Rabbi header logo
Friday, December 8, 2017 / 21 Kislev 5778
Light Shabbat candles at 5:02 p.m.


Rabbi Sharfman
RABBI SHARFMAN'S
MESSAGE  
for SHABBAT  
and CANDLE LIGHTING  
 
 
Dear Congregation Kehillah and Friends,
 
The parasha for this Shabbat is Vayeshev (same root as teshuvah...to return) "and Jacob returned to the land where his father dwelled". It focuses on Joseph and his dreams, being sold into slavery by his brothers and his imprisonment in Egypt, setting the stage for his service to pharaoh due to his ability to interpret dreams.
 
A kavannah for Parashat Vayeshev
 
Please help me to appreciate the gift of my dreams, to understand them and to learn and grow from them, that they may help me return to You, Source of all goodness, and guide me along the path of goodness. And may I be privileged to do at least one thing between this Shabbat and the next to help make the dream of another come true.
 
Be sure to RSVP to Renee by Friday, December 8, for our Latke Nosh on Friday, December 15. In addition to latkes, we'll also enjoy Chanukah candle lighting, welcoming the Torah back home, Kabbalat Shabbat, and Chanukah songs. This special evening begins at 5:30 p.m. with the Latke Nosh. RSVP to Renee at info@congregationkehillah.org.
 
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Bonnie Sharfman  
 
Special note: As I prepared this candle lighting reminder, President Trump had just announced the U.S.' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel ( reality check: Jerusalem has been the capital of Israel since the country's declaration of independence nearly 70 years ago. From Israel's founding, Jerusalem has been the location of the government, the Supreme Court, and the residence of both its President and Prime Minister. Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish people for some 3,000 years. We have been praying 'Next year in Jerusalem' for many centuries, and Israel's national anthem ends with the word Jerusalem. It is at the heart of our past, present, and future) and plans to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. There is a wide range of perspectives and political analyses, with no surprises, based on the media outlet you follow. Will it quash the peace process (is one happening?)? Lead to more violence (in which case, are threats of violence 'bullying' or is the status quo OK and not important enough to risk more lives over (or is it immoral to not act?)?
 
Here are a few articles representing different analyses, all 'mainstream', none of them from 'extreme' sources.
 
I found this article by Yossi Alper interesting:
 
Fighting the last war, fighting the next war   
December 4, 2017 
 
Q. Trump will reportedly announce this week his decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Could this be the spark that starts the next intifada?
 
A. The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah is crudely threatening such an intifada, using language like "violence could ensue and we won't be able to stop it." Strictly speaking, this is an unacceptable admission that the Palestinian Authority does not exercise basic control over its populace. In fact, it is a not so subtle threat of PA-approved violence against what the Arab world is liable to consider a scuttling of the peace process.
 
At the time of writing, President Trump was scheduled to announce whether or not he would extend for an additional six months the freeze on moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. One way or another, some sort of groundbreaking pronouncement on Jerusalem has been projected by the administration for announcement on Wednesday December 6.
 
Trump apparently feels it necessary to take action on Jerusalem in order to make good on a campaign pledge to "move the embassy" before his first year in office is up. As the Russia investigation closes in on him, he presumably also wants to whip up support from his pro-Israel base of evangelicals, Orthodox American Jews and hawkish ultra-nationalists. Then too, Netanyahu is undoubtedly egging him on: the Israeli prime minister, too, is facing growing legal threats and needs to rally his base with a Jerusalem "victory".
 
On the other hand, some of Trump's advisers are undoubtedly telling him that a move on Jerusalem now will contradict the spirit of his anticipated Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. The PA/PLO's Abbas threatens to cease all peace process contacts in response to the move. Jordan's King Abdullah II has lobbied Washington strongly against the move, warning of negative consequences. Egypt too has warned against a Trump move on Jerusalem.
 
There are a number of ways Trump might address the Jerusalem issue that could either dampen or fan the flames of Palestinian and Arab state anger. On the side of moderation, he could recognize only West Jerusalem as Israel's capital. This could be seen to imply endorsement of a two-state solution in which East Jerusalem is the Palestinian capital. Trump could also extend the freeze on moving the embassy even as he recognizes Israel's capital in Jerusalem, thereby removing at least one cause of threatened Palestinian unrest.
 
None of this might make any difference to Palestinians and the Arab world. Certainly recognition of "Jerusalem", without distinguishing east from west or a united city from a partitioned city, will be an obvious casus belli for Palestinians, as will moving the US embassy.
 
Of course it's also possible that Trump, Kushner and partners know perfectly well that their peace plan has no change at all of being accepted by the PLO. Conceivably they view a provocative Trump initiative on Jerusalem as a way to scuttle the process, please their constituents, and "blame the Arabs". After all, at a time when Arab revolutions and civil wars that have nothing to do with Israel are decimating countries like Syria, Yemen and Libya, a statement by Kushner (at the Saban Forum on Sunday) to the effect that "if we're going to try and create more stability in the region as a whole, this issue has to be solved," shows just how out of touch the Trump team is.
 
The region will remain unstable no matter what happens to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Militant Islam is not interested in a two-state solution, which should be advanced first and foremost for the good of Israel and the Palestinians. Meanwhile, whatever Trump touches in the rest of the region--the Kurds, Syria, Saudi Arabia-Qatar--seems to go bad.
 
Q. Now the settlements issue has become part of the Trump-Russia investigation. . .
 
A. It emerges that in December 2016, during the presidential transition period, Netanyahu asked Trump to lobby against UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which declared the settlements illegal. Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner sent future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to the Russians to persuade them to veto the resolution. The move failed, to Netanyahu's consternation, and the resolution passed. Kushner's and Flynn's activities constituted, at a minimum, illegal collusion with a foreign power before the new administration had taken office.
 
In historical perspective, we will look back and recall that the settlements cause, already a disastrous symbol of Israel's decline as a Jewish and democratic state, was also sullied by being caught up in a host of illegal, unethical and plain outrageous acts of collusion with Russia by Trump and his entourage.
 
Q. November 29 constituted the seventieth anniversary of the United Nations decision to partition Palestine. Back in 1947, the future Israel welcomed the decision while the Palestinians and Arab countries rejected it. Has the Arab world learned anything from this?
 
A. It was only in 2011 that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) acknowledged the Palestinian mistake in rejecting UNGA Resolution 181. Prior to that many Palestinians, including those negotiating at various times with Israel, acknowledged the mistake privately.
 
Accepting 181 openly is important for Palestinians if they are to accept a two-state solution, meaning another version of partition--this one inevitably far less generous to their needs and demands than that of 1947 which they turned down. Resolution 181 awarded them around half the land of Mandatory Palestine; a two-state solution based on the 1967 lines awards them at best 22 percent of the land. Perhaps more significant, acceptance of partition's creation of a "Jewish state" also implicitly obliges Palestinians to abandon their demand for the right of return of 1948 refugees--perhaps the biggest ideological-historical stumbling block to successful two-state negotiations.
 
In other words, public and official acknowledgement by Palestinians of their mistake in 1947, backed up by a parallel acknowledgement by the Arab states, would be a helpful step toward defining a two-state solution.
 
But it would not be enough, particularly when on the Israeli side more and more adherents of the dominant right-wing nationalist mainstream are taking their distance from two states and from partition. The West Bank settlement enterprise represents a claim to Israeli sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine. A majority within the current governing coalition appears to agree. True, PM Netanyahu ostensibly still adheres to the idea of a Palestinian state with security restrictions on its sovereignty. But he insists he won't remove a single settlement. He is undoubtedly aware that even if conceivably he has his way--backed apparently by the Trump peace team--this will not be a genuine two-state solution, real partition will be off the negotiating agenda, and conflict will continue.
 
Incidentally, had the Palestinians and Arab states accepted 181 back in 1947, an expanded Jerusalem including Bethlehem would have belonged to neither state. It would have been a corpus separatum under UN rule. Instead, in the fighting that followed the partition resolution Jordan took control of East Jerusalem while Israel declared its capital in West Jerusalem. That partition status prevailed until 1967 when Israel "united" Jerusalem. But note that under international law, 181 prevails. This explains why there are no embassies in any part of Jerusalem.
 
Q. Turning to Syria, several serious strategic thinkers in Israel are arguing that the Netanyahu government should and could have intervened there in 2012, toppled the Assad regime and installed the secular opposition in power. Does this make sense?
 
A. This is extremely shaky speculation. Yes, Israel could have intervened in Syria before the appearance of ISIS, at a time when the Assad regime was weak and beleaguered and Iran and Russia had not yet intervened. Yes, it could conceivably have removed Assad from power. At the time, a variety of secular Syrian opponents of the regime were asking Israel for help. Naturally they pledged to live at peace with us (in return for the Golan Heights) once we had helped them take power.
 
But for Israel to meddle in an Arab neighbor's politics and state structure? We've been there before, in 1982 in Lebanon, and the outcome was horrific. We occupied Beirut, installed a supposedly friendly Christian president in power, kicked the PLO out, gave Syria a bloody nose, and ended up with no friends and only enemies in Lebanon. It took us 18 years to extract ourselves. Our neighbors--all of them--never forgave us. The outcome was more war and destruction, not peace. Separately, we tried to dictate to Palestinians under our occupation who would rule them, and even that failed miserably as Israeli-appointed West Bank and Gaza leaders were assassinated by the PLO.
 
Two retired and very distinguished IDF generals, Amos Yadlin and Amiram Levin, argued recently that Israel should have intervened in 2012. Recall that at the time, PM Netanyahu was locked in conflict with his most senior security advisers over Netanyahu's demand that Israel attack Iran to thwart its nuclear program. Perhaps it is fair to say in retrospect that Netanyahu's interventionist energies would have been better devoted to Damascus than to Tehran.
 
But Israeli intelligence back then got Syria all wrong. No one predicted at the time that ISIS, Iran and Russia would enter the fray in Syria. There were even (incorrect, in retrospect) learned predictions then that Assad would fall anyway. Taken together, these assessment errors would have constituted a disastrous intelligence basis for intervening.
 
But most important, have we really begun to forget the lessons of 1982? What if we intervened and Assad survived? He would have rallied the entire Arab world against the Israeli aggressor. What if we occupied Damascus and couldn't extract ourselves? What if the "moderate" Syrians turned out to be (surprise, surprise!) not so moderate? In any case they all seemed woefully unorganized and incapable of taking advantage of military support. But why suffice with Assad when we could theoretically have intervened in Egypt to remove its Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, and "restore order" to another neighbor?
 
One presumed background factor behind speculation regarding what we should have done in Syria is the sense that now, with Assad surviving and the Iranians and Russians embedded to our north, we confront a real strategic dilemma (Egypt turned out alright without our help). "How could we have avoided this?" the pundits ask.
 
My answer is that we couldn't, any more than we could or should have prevented revolutions in six Arab countries in 2011 and mayhem in Iraq after 2003--all developments that have eased the Iranian and Russian entry into the Levant and elsewhere in the Arab Middle East.
 
Some of these negative developments (e.g. Iraq) represent disastrous American policy decisions. Some represent unpredictable tides of history. With all due respect, all of them dwarf little Israel and its aspirations. While Netanyahu would have been reckless to an extreme had Israel attacked Iran's nuclear infrastructure back in 2012, his caution then and ever since regarding intervention in Syria is, I believe, justified. Yes, Iran is getting close and the Russians are problematic friends. And yes, the US under Trump continues to make mistakes based on ignorance and hubris. But we have to know our place in the greater geostrategic scheme of things.
 
Setting red lines for the Iranians and Hezbollah in Syria, including for Iran's efforts to enhance Hezbollah's missile arsenal, makes sense. Coordinating with the Russians in Syria, to the greatest extent possible, makes sense. Encouraging coherent US policies in the region of course makes sense. We seem currently capable of enforcing our red lines successfully without getting dragged into a new war.
 
True, that war may well come despite Israel's deterrent and preventive efforts. But we'll fight it from a defensive pose based on national consensus. History has shown that that's the best way.
 
From Shmuel Rosner, senior political editor at jewishjournal.com:
  
Israel's Capital. Duh!
December 6, 2017
 
Give President Donald Trump credit for doing the right thing. Give him credit for once using his blunt-mannered approach to do something good. Give him credit for stating the obvious: Jerusalem is Israel's capital.

Nothing can change this, nothing is supposed to change this. Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital does not infringe on anyone's rights, it does not preclude a settlement over Jerusalem in the future, it does not mean that the Palestinians can't have a claim for parts of Jerusalem. It is correcting a wrong - the wrong notion that Israel should be the only country in the world deprived of the right to establish a capital where it wants it to be.

I know, for some people, giving Trump credit for anything is painful. These people will come up with a pile of excuses as to why the recognition of Jerusalem is wrong, or why it was done at the wrong time, or why it was done in the wrong way, or by the wrong person.
For some people, giving Trump credit for anything is painful.

They would want a Barack Obama or a Hillary Clinton to be the one. They would want a peace deal to be the occasion. They would want Palestinians to accept it, to give their blessing before it is done. They would want it done only under very specific terms that currently seem remote, almost unreachable.

I can easily come up with a similar list and explain why and how such things should be done. But it's a futile exercise: First, because Trump already made his decision - The New York Times reported that the president told Israeli and Arab leaders of it on Dec. 5, before a planned announcement the following day. Second, because for many of these people, no time would be the right time, and no person would be the right person.

Recognition is important, a moment to celebrate, but we ought to remember that Jerusalem will not change as a result of it. It is still a very poor city. It is unappealing to most Israelis - being too religious, too gloomy, too dirty.

And Jerusalem's demographic reality is also something to consider. About a third of its residents are Arab. They could potentially elect an Arab mayor and have great impact on Jerusalem's future. Only they choose to live in denial and pretend that Jerusalem is not Israel's to keep.
Maybe Israel will not keep all of it forever. As is well documented, previous Israeli prime ministers agreed to compromise in Jerusalem. They agreed to let the Palestinians have their capital in parts of the city. They will have their Jerusalem; Israel will have its Jerusalem. Trump will have an opportunity to twice recognize a capital called Jerusalem.

But truthfully, it is not very likely that he will have such opportunity. The Arab world, predictably, responded to Trump's decision in its habitual way: rejection, anger, threats, the usual mix of bombast and self-pity that characterizes many of its interactions with all things Israel.

That anger will subside and recognition will be a new reality. It is hard to envision a future American president taking recognition back, or moving an embassy back to Tel Aviv. Not even the Democratic legislators who currently criticize the President's decision - wrong time, wrong way, wrong person - will take it back. Maybe in a few days, some of them will even come to their senses and agree that cutting this Gordian knot had to be done by a sword.

The Palestinians, if or when their anger subsides, will ask for compensation. They will expect compensation. They will tell their American counterparts that their peace plan must reflect the fact that Israel already got its reward from the administration, and that now it is time for Israel to pay a price for U.S. recognition. Who knows - maybe that's the plan. Maybe all Trump is doing now is meant to buy credit and goodwill before serving the bitter pill of a controversial peace plan.

But until this happens, give the president the credit he deserves. Give him credit for being a man of his word on this issue. Give him credit for ignoring the threats of the Turks, the French and the Jordanians.

Give him credit for understanding that some bandages should be removed without much hesitation of negotiation or fear of temporary pain. And give him credit for being one of a few number of foreign leaders who throughout history recognized the connection of Jews to Jerusalem.

And, from the Israeli media, a review of how they reported views of American Jewish organizations across the spectrum:

U.S. Jewish Groups Divided in Reactions to Trump's Jerusalem Announcement
Mainstream and right-wing organizations welcome Trump's announcement that U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital, while left-wing groups bemoan decision
   
Jerusalem's Old City goes red, white and blue in lead-up to major Trump speech
 
Opinion: We American Christians welcome Trump's obedience to God's word on Jerusalem
 
Condemnations from across the world for Trump as U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital
 
The largest mainstream and right-leaning Jewish groups welcomed U.S. President Donald  
Trump's announcement that the United States will recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, while groups on the left expressed regrets.
 
"Today's action by @POTUS is an important, historic step for which we are grateful. We urge the president to quickly relocate our embassy to Israel's capital," the American Israel Public Affairs Committee tweeted moments after Trump's speech Wednesday, using the acronym for "president of the United States."
 
But the Reform Jewish movement, the largest in the United States, called Wednesday's announcement "ill-timed but expected."
 
The announcement, said Union for Reform Judaism President Rabbi Rick Jacobs on behalf of the organizations of the movement, "affirms what the Reform Jewish movement has long held: that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Yet while we share the President's belief that the U.S. Embassy should, at the right time, be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, we cannot support his decision to begin preparing that move now, absent a comprehensive plan for a peace process."
 
Jacobs also said that the White House should not undermine efforts toward making peace between Israel and the Palestinians by "making unilateral decisions that are all but certain to exacerbate the conflict."

Here's how reaction broke down among various Jewish and pro-Israel groups.
The 'mainstream':
 
Malcolm Hoenlein, president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said Trump was doing "the right thing."

"When President Trump visited the Western Wall and made a declaration recognizing Jerusalem as holy to the Jews after the denunciation of UNESCO, there was not even one warm-up, not one demonstration, because when you do the right thing, you do not have to ask questions, you just do it," Hoenlein said Wednesday in an address at the launching of the Lobby for the Protection of the Mount of Olives in the Knesset.

The Conference of Presidents includes more than 50 Jewish organizations across the range of ideologies, and seeks consensus on U.S.-Israel affairs.

The Anti-Defamation League called the step "important and long overdue," but urged all parties "to work together to reduce tensions and create conditions conducive for the rapid resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations leading to a two-state solution."

AIPAC said that it has long supported an "undivided #Jerusalem" as the "historic, current and future capital of Israel."

"Relocating the embassy to #Jerusalem does not in any way prejudge the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian #peace process, to include establishing two states for two peoples and resolving Palestinian claims to the eastern portion of the city and the disposition of holy places," AIPAC tweeted.

The American Jewish Committee, Hadassah and the Jewish Federations of North American also welcomed the president's announcement without reservations.


The 'right':

The Republican Jewish Coalition praised the president for his announcement of a "significant change in U.S. policy" by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and announcing a plan to begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

"President Trump is doing what he does so well: recognizing the reality on the ground. No more false news - Jerusalem is Israel's capital," Norm Coleman, the RJC's national chairman and a former Minnesota senator, said in a statement.

The RJC will run a full-page ad in Thursday's edition of The New York Times thanking Trump for his decision.

Mort Klein, head of the Zionist Organization of America, told Jewish Insider on Wednesday, "I am pleased that after 22 long years since the embassy bill passed that Trump is going to be finally recognizing the obvious. I am disappointed that he is signing a waiver two days after the deadline. I would have preferred he take the existing consulate or another government-owned building, put a sign on it and say this is the embassy, immediately."

The Simon Wiesenthal Center said that with his announcement, Trump "will right a historic wrong."

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder and president of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, called the announcement "a bold, courageous move that is long overdue, and is especially significant coming from Israel's closest ally. Both Jews and Christians around the world have prayed for this day, which rights a historic wrong by affirming to the world that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people."


The 'left':

The Jewish Democratic Council of America released a statement by its chair, former Rep.Ron Klein of Florida, saying it too believes that "Israel's capital is Jerusalem" and that United States "can and should move our embassy to a location in Jerusalem under undisputed Israeli sovereignty." But it quickly pivoted to charge that the Trump White House "has neglected efforts to meaningfully support peace between Palestinians and Israelis."

The left-wing Mideast policy group J Street said in a statement that the change of U.S. policy on Jerusalem will undermine Middle East peace efforts and could lead to violence.

"Israel's capital is in Jerusalem and it should be internationally recognized as such in the context of an agreed two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem," J Street said. "In the absence of that final agreement between the parties on the city's status, blanket recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is premature and divisive. "That is why, since 1967, all administrations have maintained that the final status of the entirety of Jerusalem is to be decided by negotiations, and have avoided any actions that could be interpreted as prejudging their outcome."

J Street said the decision "could seriously undermine the administration's stated commitment to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while potentially threatening Israel's security and alienating Arab regional partners."

The New Israel Fund, which raises funds for progressive Israeli NGOs, called the president's decision to begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem "a dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible move by a dangerous, reckless, and irresponsible American president," adding that "Israelis will be the ones to pay the price."

Similar caution was expressed by Ameinu, the progressive Zionist group.

If Not Now, an anti-occupation and anti-Trump organization, condemned the decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

"Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu both know that any change to an already untenable status quo in Jerusalem has the potential to spark deadly violence. Yet they continue to capitulate to the political whims of the far right, advancing extremist policies, with no care about the impact on the lives of everyday Israelis and Palestinians," the group said in a statement. "Trump's choice to recognize Jerusalem as the capital plays right into the hands of these extremists who support the indefinite and violent occupation of millions of Palestinians."

Thank you for reading.
 
CONGREGATION KEHILLAH
602-369-7667  
info@congregationkehillah.org   |   congregationkehillah.org
5858 E. Dynamite Blvd., Cave Creek, AZ 85331

Mailing Address: 
21001 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 1630 #439, Phoenix, AZ 85050