Shortchanging Day Schools

New York's highest court has ordered the state to add about two million dollars to what it provides to New York City public schools, a tidy sum but less than half of what city officials believe is coming to them. Had they gotten all of what they wanted, per student expenditures would have risen by between $4,000-$5,000, a figure that matches what more than a handful of local Jewish day schools spend per student for a dual curriculum program.

I do not believe that money is the answer to all that ails public education. Most of what erodes the ability of public schools to properly educate children occurs outside of the school, in the home and street where family and behavioral pathologies abound and in the collateral damage caused by a popular culture that is at once exciting and destructive. The reach of the school is limited.

Still, classroom size can make a difference and this is true of the basket-full of other educational enhancements that cost money. If public education is shortchanged, what can we say about our schools? In the New York area, the average expenditure per child in Jewish day schools is not much more than half of what it is in public schools.

There are day schools that charge $20,000 or more tuition, schools where the word "scholarship" is scarcely recognized. These schools provide electives, extracurricular activities and usually a first-rate facility, their goal being to make the institution attractive to parents who have other educational options. High tuition buys much, yet it comes at the high Judaic cost of turning away an indeterminate number of prospective parents, including those of marginal religiosity whose children would benefit from a meaningful Jewish education. There is the added hardship in the large number of day school families that are hard-pressed to meet their tuition obligations.

The schools that get by on less than $5,000 per student scrimp on everything, including maintenance and curriculum. To boot, they tend to serve students who need additional educational and other services, as their enrollment inordinately consists of children from poor homes and immigrant and outreach families. The schools make do primarily because of the dedication and sacrifice of shockingly underpaid faculty. Inevitably, students at these schools do relatively poorly on standardized tests, a circumstance that the philanthropic sector often uses to justify the refusal to assist these institutions.

Rich and poor day schools in the city share the common fate of being victims of Federation neglect. The story is different around the country, as in an expanding number of communities Federation and philanthropic support of day schools has increased. In New York, the little that was done has become littler because several years ago Federation eliminated basic grants. While there has been talk of Federation atoning a bit for its misdeed, not a penny of what was taken away has been restored.

It's true that because of their large number, New York's yeshivas and day schools present a fundraising challenge that probably can never be resolved satisfactorily. More than half of all U.S. day school enrollment is in the New York metropolitan area, with the annual operating budget approaching one-billion dollars. When combined with New Jersey's enrollment, the share reaches two-thirds. It is unavoidable that for nearly all yeshivas and day schools, the bulk of the income must come from tuition.

This does not excuse philanthropic neglect and certainly not the shortchanging of schools that operate on a shoestring and cannot attract even modest support. Nor is there any excuse for the prolonged silence of Orthodox organizations and leaders. They talk much about the tuition crisis, doubtlessly with sincerity, yet they are unwilling to challenge Federation or to advocate on behalf of day schools. Inadvertently, they give aid and comfort to those who shortchange day schools. While they may claim that they are working behind the scenes, it remains that the tuition crisis worsens, as does the pressure on the large number of yeshivas and day schools that live a hand to mouth existence. Is it disrespectful to suggest that organizations that know how to produce press releases proclaiming this or that accomplishment speak out on behalf of our most vital institutions?

There is no quick fix to the problem. The best we can hope for on the income side is a modest increase of support from conventional philanthropic sources. For all of the attention that it is getting, government aid will not come in abundance, as much because of financial constraints on the public treasury as from constitutional constraints.

What is critical is whether there will be Orthodox advocacy for basic Torah education. Day schools were once the crowning achievement of American Orthodox life, the foundation on which our religious resurgence was built. Were there no yeshivas and day schools in the formative years of Orthodox growth, many of them supported then and even today by persons who were not Orthodox, the destruction of American Jewry would be far more advanced than it is today. Unfortunately, we have embraced the alien notion that religious Jewish education is a parental responsibility and not also a communal responsibility.

The message - it is unintended - sent out by Orthodox religious and lay leaders is that day school education at the elementary and high school levels is not a tzedakah priority, at least not for institutions located in North America. As a consequence, the poorer schools in particular are not able to adequately provide the education and services that their students need.

There are now substantial pockets of great affluence among the fervently Orthodox. In the chassidic sector, yeshivas are a primary beneficiary of the tzedakah given by a group's adherents. Not so in the yeshiva world. Unless yeshiva deans who are the acknowledged leaders of the day school world come to recognize that they have an obligation to lead, our schools will continue to be shortchanged.

Barak's Last Stand

You have to admire the staying power of Aharon Barak, the former President of Israel's Supreme Court. A couple of months after reaching the mandatory retirement age and required to leave the bench, he apparently continues to be involved in the court. He is writing opinions, which makes him a de facto member and therefore the Supreme Court has more members than the number set by law. So far as I know, in legal systems when a judge retires, that's the end of his involvement. Not so for Barak.

I imagine that there is a provision somewhere, perhaps in the court's procedures, that permits him to play this role. Just the same, it is wrong, though in line with the court-packing and other stratagems he has employed to maintain control over a body that has a huge role in Israeli life. Membership in the Supreme Court is rigged, adding another layer to its inherently undemocratic character. Rigging reached a new height during the Barak era, as when he blocked the appointment of the much-admired civil rights advocate Professor Ruth Gavison because he did not like her. He arranged for his successor who shares his extreme secular ideology and he has rigged key judicial panels that hear important cases.

Because they are fragile institutions in terms of their adherence to democratic norms, supreme courts tend to act with restraint. Israel's has a self-proclaimed exalted role that allows it to roam across the governmental and societal landscapes as it determines which laws, policies, appointments and practices shall stand and which shall be invalidated. This is democracy?

For all of his usurpations, Mr. Barak is shrewd and knows that there are limits, that if too much power is claimed by the court, there will be reprisals. He yields from time to time to the imperative of restraint. A useful example is his handling of challenges to the security wall that is still under construction. He ruled against the government in key cases, but upheld certain of the locations selected by the government. Much the same has occurred under his watch in other security and military cases.

Now he has ruled that Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza can sue Israel for damages and harm resulting from Israel Defense Forces actions. There are exceptions, such as when the damages occurred during a clearly defined "war" or against an enemy state or a terrorist organization. In their decision, Barak and his panel invalidated a law passed by the Knesset, a consideration that has not deterred this presumed advocate of democracy.

It is too early to assess the implications and reach of this ruling. It has been reported that there are pending in Israel's badly clogged courts more than 500 lawsuits brought by Palestinians claiming they were harmed and there are strong implications that hundreds more are lining up to sue, demanding that a state they abhor and many want to destroy pay compensation for its self-defense against Arab aggression. Likely, the raid on Israel's treasury will be huge. An additional cost is greater divisiveness in Israel.

The irony is that Israel's departure from Gaza has increased the prospect of Palestinian citizens being harmed because withdrawal has led to increased shelling from Gaza into Israel. The further irony is that Palestinian claimants are likely to do better in Israeli courts than the Israelis who once lived in a small part of Gaza.

Barak's approach is to figure out how to implement his ideological and policy preferences and then to search for legal precedents that serve, in a sense, as fig leafs for his jurisprudence. Nearly all of the Israeli legal precedents that he points to are his own opinions, a tendency that reaches a height in his latest ruling. He selects excerpts from books that share his ideology, yet he finds very little support in rulings from respected supreme courts elsewhere because they scarcely exist.

If what Barak has decided for Israel would be applicable to U.S. actions in Iraq, there would be at least a million Iraqi litigants in American courts. Under the circumstances facing Israel, its courts should be open to Palestinian claimants only when it can be shown that the IDF deliberately targeted civilians or that it did so with reckless disregard for the welfare of civilians. However, if civilians were in harm's way, that is not a sufficient justification for a claim.

War isn't pretty. Or fair. It's hell. Civilians are killed and maimed. Homes and property are destroyed. That is why the military must take prudent risks to avoid harming civilians. To demand more is unreasonable and wrong and to compound this wrong by inviting civilians to sue is folly. When Israel counteracts attacks coming from Gaza, it is doing what all responsible states know they must do. Instead of relying on his false ideological gods, Aharon Barak and the Israel Supreme Court should be mindful of what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in dissent in 1949 in a case called Terminiello v. Chicago: "There is danger that if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

Hopefully, last week's ruling is Mr. Barak's last. Even so, it is certain that his dubious jurisprudence has taken strong root in the Supreme Court and his progeny will haunt us for years to come.

What's Wrong With Mesirah

Two Rabbis, one Reform and one Conservative, were in the news recently for alleged wrongdoing. Coverage in Jewish newspapers was minimal, raising once more the question of why our press is so hot to the trot whenever an Orthodox rabbi is accused. Could it be that editors and reporters do not accept the clerical credentials of the non-Orthodox?

Suffice it to say because the details are puerile, the Reform clergyman who is being sued by a former mistress who is not Jewish is being kept on by his Manhattan congregation. Less fortunate is the Conservative fellow who now sells used cars and, more ominously, is under indictment after lay leaders at the Manapalan, New Jersey, congregation he once served discovered that he had put his hands into the synagogue's cooking jar and removed nearly $100,000 that wasn't his. They snitched on him to the local authorities.

Which brings me to mesirah or the halachic misdeed of informing to government officials, a subject that has a long and painful history. We need not delve into the tragic record which encompasses the awful consequences of apostasy in hostile and usually Christian societies. Even in benign places, mesirah ordinarily is not permitted under our religious laws. This apparently was no concern to the Manapalan Conservatives who did not consult their movement's religious leaders. It also appears that the ex-rabbi was not given the opportunity to make restitution.

Serious financial wrongdoing is not a common occurrence in our institutional affairs. It does happen, as does other wrongdoing. Among the Orthodox, the halachic ban against mesirah is a powerful cultural norm. A related norm is the obligation of the person who acted wrongfully to take responsibility for his deeds and to make full restitution. This prudent course often results in full financial recovery and it strikes me as preferable to sending the perpetrator to prison, a course that results in little or no recovery and much collateral grief.

Even in financial matters, the halachic objection to mesirah comes under attack from secularists and other Jews who leap at every opportunity to attack our religious practices. They regard the mesirah ban as designed to cover up misdeeds. It means nothing to these critics that this way of life essentially has worked in our community and has resulted in what may be termed proximate justice. There are severe attitudinal and practical penalties directed against those who act wrongfully. Of course, the halachic system is imperfect in its execution because execution is in the hands of mortals for whom perfection is beyond reach. Yet, when compared with the usual outcome under civil or secular procedures aimed at curtailing or punishing wrongdoing, it should be evident that the halachic system comes out favorably.

The ban against mesirah is not total. There are circumstances when civil authorities are to be informed, particularly when the alleged wrongdoing endangers the welfare of others. There are instances of spousal abuse, child abuse and other situations where leading Orthodox rabbis instructed that civil authorities be notified.

Those who deprecate the Orthodox point to sexual abuse of children, including by a tiny number of rabbis, as an area where communal norms create a culture of cover-up with concern for the victims being subordinate to concern for the wrongdoers. The yeshiva deans who comprise the Rabbinical Board of Torah Umesorah, the National Society of Hebrew Day Schools, adopted a policy statement that should dispel this canard. It begins, "We address ourselves to the problem of child molestation in our community." They continue, "in addition to the sins which they have committed, they have created painful memories in the minds of their victims, memories which can have a devastating lifetime impact." In a cover letter to principals, Rabbi Joshua Fishman, the organization's executive head, wrote "If there is indeed an allegation of child abuse that proves to be true, and the matter that had come to your attention was not attended to, you will be liable both in the eyes of G-d and according to secular law."

One of the advantages of the norm against mesirah is that it pays more than lip service to the obligation to protect the innocent. It should matter that the principle of a person being innocent until proven guilty is increasingly disparaged and also that prosecutorial abuse is widespread. We know that innocent people have been convicted of serious crimes they did not commit. The record in this regard in the area of sexual abuse is especially dismal. Persons charged which such crimes invariably are found guilty in the media and they are considered guilty until proven innocent. There was a notable case recently involving Temple Emanuel in Manhattan and its officials acted with much courage.

The state of criminal justice in this country - and in Israel - is too shaky to ignore and this has a bearing on the issue of mesirah. There is too much reliance on circumstantial evidence, of the kind proscribed in halacha. There is too much plea bargaining and other prosecutorial techniques that provide incentives for questionable and even false testimony, as witnesses seek to save their own skin.

If this isn't sufficient to induce doubts about contemporary criminal justice and also serve as an argument for the anti-mesirah standard, there is the expanding record in this country of meting out harsh sentences. Fully one-quarter of the world's prison population is in the U.S., an astounding statistic. We are becoming a gulag society. Even as virtually all categories of serious crime have seen sharp reductions over the last decade, there is each year a significant rise in the prison population. Judges, including on the federal bench, hand out long sentences without regard to family or societal consequences.

Why, then, should we trust civil authorities. At least in monetary matters, we should abide by the anti-mesirah rule. Violence and sexual abuse are different matters.

As We Continue to Widen Our Tent

As the aftershocks of the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey began to subside in the mid-1990s, American Jewry entered a post-intermarriage stage. We remained unhappy about the dreadful NJPS statistics, yet we came to accept the reality that a great number of Jews had married out and the trend would not be reversed. We accepted the reality but did not welcome it and this acceptance was driven not by theology or ideology, not by such developments as the Reform sanctioning of patrilineality, but by the numbers. There was a critical mass of Jews who had married non-Jews who wanted to continue to identify as Jews and in addition to their large number, they had parents, siblings, other relatives and Jewish friends who refused to regard the intermarried or even their spouses or children as outside the pale of Jewish life. While many who had intermarried walked away entirely, a great number continued to be involved in Jewish life, perhaps in a civic or secular fashion and, at times, even in some religious sense. Inexorably, they and their families were a part of the evolving story of the Jewish people.

At the time, there was a burst of activity encouraging the conversion of non-Jewish spouses and other forms of identity-strengthening. The small flock of newly important demographers chipped away at NJPS, arguing over whether the intermarriage rate was above or below 50% and whether to distinguish between core Jews and other Jews. There was scant acceptance of the alien notion that marrying out somehow adds to our numbers or the richness of Jewish life.

The forces that compelled the acceptance of intermarriage could not escape the impact of changes in American society or Jewish life, changes that impelled most American Jews further away from the moorings of Jewish tradition. An additional pull away from what had been our sense of Jewishness resulted from Jewish identity being determined less by communal norms than by what can be referred to as self-definition. People could define their Judaism according to their own choosing, without regard to their definition having discernible Jewish roots. We had rapidly entered the world of anything goes Judaism, a world in which "Jewish" encompassed much of what was antithetical to practices and beliefs that had been central in Jewish life. What was inauthentic now became labeled as authentic.

Here is a brief description of an anything goes Judaism event, taken from a report that regards such activities as beneficial and authentic. The event called "Golem Gets Married" took place in a room that "was filled with revelers, drinking at the bar and enjoying a spread of cold cuts well before the 'ceremony' began. The mock wedding featured salacious vows, a cross-dressing couple and a sermon delivered in haiku. Following the 'ceremony,' the band led the crowd in a hora or two (complete with the bride and groom hoisted in the air.)" This was a "Jewish" activity because the attendees were mainly Jews. Nothing more was required.

As what is conducted under anything goes Judaism has expanded, some demographers have been hard at work expanding the boundaries of Jewish identity to include persons who do not regard themselves as Jewish, the goal being to increase our numbers and also to promote the legitimacy of ultra-secular experiences that somehow are labeled as Jewish. Rather than there being four or five million Americans who acknowledge that they are Jewish, our ranks somehow swell to twice or more that number. In this and other questionable developments we are witness to the debasement of Jewish scholarship. Too often, those who pay for the research get the results that they want to hear.

There are those in Israel who welcome the inflated population figures because the higher numbers can be employed to show that American Jews are still an important element to be reckoned with as they advocate for Israel.

The anything goes mindset is not the final leg in the journey away from even a minimalistic sense of traditional Jewish identity. The pervasiveness of social change and the maintenance of a critical mass who are comfortable with a definition of Jewishness that conforms to their life-style mandates a further enlargement of the tent. Intermarriage is now welcomed in certain quarters and there is the corollary urging that communal resources be directed at those who are most distant, including at persons who are not Jewish. There are calls for missionary and conversionary activity among peoples who are entirely bereft of a scintilla of Jewish identity.

We are told that efforts to promote Jewish continuity should not favor day school education or conventional religious activity. It apparently matters not that our educational and religious initiatives encompass a great number of at-risk Jews. We are told that the spiritual needs of these Jews should be ignored and we should concentrate on those who are distant and unlikely to pay attention to our messages. This argument was made at a recent conference on the future of North American Jewry.

Advocates of outreach to non-Jews who are married to Jews have just gotten a boost, perhaps inadvertent, from a report out of Boston claiming that such activity by the local Federation has resulted in sixty percent of the children of intermarried couples being raised as Jews, a figure that is about twice as high as that indicated by NJPS and research in other communities. In all likelihood, the Boston statistic is exaggerated because of the inability of researchers to survey the intermarried who are not involved in Jewish life and/or those who do not have recognizable Jewish names. An added factor that points in the same direction is that Jews who no longer regard themselves as Jewish invariably do not respond to our demographers.

We are not now capable of preventing our tent from being enlarged, albeit bogusly, nor can we prevent critical resources from being diverted to meaningless pursuits. We must, however, insist that that which is authentic be supported.

RJJ Newsletter - Torah Leadership

Throughout our experience as a people, Torah leadership has been crucial to our spiritual well-being. Torah leaders inspire and give us direction. They transmit the teachings they received from their great teachers and apply them to new questions and situations. They are our link to the past and together with those whom they inspire and lead, they are guarantors that are our exalted heritage will be transmitted to new generations. They are, in short, indispensable, an irreplaceable resource which if deficient results in a diminution of what our community can accomplish. Because of their vital role, their learning and their elevated personal qualities, we are obligated to respect those who are recognized as Torah leaders.

In the lines that follow, I discuss certain aspects of Torah leadership in the present period in this country. While I shall touch on problem areas, my fervent hope is that I shall not deviate from the obligation to honor and respect those whom we accept as our leaders. We have been witness to their important achievements.

It is not possible to prove what might have happened had events not proceeded as they did. Yet, it is clear that American Orthodoxy would be a lot different today had our community not been molded and led in the post-Holocaust period by a remarkable group of Gedolei Torah, men of genius, spiritual nobility and wisdom. We all know their names. All were born in pre-Holocaust Europe and many were refugees who had escaped the destruction of European Jewry. They planted the seeds for the exciting development of religious life on this continent.

The Holocaust also foretold the unveiling of a bleak development. The customary channels of transmission of Torah leadership were destroyed. The outstanding people who came here gave us a multitude of blessings. What they could not do is quickly repair the process of Mesorah that has been an essential element throughout all of Jewish history. The point was made by Rav Yitzchak Hutner, ztl, the eminent Rosh Yeshivah of Chaim Berlin, who suggested that it ordinarily takes ten generations for greatness in Torah to take root and fully blossom in a new place of religious Jewish settlement. Even as we were enveloped in the sanctity and glory of truly remarkable leaders, we knew that there would be a day when the sun would set. Although we continue to be nurtured by the example and teachings of these men and their memory remains a presence in our lives, in a communal sense we are orphaned.

In all corners of American Orthodoxy there is a deficit in Torah leadership. In the yeshiva world which is central to the lives of many who will read what is written here, there is presently no towering leader. At most, there is a collegial arrangement involving a small number of men of much virtue and learning. That they are not equal to their predecessors should not be material because there is the fundamental hashkafic principle of "Shmuel b'doro." What is material is how our present leaders interpret and fulfill their roles.

There is nothing that the Roshei Yeshiva who are our key leaders can do to reverse history. They can, however, attempt to prepare for what lies ahead by providing guidance to the next generation or two of Torah leaders through processes of shimush or apprenticeship, such as they experienced in their relationship with the great Torah leaders of the previous generation. Unfortunately, scant - if any - attention is now being paid to this responsibility.

While our Torah leaders cannot alter the widespread and understandable, albeit at times lamentable, practice of relying on the authority of eminent Gedolei Torah in Israel, they can provide leadership regarding certain developments within the yeshiva world that are clearly within their zone of authority. A primary example is the tragic and costly decline of Torah Umesorah - the National Society of Hebrew Day School, the one organization that inherently Roshei Yeshiva have responsibility for. The Torah leaders of the previous two generations rightly regarded Torah Umesorah and the day school movement as the primary instrumentalities of kiruv, as the centerpiece for the building of Torah in North America. Torah Umesorah's decline has taken a huge toll, as is evident in the frightening enrollment decline in kiruv and immigrant schools.

We see in this development how costly it is when a Torah leadership arrangement predicated on collegiality breaks down because there is no single leader who is accepted as transcendent and the participants in the collegial arrangement too often do not agree on how best to proceed.

As important as are these and related developments, what may be most costly is the absence of what may be termed management skills among our senior Roshei Yeshiva. They are all over the place, sending out letters for individuals in crisis, at times without having sufficient details, speaking too often and traveling too much, attending too many events and, in an important sense, being too available and too easy to reach. Advances in communication allow for quick access, while the automobile is regarded as an adequate answer when Roshei Yeshiva plead that they cannot attend this or that event or occasion.

As a result, they are more likely to be reactive than proactive, which is to say that they are more likely to be led than to lead others. They forfeit control over their primary resources of time and space. Although in an immediate sense their formal responsibilities are limited because generally their yeshivas are small, these men are always super-busy.

What is at work is the outgrowth of an immense reservoir of goodness among Torah leaders. They have an insufficient capacity to say "no" and they certainly have difficulty turning down any opportunity to accomplish some good. There is what may be referred to as a yeshiva-world culture which dictates that our Torah leaders must nearly always be available, this despite the practice of certain Roshei Yeshiva in the previous generation to carefully control their time and space. Unless Torah leaders overcome, at least in a significant way, this cultural imperative, their leadership capabilities will remain limited.

The culture of the yeshiva world can be contrasted with the very different culture of the Chassidic world, which is the other part of charedi life. Chassidic Rebbes are responsible for a community that may have thousands of adherents and for a network of institutions that serve this membership. Their burden in terms of their immediate responsibilities is far more extensive than that of Roshei Yeshiva. Almost inherently, they understand that unless they control and limit how their time is spent and where they are at, they will not be able to provide the necessary quotient of leadership.

Hence they travel little, severely limit the events they attend, give few speeches, rarely send out letters to solicit for other causes or make public pronouncements. They also know how to delegate responsibility to officials in their communities and to condition their followers to have interaction with these officials. In short, they are focused on their four cubits, at times perhaps too focused. Even on crucial issues, their voice is often heard via a son or dayan or some other subordinate figure. They have, as well, a small army of eager assistants. This contributes to the luxury of being able to decide what they will do and where they will be.

This inward-looking view of their responsibilities may appear to limit their role in religious life outside of their communities. In fact, the reverse is true, for the major Chassidic Rebbes clearly have an impact on religious life beyond the walls of their group.

By attempting to accommodate nearly everyone and to be jacks of all religious trades, American Roshei Yeshiva compromise their capacity to plan and to lead. I cannot think of a single major Orthodox initiative in the past twenty years that has their fingerprints on it. Creative and inspiring chesed activities or recent developments in chinuch invariably are grass root achievements. In the meantime, Torah Umesorah is in crisis, while enrollment in day schools with a kiruv orientation has declined sharply. The tuition crisis that causes hardship in our schools and homes is an issue that the Roshei Yeshiva are aware of and yet these is scant evidence that they are prepared to provide the leadership that is necessary to ameliorate this crisis.

The pity is that should Roshei Yeshiva exert leadership their efforts would be rewarded because they are respected and their messages to us receive attention. Should they urge the religious masses to action, there would be productive consequences. There would also be the beneficial byproduct of involving in fruitful activity younger Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbis from whose ranks ultimately would emerge the Torah leaders of the next generation.

This requires a determination to lead. How do we get our message across to Roshei Yeshiva that we want them to lead?

The Case for John Bolton

Although I do not write about domestic politics in this space, it is necessary to mention that I am thrilled by the election results because it sets the context for my view that organized American Jewry should urge the Senate to confirm President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton has been serving for about a year on an interim basis and unless he is confirmed, he cannot continue in his post after December 31.

With the President and Republicans greatly weakened and Democrats soon to take control of Congress, Bolton's prospects range from extremely poor to non-existent. Democratic Senators have indicated that they will oppose him in the dying days of the Republican controlled Senate. It is also a long-shot that the rank and file of our community will back him, particularly in view of the way American Jews voted on November 7 and our ideological disdain for anything identified as right wing.

Yet, I hope that we will be able to put ideology aside.

The case against Bolton is not flimsy. When he was first nominated, what emerged was evidence that he is abrasive, bullying and a right-wing ideologue, with his fingerprints on Iraq and other Bush Administration foreign policy mistakes. At a time when America's standing abroad is at its lowest point in more than two generations and perhaps even in the entire history of this country, there is much appeal to the argument that we do not need a divisive figure representing us at the U.N. If he could not win confirmation last year, why support him now, especially since the election results powerfully demonstrate strong public disapproval of the direction of our foreign policy?

The difference that a year makes is that in 2005 John Bolton was a job-seeker, while now there is a record of service to assess. From this perspective, the picture that emerges is of a man who is a skilled diplomat and while also a sharp advocate of U.S. interests, is capable of flexibility and even tact. He has been tough on U.N. corruption, both moral and the conventional financial variety, and it is evident that his persistence has contributed to meaningful reforms. With the U.N. playing a heightened role regarding Iran and North Korea, in a difficult environment and hampered by Russia and China, as well as by France and other occasional American allies, he has brought about impressive diplomatic achievements.

Likely, Mr. Bush's electoral thumping and lame-duck status will result in an expanded role for the U.N. in the international crises that are already on its plate and those that will unfold during the coming two years. This factor makes the case for Bolton more compelling. I should mention that unlike certain U.N. ambassadors who served under Republican presidents, he has been respectful of an institution that does not always merit respect and he has not been confrontational.

How do Israel and American Jews fit into this picture? For all of its intentions, as I have underscored, the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq have harmed Israel by destroying the Sunni-Sh'ia balance of power and by provoking greater jihadist sentiments in the Islamic world. To help extricate his Administration from the disaster that is Iraq, Mr. President Bush has appointed a study group headed by James Baker whose report is expected in about a month. Baker, a former Secretary of State, has never been friendly to Israel and I regard it as nearly a sure thing that his group will recommend policy shifts that are harmful to Israel's security, such things as the necessity to seek a rapprochement with Syria and perhaps even with Iran, even if this means a sharp shift away from support of Israel.

To make the outlook more ominous still, the cadre of Israel supporters high up in the Administration has been shrinking. From Israel's standpoint, therefore, Bolton's voice is needed, both at the U.N. and in Washington. There is no doubt where he stands. His attitude toward Israel was on display during the Lebanon War this past summer and he was instrumental in scripting U.N. resolutions that were balanced. If I recall correctly, at the time several Democratic senators, I think including Chuck Schumer, said that they might support the Bolton nomination. It now appears that partisan politics will doom his prospects.

If only because Bolton boldly advocates for Israel, we have an obligation to advocate for him. It's in our interest to support him. Over the next two years, world politics will be flush with issues in which Israel has a huge stake. Under the best of circumstances, Israel is often isolated, with the U.S. its only major and dependable ally. It would be harmful if because of timidity or ideology we stand idly by while a public figure whom we can help and who has helped us is abandoned.

Because I do not believe that we Jews have the clout that we often want others to believe that we have, I know that our support of Bolton may not amount to much. Just the same, we ought to do the right thing and make the effort. This effort need not be a public campaign.

_____________________
In a column some weeks ago entitled "Aliya and Yerida," I wrote that Nefesh B'Nefesh, the organization that promotes aliya "receives enormous financial support from Evangelical Christians." That apparently was once the case, but no more. Nowadays, only a small portion of the group's funding comes from this source. I regret the error and am pleased to make this correction.

Exhibitionism Is Not Influence

Is the continuing pursuit of AIPAC a rouge operation, the handiwork of a zealous prosecutor who doesn't like the organization and has the FBI at his disposal to act out this dislike, or is it an organized Justice Department operation that has the approval of people at the top? One day we might know. My guess is that what began as a limited investigation has now blossomed into a crusade sanctioned by high Justice Department officials and perhaps the White House.

Whatever the full story, this business has been going on for more than three years and there is no sign of a let-up, as we know from the latest chapter involving Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. She's been investigated, apparently because she may have enlisted AIPAC in her effort to chair the committee should Democrats gain control of the House. This is a crime?

Likely, Harman is off the hook. Also off the hook are nearly all whom the FBI has trailed, wiretapped, questioned and investigated in the pursuit of AIPAC. Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, the ex-AIPAC staffers, are not off the hook. They await trial on phantom charges concocted by Justice Department prosecutors, their alleged crime being that they did what hundreds do every day in Washington. Should we be comforted because no one caught up in the AIPAC dragnet has been waterboarded?

What is the American Jewish reaction to the systematic attack against a Jewish organization that has by far more members than any other? We are once more the Jews of silence, not daring to criticize the government and not even curious about how an administration that sends its highest officials to AIPAC events can compile so flagrant an anti-AIPAC record. As for the lobbying group, its spokesman utters the familiar mantra, "we wouldn’t do anything wrong." That's not the issue. The issue is why the Feds are harassing people who have an association with the organization.

In truth, the bad news has not been too bad for AIPAC. The impact on Israel and American Jewry is another matter. After Rosen and Weissman were cashiered by the organization they served with loyalty and were then indicted, American Jews responded by adding substantially to their contributions, the apparent explanation being their belief that the anti-AIPAC crusade demonstrates that their idol is vital to Israel and the Jewish people. The logic may be flawed but the group’s overstuffed coffers are real. AIPAC also eats well when Israel-haters like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt attack. It is inappropriate to ask whether AIPAC's self-promotion gives ammunition to Israel haters.

AIPAC's hype is a serious Jewish/Israel problem and we need to have the courage and intelligence to address this issue. Its annual extravaganza is a public declaration that "we are powerful." The participation of high officials and scores of senators and representatives has no bearing on American foreign policy, this despite the multitude of platitudinous declarations of U.S.-Israel friendship. It has much to do with how Jews and Israel are perceived because the message being sent is that this is the most powerful lobby under the sun.

It should not be difficult to understand that exhibitionism is not influence, that most often it is a display of immaturity and lack of confidence. Those who have influence go about their work quietly. AIPAC makes noise to call attention to itself because its large army of mini-machers are more likely to contribute when there is hoopla, when they believe that they are rubbing shoulders with the powerful. According to Newsweek, in mid-September while she was under investigation, Representative Harman hosted a dinner at her home for over 120 "top financial backers" of AIPAC that included a panel discussion with John Negroponte, the Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. The event had no bearing on U.S. policy and everything to do with demonstrating AIPAC's alleged clout to the affluent attendees.

Let's face it. We want AIPAC to be regarded as powerful and then without batting an eye we throw a fit when AIPAC is accused of wielding power. Nor are we willing to ask the tough question of whether AIPAC is worth the cost, whether the message being sent to Americans is that Jews have great influence. The Forward reports that half of the respondents to a Zogby International survey believe that "the Israel lobby" has been "a key factor" in American actions in Iraq and the confrontation with Iran. True, the question was of the "when did you stop beating your wife?" variety. Even so, we should be concerned.

In response to AIPAC's overreaching and exhibitionism we do not need a new group that will take an ultra-liberal, anti-Administration tack along the lines suggested by George Soros. He is a fabulously wealthy man who has never displayed any caring for Israel or Jews. What we do not need is a competing lobby but an intelligent examination of whether our lobbying strategy is an asset or deficit. We need to explore whether AIPAC's perhaps inevitable tendency to provide support for those who are in power may work to Israel's disadvantage, as I believe we have seen in Iraq.

Doubtlessly, AIPAC and its supporters prefer to ignore these questions and it will be business as usual. The group is likely to raise more money and add to its instinct for exhibitionism. It remains, however, that while the band plays on, AIPAC continues to be investigated. This should concern us, not for the sake of an organization mired in self-promotion, but for the sake of American Jewry. I am a strong disbeliever in conspiracy theories, yet when we consider what has transpired over the past three years and also in light of the Jonathan Pollard affair, there are reasons to believe that there is an anti-Israel cabal embedded high up in the U.S. government.