanks and troops from two Palestinian cities and ordering its army to stop all "initiated" attacks." Nowhere did the Tribune indicate that the front page story on the previous day was inaccurate. Perhaps the Tribune buried this on page 24 in the attempt to protect itself from accusations of one-sidedness. Whatever the case, it did not categorize the second story as a retraction or correction.

It is for reasons such as this that CAMERA came into existence. CAMERA is The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, midwifed by Alan Dershowitz. When I spoke with the Development Director of CAMERA two weeks ago, he indicated that one of their senior-most staff people has been assigned specifically to The Tribune due to its distortions of the news.

In addition, several Chicago rabbis have asked their congregants to drop their subscriptions to the Tribune. One rabbi, in conjunction with a key Jewish business leader, has been writing to Jews to ask them to refrain from advertising in the Tribune.

The fact is that too many newspapers, news magazines, and news networks, treat the rights and wrongs of the past year simplistically - as a box score of Palestinian dead vs. Jewish dead. They fail to adequately ask: "Who initiated the violence and why, and were those killed deliberately murdered or killed in military confrontations?" For too many, all of this is irrelevant because it involves more than sound bites or one paragraph summaries.

We have placed materials about CAMERA on the information tables in the Rotunda. I hope you will take a brochure and then consider supporting this truth-seeking group. I would also ask you write to the Tribune, CNN, and any other media that you believe distort the news, paint Israel as the aggressor, or malign Israel when it tries to defend itself against sneak attacks. Would that the United States were as prepared as Israel, when terrorists attacked us two weeks ago.

In addition, you will find materials from organizations that I believe best serve the interests of peace with justice and human rights for all: our own ARZA-World Union for Progressive Judaism, the Israel Religious Action Center, and the New Israel Fund.

On a final matter, I once joined with those who say that Israel should unilaterally withdraw from the territories and build a wall to keep the Palestinians out. Then I realized that this could involve the dismantling, or even worse, the destroying of part of whatever infrastructure the Palestinians have. And I remembered that the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of post World War II Europe was one of the wisest political and economic actions this country ever took, and a proud display of nobility, compassion, and human decency for which America is still esteemed today. Beyond this, no wall would ever be high enough to keep terrorists out - having watched planes crash into two of our tallest buildings, we now know that physical walls and the buffer of oceans or unoccupied space are no protection against terrorism.

I believe that the single greatest impediment to peace Israel poses are the settlements. Though Israel did not intentionally go about the conquest and annexation of lands, the Six Day War launched against Israel produced the unintended result that Israel would become an occupying, and under Ariel Sharon, a colonial power. A number of years ago, Sharon was appointed Minister of Agriculture and Chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Settlement. One of the first things he did was to permit dozens of settlements to be built on the occupied territories. When a reporter visited Sharon in his office, he noted a large map of the territories on the wall behind Sharon. The map was stuck with pins representing each of the settlements. The reporter observed that with so many settlements scattered throughout Palestinian territory, drawing boundaries during peace negotiations would be most difficult. To this Sharon replied, "that's exactly the idea."

Prime Minister Ehud Barak was more than courageous in his offer of shared sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem. I would hope that sufficient trust can be built up between Israel and the Palestinians to permit the reconsideration of this proposal, so long as Jewish holy sites remain secure. And if and when Israel does withdraw from the territories, I hope it will be in a way that enables a newly-born Palestinian nation to secure its infrastructure, drawing in part on Israel expertise. As I have said in past years, the only potential force for surmounting nationalist and religious antagonisms is the force for economic improvement. If nothing else, international dollars will far more likely flow into Israeli and Palestinian coffers if stability is ever achieved.
For now, I believe we should call on Ariel Sharon to immediately put a freeze on the building of new settlements and to start looking for Israeli property on which to settle new immigrants and decommissioned Israeli soldiers.

In the end, we must be vocal and strong in our support of Israel. We cannot turn away in confusion or apathy. We must let the Israeli people know we are behind them. We can't allow ourselves to be intimidated by hatred. But we must also urge Israel's leaders to honor the human rights of the Palestinian people and to cease demonizing them. Eventually there must be negotiations and peace.

PEACE: Finally, we can pray. I would like to conclude this morning with a prayer of hope for peace.

Until Israelis and Palestinians can feel each other's suffering, there can be no peace.

Until they can each acknowledge the other's humanity, there can be no peace.
Until we can learn to speak the truth rather than rhetoric and platitudes, there can be no peace.
Until we recognize that the land is big enough for all of us, there can be no peace.
Until we can say we're all God's children, there can be no peace.
And until Israelis and Palestinians truly want it, there will be no peace.
Let us hope and pray that one day there will be peace. May it be Bimhayrah biyamaynu - speedily in our day. Amen.

September 27, 2001