JustASC

There’s a shift in the anti-Obama camp, from Obama as Jew-hating, Iran-appeasing, Farrakhan apologist, to a sincere friend of Israel who just happens to be wrong on a host of issues. I write about it this week, pointing to recent essays by Yossi Klein Halevi, Nathan Diament, and Hillel Halkin. 

To their credit, each of these writers goes to great pains to distance himself from the worst things said about Obama. Halkin’s testimonial is especially forthright, especially because he seems to fear the most from a Obama presdidency (despite the polite hiccup at the beginning of the following paragraph):

From an Israeli point of view, [an Obama presidency] need not necessarily be a catastrophe. Mr. Obama never was and is not the anti-Israel figure that some right-wing Jewish circles nastily attempted to portray him as during his primary campaign. He will support Israel on many issues just as nearly all American presidents have done before him.

Fair enough. Diament, as I pointed out in a previous post, basically suggests that Obama still has to prove he feels Israel in his kishkes — which in some ways is the hardest thing to convince voters of. Barring his throwing himself in the path of a bulldozer in the streets of Jerusalem, it’s not clear what grand gesture Obama must make to overcome the distrust of those who are already disinclined to like him. Kishkes equals pandering plus time. He can pander, but there’s not much time between now and November.

Klein Halevi and Halkin, by contrast, air their specific gripes and anxieties about Obama policies, especially on Iraq, and worry he won’t be resolute in deploying the military option if it comes down to that, or supporting Israel if it decides to strike first.

In my column, I suggest that this is a positive trend:

Halkin’s claims about the Clinton legacy, like Klein Halevi’s about the dangers of diplomacy, are highly debatable - but that’s the point. You can’t argue with a paranoid e-mail, any more than you can reason with a head cold. But in the new wave of Obama anxiety, at least there is something to debate. And that’s a start.

I keep harping on this — but what I object to is how Israel supporters, almost exclusively on the right, defend their own policies as “pro-Israel,” and everyone else’s as “anti-.” It’s a Bush-ian “you’re either for us or against us” formula that makes every debate on Israel about bona fides and symbolic gestures and minutely parsed language, instead of serious debate over the best policy. To support Oslo and oppose the settlements is not anti-Israel. To add diplomacy to a president’s arsenal is not anti-Israel. It is merely an alternative approach. And maybe it’s a bad approach. And maybe Obama, as Halkin’s article is headlined, presents “Dangers Worse than Clinton’s.” But let’s at least talk about it like adults, and stop the name-calling, the distorting of perfectly reasonable statements, and the specious comparisons. 

Here’s an interesting attempt by a Boston Globe headline writer to localize a national story:

Man convicted in assault on BU professor 

The BU professor in question is Elie Wiesel.

(Hat tip to NJJN’s Josh Putterman.)

The NJJN’s Gil Hoffman reports on Gov. Corzine’s trip in Israel:

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine served as the opening act for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on his visit to Israel this week, reassuring Israelis that Obama would maintain the strong connection between Israel and the United States.

Corzine began a weeklong visit to Israel on Sunday and met with many of the same Israeli leaders Obama was scheduled to meet in his 24-hour visit to Israel on Wednesday, including President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

The long tail of my kishkes meme: Here’s the OU’s Nathan Diament writing at RealClearPolitics.com:

Recent polling indicates that Barack Obama has less support among American Jews than previous Democratic presidential nominees. This is not merely because an unprecedented campaign has been waged by viral emails and incendiary articles falsely portraying Obama as harboring secret biases for the Palestinian cause and taking advice from persons openly hostile to Israel’s interests. It is because Obama is seeking to succeed a pair of American presidents who each remain extremely popular in Israel and among her supporters for one basic reason - Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, each in their own way, conveyed a gut level kinship with the Jewish state. Obama has yet to convey convincingly that he is similarly committed to Israel in his kishkes.

Or as I wrote in February:

Maybe they’ve grown spoiled, but you hear in the pro-Israel, anti-Obama rhetoric the notion that Obama’s spotless Senate voting record on Israel and meat-and-potatoes speeches to AIPAC are not quite enough. “Window dressing,” as someone dismissively described it to me. A certain kind of pro-Israel voter wants to know that candidates feel for Israel in their guts - their kishkes - and not just in their heads.

Loving that juicy Jersey tomato? Thank Israel.

Genesis Seeds Ltd. of Ashalim is reproducing the famed “Ramapo” F-1 Hybrid, once famous throughout New Jersey for its “balance of sweetness and acidity.” Rutgers University’s New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station distributed Ramapo seeds to 80 farms around the state, which hope to bring the strain to market by August, the Star-Ledger reports.

The state’s tomato growers had stopped growing the breed in favor of heartier strains. But the Rutgers folks found the Israel company, which initially produced four pounds of seed for $8,000, outbidding an American company that demanded a minimum order of 25 pounds of seed for $50,000.

Rider University has announced that Teanecker Ben Dworkin will succeed the late David Rebovich as the Director of the Rider Institute for New Jersey Politics and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Political Science.

A good guy for an important NJ catbird seat.

Should the Jewish world lay off Agriprocessors? I don’t think so:

Agriprocessors certainly deserves it day in court. But something stinks in the state of Iowa, and it’s not too early for kosher consumers to demand higher standards from everyone associated with the industry. At stake is the integrity of kashrut itself - and the credibility of any Jew who quotes the Torah on justice.

The Times clocks in (years late) on Jews and tattoos. Regarding the supposed Jewish law that a tattooed Jew cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetery, the paper reports:

But the edict isn’t true. The eight rabbinical scholars interviewed for this article, from institutions like the Jewish Theological Seminary and Yeshiva University, said it’s an urban legend, most likely started because a specific cemetery had a policy against tattoos.

Which is true, in and of itself, but, as a friend points out, the article leaves the overall (and erroneous) impression that minus the cemetery rumor, Jewish law is otherwise okay with tattoos. The only one quoted taking an unequivocal stand against tattoos is Rabbi Alan Bright, a spokesman for the Jewish Funeral Directors of America, who quotes Deuteronomy 4:15 “which commands Jews to take care of their bodies, as evidence.”

Otherwise,  the only other note of reproach is sounded by Rabbi Mark Washofsky, of Reform’s Hebrew Union College, and he’s equivocal on the subject:

“We don’t think it’s a very ‘Jewish’ thing to do, but we’re not really sure why.”

What’s missing is a quote from a rabbinic authority of any denomination who may or may not be sure why, but certainly considers tattoos a Jewish taboo. Someone like Rabbi Alan Lucas, who wrote a responsum on the topic for the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly:

“Regardless of the exact limits of this prohibition, over time the rabbis clearly extended the prohibition to include all [voluntary] tattooing (Tosafot commentary to BT Gittin 20b).”

Lucas’ responsum concludes:

“Tattooing is an explicit prohibition from the Torah. However, those who violate this prohibition may be buried in a Jewish cemetery and participate fully in all synagogue ritual. While no sanctions are imposed, the practice should continue to be discouraged as a violation of the Torah. At all times a Jew should remember that we are created b’tzelem Elokim. We are called upon to incorporate this understanding into all our decisions.”

There are plenty of Jewish prohibitions without sanctions, but that doesn’t make them any less taboo. If my son comes home from Israel sporting a tattoo, I’m going to blame the Times.

UPDATE: Even the most liberal denominations, Reform, regards tattoos as taboos. From a CCAR Responsum:

Conclusion. Tattooing is certainly permissible as an element of reconstructive surgery. Yet Judaism requires that our bodies be treated with honor and respect. Therefore, while we recognize the importance of personal adornment, as Jews we must pursue it in the light of the historical Jewish emphasis on the integrity and holiness of the human form. Tattooing and body-piercing, when not part of a legitimate medical procedure, are most difficult to reconcile with that emphasis. They are chavalah, pointless destruction of the human form; we do not and cannot regard them as “adornments.” Unless and until we are otherwise persuaded, we should continue to teach that Judaism forbids these practices as the negation of holiness, the pointless and unacceptable disfigurement of the human body.

NJ Governor Jon  Corzine is scheduled to depart for Israel on July 19, his first official visit to Israel as governor. A press release says he’ll focus on trade, investment and commercial relationships between New Jersey and Israel. Not certain yet if he’ll overlap with Obama, who plans to be there July 22 and 23.

We’ll say a bracha for the governor. Everyone remembers what happended the last time he was set to go to Israel, G-d forbid.

The News Journal of Wilmington, Delaware has a brilliant oped on how states can improve non-insured children’s enrollment in Medicaid and S-chip, and I’m not just saying that because I know the author.

Actually, that’s exactly why I’m saying that.