I watched the speech by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, before a joint meeting of Congress yesterday with a skeptical eye for what I understood would be a grand propaganda pageant.  What I experienced wasn't far from what I expected.  That there should be a reference to a history of experiences which point to the genocidal attempt to annihilate the Jewish People  would be given and not something to be taken lightly, though I must admit going back to Esther was narrative genius.  That we should pay attention to the rhetoric of the Iranian leadership is important.  That the United States has always stood with Israel, though true, has also been tragic, especially for the Palestinian people.  What's more, the two people that I have admired most in my study of modern Judaism, are on opposite sides of this particular issue, Rabbi Michael Lerner, who leads the Tikkun community and Nobel Prize laureate, Elie Wiesel, whose works describing the experience of the Holocaust have helped shape the consciousness of generations since.

Lerner's response to the PM's speech centers on the distinction between a "Strategy of Domination" vs. a "Strategy of Generosity", one perpetuates power and control over others, the other recognizes the legitimate concerns for the advancement of all people. The former uses fear mongering to cast the world as a threat, the other sees the world desiring much of what those of us in the West already have, freedom, self-governance and self-sufficiency. Wiesel's perspective is based on a consciousness formed by experiencing genocide and the reality that, though it should "never again" happen, it has, in fact, happened many times since WWII.  Both have legitimate perspectives, which makes this issue not as cut and dry as some would have us make it.

Lerner's logic is based on an analysis that argues that Iran isn't interest in suicide, which would surely be the response should it set off a nuclear device (after-all, Israel has at least 200 such devices).  Wiesel's perspective asks whether we should trust a regime that calls for the annihilation of Israel, "stones women", "hangs homosexuals", whose parliament chants "Death to America" and who likely sponsors terrorism?  Such behavior is surely abhorrent to anyone with a healthy conscience.

And yet, what continues to inform my own consciousness is that the experience of poverty and powerlessness over one's existence is the very breeding ground upon which terrorist movements are born.  The surest way to fight terrorism is to create environments of prosperity, which is dependent on our interconnections to thrive.  Where we understand that the annihilation of one is to the detriment of all.  In the absence of such an environment and experience, cries of rage bespeak a desire for a life of substance.  The surest way to combat such rhetoric is to invite relationship, the experience of which often leads to revolution (witness the effects of the Arab Spring uprisings).  And it is only within such relationships that mutual accountability is truly possible.

Both Lerner and Wiesel are right to a large degree.  What I think Wiesel misses, is that continuing to isolate a nation may very-well breed the actions that his eloquent reminder "never again" was meant to strenuously contest.

Sincerely,

Rev. Aaron Payson