Posted by Rabbi Andrew S. Davids, Executive Director, ARZA

The Palestinian people have spoken through a democratic process and have chosen to be led by a party committed to Israel’s destruction. We cannot place our hands on our ears and pretend not to hear. Unless Hamas takes immediate steps to demonstrate in both word and action that they are prepared to assume leadership in this volatile region in a responsible manner, we believe they do not truly serve the needs of the Palestinian people.

It is far from clear what message Palestinian voters made by selecting Hamas. Clearly, frustration with the corrupt Fatah regime was a major factor. While Hamas placed women and non-Muslims on their slate and focused much of their campaign on the need to fight corruption within the Palestinian Authority, they continue to reject the peace process, reject Israel’s right to exists and legitimize violence and terrorism.

The Bush Administration's response to the Hamas victory mirrors our own. We call upon the United States Administration to ensure that the Quartet remain engaged and of one voice so that it can play a critical and constructive role in guiding the new Palestinian leadership towards responsible and constructive initiatives. The Quartet as well as the European Union and the United Nations must be forthright and unbending in holding the new Hamas leadership accountable for word and action, and must demand commitment on the part of Hamas to a new agenda or withhold all political and financial support for the Palestinian Authority.

While we counsel the leadership of Israel to be cautious and not take any rash actions, we stand with her during this time of difficulty as she waits to see if the new leadership will engage in dialogue as a partner or will maintain its rejectionist stance.

We know that progress which is so important to the Palestinians (and to the Israelis) is a distant hope until Hamas immediately take steps to strike anti-Israel and anti-Semitic language from their Charter, to acknowledge immediately of Israel’s right to exist within safe and secure boundaries and to fulfill all obligations to which the Palestinian Authority committed itself related to the peace process.

As Jews, we are not strangers to distant hopes. Many times in our history, as today, they are precisely what sustain us. There is no question as to what Hamas is and what Hamas must become. We hope and pray that the path towards peace is quickly embraced by the new leadership of the Palestinian people.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Donald Cohen-Cutler, Legislative Assistant

Google, defender of the freedom of information and expression, iconoclast of the search engines and true civil liberties patriot has bowed to the pressure of China. Oh to defend life, liberty and the American way, until it hurts the bottom line. With last week’s announcement that Google would not hand-over data regarding child pornography and other illicit behavior of its users, many in the civil liberties communities and privacy advocates hailed this move as fabulous corporate responsibility.

Now, when the second largest economy in the world and civil and human rights abuser of the first degree threatens finical determent, Google gives way. China asked Google to place filters on its searches to limit the information that is searchable for Chinese citizens.

China is a largely untapped market with more than a billion of potential consumers, but the “not evil” corporate empire known as Google has simply become another pawn in the international game of human life. Oh well. So much for “the need for information crosses all borders.”

According to it's website “Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Perhaps a brief amendment would include “Google’s mission is to organize government approved information and make it accessible and useful to those who are smart enough to know what is the truth.”

Google released a statement defending its actions stating that some information is better than no information. Andrew McLaughlin senior policy council for Google stated in a release, "While removing search results inconsistent with Google's mission," providing no information — or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information — is more inconsistent with our mission" (read it here.) However in further research on this topic, it is clear that this has little to do with a mission and everything to do with the bottom line.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Rabbi Marla Feldman, Director of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism. This article originally appeared in Ten Minutes of Torah.

This week, we are particularly reminded of the legacy of our prophets, as both the secular and Jewish calendars feature themes related to justice. Not only do we commemorate the life and message of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but we also observe the yahrzeit of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, who inspired so many Jewish social justice activists. In describing how he felt about marching with Dr. King in Selma, Rabbi Heschel famously said that he felt as if his feet were praying. Social action is the prayer that we offer with our hands and our feet; the prayers we offer by rolling up our sleeves and working on behalf of the poor and needy, by marching for justice and by speaking truth to power.

And reinforcing these themes this week is our Torah portion, Parashat Shemot, which begins the saga of the Exodus -- the tale of redemption from slavery and the struggle for freedom and justice that defines our people. We are introduced to Moses in this parashah. Moses, our greatest prophet, survives the cruelty of Pharoah's evil decree by the brave and righteous civil disobedience of the midwives and the compassion and mercy of Pharoah's own daughter.

But what is perhaps most remarkable about the Torah's depiction of our greatest leader is that, unlike the myths of other civilizations, Moses is no super-hero. He is neither god-like nor particularly brave or strong or wise. He stumbles, he makes mistakes; he runs away from his problems and tries to avoid responsibility. Yet, when he witnesses a slave in danger, he intercedes to save a life, risking his own. He gallantly steps in to protect his future bride when other shepherds prevented her from drawing water. And when he hears strange voices is the desert night and he sees an impossible vision of a bush burning unconsumed, he recognizes the power of God in his life.

Though he demurs when called, doubting that anyone would listen to him, at the end of the day Moses summons his courage and chokes down his fear in order to Speak Truth to Power. Over and over Moses stands before Pharoah, facing the greatest power on earth, to demand nothing less than freedom for his people.

Our story is about a person just like us, who becomes a great leader because he recognizes injustice and he has the courage to hear God's voice and the fortitude to speak up, despite his uncertainty and his fears.

Which, of course, brings to mind the American hero we remember this week, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who also brought a message of freedom for his people; a modern-day prophet who spoke truths some did not want to hear, who risked his life to preach that message nonetheless.

King's message was about more than civil rights... he was an ardent defender of economic justice, bridging the dreadful gap between haves and have-nots, raising up the poorest among us to reach the fullness of their potential. He was opposed to war, not only because of the terrible death and destruction it brings, but also because it deflects our efforts away from addressing the terrible ills of society that exist in our own neighborhoods.

King's legacy continues to inspire us as Americans and as fellow travelers in the march toward justice and peace. His dream... that one day all children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character... remains a vision of what the future can be, but not yet the reality for which we hope and pray.

The annual commemoration of Dr. King's life was instituted to serve as a reminder that his work is not yet complete, and it is our task to carry his message into the 21st Century.

And we certainly have our work cut out for us!

For many of us, the recent hurricanes exposed the scope of poverty and injustice in this country, and the message that we ought not continue business as usual. We can no longer ignore the gross disparity between rich and poor or the implications of race and bad public policy.

I recently returned from New Orleans, and though I was inspired by the resilience of those who have returned to rebuild their lives and their community, I was profoundly disturbed to see how little progress has been made. Four months after the hurricanes there is still no electricity in some areas, there are only 2 of 9 hospitals operational; only one public school has reopened; and 300,000 homes remain uninhabitable. The bankrupt city of New Orleans has laid off 3,000 city employees -- police, fire fighters, teachers, medical personnel and city employees needed to provide inspections and permits for those trying to rebuild, creating an impasse that has prevented most from reclaiming their homes and their businesses. Four months before the next hurricane season begins, the government has yet to rebuild the levies or establish a rational urban plan that considers the need to restore wetlands and flood planes to ameliorate the effects of future storms. The mismanagement of this crisis is a reflection of the greater issue of economic justice with which we, as a nation, must grapple.

Where are today's prophetic voices, challenging us to speak up in the face of injustice, waking us from our comfortable indifference? Where are the visionaries to demand a society in which the flood waters raise all of our boats, rather than drown the poor and the weak? What would Dr. King or Rabbi Heschel or Moses do, if they were with us today? Where would they lead us?

On this Shabbat, let us be inspired by Moses, Rabbi Heschel and Dr. King -- who, despite their flaws, their doubts and insecurities, were unable to witness injustice and do nothing; who found strength in moral indignation and who heard God's call to action. As Ruth Messinger, one of the honorees are our recent Biennial convention said, it is time for us to become the leaders we are waiting for. Let us have the audacity to be today's prophets, to be true partners in our ancient covenant with God L'taken et Haolam -- to repair of our broken world. If not us, who? And if not now, when?

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Donald Cohen-Cutler, Legislative Assistant

Last night I went home to my apartment and then went to the gym in time to watch “News Hour with Jim Lehrer” on PBS while I worked out. Most evenings this means I will channel my anger about whatever some politico has said into my 45 minute on whatever cardio machine I happen to be using that day. But yesterday was different.

The second story entitled “Grim Forecast” was a follow up on the conditions of people living in the mountains of Pakistan in the aftermath of the October earthquake. Dan Rivers of Independent Television News reported a horrible situation. The town of Moori Patan lost more than half of its population in October and may lose another significant portion of its population during this harsh wet winter.

They will lose the most vulnerable of their population; the old and the young, the ill and the infirmed. Watching this I was reminded that we are commanded, in no uncertain terms, to take care of these exact people. But what are we supposed to do? They live far away and out of the reach of most people. What can we do?

The answer to that is hard. We must continue to urge the Administration to engage in meaningful relief work. We must continue to stay abreast of the latest updates. We must also continue to donate money to organizations working to improve the lives of the most vulnerable in towns and villages like Moori Patan throughout the effected region.

Below you will find three links to Jewish organization working to improve the conditions for those who’s lives have been altered by the October earthquake.

• American Jewish World Service
• American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
• Jewish Coalition for Disaster Relief 

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Jason Kleinman, Legislative Assistant

The death penalty is one of the most controversial social issues facing our nation today. According to an October 2005 Gallup poll, 64% of Americans support capital punishment. Though this seems like a high number, support for the death penalty is at its lowest point since the 1970s.

Over the past few months, we have seen a growing number of anti-death penalty protests. On December 2, 2005, North Carolina executed Kenneth Boyd. Boyd became the 1000th person executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. This tragic milestone led many to question the need for capital punishment. They questioned the racist undertones of a system in which the number of blacks executed significantly outnumber the number of whites. The questioned the death penalty’s proven ineffectiveness at deterring crime. They questioned how many of the 1000 people executed may have actually been innocent of the crime for which they were put to death.

Weeks later, Stanley Tookie Williams was scheduled to be executed by the state of California. Williams, founder of the notorious street gang the Crips, was found guilty of murdering four people and sentenced to death (though he contended he was innocent of these crimes). While on death row, Mr. Williams wrote numerous books educating young people to avoid gangs, crime, and incarceration. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year since 2001 and several times for the Nobel Prize in Literature. People throughout America sent letters and made phone calls, urging Governor Schwarzenegger to grant Mr. Williams clemency. These requests fell on deaf ears, as Mr. Williams was executed on December 13, 2005.

Following the cries of injustice surrounding the death penalty, last Monday the state of New Jersey acted to suspend executions while a commission examines the fairness and expense of the state’s death penalty. New Jersey is now the third state to initiate a moratorium on executions, but the first to do so through the State Assembly. The state of California is also considering a bill that would create a moratorium on executions

As a nation, we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the problems of capital punishment. We cannot continue to remain silent as minorities and the poor continue to receive death sentences at a disproportionate rate and innocent people may be sitting on death row. I ask our friends in California to contact their local law makers and urge them to support AB 1121, the California Moratorium on Executions Act. I ask our friends in other states to urge their leaders to consider a similar measure, as well. It is our duty as citizens to ensure equality and justice, and we cannot achieve these goals with a system that continues to execute its people.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by David Morrill Schlitt , Legislative Assistant

“Should an employer be allowed to pay a full-time employee $5.15 an hour, this argument went, if that's no longer enough to live on? Is it just under our system of government? Or in the eyes of God?” –New York Times Magazine, January 15, 2006.

This past week the New York Times Magazine ran a very important article on Living Wage campaigns around the country. The Reform Movement has long made the argument that economic decisions must be treated as moral decisions," and, as the Times Magazine article suggests, many other Americans are coming around to similar conclusions: “The Baltimore [Living Wage] campaign was ostensibly about money,” writes reporter Jon Gertner. “But to those who thought about it more deeply, it was about the force of particular moral propositions: first, that work should be rewarded, and second, that no one who works full time should have to live in poverty.”

Let Justice Roll, an interfaith coalition of made up of more than fifty community and religious groups (including the Union for Reform Judaism), is currently working to raise the minimum wage both federally and on the state level. Last weekend, Let Justice Roll held its “Living Wage Days” to coincide with the celebration of the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in order to recall Dr. King’s efforts on behalf of workers. As King wrote in Where Do We Go from Here, “There is nothing but a lack of social vision to prevent us from paying an adequate wage to every American citizen, whether he is a hospital worker, laundry worker, maid, or day laborer.” To find out more about Let Justice Roll and how you can get involved, please visit their website.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Liz Kaplan, Legislative Assistant

This New Year brought with it another reason for the Human Rights and Civil Liberties community to celebrate: the signing into law of the McCain Amendment that bans “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of U.S. detainees. While this step was encouraging in the fight to protect the human dignity of prisoners (a principle of Jewish law) much remains to be done on this issue, including making sure that the McCain Amendment is enforced as intended, ending the practice of rendition of U.S. detainees to countries that practice torture, and authorizing an independent commission to fully investigate the detention and interrogation practices of those involved with the U.S. war on terror.

That is why this weekend’s interfaith conference at Princeton Theological Seminary, “Theology, International Law, and Torture,” was so exciting. Attended by over 150 religious leaders from across the U.S. and the religious spectrum, the conference brought together a variety of religious scholars, Washington advocates, former military, and survivors of torture themselves to help participants understand not only the moral egregiousness of torture but also several theories for its continued practice. While it is impossible to discuss all of the interesting points that were raised during the conference here, it is worth describing just a few of the highlights:

• Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson and Army General Richard O’Meara, both lifelong Republicans and signers of a statement by former military officers in support of the McCain Amendment, spoke passionately about the connection between winning the war on terror, maintaining military morale as well as the rule of law, and preparing U.S. troops for the challenging moral conundrums they may face on and off the battlefield;
• Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of the Woodrow Wilson School and the University Center for Human Values at Princeton debunked the “ticking time bomb” scenario as a justification for torture in interrogations related to the U.S. war on terror, arguing that the scenario relies on the existence of so many unlikely and unpredictable variables that it would be impossible to establish bureaucratic rules to govern them; and
• Rabbi Saul Berman, Director of Edah, a modern Orthodox organization, explained how and why Jewish law explicitly protects the dignity of convicts and of the accused, emphasizing that the human body is the instrument of God’s will for the production of holiness in the world and that an assault on the body (including any corporal punishment in addition to that which is assigned as punishment for a crime) is therefore an assault on God’s will.

There were also opportunities for members of different religious communities to strategize about how to encourage discussion and activism on the issue of torture, and the RAC webpage will keep you updated as new ways to get involved arise. In the mean time, visit Rabbis for Human Rights, North America's website to view a variety of Jewish materials related to torture, and Human Rights First's Stop Torture Now campaign page for more information on the McCain Amendment and other anti-torture legislation.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Alexis Rice, Communications Director

Yesterday, I attended a speech by Vice President Al Gore speech concerning civil liberties and the threat to the Constitution. In the speech sponsored by the American Constitution Society and the Liberty Coalition, Gore discussed the dangers of unchecked executive power and called the domestic wiretap program authorized by President Bush "a threat to the very structure of our government."

Gore charged that the eavesdropping operation threatens the foundation of U.S. democracy and noted that the Bush administration acted without congressional authority and is undermining the federal court set up to authorize requests to eavesdrop on Americans. Gore explained, "what we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the president of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently."

Giving the speech on Martin Luther King Day, Gore recalled the FBI's secret surveillance of King and noted, “Dr. King was illegally wiretapped—one of hundreds of thousands of Americans whose private communications were intercepted by the U.S. government during this period. The FBI privately called King the ‘most dangerous and effective negro leader in the country’ and vowed to ‘take him off his pedestal.’ The government even attempted to destroy his marriage and blackmail him into committing suicide. This campaign continued until Dr. King’s murder. The discovery that the FBI conducted a long-running and extensive campaign of secret electronic surveillance designed to infiltrate the inner workings of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and to learn the most intimate details of Dr. King’s life, helped to convince Congress to enact restrictions on wiretapping.”

Gore noted that the result of these concerns was the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), which “was enacted expressly to ensure that foreign intelligence surveillance would be presented to an impartial judge to verify that there is a sufficient cause for the surveillance.” Gore said when he was in Congress he voted for this law and that “for almost thirty years the system has proven a workable and valued means of according a level of protection for private citizens, while permitting foreign surveillance to continue.”
The speech was very moving and powerful. Afterwards, I was able to meet Gore and commend him on addressing these important civil liberties concerns.

View Gore's remarks (text)

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Jen Gubitz, Legislative Assistant

With a day off and a commemorative postage stamp, we honor Martin Luther King’s accomplishments on behalf of the Civil Rights community. Our public leaders praise King’s dream, his passion, and his leadership at memorial ceremonies across the country – meanwhile slashing necessary benefits vital to the health, education, and safety of our nation’s most poor and disenfranchised citizens.

It seems that many consider the Civil Rights Movement as a thing of the past – based primarily on issues of race. Certainly, when we look at monumental decisions such as Brown vs. Board of Education, a court decision requiring desegregation of America’s school system, or racial disproportionality of incarcerated individuals – we sadly realize the faults of much of the ground covered in this ongoing march towards equality.

Although legally abolished, segregation still exists in the purest of forms. Our poorest Americans do not have access to equal education; our immigrant and GLBT communities are still relegated to a seat of second class citizenship; religious intolerance abounds in our political and social sectors; access for our disability community still falters.

Let us certainly continue to remember the great steps marched by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for which he dreamt of a nation where “all men are created equal.” But may we look to a time when we as a community have expanded our dream that in “every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics,” to include the immigrant, the poor and homeless, disabled, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender communities – so that truly we “will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"”

And when that day comes, let us not feel guilty for taking a day off in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King and the future Civil Rights renegades who will follow in his footsteps. The Civil Rights Movement is not over and it is still our responsibility to fight against the injustice suffered by so many.

To learn more about Brown V. Board of Ed:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1537409

Other interesting links:

www.civilrights.org - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
www.hrc.org  - Human Rights Campaign
www.adl.org - Anti-Defamation League
http://www.mlkday.gov/
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/ - Martin Luther King, Jr., Research and Education Institute
www.thekingcenter.org – Official MLK Website

Posted by Religious Action Center at 1:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Emily Kane, Legislative Assistant

Below you will find the exchange between Sen. Durbin (D-IL) and Judge Alito from Day 2 of the hearings focusing on Alito’s interpretation of the 1st Amendment, the Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise.

January 11, 2006

DURBIN: Fair enough.

Let me move to another area. I hate to return to that infamous 1985 memo, but there's one elements of it we've really not asked you about, and that is your reference to the establishment clause. So instead of going into that memo, let me just try to explore with you for a moment your feelings about religion.

You've heard some questions about religion in our diverse society under the Constitution. You've heard some questions from the other side about it, from Senator Brownback, Senator Cornyn and others. And I would like to try to get into this a little bit.

There seems to be a debate within the court between two standards for judging conduct as to whether it's constitutional in relation to freedom of exercise of religion, as well as establishment. And the two theories, if I can describe them quickly, are the Lemon theory, which has three tests, that the Burger court came out with in 1971, and the new coercion theory.

Are you familiar with both of those theories?

ALITO: I am. And there's actually a third theory, the endorsement test.

DURBIN: Where do you come down? So you subscribe to any one of those as an accurate analysis of what the founding fathers meant under the establishment clause?

ALITO: I don't think the court has settled on any single theory that it applies in every case. There are cases in which it finds the Lemon theory, the Lemon test, which now has two parts, whether the statute has -- whether whatever is at issue has a secular purpose and whether the primary effect is to advance or inhibit religion. There are instances in which it applies that. It tends to apply that in cases involving funding.

There is the endorsement test, and it applies that in certain cases. Typically, it applies those in cases involving things like the displaying of symbols that have religious significance.

So it itself has not found a single test that it applies in all of these cases.

DURBIN: Well, where are you? If the court is divided, and it appears it is, where do you come down? Please tell me.

ALITO: Well, I do not myself have a grand, unified theory of the establishment clause. As a lower court judge, of course, my job has been to apply those precedents. And this is an area in which I think the court has been -- you can just see by the number of cases that it has decided, it has been attempting to find the best way of expressing its view of what the establishment clause requires.

ALITO: I certainly agree that it embodies a very important principle and one that has been instrumental in allowing us to live together successfully as probably the most religiously diverse country in the world and maybe in the history of the world. It's a very important principle. But I, myself, do not have a grand unified theory of this.

DURBIN: Let me ask you a few starting points: The question was asked of John Roberts about his personal, religious and moral belief. And I would ask you, in the most open-ended fashion.

We all come to our roles in life with life experience and with values. When you are calculating and making a decision, if you were on the Supreme Court, tell me what you are personal, religious, or moral beliefs -- what role that will play in that decision process.

ALITO: Well, my personal religious beliefs are important to me in my private life. They are an important part of the way I was raised and they have been important to Martha and me in raising our children.

But my obligation as a judge is to interpret and apply the Constitution and the laws of the United States and not my personal religious beliefs or any special moral beliefs that I have.

And there is nothing about my religious beliefs that interferes with my doing that. I have a particular role to play as a judge. That does not involve imposing any religious views that I have or moral views that I have on the rest of the country.

That is virtually the same answer given by Justice Roberts. And I think, from my point of view, that is the right answer. It's the same challenge many of us face on this side of the table with decisions that we face.

Now, I asked Judge Roberts the following: Does the free exercise clause, in addition to the establishment clause -- does it protect the right of a person to be respected in America if they have no religious beliefs -- the nonbelievers?

ALITO: Yes, it does. It is freedom to worship or not worship as you choose. And compelling somebody to worship would be a clear violation of the religious -- the religion clauses of the First Amendment.

DURBIN: Let me go to a specific case: Black Horse Pike Board of Education case, which you were involved in. And it's an interesting case. And I hope this fact pattern I described to you is correct.

The school board policy allowed the seniors at this school to vote on having a graduation prayer. And the decision was suggested whether that was coercing students who didn't agree with that religious prayer or had no religious belief.

What is your feeling or what was your feeling at that time when it came to that decision?

ALITO: Well, that was a case that followed Lee v. Weisman and preceded the Santa Fe case which dealt with a prayer before a football game. Lee v. Weisman involved a situation in which the principle -- and that was the most directly relevant and a rather recent precedent at the time of the Black Horse Pike case.

In Lee v. Weisman, the principal of a middle school, as I recall, decided that there would be an invocation at the middle school graduation and selected a member of the clergy, a local rabbi, to deliver the prayer and specified the nature of the prayer that would be appropriate for the circumstances. The Supreme Court held that that was a violation of the establishment clause.

The case that we considered in the Black Horse Pike case involved a situation in which the high school left it up to the students through an election to decide whether there would be a prayer at the high school graduation and left it up to them to select the person who would conduct the prayer, the student who would lead them in the prayer, if they decided by a vote to do that.

So our job at that point was to decide whether this fell on one side or the other of a line that I referred to earlier which Justice O'Connor very helpfully -- the distinction that she drew between government religious speech, which is not allowed, and private religious speech, which is protected. The government itself cannot speak on religious matters, but the government also can't discriminate against private religious speech. And what you have here...

DURBIN: This is with respect to the Olivia case, where the student comes up with the drawing of Jesus, and that is a voluntary, personal and private expression, as you have described it.

ALITO: That's correct. And the Supreme Court has recognized this in a number of cases. In the Rosenberger case and the Good News Club case and the Lamb's Chapel case, they've drawn this distinction.

So here we had a situation involving an election by the students to pick somebody to lead them in prayer, and which side of the line did it fall on? Well, it wasn't individual student speech, but it was collective student speech by way of an election. And that was what we had to decide, which side of the line it fell on. Judge Mansmann, who wrote the opinion that I joined in that case, explained why we thought it fell on the side of the line of individual student speech.

DURBIN: Let me ask you about that; let me explore it for a second. You are dealing with a school board policy. A school board is a government agency. They've set up the policy, so it is not coming entirely from a voluntary personal situation like the Olivia case. And you know that the majority is going to rule in the decision on whether there will be a prayer and what the substance of the prayer will be.

DURBIN: How, then, could you respect the rights of the minority, including people with different religious beliefs and nonbelievers, if you leave it up to a majority vote?

ALITO: Well, that factor is why it was a case that didn't -- there could be a debate about which side of this line it fell on. Now, I think there also was a disclaimer that was distributed at the time of the graduation explaining to anybody who was in attendance that the prayer was not endorsed -- if there was a prayer, it wasn't endorsed by the school board and that this was a decision of the students.

There are factors there that fall on one side of the line. There are factors there that point to the case being put on one side of that line, factors that point to putting the case on the other side of the line.

And Judge Mansmann's opinion explained why she thought -- and I agree that it would fall on the private student speech side of the line. But it was a question that was debatable.

And then the Santa Fe case came along later. It didn't involve exactly the same situation, but it involved the related situation -- and that is now the Supreme Court's expression of its opinion in the form of a precedent on the application of this test that I've been talking about, a situation like this.

DURBIN: Let me ask you, as you've described it, this is not an easy call. I mean, there are circumstances on both sides. And yet, in your dissent, you used the phrase -- referring to the majority -- as "hostility toward religion."

It seems to me that you could make a case that I'm not hostile toward religion but trying to be sensitive to the rights of all to believe or not to believe in America and come down on the opposite side of the case.

Were you overstating your position in using that phrase, "hostility toward religion," in describing the majority?

ALITO: It was Judge Mansmann's opinion, which I joined. And I don't remember the phrase "hostility to religion." Obviously, it must be in there.

I certainly don't think that she meant to suggest that those who were objecting to this were proceeding in bad faith or even that they were hostile to religion.

ALITO: I think what she -- I can't speak for her and I don't recall the specific language, but looking at it now, the way I would put it was that she probably thought that this was not giving as much room for private religious speech as should be given.

DURBIN: Interesting that when you -- I couldn't tell you what in the heck I ever wrote in law school about anything.

But in your second year in law school you wrote a paper, I take it, some research paper which you had to tell us about here relative to the issue of religion and then, in the '85 memo, raised the question about the Warren court on the establishment clause.

What was it that the Warren court decided on the establishment clause that troubled you, if you remember?

ALITO: Well, I actually think that the student note from the Yale Law Journal is an illustration of the sort of thing that has interested me and troubled me about the jurisprudence in this area for a long time.

In the law school note, I talked about two of what are called the release time cases. It was the McCollum case...

DURBIN: Versus...

ALITO: ... versus Clausen, both of which were decided just before Chief Justice Warren took his seat. And they involved situations that were quite similar.

There was a distinction between the two programs, but they were quite similar and the court reached contrary conclusions. And unfortunately, this has been a recurring pattern in the establishment clause jurisprudence, cases that turn on extremely fine distinctions.

The Supreme Court held in Board of Education v. Allen, if I'm remembering the correct case at the end of the Warren court, that it was permissible for a school board to supply secular books to schools that are related to a religious -- that are religiously oriented. And then later in another case, I think it was Wolman, they said but you can't -- but that doesn't apply to other instructional material, other secular instructional material.

And this has been the thing about the establishment clause that has bothered me: the absence of just what your initial question was pointing to, some sort of theory that draws distinctions that don't turn on these very fine lines.

DURBIN: Tell me about the establishment clause in a more contemporary context, if you can. You talked about the case in the Warren court and providing secular books to religious schools, which I find no problem with. I think that's acceptable from my point of view, whatever that's worth.

But what about the concept and theory of financial support from a government agency to a school that is a religious school, where the money is used for the purpose of teaching religion or proselytizing?

ALITO: Well, I think the court's precedents have been very clear on that, that a government body cannot supply money to a school for the purpose of conducting religious education. And I don't recall a suggestion in dissenting opinions -- maybe there is one that I'm not recalling here -- that says that that would be permissible.

DURBIN: I'm running out of time, but it would go back to my first question. I think under the coercion test, there is some argument among some on the court and others that, not applying Lemon, but using this new coercion test may give them more leeway when it comes to this kind of financial support and vouchers. But I don't want to presume that.

And I thank you for your responses to these questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Durbin.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Emily Kane, Senior Legislative Assistant

On Day 1 of the Alito hearings, RAC Associate Director Mark Pelavin wrote on this blog and analogized the first day to the “overture [of] a Broadway musical.” Continuing in that vein, Day 3 offered emotion akin to that found on the stage of New York City’s best theater. Again, Senators and Judge Alito pitched back and forth the hot potato that has become his self-proclaimed/self-refuted connections to the controversial Concerned Alumni of Princeton group, Sen. Kennedy (D-MA) and Sen. Specter (R-PA) exchanged heated words, and the nominee’s wife, Martha Alito, cried. Wicked watch out! There’s a new show in town…

With these flare-ups, one might nearly overlook some of the substance of today’s hearing. That, however, would be a terrible mistake. A few major (and disproportionately underreported as compared to the tears) points that came out in today’s hearings:

• Judge Alito told Sen. Brownback (R-KS) that some judges have gone too far in trying to remove religious activities from public life. Upholding his prior decisions in display cases (government entities putting out religious symbols (including a crèche) on public property) Judge Alito said, “this is constitutional; this is consistent with the establishment clause.”
  In a different case, students would be able to share their favorite story with the class as a reward for reading at a certain level. One student satisfied this requirement, and wanted to read aloud the story of Jacob and Esau to the class. The teacher in that case said the student could not use the biblical story for this purpose. The court ruled with the school district (against the plaintiff/student) and Judge Alito dissented. During the hearings today he defended his ruling saying that, “you have to treat religious speech equally with secular speech.”
• When Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) addressed the fact that Judge Alito had seldom sided with immigrants who were trying to win asylum or block deportation, Judge Alito replied that he was following Congress's clear-cut laws on immigration policy. (Some might disagree regarding the lucidity in this area of the law)
  And…..
• As the Washington Post reported, “Alito edged closer to suggesting that he might be willing to reconsider Roe if he is confirmed to the high court, refusing, under persistent questioning by Democrats, to say that he regards the 1973 decision as ‘settled law’ that ‘can't be reexamined.’ In this way, his answers departed notably from those that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. gave when asked similar questions during his confirmation hearings four months ago.”
  It is also of note that today the Republican Majority for Choice announced its opposition to Judge Alito’s nomination. (Five Republican senators sit on the group’s advisory committee)

All in all, a solid third act… We shall see what is in store for tomorrow when the curtain raises yet again. Either way, I’d save your ticket stub; you’ll want to be able to return to your seat for this one.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Rabbi Fred Guttman, Temple Emanuel, Greensboro, NC

In 1972, I was 20 years old and in July of that year I traveled for the first time to Israel. I spent my junior year abroad studying at Hebrew University. After being there for six weeks, the Munich Olympics started. The Olympic coverage on Israeli TV was quite different. There were no commercials! All the commentary was in Hebrew and every time an Israeli athlete did anything at all, it was given massive coverage.

The highlight for Israel during that first week of the Olympics had to have been Mark Spitz winning seven Gold Medals. Spitz, a Jewish swimmer, had participated in 1970 in the Maccabiah games and had done quite well. Since he was Jewish, Israelis had adopted him into their hearts and were very proud of his accomplishments.

Of course, all that changed the following week when on September 5, eleven Israeli athletes were taken hostage by PLO terrorists calling themselves “Black September.” I remember sitting in a TV room with the Israelis being glued to the television. My Hebrew was not very good; I was constantly asking my friends for translations. The entire country was in shock.

Here it was less than thirty years after the Holocaust and Jews were once again being killed in Germany. Israel had viewed sending its athletes as a real statement of the fact that the Nazi Holocaust did not succeed in exterminating the Jewish people.

This event was to become one of the more formative events in my lifetime. Having grown up in Nashville, Tennessee, I had been exposed to Anti-Semitism, but I had never been exposed to the fact that Jews could be so callously killed and that the world would seem to care so little about it.

It was with these thoughts in mind that I recently went to see Steven Spielberg’s Munich. Quite frankly, I went with a little bit of trepidation, having read negative reviews about it in the Jewish Press. These reviews contrasted with the TIME magazine article that referred to Spielberg’s movie as a “Masterpiece.” My friends from the Baptist Center of Ethics had actually gone to the trouble of designing a study guide for this movie even before it came out.

I was worried that the movie might be intensely anti-Israel and would cause Israel and the Jewish community a great deal of problems.

The truth is, Munich is anything but a “masterpiece.” It is certainly not Spielberg’s best movie. The movie lasts almost 3 hours and is quite tedious and boring. Spielberg extensively based the movie on George Jonas’ book Vengeance. Spielberg never claimed that he was making a historical movie, but rather a movie based on historical events. Unfortunately, he never went to the trouble of interviewing Mossad agents, especially those who had actually been involved in the events following the Munich Massacre.

The point in which this movie really does show that it is anything but a masterpiece occurs at the end when the protagonist, an Israeli named Avner, is making love to his wife in Brooklyn and is having visions of the terrorist massacres at Munich. This was certainly an unnecessary piece of graphic and gratuitous sex. This scene is not found in the Jonas book and quite possibly, shows some serious psychological hang-ups held by the authors of the scene.

What the movie does not show in any great detail is the sad events that occurred in Munich and thereafter.

It does not fully show that the Olympic village had a terrible lack of security and that the West German government, in an effort to downplay its past militarism, had no armed guards in the Olympic village.

The film does not show that the Israelis were housed on the vulnerable first floor of the Olympic complex. The movie does not show how the East German’s actually provided the information to the terrorists as to where the Israelis would be housed.

The movie does not show how Israel asked to send in a military extraction team to save its athletes and that this request was refused by the West German government. The movie does not show how the West German government had no extraction team and sent in policeman with faulty intelligence and an incredibly incompetent plan to rescue the hostages at the airport. This plan included the fact that West German military personal were positioned within the line of fire of each other and had not been provided them with flack jackets or helmets.

The movie does not show how the West German government later worked with Black September to manufacture a hijacking of a Lufthansa plane. The plane had only twelve men on it, no women, and the hijacking of the plane was used as an excuse to release the three surviving terrorists. In return, West Germany received a promise from Black September that its actions on West German soil would be ended.

I mention these facts because they are to be found in a different movie about Munich, a movie titled, One Day in September. This movie which came out in 1999 won the Academy Award as the best documentary feature of that year. I urge all of you to come and see this important movie.

In Spielberg’s movie, Spielberg tries to make us feel compassion for the organizers of the Munich attack and other terrorist incidents against the state of Israel. The first terrorist who is targeted is a man who sits in Italy reading translations of Arabic novels in a coffee shop setting. The second is an older man who has a wife and a daughter. The man’s daughter wears a red sweater as she runs to her apartment in Paris. Of course anyone who remembers Schindler’s List, remembers that Spielberg’s red sweater technique was used in that movie for a little Jewish girl and was the only colorized part of the movie.

The truth is that according to a more recent and more accurate book of the events after the Munich Massacre, those who had been targeted had massive amounts of Jewish blood on their hands. This new book is entitled, Striking Back and was written by Aaron Klein. Unlike the book, Vengeance, Striking Back is actually based on a large amount of interviews with Mossad agents.

By his own admission, Spielberg, manufacturers a scene wherein a Mossad agent has a conversation with a Palestinian terrorist. The Palestinian terrorist tells the Mossad agent that no matter what happens, the Palestinians will never give up their desire to return to all of the land of Israel. Sadly, this points out the current problem that the State of Israel faces; that being the lack of a serious partner with whom to negotiate and compromise towards a peaceful two state solution.

Recent events in Gaza have shown that Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, is totally incapable of maintaining control. As time goes on, the propaganda of “all or nothing” within the Palestinian community seems to be growing stronger. By contrast, within Israel, the acceptance of a two state solution by the general populace has increased greatly. This of course is evidenced by the emergence of Kadima, a new political party founded by Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.

Spielberg’s movie also makes it seem as though the Israeli Mossad agents had real moral qualms about what they were doing. In a way, I suppose this is not a bad thing. It is always useful when asked to do terribly violent things for appropriate reasons to maintain one’s humanity. As a former Israeli soldier, I can tell you that in our unit there were a lot of lectures on the subject of Tohar Neshek, the “purity of arms” or how to maintain our morality of soldiers. However, it has come out that even in the new edition of Jonas’ book, Vengeance; the real Avner denies that these morality discussions actually were all that significant.

He writes the following:

“The fact is, our conceptions of morality have little power over terrorists. After all, the terrorists who killed the Israeli athletes in Munich (just like the terrorists who killed the thousands in the World Trade Center) regarded their actions as being profoundly moral -- holy, even.... The fact is that there are real differences between us and the terrorists. When terrorists attack, they shed blood indiscriminately. Indeed, killing innocent people is often the point of what they are doing -- either to send a message to those in power or to terrify the population at large....In stark contrast, when Israel exacts revenge for terrorist attacks -- whether by sending out a team like mine after Munich or by launching an air-to-ground missile in the occupied territories after a car bombing -- she aims to do it surgically, targeting only those responsible for the incident that triggered the mission....

"So it is that if I had to do it all over again, I would make the same choice I made when Golda Meir approached me more than thirty years ago. At the time -- a time long before the Camp David Accords, a time long before any meaningful "peace process," a time when the entire Arab world (including Egypt and Jordan) was calling daily for the destruction of the Jewish state and Israel's continued existence was very much an open question -- responding in kind to the violence that had been visited on us was the only course that made sense.”

At the end of his movie, Spielberg shows the protagonist standing against the New York skyline. In the background, one can see the Twin Towers. I am not exactly sure what Spielberg was trying to say by doing this. Perhaps he was trying to say that the violence from Munich has a future expression in the events in the World Trade Center?

I do know, however, that as Americans and as Jews, none of us would shed a tear or have moral qualms about our soldiers killing Osama Bin Laden.

The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 brought to an end the times represented by the Nazi Holocaust. It brought to an end the idea that innocent Jewish blood could be shed with impunity.

The message that we should take away from the movie ending with the picture of the Twin Towers may not be the one that Spielberg intended. Perhaps the message should be that Western Civilization is indeed involved in a war against Islamic radicalism.

It is significant that the movie Munich has not done all that well at the box office. After two weeks it had taken in only 15 million dollars. Contrast this to the Chronicles of Narnia which after four weeks have taken in close to 250 million dollars. Again, Munich is a tedious, boring and overly imaginative movie which does not do justice to its topic. That being said the best thing that the Jewish community can do is to ignore the movie.

Go see it if you want, but if you do, make sure that you also find some way to see One Day in September. Spielberg's movie will go away soon enough and will be recognized as a fairly insignificant attempt to deal with the very complex issues regarding the Middle East Peace process. This is a pity from a great filmmaker like Stephen Spielberg. We expected so much more.

In 1972 a terrible massacre of innocent Israeli athletes took place. The battle that Israel faced then for Jewish security, freedom, self determination and peace continues to exist.

But unlike then, there is now realization that a two state solution is the only realistic outcome of the Middle East crisis. The only question is whether or not it will be achieved bilaterally with a significant Palestinian partner or through separation which we saw in the Gaza disengagement.

Those of us in Jewish community in Greensboro, North Carolina stand firmly at this time with the State of Israel. As always, we pray for peace and security for people of Israel. May our prayers be said with sincerity and hope.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Donald Cohen-Cutler, Legislative Assistant

I was privileged to eat breakfast with the founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, Rev Jesse Jackson this morning. Bob Heller, the Chair of the Union for Reform Judaism Board, Rabbi Marla Feldman, Director of the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism. Rev. Jackson and I spoke about the state of Jewish African-American affairs in this country as if it were a topic in a university classroom. And then it hit all of us at the same time, but Rev Jackson verbalized exactly what we were thinking.

“We don’t need to have a summit meeting or call a Black Jewish press conference. We just have to do stuff together.”

This seems extremely obvious after the fact. We, the Jewish and African American communities, have worked on many issues together since the early civil rights movement. However these coalitions were not to forward the relationships of Jews and African Americans, they were to pursue justice for all. We worked together not because of personal agendas but because it was what we did.

This was a profound statement. We all should just do stuff together. If we work on our personal relationships, I think our political ones will become stronger. Coffee and juice leads to better relationships than a summit or press conference.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Emily Kane, Senior Legislative Assistant

All day, I sat in the RAC’s Sillins Library, watching the second day of Judge Alito’s hearings unfold. From time to time another member of the staff would stop by, “anything new?” they would ask. I didn’t know what to tell them.

Since his October nomination, the country has been waiting for these much anticipated hearings. As Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said today “this is a big deal.” And it is. With the stakes so high, and the nation watching, one might think these hearings would be abuzz with energy. On the whole though, this was not the case.

As during now-Chief Justice Roberts’ hearings, all to often the Senators spent their 30 minutes of allotted questioning time postulating, digressing, and offering monologues about their opinions on executive power and jurisprudence in America. At times, it seemed even as if Judge Alito’s interest was waning.

Still, ears perked when Senators drew on themes including: deference to Executive privilege and a balance of power; Judge Alito’s failure to recuse himself in the Vanguard case in which he had personal interest; the confusion surrounding his college membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) (a group known for their bigotry and misogyny); a constitutional right to privacy, particularly as it pertains to Roe; and stare decisis or “super precedent or super-duper precedent.” But really, how could ears not perk up when hearing Senators say “super-duper”?

And what did we learn today from these questions? With regard to the executive privilege line of questioning, not much, only that Judge Alito respects the balance of power (this of course is substantiated by 15 years on the bench in which he took to curbing congressional power and his work as a Reagan Administration lawyer when he argued immunity for the executive branch’s right to wire tapping). We also learned that Judge Alito did not recuse himself from the Vanguard case because it simply did not occur to him at the time, certainly we have all had those moments. With regard to Judge Alito’s membership in the controversial CAP group, he upholds, as he has for weeks now, that he cannot recall said membership (despite having listed it among his qualifications in a 1985 job application). OK. With regard to Roe, Judge Alito back-pedaled from his 1984 memo in which he wrote about advancing “the goals of bringing about the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade…” So too, he was not quick to defend his controversial decent in Casey, which was later disputed by the Supreme Court. Some pundits claimed this should assuage concerns from the pro-choice community. Sounds like a plan. And as for the super-duper precedent? We all got a good chuckle.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Samantha Pohl, Legislative Assistant

This morning I read a particularly interesting editorial in the New York Times by Thomas Friedman regarding Prime Minister Sharon’s legacy as a leader who changed his policy to advocate for peace between Israelis and Palestinians and how, in order for the peace process in the Middle East to continue, an “Arab Sharon” needs to step up to the plate.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Posted by Mark J. Pelavin, Associate Director

Yesterday was the first day of the hearings on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. All 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee made opening statements, as did Judge Alito. There were no questions and answers; just speeches.

For political junkies, and fans of political theatre, Supreme Court nomination hearings are like the Superbowl; the stakes are very high, there is the potential for great drama, it’s an opportunity to see some of the best in the game in action, and even non-fans are paying attention. Today, though, was more like the four hours of “pre-game” show before the game!

At the risk of causing analogy whiplash, it was, in fact, like the overture to a Broadway musical. The various themes were introduced, and we had a chance to get acquainted with them, knowing that they will be more fully developed over the next few days.

What are those themes? On the Republican side, the emphasis was on process. With the (very important) exception of Chairman Arlen Specter, the Republican Senators focused their comments on telling Judge Alito that he should not feel obligated to provide too detailed answers, and that many questions were simply out of bounds. The Democrats, to no one’s surprise, disagreed. Led on this point by Senator Charles Schumer, they empathized the importance of a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court, and told Judge Alito that they would expect him to discuss, in detail, issues and subjects on which he has already expressed a view (either from judicial opinions or memoranda written while he worked at the Department of Justice).

As for substantial areas of concern, we can expect intense questioning about abortion rights, the scope of Executive power, civil liberties, affirmative action, and the separation of church and state. Each of these critical topics were introduced yesterday, and each of them will be the subject of what promises to be heated questioning (even if the answers are less-than-heated).

The players are all in their places. The overture has been completed. Today, as Committee members ask their first questions of Judge Alito, the curtain will rise.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Sarah Burrows, Legislative Assistant

With all the talk about the inaccessibility of our political leaders, it’s always great to experience someone breaking the stereotype. Today, I was on Capital Hill with a group of high school students from New York who were participating in the Religious Action Center’s L’Taken Social Justice Seminar. We were sitting in the hallway of a Senate Office building, lobbying a staff member from Senator Chuck Schumer’s office about a number of social justice issues.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Schumer was unavailable to meet with us himself, since today also marked the beginning of the confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito. The participants had just finished lobbying on the importance of this particular judicial nomination when Senator Schumer walked by, on his way to the hearing. Instead of simply waving and continuing on his way, as many in his situation would have done, the Senator stopped to say hello. He took a few minutes to talk with the participants, and asked what they thought about Judge Alito, specifically asking whether or not they supported his confirmation. As one of the more outspoken members of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Schumer was both surprised and pleased to see that the participates had very strong opinions on this issue. They overwhelmingly let him know their opposition.

What began as a great opportunity for young Americans to lobby on issues they are passionate about quickly became an incredible demonstration of what is good about our political system. Not only did these students have the chance to meet their Senator and express their views about an important issue, but the Senator got to meet a number of his constituents and see first hand that are paying attention, that they are watching what he does and that they truly care about our nation’s future. I’m not sure who was more moved by the experience, the participants or the Senator, but either way this interaction between a politician and the people he represents demonstrates how truly important it is to advocate for what we believe in.

Posted by Religious Action Center at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Rabbi Gilad Kariv, Director of Public Policy for the Israel Religious Action Center & Rabbi Andrew Davids, Executive Director of ARZA

The news of the sudden hospitalization of Prime Minister Sharon and of the serious deterioration of his health shocked the citizens of Israel and the Jewish world. Many of us remain glued to the media, following the televised reports and the many commentaries on the situation. It’s true that only two weeks ago the Prime Minister had a minor stroke, but his determination to continue functioning and his well-oiled public-relations team created the impression that the Prime Minister would overcome his health difficulties.

For we Reform Jews, the sense that the Prime Minister’s stroke was minor allowed us to breath a sigh of relief. For so many of us, his continued and steady hand on the helm was critical to the ongoing support of the values that we hold central to our understanding of Judaism. Under his leadership, we have seen him masterfully, and almost single-handedly move the Israeli consensus to a point where the value of peace and compromise superseded the value of land. An always controversial political and military leader, Ariel Sharon gambled his own political future on the action of unilateral disengagement from Gaza, a position which we in the Reform Movement supported wholeheartedly. As Prime Minister, Sharon had articulated strong support for the rule of law and strengthened civil society, values that we Reform Jews maintain as critical to a healthy society. In fact, this past June our Movement’s leadership was featured in the news in Israel and in the Anglo-Jewish press because of our actions that supported Sharon’s candidate for the Chairmanship of the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency for Israel. Sharon’s candidate was our candidate and our candidate was Sharon’s candidate. Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, received the call requesting this help from Prime Minister Sharon himself, reflecting the shared values of our Movement and this leader.

These same shared values were reflected in Thursday night’s transfer of the Prime Minister’s authority to Minister Olmert and the continued functioning of the government of Israel, which met this morning for a special session under the leadership of the acting Prime Minister. These acts, which one would never find in any other government in the Middle East, represents proof of the vitality of Israeli democracy and the absolute internalization of the principle of continuous government. Along with this, the hospitalization of the Prime Minister has caused a significant shake-up in Israeli politics on the eve of elections. Large question marks are now hanging over the “Kadima” party, which had been expected to be the big victor in the upcoming elections. There is no doubt that Kadima will run independently in these elections, although it is doubtful whether it will be able to succeed as the surveys had forecast.

The current situation has opened anew the question of who will be the next Prime Minister of the State of Israel and of the question of the composition of the future governing coalition. This will have great implications in regard to how our Reform values are supported, neglected or rebuked in the near future. A situation where the Knesset will house three medium-sized parties (Kadima, Likkud, and Labor) will made it difficult to create a stable coalition and to advance significant policies. This is true for civil issues and for issues of religion and state. Even though Kadima is a right-center party, it was expected that, thanks to significant electoral support, important steps like legislation for civil marriage and advancing reform in religious services would have been completed. In light of a drop in the power of “Kadima,” the Shinui party, which was predicted to fall drastically, may maintain much more of its power than was expected. The political fog that has now fallen over Israel requires close monitoring of party developments over the next few weeks and an increased effort by pluralistic organizations after the elections, during the time of coalition discussions.

In conclusion, it is also important to remember that above all the political issues, there is the personal and family tragedy of a man who has dedicated his years to serving the people of Israel. Many of his political opponents learned to appreciate his political determination over these last few years. Others who followed him for years felt betrayed by his recent political leadership. Either way, the vast majority of the Israeli public feels deep sadness and real concern for the fate of the Prime Minister. We here in the North American Jewish community share these feelings with our Israeli brothers and sisters in this difficult period.

Sadly on this occasion, too, there are already rabbis on the margins of the Orthodox rabbinical establishment who have spoken up without any semblance of honor, humility, or respect. These rabbis called upon their followers not to pray for the health of the Prime Minister because he authorized the disengagement plan. These rabbis bared the ugly face of religious zealotry. Reform Judaism in Israel has for many years struggled with the serious phenomena of rabbis who