The Iran Deal

Now that the Obama administration has concluded its deal with Iran many of the Jewish agencies are calling upon people to call their representatives to get Congress to stop the deal. Jonathan Rosenblum in a recent piece in Cross-Currents argues that our history with North Korea proves that this is a "bad deal". I've written a lot about Iran and nukes on this blog and will not rehash my old arguments here. However, I would like to address Rosenblum's dubious "proof" from North Korea.

Rosenblum points out that Bill Clinton in 1994 announced that the Agreed Framework was a "good deal" for the United States. In the end, North Korea kicked out inspectors and developed nuclear weapons. This anecdote is supposed to prove that history will repeat itself, and the deal with Iran will also result in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Rosenblum here paints a very misleading picture. In reality, North Korea was already giving the IAEA significant problems before 1994. The Agreed Framework was an effort by the United States to get things back on track. However, things continued to proceed in the same fashion and North Korea continued its nuclear weapons development. The Agreed Framework had basically no impact one way or another.

In other words, while it is true that the framework failed - it did nothing to help North Korea obtain nuclear weapons. It was simply an agreement that North Korea violated and was therefore discontinued by the United States. The same could of course happen with this deal with Iran - but that does not mean that the deal should be terminated at this juncture. You can read the full history of North Korea and WMD's here.

The article by Rosenblum is typical of other Jblog pundits in its oversimplification of foreign policy in general.  Many pundits in the Jblogosphere view Obama and the Democrats as isolationists (or even worse in Rosenblum's case). I thought it might be worthwhile to post this video by John Mearsheimer in which he goes through four "grand strategies" of foreign policy in general. Isolationism is one of them - but that is not where Mearsheimer places Obama. While I do not necessarily agree with everything Mearsheimer says, I think that this lecture demonstrates that there is much more to understand regarding these issues than what we get in mass media.

More of the same on Open Orthodoxy

The "controversy" surrounding Open Orthodoxy continues to explode (yawn). In the latest round different people have launched the same attacks followed by the same responses from new people. This really just seems to be an English course in which the students are asked to creatively express the exact same thought in different and prettier words. If someone has something new to add that is interesting I would be shocked at this point.

There seems to be an obsession amongst all the players here to define what camp is in Orthodoxy and what camp is out of Orthodoxy. This is all a bunch of nonsense. For example, Rabbi Maryles says that he "deeply disagrees" with Satmar but they are still "Orthodox". But his deep disagreement with Open Orthodoxy takes them out of Orthodoxy. What does all this even mean? In Maryles' view, are the Satmar going to Gan Eden and the Open Orthodox to Gehinom?? Is Maryles' warning people not to join Open Orthodoxy but he does not mind if they join Satmar??? The whole argument is a bit fuzzy.

A lot of this is really about power. If Open Orthodoxy is outside the camp of Orthodoxy it means that their members will lack the power that the RCA and similar organizations have. Just like no one respects the Conservative hashgacha no one will respect an Open Orthodox one. There is money and control at stake, and that is why this issue is a large one. It is not merely an issue of warning people not to join.

If this was merely about transgression (i.e. "warning" people) there are plenty of other sins to focus on. We could focus on lashon hara, or stealing, etc. But, this gets attention because it involves existing power structures and who gets control of those structures. I think that sheds some light on what is going on.

Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblum: Fox News Junkie?

Have you heard of any of the following major news stories? If you have, do you consider them to be serious scandals deserving of major attentions??

1. Bengazi

2. Hillary Clinton using her private email for State Dpt. businees

3. The IRS Lois Lerner scandal

4. The Gruber emails and Obamacare

And, here is another question:

5. Did you believe going into the last presidential election that Mitt Romney was sure (or almost sure) to win.

If you answered yes to any of these questions you may very well live in the FOX News bubble. If you answered yes to all of the questions you likely do live in the FOX News bubble.

Jonathan Rosenblum likely lives in the FOX News bubble.

If you are a true believer in FOX News you essentially live in an alternate universe. FOX carefully selects which news stories to accentuate and it creates a wildly different view of reality for viewers. Most Americans have no idea who Lois Lerner or Jonathan Gruber are. But to FOX News folks these individuals are part of an elaborate conspiracy to destroy all that is good and wonderful in the universe.

If you are relatively mainstream you knew going into the 2012 election that Obama was the likely victor. In fact, I even considered putting down money on the election just to make a quick buck. Almost all the polls agreed including the venerable fivethirtyeight blog. But, if you watched FOX News you were likely certain that Obama was going down in flames. The FOX News bubble even had some FOX contributors fooled. As the election results became clear, Karl Rove refused to believe them, forcing Megyn Kelly to comically wander the halls of FOX in search of more information (watch it here).

While I am fully aware that many in the frum community agree with Rosenblum, I find it strange that he airs these views in mainstream Charedi publications. A true Charedi relies on Hashem to guide the world, and does not take sides in the political "isms" of the day. But, Rosenblum seems fanatical about FOX News "conservatism". Do you believe that any true gadol would tune into a cable news network for even 5 minutes?

I understand that Rosenblum might be reading articles and not actually watching it all on television - but that is beside the point. The point is that FOX and its satellite partners are essentially a political party, a movement, and an "ism". True Torah Jews we have long been told resist these fleeting movements and connect with the timelessness of the Torah. So why doesn't Cross-Currents (and Matzav for that matter) play along?

Does Modern Chassidish qualify as a subsect of Orthodox Judaism?

There is an interesting article in The Forward in which Rabbi Ysoscher Katz argues that a modern "Rebbe" is better suited to address the issue of gay marriage than a modern Rabbi. In Katz's view the Modern Orthodox Rabbi sees the world only through the prism of halacha. Very dry, legalistic, etc. The Modern Chassidish Rebbe on the other hand deals with issues using a "broader mix of theological considerations".

I am not really sure how many Modern Chassidish Rebbes there are other than Rabbi Katz.

It is interesting that in the article Katz writes that Modern Orthodox Rabbis respond to Gay marriage in a fashion more in line with the Vilna Gaon, whereas Chassidic Rebbes respond more in line with the Baal Shem Tov. I am pretty sure the response of both those individuals would have been pretty similar - excommunication.

I am a bit amused by the effort to try to superimpose people who are long gone into issues of our time and start asking who they would agree with had they lived in our entirely different times. The best we can do is see what they actually said and try to apply it nowadays. I think at some level that is what Rabbi Katz is attempting. However, I think he mixes a lot of his own opinions with some of theirs to draw his conclusions. It is hard to believe that the Baal Shem Tov of today would be an Open Orthodox (former?) chassid. 

Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Ruling - Reactions from Orthodox Establishment - I honestly do not get it!

It seems like everyone is out bashing the latest Supreme Court ruling allowing for same-sex couples to marry throughout the country. Over at Cross-Currents (here and here) there has been a couple posts already and Rabbi Maryles also weighs in with his negative view.

I honestly just do not get it. Why can't people make the obvious distinction between allowing people the freedom to do something and not necessarily agreeing with the choices individuals make in using that freedom?

Should we not allow freedom of speech because we do not like things that people say? I see it as pretty much the same here. I understand that individuals do not like same-sex marriage but that does not necessarily mean that it is the state's job to forbid it. And, I am really amazed that Orthodox Jews would advocate for state intervention in these kinds of issues. If the state can decide to forbid something because it believes it is immoral, what is to stop the state from forbidding MBP or similar Orthodox practices? If you are Orthodox your biggest concern should be a strong separation of church and state.

Basically, I think this negative reaction is just a chance for the Orthodox establishment to make some noise and dial up the rhetoric. In short, it is good for business. I do not think there is anything substantial to oppose here.

On Michael Oren's New Book

Over at Emes Ve-Emunah, Rabbi Maryles puts great stock into a new book by Michael Oren that apparently attacks Obama mostly (but not entirely) over the Iran "bad" deal. I have been over this issue numerous times on this blog.

I have not read through the book, but I highly doubt there is much new information on this issue that we have not already seen elsewhere. Perhaps, there might be some interesting stories of how conversations went within the higher echelons. But, with regards to the crucial issue of exactly how much of a threat Iran poses and what should be done about it, I doubt there will be much there.

My argument on the Iran issue is quite simple. First, there is very little actual evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. What we do know is that Iran is developing nuclear energy and that they are signatories of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. This treaty allows countries to develop nuclear energy under the supervision of the IAEA - and Iran has generally cooperated with inspectors on the issues.

I have also repeatedly gone over Iran-US relations over the years and demonstrated that it is the US that has most often acted unethically. The US overthrew Iran's democratically elected leader and inserted the Shah - all in an effort to get Iran's oil. This has been the story throughout the Middle East. The US props up dictators who cooperate with them and share the oil profits the US companies. Dictators in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are perfect examples. 

The latest US crime in the Middle East involves the invasion of Iraq - and if you do not believe Iraq was about oil, then I think you are naive. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, they had no weapons of mass destruction, and they posed essentially no threat to the US. But, they did have a lot of oil, and immediately after the war many US companies began bidding on rights to that oil. These are all facts that can be easily verified online. In the end, Iraq has become so destabilized that it looks like the US isn't even seeing all the oil profits they thought they would.

Now, if I were Iran and I saw what the US did to Iraq might actually think it quite logical to desire nuclear weapons simply as a deterrent. After all, the US invades countries almost at will for oil - so nuclear weapons might serve at least as a deterrent. And, in fact, some have argued that Iran having nukes might actually stabilize the region. Ironically, nukes have done a good job of deterring war in many cases out of fear that conventional war might go nuclear.

I think that the real concern with Iran and nukes is on two fronts. First, other countries in the Middle East fear Iran developing its nuclear energy regardless of whether they weaponize. The fact is that Iran poses a huge economic threat and surrounding countries don't want Iran to defeat them economically.

Second, if Iran does get nuclear weapons, the real concern is that the balance of power in the Middle East would change. The surrounding countries would not necessarily fear that Iran would attack them, but they would fear the fact that Iran would suddenly become that much more difficult to attack. They would be able to do what they want economically (i.e. control their own oil etc.) with less fear of military repercussions.

Oren's book is built on the premise that since there is a consensus in Israel that the deal with Iran is bad - therefore it is. And, I agree that the deal might be bad in some ways for Israel (economically for example). But, I don't think that the deal poses a military threat to Israel and therefore I do not think we should pay much attention to Oren's position.

Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt seeks to continue in his position - Has overwhelming community support

It is old news by now... but Rabbi Jonathan Rosenblatt of the Riverdale Jewish Center intends on doing what he can to stay in his position as Rabbi despite the fact that the Board is seeking his ouster. He apologized for conduct that was not appropriate, but claimed there was no sexual intention and no crime committed. Frum Follies reports on the issue here.

This puts the Board in an awkward position. Apparently, the only simple way for the Board to remove Rosenblatt is for Rosenblatt to agree that they buy out his contract. Without Rosenblatt's agreement, the Board is stuck until the contract is finished.

Yerachmiel Lopin over at Frum Follies understands that the Board could fire him but then they could be taken to court or Beit Din. With a contract in place and a large measure of support behind him that process could get messy and might not end well for the Board.

The Board could decide to call a membership vote to decide what to do. In all likelihood, it appears that Rosenblatt would win that vote. If he does, perhaps the Board would consider resigning their positions as Board members and allow the congregation to vote in a new Board that supports Rosenblatt. Then, the new Board can deal with all the fallout if new evidence emerges that makes the situation even worse.