A FLAWED G-D
The implications of Rabbi Bradley Artson's thinking in "G-d is Becoming: Consolation in the Face of Tragedy" (Tikkun, May/June 2009) are the following:
1. G-d exists.
2. G-d is not omniscient.
3. G-d is not omnipotent.
4. G-d is all-loving but not omnipotent.
Rabbi Artson shares Rabbi Harold Kushner's belief in a loving G-d who is powerless to help us. In addition, he states that G-d experiences our sorrows and joys. Unfortunately, his statements are not compelling arguments for the existence of a loving G-d who is not omnipotent or omniscient. They are beliefs, perhaps wishes, that a loving G-d exists and cares for us. At best, they are unproved hypotheses that such a G-d exists.
Furthermore, he does not present a compelling argument for the very existence of G-d. A universe that runs according to the laws of physics, with no interference from G-d, may simply be a G-dless universe. Indeed, if G-d exists and if He "did irrevocable tzimtzum (withdrawal)," He is merely a fugitive G-d who created the universe and vanished. Do we wish to pray to such a G-d? On the other hand, if G-d is hidden but present in the universe, watching us struggle with earthly evil but powerless to interfere with natural laws, do we wish to pray to such a G-d for comfort and emotional strength?
I used to be comforted by the theory of a compassionate G-d unable to help us. Now, the notion of a flawed G-d saddens and enrages me. Can I believe that a G-d who created the universe by tzimtzum (contraction or concealment) is powerless to help us in our time of need? The very act of creation is a miracle. Indeed, creation from nothingness appears to be the greatest magic trick ever performed. If G-d created the universe, He also created the laws of physics. But if G-d is Mother Nature and nothing more, governed by the laws of physics, perhaps we should pray to the wind, rain, snow, and fire and the earth, stars, and sun. In any case, Rabbi Artson's article is merely a beautiful theoretical conceptualization. I wish it were true. But who knows?
Nevertheless, I confess that I am a passionate seeker of G-d. Every day, I search for proof of His existence, knowing that human logic is inadequate and unequal to the task of knowing Hashem. I am an atheist, agnostic, and theist -- a contradictory man of passionate faith at times. My faith is not blind or uncritical. It is intermittent and launched by critical thinking and fed by spiritual experience.
At times, I have glimpses of Hashem, my G-d. I see evidence for the existence of my unknowable Creator. Existence and consciousness are miracles, I believe, that cannot be fully explained by evolution. Similarly, although some scientists may argue to the contrary, I suggest that the magnificent, exquisite design of the universe cannot be entirely explained by chance and evolution. Just as great works of art and great discoveries in science require the great minds of creative human beings, so does a universe of infinite beauty require a beautiful Creator.
When I sit with my patients and listen to the heartrending permutations of suffering and evil in their lives, I cry silently for them and feel an unbearable pain that assaults my soul. Sometimes I make clinical recommendations that may soothe them if they change their thoughts and behaviors. But sometimes I feel hopeless and helpless and pray privately for their healing.
I am a human being with many limitations. But I expect more from the Creator of the universe, my G-d, Hashem, whom I choose to search for and believe in even in the face of suffering and evil.
DR. MEL WALDMAN
Brooklyn, NY
Bradley Artson replies:
I thank Dr. Waldman for the honesty of his response and for the depth of his love of God. That said, he mischaracterizes my understanding of how God works on several points.
I do not believe that God exercises coercive power, nor that God suspends or overrides the regularities of creation, which is what most people mean by omnipotence. But the alternative to that Greek idea of power as imposing force or magic is not "powerlessness." God is active in every moment, at every level of creation, inviting us and empowering us toward novelty, greater relatedness, the ability to be self-surpassing agents (made in God's image). This is not the God of special effects, which is how Dr. Waldman understands God's power. But it is certainly a God of vast persuasive power and enduring love.
If omniscient means that God knows what cannot be known, then it is correct that I don't believe that. But such a belief is a verbal and logical self-contradiction. Far more reflective of the world we experience is the recognition that God knows everything possible to know -- all potentials, all actualities, everything that has already happened. What God knows, God knows objectively and eternally. That knowledge is pretty impressive to me. Note that there is no biblical or rabbinic term for omniscience, but there are terms that speak of the vastness of God's knowing.
Finally, it should be noted that I did not abandon the Greek philosophical straightjacket theology because of religious perversity or a desire to harm Judaism. To the contrary, my love of life and God's creation, my love for my autistic son and a world filled with pain and injustice, and my yearning for God's presence and healing all lured me forward to what seems to me to be a more soul-enriching and resonant way to think of/relate to/imitate the Divine. If it doesn't work for Dr. Waldman, then I invite him to stick with the metaphors that work for him. But I would remind him that his metaphors are also metaphors.
THE LONG-SUFFERING WHORE OF BABYLON
For centuries, theologians have used the Whore of Babylon as their chosen figure to stand in for whatever ills they wished to attack: empire, apostasy, promiscuity, capitalism ... you name it. The demonization of this figure relies on what I see as a fundamentally wrongheaded premise: the idea that women in the sex trade are a source of social ills because they corrupt upstanding men through seduction.
It should go without saying that the institution of prostitution does not spring from a prostitute's desire to seduce. Rather, it arises when clients seek to pay money for sex. Throughout history, prostitutes have most often been poor and marginalized women offering a service for which there is demand, in order to scrape by. But the demonization of prostitutes persists, both in religious uses of the "Whore of Babylon" metaphor and in the approach frequently taken by the police, who relentlessly harass and imprison (usually female) prostitutes while taking a lenient and forgiving attitude toward the men who pay them for sex.
In Tikkun's May/June 2009 issue, Rev. Campolo invokes the whore metaphor to strengthen his claim that we can and should level a moral critique against capitalism. His goal is upstanding, but his language is troubling. How could a prostitute ever be the appropriate figure to represent the exploitative aspects of an economic system that privileges elite men?
In the Bible, the Whore of Babylon meets a gruesome end: an angel prophesies that a group of kings (represented as the seven heads and ten horns of the beast she rides) "will hate the whore; they will make her desolate and naked; they will devour her flesh and burn her up with fire" (Revelation 17:16). For this reason, when one chooses the Whore of Babylon as the figure to stand in for capitalism's worst excesses, by implication one invites those interested in progressive economic change to imagine their project as the dismemberment and immolation of a socially marginalized woman. I know that in reality Campolo bears no ill will toward women in the sex trade, but this is an unfortunate aspect of his metaphor.
Readers who are interested in feminist readings of the Apocalypse of John may want to check out Apocalyptic Bodies by Tina Pippin and A Feminist Companion to the Apocalypse of John, a new anthology edited by Amy-Jill Levine.
ALANA Y. PRICE
Assistant Editor at Tikkun
Tony Campolo responds:
In response to Alana Price's critique of my article on what the Book of Revelation has to say about the contemporary economic crisis in America, I can only say that in so many ways she is right on target. The fact that the English language is sexist can be witnessed in the fact that there is no male equivalent to the word "whore." Thus, I generally say, when referring to this passage of scripture, that whores are men and women who seduce. I in no way was referring to prostitution for the simple reason that the writer of the Book of Revelation was not referring to prostitution when he described the fall of Babylon in the eighteenth chapter of his book.
Finally, it must be said that whatever my failures in understanding, or my failure to speak with clarity, I can only say that my primary task was to help our readers (primarily the Jewish reader) understand what was written in the Christian scriptures almost 2,000 years ago. It is how John the Apostle was using the word that was part of my discussion. Perhaps your argument should more be with John than with me.
It should be noted that I do not want to see an end to the capitalistic system, but I do want to see an end to the consumeristic values that Americans have embraced as they have yielded to the seductiveness of the commercial advertising of our time.
DISTORTIONS ABOUT CUBA?
George Vradenburg, your publisher and writer of the Contrarian, writing about "Cuba -- Socialism's Fading Legacy" (Tikkun, May/June 2009), brought together a near-perfect combination of distortions about Cuba and U.S. empire propaganda.
Tikkun publisher Vradenburg found Cuba a "choking, oppressive environment." This has not been my own experience. Indeed, the energy, enthusiasm, and vitality of the Cuban people is the usual first experience. He missed the prosperity, the absence of which is a result of the U.S. embargo. He also missed political expression, of which I found there is a great amount. Indeed, anyone can run for office, no political parties can participate in the electoral process, and no campaign funds are allowed! Further, office holders are not paid for serving, but instead receive the salary or wages they get from their regular jobs. Personally, I find the United States' way to be truly choking and oppressive: millions of corporate dollars flooding campaigns, rich -- only members of Congress, and two parties that are usually difficult to distinguish crowding out all other political expression. I know, since I served as staff for Alabama's first black and only progressive congressman for almost nine years. Incidentally, when I was in Cuba on a U.S. congressional staff visit in 2000, the island had two Christian ministers in the national assembly (one Baptist and one Episcopal). And they were respected!
Vradenburg's sadness at the condition of the buildings in Old Havana is, of course, sadness at the embargo, which includes bans on paint and on auto-repair parts. He reminisces about the "glamorous" nightlife of pre-revolutionary Cuba. He clearly avoids mentioning the forced prostitution, the slavery, the brutal racism, and the vast poverty of the people outside the American playgrounds.
Vradenburg blames the "full-throated embrace of the Soviet Union and Marxist-Leninist socialism" after the criminal Bay of Pigs invasion on Cuba, and says it caused the United States to adopt the economic embargo. So our invasion did not drive Cuba into Soviet arms -- it was all their fault!
Those who left Cuba are said by Vradenburg to have suffered at Fidel's hand. I guess to the CFR membership, being asked to share the conditions of the common people as they develop is suffering.
Cubans, as he said, are mostly poor. But they are not impoverished -- a very real difference. No one in Cuba lacks food, medical treatment, education, or housing. This may be "poor" in the view of the CFR, but many, many Americans would love to live under those conditions! He admits there is not the extreme income inequality in Cuba found in other Latin American nations but does not mention that the United States has the most extreme gap between rich and poor in the world, and that other Latin nations are moving more and more toward an economy resembling Cuba's, knowing that their vast impoverishment (except for the rich) is due to the United States.
Speaking of the "choking, oppressive environment" in Cuba, he failed to note the vast amount of art available in the market, or the fact that it is impossible to walk down the street without people welcoming visitors into their homes to see their paintings, sculptures, etc. Initiation and entrepreneurship are in fact thriving. In a way this might escape Vradenburg, since the CFR delegation probably did not walk down the streets at all!
Finally, Vradenburg fails to mention that the entire responsibility for the oppression before the revolution falls upon the shoulders of the United States, and the present relationship is wholly on our shoulders. Cuba has welcomed normal relations at all times. We are the culprits. We are the empire.
REV. JACK ZYLMAN
Birmingham, AL
George Vradenburg replies:
I agree with the writer that the embargo by the United States has aggravated the miserable performance and condition of the Cuban economy. Ending the embargo would, in my view, be good for America and good for Cuba. Having said that, Cuba has been unable to generate prosperity for its people even though it has trade relations with 75 percent of the global economy, and Cuba will not prosper unless and until its people are free to pursue a livelihood free of government ownership of the means of production. Finally, my opinions about the stultifying political atmosphere were based on conversations with ordinary Cubans, contrary to the writer's assumptions.
SHOULD CAPITALISM BE SAVED?
I was excited to read John Sanbonmatsu's searing condemnation of capitalism "Why Capitalism Shouldn't Be Saved" (Tikkun, May/June, 2009) and his appeal for a revived Left to offer a desperately needed alternative to the wanton brutality of the capitalist system. The piece had minor flaws. For example, Sanbonmatsu describes pre-Bush America as a "centrist, liberal, social democratic capitalist order," whereas, to my mind, there was precious little evidence of social democratic policies in those years. Taken as a whole, though, the article was an inspiring call for the Left to distinguish itself from President Obama, rise to the occasion, and help Americans to see that capitalism today is a profoundly anti-democratic and destructive system that they can replace. In other words, radical, democratic socialism is possible.
Sanbonmatsu ends his article with an urgent warning: "Should we squander this historical moment through inaction or despair, it may soon be too late for us to do anything, except to watch from the sidelines as world events spiral out of control." He is right, of course, but let's hope the historical moment lasts for more than five minutes, while we organize to stave off the apocalypse.
JOANNE LANDY
(Co-director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and a member of the editorial board of New Politics)
Thank you for the opportunity to join the call with John Sanbonmatsu [a free weekly conference call with Tikkun authors -- see www.tikkun.org for details about how to participate].
I am buoyed by the fact that there are still respected voices that are calling into question our global "super-capitalism," and doing so with high intelligence and expanded background.
In terms of what a new kind of capitalism or economic system might look like, we can refer to Rabbi Lerner's proposed New Bottom Line, or the triple bottom or "for benefit" bottom line of many thinkers and entrepreneurs.
Whatever change might come about, it should be done within the American and universal ideals of freedom of choice, human rights, and rule of law. These values should underlie our economic engagement as a society but they are often undermined by corporate power, which came to its modern apex under the Bush-Cheney administration.
If we are to imagine a new economic system or even a reform of what we have and cherish, and preserve freedom and individual rights, the change must come from the aggregate choices in a free society that begins with the individual human heart and spirit. And that can only come about through a more enlightened society and a fundamental change of values from individualistic, consumer-oriented ones, to ones that cherish human relationships, spiritual and personal growth, and our relationship to the living planet. And because I am a card-carrying mystic and a spiritual activist, I believe that this change is both a humanistic one and spiritual one at the same synergistic time.
DAVID WEINSTEIN via email
I have read John Sanbonmatsu's article with interest but find the author wishing for old-fashioned solutions -- the rekindling of the masses in protest. I wonder if he has read Paul Hawken's Blessed Unrest. The change this time will be in the psychology of the nation through its uncountable number of "green" movements, which equate environmental survival with personal well-being. Just as capitalism is outdated, so is "Leftism." I really like his last paragraph about the "crack" of hope.
KATHLEEN O'SULLIVAN via email
HEALING ISRAEL/PALESTINE
I began reading Dr. Reuveny's article on bringing peace to Israel and the Palestinians with the hope that he would present a new and effective approach. After all, I have long felt that the settlements on the West Bank were a serious mistake. I was however deeply disappointed by the article.
First, it is far from certain that the Palestinian Authority is capable of governing a Palestinian State on the West Bank even if that is its true goal. In fact, after Arafat rejected the plan put forth at the end of the Clinton administration, there was good reason to believe that the real goal was to destroy Israel. At the present time, there appear to be mixed signals as to whether the Palestinian goal is to live in peace with Israel or attempt to destroy her.
Second, the colonial powers to which Reuveny refers did not have to fear that released territory would be use to attack their country. For example, Algeria's independence didn't threaten France's existence. It is not farfetched to see a West Bank Palestinian State governed by the Palestinian Authority but soon taken over by Hamas which, supported by Iran, could acquire missiles and even nuclear weapons.
Reuveny indulges in "IOI" -- "If Only Israel" would. Israel has made mistakes, but the fundamental question is not about the West Bank, but about whether the Palestinians and the Arabs in general accept Israel's existence. If the answer is clearly yes, then I think Israel would bend over backwards to create peace. If not, then it is hard to know what Israel can do.
RABBI ADAM D. FISHER
Stony Brook, NY
Rafael Reuveny replies:
Rabbi Fisher's points are either misinformed or misleading. Despite their popularity among pro-Israel Americans, they all but assure an endless conflict. First, most of the Palestinians accept Israel. Radical minorities on both sides reject each other's statehood, but we must ignore them. Arafat rejected the Clinton plan not because he rejected Israel, but because Israel refused to return East Jerusalem and compensate the Palestinians with land equal in size for occupied land it sought to annex. The following revolt was a rational response to a colonial ruler that refuses to decolonize.
Second, the Palestinians are not a threat to Israel. Even if they wanted to destroy Israel -- which they do not -- they could not do it. Israel is a goliath; it is here to stay. Conditioning Israeli withdrawal on an Arab and Palestinian acceptance of Israel sounds nice but is in fact an empty statement; they offer peace and normalization in return for decolonization. What more can you ask for?
Finally, the Israeli settlement buildup has not been a mistake; it has been the foundation of a well-designed and executed colonial project. Historically, colonialism was a national project, and the Israelis' story is no different. The obstacle to peace has always been the settlers' refusal to decolonize, as in the historical parallels.
Israel has "nothing to fear by fear itself," as this helps Israeli colonizers. Despite being a minority, they are so well entrenched in Israeli domestic politics that only the United States could force decolonization, but this would probably not happen unless the pro-Israel American bloc strongly pushes the president to do so.
PEACE IN ISRAEL/PALESTINE
I agree with Rafael Reuveny's statement that the key to lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is enforcing Israel's pre-1967 internationally recognized border as the border between two independent, economically viable states ("Healing and Reality in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict," Tikkun, May/June 2009). I also agree with Rabbi Lerner that using the term "colonialism" about Israel, as Reuveny does, requires analytical clarity.
I submit this idea: the Zionist dream has always been that one day all of historic Palestine would become part of Greater Israel and the indigenous population would be "transferred" to other states (colonialism).
During World War I, Britain's Lord Balfour agreed with European Jews that if they helped finance the war with Germany, His Majesty's government would endeavor to find a "home" (not a state) for the Jews in Palestine. At the same time, Gen. Allenby and T.E. Lawrence were promising the Ottoman Arabs that if they would help fight Turkey, His Majesty's government would support their hopes for "independence" (something the Palestinians had long dreamed of). In 1947 the fledgling UN could have satisfied both those conflicting earlier commitments by converting Britain's Palestine Mandate into a secular state with a Lebanon-like constitution guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of the indigenous population. Instead the UN -- foolishly in my opinion -- decided to unscramble the Palestinian egg by a partition plan that granted 55 percent of Palestine to the mostly immigrant Jewish minority; and 45 percent to the indigenous Muslim and Christian majority. Needless to say the indigenous Palestinians and surrounding Arab states would have nothing to do with a solution that treated the Palestinians so unfairly.
David Ben-Gurion and other Jewish leaders were presented an opportunity for which they had been preparing for several years, when that same year Britain abandoned its Palestine Mandate. Haganah and other Jewish terrorist organizations began the expulsion of the indigenous Arab population. In 1948 the Jews declared themselves the State of Israel, not on the 55 percent of Palestine allotted them by the UN partition plan (to which Reuvney claims the Zionists "agreed") but on the 78 percent they were able to seize before intervention by Jordan and Egypt forced them to halt their advance. About 750,000 Palestinians were thereby driven into permanent exile and more than 400 Palestinian villages destroyed (colonialism by infiltration and military action).
Reuveny writes, "After 1949, Israel accepted the borders of their new state." The question here is what does he mean by "accepted?" So far as I know, Israel has never indicated by deed or word what its final borders should be.
Reuveny also writes: "In 1967, facing threats by its Arab neighbors, Israel fought Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, and occupied the Territories (and other lands). Israeli colonialism advanced incrementally until 1977, when Israel openly claimed the Territories, turning them into a settler colony." True enough, except that Israel's neighbors posed no real threat to its security. That was the excuse used by Israel to launch its surprise attack on them. The real motive was to seize land and advance the Zionist dream of Greater Israel. Israeli intelligence records show that Israel knew the belligerent talk by Egypt's President Nasser and other Arab leaders was just that, talk; the Arabs had neither the intention nor the military strength to attack Israel.
The question now is what will it take to convince Israel to live within the territory it seized in 1948? Talk won't do it. That's been tried ad infinitum, ad nauseam without success. Prime Minister Netanyahu has even given the back of his hand to President Obama's demand that Israel stop all settlement expansion (more colonialism). The "talk" that Israel understands is the talk of money. Former South Dakota Senator Abourzek says that U.S. economic aid is the key to securing Israel's cooperation in this matter. President George H.W. Bush during his presidency just had to threaten to stop guaranteeing Israeli loans to cause the Israelis to immediately halt (temporarily as it turned out) all settlement construction. I think President Obama would be amazed at how quickly Netanyahu would start cooperating if he told him that he was prepared to suspend all economic and military aid to Israel if the Israelis did not immediately begin peace negotiations with Palestinians (Fatah and Hamas) based on Israel's willingness to live within its internationally recognized borders, take down Israel's Wall of Separation where it intrudes into Palestinian land, evacuate Israel's illegal West Bank settlers, and open Gaza's borders to the free flow of commerce and people. I think President Obama's stature as a world leader would reach new heights and everyone would be amazed at how the cause of Middle East peace would be advanced if President Obama could find the political courage to do as I (and others) suggest.
NORMAN EWERS
Irvine, CA
Raphael Reuveny replies:
Norman Ewers' comment is essentially irrelevant to my article, as it mostly focuses on the pre-1967 period. The Palestinian colonial situation started in 1967, not in 1917 or in 1948. Nevertheless, I will discuss his claims in order to set the historical record straight as a matter of fact.
First, the Zionist dream has not always been one of Greater Israel, and polls suggest that it is not supported today by most Israelis. Mainstream Zionism recognized early on that Palestine was not empty. By the 1920s, the Revisionist Zionists, not mainstream by any measure, had laid claims to all of Palestine (and parts of Trans-Jordan). The Likud party and the parties to its right are the offspring of this camp. Second, most of the Palestinians agree today to settle for 22 percent of the Palestine. The 45 percent would have been at least twice as useful to them had they accepted them in 1947. Third, the refugee problem is a tragedy caused partly by the 1948 war, partly by Palestinians leaving in order to return -- they hoped -- as winners, and partly by Israeli forces acting locally. It is well established that there was no organized plan to transfer all the Palestinians. In fact, almost 1.5 million Palestinians live in Israel proper today as full citizens. Fourth, in 1949 Israel signed armistice accords with its Arab neighbors, which defined its borders. On the basis of these borders it was accepted to the United Nations. Fifth, in 1967 Egypt entered large armies into the Sinai Peninsula, kicked out the UN observers, blockaded the Tiran straights, shutting entrance to Israel from the Red Sea, pushed Syria and Jordan to bombard Israel, took over command of Jordan's army, and threatened to destroy Israel. Other Arab states sent forces to the front. If this is not a security threat, then what is? Mr. Ewers argues these were "just talks," but these were, of course, real threats and real actions. All of these points, it should be noted, are not about colonialism but rather about inter-communal conflict before 1948 and international conflict in 1948-1967.
I agree with Mr. Ewers' last point: the United States can and should force Israel to leave the territories it occupied in 1967. However, whereas I call for tough U.S. love toward Israel, approaching Israel as a parent would approach a badly misbehaving son, Mr. Ewers' mischaracterization of the history of Zionism and the state of Israel suggests that love for Israel is not high on his agenda. Zionism before 1967 was not about colonialism and did not mean harm to the Palestinians; it was colonization without colonialism. Any attempt to paint the pre-1967 Zionism as colonialism is misinformed and, in the case of Mr. Ewers, is probably intentionally misleading.
Editor Michael Lerner adds: Norman Ewers's claim that "The Zionist dream has always been that one day all of historic Palestine would become part of Greater Israel and the indigenous population would be ‘transferred' to other states" repeats a deep misunderstanding of Zionism. Zionism is the name for the national liberation struggle of the Jewish people, and recognized as such by the vast majority of Jews in the second half of the twentieth century. Like almost every national liberation struggle apart from those that have been dominated by a single totalitarian force, there are a wide variety of ideologies and worldviews that have been part of it, ranging from socialist to ultra-capitalist, from ultra-secular to ultra-fundamentalist, and from sucking up to international imperialism to arguing that such accommodations are not in the best interests of the Jewish people.
So yes, there have been those who have dreamed of transfer, apparently including the current foreign minister, as well as those who have dreamed of making all historical Palestine -- which was also historical Judea and Samaria before the Jewish people were expelled by Roman imperialism -- part of Israel.
But there are also many Zionists who do not share that view and would be happy to make any concessions they could that would provide security for the State of Israel while simultaneously providing justice to the Palestinian people. That these voices are not heard today is at least in part a product of the failure of the Palestinian national liberation movement to produce a leader like Nelson Mandela, who understood that it is the unfortunate and unfair but nevertheless politically necessary task of the oppressed to reassure the oppressors that when the oppressors lift their boot from the neck of the oppressed, the oppressors will not end up being similarly oppressed or even killed. The tragedy of the suffering of the Palestinian people will not be alleviated in the foreseeable future by the noisome but wildly ineffective violence of Hamas or other terrorist groups. That violence against civilians will only intensify Israeli fears and push them to support governments like the one currently in power.
Nor is it likely to be ended by American economic and political pressure, not unless those pressures are accompanied by credible assurances of Israel's security as the one place in the world where Jews can be a majority and shape their own destiny. That they have chosen to shape that destiny in ways that are, in our view, immoral and self-destructive, is the tragedy of a Jewish people still suffering from a post-traumatic stress disorder of incalculable dimensions. (Imagine if one out of every three Americans were murdered by a group determined on genocide: how likely would it be that we would produce a peace-oriented government? We can't even do so now, when we run the world.) Don't imagine that you can force such a people into choices that they believe will once again put them at risk of the kind of oppression that they experienced when they were at the mercy of European Christians and African and Asian Muslims. Please read my book Healing Israel/Palestine to understand these dynamics better.
RABBI LERNER'S DEBATE WITH ALAN DERSHOWITZ
Here are some responses to the recent "debate" on CNN, which you can view at www.tikkun.org/LernerDershowitz.
I learned something in your debate with Alan Dershowitz from your point that Israel needs "tough love" (which I understand means no more U.S. (passive?) enabling of Israeli violations of Palestinians' basic human rights) but in a context of understanding that Israeli society (like the Palestinians) suffers from post-traumatic stress as a result of the ongoing conflict. That psychological point needs to be remembered in formulating policy. It's obvious now that you mentioned it on CNN.
JAN GARRETT via email
I agree wholeheartedly with Professor Dershowitz. If Palestinians lay down their arms, there will be peace, but if Israel lays down its arms, it will be destroyed. I think that you at Tikkun are living in a dream world.
MARK D. YURA via email
Alan Dershowitz came off as an angry, rude jerk. Rabbi Lerner, you looked and sounded charismatic and got your points across clearly, convincingly. You were wise to ignore the personal attacks and promote the NSP/Tikkun approach -- the strategy of generosity. You resisted taking his bait. You are skilled at this and should accept most such invites, even though you have to just reiterate sound bytes.
You can strengthen your presentation by cleaning up your physical act a bit. Alan Dershowitz has that down -- the crisp shirt, suit, haircut. People who are not put off by your slightly crumpled clothes will also not be put off if you "dress for success," and you will have a better chance of getting through to more superficial TV viewers, so many of whom base credibility on appearance in this increasingly lookist culture.
It's great that you kept smiling when he interrupted. You could have spoken louder, but it's good that you did not stop speaking when he interrupted the "last word" that the moderator gave to you.
It's great how you came up with common ground that Alan Dershowitz had to agree with. Congratulations on a winning performance under difficult circumstances.
PHOEBE ANN SORGEN via email
Alan Dershowitz interrupted you and went after you, taking comments out of context when he knew he was "losing" the debate. A classic trick -- change the subject, put the other person on the defensive, try to reduce the obvious winning credibility of one line of thinking over the other. I thought you stayed on track and that you took the high road, which increasingly I and much of this culture appreciate. Taking the high road actually turns the tables on Dershowitz to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. You were modeling what you hope our world will eventually embrace, for the sake of our world that God does not want us to destroy. I so appreciate your speaking with a prophetic voice. I continue to pray for your strength and healing.
REV. PAUL SEEBECK
Spokane, WA
I thought that Rabbi Lerner did great on CNN and that his message got out well. Thanks to him and everyone who works with him. I encourage him and others to continue their work in broadcast media and keep smiling because it is the best defense against the smear campaigns.
ZAC MOORE via email
Rabbi Lerner responds:
We need the help of our readers to get our message out to the mass media. Sending letters to television news show producers and journalists to introduce them to our ideas and urge them to interview me or others with a Tikkun perspective can have a very big impact (particularly if you take the time to send them a snail mail letter). To facilitate this process, we've put a box at the top of our website (www.spiritualprogressives.org) called "Contact Media." If you click on that box, you'll find names, addresses, and titles of all kinds of folk from both local and national media. Taking the time to contact them will make a great contribution to breaking through the web of lies and distortions that most people hear as "news" or read in editorials and op-eds. We have useful tips for how best to do this on our website.
