Although these might be interesting and important points that enhance stakeholders’ comfort with an expanded view of corporate citizenship, for some business executives they are not the raison d’être for making social investments in the communities in which they operate.

Kent Thiry, chairman and chief executive of DaVita, is one of those executives. With headquarters in Denver, DaVita is an international provider of kidney dialysis services with 42,000 employees, serving 142,000 patients a week, with 18 million treatments a year. Net revenue for 2011 totaled nearly $7 billion.

Although Thiry is aware of the business case for corporate philanthropy, that is not his motivation for leading a company with a core commitment to community investment and active corporate citizenship. Rather, Thiry thinks “companies can be an amazing and formidable force for good without sacrificing capitalist goals” and encourages DaVita’s employees and his peers to “use social innovation to harness market forces along with philanthropy to solve the scale of the social problems we face.”

Businesses, working alongside nonprofit groups and government, bring unparalleled resources to address pressing community needs in health, education, environment, housing, poverty, employment and equity.

DaVita’s philanthropic initiatives include employee volunteerism, corporate donations, support of kidney-disease awareness and education initiatives. In an employee-driven community investment program called “DaVita Way of Giving,” more than 600 DaVita clinics across the country select locally focused charities to receive more than $1 million in combined contributions. By empowering employees with the responsibility of selecting local charities to support, DaVita creates a sense of pride and ownership in the company. Observing the pride DaVita employees have in their company, Thiry quips, “No one ever washes a rental car.”

Thiry says companies choose between being “residents” of the communities in which they operate and being participating “citizens.” As DaVita’s leader, he asserts that “no community is self-sustaining” and that it is “not reasonable to expect communities to be business friendly, if the businesses that operate there are not community friendly.” Contending that “business decisions are profoundly and inherently moral,” Thiry encourages companies to invest in their internal and external communities.

There are many resources for business leaders who wish to expand their roles as corporate citizens. The Corporate Community Investment Network is a Colorado-based organization comprised of local professionals who have primary responsibility for managing community investment programs for businesses.

The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy is a large and impressive network of global CEOs committed to corporate philanthropy that highlights “best practices” and provides resources to corporations.

Boston College’s Center for Corporate Citizenship offers excellent training in the field of business philanthropy. A Billion Plus Change is a national campaign to inspire the largest commitment of corporate skills-based and pro bono services to nonprofits ever. The Council on Foundations has a division specifically focused on corporate grant makers.

Thiry leads a Fortune 500 company that strives to be a good corporate citizen, rather than merely a resident, of the many communities across the U.S. and beyond in which it operates. Thiry opines: “Most human beings want to be part of a team that is trying to do something that’s good for the world” and promotes business philanthropy and responsible corporate citizenship not merely for their business justifications, but “because it’s the right thing to do.”

This article originally appeared in the Denver Post on 4/22/12, and is posted here with permission of the author.

As Israel prepares to begin its 65^th year of modern-day independence, there can be no disputing that this nation remains confronted with a myriad of challenges and threats to its very existence.  But despite the perceived pall of fear and tension which seem to hang eternally over Israel, I can confidently say, as someone who has been blessed to contribute to its modern renaissance, that Israel’s daily reality is one of hope and promise for a brighter future – a reality in which most Israelis live.

Recently, I appeared in a new film which will soon be showing across the world: “Israel Inside: How a Small Nation Makes a Big Difference.” The film attempts to pin down the elusive key characteristics that make modern Israel a nation unlike all other nations.

I’ll name a few: Chutzpah, Transforming Adversity to Advantage and Powerful Family Links. While many explanations have been offered as to why our nation has accomplished so much in such a short amount of time and in a challenging and hostile environment, I believe that the issue of national character and personal determination shouldn’t be overlooked.

Undoubtedly, there is an underlying Israeli (or many would say Jewish) characteristic that can only be defined as chutzpah.  To the uninitiated, this term is often mistranslated as brashness or even rudeness.  Yet, those who truly appreciate what motivates chutzpah know that this is a character trait driven by an unwavering determination to get things done – and ensuring that “no” can not be the answer.  Chutzpah can also be used positively to challenge the status quo and look for new ways to do things better and reject the skepticism of the naysayers.  This is a big part of what makes Israel so successful and unique.

I can certainly relate to this character trait  – it’s what made me push ahead when I founded Birthright Israel and since then, it’s a vision that I have been blessed to share with hundreds of thousands of young people since the program’s launch.

In the spirit of this film, Israel’s 64^th anniversary should be used to dismiss the notion of a modern Israel solely defined by the conflict that surrounds it. In little more than half a century, a country has been created that is a burgeoning haven of scientific innovation, a marketplace of ideas that attracts the world’s leading minds and a center of some of the world’s most contributive medical discoveries.

An arid land of desert and harsh climate has literally been transformed into a leading international exporter of thousands of products to the majority of ports around the globe.  Despite the global economic downturn, the Israeli export industry continues to grow and in 2011 recorded $89 billion in sales, a 4.5 percent increase over the previous year.

As clichéd as many might think it to be, the truth is that all of Israel is one big family – in times both good and bad.  The concept of a national collective that motivated the establishment of the state demonstrates itself today in the ethos of a national responsibility for fellow citizens and has penetrated into all aspects of Israeli society.

I chided the Jewish establishment when I founded Birthright. My theory was that Jewish identity among American secular Jews would surge if that group felt connected to Israel. And I was right.

Here, I will chide again: Israel’s identity at 64 must be linked to our collective pride in Israel’s accomplishments, and the confidence that we have only revealed a portion of the country’s full national potential. It is for this reason that I threw my lot in with the makers of “Israel Inside,” JerusalemOnlineU.com, a group of innovative American Israelis dedicated to upping the connection of unaffiliated American Jews through paradigm-shifting film education.

Israel gives us many reasons to look forward to another year of our beloved nation’s independence.  But most of all we need to remember that now is the time to embrace a new outlook on the Jewish State and ensure that we begin to view her for what she truly is – a nation of remarkable progress, innovation and the very best of downright chutzpah.

Michael Steinhardt is the Founder of Birthright Israel and a member of the advisory Board of JerusalemOnlineU.com.  He is featured alongside other leading Jewish and Israeli personalities in the film “Israel Inside“, produced by JerusalemOnlineU.com. To find out about viewings in your area, please visit www.israelinsidethemovie.com

OU Kosher Kitniyot Mark

The Torah prohibits the consumption of Chametz on Passover. (Exodus 13:3)  Chametz is understood within the Rabbinic tradition to exclusively derive from the grains of: wheat, barley, oats, rye and spelt as only these grains are seen as undergoing a process of Chimutz (leavening) when contacted with water. (Babylonian Talmud Pesachim 35a) Kitniyot is a rabbinic term, classic examples of which are rice and millet that Ashkenazic Jewry gradually starting in the 13^th century and nearly universally by the late 17^th century decided to abstain from on Passover. (Yesodie Yeshurun Vol. 6 Ma’arechet Kitniyot) This custom developed despite these food items being permitted by Torah law, as they are not seen to undergo the process of Chimutz (Leavening) when contacted with water. Kitniyot has become an expansive classification and now includes a wide array of foods including: corn, legumes, various seeds and their derivatives and much ink and energy is spilt analyzing whether this food or that food should be considered Kitniyot.

Classic explanations of why the custom of Kitniyot is observed by Ashkenazic Jewry are that:

1. There is a concern that grains that can become Chametz could unintentionally become mixed in with Kitniyot.
2. There is concern that people will mistakenly come to eat grains that become Chametz due to confusing their identity or their forbidden status with those of Kitniyot which are permitted. This, given that flour/bread can be made out of some Kitniyot items or they are often both boiled in the process of cooking.

This essay will concern itself with the little known history of the criticism, opposition and at times defiance and subterfuge within the Ashkenazic rabbinic community itself to this ensconced custom.

My astute and somewhat brash teenage son Ezekiel once observed that “the difference between Modern Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism is that Modern Orthodoxy complains about problems within Halakhic Judaism and Conservative Judaism actually does something about it!” I do sense that there is some significant truth in his observation, beyond any emerging teenage rebellion and indeed Rabbi Golinkin of the Israeli Conservative movement has authored a responsum permitting Kitniyot. Nevertheless, this article is intended within the Modern Orthodox tradition of “complaining” about aspects of halakhic tradition and not specifically “doing” anything about it. I say this despite my great personal dissatisfaction with this custom as I see it effectively as a potent obstruction to simple, accessible, affordable, healthy and well-rounded eating during the Passover holiday. The intention of this article is to foster intellectual ferment and as well let others who find this custom problematic know that they are far from alone and thus the title of this article “Misery Loves Company.” I will at the end of this article articulate a novel approach as to why I do observe the practice of abstaining from Kitniyot.

Let us begin with the Germanic sage Rabbi Yaakov Ben Asher’s (1269-1343) Halakhic Codex, the Tur, a staple of classic rabbinic learning and halakha.  Rabbi Ben Asher writes, ”There are those who forbid the consumption of rice and all manner of Kitniyot and cooked foods made thereof because [of concern that] wheat kernels become mixed up with them and this is an excessive stringency and we are not accustomed such.” (Orach Chaim Siman 453)

Rabbeinu Yerucham, a prominent French/Spanish early authority (1290-1350), in his classic halakhic work Toldot Adam Ve’Chavah writes, ”Those that have accustomed themselves not to eat rice and varieties of Kitniyot that were cooked on Pesach this is a foolish custom except if they are doing it to be stringent on themselves and I do not know why.” (Netiv Hey Chelek Gimmel 43a as brought in Bet Yosef on Tur Orach Chaim 493:A).

Rabbi Yaakov Emden, the son of the Chacham Tzvi (Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch ben Yaakov Ashkenazi 1656-1718) records in the name of his esteemed father that he would regularly be in pains over the custom of Kitniyot and say, ”If I had the power I would nullify this inferior custom which is a stringency that leads to a leniency…therefore I say one who nullifies this custom to abstain from eating Kitniyot my portion [in the afterlife] shall be with him if only the greatest Torah sages of the generation would agree with me…” (Mor U’Ketizyah Siman 453)

Beginning in the 19^th century there also appeared lone voices of rabbinic defiance against the historical weight of this custom who permitted Kitniyot. (see Teshuvot Chatam Sofer Orach Chaim Siman 122 and Teshuvah Me’Ahavah 1:259 where they are referenced) However, by that time the winds of halakhic and theological change had already started to blow and prominent rabbinic authorities during this time and after this time upheld the custom. (Teshuvot Tzemach Tzedek Orach Chaim Siman 56, Ma’amar Mordechai Siman 32, Teshuvot Maharam Mi’Brisk Siman 48 and Teshuvot Divrie Malkiel 1:28)  In doing so they emphasized either the obligatory nature of ancient protective customs that have been upheld for centuries and our inability to nullify them and/or the foundational quality that communal customs hold in the structure of Halakhic Judaism.

Perhaps the most interesting example of resistance towards this custom is that of Rabbi Saul Berlin, an 18^th century German Talmudist who inclined heavily to the emerging Reform movement. Having to lead a closet life of a traditional rabbi based on his education, family and official position, he authored several works either anonymously or under false identities that critiqued, ridiculed and through subterfuge sought to undermine Traditional Judaism and Halakha. One of his most famous and controversial works is that of a volume of responsas entitled “Besamim Rosh” which he attributed to the great medieval rabbinic authority Rabbeinu Asher who is a foundational pillar or Traditional halakha. In this work (Siman 348) he opines that the custom of Kitniyot is a foreign and in fact heretical implant within the Jewish people placed there by the Karaites. The Karaites were a heretical sect that emerged between the 7^th and 9^th centuries of the Common Era that denied that the Oral Law was of Divine origin but rather a purely rabbinic invention. He claimed that during one of the expulsions of Jews within Europe, a Karaite community was expelled with them and became mingled with them. This heretical community did not eat anything on Passover that flour and bread could be made out of as they rejected the Talmudic notion that only the five grains of: Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye and Spelt could leaven. He provocatively claims that, ”Those that are stringent in observing this custom will be called to Divine account.” While it is as likely that the Karaites are the origins for the custom of Kitniyot as it is that Rabbeinu Asher is the author of the work Besamim Rosh nevertheless it is a fascinating example of rabbinic subterfuge in response to the perceived need for halakhic change.

Related to the classical explanations above for the reasons that the Kitniyot custom is observed is an interesting contemporary expression of rebellion from within Orthodoxy against the custom of Kitniyot. The iconoclastic Rabbi David Bar Chayim of the Machon Shiloh Institute (www.machonshiloh.org) claims that the classic explanations above that many are familiar with for the observance of the custom were later justifications for the custom. (See his article “Qitniyoth: A Qaraite Custom”) Whereas in his view the original reason for the custom was, that the Kitniyot that the French Rabbis who developed this custom based it on, were similar in their view to the classic 5 grains themselves and should be considered a minor form of Chametz. He notes that what is strange about such a basis for this custom is that this would directly contradict the Talmudic view that only the 5 grains of: Wheat, Barley, Oats, Rye and Spelt are capable in contact with water of leavening and are Chametz capable. This leads Rabbi Bar Chaim to consider that the basis for the latter more classic explanations (concern with wheat kernels getting mixed in or mistaken identity issues) were to lay a new foundation for the custom which had already taken root that seemed to reject or at a minimum not dovetail with explicit rabbinic law! Rabbi Bar Chaim is thus also led to opine that there may indeed be Karaite influence at play. Although, he offers no direct historical proof for this claim beyond the acknowledgment of the Rambam that there were Karaite customs that had made their way into the traditional Judaism of his time own time and by extrapolation could make their way into 12^th and 13^th century French Jewry. Rabbi Bar Chaim considers the custom of Kitniyot an erroneous custom and one that can simply be dropped. (See his response to the questioner “Are we bound to the Ashkenazi custom regarding Qitniyoth”) In what must be a strange twist of halakhic fate and methodology for him (as a staunch rejectionist of Conservative Judaism) he comes to the same Halakhic conclusion of Rabbi Golinkin of the Israeli Conservative Movement.

One note of necessary caution for Orthodox Jews waiting to jump ship is that while Rabbi Bar Chaim is a learned rabbi his writings on this subject have not to my knowledge been presented in the classical format of neither a well fleshed out rabbinic responsum nor a scholarly article in a rabbinic or academic journal where they can undergo the proper peer review where such claims whether they be halakhic or historical can be vetted. While his views are fascinating I at present must consider them speculative as they often on their website format lack even the presentation of source documentation and neither do they thoroughly engage the important halakhic issues involved with negating this custom that have been raised by his esteemed predecessors of which there are many. So I cite his views as part of the historical record and not at present to promote them.

In light of all this it is a fair question to ask why do I observe the custom of Kitniyot? After all, reasonable halakhic arguments can be marshaled against it and as both a modern and a staunch individualist, formal arguments that are somewhat reactionary about our alleged inability to nullify this custom do not really appeal even if I acknowledge that they are the accepted perspective within the contemporary Orthodox tradition.

From Jewlicious, 4/1/07

The reasons I observe the custom of Kitniyot are based primarily on spiritual intuition and could arguably be considered Neo-Hassidic in their approach, albeit a conservative approach within Neo-Hassidism. I sense that our Ashkenazic predecessors who developed this custom out of concern for observing Passover did so out of great piety and personal sacrifice –these people were deeply devoted to Halakha and God and I feel that to break this custom would be to fall out of harmony with the energy of commitment and devotion that they invested in it and which has been spiraling in the Ashkenazic Jewish community for some time. I would prefer to ride the wave of commitment and spiritual energy that they invested in this practice even though when I rationally consider it I find it problematic and apparently I am not alone. I am in question as to whether the intellect alone is a fitting instrument to decide on these matters and whether there is something beyond the intellect that requires consideration.

I also sense that to empower oneself and take on one’s shoulders the responsibility of changing Judaism is not a light matter, not psychologically and not spiritually. I need to exercise serious self-reflection as to my readiness and appropriateness for such a task even if only in my individual life. I need to thoroughly consider what are the potential pitfalls for such an undertaking and what have the experience and experimentation of others led to and how do I feel about the results. There is a saying that haunts me from within the rabbinic tradition that I find potentially applicable to the arena of the Philosophy and Kabbalah of Halakhic change: it teaches, ”Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says, ’If youth say to you build and elders say to you destroy listen to the elders and do not listen to the youth. For the building of the youth is destruction and the destruction of the elders is building…’” (Babylonian Talmud Nedarim 40a) Judaism requires innovation and interfacing in order to stay relevant to the society in which it finds itself. Nevertheless, there is a valid concern that not every innovation, leniency and theological development is necessarily ultimately constructive and not every holding on to tradition is necessarily ultimately destructive. Kitniyot may be as small as a grain of rice but perhaps the universe of Torah in all its complexity can be seen within it. May we be blessed to see with depth, honesty and integrity and develop a sustainable Judaism for the Here and Now.

It was an Arab hotel that reminded me of the one in the movie, “The Shining” (yes, the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park). It was a huge hotel with almost no other guests, absolutely no one around until I found someone behind the main desk. It was very dilapidated and every single plant life around the exterior building was dead or dying, like in a Western. The lone desk clerk was friendly, but some among the few personnel serving breakfast in the nearly empty restaurant stared menacingly at us. Or so it seemed. By that time we had learned that the hotel was built by the Jordanians on top of Jewish graves situated in the Mount of Olives for many hundreds of years when they had control of the eastern half of Jerusalem, which they divided off beginning from the 1948 Israeli War of Independence. They would not let Jews have access to it, nor to the Old City which included the Wailing Wall (Western Wall, or Kotel). Their snipers, I understand, used to fire on Jerusalemites in the Western half of the city. They used the Mount of Olives Cemetary headstones as paving stones for streets. Anyway, we had unknowingly booked rooms in a hotel that desecrated our Jewish ancestors on purpose and without purpose. We were ashamed and left right after breakfast, not having been able to sleep most of the night.

We met friendly and welcoming Arabs and seemingly hostile Arabs on the Mount of Olives, and we felt horribly for the plight of the hotel, situated in Israel, without much business, but we could not abide by the misuse of the Mount of Olives Cemetary.

Any hostility between Arabs and Jews, between Muslims and Jews, is disheartening to me, and fills me with pain. But any idea that Jews are to blame for such a situation is just not allowable either and anyone who says differently is just not knowledgeable about the Palestinian and Arab failings, or not willing to acknowledge such failings. That is bad enough. Does one call their child to task for being the object of hate and scorn and threats of death? No, and we shouldn’t be doing so either. But Peter Beinart does for he calls for an economic boycott of the Settlers. Does this include East Jerusalem? What about Maale Adumim? Does not such a call give Jewish sustenance to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement against all of Israel anyway?

But such a boycott is even worse. For it fails to acknowledge that Israel is under siege, and for that matter so is world Jewry (think of the Jewish children murdered recently in Toulouse, France) and that this siege is orchestrated and funded by Arabs and Muslim radicals who are predominant in these communities and national states. And it fails to acknowledge the anti-Semitism of the hate-mongers on the Left, who in groups such as Media Matters, J-Street and the Occupy Movement, submerge their Leftist values to anti-Semitism too.

The article about the recent Mount Olive attack, accessible below, shows that Jew-hatred, the very essence of the Holocaust, is capable of existing even in Israel because the Jews are either unable or unwilling to fight it. Why? Because it is overwhelming and they are under siege. Yet some among us want to objectively hold back the struggle to fight against Jew-hatred. I do not believe such people anymore when they say they act to oppose Israel in order to save it, to wipe Israel of its sins. I believe they act, wittingly or unwittingly, to oppose Israel for other reasons.

I have heard that a Rabbi in our community retorted, when asked if they supported Israel, that they “support Israel from the Left.” Do you support your children, under siege, from the Left? But maybe this explains this curious sentiment and therefore behavior, the behavior of Jews wanting to support Peter Beinart or to seek to undermine those who want to support Israel.

The fact is, what Israel does, and I believe it tries mightily for peace, it does as a process of self-protection and self-preservation. What the Palestinians do, and the Arabs do, to Israel, is driven by their desire to destroy Israel and kill or subdue Jews. The Muslim Brotherhood has the same goals as Al Qaeda, just a different way of achieving them. The actions of the oppressed are not equal to the actions of the oppressor. Israel and the Jews are the oppressed and the Arabs and the Palestinians are the oppressors. This is true, despite the fact that there exist many peaceable and friendly Arabs and Muslims who oppose their leadership and their brothers against Jew-hatred. Instead, these people need to actively support Jews and Israel against the siege and work against their own leadership. Some indeed do that, showing much bravery, but not enough to rely on.

I am sorry for cutting short my stay at the hotel on the Mount of Olives; there were many good people in the Arab community and I do not want to withdraw my economic support as a tourist, but still, I cannot sleep on the graves of Jews purposely destroyed because of Jew-hatred in the Arab and Muslim world. My boycott of them is not the same as their boycott of Israel; nor is my boycott the same as the boycott Peter Beinart proposes against the Settlers.

href=”http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=7955″ title=”Protect The Mount of Olives, from a Jerusalem Post Editorial”>

Bruce DeBoskey of the DeBoskey Group

Venture capital takes financial capital and expertise and provides it to high-potential, high-risk, startup businesses. Venture philanthropy uses the same approach and applies it to philanthropic donations in the nonprofit or social enterprise sector.  Both VC and VP involve a commitment of time and resources, carry a high degree of risk and can produce outsized returns.

Many people think of charitable donations as social investments.  Just like business investments, charitable social investments come in different varieties for different types of investors.  Some donations to nonprofit organizations are like investing in bonds: They involve low risk and generate more conservative social returns.  Many charitable organizations do excellent and important work, and such donations produce meaningful and largely predictable results.

Venture philanthropy, on the other hand, is more like investing in hedge funds: The risks are greater and the potential for outsized social returns and impact from the donation is enormous.  As a philanthropist, you can evaluate your risk tolerance and determine which types of philanthropy work best for you.

There are many examples of successful VP.  The Growald Family Fund, with others, made a relatively small donation to a startup nonprofit initiative called Beyond Coal that recently received a $50 million grant from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to help the U.S. create a clean-energy future.  The Draper Richards Kaplan Foundation has generated big social returns by providing funding and business mentoring to 38 early-stage, high-impact nonprofits.

In 1997, George Roberts, the founder of leveraged buyout firm KKR, established the nonprofit VP fund REDF generating thousands of jobs and producing millions of dollars of social-enterprise income for nonprofits.  The Acumen Fund is a global nonprofit VP fund that uses entrepreneurial approaches to solve the problems of global poverty.  In its first decade, Acumen invested $73 million in 65 enterprises that serve the poor.  Social Venture Partners with 25 nonprofit affiliates across the U.S., Canada and Japan, including in Denver and Boulder, combines financial contributions and professional skills to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of local nonprofits.  New Profit Inc. is a nonprofit VP fund that invests in innovative nonprofit organizations with the potential to create significant, long-term impact on the social mobility of low-income Americans.

Venture philanthropy often involves:

•  More due diligence than typical charitable donations.
•  An emphasis on capacity building for the nonprofit recipient.
•  The potential that a small social investment will allow the nonprofit to scale its impact to reach a much larger group of beneficiaries and attract much larger donations.
• Heavier involvement by the venture philanthropist, more akin to a partnership and often including board service.
• Specific goals, benchmarks and metrics for the nonprofit to achieve.
• An exit strategy for the venture philanthropist when sustainability and scale have been attained.

Joanna Messing, president of Positive Ventures, a VP advisory firm, cautions that there are several pitfalls for the VP investor to be aware of:

• The risks are greater than traditional philanthropy, and there might not be any return on the social investment. In other words, the donation could produce lackluster results or even fail in achieving its goals.
• VP is potentially more time-consuming than traditional philanthropy.
• Unless you are comfortable taking high risk with your philanthropy, VP should be part of a broader and diversified social-investment portfolio, to balance risk and continue to sustain proven nonprofits.

Messing observes:

Through a focused, researched and strategic approach, it is possible for VP to create real leverage and social change along with a deep sense of satisfaction and passion.”

You don’t need to be wealthy to be a venture philanthropist. Rather, by making strategic social investments on your own, or by pooling your resources with others by donating to venture-philanthropy funds, you can have an enormous impact on our nation’s and the world’s most challenging social problems.

This post originally appeared in the Denver Post on March 18th, 2012.  The author has re-posted here with permission.

Morah Yehudis Fishman

As many of these readers know, I was quite shook up by the negativity expressed in the Brit Milah film and panel held this year on the last day of Sukot. I walked away startled at how far some Jews have come from appreciating one of the cornerstones of Jewish identity and connection to G-d and each other. But last week, like Esther in the Purim story, I received a wink from Above that all was not lost and that Hashgacha Pratit, otherwise known as Divine Providence, was alive and well in Boulder Colorado.

The wink came from a Brit Milah celebration last Friday, Shushan Purim. A beautiful boy was born to a prominent Boulder Jewish family, the Berlins and to the grandparents Rich and Karyn Schad, a family who I had been privileged to teach for many years. I brought a scroll of Megilat Esther with me, not to read, since Purim was just over, but to illustrate a remarkable teaching from the scroll, which I will summarize briefly:

In the story there is a curious set of verses. After Haman’s sons had already been hung, Esther asks the king to hang the ten sons ‘tomorrow.’ Another anomaly in the megilah is that when listing the names of the sons, some letters are written in a smaller than normal size- a Zayin, Tav, and Shin, and one letter, a vav, is enlarged.

The sages could not make much sense of these unusual features till recent times. However, during the Nuremberg trials in 1946, ten Nazis were hung, the last of who was Julius Streicher, the editor of the rabid anti-Semitic magazine, Der Sturmer. As he was being led to the gallows, he cried out, ‘Purimfest, 1946.’ This was to say the least a cryptic remark, since the hanging took place- get this!- on Hoshana Rabbah, the last day of Sukkot.

Thus to many the mystery of the letters as well as Esther’s prophetic request took on a new meaning. Esther, who is called the last of the seven great Prophetesses of Biblical times, could have been referring to the Nazis, the modern day descendants of Haman. And the letters? The shape of the Vav symbolized the gallows, while the three small letters numerically add up to 707, the Hebrew year corresponding to 1946!

Furthermore, in the megilah itself there is a reference to Brit milah: On the verse, the Jews had light, happiness, joy and honor, (the same phrase we recite during Havdalah) the sages say that light refers to Torah, happiness refers to holidays, and joy, sasson, refers to Brit milah, and honor to Tefilin.

So here I was attending a most joyous Brit milah of a baby who literally glowed with holy radiance and tranquility (even right after the circumcision) on Shushan (same Hebrew letters as Sasson, the word for joy) Purim!

To add to the power of the ‘wink’, the attending Mohel was Dr. Shelly Ciner from Denver, the mohel who was hoping to come up and participate in the panel, but could not because of a death in his family. The Berlins had contacted another Mohel for the Brit, but the other one was unavailable and so Dr. Ciner- who could not come to the panel on Hoshanna Rabbah, now shows up at this Brit on Shushan Purim!

This event for me was a true healing from the apprehension I felt on Hoshana Rabba. I wondered if Brit Milah in particular and Judaism in general, might be an ‘endangered’ species here in Boulder. I’m sure G-d responded to my fears. Two weeks ago a new baby Jewish boy named Noach Moshe arrived in Boulder, and to me at least, this has made all the difference. I pray that sooner than later, there will be in Boulder a thriving Jewish day school for this baby to attend and grow in Torah and positive Jewish values, and like his namesakes, Noach and Moshe, that he grow up to be a source of light and salvation for the entire world.

He was referring to President Barack Obama and the conversation took place at the AIPAC 2012 Policy Conference at the end of a breakout session titled, “African-Americans and Israel.” That particular session was not about President Obama nor his policy speech before AIPAC. Nonetheless, the jousting about by attendees for a level-headed understanding between the US President, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Iran on nuclear threats had already become a hallmark of AIPAC’s annual Policy Conference (from 10,000 people last year to over 13,000 this  year and an expected 20,000 next year) held in Washington D.C.from March 3-6.

I had just explained to the Chairman that on multiple occasions in history – the 1956 Suez War, the 1967 Six Day War, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, for starters – the United States had not acted in the interests of Israel’s defense and had obliged Israel to act against the wishes of the United States. Supporters of Obama had to understand that there is ample reason for Israel NOT to put its fate in the hands of other powers, even superpowers. Keeping fate in her own hands had already proven Israel correct and her detractors wrong.

My answer to the Chairman’s question was this: we can’t know all that either President Obama knows or Netanyahu knows with regard to dealing with Iranian nuclear bomb-making, but Obama only needed to satisfy Netanyahu and not me. If Netanyahu was satisfied, I trusted him enough to decide if President Obama’s deeds would match his words. I would trust Obama if Netanyahu trusted Obama, or not.

More precisely, it is in practice hard for me to know if Bibi Netanyahu is satisfied with Obama or not. Even one year ago he was not, but now the answer is not so clear. President Obama’s speech did not say anything new, and I had expected new ideas. He did not define any red lines on keeping Iranian nuclear enrichment to under 20%, for Iranian cooperation with IAEA demands and inspectors (such as access to high-level Iranian  physicists), for explanations of Iranian facilities that cross the line from medical research or electrical power to bomb-making, He assured Israel  that he has her back, that he does not intend to let Iran get a nuclear capability, and therefore containment of a post-nuclear Iran is not his policy. Moreover, he noted sanctions were working and would work to stop Iran. Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s sovereignty and the need for Jews not to
relinquish their right to answer threats of liquidation on their own terms. He said there exists a very short window for deciding on the value of sanctions vs military attacks. In another interview later with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, he added that the paradox is that a real, credible and believable threat to the Iranian leadership could cause them to freeze their nuclear program. In that interview, he pointed out that Iran already stopped their program once in 2004 not long after President Bush’s Operation Iraqi Freedom took down Saddam Hussein and proved a credible threat to the Iranian regime as well.

Throughout the conference there was the call for bi-partisanship, and the acknowledgement that on Israel, the spectrum of political opinion was fairly well united in her defense, but the undertone of my observations was an acknowledgement that partisanship was still very strong.  Commentator Liz Cheney and ex-Democrat Representative Jane Harman had a public spat on a panel during one of the plenaries over Obama’s policy on Israel. There was a spirited sort of one-up-man-ship between Republicans and Democrats whose pavilions existed side by side in the Washington Convention Center’s huge basement layout called AIPAC Village. People commented frustratingly about the partisanship, but I found it nothing out of the ordinary and a healthy dose of debate anyway. I found very little support for J-Street, but much concern for the campus cultural wars evolving into anti-Semitism.

There was a huge number of those who are non-Jewish, but who actively participated, including minorities and Christians. Questions regarding
the participation of Muslims seemed to acknowledge their general lack of support for Israel.

Last year I spoke with numerous people from the Chicago contingent to AIPAC, some 800 as I recall, who had voted for President Obama in 2008
but were at the time very disappointed with his Administration’s treatment of Israel since his coming to the White House. I noted this because I reasoned that they knew him best. Although all attendees to this year’s Conference were asked in an email to treat all speakers as guests into your house, the AIPAC house, I think the 2012 Conference tilted strongly toward Netanyahu and was a little cool toward President Obama. There is great concern, even among liberals, that Obama may not have Israel’s back, as he has famously said.

Mitchell Bard, the famous Middle East scholar and author, most recently of “The Arab Lobby,” had put it best in his talk recently at the Boulder JCC. Obama’s 2011 actions vis-a-vis Israel were much more positive than those of his first two years. The question one has to answer, as he put it, is did President Obama see the light or did he see the polls?

Got me wondering, too. Our American Jewish community is focused on the multifaceted picture called the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet most of us – and those who inform us – have never met a Palestinian, nor come face-to-face with Palestinian perspectives. Wouldn’t that experience, provided capably and credibly, complement our advocates’ and policy-makers’ understanding of and relationship with the situation? My viewers seemed to think so, and some wanted to know how-to.

For the most wide-angle, honest and educational look at West Bank Palestinian life you’re likely to get, I recommend Encounter, an “educational organization that cultivates informed Jewish leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict….[and that does] not take specific positions regarding the outcome of the conflict.” Yes, that’s my experience from eight programs: an open, supportive educational setting that doesn’t push a partisan agenda or particular political solutions. Instead, Encounter delivers close-ups that you’re unlikely to find elsewhere:

• Presentations by locally respected Palestinian leaders about personal and political issues related to Palestinian life.
• Meetings with prominent Palestinian activists dedicated to non-violence, and lesser-known mainstream leaders.
• Walking tours of important geographic areas.
• Optional home stays with local families.
• Confidential, facilitated discussion within the Jewish group.
• Informal social gatherings with Palestinians

These programs – no two are the same — have improved my depth of field. I can be up-front, hang in the scene, look through many lenses. Random incidents and events, improvements, setbacks, family stuff – dramatically alter my subjects’ p.o.v. And even after eight programs, the same is true for me. Jammed up against the separation fence, I just might distort this short concrete section into endlessness, plant thoughts in the Palestinian construction workers below, read minds of the uniformed Israelis above. Reluctantly, I’ve had to face it: subjectivity, narrative and impression are big players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Go on Encounter and see for yourself. Then re-compose, process and develop your own picture.

Encounter encourages participants to listen to and absorb Palestinian narratives and claims without disregarding what they already know and believe to be true. ….Underlying all of Encounter’s work is the core belief that innovative strategies for peace will be created only when influential stakeholders in a conflict have opportunities to meet one another, to open themselves to previously disregarded points-of-view, and to develop relationships across political and ideological divides.”

Those divides include the wide ones within American Jewry, too. “The trip is not a left wing trip. The trip is not a right wing trip. The trip is for everyone at every place on the political spectrum. Call it Responsible Zionism.” (Rabbi Michael Goldstein) Indeed, Encounter activities include voices from from AIPAC to ZOA. Colorado participants have included Rabbis Deborah Rappaport and Marc Soloway, Margery Goldman, Matthew Markman, and Judge Murray Richtel. Next week, Boulderites Shari Edelstein and Julie Shaffer* will join rabbis, philanthropists, and members of the Jewish Funders Network for a program in Bethlehem.

I dream not that Encounter is going to resolve the conflict. But it is surely challenging the array of voices that are heard in that endeavor. As Rabbi Elka Abrahamson, President of the Wexner Foundation and Encounter alum has written:

I imagined an afternoon of sweet tea, hot pita and conversation about pathways to reconciliation through personal connection. Though too rational and likely too old for such naïve visions, my head blossomed with summer of love celebration spirit, when peace would guide the planets and love would rule the stars. Those dreams hit the wall. The roots of this conflict are deep and twisting and after a day exploring the reality on the ground, finding resolution felt as insurmountable as the cement fence that separates, defines, contains and protects — all at the same time.”

I’ve owned that feeling of insurmountability, so why do I stick with Encounter and encourage your participation? Because in this same week that I have booked flights for my 13th visit in Israel, found an apartment for another extended stay, enrolled in a Tel Aviv ulpan and a Jerusalem Jewish studies institute, and filed my application for Israeli citizenship, I remind myself that I want to be a “responsible Zionist.” And because it’s all part of the same package called the pursuit of justice for all, to which we, as Jews, are called.

May every Jew and those concerned about the Jewish future fully engage with Israel…our home­land, our sacred land. May you be among those with the courage and tenacity to turn this seam [between peace and war] into a juncture of healing. Let us vigorously support Israel in its pursuit of justice and peace, and never give up on the quest for leaders with the wisdom, tenacity and guts to resolve differences. It is the backbreaking obligation of being Yisrael…which means the ones who struggle. Please God, may we live up to our name.”

Amen v’amen.
____________________
The author participated in Encounter programs during 2008 – 2011, including as trips photographer. He has made several other visits to Palestinian and Israeli administered areas in the West Bank, and also recommends educational visits to Jewish villages there.

Coloradoans may apply to Encounter for a program fee reduction, made possible by a grant from the Oreg Foundation. If you’re planning to be in Israel, contact info@encounterprograms.org about upcoming opportunities to participate.

*JS is the author’s wife, and the director of the Oreg Foundation.