J Street And The Jewish Tradition
The Jerusalem chapter of Search for Common Ground, along with the Washington Post's "On Faith" section, asked me to contribute 800 words on how Jewish values animated participants in J Street's October conference in Washington. So--not without hubris--I did:
During the first night of the J Street conference, when delegates were just getting settled, a half dozen speakers -- activists, rabbis and students -- unexpectedly poured their hearts out. The 1,500 people in the hall, the speakers insisted, were not only gathered to represent the majority of American Jews who think U.S. policy should put its weight behind bringing about a two state solution. We were gathered also to redeem "Jewish values." You heard a good deal of the phrase "Tikkun Olam," the repair of the world, that night. And I confess to cringing at times. Was social improvement a peculiarly Jewish desire? Could Tikkun Olam, a kabalistic concept turned into a leftist cliché, cancel out the fact that the Occupation is advanced by zealots of Jewish law, or that rightist, neoconservative ideas are particularly strong (so polls show) among the quarter of American Jews who attend synagogue at least once a month?
And yet something in the claim of these J Street speakers seems vaguely true. After all, 78 percent of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. Why, as the neoconservative Commentary Magazine complained in 1969, do Jews not just vote Republican and advance their class "interests?" Wasn't McCain a more avid "supporter of Israel?" Sure people who have been pushed around as much as Jews might be expected to be for the underdog, including Palestinians under occupation. But suffering, though ingrained in Jewish literature, is not uniquely Jewish either; nor does it necessarily make you peaceful or empathic. Are we to believe then that this desire for social improvement springs from Jewish tradition and if so, can it be redeemed by, of all things, J Street's American liberalism?
Actually, this begs the question, not of who is a Jew, but what is a tradition.
Take the most solemn and widely observed Jewish practice, the Yom Kippur liturgy. Jews read the portion from Leviticus in which a stringent atonement fast is commanded. Right after, we read a portion from Isaiah in which people who afflict themselves with starvation are mocked: "No, this is the fast I desire: to ... untie the cords of the yoke," and so forth. In the afternoon, we chant the book of Jonah, in which God uses a parable to teach compassion to his own pro
phet,
a man who -- much like neoconservatives -- says he would rather die
than accept a world in which sinful people are not identified and
punished.
So what is the tradition? The law commanded by Torah? Or is it the prophet's gloss on the law? Or another prophet's sublime lesson in humility? (or the Talmud's commentaries on the limits to humility?) The point is: the texts are not monolithic and mere humans have made choices about what commandments to perform, in what spirit; what interpretations to bring, and what texts or melodies to juxtapose. Before "modernity," rival rabbinic councils were the ones to choose; their implicit foil was the dogmatic uniformity of the Church. But at least since Napoleon marched the enlightenment into Poland, there was a new question: who gets to make the choices for Jewish "citizens" of a republic? This is where the liberal impulses circulating at J Street come in.
The phrase "Jewish values," you see, makes sense only to people who assume a world of (what we used to call) "free will." You have to believe that, generally, people have intellectual personality, individual sovereignty, and moral erudition -- that more sacred than the Book is the right to interpret books. Incidentally, this enlightenment insight not only marked Jews for successful acculturation into America, but arguably launched Zionism, too. If every Jew was going to be his own rabbi, then Jewish civilization had best be held together by a common language and territory.
So if Jews can be said to have stood for anything traditionally, was it not this allergy to dogma -- this breaking of idols? Did we not see democratic rights as, well, commanded? And, tragically, have not the land of Israel and Jewish military power themselves become idols for American Jews since 1967 -- or at least for leaders who spoke for the "community," while liberals remained aloof from its parochialism? Anyway, J Street says, "No more." Occupation and settlements justified by isolated passages of scripture debases the way Jews justify anything. Jews are not, or not only, an interest group. It is now Palestinians who have a "yoke" to "untie."
In his 1934 preface to the Hebrew translation of Totem and Taboo, Freud asked: when you eliminate Hebrew, the "religion of one's fathers," and "nationalist ideals," what "is left that is Jewish?" He answered: "A very great deal, and probably its very essence." Perhaps.
Tragically, for Israel and for Diaspora communities worldwide,'Jewish Military Power'has become the primary goal - the ultimate achievement of a formerly downtrodden people - in the eyes of the pro-Israel, American Lobby.
Ignoring the unalterable Commandment: 'THOU SHALL NOT KILL', multiple exceptions are made by important personages who strut their hour upon the stage. And gullible cohorts, obediently follow, crying 'self defense' when they really mean self-interest.
November 24, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bernard: This is an excellent post. I can only choose to hope that the Jewish community recovers its connection to its spiritual roots, the true secret of its remarkable survival and influence. Nationalism and militarism, in contempt of social justice and a living connection to spiritual reality, have historically been a disaster for Jews. The prophet Jeremiah is the classic text on this point. In my judgment, the current reality of the Jewish state and its unthinking supporters in America is terrifying in its implications.
November 24, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Permit me to add my "second" to jackhoffmangr's comment from above. An excellent post indeed.
Perhaps, I should add a "snark alert" to preface this post. However, I will leave it up each reader to determine this for himself or herself?
As a Native American/Chicano, my late father was Yaqui and my mother, now 92 years of age and still kicking butt or at least mine, is an Apache. And this combination, adds to my luster for being somewhat of a contrarian in my worldly view. To wit, I posit two items for your consideration.
First, is the notional that when I ask white America as to when I can have my "discovered" America returned to me with all its pristine condition, including clean water, clean air and clear dirt, invariably, the response is, "Kiss my ass and go to hell!" is the anticipated response. And in concert, the "rez" is another affirmation of this mindset.
Secondly, is the notional that when I ask white America as to when I can have to "royalty payment" delivered to me from Corporate America, "dead air" is the anticipated response. And to add to this economic dilemma, when I visit a local Taco Bell, and see that my food products from this Indigeneous America, such as the tomato, the onion, and the chocolate among the many that are utilized to 'turn a profit' my entitlement remains unfulfilled, as of yet. Thus, I invariably leave a "propina" or a tip, and then, I find that management has absconded with the tip jar, and the minimum-wage employees see nothing of this small-minded benefit delivered to them on my part. Aren't I nice guy?
Consequently, when I think of the difference between Faith and Institutionalized Religion, I am drawn to the analogy of "recycling". As such, the Euro-Centric person sees recycling as collecting the aluminum cans for redemption. In the Dineh Society or the Navajo, and which is a matriarchal society, sees 'recycling' as a Rebirth similiar to the European or historical equivalent for transmutation and reincarnation.
Moreover, my 50,000 years of history is not viewed as either a 'feature' or a 'bug' but as the Advancement of Progress and espoused as the Construct that comes to me from the Orginals or the Gente Fina.
And how does my contrarian view square with the Near East? I leave this to your astute analysis. And if you "get it!" then, we are on the same page.
Jaango
November 24, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
And they are some of the most vocal groups concerning racism and discrimination. Well I guess it takes one to know one. Or if you spot it...you got it.
C
November 24, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a crock, Avishai.
It's true that religious zionists have made a religious connection with the land but that's hardly what motives all those who want to keep the territories and expel the Arabs.
To understand that you have to look closely at the Arabs and their motivation, something you liberal jackoffs - with your visceral identification with underdogs and losers - can never do in a clear-headed way.
November 24, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with J street asserting its own viewpoint, but I will object to Jeremy whateverhislastname is, and Avishai, and the collected folksingers or whoever pin their mishagos on my me. I gladly voted for Barack Obama. (With John and Sarah the opposition there was a choice?) But I, and I am certain, many of my fellow 78 percent did not vote for someone to destroy Israel. And if Jeremy Whateverhisnameis and Mr. Avishai or the other 1498 Jews and Arabs who attended the convention thinks there is such a mandate, they would be wrong.
I would like to see peace, and I would like to see negotiations leading to peace. But I know that anyone who insists that Israel capitulate before negotiation begins has no interest in negotiations and I would wonder about any interest in Israel. And all the screaming about the terrible natanyahu or terrible AIPAC or whatever does nothing to advance negotiations.
November 25, 2009 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
bbayer- no one is destroying Israel except the selected leader ,BiBi and his appointed ... The arrogance of the leadership is horrid and the World sees the atrocities that are perpetrated in the name of the citizens of Israel.
I have watched J Street since inception, they are measured and thoughtful. Humanitarian and looking at solutions not pushing a win at all costs agenda...This is good for all concerned. AIPAC has had a strangle hold on the opinions and our US congress too long!
November 25, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyway, J Street says, "No more." Occupation and settlements justified by isolated passages of scripture debases the way Jews justify anything."
I recommended this post because it was beautifully written and I think that Bernie is a credit to the Cafe's stable of bloggers. But I do have one quibbl. As one of those American Jews Bernie likes to poke fun at now and then, one who goes to synagogue more frequently than on a monthly basis (but who stands behind J Street's platform), I never once in the last 20 years or more heard anyone from the pulpit attempt to justify the occupation or the settlements on the basis of "isolated passages of scripture." That's certainly not to say that it isn't done, and perhaps it is more likely to be done in orthodox congregations, and that is not to say that Jews who attend services are not more likely to condone the occupation or settlements--although they do so probably on the basis of perceived and perhaps misguided security concerns--but to suggest that observant Jews are fed a mishigash of biblical-based justifications for the worst of what is the occupation and the settlements is not accurate from my ordinary course and first-hand experience.
Tangentially but not off topic, I think J Street's ultimate success will depend upon recognition and respect for the type of nuance I highlight here.
November 25, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "J Street And The Jewish Tradition"
SEE: "Foxman blasts J Street on Palin, questions its ‘pro-Israel’ slogan", By Eric Fingerhut, 11/19/09
(excerpts)...The head of the Anti-Defamation League says J Street's attack on Sarah Palin's defense of Israeli settlements was "over the line" and questioned whether the group should be calling itself "pro-Israel."..."They're attacking a celebrity for supporting Israel, but not in the way they want her to support Israel," he said referring to the former governor of Alaska...
...Foxman acknowledged Palin's remarks -- in which she said Jewish settlements "should be allowed to be expanded upon" because "more and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead" -- were a "simplistic effort to be supportive of the Israeli government," but also "clear and well-intentioned" and "didn't put any lives at stake."...
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/11/19/1009314/foxman-blasts-j-street-on-palin-questions-its-pro-israel-slogan
November 25, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I confess to cringing at times.
Me too. When I read articles like this, I keep wanting to say: "Oh please, get over yourselves already."
November 26, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not Jewish, and cannot comment knowledgeably about the subtleties of spiritual tradition. It nonetheless comes as no surprise that, as generally interpreted today, such traditions (whatever their odd complexities) are at least not radically at odds with common sense or basic human rights, and thus logically invoked to condemn rather than condone the immoral oppression of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. This does not mean that J Street should focus on such traditions.
November 27, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink