Based on my post on Friday, one might correctly surmise that I strongly disagreed with Susan Rice’s calling Bibi Netanyahu’s speech “destructive” to the US-Israel relationship. I believe that such a speech was necessary given the grave dangers of a nuclear Iran, and I am glad that Bibi gave it. With that being said, I find deplorable the ad that “America’s Rabbi,” Shmuley Boteach, took out in the New York Times saying “Susan Rice has a blind spot: genocide.” How can a rabbi make such an outrageous accusation?! Susan Rice’s statement has NOTHING to do with perpetuating genocide against the Jewish people. Susan Rice did not stop Bibi from speaking nor is the administration’s attempt to make a deal singlehandedly going to lead to a nuclear Iran. Rabbi Shmuley went far over the line with this statement, and in my opinion anything he issues henceforth is to be discredited.

Because I lived my childhood in the Midwest, New Yorkers often have the misperception that I am from farmland, surrounded by cows.  In the past I have been teased about having a “pet cow” or about waking up at the crack of dawn to milk the animals even though I live a good 15 minute drive from the closest farm.  As I thought about this week’s Torah portion, however, I reflected on what it would mean to be in an agrarian society where cows were the main animal and resource in one’s life.

This Shabbat we see a cow of infamous mention: The Golden Calf.  When Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Israelites worried about him not coming down and threatened mutiny, stating “Make us a god who shall go before us.”  Therefore, Aaron took all their jewelry and formed it into a golden calf.  The Israelites sang and danced, bowing to this calf and saying “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt!”  This incident infuriated Moses so much that he shattered the 10 commandments by throwing them to the ground.  God sent a plague to punish the Israelites for the sin of the golden calf.

Rabbis have stated that this story shows the impatience and lack of belief that our ancestors have, which led them to sin.  Rather than trust in Moses’ return, they panicked and created an idol to become their replacement leader.  Similarities have been pointed out between the golden calf and the Egyptian bull which represented the Egyptian god El.  What interests me, however, is one line in particular: Exodus 32:4.  Whereas the common translation of this line reads “This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of the Land of Egypt,” the correct translation is “These are your gods, O Israel.”  Since there is only one calf, why is there plural language?

A story from First Kings 12 might help us answer that question.  This section comes after the 12 tribes conquered portions in the land of Israel under Joshua and created a unified kingdom under David.  David’s grandson Rehoboam was ruling, and he afflicted the Israelites with hard labor.  10 of the tribes chose to separate under a new king, Jeroboam.  Jeroboam was concerned that the members of these tribes will continue to pilgrimage to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices, so he created two golden calves, one in Dan and the other in Bet El, and said “You have been going up to Jerusalem long enough.  These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”

The second line of Jeroboam’s statement is exactly the same as the one in our portion!!!  His reasoning, however, is completely different: the golden calves are not created for idolatry but are rather for Jeroboam’s political goal of diverting the Israelites away from Jerusalem.  Many contemporary biblical critical scholars think that this was the original context of the golden calf and the Exodus story in our Torah portion was a later insertion.  If this is the case, it indicates that things are not what they seem: the golden calf is not an alternative god but rather a symbolic representation of the Israelite God which demonstrates that God can be found in alternative locations to Jerusalem.  The calves in Bet El and Dan are emanations of the very same God that took the Israelites out of Egypt as the God whose Temple is in Jerusalem: they exist solely to show that God can be worshipped outside Jerusalem.

The lesson that each of us can take from the golden calf is that things are not always what they seem.  What seems like an idol representing an alternative god might instead be a symbolic representation of God created for political reasons.  Similarly, what sounds foreign to us (a statue of a calf) may not have been foreign to our ancestors, as cows were the primary sacrificial object as well as the main animal utilized in their agrarian lifestyle.  While a legitimate claim can be made by saying that our ancestors were idol worshippers, a deeper look and comparative approach reveals that not everything we consider an idol might have been an idol to them.  It is easy to jump to conclusions or take the traditional line, but I would urge each of us to step back, reexamine situations or texts with a critical lens and make our own conclusions.  We may continue to feel that our original conclusion is correct yet it is important that we take the time to carefully examine what we read and what we hear rather than taking it at face value.

I had the privilege of hearing Bibi Netanyahu speak on Monday at the AIPAC Policy Conference before he addressed the joint session of Congress. I did not post on this originally because I had conflicting views. On the one hand I felt Boehner made a mistake in not consulting Obama and that this was a serious breach of trust. On the other hand I felt that Bibi’s message was extremely important to convey and I’m glad he did despite pressure not to. I strongly agree with him that Iran cannot be trusted and can see them making an agreement while covertly continuing their stockpile of uranium to make a bomb.

Bibi’s “speech of a lifetime” was extremely compelling to me. The alternative that he gave, that sanctions for Iran will have to be ratcheted up in order to cripple the regime, would work, as sanctions is what brought Iran to the table in the first place. At whatever the cost, this government, which threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, must be eliminated. There is no alternative if we want to maintain stability in the Middle East.

One could argue against me that Bibi insulted the United States by coming to “lecture.” It’s not that I fault US intelligence, which alongside Israel’s is second to none. It’s that I believe that negotiating with someone who wants an Islamic caliphate and who wants to destroy Israel is a grave mistake. Yassir Arafat illustrated to us the dangers of “double speak”: saying one thing at the negotiating table and quite another to your own people. I am afraid that is being amplified here, that “playing nice” at the negotiating table will lead to buying time to create a nuclear weapon.

One could also argue that Bibi’s speech was an “election ploy” for Israel’s March 17 elections. Perhaps that is the case. However, Bibi did not choose to come before Congress two weeks before Israel’s elections: he was invited in what he was told was a bipartisan invitation to address Congress. We will have to wait and see if the timing (which clearly was opportune for Bibi) will impact the Israeli elections.

Being one of 16000 members and 700 rabbis at the AIPAC Policy Conference March 1-3 was an incredible experience. I had the opportunity to hear Bibi Netanyahu, Robert Menendez, Mitch McConnell, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, as well as to lobby Senators Chuck Shumer, Kristen Gillibrand and Congressman Steve Israel. I heard Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird speak about how he turned Canada from voting anti-Israel to pro-Israel. There was also a major concert featuring Rita, David Broza and Matisyahu.

One of the most moving sessions for me was a breakfast with Donniel Hartman where he shared with us that the lesson of Purim is not to become Ahashverus. Ahashverus was indifferent to the fate of the Jewish people, letting Haman do his will with them. Very few of us have the danger of becoming Haman and vindictively deciding to annihilate a people. We do have the danger of becoming Ahashverus,of being indifferent to the plight of people.

What I love about AIPAC is its bipartisan nature. You can be a Democrat or Republican, a progressive or a conservative, and find a place to AIPAC (as a matter of fact there is a progressive track at AIPAC). AIPAC’s focus is keeping our Congress informed and passionate about Israel no matter who has the Congressional majority. This is done through regular lobbying and relationship building between Congressmen and their constituents.

I plan to be back in Washington DC for the 2016 AIPAC Policy Conference next March.