Part IV

As this Middle East conversation continues, with all its complexities and prejudices, we have been receiving very many reactions from readers. Most are supportive of this type of dialogue, but there are some who are upset and even livid. And from one extreme to the next. “How can you give any legitimacy to terrorists?” question some readers. “With all your good intentions, you ultimately have provided a platform for anti-Semites.” On the other end of the spectrum, there are those that argue that the conversation is not balanced. Jeff’s arguments are far stronger than Evelyn’s, and Evelyn is not presenting the strongest possible Palestinian position. Some are even suggesting that Evelyn is a fabricated character simply meant to provide Jeff with a platform to make his case.

Our response to both aisles is this: The best way to address an issue is not to be frightened to hear both sides of the argument, even if one side repulses you, as long as everyone is presenting facts and not just voicing rhetoric and spouting propaganda. We do not want to silence any voice simply because we don’t agree with it. To those that feel that Evelyn’s arguments aren’t strong enough we invite you – and challenge you – to send us the strongest arguments you can find for her position, and we will present it to Jeff and Evelyn and try to have it included in this dialogue, as long as it is supported by substantiated evidence. Finally, we assure you that Jeff and Evelyn are very real people, in a true conversation being facilitated by Rabbi Jacobson.

But when dealing with such emotionally fraught issues, it is inevitable that the heat of the moment will make it very difficult to continue such a conversation and make everyone happy.

To everyone we suggest: please try to suspend judgment, please withhold your initial reactions and let us allow the dialogue to play itself out. Perhaps we will all learn something from it.

Evelyn: I was thinking about what you were saying. Though I can’t deny and surely will not defend the troubled history of anti-Jewish feelings in the Arab world, I am still troubled by the fact that after all is said and done, we Jews are perpetrating atrocities against the Palestinians as they were once perpetrated against us.

Today Israel is the more powerful force, with a far stronger army and the ability to protect itself. So it’s one thing when Jews were being persecuted and had no one to protect them. But now that we have our country and army, we should be showing an extra measure of benevolence, particularly due to the sensitivity that we developed through our own hardships.

Jeff: I feel the same as you. But after giving this serious thought for many years and researching the issues – beyond the rhetoric and propaganda from both sides – I came to realize that benevolence can only be shown once we have all the issues open and clear on the table. You cannot begin to be kind to someone who wants to kill you, and use your every kind gesture against you. The kindest thing you can do then is to protect the innocent, to expose the enemy, and to do all it takes to defang him.

Evelyn: What you’re basically saying is that there is no hope. By returning to the past you simply do not allow any peaceful initiative to arise.

Jeff: You have it absolutely backwards. As long as the Arab/Muslim world lives in the past and drags us all back there with their refusal to recognize Israel, or allowing the authorities in power to maintain their call for Israel’s destruction, we have no choice but to approach this as we would approach an enemy, not a friend.

Once a power declares war on you, you are in a state of war, And in that state it is utterly ridiculous and folly to declare that we shouldn’t look at the past declaration of war (a declaration that remains standing), and say let’s just look ahead.

Evelyn: And we thus doom all the peace-loving Palestinians, those that simply want to be allowed to freely go to work, move about and not be constricted in a pen?!

Jeff: No, we are not the ones that doom them. Their so-called leaders whom they elected, and their overall opposition to the existence of Israel, are what doom them.

Evelyn: And we should cease showing compassion to them, and instead bomb them, causing them to become even more hostile?

Jeff: I don’t believe that I am – and for that matter, the Israeli army is – any less compassionate than you. I simply feel that once we see the facts our compassion has to be directed in getting the Arab world to reeducate their children and learn to accept Israel, and truly look ahead instead of back. As Golda Meir once said: “We will only have peace with the Arabs when they learn to love their children more than they hate us.”

Evelyn: There is still one important matter that we never fully addressed.

Jeff: What is that?

Evelyn: The fact that the Palestinians have lived on this land for centuries and have been displaced by Jewish immigrants who have just recently settled in Israel. The Palestinians are essentially indigenous natives to the land and they are resisting Israeli occupation of their Palestinian land. Wouldn’t you do the same if someone was trying to displace you from your native home?

Jeff: Didn’t we already discuss this point, that according to this argument all of Israel is occupation? And didn’t we both reject that?

Evelyn: I am not discussing now all of Israel. Yes, I agree that the Palestinians will have to accept Israel and cannot lay claim to the entire land. But since they are natives, at the very least shouldn’t they be allowed to retain some portions of the land – namely Gaza and the West Bank, which were captured and occupied by Israel in 1967? Instead we find that Israelis are building settlements in this occupied territory, and not allowing the Palestinians to have independence and control their own destiny in their native land? At the minimum shouldn’t they be allowed to have the land (or part of the land) given to them after the UN partition in 1947?

Jeff: I admit that I used to think as you do, until it was pointed out to me that this whole concept of “Palestinians” as an indigenous population, living in their own land, is a myth conveniently fabricated to justify their war against Israel and make it sound as if Israel is the “aggressor” and imperialistic “occupier” of foreign land?

Evelyn: Give me a break…

Jeff: So in addition to the fact the Arabs continue to claim all of Israel and not just a piece of the land, which exposes their true intentions, even their claim to be “Palestinians” is simply false!

Evelyn: This is ridiculous! Now you’re going totally overboard. What right do you or anyone have to deny them a name they chose for themselves?

Jeff: They may have a right to call themselves by any name they choose, but that doesn’t make them Palestinians. Actually, if there were true Palestinians it would be the Jews, who have lived in this region for thousands of years…

Evelyn: This is the heart of the problem: Your position of questioning the very identity of Palestinians completely invalidates them and effectively prevents any intelligent dialogue between Jews and Arabs. I find your view extremely disconcerting and dangerous. In my view, it is an opinion that is designed to absolutely and ultimately delegitimize any opposing viewpoint, and indeed a whole people. Once you negate the identity of the entity you are speaking with there is no room for peace. It is extremely hurtful to the partner you are supposed to have a dialogue with, it undermines all respect, trust, hope and all other good things that people living in the same region should share with one another. What do you think is going to happen if you keep denying the identity of another people? Do you honestly believe anything good is going to come out of this?

Jeff: May I speak?

Evelyn: You had your chance. No allow me to voice my position. I truly find your words preposterous and painful. How can you say that the Palestinians are not a people?

That is completely wrong. Read up on your history. Both Jews and Palestinians were living in the British mandate of Palestine at the time the modern day nation of Israel was founded. There was no Israel before 1948. Jews took the name Israel. They should at least have the courtesy to allow the Palestinians choose their own name as well, a name, mind you, which reflects the name of the region prior to 1948. I cannot see how your denial of these facts will lead to anything positive? Isn’t more likely to breed more resentment, hatred and absence of normal relationships? I really wonder what you think it going to happen with this continued denial. Do you think Palestinians are going to simply say: Yes you are right, we don’t exist, we will stop demanding our fair share?

Jeff: May I finally speak and make my case?

Evelyn: Go ahead.

Jeff: Let me begin with a direct quote from a PLO executive. Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, who said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”

Evelyn: I don’t believe that.

Jeff: Go ahead and check out the sources for yourself.

Evelyn: But the fact is that prior to 1947 the area was called Palestine and both Jews and Palestinians were living there.

Jeff: No, both Jews and Arabs were living there. And no, Palestine was never a country or a nation, not now, not in 1947 and not anytime in history. Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton, an eminent authority on the region, stated “from the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of the British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries; it was a group of provincial subdivisions, by no means always the same, within a larger entity.”

Evelyn: So which Arabs were living in the region prior to 1947?

Jeff: Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians and others. The British Palestine mandate was a short-lived entity established in 1922 by the League of Nations after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, and lasted until 1947 – some 25 years. There never was – not before 1922 and not after – a Palestinian state.

Evelyn: But then came the UN partition in 1947, dividing Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab…

Jeff: And the Arabs rejected it outright and went to war with Israel. And even after that war, the Arabs countries did not establish an independent state for Palestinian Arabs. According to Wikipedia: Following the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the 1949 Armistice Agreements between Israel and neighboring Arab states eliminated Palestine as a distinct territory. With the establishment of Israel, the remaining lands were divided amongst Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The Arab governments at this point refused to set up a State of Palestine. In addition to the UN-partitioned area it was allotted, Israel captured 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan River. Jordan captured and annexed about 21% of the Mandate territory, Judea and Samaria, known today as the West Bank. Jerusalem was divided, with Jordan taking the eastern parts, including the Old City, and Israel taking the western parts. The Gaza Strip was captured by Egypt.

Then from 1948-1967 Jordan and Egypt each pushed hundreds of thousands of their citizens to move to the West Bank and Gaza, such that by 1967 half of the people in Jordan lived in the West Bank. They were not there in 1948. Many chose to return home after 1967, when Israel reentered the West Bank. This does not make them refugees. It makes them returnees.

I should add: Those Arabs who chose to stay in Israel had the choice to become citizens or not. Those who chose citizenship are today the only Arabs in the entire Middle East who, regardless of family ties, religion, or wealth, may vote and run for office. They are the only Arabs in the entire Middle East who enjoy freedom of speech, of religion, of conscience, and freedom of the press. They are the only Arabs in the Middle East who may choose to settle disputes in either a secular court or an Islamic one.

If you interested in an honest look at these issues read From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters. She was hired by Yasser Arafat to write a book showing the Arab connection to the land, but five years into her research could no longer hide from the fact that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, under international law and historically it is Jewish land.

The real occupation of the West Bank was from 1948 to 1967, when the Kingdom of Jordan occupied it and filled it with half of the population of their kingdom. The real occupation of Gaza was likewise from 1948-1967 when it was under Egyptian occupation and became filled with Egyptians eager to take over the possessions left behind by Jews who fled in 1948, and by Egyptians who simply sought to live as far from Cairo and its corrupt government as possible.

Evelyn: Well, frankly, even if there never was a Palestinian state or people, the fact is that now there are millions of people in the region who call themselves “Palestinians.” So who cares about the past? Just because that region never had an identity of its own and has been occupied by every empire in the book doesn’t mean that there are no people living there that have emerged today calling themselves “Palestinian.” Nations are often created out of people living in a region who identify themselves in a particular way. I also find it interesting to note that the creation of the modern Jewish state had the side effect of intensifying the identity of the Arab non-Jews living in the same region, causing them to derive their identity from the land as well. You should read Herbert Kelman who has written extensively on this topic.

Jeff: That all sounds nice and good if these people were not calling for the destruction of Israel. If they had simply accepted the UN partition in 1947, today there would have been an independent state for the Arabs in that region. But they did not; instead they went to war. If today, they simply stated that we want to live in peace with Israel in this region, all hostilities would end immediately. If the Arab countries, which abandoned these people in the first place, would absorb them back into their populations that too would solve the problems.

The problem is that their leaders and the surrounding Arab countries insist on calling them “Palestinians” with a claim on the entire land of Israel (or part of it).

That is why the issue whether the “Palestinian” entity is real or not is extremely relevant to the issues at hand. Because it’s quite possible, as Muhsein explicitly stated, that the entire notion was created as a smokescreen to conceal the true agenda of annihilating the entire State of Israel. No one is arguing that the Arabs living in these territories should be mistreated. This is true whether they are called “Palestinians,” “Arabs,” Jordanians,” “Egyptians” or any other name. But why is it so important to create a new entity called “Palestinians” if not as an excuse to maintain the war against Israel?

Evelyn: No, to give them some measure of self-respect. I am not denying that the Arab countries, promoting their own agenda, betrayed their fellow Palestinian Arabs. I just feel that Israel, with our higher standard of fairness, should allow them the honor to have their independence.

Jeff: Your intentions are noble, Evelyn. But there is the “small” problem of the Arabs continuing to call for Israel’s destruction, as explicitly stated in the Hamas charter (democratically elected to rule Gaza). How can Israel negotiate with an entity that has declared war on it?

Evelyn: So, what are you suggesting is the solution? As I asked you earlier, do you think Palestinians are going to say: yes you are right we don’t exist, we will stop demanding our fair share?

Jeff: What I think, Evelyn, is that if the world would call them on their game and admit their true intentions we would achieve far more progress than maintaining the charade of an “occupied Palestine.” If the world would acknowledge that 80% of the Palestine mandate has already been given over to Jordan whose population is 90% of the same ethnic subgroup as those who call themselves Palestinian, and they thus have a country of their own, the conflict would end.

Why is this Israel’s problem and not the Arab world’s problem? It was they that rejected the partition and countless attempts at peace. Whether I can find a solution or not doesn’t change the facts. One thing is for sure: To live with a myth of a distinct “Palestinian” entity is surely not the solution. The real betrayal of these people is by the Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians and entire Arab world. Let them learn from the Jews: When the Jews were expelled from the Arab countries – we’re talking not a handful, but almost one million souls – Israel took them in with open arms. Why don’t the Arab/Muslin countries do the same for their people, instead of leaving them hanging dry?!

Why don’t you protest that?

And while we’re at it: Jews were living for over a thousand years in the Arab countries they were thrown out of. Why was and is there no uproar of them being expelled from their ancient land?! Why is it only about so-called “Palestinians,” many of who are just recent residents of the region?!

Is there something wrong here?

Evelyn: Why are you attacking me? I thought we were having a peaceful conversation.

Jeff: I am deeply upset that an intelligent and compassionate like yourself, and so many others, have bought into myths that continuously turn Israel into the aggressor.

Evelyn, read these words from Joseph Farah, an Arab-American journalist: “Isn’t it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland? ‘Well, Farah,’ you might say, ‘that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem.’ That’s true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem. But they didn’t capture these territories from Yasser Arafat. They captured them from Jordan’s King Hussein. I can’t help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.

“The truth is that Palestine is no more real than Never-Never Land. The first time the name was used was in 70 A.D. when the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple and declared the land of Israel would be no more. From then on, the Romans promised, it would be known as Palestine. The name was derived from the Philistines, a Goliathian people conquered by the Jews centuries earlier. It was a way for the Romans to add insult to injury. They also tried to change the name of Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina, but that had even less staying power.

“Palestine has never existed — before or since — as an autonomous entity. It was ruled alternately by Rome, by Islamic and Christian crusaders, by the Ottoman Empire and, briefly, by the British after World War I. The British agreed to restore at least part of the land to the Jewish people as their homeland.

“There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture. There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians. Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc. Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of 1 percent of the landmass.

“But that’s too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today. Greed. Pride. Envy. Covetousness. No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough.”

Evelyn: I want to research this more before continuing our discussion.

Jeff: By all means.

Part five

Part III

As the conversation between Evelyn and Jeff heats up, so do the comments that we are receiving. The passionate exchange has also spilled over to Facebook. 

We now bring you part III of this dialogue.

Evelyn: Well, the good news is that the battle is over in Gaza and no more innocent people are dying.

Jeff: I am surprised that you say that. Yes, for now Israel has pulled out their army. But Hamas still remains in power, they still are launching rockets, their charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. They surely will regroup, restock and relaunch their attack on Israeli citizens. You really feel that the problem is solved and the battle is over? When one people declare war on another the battle is not over until they are totally defeated or until they change their attitude.

Evelyn: The Palestinians feel that it is Israel that has declared war on them by denying them their right to their land. And yes, as long as they feel oppressed we will be having a problem.

Jeff: We’re going in circles here. They claim the entire land. Not a piece and not a section of the land, but the entire Israel – which even you agree is absolutely unacceptable. They do not want to compromise and do not accept the two-state proposal that you and so many others good intentioned people may have, which is to split land into two, one Arab and one Israel. They didn’t accept it in 1948 and they don’t accept it today. So what exactly are you suggesting?

Evelyn: They will have to compromise if they want peace. Both sides will have to compromise.

Jeff: And if you discover that they would rather be at war for the entire land then be at peace in only a section of the land? What would you say then?

Evelyn: I would be very sad.

Jeff. Well, I don’t want to depress you but you should read Libyan leader, Muammar Qaddafi’s article in yesterday’s New York Times. He adamantly argues that the Arab world will never accept a two-state solution; they see the entire land as theirs. “The Palestinians believe that what is now called Israel forms part of their nation, even were they to secure the West Bank and Gaza.” Qaddafi suggests that the only solution is one state where Arabs and Jews live side by side in peace.

I am not addressing his “solution” and many of his other points, which one can take strong issue with. But you see from his arguments that the Palestinians claim all of Israel.

Evelyn: Qaddafi I do not trust. Several decades ago he called for all Israeli Jews to be driven into the sea. Now he’s suddenly calling for peace, with Arabs and Jews living side by side. So I don’t think that he is good source to quote.

Jeff: This is not about Qaddafi. His words just reflect the feelings of much of the Arab world. Hamas makes the same claim: They will not be satisfied until they put an end to the “occupation” of the entire Israel.

Evelyn: That is why we need to empower the moderate Palestinians, who understand and are willing to live peacefully with Israel. And that is precisely my point in this entire conversation: We know that there are radicals who call for Israel’s destruction. They will never be satisfied and we should not appease them. What we need to do is embolden and engage the moderates. I am not blaming Israel for these radicals per se. But if Israel responds to their provocations with too much aggression, Israel is feeding into their agenda while weakening the sober voices calling for peace, and pushing the moderate Arabs and average person on the street toward radicalism.

Jeff: So we’re back to square one. Remember, the people of Gaza freely elected Hamas. What you are doing is blaming Israel for creating the terrorists.

Evelyn: I will not say that all terrorists are a result of Israel’s behavior. But, yes, Israel’s dominance over the Palestinians has contributed to their bitterness and desperation, and in effect, cultivating a climate where terrorism is tolerated.

Jeff: And thus the terrorists and those that elected them and protect them cannot be held accountable! This is ludicrous and criminal: It’s like saying that a murderer is not responsible because he had a dysfunctional childhood. Why are you bending backwards to justify the cold-blooded murder of innocent people at the hands of these terrorists? And the next thing you’ll tell me is that the United States is responsible for the attack on 9/11 because Western culture offends the Muslims and America supports Israel.

Evelyn: Don’t distort my words. I am not saying that the terrorists are innocent and should be excused. I am saying that we must be wiser than them and respond with a sober strategy that will marginalize them, and will engage the moderates to make peace and not tolerate their criminal behavior.

Jeff: That sound very nice in theory. But in reality, besides for the fact that Gazans elected the terrorists, Arab aggression against Jews goes back long before 1967 and 1948, and is not isolated to a “small” band of terrorists. Which is why I have been insisting that we must go back to the root of the issue, as we began discussing earlier.

Evelyn: What are you referring to?

Jeff: Long before the Arab world had any grievances about the so-called “occupation” of their land they attacked and murdered Jews living in the Holy Land. Are you aware, Evelyn, of the venom being spewed against Jews week after week in mosques across the Arab world? Do you know that in their weekly sermons Imam’s incessantly dehumanize and incite their followers against the Jews, calling them (citing the Koran) “descendants of apes and pigs?”

While it’s true that Arabs and Jews lived at times side-by-side, and in many instances Muslim rule was far less brutal for the Jews than Christian persecution, we also have a consistent history of Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism (anti-Jewish may be more precise, being that Arabs may also be Semites) – both in and outside of Israel. Take the 1929 pogrom in Chevron, or the hangings, beheadings and humiliation of Jews in Iraq, Iran and other countries going back decades and centuries, beginning with Muhammad turning on the Jews after they rejected his prophetic claims.

Evelyn: These are all terrible things. But why are you bringing them up now? How is this relevant to our conversation? Why are the Palestinians responsible for this history?

Jeff: Are you kidding me?! The climate and attitudes of the Arab/Muslim is absolutely critical to our discussion. The Palestinians may not be responsible for their ancestors, but to understand their mentality we must know their history. And frankly, the virulent anti-Jewish attitudes are not just history; it dominates the current, prevalent sentiment in Arab-Muslim communities – being taught in their schools, preached in their mosques, advocated in their media. And for this they are responsible. Without addressing this Jew-baiting I cannot see how we can ever get to the root of the conflict. But please allow me please to finish my point.

Evelyn: Go ahead.

Jeff: Why, may I ask, were close to 1 million Jews persecuted and banished from Arab/Muslim countries as a result of the establishment of Israel in 1948? Countries, like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, imposed serious reprisals against their Jewish citizens, which numbered in the hundreds of thousands and who lived their for hundreds if not thousands of years! If their problem was simply the “occupation” within the borders of Israel, why did all these countries destroy their beautiful Jewish communities? This only demonstrates yet again that Arab/Muslim interests were driven by anti-Semitism. And incidentally, by persecuting the Jews living in Arab lands, they effectively forced them to emigrate to Israel, which added close to 1 million more Jews to the Israeli population.

So, while it’s all very convenient to blame Israel for Arab resentment and rage, the fact is that this anger and prejudice goes back centuries, and continues to strongly inform and influence the attitudes in the region.

Evelyn: Yes, I agree that it’s important to address in the full picture. But I was discussing the immediate problem, which is the Palestinian conditions in Gaza and the West Bank, their growing anger and resentment, and how to alleviate their suffering and provide them with a state, so as not to further feed the extremists.

Jeff: The immediate problem is part and parcel of the bigger picture. Evelyn, you keep harping back to the Palestinian suffering, when much of is a result of their elected radicals and their overall hatred of Israel. You cannot keep blaming Israel for protecting its innocent citizens from attack from people who are driven by hatred. Even if they have some legitimate grievances, there are ways to peacefully address them. The reason they don’t address them peacefully is because these grievances are only understood in context of the overall loathing of Jews. Perhaps if the Palestinians would just accept Israel and stop calling for its destruction and attacking it, their living conditions you describe would get better. But that will not happen until their entire attitudes change.

Evelyn: Your words are very depressing. You’re basically saying that no solution can come until there is no fundamental change in the hostile attitudes, which, I should add, come from both sides.

Jeff: Perhaps we can find some short-term band-aids to treat some of the symptoms. But until we don’t address the heart of the matter, we will sadly be trapped into fighting fires and never getting to its source.

Imagine: On a daily basis Arab/Muslim/Palestinian children are fed a steady diet of anti-Jewish rhetoric. What impact does leave on them as they grow older? How much hope do you find it that? What should depress you is the way their children are being educated.

Evelyn: I don’t know if we can do much about that. We have to make sure not to further fan the flames. I feel resigned.

Jeff: Hold on there. I am not finished. We still have to address the “Palestinian” identity issue.

Evelyn: Let’s take a break.

Jeff: Ok, that I can agree with.

Part four
Part five

PART II

Part I of this frank conversation about the Arab-Israeli conflict evoked, predictably, a large number of responses, from one extreme to the other (check out the comments on the article). We now continue with Part II.

Jeff: So Evelyn, how would you identify the roots of this conflict?

Evelyn: I think it’s quite straightforward. Palestinians are resisting Israeli occupation of their Palestinian land. Seeing that they are making no progress in regaining their land, they are resorting to desperate measures – albeit many which we don’t agree with – to regain their independence and their territory.

Jeff: Before I reply, let me understand what you are saying. When you refer to “Palestinian land” what exact land do you mean? All of Israel, including Jaffa, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Lod, Beersheba, Jerusalem and so on, or some particular area?

Evelyn: I am referring to Gaza and the West Bank – the areas occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War.

Jeff: But the Hamas charter calls for the destruction of the entire Israel? How do you explain that? They claim that all of Israel is “occupied territory.”

Evelyn: Well, I don’t agree with that. I definitely disagree with their call for Israel’s destruction.

Jeff: I don’t understand your logic. Prior to 1948, did the Palestinians you refer to live only in Gaza and the West Bank, or also in other cities across Israel?

Evelyn: They lived everywhere.

Jeff: So why do you justify their right only over a portion of the land and not all of it? Why are only Gaza and the West Bank considered “occupied” and not all of Israel?

Evelyn: That’s the compromise that they must accept. They must recognize the 1947 UN partition, which created two states, one Jewish and one Arab.

Jeff: But they never accepted that partition. As soon as it was implemented in 1948 the Arab world went to war against the new Jewish state, insisting on one and only one Arab state. And after the Arabs lost that war, the Israeli boundaries expanded further. It didn’t stop there. The Arab nations would wage several more wars against Israel, all with the same thing in mind: Never accepting a Jewish state in this part of the world.

So, Evelyn, though your intentions may be noble in “respecting” the 1947 UN partition, you must know that the Arab world does not accept your thinking. And once they rejected it back in 1948 and so many times after that, you can’t simply wind back the clock and say: Hey, let’s just divide the land into two states. 60 years have passed since then, and Hamas, and for that matter the PLO as well as other Arab nations, continue to call for Israel’s complete destruction, maintaining the same Arab position they did from back in 1948: No Jewish state period.

This is the reality on the ground. What do you say to that Evelyn?

Evelyn: The Arab world will have to change their position on that.

Jeff: And if they don’t change that position, what do you suggest Israel should do? Exercise restraint? Which brings us back to the present war in Gaza. If the rocket attacks would have been an isolated incident, maybe you could have argued that let’s try to negotiate and redress their grievances. But Hamas calls for Israel’s destruction – echoing the call for over 60 years. And thus, the incessant rocket attacks against Israel, which incidentally came after Israel withdrew from Gaza and after Hamas was elected there, only reflect the unwavering Arab position from day one, that Israel has no right to exist. G-d forbid to even think what the situation would be like if the entire Arab world felt confident that its armies could successfully attack Israel today. This is the real picture Israel is contending with.

Evelyn: That still doesn’t justify killing innocent civilians.

Jeff: No one likes when innocent people are killed. But this is the ugly side of war. War is war. Innocent people will tragically die because not such innocent people don’t really care, and will perpetrate crimes in total disregard to innocent citizens. How many innocent people were killed in World War II? These are the consequences of not reining in tyrants early on, when many deaths could have been prevented. Additionally, as I already argued, when a nation elects and tolerates crimes, they too are culpable.

Do you know, Evelyn, how Jews behave when people, even guilty ones, perish?

Evelyn: Please tell me.

Jeff: When the murderous Egyptians, who perpetrated a deliberate enslavement and genocide against the Jewish people – which they also “justified” by saying that the Jews are multiplying and will soon be too strong for us and may conquer and drive us from our land – finally were vanquished and were drowning in the Red Sea, the celestial angels began singing praise for justice being served against such cruel people. G-d rebukes and silences them: “My creatures are dying and you are singing praise…”

We cry even when murderers meet their destiny. We cry for the fact that human beings created in the Divine Image could have chosen to fall so low and become so destructive that they had to die in order to protect the innocent. This is the quintessential Jewish response to cruelty: We always choose peace over war. We prefer prayer and negotiation to bloodshed. But when all else fails and war is necessary as a last resort, forced upon us by an enemy, we are decisive and determined. And even then, we don’t sing; we cry.

Evelyn: So what do you think will solve the conflict?

Jeff: I am not sure I have a solution, as long as one side wants to decimate the other. But I do know that part of the solution is clarity and truth. Not to allow these issues to be clouded behind smokescreens of propaganda. Let us establish the true facts, let us expose the real enemies, and we will be a long way toward finding a solution.

Evelyn: Since we’re talking about the roots of the conflict, let me bring up one more important thing. Arab rage is rooted in their feeling that the occupation of their land goes back many years, from the time when the Zionists devised a deliberate plan to expel the Palestinians from their land.

Jeff: One minute here. Are we going back to the “occupation” argument?

Evelyn: In the name of open dialogue we haven’t frankly addressed that issue. We discussed that the Arabs chose to reject the UN Partition, but I would like to talk about the issue of occupying their land on its own merit.

Jeff: Now you’re talking about the entire area, all of Israel?

Evelyn: Yes. But I am not advocating that Israel cease to exist. Rather, the issue of Israel’s right in the first place to establish a state in Palestine.

Jeff: I am not sure where you are going with this. But essentially this claim – which I absolutely reject (as we shall discuss) – that from the outset Israel is a Jewish occupation of Arab land is used to “justify” any acts of terrorism against Israel, in the name of “freedom fighters defending” themselves against “Israeli aggression.” This is exactly the Hamas argument and position. They do not accept your attempt at slicing the land into parts, one being Jewish. So, Evelyn, if you accept that argument, are you then also accepting its conclusion, that Israel must cease being and give up the entire land to Arab control?

Evelyn: No, I don’t accept that conclusion. Firstly, we must consider the facts on the ground: Israel is now a sovereign state in the region with over 6 million Jews. Secondly: Something inside of me feels very strong that Jews do belong there and should have an independent country, not under Arab control.

Jeff: You say that even if you feel that Jews “occupied” Arab land to establish the state of Israel?

Evelyn: I don’t accept that all of Israel is “occupied” Arab land. Jews have always lived there and trace their presence in Israel all the way back to Abraham. But I do want to address the Arab claims that the Zionists followed a pre-planned strategy to expel Arabs from the land.

Jeff: Who makes that claim? And how do you know that it’s true, and not part of biased propaganda?

Evelyn: The Palestinian historian, Walid Khalidi, makes that argument, as well as some other scholars.

Jeff: Hmm, a Palestinian historian. Many scholars have refuted this argument as a fabrication to justify the rejection of Israel as an independent state. They explain that the primary reason most Arabs left the area in the 1940’s and on was in compliance with “the Arab League issuing orders exhorting the Arab residents of Palestine to seek temporary refuge in neighboring countries, later to return to their abodes in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property” (this quote is from a report from The Research Group for European Migration Problems in its Bulletin for January March 1957). A May 3, 1948 Time Magazine article states: “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city. More than pride and defiance was behind the Arab orders. By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.”

Let me give you a few more quotes that I gathered together: The Jordanian publication ‘as-Difaa’ (Sept 6, 1954) wrote vehemently: “We were masters in our land, happy with our lot, but overnight everything changed. The Arab Governments told us: ‘Get out so that we can get in’ – so we got out but they did not get in…” A broadcast from the Near East Broadcasting Station on April 3, 1948 stated: “As early as the first months of 1948 the Arab League encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem and that certain leaders have tried to make political capital of their miserable situation….”

These scholars make the point, that though there were a few incidents of violence upon the Arab residents during the heat of battle, but on the whole, Jewish leaders urged the Arabs to remain in Palestine and become citizens of the new State. The Assembly of Palestine Jewry issued this appeal on Oct, 2, 1947: “The Jewish People extends the hand of sincere friendship and brother-hood to the Arab peoples and calls them to cooperate as free and equal allies for the sake of peace and progress, for the benefit of their respective countries.”

It was also emphasized on the day of Israel’s Proclamation of Independence (May 14, 1948): “In the midst of wanton aggression, we call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and to play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representations in all its bodies and institutions, provisional or permanent.” To the extent, that

in February 1962, Salim Joubran, an Arab citizen of Israel, told the American television viewers his story: “The Arab High Command asked us to leave the country for two weeks to make the battle easier for hem, ‘leave the country and you will come back victorious’. I heard the Haganah (Jewish Defense Forces) microphone asking the Arabs to remain and live peacefully with their Jewish brethren. The Histadrut, our trade union, was distributing leaflets, urging the Arabs not to leave. I remained and today I live in peace with my Jewish neighbors. I still have that leaflet.”

Evelyn: So we have two sides to the story. Maybe both are true. The Israelis wanted the Arabs gone and the Arabs leaders also were responsible for their leaving.

Jeff: Frankly, it doesn’t really matter. I was simply replying to your statement that the Zionists drove out the Arabs. Either way, no one argues with the bottom line fact that the Arab world unanimously rejected the partition and declared war against Israel, not once but consistently. And as a result of these wars many Arabs did leave the land. That was one of the casualties of war perpetrated by the Arab nations. So they only have themselves to blame for it.

Evelyn: And Israel and Jews are completely absolved of any responsibility?

Jeff: No, we have much responsibility to act fair and just, and also to protect our innocent citizens from attack.

Jeff: But there is something much more fundamental that we need to address.

Evelyn: What is that?

Jeff: The entire myth of an entity called “Palestinians,” “Palestinian homeland,” and “occupation.”

Evelyn: You call that a myth? These people have been living there for many years.

Jeff: It’s not that simple.

Part three
Part four
Part five

A Candid Conversation

The battle in Gaza is being fought not only on the ground, but also in our psyches. It’s hard to even distinguish whether our opinions are based on facts or propaganda. Does Israel have a right to protect its citizens from thousands of rocket attacks, or is Israel’s response “disproportionate” in killing so many Gazan civilians.

This battle is being waged among the citizens of the world, in your circles as well as mine. It spills over into fundamental and angry disagreements among Jews themselves. To the point that each side utterly dismisses the other, declaring that “they simply don’t get it.”

How the logic of intelligent people can be so contradictory requires a study of its own. Some relate it to propaganda. Others to assimilation and ignorance. And yet others associate it to a deterioration of foundational values and spiritual vision, which feeds confusion and allows people to “substitute darkness for light” (in the words of the prophet).

Which is what makes writing about the topic so difficult. There is no way to discuss this issue without infuriating someone. What makes it even more delicate is that we are presently in midst of a war, where lives are being lost and blood being shed. To write about this from a distance, pontificating one way or another, can appear – or actually be – callous and insensitive.

At the same time, not to write about these events that are dominating headlines and affecting us all, seems equally detached.

Therefore, with trepidation but strong resolve, and with apologies all around, I feel that the only way to even attempt tackling the issues in some objective fashion (if that is at all possible) is by moving away from an ideological voice and putting on a “journalistic” hat. Due to the complexity of the issues at hand and the strong positions that people have from one extreme to the other, utilizing a journalistic approach can perhaps help navigate the minefield of this conflict. I don’t know if that will help, but I will try, and I apologize ahead of time if it offends anyone. What will probably happen as a result of this “absurd” idea is to alienate everyone. Oh well, if that’s the case, I guess we’ll have to chalk it up to yet another casualty of war…

Please know that despite appearances, I am not insensitive nor neutral; it is just an experiment at a method that will hopefully allow more people to be included in the conversation, instead of just preaching to the converted. More importantly, by listening to the different arguments, even ones that initially may make your blood boil, we can all become wiser in addressing the issues not just out of gut instinct (which has its virtues), but in a more intelligent and comprehensive – and sophisticated – fashion.

So here is a conversation between two of my friends, from opposite sides of the aisle. In a surprisingly cordial tone these two individuals were at least able to have a dialogue. Full disclosure: I brought them together. They are both friends of mine and trust me, despite some of our fundamental disagreements. And I asked them to speak freely and helped moderate the conversation, preventing it from escalating into a full-blown argument, in which both sides silence and dismiss the other. I clearly have my own position. But as I mentioned I have donned my journalistic hat for the moment, in the hope that we all can become wiser for it.

At their request, we shall call my two friends Jeff and Evelyn.

Jeff presents the pro-Israel voice, which persuasively argues that the issue is very clear-cut and straightforward. Hamas is a terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. For eight years Hamas has been launching rockets and terrorizing over a million innocent civilian lives in southern Israel. Israel, as any sovereign country, is simply acting in self-defense, doing what every country’s primary responsibility is: to protect its citizens. In the words of President-Elect Barack Obama: “If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing.”

Evelyn takes the opposite position, proclaiming herself pro-Palestinian, while maintaining her Jewish identity and general support of Israel. In other words she distinguishes herself from those Palestinians that call for the destruction of Israel. Her counter argument is that Israel is the aggressor and is attacking innocent civilians in Gaza. She adds that even if some response is necessary, it cannot be a “disproportionate response.” Israel is a powerful military force, and must control its firepower when attacking a far weaker entity. Evelyn also essentially blames Israel for the crisis, by keeping the Gazans trapped in a small territory, cutting off their vital resources and creating miserable conditions that produce deep anger and frustration amongst Gaza citizens, forcing many of them to embrace desperate and radical measures.

Here is part one of their conversation.

Jeff: If the terrible Hitler, after he had exterminated millions of innocent lives, surrounded himself with 1.5 million civilians, and the only way to get to him was to kill many of the civilians, would we be justified in doing so?

Evelyn: Well, what if by killing the civilians you in turn created another few thousand Hitlers?

Jeff: If they could turn into Hitlers then maybe the best thing to do is to kill them all now.

Evelyn: May I submit a second, less bloody option. Make peace with the civilians and have them turn in the Hitler in their midst.

Jeff: But what if the civilians were part of creating Hitler in the first place? What if their sentiments against the Jews allowed for a Hitler to rise and come to power and lead his county in a war against the Jews?

Evelyn: Then you have to wonder why these civilians feel that way. Why are they so angry against the Jews?

Jeff: Are you telling me that it’s the fault of the Jews that the Germans and now the Arabs hate them? The Germans did indeed have many “excuses” and “explanation” how the Jews were contaminating their pure Aryan blood, corrupting their financial systems, the cause for all their ruin and humiliation. But we know today that its all boils down to plain anti-Semitism, masked in one form or another. Even if one could find some faults among the Jews – which in itself would be a vulgar indulgence considering the context – does this in any way justify the methodical gassing of men, women and over 1.5 million innocent children?!

Evelyn: With all due sensitivity to the Holocaust, I don’t think you can compare that to the current situation in the war between Israel and the Palestinians. The Palestinians have lived in this region for hundreds of years. The reason so many of the 1.5 million of them are crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip is not due to their choice. They belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba, that were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948. So you can imagine that they harbor much anger and resentment. Many of them may not be ready to aggressively attack Israel and Jews, and many may not even support such attacks, but they sure are profoundly bitter, living in squalid quarters, in ghettos, with all the flow of their resources (water, energy, electricity) being controlled by Israel.

So though, Hamas is definitely making life more miserable for the citizens of Gaza with their blatant attacks against Israel, they are being doubly punished by Israel’s retaliation, even if it may be justified.

Jeff: So what exactly are you suggesting Israel do? Ignore the attacks of Hitler against its citizens, because Hitler is hiding among civilians? Even if they are not to blame, can Israel afford to allow their sworn enemy to impudently continue attacking its people? Especially considering Jewish history, including the silence of the world during the tragic Holocaust, can Israel rely on other nations to fight and protect it from its enemies?

And, for the record, did the Israeli Army drive them into Gaza in 1948? Or did five Arab armies attack the fledgling Israel back then and as a result of their loss in a war they initiated, many were forced to flee their homes, as is the case in any war.

Additionally, let’s explore the innocence of the Gazan civilians. If a majority of a people elect and then choose to accept the rule of a tyrant, do they carry responsibility? Were 100 million Germans culpable in the genocide of the Jews by allowing the climate for its perpetration, or is only Hitler and his immediate subordinates guilty? After all, Hitler, Goebbels, Eichman and so many others may have never shot a Jew. But the entire nation – and many others – were a breeding aground for the Holocaust. And in that sense, they are all guilty.

Evelyn: I am sensitive to the Holocaust. One of my parents was a survivor. But I think that it is being exploited to engender sympathy for Israel, at the expense of the Palestinians who were not to blame for the Holocaust.

Jeff: You are not hearing what I am saying, Evelyn. I am not pulling the Holocaust “card” nor am I blaming the Palestinians for it (though the Mufti of Jerusalem had a far too cozy relationship with Hitler). I am drawing a parallel of culpability: Even if you were to argue that the majority of the Muslim/Arab world were not anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, the fact remains that from their midst have risen forces that call for the destruction of Israel. And we cannot simply allow them to point fingers at other they have allowed into power, and allow to attack Israel.

Evelyn: So, are you suggesting that despite their legitimate grievances, Palestinian civilians have to continue suffering and be killed because they are part of the Hamas problem?

Jeff: I too am sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians, and do not justify actions that have made their life so difficult. But two things must be now considered. Even if things in 1948 were done wrong, does that mean that today Israel should not protect innocent lives? The first and primary responsibility of any state is to protect its citizens. We must deal with the current sate of affairs and facts of the ground, and cannot turn the clock back to 1948. Secondly, if you want to go back to the root of things, we need to further explore the roots of Arab rage against Israel and the Jews.

Can we say that the majority of the Arab/Muslim world are not anti-Jewish and anti-Israel, but simply have legitimate grievances, and were they remedied they would live in total peace with Israel and the Jewish people? Hatred for Jews and attacks against them precede the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The Germans had their “excuses” to despise the Jews and the Muslims have their “excuses.” How are you so sure that the root of the hatred is so different?

Evelyn: Ok, so let us go back to those roots. But we also have to address the roots of Israeli aggression against the Palestinians.

Part two – continued next week.
Part three
Part four
Part five

What Will the New Year Bring? A Prediction

2008 is hardly the worst year in history, but it sure feels like it reading the news, blogs, commentaries and analysis of the past year. People are tentative and fearful. The mood is generally miserable. The outlook grim.

2008’s economic meltdown – you can check out all the historic statistics on any popular website – is nowhere close to ending. A global recession, considered by many unprecedented, has suddenly erupted, with a domino effect continuing to ripple through the world. Mumbai has shaken us all up. The Middle East is at war again, or should I say, not at war again, but an ongoing battle that never seems to end. What is even more distressing is that Israel, perhaps for the first time in all of history, refuses to acknowledge that war has been declared against it, and to act accordingly and decisively, instead of just reacting to the latest missile attacks, second-guessing itself and moving forward with so much uncertainty. Read Israel Harel’s article in Haaretz, Israel Blinked First.

What will happen in the coming year? Will the new United States President change things, or will we have just more of the same? How many more foreclosures, bankruptcies, failed companies and financial institutions can we look forward to in 2009? What new revelations and corruptions will emerge? Will our economic systems fail completely or will they rebound? Are we headed toward better times or worse ones?

The questions are many. Answers few, if any.

Predicting what the new year will bring can seem quite presumptuous, if not outright folly. Yet, I will venture to do so anyway. No, I don’t have a crystal ball. I have something far better. Read on.

By looking back we can see ahead. The greatest guide for the future is the past. We cannot predict the coming year’s events. But we can learn from those before us who have seen and experienced far worse than we will ever see, and rose above it. What is the secret of the resilience and power of heroic people who endured and thrived despite great suffering?

One of the most remarkable and overlooked stories of history was the transcendent ability of Torah scholars to produce an enormous volume of literature despite the harshest circumstances surrounding them.

Throughout the Early and Middle Ages, with Jewish persecution at its heights, sages like Rashi, Ramban, Rabbeinu Tam, Rashbam, the Tosafists and so many others – literally hundreds of scholars – wrote thousands of pages, containing the most brilliant and eloquent commentary you will ever read. And no where in their writings will you find complaints, bitterness, depression or demoralization. Pogroms, the crusades, persecutions, expulsions, inquisitions were ravaging Europe. But as much as you analyze their words, you will not uncover an iota of the tragic and difficult events taking place around them!

Quite the contrary. Page after page is filled with inspiration, uplifting words, enormous strength and powerful insights.

Usually, you would expect to find some mention or reference in a book to the personal challenges of the author. Often authors bare their souls and their life traumas in their writings. But even when they don’t, with a bit of deconstruction and analysis, we can uncover the author’s personal traumas. Indeed, entire studies today are dedicated to show us how to recognize in an author’s words his abusive father and dysfunctional mother, every grievance against society can be seen in his pages.

When it comes to our Torah sages, you find none of the sort. No fear, no tentativeness, nothing in their writings reflects the most trying challenges of their times! And what is even more amazing is that this is not an isolated case. Literally every scholar and sage, from the time of Moses, through all the ages, left us with a legacy of writings that reflect a higher world, not at all scarred or touched by the horrible events of the world below.

Where did they have the composure, the presence of mind, to focus and produce such clarity? How were they able to not be overcome by doubts and fears for themselves and their families welfare?

Take Joseph in this week’s Torah portion: Despite his travails – sold by his own brothers into slaver, 22 years away from his beloved father, orphaned from his mother Rachel – you would think that he would have retained some bitterness. In fact, when Joseph finally reveals himself to his brothers, instead of fury and revenge, despite his great suffering, Joseph ends up calming his mortified brothers: “Do not feel guilty,” he tells them, “for it is not you who sent me here, but G-d,” in order to save lives! (See this article).

Simply remarkable. A powerful lesson for all history.

Where did Joseph find such strength of character, such power, to not allow his circumstances to shape his life, and instead he shaped his circumstances?

Was Joseph – and all the Middle Age sages – out of touch? Hardly. They were keenly aware and sensitive to the welfare of their own children. Yet, they still were able to rise above the fray.

How?

The answer lies in a powerful expression: “az men iz tzugebunden oiben, falt men nischt unten.” When you are bound above, you don’t fall below.

This is the secret of transcendence: the ability to not be defined by the events around us; the recognition that we are products of our own perceptions, and we write the script of our own destinies.

Worship man-made devices below, and your life will be determined by your attitude. Connect to the sublime above, and you will be able to rise above the immediate events and move forward with fortitude and optimism.

If you feel that mortals – or money – control the forces of your life, then you have delivered your own verdict: You will be subject to these forces, with all their unpredictability. If however, like Joseph, you recognize that the circumstances of your life are driven by a higher hand, and nothing, absolutely nothing that humans do can control your destiny, then you have freed yourself from the behavior of others, and can ride through the challenges and even discover how they have empowered you to “save lives.”

The very question – “what will be?” “what will happen?” – is our undoing. If you feel that things “happen” to you, or that you “find yourself” in a predicament or situation, then you have relinquished control, and surrendered your destiny to the “things” that you empower.

The secret to success in the new year is to not empower the weak forces that drive fear into our hearts. But to empower your own soul; to recognize that you have within yourself all the necessary strength to fulfill your life’s mission. To realize that things don’t happen to you; you make things happen. You don’t “find yourself” in situations; you place yourself in them.

We cannot control the events to come. But we can certainly control whether and how we will be influenced by them. Good ships are not those that can stop the storms or tame the waves; they are the ones that ride the swells, confident in their own ability to know when to thrust forward and when to slow down.

Not to minimize the challenges of our times, but we can hardly call 2008 the worst year in history. By looking back to far worse years we can learn how to proceed. And how much of our troubles are actually psychological? Imagine, if a critical mass would have a change of attitude, and learn from our predecessors how to “bind” ourselves to that which is “above.”

But for now, before we address the critical mass, let us look at ourselves.

No, we do not know what the new year will bring. But I will make confident prediction: Your attitude will define your year.

No matter what happens this year, whatever up and downs will be coming our way, your destiny will be shaped by your attitudes; you will experience exactly what you allow yourself to experience: You will either be dragged down by the gravitational pull of the earth that you worship, or you will be lifted on the wings of your soul that you believe in.

Choose Light or Choose Darkness

A case study in contrast.

Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg. Bernard L. Madoff.

Gavriel and Rivka brought light into people’s lives, and created a global Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying G-d’s name) when they were brutally butchered by agents of darkness simply for being Jewish. They personified the Jewish virtues of charity and kindness, illuminating everyone they could reach. In the wake of their murders, which touched a deep chord, a wave of good deeds reverberated around the world.

Bernard Madoff brought darkness into people’s lives, and created a global Chilul Hashem (desecrating G-d’s name) when he massacred the financial security – and trust – of many individuals and organizations, killing in one fell swoop various charities and damaging many others, and destroying the trust in the future of all investments. He personifies greed, selfishness and self-indulgence. In the wake of his contemptible behavior, in which he single handedly eroded the confidence necessary to keep markets alive, people are left stunned and distraught. We are wondering how far this will unravel, how many others will be implicated, and above all, what will be the resulting consequences – how will this affect the future of the entire nature of investments, hedge funds and trust in money managers?

We could not have found a starker example epitomizing the two diametric extremes on the spectrum of human behavior: the heights of ultimate nobility and self-sacrifice in Mumbai, being killed in the service of others; the depths of ignobility and self-interest in New York, hurting others in the service of oneself, cheating his own people, friends and colleagues, exploiting the trust of holocaust survivors and confidantes.

What makes some people choose a life of serving others, and others a self-serving life? Exactly that: choice. We each have the power to choose which way to be.

And make no mistake about it: Each of us must choose between these two paths every moment of our lives. Either we will serve others or we will serve ourselves.

Not to minimize Madoff’s crimes, or to suggest that every self-serving person will become a Madoff, but his behavior is a symptom, not a cause, of social forces that orbit around selfish, material gain. And, whenever you are self-absorbed, thinking about yourself exclusively – “me and nothing else” – you are one step away from pulling off a scheme like Madoff did. Perhaps not on the scale of $50 billion – not everyone has that opportunity – but who’s counting?

And indeed, this choice has become only more amplified in our modern times. The comforts and freedoms of prosperity have allowed for a climate of self-indulgence. When Bernie Madoff’s grandparents were running for their lives together with the grandparents of those he cheated, there wasn’t much time to develop schemes, buy yachts, jet-set and run from Park Avenue to the south of France to the Hamptons to Palm Beach chasing a dollar and spending two. There were greedy people then too, those with power and wealth abusing the rest of the population, but for Jews at least, fighting for their lives, retirement accounts and hedge funds were the last thing they were concerned with. They gave their lives so that their children would grow up good Jews, virtuous individuals, who would carry on the baton passed on from generation to generation beginning with Abraham – to transform human society, to fight for social justice, to help the poor and the oppressed and to respect every person’s innate human dignity.

How did we go off course? And what transpired to create a climate that breeds a Bernie Madoff, and who knows how many more like him? One caught, but how many got away?

Should we feel bad for the funds and fund managers who trusted Madoff with other people’s money? Should we empathize with the wealthy individuals who trusted him with their life fortunes? Should we be saddened by the fact that some charities today invest altogether, instead of giving the money to the needy? Regardless of Madoff’s appalling crimes, are his investors innocent? After all, when they were making money on other people’s backs, they didn’t complain.

If materialism rules your life, than you are bound by its laws. And its cardinal law is this: Born by the almighty dollar; die by the almighty dollar. If money is the source of your power and security, than money will also be your source of destruction and disgrace. Because after all, money is transient, and anything transient can never provide the firm foundation of security.

How much money was made “legally” by money managers – who are protected by the fine-print disclaimers – with the same driving greed? How many charged percentages just to pass on their investors money to Madoff’s accounts?

And this scandal just refocuses attention to our current economic meltdown and global recession. What role did greed and personal gain play in creating today’s overall financial crisis? Selfish interests and short-term gains at the expense of the masses have been identified as the primary culprit. Who will pay for this selfishness? The perpetrators or the victims? A government bailout is nothing more than the burden of a few individuals being carried by American taxpayers. But what other choice do we now have?

Obscene bonuses at financial firms dominated December headlines in the last few years. Now, this December, we know that these actual cash bonuses were paid on the backs of false and illusory returns. The billions of dollars in bonuses have been exposed as essentially a rip-off of the masses who invested that money and saw nothing in return. Do these managers have to return the money they essentially stole from the investors?

Mr. Madoff did disgraceful things, but he is part and parcel, and a product of a climate of greed, where self-interest drives the markets, not their inherent value. And now, the chickens have come home to roost, and we are all left reeling.

But, using the terms of the financial sectors, every scandal has a potential to serve as a “market correction.” Firstly, by exposing the abuses of the system we recognize its inherent flaws. Secondly, it allows us to recognize how far we have fallen and wandered away from our calling, and gives us the opportunity to realign ourselves and our priorities.

This is the only redeeming factor in today’s economic meltdown: It has revealed how greed kills. First others; than yourself. How the love of money and power has vanquished the power of love. How beyond all our technological advances we are no supermen. Far from it. Humans are humans and left to their own devices will be controlled by their selfishness and consumed by their greed, to the point that they will, without hesitation nor compunction, hurt the innocent and even their own families.

And right in middle of the great global economic crisis – rooted in human greed – two servants of society (among many other innocent souls) are massacred in Mumbai – shining a glaring light, for a moment at least, demonstrating that we all have a choice: Here are the Holtzberg’s who dedicated their lives not their own needs and bank accounts, but to serve others.

If ever there were a spotlight on our inadequacies, here we have it. Why Gabi and Rivka had to suffer, we will never know. But in their deaths, as in their lives, they have taught us a critical lesson. The least we can do to honor them is to learn from them. Maybe the Holtzberg’s will give Mr. Madoff something to think about in prison.

What is their lesson?

The ultimate antidote to the greed and corruption inherent in self-indulgence is to become other-driven, instead of self-driven.

I once heard a Chassid explain why Jews shine brightly when they are spread around the world and stand alone amongst their neighbors. Yet, when they live together and build self-contained, insulated ghettos, they become petty, divisive and stoop to disgraceful behavior. He explained: It’s like manure. Gathered in one location it gives off an unbearable stench. Only when you spread it out in the fields does it fertilize the ground and make things grow…

Jews are natural leaders. A light unto nations. From the time of Abraham they have the quality of challenging the status quo and bringing positive change to their environments. When they become self-contained, focused on self-interest, instead of serving others, they can deteriorate, and ultimately turn on each other. Powerful people who do not serve society, left on their own, can and will turn into appalling creatures, as we have now witnessed with Mr. Madoff.

Our only immunity to such behavior is to become other-driven, instead of self-driven.

What can this teach us about the future of our economy?

We are at a crossroads. We now have seen capitalism at its worst, where greed has dominated and eliminated the fair play – which is held together by intense, objective regulation – necessary for a free market system to survive.

As the indulgences of capitalism are bringing down the house, and trust has been shattered, I would like to believe that we now stand at the rare threshold of a new paradigm shift: When the house burns down will we build the same house in its place, or will we be wise, learn from the past and build a new type of economy, one which fundamentally balances and integrates personal gain and virtue.

Listening to most people talk today, you hear the weak voice of a victim, saying that this turndown will soon be over, the markets will jump back into place – isn’t that what we have been taught: Wall Street always prevails over the long term; value always rises – and we’ll go on as if nothing happened.

Or will we learn from our experiences and actually create a new climate of true trust, based on giving and charity, and absolute zero tolerance for greed. Will we insist on new economic leaders, who do not make choices based on rewarding themselves?

Will we learn? Will we ever learn?

I guess some people will learn their lessons. Some who have been burned will choose to move away from and insulate themselves from Wall Street’s lions den, and just life an austere life, giving up hope that selfish people will ever change.

But what we want to see is nothing less than an economic revolution: Not just an awakening about the vices of money and materialism left untamed, that money can destroy, but by a new way of looking at our financial systems, of recognizing that money is a means to a higher end.

Over a century ago, Andrew Carnegie, the richest man in the world of his time and the great philanthropist, wrote in a memo:

“Man does not live by bread alone. I have known millionaires starving for lack of the nutriment which alone can sustain all that is human in man, and I know workmen, and many so-called poor men, who revel in luxuries beyond the power of those millionaires to reach. It is the mind that makes the body rich. There is no class so pitiably wretched as that which possesses money and nothing else. Money can only be the useful drudge of things immeasurably higher than itself. Exalted beyond this, as it sometimes is, it remains Caliban still and still plays the beast. My aspirations take a higher flight. Mine be it to have contributed to the enlightenment and the joys of the mind, to the things of the spirit, to all that tends to bring into the lives of the toilers of Pittsburgh sweetness and light. I hold this the noblest possible use of wealth.”

Carnegie later wrote an essay called “The Gospel of Wealth,” which strongly influenced the philanthropic philosophy of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (the two wealthiest men in our times), who collectively are giving away over 50 billion dollars. Buffet alone made a noble pledge two years ago of over $37 billion at the time (what it amounts to today I do not know) – an unprecedented act of charity and one that will go down in history.

In his essay, Carnegie lays out his approach to countering the greed inherent to wealth and selfish gain that is the incentive of capitalism:

“There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes; but in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor—a reign of harmony—another ideal, differing, indeed, from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is projected to put it in practice by degree whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves…

“This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”

I submit, that with today’s global economic meltdown, we actually stand at the threshold of a new economic paradigm. And based in part on Carnegie’s formula we can create a blueprint how to implement this new paradigm.

In good economic times, with gains blinding us all, it would be quite difficult to suggest any new changes. But with the current breakdown, an opportunity opens up.

As we witness the carnage left by the abuse of money and self-interest, we are faced with three options: One option would be to just escape from this dirty world of finance. Another would be to wait it out and then go back tight into the fray right where we left off, until the next scandal breaks.

However there is a third option: To entirely remake our financial systems and introduce a new economy of the future; the final frontier of the history of money and wealth: To see the acquisition of wealth as a means for giving and fuel for spiritual growth.

Wealth, in short, will finally realize its true value: soul energy, elevating and transforming all of existence. One can say that the futuristic economy will be an elegant synthesis of a free economy choosing to behave in some way like a socialist one, with the key distinction being, that the collective sharing will come from within, self initiated rather than imposed. Recognizing the true nature of wealth will drive men to create systems that will honor and express the inner purpose of our wealth: creating a home for G-d. We will begin to see the acquisition of wealth as a means for spiritual growth, for understanding ourselves and G-d, for filling the world with Divine knowledge as the waters cover the sea.

Finance and economy is a place where self-interest can meet selflessness – but only when the driving engine is a higher cause. We are not asked to annihilate our individuality and unique personality. We are asked to direct it.

In this life we are always presented with two choices: either we will be driven by self-interest or by serving others.

The Holtzberg’s chose the path of others, and paid the price. Mr. Madoff chose the path of self, and also ultimately paid the price, but in his case, so did many others.

The greatest tribute to the Holtzberg’s would be to use their illuminating example of light to emulate their ways. To serve as leaders whose primary drive and focus is: Serving others. Illuminating and warming the world around them, and not just themselves.

The challenge is greatest when it comes to wealth: Will it feed our selfishness or will we see it for the gift it was meant to be: to help others and build a world of higher consciousness.

Will we learn our lessons from the current financial meltdown or will we hold on to old habits and routines?

As we enter Chanukah, the Festival of Lights, which will you choose: darkness or light?

Rivka’s Son Wept Aloud

No words.

We are left utterly silent, overwhelmed by the unfathomable massacre of innocent lives in Mumbai, India.

Go explain how a good G-d could allow His messengers of peace to be brutally executed.

Explain that to Moshe’le, the two year-old child, covered in his parent’s blood.

When we are left with no words and just tears, we can either sink, forget or turn to forces beyond us which offer us some comfort and resilience. As one maimed victim of terror once told me: You appreciate faith only when you have nothing else left but faith.

Judaism – which has empowered the Jewish people to recover and rebuild through the harshest circumstances – teaches that there are three steps to dealing with tragedy.

First: We can and must cry out to each other, to G-d and to the heavens. Faith dictates that we do not remain passive and accepting. Instead, we must challenge G-d and demand that He live up to His promises of justice and fairness.

Second: Silence is the ultimate answer to the biggest question of all: Why? Our minds simply do not have the ability to explain or justify the suffering of the innocent. Indeed, it would be an act of arrogance and vulgar for any human to attempt to understand these mysteries. A mind, no matter how brilliant, cannot speak to a bleeding heart.

Third, and above all: We don’t ask why but what. What will we do about the tragedy? We must learn to harness and channel our blood-boiling anger and outrage, our shock and trauma, our grief and agony, into a powerful passionate revolution of good. The angrier you are, the more emotional your reaction, the more energy you have to act. These negative feelings are potent fuel to create true change. Grief and outrage are like fire: Unchanneled it will consume you. Channeled it will transform you. And everyone around you.

An unprecedented awakening is rippling across the universe. A deep chord has been touched in people’s hearts and souls. Our cries are now joined by the cries lining the corridors of history. Jacob shed tears, as did Rachel, tears for every loss and tragedy of their children till this very day (read on).

And, we are not consoled.

But we now have the power to act. Today, one thing we are not is complacent. Now is the time to take all our feelings and convert them into actions – real and permanent commitments that will last far longer than our pain.

Yet, we must know that this window will not last. People will go back to their regular lives, things will gravitate back to the silent, illusional status-quo, and equilibrium

If nothing else, we must honor the souls of those torn away from us, by immortalizing their lives through our positive deeds.

Choose a commitment, a mitzvah that speaks to you, and commit to it. Start a study group. Give charity. Light a Shabbat candle. Pray daily. Get married. Have children. Observe Shabbat. Eat Kosher. Join a cause.

You feel different today due to Mumbai. Then think different and above all, act different.

Create a revolution. Big or small, revolutions always begin with one step in a new direction.

* * *

When there are no words, one place to reach back to is our ancestors. We gather strength from those who have suffered before us and remained to tell about it. If they didn’t remain, their children did. We are those children.

Let us open the book of books and read together; let us soothe each other with words of the soul. This week’s portion is good place to start:

Jacob left Beer-sheba and headed toward Charan… G-d promised Jacob: I am with you. I will protect you wherever you go and bring you back to this soil. I will not turn aside from you until I have fully kept this promise to you.

Jacob set off briskly, and headed toward the land of the people of the East.

(He came to a place where) he looked, and behold, there was a well in a field. Three flocks of sheep were lying beside it, since it was from this well that the flocks were watered. The top of the well was covered with a large stone. When all the flocks would come together there, (the shepherds) would roll the stone from the top of the well and water the sheep. Then they would replace the stone on the well.

“From where do you come, brothers?” asked Jacob. “We are from Charan.” “Do you know Nachor’s grandson, Laban?” “We know him.” “Is he at peace?” “He is at peace! Behold, here’s his daughter Rachel, coming with the sheep.”

“But the day is still long. It’s not yet time to bring the livestock together. Why not water the sheep and go on grazing?” “We can’t until all the flocks have come together. (All of us) then roll the stone from the top of the well. Only then can we water the sheep.”

While he was still conversing with them, Rachel appeared with her father’s sheep. She was the shepherdess. Jacob looked at his cousin Rachel who was with his uncle Laban’s sheep. He stepped forward, and rolled the stone from the top of the well, watering his uncle Laban’s sheep. Jacob kissed Rachel and wept aloud. He told her that he was Rivkah’s son, and thus related to her father. She ran to tell her father. (Genesis 29:1-12).

What does this episode mean? Why are we told all these seemingly irrelevant details?

Explain the mystics:

Jacob’s journey from Beersheba (in Israel) to the land of Charan in the East to build a family reflects every soul’s journey from the sublime heights (of the spiritual “seven fountains”, Beersheba in Hebrew) to the darkest depths of this cruel and wrathful world (Charan). The purpose of the soul’s radical descent is to build a family and transform the material universe into a Divine home. It’s not enough to survive through life’s hardships; we are charged with the mission and given the power to transform the darkness and turn it into light. To plant seeds in the material soil and compel it to yield beautiful fruits and wonderful children.

The first thing Jacob saw in the East was a “well in the field.” And this was a sudden and unexpected realization – “behold, a well in the field.” Even the fields of materialism, as concealed as they may be, contain within a well of water, symbolic of the saturated Divine sparks, of pure knowledge and of connection. Jacob’s spiritual eyes were not deceived by the layers of wrath; no matter how sudden it seems – and it is truly unexpected to find spiritual water in the deserts of materialism – Jacob did behold a well. Not merely water, but the source of water, and he understood and was consoled knowing that despite the aridness and emptiness around him, wellsprings were not far beneath the surface, waiting, anticipating to be released and water the flocks.

But the “top of the well was covered with a large stone.” The hard stony hearts of a world driven by self-interest, the insensitive, selfish universe posed many hardships, challenging us with many questions and dilemmas that block us from accessing the water within.

A large stone indeed. Oh my, how each of us knows how large this stone can be.

But the problem doesn’t end with the stone. The three flocks of sheep represent the nations of the world who control the well-waters. The Divine sparks embedded in the material universe are trapped; their powerful energy is most often used not to refine the universe, but for personal interests and immediate gains, and sometime for far worse: to destroy life. All the gifts of life, the forces of technology and human creativity are blessings to be used for bettering our world, not just for self-interest. And this self-interest of the “flocks,” only when they “come together” and see the mutual benefits of working together, controls the energy of the world. Because they are driven by their own personal gains, none of them has the power to lift the ego-driven “heavy stone” on their own. And then, after they lift the stone and draw water, they would “replace the stone on the well,” not allowing others to benefit.

Thus, Jacob was confronted with a double challenge: the heavy stone and the shepherds of the three flocks who control the process.

To confirm this fact, Jacob asks the shepherds: “From where do you come, brothers?” “We are from Charan,” they reply. Ah, Charan – the place of wrath. What can you expect from people who identify themselves with anger? Angry people will use their energy (water) to harm others.

Jacob continues: “Do you know Nachor’s grandson, Laban?” The shepherds reply: “We know him.” “Is he at peace?” “He is at peace!” And Jacob sadly understands that his uncle Laban is quite comfortable and doing well in this corrupt world. It will not be easy to confront Laban and his cohorts, who control the well and the stone concealing it.

But then Jacob is consoled: The shepherds continue: “Behold, here is his daughter Rachel, coming with the sheep.” Rachel represents the spiritual beauty of the soul which is concealed in the material world like a “rose among thorns.” In Kabbalistic terms, Rachel is the supernal attribute of malchus, dignity, which remains hidden within each of us, waiting to be released and revealed. And here again, the world “behold” is used. Suddenly, unexpected in this G-d forsaken place, behold, Rachel appears, leading the sheep.

Jacob then asks the shepherds of the world: “The day is still long. It’s not yet time to bring the livestock together. Why not water the sheep and go on grazing?”

Jacob is prodding the shepherds to nourish their flocks, to direct their energy toward spreading good and kindness in their environment. “The day is still long.” Day is the time of light. Night is the time of darkness. If it was night and you were overcome by darkness and confusion, it would be quite understandable why you can’t water the flocks. But we are in middle of the day, the light is shining and we live in a world of freedom and prosperity. Why not use these gifts to “water the sheep?”

The shepherds, however, reply, to Jacob’s dismay, “we can’t until all the flocks have come together. Only then can we roll the stone from the top of the well and water the sheep.” Even during the daylight, in good times, these materially-driven leaders cannot remove the “large stone” that blocks the spirit within, unless they are joined in common and mutual self-interest.

But not all is lost. “While he was still conversing with them, Rachel appeared with her father’s sheep. She was the shepherdess. Jacob looked at his cousin Rachel who was with his uncle Laban’s sheep.”

When Jacob sees Rachel leading her father’s sheep, his spirits are lifted. He sees that Rachel is the true shepherdess (none of the others are ever described as shepherds in these verses) – the soul (malchut) is alive and well (albeit concealed and trapped in Laban’s home), and she is leading the sheep to the water.

Seeing her trapped in Charan by Laban evokes the profound empathy of Jacob. This in turn empowers Jacob to “step forward and roll the stone from the top of the well, watering his uncle Laban’s sheep. With deep compassion “Jacob kissed Rachel and wept aloud. He told her that he was Rivkah’s son, and thus related to her father. She ran to tell her father.”

Tanya (chapter 45) explains it thus: Every soul on earth begins its journey in the spiritual realms and from there it is thrust into “exile” in a physical body and universe that conceals the soul’s presence and all things spiritual and sublime. The Divine spark of the soul is in effect trapped in the narrow confines of our mundane existence, causing a profound state of spiritual and existential dissonance. How much more so is the spiritual exile when we become enmeshed in our narcissistic behavior and destructive patterns, which further displaces the Divine soul, and, by extension, the soul’s Divine source, causing, what is called, the esoteric doctrine of the “Exile of the Shechinah.”

Rachel manifests and identifies with this spiritual exile of malchut. She therefore paid the price by dying in childbirth, and then dwelling in a lonely wayside grave in order to bear witness to the suffering of her children. As long as her children are wandering and oppressed Rachel cannot find any final rest and remains with them “on the road”. “Rachel weeps for her children and refuses to be comforted.”

And what is Jacob’s role in this process? Jacob represents compassion (tiferet), arousing empathy for the soul’s traumatic descent into the material universe – a potent method to awaken the exiled soul (and Shechinah) from its displacement.

This is the meaning of the verse, “And Jacob kissed Rachel and lifted up his voice and wept”: “Jacob — with his supernal attribute of Divine mercy — arouses great compassion for Rachel, the source of all souls. “And he lifted up his voice” — upwards, to the fount of the Higher Mercies, to the source of the Thirteen Divine Attributes of Mercy. “And he wept” — in order to awaken and draw from there, from the boundless Divine Mercies, abundant compassion upon all the souls and upon their source, to raise them from their exile and to unite them in the Higher Unity of the Divine infinite light, at the level of “kisses”, which is “the attachment of spirit with spirit,” as it is written, “Let Him kiss me with the kisses of His mouth,” which means the union of the word of man who studies Torah with “the word of G-d, namely, the Halacha.” So too, through thinking Torah thoughts, mortal thought is united with divine thought, and so too, mortal action is united with Divine action, through active observance of the mitzvoth, and, in particular, the practice of charity and loving-kindness.”

Simply put, Jacob’s cry and kiss is a method that we can all employ when are faced with terrible tragedies, which has the power to awaken us from spiritual slumber: By pondering on the radical descent of the soul into a cruel world we can arouse a profound sense of compassion for the trapped soul. How sad it is to see a gentle soul, descend from its loftiest heights, to the nethermost depths of selfish existence, and sometimes be destroyed in the process.

How much more so, when we witness how innocent souls have been brutally ripped way from us by inhuman terrorists.

This compassion (of Jacob) empowers Rachel to stand strong with her exiled children. And ultimately Rachel’s tears prevail: Your work will be rewarded, and they will return from the land of the enemy. There is hope for your future. Your children will return to their own borders.

* * *

We all must travel on Jacob’s journey to the East.

A young couple embarked on just such a journey five years ago. They traveled, and traveled briskly, with enthusiasm and joy, to a land in the East to do exactly what their forefather Jacob did: Build a family, spread light, transform the farthest corners of the Earth into a Divine home, offering warmth and comfort to all those living and passing through their land.

And they did indeed build such a home, called the Chabad House of Mumbai. The many accounts being currently documented tell the story of a loving couple who removed many a stone, freeing the wellsprings of many a soul that entered their sphere. Their unwavering belief – and total devotion to their shlichus (mission), as emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe – empowered them to remain undeterred and remove the “large stone,” not just by day but also by night. Just like their father Jacob.

They revealed the “Rachel” within many people, and the “well” within many aspects of life in Mumbai. Just like their father Jacob.

But for some incomprehensible reason they were not blessed with the protection promised to Jacob by G-d: “I am with you. I will protect you wherever you go and bring you back to this soil. I will not turn aside from you until I have fully kept this promise to you.”

Why this loving couple – and the guests in their home – were not accorded this promise – we may never know. But no one can doubt, above all G-d Himself, that they embraced the mission they were given and took the same journey as their grandfather Jacob did, and paid the prices as Jacob did, if not more.

Then tragedy struck. And now we have another son of Rivka (this time he is two-years old and his name is Moshe’le) weeping aloud, mamme, mamme…

Rivka’s son wept for all the tears Rachel would cry for her suffering children through all the generations (see A Mothers’ Tears).

And now we are left weeping with him. Can we transform these tears into compassion that will evoke an unprecedented flow of Divine blessings? Will we become more compassionate people, kinder, gentler, nicer to each other? Will we do away with our petty rivalries, envies, insecurities and plain inertia which divides us? Will we lift ourselves to a higher standard? That is our challenge today.

The leaders of the world, driven by their own interests, have allowed a climate of terror to destroy and drive fear in the hearts of the world’s citizens. Large stones indeed are covering the beauty within this world. Even when lifted, it usually is not to free the spirit, but for personal gain. And now, the agents of destruction have annihilated a light that arrived in the East – leaving us with a heavier stone than we can have ever imagined.

We are left with no option but to revive the Jacob within us all. Despite the heaviness of the task, it is only the power of Jacob’s faith – and his ability to perceive the beauty of Rachel and the potent wellspring beneath the earth – that will allow us to eliminate these new and unwelcome large stones.

The Arizal says, that the large stone covering the well refers to the big questions and dilemmas we struggle with. The biggest of these questions have now, tragically, resurfaced with the Mumbai massacre. Jacob’s rolling the stone off the well represents the indefatigable resources of the soul that lifts and shatters the greatest questions with its persistent pursuit of clarity and truth, which will mark the end of days (eikev, ikvesa de’meshicha).

May that day be now.

May “The Space” (G-d is called “space” in this traditional consolation) console all those grieving amongst the mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

And may we all transform our tears into a revolution of goodness.

~~~~~

Hemshech Tzaddik-Dalet Part V

This weekend several thousand leaders, from six continents and over 100 countries, are gathering together in a powerful convention. They are called shluchim. Messengers. This simple name, however, carries within itself volumes of invaluable lessons for each on of us. Lessons that have the power to change your life forever. This essay is in honor of the Annual International Shluchim Conference this weekend in New York.

When it comes to big life issues, we humans have the tendency to avoid drawing very distinct lines. And justly so. Life is far too complex and nuanced to impose a black and white perspective. Grey is the color of choice.

Despite this general rule (which itself, by the logic above, should not be etched in stone), the fact is that there are areas where lines can be drawn. And one primary one is the big choice we make about our careers – where we will invest the bulk of our life energies. In this area we really have only two choices: Will you live your life driven either by self-interest, or by dedication to a higher cause than yourself?

The undisputed argument can be made, that even self-interest can benefit the public. Isn’t that the basis of capitalism: Personal gain and even greed serve as a powerful catalyst to create products and services that benefit the public. Even a self-interest driven individual can be charitable and benevolent. And conversely, even dedication to a higher cause can also be driven by self-interest, in effect, making it just another expression and extension of personal gain and benefit.

Yet, the very clear distinction remains between the primary and secondary drives: One has chosen a life driven by self-interest, which also – as an ancillary element –can happen to benefit others. The latter has chosen a life that is primarily driven by helping others – a cause beyond himself – which also can satisfy his self-interest.

Another key point: You can be involved in your self-interests without anyone else gaining anything. Or your self-interest can be directed toward efforts than benefit many. Like the difference between the two options of putting on a fur coat or lighting a fire to keep warm in a cold room: By donning a fur coat (a tzaddilk in peltz), you serve and keep yourself warm, but no one else. Lighting a fire warms you and everyone else in the room.

Sadly, even religious commitment today, due to its mechanization, has become trapped beneath these two options.

I submit that one of the greatest contributions in our time to counter the inevitable stagnation that results from being content with a self-interest driven life, including religious self-interest, was the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s innovation of the concept of shlichus.

Shlichus literally means “mission.” A shliach is a messenger sent on a mission to serve a cause greater than him or herself: To help others. Every person on Earth is sent here on a mission; your soul was dispatched for you to accomplish a particular assignment, which is your calling.

In this week’s Torah portion we read about the first shlichus in the Bible: Abraham sending Eliezer as his emissary to find a bride for Isaac. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi explains that Eliezer’s mission to join Isaac and Rebecca reflects the general mission of each of our lives: To fuse matter and spirit, body and soul into one seamless union.

Dedicating your life to a cause beyond yourself, unleashes many powerful forces. Firstly, it frees you from the stifling containment of your own orbit – of breathing your own recycled air and that of your natural environment (“ghetto”). Leaving your comfort zones creates challenges that always bring the best out of you. Secondly, it empowers you to become a leader instead of a follower. Finally, and above all, it introduces into your life, your family’s life – and into the universe – an energy of giving instead of taking. You reverse the arrow that is, left to its own accord, inwardly directed toward self-interest – toward “me, me and more me,” and you turn it outward, toward others and the larger world. Like the windows in the Holy Temple, which were narrow on the inside and wide on the outside, in order to allow the transmission of the inner holy light to the outside.

In Kabbalistic and Chassidic terms this is the concept of Ohr, light-energy, whose fundamental property is bittul – the ability to transcend your own ego and self-interest. In our universe made of matter and energy (container and light) – with all matter being essentially energy – we always have a choice: Matter, by nature and by definition, is self-contained, concealing the energy within and denying any root source. Energy is selfless, always pointing to a source (of the energy). Will we choose a life driven by matter and substance, which is selfishly oriented; or will we seek out the energy within which directs us to a higher source?

In our last installment on the continuing series of Hemshech Tzaddik-Dalet – the discourse delivered 75 years ago in Warsaw – we reviewed the three different dimensions of the selfless “energy consciousness.”

After explaining the first dimension, the profound humility of the energy sensing its utter insignificance in face of the energy source, the Rebbe Rayatz goes on (in discourse delivered 75 years ago this week) to define the second, higher level of selflessness: The sense that the energy is entirely dependent and has no being without its source.

There is a fundamental difference between these two dimensions of bittul, though both are a result of the energy’s connection to the source. The first level of bittul is only circumstantial. In face of its source the energy feel utterly nullified. But not that the energy on its own is actually insignificant. Take a candle for example. In the light of the sun, the candle’s flame gives off no light. It actually appears dark in comparison to the sun’s brilliant backdrop. But move the candle away from the presence of the sun into a dark room, then the candle has a very significant presence.

By contrast, the second level of bittul permeates the energy to such a point that it’s very being, even not in the presence of the source, senses that it has no existence of its own, only as a result and extension of its source. The example for this would be sunlight itself: Unlike an independent flame, the sun’s light always “feels” that it cannot exist without the sun.

Applying this to the concept of shlichus – the role each of us plays when we sense ourselves as Divine emissaries on a mission to serve a higher cause (than our own needs) – two possibilities arise in the way we serve as messengers on our missions:

Your dedication to the cause – your bittul – can be one in which you feel yourself utterly humble in face of the cause you represent. Like a student who feels absolutely trivial in the presence of his great teacher. But this feeling does not permeate your entire being. Your ego and personality remains intact, only nullified in the presence of your teacher. Once you leave your master’s presence, you feel very much of a personality.

A higher level of dedication and bittul is one in which your entire being senses that is has no substance and value expect as an extension of it’s source. It’s like being “in the zone,” where you don’t sense yourself at all; the object and the subject, the noun and the adjective, are all one. The messenger feels that his entire being has no substance if not for being a messenger of the sender.

Practically, the difference between these two attitudes is not mere semantics. Take, for example, a situation where a student of a great teacher is faced with a serious dilemma and does not have the ability to consult his master. In the first instance, the student would have no choice but to decide what to do based on his own instincts and knowledge. If he were in the presence of his master, he would of course defer to the master. But now that he is “on his own,” he is left to his own devices.

In the second instance, the student has so absorbed and integrated the teachings and methodologies of his teacher, that even when he is not in the master’s physical presence, the student is never “on his own;” he feels that all his tools and his knowledge are but a mere extension of his teacher’s, and thus he solves the problem not with his own logic, but with the approach of his master that he has utterly assimilated.

To move from the first to the second level student/shliach is not just a matter of “wiring” or feelings (hergesh), as if to say that some people are simply not capable of reaching the higher level of dedication. Every student has the ability, with effort and hard work, to reach a point that he can This requires commitment, devotion, and immersion into the teachings and spirit of the master’s thoughts and methodologies, to the point where the student’s mind, heart and sprit reflect and become one with the master’s.

This is one reason why the Torah commands us to “know thy G-d,” not just to believe but to study, probe and understand G-d and His ways. Faith alone connects you with the Divine. But on its own it hasn’t yet transformed you, the person. In the name of faith you defer and surrender to a Higher Will. But where do you, as an individual, remain standing? When faith is integrated into your system – your mind and heart – then you become transformed into an instrument: Your mind channels a higher intelligence and state of consciousness, your heart channels a higher state of emotions, and your actions, your arms and legs and your entire body, manifest a higher, refined state of behavior. You and your faculties have become, in effect, agents of higher energy.

* * *

People marvel at the fact that Chabad shluchim cover the globe. Wherever there is Coca-Cola you can find Chabad. Others talk about their great dedication, no matter what they will never leave their job.

I humbly submit, that the greatest story of all, is the fact that the Rebbe understood the need to empower and to create proactive individuals, who would transcend self-interest, or harness their self-interest for the good of the greater cause. Especially in times of freedom and prosperity (notwithstanding the current economic meltdown) it is so easy to gravitate to a state of complacency and passivity, immersed and engulfed by self-interest.

The model of shlichus – that an individual, or a couple, leave their comfort zone and self-orbiting life and go out to build communities – is a model for us all: the ultimate antidote to modern-day self-indulgence.

And this model itself we have the two possibilities discussed above, one deeper than the next in the emissary’s dedication to the higher cause.

But before you get too excited, there is yet another, third and even more profound dimension of bittul. Stay tuned.