Blog

Archive for May, 2010

Idiocy at Sea: The Bigger Picture

Monday, May 31st, 2010

I spent my entire day huddled over my computer, constantly refreshing Ha’aretz and JPost, periodically checking the Gaza flotilla trending topic on Twitter, and generally just trying to make sense of last night’s flotilla fiasco.  And twelve hours into it, I’m still at a loss.

Thus far, here’s what we know: early Monday morning, 130 kilometers off the coast of Gaza in international waters, elite Israeli naval troops boarded the Mavi Marmara, a ship filled with humanitarian aid – and 600 some passengers – that was headed for the Gaza Strip.  During the ensuing melee, a number of activists were killed (I’ve seen figures ranging from 9 to 20) after commandos opened fire on them.  Two soldiers were also seriously hurt in the clash.

Israel has predictably blamed the activists themselves, as well as the Turkish organizers of the relief mission/provocation, for the unfortunate casualties.  Their claims, spelled out in stunning detail by Ron Ben Yishai, are that IDF soldiers raided the ship peaceably and only used live rounds after fearing for their own lives; they even have the video to “prove” it.  The only problem is that neither that article nor that video clip actually proves anything.

First, we have no evidence to the validity of Ron Ben Yishai’s recap.  Was he actually there, alongside the IDF forces as his writing seems to indicate?  It seems unlikely, and given that he never actually says so, it appears he’s just regurgitating the Israeli position.  If indeed he was there, his testimony is extremely valuable and would do much to quell the rising tide of blame engulfing the Israeli forces, as well as my own skepticism herein detailed.  Second, that oh-so-trustworthy aerial footage is fraught with question marks.  Most glaringly, none of the sequences shown are given context.  Yes, we know activists threw a soldier onto a lower deck.  No, we do not know, for instance, if said activists had just watched commandos shoot and kill their best friend from a neighboring navy vessel.  Without context, it’s impossible to know who really threw the first punch (or fired the first shot, or wielded the first “large metal object”).  The written play-by-play is also misleading; as grainy as the footage is, there’s really no way to determine the accuracy of a number of those descriptions, particularly the stun grenade and firebomb accusations.

Given all that, I place the blame dozens of miles away from that Mediterranean nightmare, and squarely on the shoulders of Defense Minister Ehud Barak and the senior naval leadership.  Ignoring the idiotic and counterproductive blockade on Gaza that led to the Turkish aid flotilla, the underlying cause of this catastrophe was poor strategy, plain and simple.  If decision-makers truly expected a peaceful endeavor, they would’ve quelled the resistance with water cannons (an extremely common tactic in such situations) or tear gas canisters.  To deploy – in the middle of the night, no less – elite Flotilla 13 commandos, dressed in black with masks and rifles, was at best stupid and at worst homicidal.

So tonight, when Barak and his lackeys fall asleep, I hope they do so with a heavy heart.  After all, the blood of far too many dead and injured are now on their hands. And judging by the massive protests worldwide, it’s only going to get worse.

Sam Melamed is a Masa participant, participating in Career Israel, one of Masa Israel‘s 160 programs.Masa Israel logo

Booting Out Queers Against Israeli Apartheid

Friday, May 28th, 2010

On July 4th Toronto will hold its 30th annual Pride Parade.  Approximately 500,000- 1 million people attend the event to celebrate the city’s proud gay community. But this year is not without its controversy; one that is forcing the entire city into debate.  The other day Pride Toronto declared that “Queers against Israeli Apartheid” cannot march in the parade under this name, although the members themselves are welcome to the event.  The Gay Pride committee was pressured by the City of Toronto, who have threatened to cut their funding if QuAIA participate in the festivities.  The city believes that the term ‘Israeli apartheid’ amounts to hate and discrimination against Toronto’s Jews and Israelis.  Without this essential funding, Gay Pride will not have enough money to run the parade.    QuAIA

What do I have to say about this?? THANK YOU GAY PRIDE! (and the city of Toronto.) But isn’t my siding with Gay Pride only supporting the censorship of free speech?  Is it best to condone such a group, despite disagreeing with their ideas, in order to defend our core values of democracy?  I have struggled with this question, but after doing research on the group and spending hours sifting through QuAIA’s website and thinking about the point of the parade, I think that this decision is correct.

It is becoming well known that Israel Apartheid Weekis becoming popular in universities across North America, which in turn are becoming more of a venue for blatant antisemitism and hatred rather than fair and constructive criticism.  Jews feel as though they are outsiders within their own campuses.  While Israel Apartheid Week is secluded to University campus, and therefore University students, what makes this incident in Toronto so interesting is that even though QuAIA may appear to concern only a limited number of people, they are staging their politics (rather than their personal sexual orientations) in front of Toronto and Canada’s media, splashing themselves in news stories and newspaper articles.  They are gathering protesters, gay and straight, who believe in their cause, rather than gay issues.  They attempt to explain that only with equal rights for Palestinians within the occupied territories can gay rights be fought for.Their ties are sloppy and unconvincing.  Their website looks more like an advertisement against Israel than for advancing gay pride or rights. They provide a completely one-sided approach on the conflict in the middle east, with large holes in their “history” section.  Forgetting my own knowledge of history and reading their website alone, I too would be outraged at the atrocities Israel has supposedly committed.  Their website features a video, Who We Are?, that splashes probably as many Jews as they could find in order to legitimize themselves as a cause against Israel, not Jews.  Yet the video also provides no explanation for  supposed “apartheid in Israel”.  One Jew proclaims that Israel must be an apartheid because she never heard the word Palestinian or occupation in her “Zionist education system”.  Others just claim that their visits to the West Bank evoked South Africa.

I think that university students, above all else, know the atmosphere that these types of groups are attempting to create.  QuAIA is trying to inject themselves into the gay pride parade as a large venue to spew their anti-Israel ignorance.  If the pride parade wants to be inclusive, it should attempt to include these gay and lesbian members, but not as part of a propagandist group that makes many more people feel attacked and excluded.

If one were to agree that gay rights for Palestinians is of utmost importance for the gay community here in North America, than in my opinion there are many more obstacles than “Israeli apartheid”.  Considering that both Fatah and Hamas are Muslim movements, I’m guessing that neither of their platforms would be too friendly toward homosexuals, probably close to how Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia treat homosexuals… not with much acceptance.  Is this not a fight worth fighting? Further, why is it that in order to fight for Palestinian gay rights QuAIA decides to politically attack Israel (through its bias and uninformed doctrines) through its labeling it an apartheid.  The word screams with a certain heaviness that motivates the uninformed bystander to side against Israel.    Wouldn’t it be more constructive to name  the group,  “Queers for Palestinian Gay Rights”?  I suppose I just don’t understand that if one opposes the status-quo of Israel today, as many Zionisst do, would we not ask how can we go about to improve the situation?  Should we not be searching for a solution to this conflict, whether that means supporting the 2 state or 1 state solutions, or engineering a creative new answer. However, QuAIA are satisfied enough with spreading lies and hatred against Israel rather than seeking or supporting a solution.    And I thought we Canadians were supposed to be the polite ones?

Hailey Dilman was a MASA participant, participating in Oranim’s Community Involvement Program, one of Masa Israel’s 160 programs.

A Call for Kesher

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

As I strolled through the streets of Morningside Heights, the humid air nearly suffocating me, one thing I noticed was the emptiness. Empty of students, empty of professors, empty of Jews. Where were all my comrades in religion? Home for the summer, undoubtedly, but this presented a sharp contrast to Barnard and Columbia during the school year. What some may not know is that these Jews are often Orthodox or Conservative in their religious outlooks. Where’s the Reform community?

One of the most distinctive aspects of Columbia is its Jewish presence. Because it’s located near the Upper West Side, which is very Jewish in its orientation and is home to Zabar’s, there’s bound to be a large Jewish population at the university. In addition, the quality of the university attracts a variety of students, Jews included. A few blocks up from Columbia is the Jewish Theological Seminary, which offers double degrees or joint programs with Barnard and Columbia. With the JTS cantorial and rabbinical schools nearby, as well, Morningside Heights is peppered with Jews, myself included.

With a Conservative seminary, the large Orthodox population at both schools, and the Upper West Side factors, we Reform Jews are largely outnumbered in Morningside Heights. Obviously, Columbia may be an exception to the rule: I do not know how the Jewish population is distributed at other campuses. At Hillel, the Orthodox and Conservative groups, Yavneh and Koach, respectively, are both much larger than the Reform group, Kesher. I have attended several Kesher services this past academic year and have enjoyed the company of like-minded students that appreciate the value of Judaism, but do not necessarily feel the need to incorporate every aspect of it into their lives.

There is a need to establish a stronger Reform presence in campuses across the country. Kesher has made great strides by offering Friday night services and occasional Shabbatons. For those of us who are outnumbered by those of stricter denominations, it can be intimidating to see such a small presence of Reform students on a campus. If, as David Wilensky blogged recently, funding for Kesher groups across the country has been slashed, then what can we Reform Jews do to make our voices heard?

One way is to get more members. At Columbia, it’s hard to recruit Reform Jews because, simply, there aren’t as many as there are students of other denominations. If we look around, though, I bet there are students willing to get involved in the Reform community, but have felt intimidated by the overwhelming majority of Orthodox and Conservative students. It is our job at campuses across the country to form a strong religious identity for Reform Jews, just as Orthodox and Conservative groups have done.

Let’s have Shabbatons. Let’s have bowling nights, meet-and-greets, and open our doors to Jews who don’t necessarily identify themselves with any denomination, but are curious about their heritage and the opportunities on campuses. Let’s also work with the other Jewish groups on campus, like the Orthodox and Conservative organizations, to encourage Jewish integration so students don’t feel intimidated by the other denominations’ sheer size. With the demise of funding for Reform Jewish campus communities, it’s in our hands to expand the Reform movement for college students. We provide an alternative way of thinking about Judaism that is valuable to the discussion of what it means to be Jewish.

As the fall semester looms in the distance, keep the idea of Kesher in the back of your mind. Let’s work towards not only creating a better Reform presence on campuses, but working towards providing a more accessible Jewish identity for anyone who wants to learn about their heritage.

Israel Offered Nuclear Arms To Apartheid South Africa

Tuesday, May 25th, 2010

South Africa's John Vorster, the architect of Apartheid and an outspoken Nazi sympathizer, meets with Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, and Yitzhak Rabin. Jerusalem, 1976.

South Africa's John Vorster, the architect of Apartheid and an outspoken Nazi sympathizer, meets with Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, and Yitzhak Rabin. Jerusalem, 1976.

Didn’t see this one coming.

Though it was never in any real doubt, we now have official evidence that Israel at one point possessed nuclear weapons, thanks to researcher and author Sasha Polakow-Suransky.  And given the country’s continued ambiguity regarding its nuclear arsenal, its refusal to enter into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its hawkish leadership, and its very unhappy regional neighbors, not to mention these photos from the Dimona nuclear weapons factory (I could go on…), one can safely assume that the nation still has a formidable atomic arsenal.

But that’s not the most frightening – or most damning – revelation uncovered here.  No, the reason Israeli leaders are issuing denials left and right is because Shimon Peres’ secret deal to supply Apartheid South Africa with nuclear warheads, even though it never materialized, undermines everything the Jewish state claims to stand for in the way of democracy, peace, and morals.  All of a sudden, these claims of being a shining beacon of democracy amidst tyrants and warmongers ring hollow.  In the end, what drives decisions here is not some rigorous moral code nor is it a sacred vow to do what’s right; the motivation, it seems, is simply the profit margin, no matter how despicable the business partners might be.

According to Polakow-Suransky, between 1974 and 1993, Israel sold the Apartheid nation over $10 billion in military products and technologies.  If that figure holds, that would put South Africa among Israel’s top two or three military partners, behind only the U.S. and possibly Great Britain.  Moreover, during this time, Israel ignored international sanctions (and a mandatory 1977 arms embargo authored by the UN Security Council) against the rogue state, instead covertly providing Pretoria with the latest in murderous technology, including tanks, fighter jets, and missiles – and if South Africa had wished, nuclear warheads.  Furthermore, these military exports were just the beginning: Israelis also helped train the repressive regime’s police forces, which were notorious for their brutality in suppressing revolts.  As late as 1987, after Reagan’s State Department (Reagan’s!!!) declared that Israel regularly violated the embargo, the country’s leaders did not stop sales.

Indeed, what the Jewish Polakow-Suransky has uncovered is startling.  More than that, it’s embarrassing.  After all, how can Israel possibly claim to be a “responsible” possessor of nuclear weapons when it so willingly tried to arm one of the last century’s most brutal and downright evil governments?

As many problems as I’ve had with South Africa’s ruling ANC, allow me to thank them for “airing the dirty laundry of the Apartheid regime’s old allies.”  Too much of Israel’s leadership is corrupt and ethically questionable (Peres is now president), and the more we can realize this, the more we can fight it.  My only hope is that we, as Jews, along with Israelis, choose to do so.

Sam Melamed is a Masa participant, participating in Career Israel, one of Masa Israel‘s 160 programs.Masa Israel logo

J Street U: Endorsing Peter Beinart’s “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment”

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Crossposted from J Street U.

Welcome to seventh grade Hebrew School class: the unit is Israel awareness. The teacher stands at the front of the room, and stresses the purity of Israel’s cause, the danger of our enemies – Nazis and Palestinians alike – and the need to support Israel unquestioningly. We are young, and we believe everything we are told. But Hebrew School is not our only source of information, especially once we go on to college. Maybe we take a course on the Politics of the Middle East, maybe we meet Palestinians who do not hate Jews or want to blow up buses, maybe we start reading news analyses and opinions, or maybe we go and see for ourselves. Our thoughts then turn back to our formal education about Israel, and something seems off:

We were told that Arabs living in Israel are granted full and equal rights, but we hear bills proposed suggesting that Arabs undergo loyalty tests or be stripped of their citizenship, and we see Arabs being evicted from their houses in Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan to make room for Jews. We were raised to be proud of the prominent Jewish role in the Civil Rights movement, but we are called traitors and self-haters when we protest the same type of racism within Israel.

We were told that Israel wants peace, and that it is the Palestinians who oppose it, but we see Netanyahu and Lieberman dragging their feet, and haughtily scorning our President, who we helped bring into office and continue to stand behind because we, too, believe in change. We were raised to believe in the value of liberalism, humanism and of progress: perhaps we missed the disclaimer which stated that the same values do not apply to in the land of Zion.

We were told that Israel supports freedom of speech, but see the 81 year-old Noam Chomsky barred from entry into Israel and the Occupied Territories, simply because the Israeli government “does not like what he has to say.” Neither do many of us like what Chomsky has to say, but we are far more afraid of a Jewish state that decides arbitrarily what can or cannot be said than we are of the words of any knee-jerk professor of linguistics.

We were told that Israel’s army is the most ethical army in the world, but we see Israel’s army, especially in Gaza 2009, behaving in the same brutal and bellicose manner as the armies of other powerful states. And when we turn to our parents’ generation, whom we so admire for their brave and unwavering protests against the American war in Vietnam, we are met with silence, with archaic interpretations of Islam and Arab culture or with muttered proclamations of “necessary for security.” Such contradictions- between what we were told and what is- abound. Perhaps, then, were we also lied to about the validity of the Jewish state, about Zionism, about Israel’s right to exist?

Peter Beinart, in his stunning and devastating piece “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” argues that an increasing amount of liberal Jewish students are becoming alienated from Israel and from Zionism, largely due to the way in which the American Jewish Establishment has asked them – us – to view Israel and to be Zionists.

I believe that what conventional Jewish organizations are ultimately trying to do is both necessary and good. At the core of their agenda, I believe they are truly trying to work to ensure that the Jewish state of Israel is safe and supported, for the sake of the entire Jewish people. However, it is in their messaging and their methodologies that they go wrong, in large part due their simplistic nature, and to their black-and-white formulations. We are told: Israel is good, and thus all of its actions and policies are good, defensive and moral, with perhaps a few unfortunate side effects here and there. But for those of us who have come of age knowing only a post-Oslo Israel that embraces retributive violence and hardline, nationalist politics, such statements are next to impossible to believe and reconcile with reality. When the agenda reads as follows: “Israel’s war on Gaza was just, Israel’s settlement policy is just, Israel’s Jerusalem policy is just, Israel’s existence is just,” those of us whose liberalism, humanism, and Jewish moral values do not allow us to swallow, at least in such uncompromising terms, the first three statements may very well, as Beinart warned, be inclined to disregard also the fourth.

Ross Douthat challenges Beinart on his assertion that we, the American Jewish youth, are distancing ourselves from Zionism because of Israeli policy, asserting instead that chances are, it has nothing to do with Israeli policy or actions, but rather is because we are “simply less Jewish.” Maybe indeed there are some young Jews who are less connected to Zionism because they are less connected to Judaism, but to dismiss Beinart’s argument, and thus all of the Jewish youth who are finding themselves alienated by Zionism, is fallacious and wrongheaded. I will answer Douthat’s challenge by challenging the concluding point made by Beinart himself.

In the final paragraph of his piece, Beinart writes that “comfortable Zionism has become a moral abdication” and that what we need is an “uncomfortable Zionism, a Zionism angry at what Israel risks becoming, and in love with what it could still be.” Here, in responding to both, I take issue with the words “has become.” To write that comfortable Zionism “has become” a moral abdication implies that there was once a point in history in which it was not, in which it was fully moral to embrace a Zionism that saw everything done by Israel as good. While there may indeed have been times in which unquestioning support of certain elements Zionist project was necessary, there was never a point in which we could truly, in line with our Jewish values, from “treat thy neighbor as thyself” to “tzedek, tzedek, tirdof”, be fully comfortable with what Zionism was, nor will there be such a point, until the day in which Zionism no longer comes at the expense of the Palestinians, and on that day, “Zion shall be redeemed in justice.” Perhaps it is the relative security Israel is experiencing, coupled with its reactionary governing coalition and heavy-handed, settler-friendly military policies that has awakened us, the liberal, American Jewish youth to the fact that comfortable Zionism, the Zionism that has been fed to us by the American Jewish establishment, is a moral abdication.

But we Jews, all of us, being a people of complexity, of challenges and of questions, must know that there can be no comfortable Zionism until there is peace. And to the American Jewish Establishment, Beinart is correct in warning that unless you start speaking to us in ways that recognize that, we are liable to stop listening.

Moriel Rothman was born in Jerusalem, Israel, is a rising Senior at Middlebury College in Vermont and is a candidate for President of the J Street U National Student Board.

Judaism is Justice

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

The Global Citizen is a joint project of New Voices and the American Jewish World Service (AJWS). Throughout the year, a group of former AJWS volunteers will offer their take on global justice, Judaism, and international development. Opinions expressed by Global Citizen bloggers do not necessarily represent AJWS.

(Thanks to Faigy Abdelhak for her post on social justice in Judaism.)

Here is a series of views. Select which lies closest to your own:
a. As Jews, we should care only about helping Jews.
b. As Jews, we should work to help non-Jews, but only after helping Jews.
c. As Jews and people, we should work to help all humanity.

Volunteers in Sri Lanka

Volunteers in Sri Lanka

What did you pick? To be fair, my answer wasn’t among the above. Here’s my response:

As a Jew, I am obligated to help people of all religions, nationalities, genders, races, etc. And here’s the crucial point: we are not separate. There is no choice between helping Jews or helping non-Jews. We are all part of the same intricate system, part of G-d’s creation, and we all have a responsibility to heal the world.

Whew! That’s a dense thought. I’ve lived with it for the past two years and there are still parts of it I’m learning about. So what do I mean to say?

My own spiritual practice in Judaism depends on this understanding. I don’t help the poor because of a sense of obligation to something other than myself; I offer food to poor people because they are me and I am them, and we are all holy. The social justice world, funnily enough, has captured this spirituality with the idea of privilege and oppression. I have benefited from privilege – I have a place to sleep at night partly thanks to the fact that I am white, middle-class, and have other privileges. And part of each of our G-d-given roles in the world is to understand our own place in this large whole and embrace it.

Spiritual Judaism advocates true environmentalism: not an understanding of saving something other than ourselves, something distant, but something that is so intimately connected with our neshamot, our souls, that one cannot exist without the other.

When we ask ourselves, “Should I care about Jews first, or non-Jews first?” we can often be asking a harmful question. Rather, let’s ask, “Jews and non-Jews are each part of Hashem’s creation, G-d’s handiwork. How will my unique constellation of abilities and passions contribute to sanctifying that whole?”

RIP Kesher

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Crossposted to The Reform Shuckle

In September, I announced that I was officially a Reform Jew with no movement. I eventually worked on some definitions, to make this all a bit clearer. The impetus for this was the shortsighted decision of the Union for Reform Judaism to end all funding for college programming, killing Kesher. A new poll from one college student is asking why and what we can do to rebuild.

Kesher, the URJ’s already impotent, underfunded, understaffed answer to Koach and Chabad had all of its funding pulled last summer when the URJ realized it was up a financial creek. A few months prior, I had been at the pitifully attended annual Kesher Convention in Montreal. Here’s some of what I wrote about that event:

…I attended Kesher’s final LTS. Manned at the time by a single URJ employee and a confused, under-advised student board, Kesher was clearly struggling to figure out what it was.

The tiny event, held at McGill Hillel in Montreal, was attended by only 30-some-odd Reform college students. Social inbreeding was rampant. There were only six or seven people I didn’t already know. Four or five of them I had heard of or were very close friends of my close friends.

We spent the final full day of the long weekend spring break event crammed into one little room re-imagining Kesher. Mostly we yelled and got frustrated with each other. I was at times entertained and annoyed. Was this the support, the organization that the URJ wanted us to use to maintain Reform lives on college campuses across America?

[...]

I can’t recall what the outcome of that weekend was. Months later, the URJ re-organized. The college department disappeared. Kesher exists now only college campuses where Reform students meet under the Kesher name. It is an unfunded embarrassment to the Reform movement. We don’t generate income through synagogue dues, so the URJ has abandoned us.

I guess that’s a pretty serious charge in that last paragraph about synagogue dues, but it remains true. The URJ, despite being an allegedly benevolent non-profit entity, is run with the bottom line at the forefront. It’s not bad for a non-profit to be financially pragmatic but we generate all kinds of income for the URJ if we’re involved in high school. If our parents are synagogue members, they’re paying the URJ for us. If we’re members of NFTY, we–or, more likely, our parents–are paying for us there. We go on NFTY Summer in Israel trips.

In college, we don’t. And out parents don’t see our lack of involvement. Seeing that the URJ isn’t doing anything for us, our parents yank their money.

The economy was bad; the URJ reacted by restructuring. Part of that restructuring was canceling all funding to my religiously vulnerable demographic. But if the URJ is wondering why we don’t join their synagogues when we graduate, we’ll tell them that they didn’t care about us in college.

David Bloom, an old NFTY friend of mine, is wondering what to do. I got this email from him today:

As you might have heard, the poor economy recently forced the Union for Reform Judaism to cut all funding for KESHER, the campus program of the URJ.  As of now, the organization has ceased to exist as a North American body although many universities and colleges have groups of Reform Jewish students.

Earlier in the year, I came up with an idea: with the help of many past NFTYites, together, I thing we can reinvigorate the KESHER program.

Every senior at my school gets one week to pursue an interest of theirs. This week, I am taking a look at KESHER. Below, there is a hyperlink to a survey, containing questions for Reform Jews at universities and colleges. If you could please fill out the survey and forward it to ten other Reform college students or entering freshman, I would greatly appreciate it. Furthermore, if you are interested in helping out, please email me at bloom.david@insightbb.com.

Sincerely,
David Bloom

You can take David’s poll here.

There was an attempt last year to revive Kesher from the bottom up. The last student leader of Kesher, Aaron Cravez, organized a constitutional convention at Indiana University. It went nowhere, so we’ll see if this goes somewhere.

A New Jesus for Germany

Wednesday, May 19th, 2010

For the first time since Angela Merkel made that weird facial expression when George Bush tried to give her a massage, I can say: the Germans did something right. Recently, the German village of Oberammergau has revised its traditional “Passion Play,” a rite of passage that has gone on since 1633, to emphasize the historical Jesus.

Germany has had a long history of racial prejudice, the most obvious example being the Holocaust. Director Christian Stueckl has made a grand effort to not only treat the Jewish presence in the play more carefully, but to portray what seems to be the historical reality of Jesus’s situation. One of the issues he has chosen to emphasize is the Jewish oppression by the Romans.

Traditionally, the Gospels have shown the Jews to be the bad guys, hating Jesus out of their own petty resentment and condemning him to death. In reality, the Jews had been oppressed by the Roman government for decades prior to Jesus’s death. In an attempt to gain Roman-sponsored power, the king Herod, whose line usurped the truly Jewish Hasmonean dynasty, aligned himself with the rising powers of Roman imperialism. In the process, he went so far as to put pressing taxes on the people of Judea, including Jesus’s homeland of Galilee, and desecrated the Temple by putting a golden eagle, a symbol of Rome, on its ramparts.

The peasants at the time of Jesus’s message were severely depleted in resources from taxation. Looking for a message to sustain them spiritually, they found one in Jesus. The Gospels, as many have noted in recent years, target the Jews as Jesus’s enemies, but it is likely that the Romans were the ones who killed Jesus: after all, he was condemned as a Roman prisoner by a Roman method of execution, the crucifixion. For more information, check out Jean-Pierre Isbouts’s book Young Jesus, which aptly recounts the struggles of the Jews in the years before Jesus’s rise and the political and economic situation in which they found themselves.

For the Germans to take the Gospels not at face value and look deeper, especially in light of historical revelations about the real situation of Judea, is remarkable. Kudos to them for trying to change misperceptions of Jews in the story of Jesus’s Passion! The director has also attempted to emphasize Jesus as a true Jew, not someone who thought of himself as a founder of a new religion, but as one who was reestablishing Jewish values in a time of Roman corruption. Recent research has found this proposition to be the likely historical facts behind Jesus’s mission.

The Germans have a long tradition of questioning authority when it comes to religion: look at Martin Luther. The Catholic Church has the accepted doctrine of the Gospels and the priests’ interpretation of it being the “Gospel truth.” The “deeply Catholic” community has made an effort to change and realize the truth behind their beliefs, which cannot be easy. The effort they have made is commendable. If “half the population” is involved in this activity, as well, as the Associated Press reports, many of them might absorb the values put forth in the play. Surely the entire town and spectators will come to see the play. If truth is put forth instead of lies, then German-Jewish relations are indeed improving.

Evaluating exceptionalism: unfounded and counterproductive

Monday, May 17th, 2010

Let me first thank Evan Krasner for responding to my critique of his original post.  I appreciate his choice to continue the conversation beyond a simple point-counterpoint, and I’ve learned a lot already.

Evan clarifies something regarding the debate at his school that I actually didn’t understand, which I’m grateful for.

The debate’s original format included a person representing Israel’s perspective on both the one-state and two-state solutions and a person representing the respective Palestinian perspectives. Fieldston’s administration then decided to completely change the format without announcing it ahead of time.

I agree with Evan that it was unfair of the school’s administration to change the debate format without saying so, and I too consider this ample reason for canceling or postponing.  It’s not fair to promise people one thing and give them another.  However, while I agree with Evan on the school’s tactical error, I continue to disagree regarding the substance of the changes to debate’s form.

Instead of having an Israeli and a Palestinian debating one another, there would be two Palestinians “debating” one another. One speaker would represent the one-state solution and the other would represent the two-state solution.

“Debating?”  Evan, I respect that you felt left out of the debate, but it’s offensive to put it in these terms.  A debate between two Palestinians (especially who, as you said, disagree on the resolution to the conflict) is no less of a “true debate” than between an Israeli and a Palestinian.  Being an Israeli or a Palestinian is not an opinion.  Multiple viewpoints exist within both societies.

Harpo called my analogy of African-American slavery to the Holocaust a “huge generalization….”  I agree that this is a generalization, but my point was that both Jews and African-Americans have painful pasts. The fact that many of Fieldston’s assemblies focused on African American history and not the Holocaust is a disservice not only to Jewish students but to the whole community as well.

I still maintain that the generalization is harmful, but I do agree with Evan on the disservice done to the community by not studying the Holocaust.  The Holocaust was not tragic because it happened to Jews; the Holocaust was tragic because it happened to humans.  Everyone can benefit from its study.

It does not matter how “Jews feel…about their racial identity” or whether or not they consider themselves to be a part of white society. Jews represent two percent of the American population, which makes them a minority.

I beg to differ.  How Jews feel about their racial identity is in fact the only thing that matters.  As I said before, race in this country is highly related to seemingly trans-racial issues such as income and living conditions.  How we are raised and who we’re surrounded by has a huge impact on our conception of our own race.  For instance, I grew up in an upper-middle class liberal white town, and although there wasn’t a large Jewish population, I never felt like I was that different from the non-Jews, because they were all pretty similar to me in a lot of other ways.  I tend to associate with Judaism on purely religious and cultural, rather than racial, terms.  Clearly, different people approach the issue of identity from very different perspectives.  It’s counterproductive to claim that every member of a group as diverse as self-identified Jews has the same perception of their “minority status”.  While self-identified Jews are obviously a numerical minority, the statistic is deceptive when compared to something like racial whites.  There’s a lot more of a gray area in self-identifying as Jewish than as white.

If you gave me a form with two checkboxes: “White” and “Jewish,” and said “Check only one,” I’d choose white.  A different Jew might do the opposite.  That should tell you all you need to know – we’re not monolithic.

Finally, Harpo writes, “All people have suffered discrimination.” For someone who hates generalizations, this is big.

Fair enough.  This is a big generalization.  But I think it’s pretty true.  I challenge Evan to try to name a group of people who have not been the subject of discrimination at some point.  In fact, his very next sentence does just that!

Do you think that WASPs have suffered from significant discrimination in the US?

The US was created because WASPS were suffering significant discrimination.  If you limit the scope of your investigation to the brief history of a single country, you obviously won’t get the whole picture.

I want to move on to Evan’s last point, because it really made me stop and think.  I do have a response, and I’m glad Evan brought this up, because it’s helped me clarify my own thoughts a lot.

Additionally if all people have suffered from some form of discrimination, then why is it that only certain groups are entitled to government handouts such as affirmative action? If “All people have suffered [from some form of] discrimination,” then why is it that certain groups have more entitlements than others?

Affirmative action is designed to remedy inequality, not redress discrimination.  Although Jews have been discriminated against in this country, we’re not disadvantaged because of it, so we don’t need affirmative action to secure our status as productive citizens.  American blacks, on the other hand, still live with the debilitating effects of centuries of legally-established second-class citizenship.  Poverty and crime rates are higher, literacy and income levels are lower.  Without disregarding the anti-Semtism in this country’s past, we should realize that contemporary American Jews (meaning those who would formerly have been discriminated against) are in far better shape than contemporary American blacks (even if we assume that blacks face no discrimination today, which is not true).

I’ll end, slightly out of order, with Evan’s opening point:

I believe that Jews should be proud of their exceptionalism and there is no reason to stop writing about it.

This is the core of my disagreement with Evan.  I don’t think Jews are exceptional.  And while this is a personal opinion (meaning I respect Evan’s right to believe in Jewish exceptionalism), I strongly believe that every second we spend being proud of and writing about our exceptionalism distracts us from the rest of the world.  Which is, after all, where we live.  Thus, I see an insistence on Jewish exceptionalism as detracting from Jews’ ability to function effectively (on both an individual and group basis) in society.

I welcome further responses from Evan and/or others, and look forward to continuing this conversation.

The Cab Ride Through Hell

Monday, May 17th, 2010

Drawing swastikas.

Committing arson.

Rioting en masse.

Just another day in the Palestinian Territories, na’chon?

Sadly, no.  In fact, we can’t blame these latest developments on terrorists, at least not in the traditional Arab sense of the word.  Nor can we pinpoint these heinous acts to Gaza or the West Bank or even East Jerusalem.  No, this unrest was in Israel proper, along the shores of the Mediterranean and in the streets of West Jerusalem.  That’s right, Israel’s Haredim certainly do know how to stir up the brown stuff.

Midway through what was quickly becoming the worst cab ride of my life, our driver – who made South African minibus operators look affable in comparison – decided to take the scenic route through Jerusalem.  That is to say, after my companion and I refused to pay 45NIS for at most a 30NIS fare, instead opting for the meter, this cabbie decided to take his touristy-looking, English-speaking passengers in the exact opposite direction from where they needed to be.  Indeed, it seemed, he’d be getting his 45NIS after all, and then some.

But then we hit a snag.  A flaming one.  And our by now heated argument – his side in Hebrew, mine in English (though revealingly, the madman did know how to say “GIVE ME THE MONEY!”) - subsided as the police vehicles raced past us.  As we drove past the burning dumpsters and the hundreds, if not thousands, of angry Haredi men and women, the car was filled with a tense silence.  Sure, I was furious at the driver – and he at me – but neither of our searing furies compared to those of the Haredim towards the Israeli government.

Following a decision to clear out an ancient gravesite to make room for a hospital’s emergency room in Ashkelon, large numbers of blackhatters began protesting.  Despite all reports to the contrary, they believe the graves are Jewish tombs, and as a result, are seriously pissed (excuse the technical terminology).

Now normally, this wouldn’t rile me up as much as it does – though, to be sure, a cab ride through fires and angry mobs will always be a bit disconcerting.  What really vexes me is how the Israeli ultraorthodox communities have hijacked the political process here.  Indeed, the main stumbling block towards peace with the Palestinians is continued Jewish settlement construction, largely for the ultra-religious.  And time and time again, flare-ups of violence are instigated by, or at the very least aimed at, yeshiva students or other Jewish fundamentalists in the settlements.

In my humble opinion, it’s time we called a kettle a kettle, and a spade a spade.  These religious wackos, these Jewish Tea Partiers, should no longer steer Israeli policy.  The state of Israel, if it wants to shine as a just, morally upstanding Jewish nation, must move forward, with or without its Haredi fringe.

(By the way, that cab ride?  Cost me 50 shecks and a lot of patience.)

Sam Melamed is a Masa participant, participating in Career Israel, one of Masa Israel‘s 160 programs.Masa Israel logo