Unpacking Liberalism
Flying from Jerusalem, I hankered to hear Hebrew poetry. Back in Jerusalem, unpacking, I longed to hear liberal principles. This place is beautiful; that has always been its problem. It is the kind of place that engenders enigmatic words like birthright, which brothers kill each other over. And it makes the word brother a little dangerous, too.
Anyway, the city just elected a new mayor who narrowly beat the ultra-orthodox candidate promising my brothers that Jerusalem is one birthright he would never share. We hung up the clothes, and shelved the hair cream, listening to laconic Israeli reporters talking about what our enemies have been up to; and it suddenly occurred to me that I'd like to hear, of all things, Barack Obama's speech "on race" again. I took out the laptop, and linked over to the site, and we began to listen. After a while we just sat down on the bed; by the time we got to "Ashley," we were in tears.
This is not a speech about race. It is about enlightenment. As we pick apart what choosing Hillary means, or how much stimulus we need, it may be worth listening to this speech again: forty minutes, about the same as Dvořák's New World symphony and about as reliably moving. If nothing else, it will remind us how choking it was to live in Atwatermorrisroveland, the new new world, and how helpless most of our journalists were in defending us against its claims. It makes one grateful for a champion, particularly those of us headed into Bibiland.
BA, Thanks for the Jerusalem update. You mention "birthright" and pose it next to enlightenment principles, which I know you hold dear. From your understanding of birthright, I wonder if you can you make sense of why a liberal acquaintance of mine in NYC, who in general upholds enlightenment principles, recently helped write a book singing the praises of the Birthright Israel program?
I'm sure people have fun (not to mention a fully-paid vacation) on Birthright Israel trips, and that's fine. But there is a truimphal, chauvinist undertone to the birthright concept that underlies the program, and I find it deeply troubling.
When one internalizes a "birthright" of one's own that trumps that of non-Jews -- and this is the intention of the program -- it becomes that much easier to favor the privileges of one's own group over another's rights. How is that something that anyone aspiring to enlightenment principles, embodied in Obama's speech on race, can condone?
This isn't a criticism of your post, BA, just questions that emerge from it relating to Israel-Palestine that many in the U.S. and elsewhere worry about.
November 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The short answer is that your observations about Birthright's undertones seem very prescient to me. And the fact that the program is more and more dependent on Sheldon Adelson's largesse has not improved it.
November 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you no decency, sir? The Birthright Program--arguably the single best means of strengthening affiliation to Judaism among American and Canadian Jews between 18 and 29--does not take its participants anywhere but the pre-1967 borders of Israel and does not inculcate any of them with a position against a peaceful two-state solution. I defy you or anyone else to give a single example of its doing so.
Unless you have some evidence he has manipulated the program, that Sheldon Adelson helps fianance Birthright is no more relevant than the fact that so do many contributors to UJA who agree with you about the need for Israel to dismantle settlements.
November 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Arguably" is right. I have been to Birthright meetings and rallies; the bleary-eyed kids, after two weeks together, exude the militant enthusiasm of a fan-club that has just spent two weeks in Graceland.
They visit the obvious sites, which are painfully beautiful, and laden with symbolic meanings that just happen to reinforce a one-sided narrative of Zionist triumph and righteousness. They hear a stream of leaders and officials who purport to let them in on national vulnerabilities, insider knowledge of how to fight "terrorism," military responses to enhance "security." They are led to believe that their work on behalf "of Israel" in America is something like saving Jews during the holocaust. They hear recruiting pitches from Israeli universities.
And they find in Jerusalem, "united and never to be divided," their "second home"--the heart of a "Jewish state" whose identity seems vaguely like a big congregation, or a Jewish convention to which they are super-delegates. (No real 1967 borders in Jerusalem, thank God, ha-ha.) Oh, and most of them are still, literally, sophomoric; many are hooking up and "strengthening affiliation to Judaism" in the nicest possible way. And I have heard from people who work, or have worked, with Birthright (Jerusalem is a small town) that Adelson's money has come with ideological pressure, especially (surprise!) about Jewish rights to Jerusalem.
Look, "apacmember" (which "pac," pray tell?), I was an 18 year old volunteer in 1967, and got the full treatment; my first great triumph, when I got back to Canada, was to keep Uri Avnery from speaking at the University of Toronto. You can't con a con. Everybody, even Israel's worst rightists, tell you they want a "peaceful two-state" solution. The question is what we mean by this, what the Jewish state would look like, and what we are prepared to do about it. Birthright excites impressionable kids to the sanctimonious inertia Ehud Olmert is finally trying to undo (as in the current New York Review).
November 21, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apacmember, I think you're miscontruing what Mr. Avishai wrote: he didn't say Birthright Israel takes a position against a two state solution, or is pro-settlements. Rather, it's the relation of the "birthright" concept to liberal democratic ideals. If birthright is given to one relio-ethnicity living in a state that others living in the state don't have, this is problematic.
An ideology of birthright allows Jews living anywhere in the world to arrive in Israel and become a citizen instantly, while an Arab citizen of Israel, born and raised in Israel, cannot marry a Palestinian from the West Bank and live with their spouse in Israel. They have to leave. An Arab living in Jerusalem has to constantly prove his residency; otherwise his very right to live in their home will be taken away. These examples show two different laws for two different religious/ethnic groups -- a concept completely anathema to enlightenment/liberal principles -- justified by "birthright."
The issue goes beyond two-states or settlements -- it has to do with tensions between liberal democratic priniciples and the Jewish state. When Arab citizens have argued for Israel to not only be a state for Jews but explicitly a state of its citizens, they are roundly excoriated in Israel.
I was very impressed to see these tensions addressed openly and honestly in the recent Other Israel Film Festival, staged earlier this month in New York at the Jewish Community Center. "Just Married," a great documentary by Ayelet Bechar, showed the impact of the recent non-Jewish couples law passed by the Knesset. This is the festival's website:
http://www.otherisrael.org/
November 21, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, Mr. Avishai, I, too, found that speech incredibly moving and almost reason alone to elect Obama as president. Can anyone remember a presidential candidate ever giving such a nuanced, mature, and uplifting speech on one of the toughest topics in American politics?
Second, I really appreciate your presence on this site. I keep hoping Josh will invite an Arab/Muslim commentator to the site.
Third, and here I should probably just read your book, but I find that I'm beset by any number of questions that just won't go away, even when I find temporary answers to them.
Will it be possible for Israel to create a liberal/enlightened nation and STILL be a homeland for the Jewish people?
I'm not talking simply about whether we can achieve a two-state solution, but whether the CONCEPT of a "Jewish state" is somehow antithetical to liberal/enlightenment principles. And, if I answer "no" to the question, how can I support a "Palestinian" state which, presumably would be "for" the Palestinian people?
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that apart from the United States and Canada and maybe Australia, most countries are the homes of specific ethnic groups. Even France, the birthplace of the Enlightenment, is having a terrible time integrating non-ethnic French as equal members of their society. In fact, we see that all over Europe, as once "liberal" countries, revolt against the influx of Muslim and non-European populations.
Or does this come down to a simple matter of size: If your group is big enough to form a natural majority, you get to have a country of your own where, hopefully, you'll treat any minorities you might have with respect, etc., etc? And is that the problem for Jews? We are the eternal minority--never large enough to form a natural majority anywhere we go, except maybe Brooklyn.
Or maybe much of the difficulty comes down to the fact that no one has ever tried to "reconstitute" a country once it's been destroyed and its people scattered. Maybe this is the problem and the reason why, on the one hand, one revolts against Jewish exceptionalism, but, on the other hand, Israel always ends up being a category of one. Israel was supposed to "take care" of "the Jewish question," but it seems that it's only transformed it into something else.
I confess to some frustration when hear people talk about the need to turn Israel into a liberal democracy. Of course, I want that...deeply. But these same people seem eager to accept and work with and even respect all of the non-liberal undemocratic regimes in the world, whose members are too numerous and well known to list here. In fact, respecting indigenous peoples is one of the hallmarks of being a liberal, even when many of these peoples, if not most, are not liberal in the slightest.
I wonder if this all comes down to the fact that US gives Israel so much money every year. If we weren't giving the Israelis so much money, maybe folks would say, "What the heck. That's the way it is over in that part of the world." Just like they do with Saudi...or Pakistan...or Iran...or China...or Venezuela..or Russia...and argue that we can't impose our way of life on them...have to deal with them as they are... must praise them for the few good things they do.
Or finally, perhaps we're simply witnessing a natural pendulum swing. Once, Israel was seen as pure and could do no wrong. And now all her warts are coming to the surface and some are inclined to say she can do no right.
Anyway, I know I've rambled. If you care to comment on any of this, I'd appreciate it.
Just a little bit about me. I am Jewish, but my Jewish consciousness was raised somewhat late in life (in college), but from a semi-religious, but non-Zionist perspective. I "support" Israel, but in a somewhat passive way. So it's not as though I was raised on Habonim. Nevertheless, I do feel somewhat "protective" toward the state; I do see her historical significance. I don't know that I would have been a Zionist in the early days; probably a Bundist, if anything, or an average assimilated Jew trying to make my way the best I could. Temperamentally, I'm not ideological.
November 21, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tintin says:
As one who fought in Europe during WWII, who saw what happened over there, and who helped liberate a concentration camp, I came away from that experience with that same "protective" attitude toward Jews and Israel. But I do get disappointed when I read about the Palestinians being mistreated by some Israelis.
Maybe my experiences instilled in me a protective attitude to 'all' who are subjugated.
Its a tragic situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians and its been going on for too
long. My hope is that soon they will find a way to live together in peace and prosperity.
November 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink