Burning Question: Is a Torah Less Holy Than a Koran?

By: Eli Verschleiser

If you had to list the reasons why Israel should exist as a haven for the Jewish people, freedom from the burning of holy Torah scrolls would have to rank pretty high on the list.

This act of hate is closely associated with the Holocaust, when the psychotic Nazis would relish the destruction of the Jews’ book of inspiration and knowledge. On occasion, we’ve seen it happen elsewhere, such as in New York shuls desecrated by hateful vandals or in modern-day Europe at the hands of neo-Nazis.

Torah scrolls under Israeli control should theoretically be safe. But last month vandals believed to be Palestinian entered a synagogue in the Jewish community of Karmei Tsur, piled the Torah scrolls together and set them afire. If you missed the international condemnation of that vengeful act of hate, it’s not because you weren’t paying attention. It was nonexistent.

Media coverage wasn’t very heavy, either. From what I can find there was only an AP dispatch and some Jewish media coverage. The Times covered Jewish attacks in the area on Arabs, but didn’t notice the burning Torahs.

Yes, I know. In the eyes of most of the world Jews don’t belong in the territory they call the west bank (and in the eyes of some, anywhere in the Middle East), and so, whatever happens to them, they had it coming. Let them count their blessings that no person was hurt in this particular incident (even as countless stabbings and other murders terrorize Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel.)

It would be encouraging to hear statements along the lines of, regardless of how you feel about the politics of Israel’s control of territory, violent attacks and desecration of holy places are somewhat polarizing and must be stopped and condemned in the highest levels of the Palestinian government.

Israeli leaders never seem to have a problem condemning the bad behavior of right-wing Jews. On January 31, a group defaced some property, including a mosque in the village of Hawara. It was removed by Israeli authorities. Two weeks earlier, when vandals set fire to a mosque in Der Istya an IDF spokesman called it “deplorable on every level.”

And yet we’ve heard little on the Torah burning aside from the outrage of the Anti-Defamation League and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vow that he find the perpetrators. “I expect the international community to condemn the desecration of a synagogue, an act that is the result of incessant Palestinian incitement,” Netanyahu wrote in a Facebook post.

Compare the silence to President Barack Obama’s denunciation in April, 2011 when a U.S. pastor burned the Koran. “The destruction of any holy text including the Koran is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry,” the president said then, according to CNN. He called the display by the Dove World Outreach Center an event that could help al Qaeda recruitment.

Tony Blair, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom declared that the act of burning the Koran is “disrespectful, wrong and will be widely condemned by people of all faiths and none.”

And the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, notoriously nonchalant about attacks on Jews said burning the Koran “contradict[s] the efforts of the United Nations and others to promote tolerance, intercultural understanding and mutual respect between cultures and religions.”

“Abhorrent and simply wrong,” said Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel.

Is not the desecration of Torahs an equally intolerant and bigoted act, abhorrent, antithetical to tolerance with the potential to inspire more extremist violence? It doesn’t seem to take much at all to do that.

It’s important for world leaders to take a more consistent position when it comes to public statements on the Mideast. Just because Israel is the more powerful side of the dispute with the Palestinians does not mean it is always wrong and that hateful acts, contrary to Ban Ki-Moon’s recent justifications, are understandable, if not inevitable.

Acts of hatred call out for condemnation because silence implies consent.

Take a close look at the act of burning the Torah in an Israeli synagogue. It reveals a mindset. Vandalism of construction equipment or power lines or other infrastructure might suggest a protest against the building of settlements on land the Palestinians claim as their own (despite never having had sovereign control over it, and Jordan losing it in a war).

The burning of a Torah is something different entirely — an attack on Judaism itself, and what makes the Jews a people and the very document that attaches us to the land. It is the steadfast refusal of Palestinians for over a century (not just since 1967) to acknowledge the ancestral Jewish claim to the holy land of Israel that is the biggest stumbling block to peace.

Progress will come only when responsible leaders assert not only that Israel has a generic “right to exist” but that it is the land of the Torah, and deserves to be protected as such. This would go a long way toward encouraging its enemies to give up their dream of chasing us away.

Originally Published by: The Times of Israel 

Bibi On Capitol Hill - The Politics of Survival

By: Eli Verschleiser

It’s surprising that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in trying to undermine the credibility of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, would bring up the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“The prime minister was profoundly forward-leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq under George W. Bush,” Kerry said at a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing late last month. “We all know what happened with that decision.”



Wait. Wasn’t his proclamation in 2004 that “I actually did vote for the $87 billion [for war in Iraq and Afghanistan] before I voted against it," the flip-flop that heavily damaged his presidential bid that year? “Did he really want to bring that up?

But no-holds are barred in the current tussle between the U.S. and Israel over nuclear talks with Iran, as Netanyahu’s address to Congress was unwelcome by the White House.

Netanyahu has many reasons to be suspicious, not the least of which is apparent weakening of resolve by the U.S. on this matter. In June, 2013, United Nations envoy Samantha Power told a gathering of U.S. Jewish leaders that when it comes to thwarting Iran’s nuclear program “No deal is better than a bad deal. We will not accept a bad deal.”

Just days later the negotiating parties emerged from meetings in Geneva with the framework of an understanding, and a month later Iran agreed to roll back parts of its program, limiting its uranium production to below weapons grade (for now), in exchange for relief from sanctions. The latest version of the deal would kick the can down the road for 10 years, allowing the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism to ramp up its nuclear production over time.

At that point, of course, it will be too late to get tough. For Netanyahu and a large share of his electorate, it’s a zero sum game. No amount of nuclear power can be entrusted to a country led by fanatics who support global terror and regularly telegraph their hatred of Israel. Who would make sure Iran behaves? Why, international monitors, of course.

A group of former Israeli generals said Sunday they fear the dust-up over the address to Congress, tinted as it is with U.S. and Israeli politics, will signal so much disarray in the process that it will embolden the Iranians to take a hard line in the talks.

But the U.S. and Israel have faced bumps in the road before. Remember when Secretary of State James Baker in 1990, frustrated by lack of peace-talks progress, read the number of the White House and told then-prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to call when he is serious about peace?

The current mess seems worse because President Barack Obama on the face of it does not like Netanyahu, and the feeling is may be mutual, not so much because of personalities or politics but because Obama has consistently fallen into the trap of equating apartments built by Israelis with rockets launched by Hamas. That’s no way to show that you fully understand the existential threat felt by Israelis, which got Netanyahu elected. Obama likely worries that Netanyahu’s address will only bolster the right wing in Israel and make it more difficult to pursue any progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks before he leaves office in 2017.

It is a legitimate worry that the spectacle of Netanyahu speech to Congress at the invitation of Obama arch-rival John Boehner, the Republican House speaker, will eclipse the more appropriate and pressing issue of whether opposition to a deal that might one day allow Iran to hand over a nuke to Hezbollah should be blocked by Congress, in its role as a check against the power of the executive branch.

“Congress has every right to invite, even over the president’s strong objection, any world leader or international expert who can assist its members in formulating appropriate responses to the current deal being considered with Iran regarding its nuclear-weapons program,” former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz wrote in The Jerusalem Post.

But as a result of the White House face-off with both Netanyahu and the Republicans, the address will be seen as the kind of partisan fracas that leads to perennial gridlock on The Hill, rather than a key matter of international security.

This should not have become an international political spectacle; it should have been an important speech (to those who thought it was) by the one democratic country in the world that has been threatened to be annihilated by Iran its neighbor dozens of times. It is an embarrassment that U.S. and Israel politics – the president says he must keep arms’ distance from a foreign leader in the weeks before an election -- have not only crept into the process but dominated the issue.

Of course, Netanyahu is a savvy politician who will use the spotlight he gains here to score points in his bid to stay in power. But keep in mind that, perhaps more than any other country, Israel has the most to lose by picking the wrong leader.

That includes one who places too much faith in the protection of allies and international monitors, who have far less to lose.

In the end we can all at least agree on one thing, Bibi is a powerful and brilliant speaker.

Originally Published: The Times of Israel