November 1, 2002

ISRAEL THE FIFTY-FIRST STATE



This installment may be unsettling for some but please have patience, curb your emotions and read carefully. It is important if one wants to understand America's Foreign Policy and get a glimpse of the possible future. Please note that whenever bold print appears in direct quotations it has been added for emphasis.

In the October 25, 2002 issue of The International Jerusalem Post Shmuley Boteach who is identified as "a rabbi and best selling author, who hosts a daily talk radio show syndicated across the United States" wrote on the Opinion page a lengthy article entitled "Add Israel's star to the Union." The accompanying picture features the U.S. flag with a large six point star in the place of honor leading all the other smaller five point ones. Lest one might get paranoid and presume that the artist meant this to be the final design of our national flag he placed it on a rather barren stretch of beach at the edge of a body of water, which probably symbolizes the Mediterranean, and with a small hill in the distance. One can assume, therefore, that it was meant to represent the 51st state's flag rather than our national one. On the other hand the addition of the Star of David to Old Glory is not new because Goldberg's book Jewish Power carries it on the dust jacket although, as a late arrival, it is placed slightly below the last of the ones we are familiar with.

In case one might think that the author is merely making a Jonathan Swift type "Modest Proposal" it behooves one to read the article carefully because the rabbi details the benefits which would accrue from this idea not only to Israel but to the United States as well. The argument proceeds as follows:

Americans are now, as a result of the September 11 attack, in the same situation that Israel has been all along. The rest of the world no longer has sympathy for America but the country is regarded as arrogant and throwing its weight around, an idea that Jews are thoroughly familiar with. When America is being accused of trying to take over the world, has this not happened to the Jews also? “Jews have been decried as condescending to the rest of the world with their trumped-up claim of being 'the chosen people,' just as America is now condemned for harboring a holier-than-thou attitude to the world's nations, who are not prepared to weed out evil terrorists." The author goes on to say that “Now that the Americans have become the Jews of the world, I propose formalizing the arrangement by making Israel the 51st state in the Union."

This act would immediately solve a number of problems for the Jewish state Rabbi Boteach believes. Although Israel has currently the means “to destroy the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure and exile Überterrorist Yasser Arafat" it is prevented from doing so by international pressure via the U.S.:

”And so Israel straddles the line. It proceeds with limited actions, after which Bush, under intense pressure from American allies, puts in a call to Ariel Sharon and Israeli troops have to pull back - until another group of Israeli civilians are killed.
This problem would obviously be solved, by statehood because once Israelis are American citizens any attack on them anywhere would be an attack against America.
Then it would be absurd for Bush to be pressured by other world leaders to curb the military response. Israeli-turned-American commando units would finally go in and remove Arafat's terror regime once and for all, just as the US changed regimes in Afghanistan.”

What does America get out of this arrangement? The author's answer is equally simple: America needs a permanent base in the troublesome Middle East, which is a spawning ground of terrorists. America would immediately acquire "a crack military that is highly experienced in fighting terror. America would also be able to watch over the Middle Eastern oil fields, on which it is so dependent, from very close range."

For those Jews who feel it would "be crazy" to give up their homeland which they have been struggling to get for 2000 years, the rabbi advises "a reality check." Israel will never be safe because:

"Let's call a spade a spade. The Arabs will only ever be satisfied when Israel is pushed into the sea, and without an American green light to get rid of the Palestinian terrocracy [sic], we cannot be entirely sure that there will even be an Israel, God forbid, in a decade. That is, unless Israel becomes an American state."

So far so good but how about the Jewish character of the 51st state? Won't that be a problem? Not at all the author reassures us and points to my home state of Utah as the splendid example. Three Cheers! Now Utahns can really be happy: we had a banner year! In February we hosted the Olympics, which indeed went superbly well, in October the world was informed that we have brilliant detective profilers who can solve a crime, which may or may not have been committed three and a half thousand years ago (see previous installment), and now we are the model for a prospective 51st state. In Utah, the rabbi writes:

"the Mormons basically have their own state, maintaining cohesiveness and a strong religious identity while being patriotic members of the larger American republic. In fact, they enjoy the best of both worlds.
Their schools are funded by the state, yet attached to every public school is a Mormon religious school, funded by the Church, where pupils go as soon as classes are over."

I am not telepathic but I can hear the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley, quietly say to this picture of Utah "Lord, wouldn't it be nice if it were so! We'd surely save ourselves a lot of legal fees for suits brought against us!" But let us continue with the rabbi's views a little longer before I shall proceed with my own reality check in regard to the Utah fantasy. The rabbi also sees enormous financial benefits for the U.S. as well as Israel. No longer will the Israeli economy have to struggle because "federal dollars being put to education and defense would come in very handy.":

"The US is already pouring billions of dollars into Israel in foreign aid each year, and millions more private citizens, a large part of them fundamentalist Christians, support Israel. Why not change all this and make it tax dollars instead?
While the idea of turning Israel into the 51st state might strike some as crazy, to me it is self-evident. The US and Israel are both democratic nations. Both are deeply religious, founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic. They are united in their fight against terror, and are increasingly loathed by the world for acting to defend themselves against unrepentant murderers. Both require peace in the Middle East as their foremost foreign policy goals.
Finally, both already have lots and lots of Jews.
For two centuries America has been seen by oppressed immigrants the world over as a 'promised land.' Why not have America acquire the real thing and make it official?"


After having read this article I was still not quite sure: Does the author really mean every word he says or is he talking tongue in cheek? But it doesn't really matter what I think because I am certain that there will be a great number of people who will take him at his word and will either applaud or exude venom. Let us do neither and proceed instead with our God-given intellect rather than reacting emotionally.

This is necessary because it would not be justified to regard the author simply as a crazy dreamer whose views are so outlandish that they need not be listened to. When Herzl proposed his Jewish state in 1896, everybody regarded him as crazy. He knew it, but he wasn't concerned about the "Wadlbeisser" as he called his detractors, of which there were many. The term is a typical Viennese expression for which no English equivalent exists. It refers to those nasty little dogs that pester you and try to bite your calves while you are out for a walk or bike ride. Zionism was regarded as dangerous nonsense by the Viennese Jewish community. Herzl's bosses, Benedickt and Bacher, at the Neue Freie Presse, which might be regarded as the equivalent of the New York Times or Washington Post of that era, forbade him to write articles on Zionism in their paper. His diary entry of September 3, 1897 can serve as an example of how dreams can become reality:

"If I condense the Basel Congress into a single statement - which I shall be very careful not to say openly - it is this: In Basel I have founded the Judenstaat [there is disagreement whether the term should be translated into "Jewish State," or "State for the Jews," both translations are feasible]. If I were to say this out loud today I would be answered by universal laughter."

It took fifty years and two World Wars but persistence paid off. Another dreamer whose time eventually came was Eliezer ben Yehuda, who was born during 1857 in Latvia as Eliezer Perlman, also spelled Perelman at times. While Herzl had insisted that "we can't all be expected to learn Hebrew," that was indeed ben Yehuda's goal. At the end of the nineteenth century Hebrew was the equivalent of Latin, spoken only in religious services or by scholars. Ben Yehuda realized that one can't have a common country without a common language and he started by using only Hebrew in his daily communications with his family. He pushed the idea so vigorously that eventually the language became officially recognized in Palestine, along with Arabic and English, during the British Mandate period.

Let us not laugh at dreamers, therefore, but examine realistically the premises and logic of Rabbi Boteach's suggestion. While some Israeli's may well jump at the idea others are bound to be reluctant because it's nicer to be a big fish in a small pond rather than a little fish in a big pond. Sovereignty suits them just fine. Furthermore, any attempt to buy yourself "security" by amalgamation in a larger entity, which is highly diverse, and at the same time not integrate but insist on your separateness is a highly dubious enterprise.

Apart from these aspects there are three catchphrases in the article which need to be discussed. These are: Israel is a democracy, the Judeo-Christian ethic, and the facts about Utah.

Yes, Israel is a democracy in name, but by Jews and for Jews. The country has no Constitution! A constitution was promised in the Declaration of Independence in 1948 but never enacted. The government runs on a Basic Law which in turn is derived from Emergency Decrees by the British. Over the years some of them have been made progressively more stringent in regard to people who might want to dissent from government policies for whatever reason. Although Palestinian Arabs, who are Israeli citizens within the 1967 borders, have the right to vote, they are discriminated against when it comes to any other legitimate aspiration they might have. Even such simple things as adding a room to your house can get stalled in bureaucratic hassles. To equate Israeli-type democracy with American democracy is a propaganda ploy devoid of reality. Let us not forget the purpose of the state. It was founded as a home for Jews and non-Jews are, therefore, not particularly welcome except as visitors.

If the rabbi's suggestion were to become reality some Israeli Jews might not be very pleased because a Constitution which guarantees equal rights to the Arab Palestinians would have to be enacted. All of the four million or so Muslims (which includes those living in the West Bank and Gaza who can't all be eradicated as part of the "terrorist infrastructure") with their higher birth rates would have at long last their voices heard and Jewish dominance over the Holy Land would come to an end. The rule of law would no longer be promulgated and enforced exclusively from Zion but also from Washington.

The Palestinian people, especially in the occupied territories, on the other hand, might experience it as a God-send. At long last they would have recourse to law courts, there would be a Constitution which grants them equal rights, demolitions of their homes and orchards would cease and so would the "security arrangements" consisting of curfews and massive restriction of movement. Furthermore, the 51st state would obviously be open to indiscriminate immigration. Not only would the expelled Palestinians descend upon this state but so would other diverse non-Jewish groups who might want to build another Mediterranean Monaco. What the rabbi is really suggesting, apparently without realizing it, is a repeat of the Jews inviting Rome to take over their country because they had not been able to govern themselves! I have dealt with this historical fact in Whither Zionism? last year.

The second point is the "Judeo-Christian ethic," "heritage," or "tradition" as it is also commonly referred to. Readers of this website and some of my other publications know that I have strong objections to this term. It is inherently faulty because it amalgamates Christianity with Judaism and obscures the essential differences between the two religions. I have written two books about the problem, The Moses Legacy: Roots of Jewish Suffering and A Jesus for Our Time. Both are still looking for publishers and my hopes are growing dimmer by the day, as rejections keep dribbling in. Serious ideas that deserve to be discussed in an intelligent, rather than facetious, way are not in demand in today's publishing industry which is nearly exclusively devoted to the proverbial bottom line.

If the term Judeo-Christian ethic were used simply to denote that Christianity arose from Judaism, or that we share the Ten Commandments, there would be no problem. But when the two religions are equated for political purposes I have to object. The Old Testament is not the book by which I want to live my life, although this is currently a minority view. Nevertheless, for a Christian the role model is not necessarily Moses but Jesus, and his message gets shortchanged when we talk about the "Judeo-Christian ethic." America used to call itself a Christian country but this is no longer politically correct.

Why do I disagree with the Old Testament or the Written Torah as Jews call it? Because it contains a basic premise which I cannot in good conscience subscribe to. If the original premise is amiss so will be all subsequent actions which flow from it. Let me explain. In Genesis Chapter 1 verse 26 of the Bible we can read:

"And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'"

The quote comes from the Socino Chumash translation of the Torah. The key word here is dominion! Man is to be the ruler and exploiter of the earth's natural resources. The word was used again in verse 28 where God is quoted as saying to Adam:

“‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.'"

The medieval commentator Sforno (Obadiah Ben Jacob Sforno c.1475-1550) explained "to have dominion" in a footnote. “Ensnare them by nets and snares and compel them to serve you.” Thus, the model which this view of the world provides is one of dominance by the stronger over the weaker. That this applies also to human beings is made explicit in verse 16 of chapter III where the Lord God said to Eve, "'. . . thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'" Instead of mutual cooperation there is to be force which soon was extended to political action. Moses ordered conquest and those who were not part of the "chosen people" had to have their altars overthrown and their idols smashed. This ethnocentric position which shows no regard for the traditions and aspirations of others is also the "heritage" left by Moses. It has precious little to do with what Jesus taught and this is why I oppose the term Judeo-Christian ethic, heritage, or tradition, when it is used for political purposes.

Now to the idea that Utah could be the model for a Jewish 51st state. What the rabbi said about Utah is in part true, but what is more important is what has been left out. Utah does have a constitution which guarantees equal rights to all citizens. As a matter of fact the church-state separation criteria are considerably more detailed and stringent than on the federal level. Although about 85 per cent of the legislators are Mormons and it is difficult to get legislation passed which is not approved by the LDS church, there is a recourse. Initiatives can be put on the ballot and the press is free. Salt Lake City's major newspaper The Salt Lake Tribune publishes all opinions. The letters to the editor are an excellent example of the diversity of feelings expressed by this supposedly homogeneous population. The church, when it comes to civil actions, does not nearly have the same power as the religious parties in Israel for instance. Let me give two examples.

A few years ago a "secular" Jewish student objected to the school choir singing at High School graduation the song "Friends." It had been a long standing tradition, but she insisted that the song violates the mandated separation of Church and State because it contained the word "God!" The students were forbidden to sing it and when they did so anyway, they were severely disciplined! As I said in a previous installment God is officially "unerwünscht," even in Mormonland. Events of this type do not foster religious harmony, but more importantly they show that the LDS church caves in when it comes to church-state matters.

The second example is the current legal controversy over an easement on Salt Lake City's Main Street adjacent to the Temple plaza. The property had been bought from the city by the Church to provide a park-like area around the Temple grounds where visitors would be sheltered from the hustle and bustle of traffic. Although the easement, which allows pedestrian traffic to flow along Main Street, is now private property, it has been used by some malcontents to express their opinions against the Church quite vociferously thereby vitiating the intended purpose. When they were politely removed from what the Church regarded as its property the case was placed before the courts under the free speech amendment to the Constitution. It is being litigated right now before the appeals court which is not in Salt Lake but in Denver, Colorado. Ergo, although the LDS church clearly has some power in our state it is limited and in no way parallels that of the religious parties which sit in the Knesset.

There is another important difference between Utah and Israel. When the first group of settlers arrived here during the summer of 1847, Brigham Young wisely decided not to interfere with the tribal customs of the natives. He told his flock that it was much better to trade with the Indians than to kill them. This policy of tolerance, which was in complete contrast with what happened in other parts of the West, where the "Indian Wars" raged, paid off and the state has never experienced racial upheavals. The only mass killing which did occur was in 1857. A group of emigrants from Arkansas on their way to California had behaved obnoxiously during their trek through what is now referred to as the "Crossroads of the West." They were subsequently murdered in southern Utah by a band of Mormon militia and some local Indians. This Mountain Meadows Massacre, as it is called, was a very unfortunate event which still spawns ever so often a spate of books. But it ought to be seen within the context of the then existing tensions due to what is officially called the "Utah expedition" but locally the "Utah Invasion." President Buchanan had dispatched 2500 regular troops, plus auxiliaries, to Utah because the Mormons had a theocracy, did not subscribe to the dictum that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" and they also adhered to the Jewish patriarchal custom of "plural wives." The Union tolerated that men may have several wives in succession via divorce, but not simultaneously. This "peculiar institution," as it was called, had to be stamped out. Nevertheless, one can say in retrospect that if the Jewish settlers in the early decades of the twentieth century had been guided by the Brigham Young principle how to deal with the locals, the entire history of the Jewish state including its current dire straits might have been different. Their Zion might have become as secure as ours is.


But even if we leave all these points aside the proposal, if it were adopted, contains another fatal flaw which would lead within a relatively short time to a disaster for the Jewish people in the U.S. and abroad. Herzl wrote in his Der Judenstaat, "The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in considerable numbers. Where it does not it is brought along [eingeschleppt] by immigrating Jews." This was true in 1896, was proven subsequently true in Palestine, and is likely to remain true in the future. There is already considerable concern in the America's Jewish community about a steady rise in anti-Semitism. This is bound to increase if the country were now to officially adopt Jewish goals as its own. It might not take very long before the cry "America Awaken," in analogy to Deutschland Erwache, will no longer be uttered by fringe groups but enter the mainstream. This is all the more likely because terrorist attacks against us, for which there can never be adequate security unless one creates a police state á la Hitler or Stalin, are going to mushroom. Protest political parties are already on the horizon because neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are seen any longer as the true representatives of the people at large. This is documented by the fact that slightly less than half of the people voted in the last election. Radical populists are bound to arise, and with them civil strife. Is this what the rabbi wants for his people? He probably does not, but this is what he will get. It may not come in my lifetime but come it will because whenever minorities try to force their opinions on the majority a backlash ensues. It's a law of life and anybody who ignores it will suffer the consequences.

But Rabbi Boteach is no mere dreamer. His article needs to be seen in the context of the news reports in the same issue of the Jerusalem Post. On page 2 under Diplomacy with the subheading Entente Cordiale we see a large picture of our smiling President and behind him a smaller one with an equally happy Ariel Sharon. One might be tempted to jump to the conclusion that he represents the power behind the throne, but I shall refrain from yielding to it. What is more important is the text of the article where we are assured that the recent meeting between Bush and Sharon in the White House had gone exceedingly well. “‘It was an excellent visit, perhaps the best so far' a senior official said." In regard to the upcoming Iraq war, "last week's talks consisted of 'deep strategic coordination' that will be necessary in any war, an Israeli official said." So this is what the meeting was really all about and as usual the American people who pay the bills are not allowed to be privy to what's going on in their name. “Both US and Israeli officials are reluctant to detail that coordination, which will include early warning of a US offensive." Obviously!

The term entente cordiale is especially ominous because it recalls the real cause of WWI; secrecy for the sake of "national security!" The details of the alliance between Great Britain and France were hidden not only from the public but even from the British cabinet! This "understanding," between the general staffs of the two countries, obligated the British fleet to guard the North Sea and the Atlantic, while the French deployed their fleet in the Mediterranean. It was this agreement which forced Britain into the war with Germany. Violation of Belgium neutrality was good for public consumption but was not the reason. The Germans never understood that any attack on France, which in turn was allied with Russia, would automatically involve England and thereby ignite a world war. The documentation for these statements can be found in the book How Diplomats Make War. On page 52 Francis Neilson, the author, who was Member of Parliament from 1910-1915 wrote:

"A neutral's hands must be free . . . . There can be no impartiality where the policy of a country is fettered by secret understandings. The phrase 'foreign friendships,' used so often of late, is in itself an indictment; and in connection with France proves how absurd our position as a so-called neutral power was all through the negotiations since the murder of the Austrian archduke."

This was written in 1915 at which time it had become obvious that this fratricidal war was the greatest mistake Europe had made in its long history. Our current so-called friendship with Israel, which I have discussed in Whither Zionism?, and now the Entente Cordiale are a prescription for catastrophe. They tie our hands and give a lie to our professed stance as "honest broker" in the Israeli-Palestinian war. Thus the rabbi is not just dreaming he has solid grounds for his suggestion and the final paragraph of the Entente Cordiale article is the clincher:

"Daschle [our democratic Senate Majority leader] said that when it comes to Israel, there are no Democrats or Republicans, 'only Americans.' Sharon wished both parties good luck in the November 5 elections."

Well here it is. The elections are just about as useful in regard to foreign policy as the one recently held by Saddam. As far as Iraq is concerned, Congress has abdicated, the three important dissenting voices in the UN Security Council: France, Russia and China, will be browbeaten or bribed so as not to cast a veto and at least abstain from any resolution which might limit George W.'s power to go to war. The Ides of October have passed, but aufgeschoben ist nicht aufgehoben (postponed doesn't mean abandoned) as the German proverb says and the war is still on the docket for January. As Gwynne Dyer so accurately remarked in a Tribune article this week "a December attack could undermine the Christmas retail binge." That Christmas was supposed to make us reflect on the birth of the "Prince of Peace" has, of course, become a fantasy a long time ago.

Since I had never heard of Rabbi Boteach before, I looked him up on the Internet and complete information is available via "Google" by simply typing his name. The short biography on Beliefnet.com to which he is a frequent contributor is informative, but even more so is the longer one by the Harry Walker Agency. Both sites are worth visiting if one wants to put his Jerusalem Post article in perspective. In order give the reader a brief overview I am quoting here the introduction from Beliefnet.com:

"Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the director of the L'Chaim society, a Jewish education organization that hosts world figures and statesmen lecturing on values-based leadership. He is also cofounder, with Michael Jackson, of Heal the Kids, an initiative to encourage adults to reprioritize children. He is the author of a number of books, including 'Kosher Sex: A Recipe for Passion and Intimacy,' 'Dating Secrets of the Ten Commandments,' and most recently, 'Why Can't I Fall in Love.' A winner of the annual 'preacher of the year' contest sponsored by the Times of London, he was formerly rabbi of Oxford University."

My non-bilingual German and Austrian friends will be pleased to hear that "Kosher Sex" has been translated into their native language.

Knowing what I now know about the rabbi, who has also been described as "a world-famous thinker," I am still puzzled: did he write in jest or did he mean what he said? You, the reader, will have to decide, but the "Entente Cordiale" article is definitely a deadly serious piece of news. It should not be allowed to go unchallenged if the American people want to retain their freedom of action in foreign affairs and avoid a potential WWIII.

Let me conclude now with a personal note to the rabbi.

Dear Rabbi Boteach:

You have been called "a world-famous thinker." Please think again about your proposal. As mentioned above, I was not sure why you had written it but on further reflection I believe that you might have done so in order to "test the water." If this was indeed the case I would like to assure you that you have stepped into Lake Superior and it is urgent to get out immediately. No one survives in it for any length of time. Your premise that Americans have become "the Jews of the world" is mistaken. Americans are not "loathed" all over the world, only some aspects of our foreign policy are. Please do not equate the people with a handful of politicians, that was a Nazi ploy, and please abstain from remaking us in your image. No good can come from this effort, only bloodshed. Furthermore, please inform those of your co-religionists both here and in Israel that attempts to turn the clock back 3000 years to biblical times cannot produce peace but only perpetual war, to the detriment of all of us.

It is time to abandon the conquest and "dominion" model, technology has become too dangerous. Hate has to be removed step by step rather than fostered. There are no quick fixes and we have to learn to work on the Lord's time table instead of ours. If we want to have peace we will have to make a genuine effort to first open our hearts and minds to those who disagree with us and then jointly work towards mutually satisfactory solutions. It is the only way to save the world from catastrophe. In regard to the Holy Land I can think of no better advice than the one given by the Buddha to his followers twenty five hundred years ago, "Don't repel each other, like oil and water; but mingle like milk and water." Regardless of what happens in the near future, in the long run the two sons of Abraham will have to live together and it should be America's role, and especially that of American Jews, to help them do so. Please feel free to contact me so that we can discuss this - literally - deadly serious problem further.

Sincerely yours,

Ernst Rodin MD
 
 
 
Feel free to use statements from this site but please respect copyright and indicate source. Thank you.
 
 

Please E-mail this article to a friend

Return to index!