Is Responsibility to Protect (R2P) the shape of Never Again?

I took my son and attended a briefing at the Brookings Institution titled, "Libya and the Responsibility to Protect" (you can download the full audio here).  Here's a summary of the topic:

The Libyan crisis has brought focus to the critical and complex issue of the “responsibility to protect” populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. In Libya and beyond, the international community is faced with urgent tests of a hotly debated doctrine about when, where and how nations should respond to populations threatened with the gravest international crimes. Now more than ever, real world events are being discussed in terms of the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, or R2P, which was adopted by all the world’s governments in 2005 and appeared explicitly in the 2010 U.S. National Security Strategy. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized force in Libya, also invoked the responsibility to protect as part of its argument for action.

The topic caught my attention for many reasons, not the least of which was the involvement of the USHMM's Committee on Conscience.  The discussion opened with reference to the promise "Never Again" that we vow in response to the Holocaust but quickly made clear how complicated it can be to implement such a promise in reality.  Many of the historical references were above the head of my son, 13 years old, but the essential confusion around the issue and its practical implementation was as clear to him as anyone.  He left frustrated, feeling that nobody ever directly answered the question about R2P - specifically why and how it gets applied in one situation but not another (Libya but not Syria, for example).  I suspect many felt the same way.  A more nuanced listener may have heard more from the panelists.  But I don't think many could leave the talk feeling bolstered about R2P's application in reality.  Personally, I learned that at best R2P may be able help get a situation onto the agenda but the decision to use force will never be dictated by R2P.  Politics and personality will guide those decisions.

Interesting points from the talk: Prof. Sewall talking about the use of force - particularly given the Western preference for air power - for humanitarian purposes is a decision to trade civilian casualties for civilian casualties.  Also, her warning to be mindful of mission creep in any operation.
Richard Williamson's admission that we simply need better evidence in order to make these decisions and then citing an article that drew parallels between Bush entering Iraq and Obama in Libya - both decisions based on "evidence" of worse trouble to come if we didn't act beforehand.

I'm glad I went but I left with as many, if not more, questions than I had at the start.

Is God in or out?

A few weeks ago at our temple's annual meeting, we had a spirited debate over God.  In approving changes to our temple's by-laws a few months ago, the mission statement made no reference to God.  A temple member pointed out that the original mission statement of the congregation was quite God focused.  Members of the by-laws revision committee noted that the newly adopted mission statement was not a principled decision about God or the community's theology.  So, the annual meeting entertained a motion to insert "worship of God" into the mission statement of the congregation.  The debate was interesting, heartfelt and the meeting ultimately approved the motion but not without several "nay" votes.  It turns out we are not alone.

The Israeli military has been grappling with a similar issue.  An article in Haaretz newspaper, reports on the annual memorial ceremony for fallen soldiers on Mt. Herzl in Jerusalem:

"Amikam Gurevich, who hosted the eve of Independence Day torch-lighting ceremonies on Mount Herzl for many years, always opened with "May the people of Israel remember." Subsequent announcers have taken up the "May God remember" version. A similar process has occurred in many Memorial Day services, often at the bequest of military rabbis and religious bereaved families."  But not everybody wants God in the memorial opener.  After several requests, as the paper notes, "IDF chief sides with Almighty to settle dispute over prayer for fallen soldiers."

So far, God is winning these referendums* but any political observer can tell you that these early votes indicate a broader trend and God will not always win.  Does God need better lobbyists or will God rely on old fashioned influence?

______________

* Yes, some people use "referenda" but the OED suggests referendums since the Latin word referendum is a gerund with no plural form of its own. Or so says Wikipedia.

Finding God, Religion, & the Internet: Jim Gilliam's Story

LeBron, Weiner, Confirmation, the annual meeting or the Tonys got you down? Here's a short video worth watching as it covers God, religion, the internet, faith in humanity, and the importance of organ donation in about 10 minutes.  The link was forwarded to me by Daniel Serwer - check out his blog peacefare.net. 


You can also hear more from Gilliam on WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show from last week.

The Rapture, Looting, Halacha and Facebook: OY, the fun!

Ok, so the predicted rapture and end of the world did not materialize as predicted last Saturday (although the predictor has revised his forecast to Oct. 21st).  However, the whole shpiel produced some funny dialogue about how Jews should behave following the rapture.  The dialogue took place on Facebook but was reproduced on Zeek, where I found this:

The predicted rapture led some Facebook users to create a post-rapture looting event to capitalize on the sudden disappearance of thousands of the faithful. At the present time, about a half a million people are attending. One yeshiva student, however, observed that since the Rapture is scheduled for Shabbat, post-rapture looting may present a halachic problem. As a service to our readers, we are reprinting her original Facebook post and most of the comments that followed.

Gella Solomon: To all who plan to attend the post rapture looting on the 21st, I must remind you that it will be Saturday and hence acquisition of property by Jews will be forbidden until sundown. In short NO LOOTING ON SHABBOS!

SK: Is it against shabbos if it’s for free?

GS: Yes.

SK: Guess I’ll have to get Sunday’s left-overs…

LC: i think it’s after shabbas, technically

GS: It says on the event 12pm

SK: Also, “Al Tignov” - we technically shouldn’t be looting anyway, but we’re gonna do it because “God isn’t looking” according to the event. If the commandment not to steal is being waived, can’t we also waive shabbos?

NA: How are we stealing? They aren’t coming back. It is ownerless.

JM: Mamish hefker.

GS: waived… and no, because it’s not stealing if the owners have been raptured, since there is certainly ye’ush on their part if they’ve been taken up, it is hefker. But I believe you cannot acquire hefker property on shabbat either. Besides which, most of the stuff you’d probably want to loot will be muktze.

ES: only 3% of the world’s population is going missing– and they are likely the poor and the meek–so I’m not sure the looting is even going to be worth it. : /

PS: Wouldn’t the existence of the rapture pretty much void the entire covenant?

GS: Shouldn’t the destruction of the Temple have voided the covenant by similar logic? We don’t give up that easily.

PS: The destruction of the temple didn’t establish a different and incompatible belief system’s deity as existent, though.

GS: It kinda did though, for the theological paradigm of the era. Fortunately, Judaism was innovative enough to adapt to the idea of a portable God that doesn’t go away when a people is defeated and driven from their land. It did call the people’s continued covenant with that God into question though…

PS: A good point regarding the massive paradigm shift needed there. But wait. Doesn’t the period of adaptation amount to a renegotiating of the covenant? In which case, while things are up in the air… Free stuff!

RW: can’t I pick things up if there’s an eruv?

AG: I believe that you can borrow them for the duration of Shabbat (assuming eruv, no muktze, and the stuff is hefker) and then acquire them afterwards. But I could be wrong about that.


IH: Can I sell my looting rights to a non Jew and then buy it back after shabbos? (j/k)

Gella Solomon: @PS: a good question, with potentially deep ramifications for how we relate to the place of human agency in the covenantal relationship with God and the idea of chosenness. Meanwhile, you’re not Jewish so you can do whatever the hell you want. @RS, the issue isn't carrying, so no. @AG... in order to borrow, doesn't there need to be someone from whom to borrow? @IH... potentially a good solution, but what would be the non-Jew's motivation to loot for you? If you're just buying the stuff from her or him afterward then it kind of defeats the point of getting in on the looting.

LG: while it doesn’t address the issue of mukze, an eruv might be useful with “acquiring”

GS: because it is a hefker object in a private domain?

JR: Technically, it’s not hitting until 6 PM in your local tme zone. Yup, the ones who believe this are actually saying that this will hit New Zealand first at 6 PM locally there, and make its way across the globe hitting every time zone every hour. So, my point is, if you can’t loot on Shabbos, just wait a couple of hours.

IA: What if we just put the looted goods aside, and then make a formal declaration of acquisition after sunset?

JG: Items left out where they might pose a danger to the public (say, a motorcycle whose rider was assumed into Heaven mid-ride) may be moved out of the way.

GN: I think the Rapture is at 9 PM EDT, so it’s not Shabbos anymore, at least not on the east coast at New York’s latitude. That’s a lot of conditions.

This ain't no picnic

You guys don’t miss a beat. First, of all I’m sorry that I went off line from this blog for so long. I really didn’t know you cared – or at least I didn’t know you were reading. In three unrelated conversations this past week, people mentioned that they check here frequently and like to see the perspective offered. None of those people said a thing about the lack of new entries for several months but… Oy, the guilt. So, thank you Jonathan, Nadine, Guy and the rest of you.


Second of all, who knew how many people would ask why we are not having the “traditional,” end-of-year religious school picnic?! Of course you know that I’ve not been at Sinai for any of the previous picnics so I can’t say what those were like. You should also know that this was not my decision – which is not to say that I don’t support it because I do. But I am still surprised to hear how much influence and power people expect me to have over every thing that happens at Sinai. I suppose I do have significant authority and influence, but our congregation is large with an outstanding team of professional and volunteer lay leaders. In other words: Jill Stepak, her staff and her committee members make the decisions and run the school program with my full support. And I think that they have put together a great event to close our school year and celebrate the cycle of learning. Jill notes that this day is meant to, “Demonstrate the learning of our students in a fun and interactive way and to celebrate the year with our students, their families and our teachers all together.”

Sure, this ain’t no picnic but I think it’ll be even better. The Museum of Limmud features each class and each student’s work, Teacher Appreciation speaks for itself (right?), Kesher Café keeps us fed, and the Chana Rothman concert will be just plain fun. But if this doesn't stack up to previous year's picnics let me know. Check Chana out here: