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 ‘zionism’

Rabbi Joseph Lukinsky, May His Memory Be for a Blessing

Monday, February 6th, 2012
joseph lukinsky

Rabbi Joseph Lukinsky z"l

I’ve been rummaging through the attic of my life for a media project I’m involved with.  A cousin just found a picture of my father, smiling, handsome and so full of young promise, at age 23 in 1948.  When my partner in this project asked who she could speak with about me in Israel, I naturally thought of Rabbi Joe Lukinsky.  He’d been my teacher in 1969, when I attended the Camp Ramah program in Nyack, NY.  Later, he’d been my teacher when I studied in Israel on a junior year abroad program at the Hebrew University.

With deep sadness, I discovered that Rabbi Lukinsky died of cancer in 2009 at age 78.  In Jewish tradition, when such a man dies you say: zichron tzadik livracha (“may the memory of this righteous one be for a blessing”).  Joe truly was a tzadik, a saint.  Of course, that is a huge weight to place on anyone.  But you could place it lightly on his shoulders because he was such a modest self-effacing man.  He didn’t win you over by erudition or intellectual presence or spellbinding preacherly oratory.  He won you over with a smile, with his charm, with his love of humanity.

Joe went through the 60s, the era of long-hair, psychedelia and relevance as the straightest of  straight arrows.  He sported a crew cut and always informally dressed in short sleeves, which revealed those muscular arms that could hit home runs over rooftops.  He looked like a Marine Corps drill sergeant, albeit a very gentle one.   I remember a twinkle in his eyes and a ready smile that at times turned into a hearty laugh.

I was a troubled 17-year-old from a dysfunctional family when I met him at Nyack in 1969.  Back then, the world appeared to be coming to an end.  The Vietnam war raged, campuses burned, Martin Luther King had died a few months earlier.  I was a rebellious teenager who dared Judaism to be relevant to my world.  I didn’t see how it could be.

Camp Ramah was known for its rigorous Judaic curriculum including courses on Tanach, Midrash, Jewish philosophy, and liturgy.  Until this summer, frankly, I’d found these classes to be wanting.  So when they laid out the Jewish curriculum for that summer and asked us to choose our classes, nothing inspired me.  As I recall it, Joe was the educational director.  He met with me and asked what I was choosing.  I told him nothing appealed to me.  I’m certain I was probably quite morose in the way only teenagers can be.

But Joe did something both brilliant and devious at the same time.  He threw the question of what I would study back and me and said: “If you could study about any subject, what would it be?”  I must’ve thought it was a trick question.  How could I study any subject I wanted when I was seemingly bound by the courses offered which I’d already told him didn’t appeal to me?

Two years before, the 1967 War had happened.  It had a big impact on many American Jews of the time.  It must’ve disturbed me in some profound way because I told Joe that I’d study about Israel and the impact of the Six Day War on Zionism.  He said: “Great.  Why don’t you make your own course.  I’ll work with you to develop a reading list, we’ll meet to discuss what you’re reading and you’ll write a paper at the end of the summer.”  I probably thought the idea was a bit nuts at the time.  How could I create my own course?  But by God, that’s what we did.  That’s how I first learned about Martin Buber, Judah Magnes and Brit Shalom.  That’s when I first read Arthur Hertzberg‘s The Zionist Idea.  That’s when I first became a thinking Zionist.  By that I mean the critical Zionist I am today.

You have no idea what this did to the self-esteem of a troubled young boy.  It taught me that I had ideas of value.  It taught me how to take on a big topic, research it carefully, and come up with a coherent, articulate critique into which I could put all of my intellectual self.  This was huge.

Joe knew far more about this subject than I, and he suggested that I send my final paper to Prof. Ernst Simon, one of the few surviving member of the original Brit Shalom circle.  I was a 17-year-old pisher.  What did I know?  I thought it was an odd idea for me to be sending my work to an eminent 80-year-old retired professor who’d stood at the brink of the Zionist era.  But that was the power and brilliance of Joe.  He looked at you with that magnetic smile and chuckle of his and said: “Why not?”

I remember that my paper warned of the dangers that the Occupied Territories posed to Israel.  I discussed the likelihood of Israel turning into an apartheid state.  South Africa was in the air in those days and I compared Israel to that country’s systematic discrimination against its black majority.  It was probably also a bit of chutzpah for this teenager to tell someone like Ernst Simon that Israel was like one of the world’s pariah states.  I remember that Simon actually did me the favor of replying.  As I remember it, his reply was gracious, revealing none of the sense of chutzpah that he might’ve felt for the sharpness of my ideas and expression.

In 1972, I finally got to Israel and studied in the Hebrew University’s special program for Jewish educators.  It was my first academic year in Israel.  My first experience studying in Hebrew.  It was intense, it was challenging.  Joe Lukinsky was himself on a sabbatical year from his teaching at the Jewish Theological Seminary and was one of the faculty for the Hebrew University program.  I wrote another challenging paper for him that time as well.  It was the first time I addressed the conflict between Israel and Diaspora under the terms of classical Zionism.  I suggested that the standard approach of Zionist thought, which demeaned the galut and treated it as a phenomenon that would wither away as Israel assumed its rightful and primary place in Jewish life, was absolutely wrong.

Instead of Israel being primary and Diaspora being secondary, I suggest a co-equal relationship between the two: that the Diaspora would never die as long as Jews lived.  I said that the Diaspora enriched Jewish identity as much as Israel did, and that the two should have a complementary relationship.  This was the first time I grappled with the idea of Diasporism.  In my paper, I also rejected the secularist notion that the Diaspora was primary to Jewish life, and that Israel was alien.  I think it was all pretty radical for its day.  But it was the beauty of Joe Lukinsky that he didn’t care where your ideas took you as long as you arrived at them honestly and with real intellectual rigor.

Joe Lukinsky was one of my Jewish mentors.  He encouraged me to bring out of myself things I didn’t even know I had, things I didn’t even know I was capable of.  This is a gift, a gift beyond measure.  I wouldn’t be who or what I am today without him.  Thank you, Joe.

Now a few words about his life.  As a teenager, he was a powerful baseball player who could hit the ball a mile.  He was offered a tryout with the Chicago Cubs and could’ve played minor-league ball.  But he didn’t.  When he married Betty in the 1950s they were struck by tragedy.  Those were the days before genetic testing, when Tay Sachs was a dreaded word in Jewish families.  They had at least one child who died of this fatal condition.  I can remember someone telling me of the tragedy of having a healthy, beautiful newborn baby, who withered away before their very eyes after a few years.  Two of their other children died at an early age.  As an obituary I read, said about him: he led a Job-like life full of immense tragedy.

But you never felt that from Joe.  He was all heart, all warmth, all soul.  So my partner won’t get to meet one of the truly great American rabbis.  Won’t get to interview him and hear stories of what I was like as a sullen teenager.  What a loss.  To her, to me, to us all.  May his memory be for a blessing.

Hanukah 2011: Days of Darkness

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

Hanukah menorah

Hanukah menorah

This Hanukah 2011 is characterized by days of darkness. Israel sinks further into the mire of authoritarianism. It increasingly resembles the police state Yeshaia Leibowitz warned it would become after the euphoria of the 1967 War ended.

Democracy, if not dead is on life-support. The Zionist far right, which used to be considered the marginal untethered extreme of Israeli politics, now runs the asylum. They’re keeping an enemy’s list just like Nixon did, but they have far more power to ruin people’s careers, livelihoods,and lives than Nixon did.

Hanukah in Zionist nationalist terms has always been a militant holiday for which I’ve had little use. I prefer to see it as a traditional winter festival coming in the deepest throes of cold and darkness. It serves to remind us that there is hope and light even then. That spring will return. That the tyrants of cold seasons and societies

  • will eventually fall. Think Arab Spring, which was preceded by the long winter of Arab dictators.

    I’m sorry I can’t offer you as much hope for Israel right now. Though the J14 movement did shower Israel with a sense that social justice still resonated in a nation decimated by corruption, power elites, and cries for blood and war; old habits and loyalties die a long, slow death. Israel’s leaders seem to be willing to walk the plank on behalf of their delusions. Their constituents seem willing to watch as they, and the nation does it with them.

    But Jimmy Cliff sang: “The harder they come, the harder they fall.”. The nationalist Israeli far right and their settler power base will eventually fall. It will be a hard fall. One that will be immensely painful for many Israelis. The longer this political mafia stays in power the harder the fall will be.

    But I’m a believer in the power and truth of Jewish spiritual values, and they tell me to believe in light amidst darkness. No matter how deep the darkness and how freezing the cold.

    On a separate note, fourteen members of the UN Security Council unanimously condemned Israeli obstructionism as the primary obstacle to a viable peace process. They also condemned the U.S. as Israel’s major enabler (though not specifically by name).

    This is a new development. I can’t remember a near unanimous Security Council denunciation of a fellow member. It will mean little to Israel. But Obama makes a pretense of sharing liberal values and may be at least moderately embarrassed by this.

    My prognosis for the period up until the presidential election is bleak. Obama plans no new initiative nor will he invest any serious energy in the issue. The only thing that may change that either before or after the election is a major disaster like a war, an outcome that is entirely possible. This too was the only way to get Bill Clinton off his duff (cf. Rwanda and Serbia). The difference between the two is that once he was committed, Clinton actually delivered. When Obama commits to something there’s no guarantee he can deliver. But let’s be hopeful, shall we? What is the alternative? If we try to keep his feet to the fire and things get bad enough, he may surprise us.

    Amos Schocken: Israel ‘Apartheid Regime,’ ‘Jewish Lobby Addicted’ to Settlement Ideology

    Saturday, November 26th, 2011
    amos schocken

    Haaretz publisher, Amos Schocken

    Amos Schocken published an eye-opening, remarkably candid op-ed  (and Hebrew) in Haaretz about the extent of the catastrophe that Israel currently faces, which includes a raft of repressive bills and laws threatening everything from freedom of speech to freedom of the press to academic freedom to minority Arab rights.  We’re used to the agonizing of liberal Zionists who decry the obvious but always seem to stop short of acknowledging just how bad things are, and how radical the solution needs to be.  Schocken, to his credit, faces things I’ve never heard a liberal Zionist face, and calls a spade a spade in his article.  The “Jewish lobby” and even the Supreme Court come in for their share of criticism.

    He begins with a 1993 speech by Yitzhak Rabin to the Knesset, in which he warns of the dangers of Iran seeking a nuclear weapon.  But unlike Netanyahu, who uses this possibility to spook the nation into submission to authoritarianism, in much the same way Bush-Cheney did in the aftermath of 9/11, Rabin tells Israel that we must seize on Iran’s pursuit in order to pursue peace:

    The possibility that someday Iran might have nuclear weapons must worry us, and is one of the reasons why we must exploit this window of opportunity and progress toward peace.

    What a difference a day and a prime minister make, don’t they?  Bibi the manipulator, the exploiter of national insecurity in order to bring a nationalist settler state; Rabin a wise warrior who knew the horrors of war well enough to know that peace was preferable to a nuclear arms race.  But, Schocken continues, Rabin’s way as represented by the Oslo accord was overwhelmed by the settler enterprise, one of whose acolytes assassinated him.

    Though liberal Zionists like Gershom Gorenberg and many other Haaretz columnists have decried the settler enterprise for decades, few have been willing to acknowledge the rot it has caused inside Israel.  Few have been willing to go so far as to acknowledge it is likely to destroy nation.  For the conventional liberal Zionist, Israel can be saved by degrees, by small improvements, by nibbling around the edges of injustice.  Schocken seems beyond this.

    To his credit, Schocken doesn’t flinch from seeing that mess Israel is in and calling it what it is.  Here are some memorable passages:

    According to the Gush Emunim ideology, Israel is for Jews.  Not just the Palestinians of the Territories are irrelevant, but Palestinian citizens of Israel too are subject to the same oppression and denial of their citizenship.  This is a strategy involving seizure of territory and apartheid.

    …This ideology sees in the creation of an Israeli apartheid regime something that is necessary to realizing its goals.  It has no problem with using illegal, even criminal acts because its sacred mission is seen as above the law and having no real relation to the laws of Israel.  Rather, it depends on a perverted interpretation of Judaism.

    …This ideology has achieved some of its greatest successes in the U.S…Whether this is due to the enormous numbers of Christian evangelicals, or the problematic relationship between Islam and the west, or the Jewish lobby’s addiction to Gush Emunim, the results are clear: it may no longer even be possible for a U.S. president to pursue an activist agenda against Israeli apartheid.

    Paragraphs like the last one will make Bill Daroff howl, as well they should.  Because Daroff is not Israel’s friend.  He is the settlers’ friend.  And we, like this wise newspaperman, must make a distinction.  We must tell the world, Jewish and non-Jewish, that there are Jews who have Israel’s long-term interest at heart, and those who will hasten its demise.  The “Jewish lobby” is in the latter category.  Everyone must know this.  We must not allow them to represent us or speak for us.  We must stop StandWithUs and The Israel Project (and sometimes even J Street) and their like to suck the oxygen out of the Israel debate.  We must tell them that they have no monopoly on either power or (self-) righteousness.

    Schocken proceeds to link the lawlessness of “Israeli apartheid” to an upsurge in authoritarianism:

    It cannot permit opposition or criticism.  It must eliminate the latter and frustrate any effort to restrain its actions…Any actions which are illegal must be made legal by rewriting the law or by reinterpreting existing law so that what was illegal is now redefined as legal.  Similar things happened before in other times and places [a distinct reference to Nazi Germany].

    In such a historical context, we see bills against human rights NGOs, against the press and free speech, and an anti-boycott law which seeks to prevent anyone from dealing with Israeli apartheid in the same way the world dealt with South African apartheid.

    Even the Israeli Supreme Court, the crown jewel in the apparatus of liberal Zionism comes in for harsh criticism:

    It permitted the settler enterprise and essentially served as a partner to it.

    But now, Haaretz’s publisher says, the Court has proven an impediment and must be eliminated as an obstacle to the triumph of this authoritarian regime.  Because the Court has refused to permit settlements on privately owned Palestinian land (i.e. land theft), the Court must be ‘packed’ with judges who themselves live on such land and who will recognize that there can be no such concept as privately owned Palestinian land, because this is Jewish land given to this people by divine decree.  Schocken notes the similarity in this theological approach between Gush Emunim and radical Islamists like Hamas (though I believe Hamas has shown far more flexibility in adapting its ideology than settlerism has).

    Schocken closes by raising some deeply troubling questions:

    Can there be any future for such an Israel?  Even beyond the question of whether Jewish morality and experience permits such a situation, it puts Israel into an inherently unstable, dangerous position.  It puts Israel into the predicament of living with, by, and under the sword.  Whether the sword is a third Intifada, overthrow of the Egyptian peace accord, or an Iranian nuclear weapon.  This Yitzhak Rabin understood [and Bibi does not].

    I think we have to begin to use the F-word though the Israeli publisher doesn’t: we are seeing an incipient Israeli fascism.  Perhaps not yet full-blown fascism.  But like a cancer it begins with one cell and spreads to an entire organ and eventually infects the entire organism.  I don’t know whether this illness is terminal.  But it could very well be.  Temporizing no longer works.  Only a radical transformation can.  One that stamps out setttlerism as a viable political force.  One that embraces whole-heartedly democracy over Jewish triumphalism.  Note I did not say “Judaism,” as religion will play an important role in any future role.  But it will never, if Israel is to survive, give members of one religion the right to deprive members of another of their legitimate rights as citizens.

    Call to Close Ben Gurion University Department for Alleged ‘Leftist’ Bias

    Friday, November 25th, 2011

    The assault on academic freedom on Israeli campuses continues apace with a slimy report in Yediot Achronot which brays about a review of the department of politics and government at Ben Gurion University.  The committee appointed by the Israeli Council for Higher Education recommended closing the department for its so-called “extreme leftist tendency” if it didn’t mend the errors its ways.

    The report, as portrayed in the article, seems astonishing in a number of ways (Dahlia Scheindlin has written about it here).  First, its contents seem heavily influenced by student evaluations of the program.  While student opinion should perhaps be a factor in such an evaluation, it should be a minor one at best since there are far more important factors in determining the quality of program.  But one thing the large amount of student input tells us is that the committee collaborated in ways large or small with Im Tirzu and other pro-Zionist academic advocacy groups which have been on the warpath regarding Ben Gurion in general and this program in particular.

    I’ve written here about the University president’s invitation to faculty member Neve Gordon, to quit the school after he wrote a Los Angeles Times calling supporting the BDS movement.  Shortly after this controversy, the department responded to her high-handed tactics by appointing him its chair.  Now, it appears some in the University, Im Tirtzu and the Israeli far-right are taking the battle to a new venue.

    Here are some of the real doozies in the Yediot article:

    The department is known to have no small number of researchers with extreme leftist tendencies, who have expressed controversial views.

    Among the views they featured were Neve Gordon’s supposed comments (and “radical ones” at that) during a class, that Gilad Shalit’s capture was not an act of terror, but rather a military attack.  Another faculty member, Danny Filk, organized official University meetings at which Im Tirzu claims only those from the “left camp” were permitted to address the gathering.

    Another issue that bothered the committee was the faculty’s lack of care in making clear to students what their personal political views were in the course of classroom teaching.  Apparently, it believes that students aren’t able to distinguish between a professor’s politics and the course subject matter.  Nor did the reviewers like at all the supposed emphasis faculty made on political activism, which would distract from the serious pursuit of scholarly research.  They also claim that teachers do not represent a diverse set of views in their classrooms, but rather tend to present their own views and omit those conflicting with them.

    Prof. Galia Golan, a member of the committee, disputed its findings, saying that the claim that the professors inserted their own views too prominently into the curriculum violated the fundamental value of academic freedom.

    Scheindlin, in her 972Magazine post asked how could they know what ideas or values were espoused by professors in class when all of them, except for Golan, neither spoke nor read Hebrew.  Did they have classroom presentations translated for them into their native languages so they could evaluate?

    She points out another coincidence: Education minister Gideon Saar is the chair of the Israeli Council on Higher Education and a devout supporter of Im Tirzu.  Could it be possible that the appointment of the committee was done at the behest of the minister and his friends in the far-right Israeli group?

    The current department chair, Prof. Filk, dismissed the committee’s findings as a political witch hunt and noted that it was the most popular of its kind in any Israeli university.  He also noted that the evidence offered in the report was often faulty and simply wrong.  A senior member of the faculty went event farther:

    This was an outside committee a portion of whose members have pronounced extreme right-wing views that created a reported fundamentally flawed.  Theirs is a political report whose agenda was to damage the department through exploitation of outside extremist groups [like Im Tirzu].

    Prof. Carmi defended the department from charges that it wasn’t focussed enough on the traditional elements of the political science discipline by saying that this was precisely the mission of its program: to see the academic field from non-conventional, non-traditional viewpoints. This is why the faculty includes a medical doctor and architect among its members.

    The truth is that for years now Im Tirzu and rightist Israeli academics have had it in for both the University and this department claiming it isn’t sufficiently “Zionist.”  That because it entertains views critical of Zionism or, God forbid, even anti-Zionist, that it departs from the national consensus.  Therefore a call for shutting down the program is music to their ears.  But as Galia Golan noted in her demurral, there is an even more important issue here: the critical need to support free inquiry and academic freedom.  In presenting their subjects to students and the wider world, they must do so in ways that are true to their own sense of themselves as academics and researchers.  They must not be pressured to present a certain point of view to the exclusion of others.

    Goldberg-Gorenberg Lib-Zionist Love Fest Featured in NY Times Book Review

    Sunday, November 20th, 2011

    The NY Times made the odd choice of selecting liberal Zionist hawk Jeffrey Goldberg to review Gershom Gorenberg’s new paean to lib Zionism, The Unmaking of Israel.  I’m only surprised that they didn’t assign the review to “Eytan” Bronner, that other Times paragon of lib Zionism, .  Assigning the review to Goldberg is something akin to commissioning Joe Biden to review Barack Obama’s next book.  Though Gorenberg isn’t Goldberg’s boss, they come from the same fairly narrow ideological slice of the Zionist ideological spectrum, with the only difference being that Gorenberg is slightly more critical of Israeli policy and Occupation than Goldberg.  It was to be expected that Goldberg would offer an encomium to someone who’s likely an old pal.  Israel is a very small place.  Gorenberg lives there.  Goldberg lived there for years.  Surely there are webs and networks interconnecting them in this cozy little community of pro-Israel journalists from which they emerged professionally.

    There is something slightly off kilter or incestuous about assigning the book to Goldberg, as if one hand washes the other.  We certainly may expect a fullsome blurb from Gorenberg on the cover of Goldberg’s next book or assistance getting Gorenberg’s next article placed in The Atlantic.  I note that Gorenberg’s infamous Why- is-There-No-Palestinian-Gandhi fantasy was supposed to be published by The Atlantic, which passed on it when he submitted it to them.  It was then published in the far more ideologically suitable and pro-Israel Weekly Standard.

    Of course, it would’ve been a lot more illuminating, and many more sparks would’ve flown, had they assigned the review to Stephen Walt, Tom Segev (who incisively reviewed Benny Morris’ last book for the Times) or Rashid Khalidi, someone who would’ve truly grappled both with Gorenberg’s ideas, giving credit where it was due and noting their insufficiencies when they arose.  Alas, that didn’t happen.  So we’re left with the ideological clichés that pass for analysis coming from Goldberg’s pen.

    So let’s review the review for the little white lies, distortions and intellectual dishonesty for which Goldberg is notorious, starting with this:

    Israel is not a fascist state, nor is it a theocracy nor, for that matter, is it a fascist theocracy. It is not an apartheid state, a totalitarian state or, God forbid, a Nazi state.

    There is a convenient admixture of the outrageous with the apt, which allows Goldberg to associate off-the-wall descriptors like “fascist,” “totalitarian” or “Nazi” with ones that are quite apt like “theocracy” or ‘apartheid state.”  Israel isn’t a fascist state, but it certainly is rapidly becoming an authoritarian one, as anyone reading the list of Knesset bills up for consideration knows.  Though I wouldn’t have said this till recently, Israel has become a theocracy in everything but name only.  It’s not that rabbi-ayatollahs sweep through the streets stoning immodest women to death as they did and do in Afghanistan.  No, it’s more subtle than that (though there is overt violence against such women) but no less insidious.  Even Gorenberg, an Orthdox Jew, notes the stranglehold the Haredi have over the Israeli political and social system.  No less a figure than former Mossad director Ephraim Halevy said the Haredi threat to Israeli secular democracy was more severe than that from Iran.

    Though Israel is not a fascist or totalitarian state, it is a state which honors democracy in the breach, if at all.  Turning to the phrase “apartheid,” since Israel clings insistently to the Occupation, which is a blatant and brutal violation of international law, we have to acknowledge that Israel IS an apartheid state.  If it did not rule West Bank Palestinians and indirectly Gaza as well, then we might argue that the Israeli domestic political system was merely an ethnocracy, but not outright apartheid.  However, the Occupation and the savagery with which it oppresses millions of Palestinians, turns Israel into a state with citizens enjoying full rights (Jews), truncated rights (Israeli Palestinians), and few if any rights (Palestinians in the Territories).  That is, an apartheid state.

    Goldberg’s hasbara continues:

    It [Israel] is, for its region in particular, a model of Western values, a country in possession of a robustly independent judiciary; a boisterous, appropriately unkempt press; a mature and activist civil society; and an assortment of fearless and effective human rights organizations.

    Note he says that Israel is for its region a model of Western values.  Which implies that if Israel was not in this region it wouldn’t be such a sterling example of these values.  But returning to the passage, Goldberg either doesn’t know much about what’s really happening in Israel, or he’s willfully blind to the Israeli reality.  The Israeli judiciary, far from being robust, is catatonic when it comes to national security cases.  It’s taken five years for the IDF to honor several Supreme Court rulings to move the Separation Wall.  When the same Court prohibited targeted killings of unarmed Palestinians and an IDF general carried out one, the Court did nothing to enforce its ruling, even allowing the promotion of said general to become deputy chief of staff.  If that’s robust, then my grandpa was an Olympic decathlete.

    As for the press being “boisterous, appropriately unkempt,” the terms are curiously besides the point in portraying the current Israeli media reality in which a TV station is being destroyed because it aired an exposé embarrassing to the prime minister; and that, following the same TV station’s abject on-air apology to Sheldon Adelson for airing an exposé embarrassing to him.  Hundreds of gag orders and military censorship hem in the best of Israeli investigative journalists, preventing them from doing their jobs properly.  Not to mention the silencing of an Israeli-Palestinian radio station, All for Peace, because it held such “subversive” views like embracing a two-state solution and women’s rights.

    Goldberg’s descriptions of “activist civil society” and “fearless, effective human rights organizations” also seriously distorts the Israeli reality in which the prime minister has only just now withdrawn laws which would effectively defund all Israeli NGOs receiving foreign funding (which is virtually all).  To any Israeli apologists who claim that the withdrawal of the bill is a victory for democracy, look again.  Haaretz acknowledges the only reason for the withdrawal was the outcry from foreign governments like the EU and U.S., who warned of the opprobrium Israel would suffer on the world stage for such punitive measures against the human rights community.

    This is the same Israel which summons human rights activists to Shin Bet interrogations and warns them if they continue with their activism, and the Knesset enacts new laws which the spooks expect, that what he is now doing will become criminal and that they will pursue him vigorously.  It’s the same society which routinely assaults human rights activists at places like Sheikh Jarrah, Jalud and Anatot, breaking bones, assaulting women sexually, etc.

    Make no mistake, I am a champion of the Israeli human rights community.  But I do not delude myself into believing that it will or can save Israel from itself.  At best, these NGOs are impeding Israel’s gradual decline into moral and political chaos.  They are a stopgap, but not a solution.  They can’t single-handedly prevent the inexorable descent.

    Though one should credit both Gorenberg and especially Goldberg for embracing some severe and justified criticism of Israel, neither goes far enough, especially not Goldberg.  Take this statement:

    The majority of Israelis say they support a two-state solution…But the majority is powerless in the face of the relentless settler minority.

    What does this mean?  How can a majority be “powerless” in the face of a minority?  Has that minority fed the majority a disabling drug that renders them unable to effectively oppose the bad deeds of the minority?  Has the majority lost its will through some catastrophe?  Of course, none of this is true and Goldberg is talking utter nonsense.  The Israeli majority may not have much sympathy for the settlers, but they are not willing to confront them.  The Israeli majority elects Knessets which form governments which actually support the settler movement.  So saying the majority is powerless against settlements is patently false.  The majority tacitly and even directly supports the disaster unfolding in the Territories.  We can argue and psychologize this phenomenon till the cows come home.  But we’ve got to tell it like it is.  This is not Svengali stuff.  Israelis are to blame for the mess into which the settlers have gotten them.

    As an example, take this odd locution chosen by Goldberg to describe Israeli conquest of the West Bank during the 1967 War: he calls it “a sudden acquisition of new land.”  That’s one way of putting it.  What Israel did was far from “acquisition” and such language masks the nature of the ongoing crime in the same way that Israelis mask awareness of the Albatross that the Occupation is around their collective necks.

    Gorenberg and Goldberg both target the settlements as the poison fruit that has embittered Israeli discourse.  And of course they are both right.  But they don’t go far enough.  Take this passage from the review which portrays the ways in which Israel allowed a patently illegal settlement process to become de jure legal, at least in Israeli terms:

    How did it happen that a country of laws — Israel’s Supreme Court justices are renowned around the globe — came to be so lawless in one corner of the territory it ruled?

    We can argue later about whether or even when last, Israel’s justices were “renowned” around the globe–but the notion that the lawlessness of settlements is a phenomenon of only “one corner” of Israel is again wishful thinking.  Israel is a country basically without rule of law, especially regarding national security.  There is no accountability for crimes and violations of laws and guidelines either by the police, IDF or intelligence agencies.  Take this hot off the presses from Maariv.  One of only two IDF officers facing charges for murdering civilians during Operation Cast Lead will face no criminal charges according to the military prosecutor.  Corruption is endemic.  Ethnic discrimination, even against Jews and certainly against non-Jews, is rampant.  Israel enjoys the fifth largest gap between rich and poor among OECD countries.  It is one of the most stratified nations in the world with a tiny number of oligarch-like families controlling immense portions of the national commercial and industrial infrastructure.  There is one law for the 99% and another for the 1%.  Lawlessness does not afflict only one corner of the nation.  It afflicts the entirety of it.

    Thus Occupation, though it may’ve been the root of the evil that came to bedevil Israel, is now just another symptom among many of the country’s ills.  But unlike both Gorenberg and Goldberg, I believe that Israel’s Original Sin, just as it America’s, is racism.  In Israel, that Sin began with the 1948 Nakba and continues to this day with the oppression and neglect suffered by Israel’s indigenous non-Jewish citizens.  Just as Martin Luther King argued so powerfully about American sin, tying it to racism and slavery, so Israel’s is the primal injustice of expulsion of nearly 1-million residents of the country.  This, as much as or even more than Occupation, is the “unmaking of Israel.”

    You won’t find Goldberg touching this with a ten-foot pole and likely Gorenberg would feel the same way.  Nakba is the third-rail of Israeli politics.  You simply can’t go there.  From Nakba flows an analysis of the fundamental, systemic inequities of Israeli life.  The suppression of the rights of Palestinian citizens, tolerance of the virtual abandonment of whole segments of the Israeli population to poverty, illiteracy, poor health, and crime.

    If there is one thing among many that separates my views from those of the liberal Zionist pair it is this:

     …It is Jews who created many of the problems the Jewish state faces today, and it is Jews who must fix them.

    I used to believe this, even fervently.  But I no longer believe it.  Israel is not capable of fixing the mess into which it has gotten itself.  Like Serbia-Kosovo or Rwanda or any number of horror-show situations, Israel is paralyzed.  It cannot expiate its sins or whatever one wishes to call them.  The benefits Israelis derive from Occupation are too attractive for them to give them up willingly.  There may be those who know what has to be done to resolve its conflict with the Arab states, but there aren’t enough of these citizens and they aren’t powerful enough to impose their vision on the rest of society.

    Finally, Goldberg and Gorenberg, despite the partial clarity of vision they have concerning the mess in which Israel finds itself, are little better than temporizers.  They want to ameliorate the situation rather than engage in the fundamental transformation of Israeli society that is necessary for it to become truly democratic and accepted into the mainstream of nations.  For them Israel can only be a Jewish state.  And by that I mean a state rewarding the majority ethnic group superior rights over the minority.  You call such a state an exclusivist and supremacist Jewish state.  But it is one in which some citizens, by virtue of the religion into which they were born, gain better jobs, education, health care, housing, and social treatment.  That is simply not acceptable.  It wasn’t acceptable to the authors of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, nor is it acceptable today.

    As I’ve written many times, there is nothing wrong with Israel being a state in which Jews are a majority.  There is nothing wrong with Israel being a state in which Jews practice their religion, speak their language, learn their heritage, and engage with their Diaspora brethren.  In other words, Israel must be a place in which religious traditions are respected.  But it may not be a place that rewards one religion over another.  That is where I fundamentally part company with Goldberg and Gorenberg.  And it’s why Gorenberg finds me such a dangerous opponent that he was willing to lie about my views and call me an anti-Zionist.  He doesn’t know what to do with those who support Israel, but find his vision imperfect.  To him, he’s a perfect liberal and a conscience of humanity.  Doesn’t he criticize his own nation for the sins it’s committed against Palestinians?  What more, he thinks, do they expect of me?

    We expect someone who is a serious intellectual and observer of his nation to plumb the depths of the evil that afflicts it.  Something Gorenberg hasn’t yet done.  He has gotten part way there, but not all the way.

    Occupy Wall Street Stifled Solidarity With Gaza Flotilla After Dan Sieradski Query

    Saturday, November 12th, 2011

    At first I thought this issue was much ado about very little, but the various ways in which Dan Sieradski, co-founder of Occupy Judaism, has attempted to deflate or deflect the controversy he started, and the disingenuousness of the arguments he’s used to defend his actions, have made it a very important one.  As the Gaza flotilla boats were steaming toward Palestine, someone tweeted on the @OWS Twitter feed:

    “We support and would like to express #solidarity to #FreedomWaves #Palestine #ows”.

    According to Sieradski, he then either tweeted or asked a member of the OWS General Assembly to look into the tweet.  Though he protests loudly that the subsequent deletion of the tweet was not his doing, he clearly disagreed with the tweet and believed it would be harmful to OWS, as his subsequent statements have confirmed.  Methinks he doth protest too much.

    The one thing I detest more than anything else in progressive politics is litmus tests.  The Jewish community has litmus tests coming out the yazoo.  Reference Jonathan Tobin’s smug comment at a GA panel dealing ironically with the subject of “civility in Israel discourse” in the community, that “everyone” agrees that Jewish Voice for Peace is not a legitimate part of the debate.

    What Sieradski has done to the Occupy Wall Street movement is introduce a litmus test regarding Israel-Palestine designed to pre-empt criticism of the protest by the mainstream Jewish community.  In tweet after tweet and in interviews he’s repeatedly said that the Gaza flotilla was a dangerous issue for OWS and that embracing it would leave the latter open to attack by the Jewish right.  Sieradski’s presumption is that OWS must do everything in its power to avoid criticism by the Jewish right-wing even if that means stifling political speech.  Here he speaks to Mondoweiss about the controversy:

    …The tweet was immediately picked up by the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Jewish Internet Defense Force, among others, and began making its rounds about the net.

    The ramifications I imagine begin with a mountain of press attacking OWS as being anti-Israel and pro-terrorism. Whereas beating back false charges of antisemitism was easy because the movement is not antisemitic, were the movement to embrace an explicitly pro-Palestinian agenda, it would be impossible to counter charges that the movement is anti-Israel.

    Why is support for the Gaza flotilla “pro-Palestinian,” but not “pro-Israel?”  And what does it say about Sieradski’s approach that Israeli Palestinians have joined such flotillas?  Are they anti-Israel for doing so?  And if they are, how does he justify claiming he supports equal rights for Israeli Palestinians?  Hey, if someone wants to call Occupy Wall Street “anti-Israel” for supporting the flotilla that’s a fight I’m glad to join.  Those are terms worth fighting for.

    He further argues:

    No matter how much we as individuals may reject such a framing, supporting the breaking of the Gaza blockade will surely be labeled as enabling the flow of arms into Gaza…

    Well, sure it will be “labeled” as such by Commentary and the RJC, but isn’t that a fight we should be prepared for?  Why should we be afraid of this?  If the Jewish far right wants to argue that breaking an illegal siege against the 1.5 million civilians of Gaza equals promoting terrorism, I’ll take those odds and join the fray.

    Objectively, there are scores of ways to ensure no weapons or arms enter Gaza, that could be used to promote terror against Israel.  Besides, currently WITH the siege Gaza militants get all the weapons they need to attack Israel.  How does the Gaza siege have any impact against terror?  It doesn’t.

    This statement by Sieradski really gets me hot under the collar:

    …We all know that mainstream media does not handle nuance well when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    So because it may be hard for OWS to explain to obtuse media reporters why it published a single tweet supporting the Flotilla, that means it should avoid the issue like the plague?  What is the purpose of our political activism?  Is it to take the easy, safe way to advance our goals or take the just and right way, even if it makes our lives a bit more difficult?

    He claims that Occupy Boston’s march on the Israeli consulate has “even” made it into the Israeli press.  What is wrong with that?  And even if the Israeli press is attuned only to claims of anti-Semitism within the movement and misunderstands the motives, isn’t that grounds for intensifying our own pressure and outreach on the Israeli media to get the story right?  Hell, that’s what I do every day in this blog and in my research for the posts I write.  I yell and scream whenever Israeli reporters get issues wrong.  A lot of them don’t like me for it.  But I’ve got their grudging, if not respect, then at least attention.  That’s how the OWS movement needs to approach this issue.  We’ve got to fight for our values, not calibrate how we can avoid criticism or controversy.  Sieradski has this all wrong.

    Sieradski proceeds to claim that the OWS tweet in effect forced the movement to “pick sides.”  I presume the sides he’s talking about are Israel and Palestine.  But how in God’s name does a tweet supporting Freedom Waves indicate you’ve taken a position against Israel?  I support Israel AND the Gaza flotilla.  I dare anyone to argue that doing the latter causes you reject Israel (as opposed to Israeli policy)?  You can see how Sieradski has quickly ditched his progressive values and gotten himself stuck in a thorn-bush from which it’s very hard to extricate oneself.

    If Andrew Breitbart, the Republican Jewish Coalition, Commentary and others would attempt to make hay out of this–gei gesunt.  They’re welcome.  Aren’t we big boys and girls enough to respond in kind and defend ourselves?  Sieradski even argues we should back off the issue because these extremists will “make hay” out of the fact that OWS “supports terror.”  Hey that’s what these people DO.  It doesn’t mean you back off your values because you’re going to have to get into the ring with a bunch of bullies and fight back against a little pummeling from them.  I’m willing to take my stand on an issue like this.  And a principled one it would be.  Supporting the Gaza flotilla should in no way harm OWS.  It is in no way anti-Israel or anti-Zionist.

    Sieradski has even called those supporting Freedom Waves “fringe extremists” trying to “take over an economic movement.”  This despite the fact that he claims to oppose the Gaza siege.  It makes absolutely no sense.  So either Sieradski is a liberal Zionist schizophrenic or there’s some sort of personal animus between him and those supporting the Flotilla that explains his inexplicable hostility to a tweet that seems politically kosher to me.

    Speaking of schizophrenia, try to parse the contradictions in this statement:

     I personally am very troubled by efforts to focus this movement on opposing the Israeli occupation.

    Which is not to say that I support the Israeli occupation or the violation of Palestinian rights, or that I believe Palestinians and their issues should be excluded from this movement.

    On the one hand he says he’s troubled by a tweet that focuses OWS on opposing the Israeli Occupation.  On the other hand he says Palestinians and “their issues” (aren’t their issues also Israeli issues?) shouldn’t be excluded from OWS.  I can’t think of a more disjointed, confused statement than that.

    In another passage from his Mondoweiss interview he, in a typically disjointed way, ends up supporting U.S. military aid to Israel because it provides jobs to American workers:

    U.S. military aid to Israel…supports the defense manufacturing sector, putting money in the pockets of working class Americans that, in turn, re-enters our economy.

    When he gets himself into such hot water I almost feel sorry for him.  He’s clearly in over his head when he both opposes and supports the military aid in the same sentence.  But again, if you don’t have well-thought out, consistent views on a subject, then don’t take it on as your major issue and make yourself look foolish.

    Sieradski even gets a dig in against Jewish Voice for Peace, one of the most courageous of American Jewish peace groups on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.  He sniffs at the attempt to equate the “occupy” in OWS with the Occupation:

    I fear JVP’s recent call to “Occupy the Occupiers” is just one such example of this moving in a direction that could have negative consequences for the Jewish community and its involvement in OWS.

    I’m sorry Dan, but if OWS has to tiptoe around issues because YOU say it’s bad to take a stand on them, then what good is the overall movement it represents?  I’m personally sick and tired of the Shah Shtill types who hold their finger to their lips as if you’ll wake the baby if you talk about Israel-Palestine.  We’re all grown ups here.  This isn’t going to cause an apocalypse that will wipe out the world as we know it.  It’s just an issue of elementary justice of interest to many American progressives.

    In a bid for complete disclosure, I’m not a fan of Sieradski nor he of me.  In fact, he recently weighed in support of the pro-Israel hasbarist Adam Holland, by calling me a “douchebag.”  And yes, you tend not to forget such dyspeptic comments.  So some may take my criticism as personally motivated.  But it’s not.  As I wrote above, I intended NOT to write about this until I saw the disingenuous explanations he began offering for his actions.  That’s what motivated me to speak out.

    There’s a strange thing that happens with some Jews, even those like Sieradski who call themselves “progressive.”  They’re rad when it comes to any other issue but Israel.  But the latter gives them conniptions.  What’s strange about Sieradski is that he does hold progressive views even on issues related to the Occupation and Palestinian rights.  But the make or break issue for him is Nakba and Right of Return.

    He holds the odd belief that if Israel accepts ROR it will mean the destruction of Israel. He even tweeted that it would mean “creating 7 million new [Israeli] refugees.”  I’ve got news for Dan.  You can have the “right” views on every issue, but if you don’t understand the implication of rejecting ROR for your progressive value system, then you’re headed into trouble.  Your values are at war and you have further contemplation in order to bring them into alignment.  Until then, you’re being false to yourself, to Israel and especially to Palestinians.

    Sieradski would protest that he is progressive in every way.  He supports equal rights for Israeli Palestinians in Israel.  He opposes the Occupation, the Wall, the Gaza siege.  But still there’s that remaining thorny issue of Nakba.  The Original Sin of Israel.  You can’t hope to be a truly consistent progressive when you’re AWOL on Nakba and ROR.

    What’s deeply ironic about all of this is that if Sieradski in his pro-Israel paranoia hadn’t stuck his nose into this, there would’ve been a single tweet supporting Freedom Waves and that would’ve been the end of it.  No pro-Palestinian activist would’ve attempted to hijack the movement, as Sieradski fears.  Everyone would’ve gone on their way supporting their various political causes whether they be OWS or Palestinian rights.  But as a result of his foolishness HE has made this issue the sine qua non of OWS.  HE has made it a defining moment by which Jews must choose to defend a deracinated OWS or reject it because it has rendered the Palestinians as superfluous to their really important goals.

    In truth, what Dan Sieradski is doing is intensifying friction and tension among the various political constituencies within OWS.  It’s his kind of litmus-test politics that strains such coalitions to the breaking point.  I know because I’ve participated in Jewish political groups (among them New Jewish Agenda) riven by such factionalism around the issue of Israel and Zionism.  Though he may not have intended it, Sieradski has made OWS less pliable, less flexible, less open, and less tolerant.  And that bodes ill for it in the long-term.

    Another irony characterising Sieradski’s Jewish activism is that he applied for and received a grant from the Schusterman Foundation, which wholly funds Aipac’s campus Israel advocacy program.  The Foundation also funds former Aipac stooge, Mitchell Bard’s American-Israel Cooperative Enterprise (AICE) .  It brings Israeli scholars to U.S. campuses to teach Israel Studies courses often from a decidedly pro-Israel vantage.  One of the faculty it funded was deemed so partisan in her George Washington University classroom presentations that her own students criticized her and she turned tail and left the school.

    To be clear, I’m happy for Sieradski to receive funding from the Jewish community for his projects.  But Schusterman?  Why?  Sorry, but this is hypocrisy.  It allows the Foundation to point at the Jewish media guru as its token liberal Jewish grantee, a form of Zio-washing.  Not to mention that taking money from a foundation providing huge levels of funding to Aipac should be a red-flag for any prospective grant recipient who professes progressive values.

    Contrary to what Dan Sieradski may believe, his work and his views are not so significant that they need to be held up to a mirror and parsed for meanings and contradictions.  The reason I’ve written this post is because the contradictions inherent in his Israel-Zionist world-view afflict so many American Jews and Israelis and cripple them in addressing these issues as forthrightly as they should.

    A final word: I’m not criticizing Sieradski because he’s a Zionist or because he supports Israel, because I do as well.  I’m criticizing him because his views are so contradictory that he does a deep disservice to truly progressive values on these issues.

    Israel: Nation for All Its Citizens

    Sunday, August 28th, 2011

    NOTE: This essay was first published at Israel Reconsidered.  It was a response to a post written by Larry Derfner defending Israel as a Jewish state.  Since a number of readers have recently sharply criticized my views concerning Zionism, I thought it might be helpful to republish this here.

    I do not favor a Jewish state as defined by classical Zionism, in which Jews have superior rights to other citizens of Israel.  I am in favor of a state in which Judaism and Jews have all the rights guaranteed to citizens of other religions and ethnicities.  In other words, Israel should be a state that respects the traditions and history of its Jewish citizens.  A state which is a homeland for Jews, but also a homeland for its Palestinian citizens.  It should be a state with a constitution that guarantees rights to both majority and minority groups, whether they be Jewish or Muslim.  This would most emphatically not be a state which erases its Jewish character.  However, it is a state which would equally celebrate its Muslim or Christian character and protect them respectively.

    If Israel is exclusively a Jewish state then it cannot be a democracy.  It can be an ethnocracy in which the Jewish minority has rights that trump the minority.  But this is only a partial, or truncated democracy.  Not a democracy as you or I know it.

    There are a number of states in the world that qualify as democratic and which negotiate (some more successfully than others) complicated relationships among various ethnic groups: Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Spain, the U.S.  So it can be done.  And Israel should be examining these models to secure its own future as a truly democratic state.

    But there are countries which are not democratic, which have failed miserably at resolving these problems: Rwanda, Serbia, Russia, China, Syria.  Does Israel want to end up like them?  A basket case among multi-ethnic nations in which discrimination is rampant, in which racism and the original sin of expulsion (Nakba) are in the nation’s DNA?

    In the Israel I envision, every group would have guaranteed rights so there would be no reason for Palestinian citizens to avoid military service.  Why would there be the problem that Larry Derfner foresees of Israeli Palestinians being asked to shoot and kill Arab citizens of frontline states with which Israel has hostile relations?  In fact, if Israel became the sort of state I envision it would go a long way to tempering hostility from all of these frontline states.  It would make a large contribution toward resolving the overall conflict among Israel and its neighbors.

    In fact, Jewish and Muslim citizens would have an equal stake in the nation and its welfare.  What would result from all of this is a state that was not primarily Jewish (or Muslim or Christian) but Israeli.  What Israel needs to highlight is not the religious character of the majority group, but an overall national character, one that can be embraced by Jews, Muslims and Christians.  Personally, I think Derfner is dead wrong in claiming Israeli Palestinians can never become “truly Israeli.”  In fact the very statement troubles me a great deal.  In fact, every opinion poll of Israeli Palestinian opinion shows their deep loyalty to the state and their sense of investment in it.  I think he is selling his fellow citizens short.  Way short.

    In fact, I think Derfner postulates a vague, unpersuasive, mystical sense of Arab solidarity that most Israeli Palestinians do not share.  Unfortunately, it is all too common for non-Arabs to wax eloquent about the nature of this Arab brotherhood and why it renders Israel’s non-Jewish citizens forever alien from Israeliness.  He postulates Israelis who believe more strongly in a vague sense of Arabness, than in the reality of their own Israeli nationality.  I don’t know many people who prefer the ephemeral when they’re given a chance to grasp something real that they live with every day.  Sorry Larry, I don’t buy it.

    Besides, this view that Israeli Palestinians are more loyal to their Arabness than their Israeliness closely tracks the dual loyalty canard that American Jews have suffered.  If we Jews can be loyal to our nation AND our religion, then there is no reason why Israeli Palestinians cannot do the same.

    There are a few provisions of the current Israel that will need to be amended for it to resolve the current contradictions between being a Jewish state and a democracy.  The Law of Return, granting any Jew anywhere in the world the right to instantaneously become a citizen of Israel must be changed so that Jews have a right to emigrate that is regulated as immigration is regulated by other nations.  If Israel wishes to give Jews preferential treatment in offering citizenship it should do so as long as it offers similar preference to the refugees of 1948 and their immediate offspring.

    Doing this will allow Israel to embrace the spirit of the Law of Return and the Right of Return, but in amended form.  It would force Israeli Jews and Arabs to recognize some of their rights, while partially constraining them as well for the sake of greater good of the nation.

    Anti-Semitism is a historical reality that is part of our Jewish DNA.  But it is not a reason to disenfranchise 1-million Israeli citizens and deny them equal rights.  Besides, Jewish suffering, should it occur again, can be relieved even by a modified Law of Return.  Jews who need an emergency haven should be given it.  But direct descendants of Israeli Palestinian refugees who face similar jeopardy should also receive favored treatment.

    Larry, for me it just doesn’t cut it morally or, frankly Jewishly to say that the “inconvenience” suffered by the Israeli minority from Zionism is less than the suffering of Jews from European anti-Semitism.  That’s a zero sum game.  Israel as a country needs to be measured not by how it compares to the experience of European Jewry.  It needs to be compared to how it treats all its citizens and how close it comes to realizing truly democratic values.  It can never truly do that in the system you advocate.

    Further, I want to take this discussion in a direction Larry didn’t. As a Diaspora Jew, I have thought long and hard about the proper relation between Israel and Diaspora.  In classical Zionism, Israel is all and Diaspora nothing.  The latter is little more than the source of Jews who will populate and fund the Jewish state.  In the long run, Diaspora will, like the bourgeoisie in Marxist doctrine, wither and die.  This is a notion I reject.  Israel should play a major role in world Jewish identity.  But Diaspora cannot be denied either.  Zionism does this at its peril for I believe that an Israel without Diaspora is doomed, just as a Diaspora without Israel is, if not doomed, then deeply impoverished.  Yes to Zionism (as I’ve reimagined it), but yes to Diasporism as well.

    If Israel becomes the kind of state I propose, then it will take its rightful place as an address, but not the address, in the Jewish world.  An Israel in which Jews play an important role, but a primary role, will allow world Jewry to understand that they are full partners in the Jewish experiment, and not an after thought or something to be ridiculed or denied (zilzul ha-Galut).

    Jewish Summer Camps: Nostalgia for Bygone Liberal Zionist Past

    Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

    I am a product of the Jewish summer camp movement.  I attended Camp Ramahs in New England (Palmer, MA), American Seminar (Nyack, NY) and Glen Spey, NY between 1967 and 1970.  They played a formative role in the development of my Jewish, spiritual and intellectual identity.  My teachers and counselors taught me to think, they taught me to pray, they taught me to make friends, they taught me to develop myself creatively.  To this day names like Louis Hartman, Stuart Kelman, Alan Mintz, Joseph Lukinsky, Robert Cover, Neal Kaunfer, Joseph Riemer, Jonathan Fenster, Daniel Matt, Raphael Artz and many others are etched fondly in my mind (and a few tyrants like David Mogilner and Seymour Fox, not so fondly).

    They taught me to inquire about the world.  Not just to ask probing questions, but to expose uncomfortable truths, to resist injustice wherever we found it, to questions our elders and the religious tradition.  They taught us to be brave in this pursuit and to let the chips fall where they may.  All of this left an indelible impression and created the adult I am.  It is truly an amazing legacy.

    Under Joe Lukinsky’s tutelage I rebelled against the course offerings at the Nyack Ramah and he helped me develop an independent study course in which I read some of the major tracts of Zionist thought and history, at the end of which I wrote a paper, some of whose ideas you’ll find in this blog.  Rabbi Lukinsky encouraged me to send the paper to Prof. Ernst Simon, one of the co-founders of Brit Shalom, who actually wrote me a lovely reply on receiving it!  Joe took a defiant, confused, and perhaps angry boy and turned him into a disciplined thinking Jew.  For that I am eternally grateful.  And without this Tikun Olam would not exist.

    Fortunately for me, I attended these campus during the apogee of the student anti-war movement of the late 1960s, when provocative intellectual questioning was de rigeur.  At no other time in the history of Camp Ramah would it allow a staging of Hair! (in English, no less!).  Unfortunately, that production caused such a severe backlash among parents and perhaps the Jewish Theological Seminary staff who sponsored the camp, that they stopped sending their children and it closed down for a few years after that.

    When the camp reopened it was shorn of the bold experimentation that characterized the Palmer Ramah of the past.  Instead, it became a place devoted to rigorous adherence to Conservative theological Orthodoxy and sexual decorum.

    I now have young children of my own, and naturally I think about what types of Jewish and camp experiences I’d like them to have.  In fact, my oldest son last summer attended Camp Solomon Schechter here in the Northwest.  But he surprised me this year when he said he didn’t want to go.  He wasn’t able to articulate why and I didn’t probe, so I don’t want to assume on his behalf the reasons why he declined.  But this camp, as good and earnest as it might be, is inculcating in children not just the good values we want them to have as educated American Jews, but also the impoverished consensus values of liberal Zionism so characteristic of the organized Jewish community.

    This is what Allison Benedikt railed against in her essay, Life After Zionist Summer Camp, and what Mira Sucharov crowed about in her bit of toxic nostalgia, In Defense of Zionist Summer Camp, in Haaretz.  I actually come down somewhere in between the two of them (though I’m more sympathetic to Benedikt) because unlike Benedikt, I think Camp Ramah did lay the groundwork for the bold, questioning Jew I am today.  But unlike Sucharov I don’t believe the Zionist summer camps teach diversity or probing ideas as they might’ve in the 1960s.  And if Sucharov’s essay is any indication, she’s still stuck in a time warp that prevents her from fully recognizing the dolorousness of so much of contemporary Zionist thought.

    This summer my son will attend a local Mideast Peace Camp where he will hear different messages and learn a different value system than he would at a traditional Jewish summer camp.  I will not encourage him to attend a Camp Ramah, though if he wanted to I would be willing to send him.  I do not want to put him in a situation in which his political views would be in the minority and he might be pressured or ostracized to adapt to the majority.

    I want my son to think for himself.  I want to introduce him to as many different ways of looking at the Jewish world as possible.  That’s why he attended Solomon Schechter and why he continues to attend Hebrew school.  That’s why I expect he will pursue Jewish studies courses in college.  But I will not allow my son to fall prey to the nostalgia for a liberal Zionist past that exists only in the minds of people like Sucharov and Gershom Gorenberg.  Unfortunately, there is too much rote thought and acceptance of stale consensus views in the mainstream Jewish community when it comes to Israel.  I want my children to go beyond this and see more of the world than the little window offered by today’s Camp Ramah.  I want them to know Arab-Americans and Palestinians.  Of course, I also want them to know their fellow Jews.  But their relationships must not stop there as they so often do in the Jewish summer camp movement.

    Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE