Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

No, I haven’t had the honor of Marty Peretz attacking this blog yet. But he has gone after J Street, Ezra Klein and the misuse (to his feeble Jewish mind) of the term tikun olam. I knew the attacks on J Street would come fast and furious, so I’m not surprised that Peretz has jumped into the fray. I am a bit taken aback that he has widened the attack with a vicious and ignorant assault on both Ezra Klein–for invoking Heschel in his support for J Street–and that long-standing Jewish phrase. Thanks to Gershom Gorenberg, who has weighed in on the debate himself, for bringing the interesting story to my attention:

If you suspect you see a charlatan in a Jew wait for him to utter the words, “tikun olam.” “Repair of the world.” Big idea, revolutionary, utopian, progressive. In the mishna torah where the phrase first appears it really means tweaking, at best, adjustment. Imagine how many silly sermons and speeches have been given with this deliberately falsified phrase as their text.

First, you’ll notice that Reb Marty has somehow secured smicha and is opining on Jewish mysteries about whose meaning he has no special interpretive aptitude. Tikun does not mean “tweaking” or “adjustment.” It means mending or repairing. And as Gershom Gorenberg, a Jew well-versed in traditional texts, points out the term doesn’t appear first in the “mishnah torah,” but rather in the Mishnah. That little mistake makes Marty off by only 1,000 years give or take a decade or two since the Mishnah Torah was written by Rambam a thousand years after the Mishnah was compiled. Marty–before you try commenting on Jewish tradition you might want to take a few adult education Talmud courses with your local rav. I’d also urge him to read Rabbi Elliot Dorff’s seminal work on this issue of tikun olam.

I’ve always thought Marty was an intellectually coarse individual. But in the following passage he shows that he is just plain coarse. In fact, this is language I’d expect to find at Masada2000 and not in the pages of The New Republic:

Heschel marched with Dr. King…But, believe me, he had his standards, and he wouldn’t have marched with the two-bit Jewish leaders [those uttering the phrase tikun olam] who are still excited to utter Arafat’s name. (In 1993, they were so were so excited to see him at the White House that they almost pissed in their pants…and in their panties.)

I don’t know many Jewish leaders, two-bit or otherwise who “are still excited to utter Arafat’s name.” I suspect this is a bit of Marty’s typically overblown and nonsensical politically incendiary rhetoric. I do know many people, Jews, non-Jews, a president, cabinet secretaries and members of Congress who were quite excited to see Yitzhak Rabin and Yaser Arafat shake hands at the White House. Maybe those are the people he’s referring to who were pissing in their pants and panties??

All of us who write blogs sometimes write infelicitous, awkward phrases which we edit when we notice them. Marty has done this in spades but hasn’t noticed what a mess he’s made of the English language here:

It isn’t as if Heschel hadn’t written of the Israel that is a Jewish sovereign state and which sovereignty, it is my guess, that truly troubles Klein…

If you try you can sort of follow Marty’s meandering mind, but he sure makes it hard.

With the remainder of the above quoted passage, Peretz in his typically pugilistic way accuses J Street board members Ezra Klein, Matt Ygleisias and others of being anti-Zionists. Can anyone take this idiot seriously:

…and Matthew Yglesias and many of the other cold Jews or almost Jews or non-Jews who cannot stomach Zionism because it is of this world.

J Street is actually a group that is pro-Israel. Says so all over its website. But Marty doesn’t let that stop him. He uses the anti-Zionism trope as a sword to slay a dragon that isn’t even there. Typical.

I also take strong exception to Peretz’s distortion of Heschel’s notion of the impermissibility of neutrality in the face of moral evil. The former, in this quotation, seems to believe that Heschel would be as coarsely pro-Israel in the current iteration of the conflict as Peretz himself:

Having wrestled Heschel’s idea of neutrality out of context, Klein wants his Jews and others not to be neutral towards Israel. Klein wants them to feel anger towards Israel, while Heschel wanted them to love the land as the people, the miracle as the commonplace…

Of course Heschel would take sides in the conflict. He would take Israel’s side…and the Palestinian’s side. He would be critical not of Israel, but of Israeli policy. He would advocate for peace, for tolerance; against bloodshed, against hatred. Any Jewish simpleton with the faintest idea of Heschel would know this. But not the morally blind and obtuse like Peretz. For him, Heschel would be roaring like Jabotinsky for Jewish victory in its war against the Palestinian people.

If we need any further proof of where A.J. Heschel would stand on this issue we have only to look to his daughter, Susannah Heschel, his familial and spiritual heir. Her commitment to Jewish social justice and Israeli-Palestinian peace speaks volumes about where her father would come down on the issue.

Marty–go hang your head in shame. You’re the one who’s the “charlatan.” You don’t know Jewish tradition. You don’t know your Heschel. What do you know?

Returning to the phrase tikun olam, Gershom correctly notes that the phrase in the Zohar and Kabbalah connotes the Jew’s yearning to perfect the world and bring messianic redemption by performing mitzvot. There has always been an element of social justice involved in the performance of certain mitzvot. Indeed, the social justice imperative is at the heart of Judaism going all the way back to our Prophets and farther.

Contemporary Jews have adapted this ancient phrase for today and used it as shorthand to denote the Jewish commitment to perfecting the world through acts of justice and lovingkindness. For right-wing Jews like Marty who are deeply offended by such perversion (in their eyes) of an ancient tradition–all I can say is that even God is not on their side. In the Talmud, there is a debate between a rabbi and his colleagues about a particular point of halacha. The rabbi says God is on my side and summons a bat kol (”heavenly voice”) to confirm this. His fellow rabbis are not impressed. The law sides with them. Even God, who should know what his original intention was regarding halacha, is bested when the rabbis innovate.

Innovation is allowed in Jewish tradition. Consider Rabbenu Tam, prozbul and scores of other innovative halachic concepts which rabbis devised to deal with new social and economic conditions. At the time doubtless there were rabbinic figures who objected to what they saw perhaps as creating legal fictions. But in time, the new interpretations were accepted, even embraced. Jewish law is not immutable as Antonin Scalia would have you believe the U.S. constitution is. It is an ever-changing set of concepts always firmly rooted in the text but never frozen in time.

Tikun Olam is a phrase we can be proud of and our use of it is fully within our tradition’s legacy of both change and continuity.

tags ezra-klein, gershom-gorenberg, halacha, j street, martin-peretz, the-new-republic, theological innovation, tikun-olam

Gershom Gorenberg has to be one of the best journalists writing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He’s just published a new piece in American Prospect which describes how Ehud Barak’s vendetta against those who blame him for the failure of Camp David still resonates today in the U.S. presidential election. Gorenberg begins with the most recent smear of Rob Malley. The former finds its origin in an article Malley and Hussein Agha wrote in the NY Review of Books which eviscerated the Barak generated narrative that Arafat was at fault for the failure of Camp David. Enraged, Barak responded with an interview with right-wing Israeli historian Benny Morris, which attempted to turn the tables on his critics.

The interview contains this memorable piece of racism which makes you wonder why Barak ever bothered to go to Camp David in the first place (quoting from Gorenberg):

The Palestinians “are products of a culture in which to tell a lie … creates no dissonance. They don’t suffer from the problem of telling lies that exists in Judeo-Christian culture,” he told Morris. To explain why he had not succeeded, he argued that success was impossible…

The journalist follows this passage with an apt and even charitable observation:

Going to Camp David, Barak was brave in seeking an agreement but was also tragically unsuited by temperament to achieve what he wanted.

All of this, of course raises alarm bells in the current political context in which Barak appears only too eager to smother any ray of daylight that emerges on the peace front by rattling sabers and even worse (the Bethlehem executions bear his signature). He figures that by destroying Olmert’s chances at attaining peace he will then clear a path to become prime minister himself. In which case he will, no doubt fail in his own bid for peace at least as abjectly as he did last time.

Gorenberg closes with a ringing defense of Malley and of Barack Obama’s chances of succeeding where Bill Clinton failed:

The most common versions of the Israeli and Palestinian narrative share this: Each side perceives the other as wanting to push it out of the land through both aggression and artifice. Those stories helped foil the talks at Camp David. They also shape the post mortems. The story told by Barak, erstwhile peacemaker, reinforces the old story of conflict. Malley’s account — a careful, scholarly telling by a diplomat committed to Israel’s future — is met with ferocious emotion by those who misperceive it as an assault on Israel’s very existence. The reaction becomes another obstacle to understanding of the past and to future compromise.

There’s two implications here: Precisely because he is committed to Israel’s well-being, Barack Obama will do well to listen to Robert Malley’s analysis of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy. But if he has the opportunity, beginning next January, to renew diplomatic efforts, he will need to do more than reconcile conflicting interests. He will have to look for ways to reconcile the conflicting stories. The right choice of words will be critical. It’s said that Obama has some skill in that realm.

Amid the insanity that is the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict would that such sane voices on both sides were the ones that prevailed.

tags american-prospect, ehud barak failure at camp david, gershom-gorenberg, The Strange Case of Robert Malley

Word is beginning to leak out about the imminent launch of J Street, the new liberal Israel lobby being founded by Jeremy Ben Ami and Daniel Levy. I reported on Gershom Gorenberg’s essay in Prospect Magazine yesterday. Today brings James Besser’s story in Jewish Week which provides a few more details:

…The new project kicks off with a hush-hush fundraiser next Monday hosted by former Clinton administration official Jeremy Ben Ami and Daniel Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative of the Century Foundation. The group will be publicly launched around the middle of April; organizers said they will not speak publicly about the group until then.

“For too long, the loudest American voices in political and policy debates have been those on the far right — often Republican neoconservatives or extreme Christian Zionists,” according to the invitation. “J Street aims to change that. We are the first and only lobby and PAC (political action committee) dedicated to ensuring Israel’s security, changing the direction of American policy in the Middle East and opening up American political debate about Israel and the Middle East.”

While sources say the structure and initial goals of the new group are still in flux, it is expected to raise money for congressional candidates who advocate a stronger U.S. leadership role in ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and multilateral solutions to the region’s problems.

The group will be headed by Ben-Ami, who served as deputy domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration and later as a media consultant. Ben-Ami has worked with several Jewish peace groups, including the Center for Middle East Peace and the Geneva Initiative-North America.

Unlike similar attempts in the past the board of directors of J Street seems to have the Jewish “gravitas” and fundraising clout to make it a success. It includes leaders of the three main liberal Jewish peace groups (APN, Brit Tzedek and IPF), major Democratic fundraisers, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, and perhaps most importantly, Mort Halperin, George Soros’ major domo. I’m hoping that Halperin’s participation implies at least Soros’ tacit support for the group.

Keep your eyes peeled for attacks from the Jewish right which will come as sure as the spring rains in the Pacific Northwest.

tags aipac, daniel levy, george-soros, gershom-gorenberg, j street, james besser, jeremy-ben-ami, jewish-week, liberal israel lobby, morton-halperin

AIPAC is not a real pro-Israel lobby. It is a pro-Likud lobby. As Gershom Gorenberg points out in his fine essay in Prospect Magazine, A Liberal Israel Lobby, AIPAC’s positions are regularly at variance with the Israeli government. If you’re a true pro-Israel lobby that wouldn’t be the case.

Gershom makes a cogent case that we need such a true pro-Israel lobby. One that doesn’t look only to maintain Israel’s military power so it can continue the Occupation and subjugation of several million Palestinians. One that takes a long view of Israel’s interests and lobbies for peace between the two peoples; a peace that is stable and unshakable.

There are rumblings that such a lobby, which has been bruited about for over a year, is about to come to pass. I know more than I’m allowed to say here (for once I’m in on a secret), but since Gershom, who has his Jewish journalist ear to the ground, has all but announced the imminent formation of the group I can go at least that far. Nathan Guttman reported some time ago in The Forward that the name ‘J Street’ is one being used among the supporters of the project. I’m hoping that shortly more concrete information will be announced by the founders.

One thing that should (but probably won’t) reassure AIPAC. The new group will spend much more time raising funds for political candidates than it will lobbying for policy. As such, it will be doing things that AIPAC itself cannot even directly do (though AIPAC’s donors do this themselves and with a vengeance). But certainly a goal will be to provide a countervailing weight to AIPAC on policy issues so that politicians, hitherto petrified to cross the group, might realize that their political funding sources will not dry up if they take a position counter to AIPAC.

I’ve followed the ups and downs of this project. I’ve despaired when George Soros announced he wasn’t on board. I’ve fretted when I worried that David Saperstein would sap the heart out of it by temporizing its agenda. And now, I’ve finally got something to cheer about as the new new Jewish thing is about to arrive. This baby is long overdue. Long may it thrive.

tags george-soros, gershom-gorenberg, j street, liberal israel lobby, prospect magazine

Commenting at Gershom Gorenberg’s South Jerusalem blog, Ruth Abrams reveals that JTA has issued a correction to its subscribers saying that Leslie Susser’s report that Israeli police sources claimed 20% of East Jerusalem Palestinians were implicated in terrorism was wrong. I’d reported the error to Ami Eden of JTA. Given our rocky history, Ami didn’t see fit to communicate directly to me the correction. Probably doesn’t want to admit to me that this happened.

Of course, the damage has been done and few if any Jewish papers carrying the original report will note the serious error. That will mean that countless America Jews will carry in their minds the idea that 45,000 East Jerusalem Arabs are terrorists.

If only JTA’s Israel-related stories adhered to standards of other good Jewish journalism like that practiced at The Forward or Jewish Week.

Gershom, being the good journalist he is, followed up on the JTA report with the interior ministry’s office and discovered that at most a few hundred East Jerusalem residents are implicated in even the remotest way with terrorism.  That’s a far sight better than 45,000!

tags false claim 20 percent east jerusalem arabs involved in, gershom-gorenberg, jta, south-jerusalem

I'm an inveterate blog booster and proselytizer. Whenver I read something I admire about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or any other subject that interests me a great deal, I always encourage the author to start blogging if they don't already. My thinking is the more good blogs there are, the more readers will be drawn to our work, and the more seriously blogs in general and our blogs in particular will be taken. Though this is a subject for a longer conversation, I believe that blogs are generally (with a few exceptions) disrespected by the media and even by online resources like Wikipedia, which frowns upon blogs as legitimate sources. I urged ...

Gershom Gorenberg, one of Israel's foremost scholars of the Israeli settler movement, spoke to a Seattle gathering of the Israeli Policy Forum today at a Mercer Island reception. Gorenberg is an editor and one of the founders of the Jerusalem Report, a centrist Anglo-Israeli magazine. He publishes widely in the U.S. media and recently had a column in the NY Times. He also has a new book, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements 1967-1977. Gershom Gorenberg He began with a humorous ...

Gershom Gorenberg, in today’s NY Times has just revealed a secret memo written by the Foreign Ministry’s chief legal counsel, Theodore Meron, shortly after Israel’s victory in the ‘67 War. In it, he argued that Israeli settlement in the Occupied Territory would be a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention: Theodore Meron, argued against Israeli settlements in 1967 secret memo (photo: Coe.int) In early September 1967, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol was considering granting the first approval for settlements in the West Bank and Golan Heights, conquered three months earlier in the Six-Day War. An Arab summit meeting in Khartoum had rejected peacemaking. The prime minister believed that the Golan and ...