Muslim and Jewish Women in Nazareth

'We can live in peace'...John Lennon (photo: Dafna Tal)

Mahzor

Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘daphna-berman’

Sociologist, ‘Elitist’ Jewish Leadership Alienates Young Jews

Friday, May 16th, 2008

Haaretz’s Daphna Berman writes today in ‘Elitist’ Leadership Alienating U.S. Jews, Says Prominent Sociologist, about a fascinating new study by sociologist Chaim Waxman about the nature of youth affiliation (download as pdf) with the American Jewish community. Two elements of the report precisely tracked my own ideas on the subject: the alienating tendencies of American Jewish leadership and the impact of the web on Jewish affiliation and identity.

It took a while but I finally tracked down Waxman’s full paper, Jewish Identity and Identification of America’s Young Jews (pages 173-179 of above pdf download). I haven’t known of Waxman’s work till now, but I must say that considering he comes from a position deep within the communal consensus, he raises some fascinating issues worth considering here:

America[n] Jews’…engagement in civic activities…[has] weakened. Their rate of volunteering for communal causes has also declined, and they are much less likely to join Jewish organizations. Thus, the 2000/2001 National Jewish Population Survey found that there was a decline of close to 20 percent in affiliation with major American Jewish membership organizations between 1990-2000. Another indicator of the weakening bonds of community is in rates of philanthropic giving to Jewish causes. Charity and philanthropy have historically been among the primary manifestations of belonging to the community, and their rates have been declining during the past decade or two.

Some of the reasons for the decline in communal participation relate to the increasing perception that the communal leadership is elitist, parochial, self-serving, and resistant to innovation and to the active involvement of those who are not members of the “good old boys club,” the circle of wealthy, old men who are at the helms of most major Jewish organizations. At least since the 1960s, younger people in the West have been raised to “question authority” and distrust “the Establishment,” and they now they do so, sometimes adamantly.


As I mentioned above, I’ve written about this here and in my chapter of the Independent Jewish Voices book, A Time to Speak Out, which will be published this September. I would slightly broaden Waxman’s critique to include a hidebound unwillingness to confront new political and social ideas especially regarding Israel. In addition to a knee-jerk support for intransigent Israeli policies which refuse to recognize the need to finally resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict on terms that will not necessarily be completely to Israel’s liking.

After reading this blog who can doubt that Waxman’s critique applies to the current crop of gerontological male Jewish leaders like Hoenlein, Foxman, Kohr, Adelson, Harris, Rosen and their respective organizations AIPAC, AJCommittee and Congress, and ADL, etc. This also serves for Jewish journalism and reporters like Rosner’s Haaretz and JTA, especially regarding its Israel coverage.

Waxman also notes the significant impact of the web on Jewish life, identity and affiliation:

The increasing significance of cyberspace has probably played a role in contributing to the decline in communal participation, for several reasons. Cyberspace affords the opportunity for one to feel part of a community without actually being affiliated with it. One can participate virtually in a ide variety of community functions without ever coming into face to face contact with any members of the community (as members) or with any of the organizations of the community. The virtual community offers the opportunity to partake in some of the community’s offering without the cost of having to tolerate undesirable aspects of communal life, and it appears as a “win-win” alternative. On the other hand, it is quite possible that it is in the nature of cyberspace to undermine group identity, to contribute to “post-ethnicity.”

While I appreciate Waxman’s sensitivity to the question of cyberspace and its impact on Jewish life, I think his sense of affiliation with the conventional community has given him too narrow a perspective on this issue. He neglects several important considerations: a Jew may be affiliated with the community yet use the web to broaden and deepen Jewish knowledge; a Jew may be alienated from the community, yet use the web to replace communal engagement with a full and legitimate Jewish identity. Waxman assumes that a traditional sense of affiliation is a be-all and end-all of Jewish identity. He assumes that anything less will lead to an overall decline in the quality of Jewish life. I’m not so sure. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that cyberspace could ever replace traditional communal life. But it certainly will supplement it and in some cases replace it for the most alienated Jews.

In short, I do not see the web as “undermining group identity.” If you look at this from the narrow vantage point of Jewish communal infrastructure then this may be so. But I like to see Jewish life as richer than, and not restricted to a few national Jewish organizations and local synagogues. I am not saying that these don’t fulfill valuable roles for many Jews. But we have to look at the truth that a small percentage of Jew affiliate with these institutions. There must be alternative ways to create Jewish identity and Jewish groups must embrace them or be rendered irrelevant (which many currently are except to their specific members).

Though it may be self-serving to say so, I see Jewish blogs as integral to this development. Though some of us are strongly affiliated with the community, many of us see ourselves as outside the consensus. Even if we are affiliated (as I am), we see ourselves as dissidents. We see ourselves as afflicting the comfortable…that elitist, hidebound Jewish leadership. We see our role as introducing ideas into the mainstream that have otherwise been considered anathema. We’re the bomb throwers (not literally), the radicals, the outcasts.

We wait to see how flexible and adaptable our leadership will be to these new ideas. Will it resolutely turn its backs to them, joining rumps like a pack of wildebeests under attack on the African savannah? Or will it, if not welcome, then at least show a begrudging willingness to absorb the best of these ideas into the mainstream discourse?

I think the jury’s out on this. The communal leadership may be open to some new ideas. But its openness may be so constrained that it will be too late for them to have much positive impact. Jewish organizations within a generation may be rendered entirely irrelevant to an even greater proportion of Jews than currently is the case. The motto should be “adapt or die.”

If I may again be a bit self-serving, I think it’s telling that the media outlet which has shown itself most receptive to my writing is not Jewish: the Guardian’s Comment is Free. Haaretz has published a single piece as has the Forward. This despite numerous and repeated attempts to get my perspective heard. I can’t help thinking that my point of view is viewed as too threatening to the consensus. It is true that numerous publications (Jewish and general) have written ABOUT this blog and my ideas. But that appears slightly less intimidating than publishing the ideas from their source.

Scandals at Shalem Center; Pro-Israel Academic Partisanship at George Washington University

Friday, November 30th, 2007

I just plain don’t feel much like writing a full blown post today. But I’ve been reading some terrific material at other blogs and would like to point you to some important reading.

First, Muzzlewatch reports on the odd development at George Washington University of an Israeli visiting instructor quitting in a huff when her students (some Jewish) accused her of being a pro-Israel partisan instead of a dispassionate academic. It seems that the University has accepted funding for several positions (including this one) from a foundation run by notorious pro-Israel ideologue and former AIPAC staffer, Mitchell Bard.

Jerry Haber does some terrific sleuthing to discover that Hannah Diskin, the instructor in question, is not affiliated with the Hebrew University as the original Washington Jewish Week story contends. Rather, she is affiliated with the West Bank’s Ariel College, an unaccredited Israeli institution.

I would like to know who are the sugar daddies funding Bard’s academic positions. Could it be that they might be AIPAC megadonors, which would mean that AIPAC is surreptitiously (and indirectly of course) attempting to slant the teching of Israel and Zionism in the college classroom. Perhaps a view of the Foundation’s IRS 990 form might tell us something on that score (I haven’t done this yet).

Sol Salbe links to another terrific piece of investigative journalism by Daphna Berman (who broke the Other Israel Film Festival story recently) in Haaretz. She investigates a juicy scandal simmering at the Shalem Center, home of American-Jewish neocon demi-god and Wall Street Journal darling, Michael Oren. After reading this, it seems to me that Shalem is nothing more than a warmed over version of the Hudson Institute. The most riveting fact (besides the inter-office sex and director’s directives about the precise angle at which to staple reports) in this expose is the worship by the three Shalem founders of Meir Kahane during their college days at Princeton. How can such an institution command any respect with this intellectual/political pedigree?

I just read Jerry Haber’s recap of this article and he has one hilarious comment on the hot sex at Shalem:

Of course, there is the usual nepotism associated with family businesses. Yoram’s brother, David, worked there for twelve years in an executive position…until he was forced to leave because of an affair he conducted with one of his subordinates. (At the time he was working on a book on the Ten Commandments – or maybe, for him, the Nine)