Brad Hirschfield: April 2009 Archives

President Obama had the chance last night to slam the door on torture, but did not take it. One can agree or disagree with him on this, but he claimed that his opposition to torture was not based on an absolute principle, but upon it being generally contrary to American values and ineffective.

Obama did not take the chance to foreclose on torture as a potentially acceptable tool under certain circumstances, even when offered that chance to do so by reporter, Mark Knoller. Knoller asked: "If part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?"

President Obama responded:

"Here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications, for these techniques, which is that we got information, from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques? .... And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first hundred days in which I have seen information that would make me second-guess the decision that I've made."

In other words, if he saw information which suggested that torture was efffective, he might change his mind. I applaud the president's nuanced approach. It's rarely seen, but actually reflects a deep wisdom from Jewish tradition i.e. the ability to take strong stands without falling prey to moral absolutisms. It's easy to say that torture is wrong and that whatever tradition we hold dear forbids it. I wish it were that simple.

President Obama made the following remarks, congratulating Israel on 61 years of independance:

"On behalf of the people of the United States, President Obama congratulates the people and government of Israel on the 61st anniversary of Israel's independence," said the statement issued Tuesday by the White House. "The United States was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948, minutes after its declaration of independence, and the deep bonds of friendship between the U.S. and Israel remain as strong and unshakable as ever.

"The President looks forward to working with Israel to advance our common interests, including the realization of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, ensuring Israel's security, and strengthening the bilateral relationship over the months and years to come."

Those words relfect not only the President's good wishes, but his vision for the future of Israel and it's relationship to the United States. Do you share his vision? What do you wish for Israel? What ought the US-Israel relationship look like, according to you?

I love Israel. It's as simple....and as complicated, as that. I loved Israel as a pork-eating child who had real pride in being Jewish, but no time for "old-fashioned" religion. I loved Israel as a settler who carried a book in one hand and a gun in the other. I loved Israel when I left some years later, my messianic dreams in ruins. And I love Israel today, as one who visits multiple times a year but makes his home, for the time being at least, here in America.

It's a love that's real enough to admit Israel's many flaws. It's a love that is deep enough to miss many others, I am sure. And it's a love which enhances the life of the one who feels it, at least as much as that which I love. Isn't that how we all want to be loved and how we all try to love, anyway? I hope so.

I wish this were a joke. I wish that in the modern state of Israel, on the eve of 61 years of independence, this were not a headline. But it it's not, and it is. Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman declared that Israel would call the new potentially deadly disease that has already struck two continents 'Mexico Flu,' rather than 'Swine Flu, as pigs are not kosher.
There is so much wrong with this, it's hard to know where to begin.

Perhaps we should start with the notion of even having a health minister who worries about such distinctions in the face of a genuine threat to public health. Perhaps we should address the proof that Litzman's declaration offers that when God-craft and sate-craft mix, it too-often brings out the worst in each. Or maybe it just bothers me that once again, an individual who represents Torah in the public square demonstrates just how out of touch a beautiful tradition can be made to seem when it is used so foolishly.

Tonight marks the beginning of Yom Hazikaron, Israel's Memorial Day. Traditionally observed to recall those men and women who paid the ultimate price for the creation and ongoing security of the State of Israel, the day has begun to change. For the second year in a row, Yom HaZikaron will mark the deaths of all those who have died, including civilian victims of terror. And despite having losses to remember from each group, this blurring of lines strikes me as a poor idea with potentially dangerous consequences.

Israel, like any other nation has both the right and the obligation to mourn those men and women in uniform who have sacrificed their lives for the safety and security of the citizens of Israel. But we ought not to confuse the issue by layering on our desire to mourn those civilians who died simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They are not the same and should not be seen as such.

Do we really want to lump civilians and members of the military into a single category? Isn't the inability to make that distinction what distinguishes enemies from terrorists? Isn't it fundamentally different to die while serving in uniform and under arms than to be murdered while walking down the street or eating a slice of pizza?