Jews and Judaism are known for being the people of The Book. And as such, we take the words of The Book seriously, to the extent that we sometimes argue over the meaning and substance of sentences and more often than not, single words. For Jews and Rabbis, semantics is an art form to be embraced. As this is true for clergy and those studying sacred text, so is it true for diplomats and negotiators and policy analysts trying to figure out the worlds issues.

The issue of semantics could not be any more important and dramatic than with the issue related to Iran and its nuclear program and the very real existential threat it poses for Israel. Perhaps some of you have been following the nuances closely and have noted the dicotomy between the American and Israeli positions. According to Defense Secretary Panetta, “The U.S. will never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is a red light for us.” Sounds good. Sounds strong. Sounds clear. Except, upon analysis, we have to ask how one might know when that happens and what to do next? The Israeli position is even more complicated. They assert that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear capability. From that vantage point, even before t=Iran can build a weapon, they must be prevented from getting the information. The problem with that position is that they already have the information. You cannot obliterate human knowledge acquisition. So we are embroiled in a nuclear capability acquisition vs. a nuclear weapons acquisition debate. How should we proceed? What should we do?

In a recent article, Dr. Joseph Blady, former program officer for the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and senior analyst for the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence wrote, “Closing the barn door after the horse has escaped may be futile, but burning down the barn in a fit of pique might be considered an act of lunacy, especially when there is the potential for the horse to come back and bite you in the butt in retribution.

Iran has possessed the technology for separating uranium isotopes for at least six years, and bomb-making can be learned on the Internet. No matter what Israel and the United States do, that bell cannot be unrung. Virusing Iranian centrifuges, murdering Iran’s nuclear scientists, and bombing installations will unquestionably slow Iran’s nuclear program. But if Iran is hell bent on enriching uranium, even on continuing to the development of a bomb, the outcome is inevitable without regime change. We arranged such a change in Iran in 1954. It left a bad smell then, and can only make a bad U.S. image problem in the region worse than it already is. Thus, such a solution could be a serious mistake if the Iranians themselves aren’t leading the effort.

Israel’s nervousness is understandable. Iran blusters too much, and if it only means half of what it says, Israel should fear for its safety. However, much mitigates against military action, either by Israel alone, or in consort with the United States.

First, there is Iran’s size and population. It has three times as many people as Iraq, and we know what a mess that was. In addition, there is reason to believe that Iranians would coalesce around the government in a time of national peril rather than push for the ouster of the current leaders.

Next, there is the nuclear program itself. It is much more diversified than the Syrian and Iraqi efforts that Israel put out of commission. There is reason to believe that the Iranian government has had North Korean help with tunneling techniques in order to hide installations. The North Koreans are masters of the art of concealment, and need the money.

There is Iran’s wealth. The sanctions may be hurting, but there is cheating going on, and we’ve caught the Iraqis, not very staunch allies after all, as one of the culprits. It appears there are others. This means that Iran is likely to continue having the capital to rebuild anything we blow up.

As for nuclear enrichment, Iran is actually as entitled as is any other nation to pursue the technology, even under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is Iran’s repetitively slimy behavior that has caused much of the rest of the world to oppose and mistrust Iran in the arena of nuclear enrichment. In a strict sense vis-a-vis the NPT, Israel and the United States probably don’t have a leg to stand on.

In the wings are China and Russia. While changeable in their pronouncements, they are not going to help for numerous reasons. This means that the United Nations will be impotent in this issue. Finally, trouble in the Persian Gulf could lead to disruption of a third of the world’s oil supply. The price of crude would head toward $150-200 a barrel. That is no way to run an economic recovery.

The simplest, and probably most potent, approach would be a policy pronouncement by the United States extending its nuclear umbrella. It should be made unequivocal that we would retaliate decisively (yes, that means even the Big One, if necessary) should Iran or its surrogates use Iranian nuclear material in an attack against another party. No excuse by Iran about stolen or misplaced material would be acceptable, since they were warned not to go there in the first place. This is the “If you play, you pay” rule. We would rely on our increasing skill in fingerprinting nuclear material to discover its origin. Iran would know that it faced becoming a porcelain hole in the ground the day after an event. Its neighbors could take refuge in the American pledge, thus foregoing the need to field their own nukes.

The key to this policy working is the continuing relevance of deterrence. It worked through the Cold War, and it continues to work today. And don’t kid yourself; the Iranians aren’t crazy. They do not consider Israel’s destruction worth their own disappearance. Diplomacy should continue to be the favored path. But the right stick might make the carrot taste a lot better.”

I remember Sunday morning’s in my house growing up. My father would sit at the dining room table with the local Sunday newspaper and the Sunday New York Times and sit, quietly and reflectively pouring over the pages, going through each page until both papers were an untidy mess. While he started with the comics, he nonetheless got through it all. I suppose there was something meditative about it, feeling, at least on one day during the week, that you were up to date on the goings on in the world. Once the news was fully digested, he would then settle in for a prolonged attempt at the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle.

I like to do the same. There is something old school about reading an actual newspaper that just feels right. (I must admit I do get the daily New York Times on my iPad as well!) Nevertheless, it is a daunting, time consuming task to read the voluminous words of every story in the Times, especially when the stories are so incredibly depressing and sometimes, downright scary. It seems as if we are surrounded by news stories of crushing cynicism and of never-ending dread and fear. Can reading a newspaper today really be otherwise?
It reminds me of that famous joke of three elderly Jewish men sitting in a café in pre-war Germany. Two are reading the newspaper of the International Herald Tribune and bemoaning the approaching doom and gloom of world war. The third is sitting smiling as he reads his paper, Der Sturmer – The Storm, the weekly Nazi newspaper of the time. His friends ask him, “How could you be reading that paper and be smiling?” He answers, “While you are reading about the doom and despair of the world, I am reading about how powerful the Jewish community is. Did you know we own all the banks and control the entire world?” Where one sees despair and falsehoods and lies, another sees optimism and possibility. While the joke speaks to Jewish hope in the future, it got me wondering about how we have become so instinctively cynical.

Cynicism is defined as believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity or doubtful as to whether something will happen or is worthwhile. How did we get this way? To be sure we have been jaded by painful personal experiences. We have lived through the trauma of national and international crises – economic, political or military, and we read about terrible troubling events in our newspapers every day. The scars of events of the past continue to haunt us, so we cut ourselves a little cynical slack. However, Judaism calls upon us to remember that the hallmark of our Jewish sensibilities is to believe in the power of hope and return of the joyous in every moment of every encounter of every day. This is best encapsulated by the idea found in Pirke Avot , “Make for yourself a teacher, acquire for yourself a friend and give the other person the benefit of the doubt – Dan L’chaf zechut.”

Ah yes…easier said than done. A naïve outlook on the world. Experience forces you to think otherwise. All cynical responses. Note the progression: from teacher to friend to everyone. Judging people favorably is the seed of positive relationships with people. This is in line with the Jewish approach that sees a pure, good soul at the core of each person. One of my teachers, Dr. Sarah Lee used to say, “Never attribute to malevolence what you can attribute to ignorance.” Dan lechaf Zechut, like so many concepts in Jewish life may seem counter-intuitive, yet we can see that like so many things in Jewish life, it is so right and so true. We know how many times we have been hurt by others. We are suspect of our dearest friends, our co-workers, our closest family relations – our spouses, our children. They are hurting us on purpose. They don’t care enough to call us back. They didn’t invite us to that wedding on purpose. They are driving recklessly for no reason. Money is missing from my wallet. I wonder if he took it. He is yelling for no reason. She ignored me when she could have said hello. They cut in line when I have been waiting longer. They sold us a piece of junk and they knew it. They are purposefully withholding their love and affection from us. And on and on and on. The best way to be convinced of the importance of judging favorably is to be the one suspected. Being in a position where onlookers assume we are doing one thing, while we know we are doing something quite different, teaches us how easy it is to draw wrong conclusions. When we are misjudged, that’s when we begin to really appreciate the value of judging others favorably.

Dan Lechaf Zechut, giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, as a middah tovah, a positive personal quality of character, reflects a general outlook on life. If we are really serious about creating the kind of compassionate, responsible, loving community toward which we strive, then in our interactions with others, giving the benefit of the doubt is an absolute must. In the end it will make our community whole and our community holy. I know it’s hard work, but it is our sacred and critically important duty.

I don’t know how many of you have a hobby, or a particular activity that you like to do regularly. For some, the really dedicated, the word so often associated with high levels of commitment to an activity, is “religiously” as in, “I work out at the gym religiously” or “painting is my religion”. What a curious way to describe a commitment to an activity. If working out, painting, playing music, or sports, working at our vocations or anything but formal religious observance can be described as “religious” what could one activity be that would be described as normative activities for religion? Clearly, one of them is praying. Prayer is so universally understood to be an activity of the religiously observant, regardless of how broadly defined the religion may be, or how broadly defined the observance levels may be. As a Rabbi, I think that’s a good thing.

So I am particularly puzzled and challenged each year, when confronted with the first Thursday in May, this year it falls on May 2nd, which is designated by Congress as the National Day of Prayer. What is the National Day of Prayer and when did it start?

In 1952, evangelist Billy Graham led a six week religious campaign in Washington, D.C., holding events in the National Guard Armory and on the Capitol steps. The campaign culminated in a speech in which Graham called for a national day of prayer. He said, “Ladies and gentlemen, our Nation was founded upon God, religion and the church . . . .What a thrilling, glorious thing it would be to see the leaders of our country today kneeling before Almighty God in prayer. What a thrill would sweep this country. What renewed hope and courage would grip the Americans at this hour of peril.. .We have dropped our pilot, the Lord Jesus Christ, and are sailing blindly on without divine chart or compass, hoping somehow to find our desired haven. We have certain leaders who are rank materialists; they do not recognize God nor care for Him; they spend their time in one round of parties after another. The Capital City of our Nation can have a great spiritual awakening; thousands coming to Jesus Christ, but certain leaders have not lifted an eyebrow, nor raised a finger, nor showed the slightest bit of concern. Ladies and gentlemen, I warn you, if this state of affairs continues, the end of the course is national shipwreck and ruin.”

After Graham’s speech, Representative Percy Priest introduced a bill to establish a National Day of Prayer. In addressing the House of Representatives, he noted that the country had been “challenged yesterday by the suggestion made on the east steps of the Capitol by Billy Graham that the Congress call on the President for the proclamation of a day of prayer.” In support of the bill, Representative Brooks stated that “the national interest would be much better served if we turn aside for a full day of prayer for spiritual help and guidance from the Almighty during these troublous times. I hope that all denominations, Catholics, Jewish and Protestants, will join us in this day of prayer.” On April 17, 1952, Congress passed Public Law 82- 324 which states: “The President shall set aside and proclaim a suitable day each year, other than a Sunday, as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.”

On May 5, 1988, Congress approved Public Law 100-307, “setting aside the first Thursday in May as the date on which the National Day of Prayer is celebrated.” On May 9, 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law. The current version of the statute reads, “The President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals.
Presidents since Eisenhower have declared a day as National Prayer Day. President Reagan declared the first Thursday in May as National Prayer Day and President Obama declared May 7th as National Prayer Day. Interestingly, last year, President Obama did not host any event on that day, although he did make a formal proclamation, ostensibly concerned that our leader, in declaring such a day, might be construed as preferring one religion over the other. As Rabbi Bard Hirschfield notes, “On the other hand, it’s a shame that we are so polarized on this issue that the President cannot host an event which is entirely consistent with both his personal practice and that of the vast majority of our nation’s citizens. Not to mention that prayer, if not religion, is vital to the long-term health of any community.

No society has cultivated long-term success without nurturing in its members the ability to reflect and meditate on the most important issues of the day. And no society has maintained its strength without cultivating its citizens’ capacity for gratitude. Those two issues are what prayer is all about. And God need not be a part of that for all Americans, even if it is for most of us. Perhaps the anxiety around this issue tells us more about who we are as a nation than it does about prayer.

In Hebrew, the word for praying is a reflexive verb. It defines an internal conversation that one has with one’s self. To be sure, God has been a part of that conversation for most of those who pray. But the word itself proves that need not always be so. Perhaps the wisdom of this ancient tradition could serve as a model for our nation as well. It would assure the freedom of conscience to which we are all entitled while cultivating the kind of heightened awareness from which we all could benefit.”

I for one make every day a prayer day and do not feel the need for a national call for such an endeavor. Perhaps this is a religious activity, in which we could partake as much as we do working out, playing sports or watching t.v. Imagine the possibilities…

In 2005, the U.N. declared that January 27th of every year would be recognized as an International Day to Remember the Victims of the Holocaust. January 27th was chosen because it was the day that Auschwitz-Birkinau was liberated by the Soviet Union in 1945. 69 years from the end of the war and the world Jewish community is facing a new challenge; sooner than we would want, there will be no more Survivors.

The truth is that all of the Holocaust survivors are old. Many survivors are dependent on Jewish and social welfare. They are not living as well as they deserve to live. One day, not long from now, there will be no more Holocaust survivors left.

In a recent article, writer Matthew Fishbane notes that, “… one of the greatest risks of Jewish life today is the smothering sentimentalization of our memory of the Shoah. Frances’ closing chapter offers no “meretricious uplift.” The fact that she survived Auschwitz only to suffer at the end of her life is appalling and embarrassing. These are painful things to think about, let alone say. And part of the uneasiness comes from the way wealthy and comfortable American Jews have used “remembering the Holocaust” as the touchstone of their communal existence.
When a recent, highly publicized and debated Pew study asked, “What does being Jewish mean in America today?” an astonishing 73 percent of U.S. Jews replied that “remembering the Holocaust” was “essential to their sense of Jewishness.” Another 69 percent also cited “leading an ethical life.” More than half (56 percent) said that “working for justice and equality is essential to what being Jewish means to them.” To U.S. Jews, more important than any other identifying factor was this bizarre enshrinement of memory.
He goes on to remind us that World War II ended nearly 70 years ago. Even accounting for those who lived through the war as opposed to having directly suffered its most terrible expressions, the number of survivors still alive today across the world is probably in the low hundreds of thousands, and dwindling. Earlier this month, after an initiative announced by Vice President Joe Biden, the U.S. Senate’s Special Committee on Aging noted in a hearing on Holocaust survivors that one fourth of the roughly 140,000 survivors in America live at or below the poverty line. Some other estimates put more than half of the survivors living in the United States below 200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, meaning they earn less than $21,660 annually. The problem is serious enough that last week, the Obama Administration named the first Special Envoy for U.S. Holocaust Survivor Services, charged with caring for this population. “Living in poverty, plagued by immeasurable loss, they are at risk of falling into isolation and despair,” Lee Sherman, the president of the Association of Jewish Family and Children’s Agencies, told the Senate. According to Elihu Kover of Nazi Victim Services for Selfhelp Community Services, more than half of the thousands of survivors who live in New York City can be classified as “very poor” or “near poor” under federal guidelines.

At the Senate hearing, Kover put it even more starkly: Holocaust survivors are growing older and frailer. The twenty-year-old who survived Auschwitz is now eighty-eight. She may be coping with the loss of her spouse and have no family to speak of. In addition to the myriad problems associated with so-called “normal aging,” many survivors have numerous physical and psychological problems directly attributable to their experiences during the Holocaust. Prolonged periods of starvation, exposure to severe weather conditions with inadequate clothing, and experiencing and witnessing unspeakable atrocities take a severe toll on body and mind. And many of these problems only surface in old age, having been hidden during their working years when the survivors struggled and made a new life for themselves as productive citizens of this country.
The problems the survivors face are real and daunting. Our challenge is even more serious; will we do whatever we can to preserve their memory and in doing so preserve their dignity, their lives and their history? I pray we do, for we can do no less.

I don’t know how many of you are Starbucks patrons, but I for one am partial to the “Grande Americano, steamed non-fat milk and 2 sweet-n-lows.” It took me nearly a year to figure out the precise order of the words to get the desired drink. All I really wanted was strong coffee. My how my vocabulary has grown! I was stunned recently when the woman in front of me ordered something that was completely unintelligible to me while the person behind the counter smiled politely and asked, “Would you like whipped cream with that?” I wondered not only what she said, but what concoction she had ordered. It is fascinating to see the emergence of a new language fostered by a commercial enterprise. Who knew how many ways you could order coffee? Remember when it came black, in a cup?

With the concept of designer coffee firmly entrenched in our culture, what does the emergence of a variety of flavors and possibilities mean for the Jewish community? How does this concept impact Jewish communal survival?

Recently, I read a report entitled, “Grande Soy Vanilla Latte with Cinnamon, No Foam: Jewish Community and Identity in an Age of Unlimited Choices”, by a New York Jewish non-profit organization. The findings in this study were revealing. The current generation of 18-25 year olds is known as the “Generation Y” and is marked by the culture of unlimited choices in every aspect of their lives. The Jewish community is not immune from this. As a matter of fact, as the report suggests, that for American Jews in Generation Y, being Jewish is not their sole identity. This generation has unlimited access to American society, therefore Generation Y Jews behave much like all other Generation Y Americans, regardless of religion. Today’s young Jews have multiple identities shaped by many factors, including intermarriage in their families, diverse social networks, and dynamic boundaries around geography and other identity characteristics such as gender and sexual orientation. Being Jewish is part of a larger identity mosaic for today’s Jews.

We know from previous research that earlier generations of Jews felt a need to maintain tight connections as they experienced anti-Semitism, workplace discrimination and other challenges. But unlike Jews in the pre- and post-World War II era, this generation is fully integrated and does not need close communal cohesion in order to survive in a hostile society. Many Generation Y Jews no longer personally experience anti-Semitism or exclusion from the opportunities society has to offer; therefore, they are similar to their non-Jewish peers in that they worry about getting good grades, finding jobs and socializing with friends more than they worry about their religious identities.

Despite their integrated appearance, Generation Y Jews feel incredibly self-confident about their Jewish identities. In contrast to the survival ethic of many of their grandparents’ Jewish journeys, and contrary to the continuity fears of the 1990s, Generation Y Jews are very positive about being Jewish. This is particularly important because members of Generation Y are in stages of adolescent development where self-confidence and building self-esteem is critical to their adult identity formations. There are limits to their self confidence, however; young Jews in this study do not claim to have a depth of knowledge about Jewish rituals, liturgy and text. Being Jewish remains a complicated tangle of spiritual, cultural, historical and ethnic dimensions, but their Jewish self-confidence may be an important factor in their personal development and in the communal evolution of Jewish identity.

For the synagogue, then this stands as a significant area of concern. How in the 21st century will we be able to respond? What will our choices be? If history has taught us anything about the nature of the community, it is in fact that Jewish learning and Jewish ritual are the common denominators across time and space even as the level of knowledge with text and tradition seems to decline, and that the synagogue is the best place to experience the fullness of Jewish life. A renewed effort in these areas on our part will result, I believe in a remarkable mosaic of programs and possibilities, the likes of which we have never seen. It is both exciting and challenging. I look forward to joining hands with you as we walk our way through this time. And if you’ve never have had a “Grande Soy Vanilla Latte with Cinnamon, No Foam”, try it, it’s pretty good!

I was digging in the garage last month in preparation for Passover, getting to all the Passover plates and other wares necessary for the spring ritual. Behind all the Haggadahs and plagues (plastic iterations of the real things!) I came across a New York Times front page that I had framed 21 years ago that proudly shows President Clinton, Yassir Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, of blessed memory, together formalizing the end to the Israeli Palestinian hostility. It shows that historic handshake between Rabin and Arafat and contains, at least for me, the historic gasp of, “this might mean actual peace.” The pain of the irony of history laid against that picture being found at Passover, the moment of national redemption was almost too much to bear. That and noting that the glass, protecting the newspaper had broken – a sad testament to the broken promises and broken dreams of Middle East peace, made for a moment of tears. My how far we haven’t come…

I was staring at that picture the other day wondering what all three of those men would think of the recent embrace of Hamas by Palestinain Authority President Mahmood Abbas. I was struggling to find some words of outrage and exasperation when I stumbled upon Leil Leibowitz’s article on this issue. Her words spoke to my heart and gave voice to my shocked silence.
I include her article here. She writes, “Last week, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, stepped up, stared destiny in the face, and boldly embraced Hamas, ending a seven-year rift between the PLO and the terrorist organization currently in command of the Gaza Strip.

Anyone seriously invested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be grateful to Abbas for providing what this conflict—a century-long thriller in which the plot lines have become impossible to follow—needed most: a moment of clarity. With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on one end and Hamas’s Ismail Haniyeh on the other, Abbas emerged as the Third Man, stepping out of the shadows to reveal that he was just the man we’d suspected he was all along, the kind of man who walks away from strenuous peace talks and into the arms of murderers.
I’ve written about Abbas’s choice already. There’s nothing more to say: There’s really only so much one can read into partnering with an organization responsible for the blowing up of 21 young people at a disco , or 15 people at a pizzeria , or 30 people sitting down to celebrate the Passover Seder . So let’s not waste time talking about Abbas’s choice anymore; it’s time to talk about ours.

Living in modern and increasingly complex societies governed by so many intertwining interests and conflicting forces, we’ve come to sanctify complexity, cherish nuance, and believe that our every analysis, our every thought, was best if guided by layer upon layer of context and meaning. But there’s another drive at play, the moral drive, which is far more blunt and far more pressing. And right now, if we’re healthy and mindful human beings with at least a modicum of historical knowledge and a genuine desire to see peace for both Palestinians and Israelis, this moral drive is telling us to shout.

It’s telling us to shout because while both sides of this conflict have seen seasoned combatants drop their arms and attempt reconciliation, there ought to be no room ever around any cabinet’s table for men who packed makeshift bombs tight with nails and screws and bolts to better tear at the flesh of innocent children. It’s telling us to shout because while both sides have their share of outspoken dunces with shameful opinions, no one in their right mind should share power with those whose ignorance and bigotry extend so far as to deny the Holocaust . It’s telling us to shout because while there’s been questionable legislation on both sides of the Green Line over the years, the tolerance of every civilized person should end when confronted with those who dispatch armed forces to oppress their women , who systematically persecute minorities , and who know no other form of conduct but wanton violence. Such men are not complex. They are not nuanced, layered, or worthy of a closer reading. They are evil, and they must be dealt with accordingly lest their benighted vision succeed in afflicting more misery and claiming more lives.
Of course, some of us may find talk of evil anathema to the dictates of sophistication and the edicts of cosmopolitanism. Some may argue, as J Street so disappointingly did this week , that “one makes peace with one’s enemies.” There’s truth to that, but only if one’s enemies are ready to abandon their quest to obliterate a people by launching thousands of rockets into schoolyards, backyards, and living rooms. Hamas has indicated no such readiness. Nor can it: As its very charter indicates, the organization is dedicated to annihilating the state of Israel; “in the face of the Jews’ usurpation of Palestine,” goes one choice bit from its charter , “it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.” You will read nothing of the banner of Jihad in the statement released by the American Friends of Peace Now, which calls Hamas’s pending inclusion in the Palestinian government “a good idea.”

But as some flounder, others rise to the occasion. Speaking with clarity, courage, and conviction, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Panel on the Middle East, called on the Obama administration to do the right thing.

“The Administration must halt aid to the Palestinian Authority and condition any future assistance as leverage to force Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] to abandon this reconciliation with Hamas and to implement real reforms within the P.A.,” Ros-Lehtinen said in a statement . “U.S. law is clear on the prohibition of U.S. assistance to a unity Palestinian government that includes Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, and President Obama must not allow one cent of American taxpayer money to help fund this terrorist group.”

Amen to that. And many thanks once again to Abbas: By partnering with the beasts of Hamas he has condemned his own people to live under an encroaching Taliban-like religious fundamentalism, has very likely deprived his already corrupt and nearly bankrupt government of the foreign aid on which it depends for most of its budget, and has signaled—again—that he lacks the maturity of mind and amplitude of will required of a statesman truly striving for the well-being of his people. But he’s given us a moment of brilliant clarity, and that, in such dark times, is a lot.”
I pray that as we approach Israel Independence day 2014, that the world come to embrace with clarity what we know to be true; that Israel’s real chance for peace comes only with partners who value peace and prosperity for themselves, their neighbors and the world. Unless and until Israel has such partners, we will struggle against that darkness, remaining hopeful that one day light and shalom will shine through. May that day be soon.