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’

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.

Derfner Blog Partnership Suspended

Friday, June 10th, 2011

A few months ago Larry Derfner came to me with an idea I thought was terrific: co-authoring a blog to debate the burning issues of the nature of Israeli society, Israeli democracy and modern Zionism; and to do this from a progressive perspective.  We’d tackle the big philosophical issues that don’t get addressed often in political blogs: Zionism vs. Diasporism; Nakba, Right of Return, Law of Return, Religion vs secularism in Israel, etc.  I was proud and flattered that Larry found me to be a worthy partner for this project.

We began the blog and for the first few weeks it went well, though I think perhaps I didn’t participate on a regular enough basis for Larry.

Then Larry suggested we debate the issue of Nakba and Right of Return.  He warned me that he didn’t agree that the 1948 War was a crucial moral failing of Israel (though he did feel that about 1967).  So I wrote the first post about why I felt Nakba was Israel’s Original Sin and why the Right of Return must be resolved along the lines proposed by the Geneva Accords, with a quota of Palestinian refugees permitted to return to Israel as citizens if they refused the generous compensation package offered to settle elsewhere.

Larry replied with a post I thought rather unfortunately titled, The Right of Return is Wrong.  I felt that this title attempted to be punchy at the cost of presenting the issue in a nuanced way.  Frankly, I thought poorly of Larry’s defense of Israel’s behavior in 1948 and his total dismissal of ROR and Israeli responsibility for Nakba.  In fact, I even used the term “cheap and unworthy” to describe one of Larry’s arguments.  He didn’t like that.  Thought it was insulting, uncivil and violated our agreement to debate the issues in a civil manner.

I told him that though I knew we disagreed about issues, I had no idea his approach to Nakba was going to be so dismissive and I replied in the only way I knew how.

As I watched the comment threads I saw that most of the commenters were either right wingers I’d banned here for violating comment rules or they were Larry’s readers from the Jerusalem Post.  Some of my friends and allies here like Deir Yassin and Leonid came over.  But 80% of the comments were hostile.  And I have a rule that if someone is hostile to me in debate I’m hostile in reply.  It ain’t pretty I admit and people I respect take me to task for it.  But it’s really the only way I know how to deal with provocateurs, trolls and intemperate right wing racists.

All of which made me realize that I couldn’t achieve the tone Larry wanted for the blog.  So we’ve agreed to part company.  It was a worthy experiment.  It’s unfortunate it couldn’t last longer.  But it’s better to recognize something isn’t going to work and end it gracefully, than allow it to drag on with both parties festering in resentment because the partner isn’t living up to his end of the bargain (I don’t see Larry that way, but I imagine he saw me that way or would have had we continued).

I now realize something neither of us took into account before we began.  We thought we should allow comments for the blog.  But in hindsight I think if two people are debating an issue you don’t really need comments.  You are your own commenter in a blog like this.  It probably would’ve taken some of the pressure off me if we’d stopped allowing comments and just debated amongst the two of us.

At any rate, my involvement with Israel Reconsidered is ended.  I hope Larry continues to use it as his online outlet and blogs there and creates the sort of online community for himself that I’ve tried to create here.  I wish him well.

I liked those posts I wrote at Israel Reconsidered so much that I intend to republish them here in the coming days.

‘Israel Reconsidered’ Debate on Nakba, Right of Return

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

Larry Derfner and I began our debate about the future of Israel and Zionism at Israel Reconsidered several weeks ago.  Just this week, we really got into it over Nakba and Right of Return.  Frankly, I was surprised at how little Larry was willing to “give” on both subjects since I consider him to be one of the most forthright and progressive of Israel’s English language newspaper columnists.  I got really exercised in my reply to him, Right of Return is ‘Right’ and a Right.

This is my first substantive foray into both of these subjects where I’ve put my thoughts down at length (never really did it here in this blog except in the comment threads).  So I hope you’ll take a look especially at that post.  You can access all the posts I’ve written at Israel Reconsidered here.

The latter blog is an experiment for both of us.  We didn’t know how it would turn out.  We have high regard for each other and usually agree politically.  And frankly, I didn’t even know that Larry essentially rejects the Right of Return.  When I read his last post it really brought me up short.  That’s why my reply was so passionate and perhaps even vituperative.  I’m eager for some readers here who haven’t weighed in on the comment threads there to do so.  Until now, the preponderance has been of the liberal Zionist stripe, which I find sometimes limiting both intellectually and politically.

New Blog, ‘Israel Reconsidered,’ Features Debate Over Israel’s Future

Friday, May 13th, 2011

I wrote here that Larry Derfner, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post and I were launching a new blog in which we would debate the timely and timeless questions regarding Israel, it’s place in the world Jewish community and its place within the Middle East.  The new blog is called Israel Reconsidered and we’ve each written our first post in what promises to be a challenging, ongoing debate about issues like Zionism, Nakba, Right of Return, Law of Return, Occupation, etc.

I hope you’ll bookmark the site and spread the word about our new endeavor.

Derfner to Join New Blog Debating Left Zionism

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

Larry Derfner and I are about to embark on a new blog (not replacing Tikun Olam in case any of you are worrying–or hoping!) in which we will debate from a left-Zionist perspective the Israeli-Arab conflict.  Larry is one of the few remaining progressive commentators at Jerusalem Post and has written very courageously in an Israeli context about the evils of Israeli policy concerning Occupation and the wrongheadedness of Israel’s approach to Palestinian people.  He made aliyah a few decades ago and, unlike me, made the commitment to live the Zionist dream in Israel.  Though he has seen the dream sour, he still maintains a strong commitment to Israel and trying to be a voice of sanity in the English language media there.

There is a difference in our voices and that is where we hope the richness of a possible debate/dialogue will make itself felt.  Though Larry calls himself a post-Zionist, I think he retains some of vestiges of the attitudes and approaches of liberal Zionism.  Or that he’s to my right on some aspects of the Israel debate while still remaining progressive.  I too was raised as a liberal Zionist.  Though I now call myself a progressive Zionist, I’m probably to Larry’s left on a number of these issues (though I too like the term post-Zionist).  While Larry and I are probably both critical of the Israeli left and liberal Zionism, we think there is much that may be gained by turning over these issues to ensure that the left stays relevant to Israel and Israel stays relevant to the world (both phenomena that seem increasingly unlikely).  We also hope to debate issues from a left point of view to determine whether there is a way that this perspective can reach outside itself to impact the broader debate and dialogue.

I’m not just thinking here of the debate within Israel or the Jewish community.  I’m also thinking of the growing number of progressive non-Jews who understand the centrality of the resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict to overall stability in the region and to world peace.  How will such readers react to the clash of our ideas.

I’m flattered that Larry thinks that despite my sharp debating style in the comment threads here, that I’m a principled, decent representative of my brand of political discourse.  We hope to incorporate that principle in our new blog.  It will be a strong, sharp debate, but one between two individuals who respect each other even when they disagree.  I should also note here that this is my own articulation of our joint project and Larry may describe himself or our project differently.

We have general ideas of subjects we’d like to debate: some historical questions like Nakba/1948; the Jewish nature of the State vs. democracy; Right of Return vs. Law of Return.  We’ll probably take one idea or issue (or perhaps two) every week and write a post about it and then allow readers to weigh in.  In this way, we hope it will become a running diary of our concerns and interests.

Larry and I have come up with scores of possible blog titles, but none of us yet are sold on any of them.  I invite you readers to contribute your own ideas if you have them for such a title (jokes are allowed–but no snark please).  Titles should try to incorporate the fact that the blog will be a debate between two writers on the left of the Israeli spectrum who are arguing about the fate of Israel.

Seattle Metro Bus Ad Controversy: King County Suspends Free Speech

Thursday, December 23rd, 2010
seattle israel bus ad

Seattle's anti-war bus ads

Like a good general, I have a rule I try to follow about blogging: I try to choose the terrain on which I will fight.  I like the terrain to favor me.  If my opponent chooses to fight on their terrain, I prefer not to engage unless I think it’s favorable to me.  That’s why I’ve declined to enter into the local fracas-become international cause celebre involving a series of Seattle Metro Bus ads which decry U.S. military aid to Israel and accuse it of committing war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.

Before entering this political swamp, let me make something clear: I have no problem with any of the issues raised in the ads, which is why I strongly attack King County executive Dow Constantine’s decision to pull the plug on them after an outcry from a local Israel lobby coalition.  I strongly support the right of the group which organized them to display them.  The issue of U.S. military aid to Israel is an important one as is the even more important issue of possible war crimes committed by the IDF in Gaza during the last war.

But I do have problem with both sides of this debate: both the advertisers and the pro-Israel baying chorus trying to take them down.  First, my problem with the ad.  If you want to make a political point AND influence people you make your argument coherent and plausible.  You don’t flaunt rhetoric.  You don’t score points.  You don’t shout when a calm voice will do.  There are thousands of different iterations of this ad which would’ve worked as effectively and made it harder for the pro-Israel crowd to get the ads taken down.

But the ad organizers went for the jugular.  They made their choice and undoubtedly are happy their ads were banned since it will play well to their constituency.  The other side will think it has won a victory and feel pleased with itself.  What it won’t realize is that any time you have to win a victory at the expense of fundamental constitutional principles of free speech and fairness, you’ve lost in the long run.  Meaning Israel has lost too.  And if your cause is Israel, then you’ve done your cause a disservice.

Now my much more serious problems with the smear campaign run by the local pro-Israel advocates including the Jewish federation, Aipac, American Jewish Committee and Stand With Us.  Here’s some of their rhetoric as mouthed by local King County Councilmember Jane Sprague, who’s dutifully repeating the Israel lobby talking points as all obedient U.S. politicians tend to do:

The ad reads “Israeli War Crimes Your tax dollars at work,” and has an image of a group of children staring at a destroyed building.  . Like many of you, I find the ad disturbing. Yesterday I sent a letter to the Executive and Metro officials demanding that they put a halt the ads…

We need to be mindful that inflammatory speech like this can affect many groups including our Jewish Community. I strongly believe in freedom of speech and our first amendment rights…Messages like these, that lack basic civility, can incite violence against minorities and various religious communities. We need to be able to protect those who can be hurt as a result.

What is “inflammatory” about this speech? That it accuses Israel of committing war crimes in Gaza? Major Israeli newspapers run stories virtually every day recounting stories of Israeli atrocities during the war and using terms like “war crimes” to describe them. Yes, I’d prefer to use terms like “alleged” or “possible” since the war crimes haven’t been proven in a court of law yet. But I find absolutely nothing wrong with putting forward a political argument in such ads claiming that Israel committed war crimes.

Now, as to whether U.S. taxpayers financed those atrocities with U.S. military aid: that seems incontrovertible. Israel’s military has used American weaponry liberally and even flagrantly in situations such as the mass firing of U.S. cluster bombs during the concluding hours of the 2006 Lebanon war, leaving Lebanese civilians to suffer the tragic consequences after the war ended as they unintentionally exploded the ordinance on their property and roads.

As to the ads “lacking basic civility,” well, excuse me but a cluster bomb in your backyard or an F-16 levelling your Gaza apartment building is a pretty uncivil message sent from the American people to Palestinians courtesy of the Israeli Air Force. Do the American people deserve the right to know about such things in bus ads? You bet.

But there is another deeply disturbing notion put forward by pro-Israel advocates in this message: that Israel=American Jews. That Americans somehow blame their fellow Jewish citizens for the acts of Israel. This is not only an offensive concept, it simply isn’t true.  America is not a place in which Jews will be blamed for Israel’s alleged crimes.  I reject this notion.

The anti-ad coalition views Israel and world Jewry as being inseparable, as being joined at the hip. But the vast majority of Jews in the world don’t accept this equation. I am a Jew, not an Israeli. Israel doesn’t speak for me, nor I for Israel. When Israel acts badly, I am not at fault nor do my fellow Americans see as such.

But it is convenient for Stand With Us and the rest of the Israel advocates to claim there is “no daylight” between Israel and us because then they can argue that hostility to Israeli policy=anti-Israelism and even anti=Semitism. Let me point out as clearly as I can: this notion is noxious. It is offensive. I utterly reject it as should all Americans and American Jews who care about Israel.

Israel doesn’t need all Jews to identify with it unconditionally. Israel need to become a normal nation in the Middle East. To do so, it needs to come to terms with its Arab neighbors. Having world Jewry’s identity confused with Israel’s will not help this process. It will indeed poison it. If you want to be a friend to Israel tell it to make peace with its neighbors and not presume all the Jews in the world think everything it does is honky dory.

King County’s executive has done a grave disservice to free speech in suspending these ads. Not only this, he has handed a victory to those sponsoring the ads.  He has given them the high ground. I hope they sue the county and get a judge to rule on this situation. It is really a contract dispute. The County signed a contract and then violated it. Grounds for reneging are specious. Metro approved those ads then took the Mideast Awareness Campaign’s $3,000.  After signing on the dotted line, they want to back out.  I’d love to see this tested in court.

Dow Constantine is a craven political coward.  Read the bullshit that he’s published under the name of the King County government:

“I have consulted with federal and local law enforcement authorities who have expressed concern, in the context of this international debate, that our public transportation system could be vulnerable to disruption.”

…Given the dramatic escalation of debate in the past few days over these proposed ads, and the submission of inflammatory response ads, there is now an unacceptable risk of harm to or disruption of service to our customers should these ads run.”

Yes, ads that are political speech and counter-speech will cause terrorism.  That’s what he’s essentially claiming.  Thank God, this is a view fully rejected by our nation’s Founders.  Speech is speech.  It is not an act and certainly not an illegal act.  What utter nonsense.  To retreat behind the skirts of a nameless federal bureaucrat who supposeldy told him to can an ad.  I want to know: which federal official did he consult and what did he say?  In fact, I’d like to file a Freedom of Information Act petition with Country government for every piece of internal information regarding this ad.  So, Dow Constantine, I’d be careful what you say and make sure it’s the truth.  You wouldn’t want to look awfully stupid if you mouthed nonsense like this, and were caught afterward doing so.

In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if David Horowitz’s counter ads were deliberately formulated in the most vitriolic terms possible, knowing that by doing so they would virtually force Metro to cancel the original ad, which was their real purpose.  Really, who cares what the counter ads would say as long as they didn’t explicitly advocate illegality or violence?  I’d like to see fools like Horowitz and his ilk voice anti-Muslim views on Seattle buses so the entire city can laugh them out of town.  What’s the cure to bad speech?  More speech.  Not no speech.  What Metro is doing is saying Seattleites are delicate flowers who can’t withstand the furor of political debate.  Somehow they must be protected from opinions that are too hot.  Otherwise, what?  What would happen?  Would the Seattle explode in WTO type riots merely because of a few bus ads?  C’mon.  Who’re they kidding.

You’ve heard conservatives deride the “Nanny State.”  Well, here in Seattle we have the “Nanny County” protecting residents from the bad, bad man saying bad, bad things.  I say let 1,000 flowers bloom.  So what if some are weeds?  A weed here or there won’t kill us.  It’s the garden of debate that is important.

Taglit-Birthright and Birthright Unplugged to Merge

Monday, November 8th, 2010
taglit le'kulanu

New itineraries for revamped Birthright tours

One of the more riveting and unexpected announcements of this year’s General Assembly (GA) of Jewish federations is that the Taglit-Birthright program has decided to merge with Birthright Unplugged and welcome Jewish and Palestinian youth together to return to their ethnic roots in the Holy Land.  The group, to be renamed Birthright for All (Taglit Le’Kulanu), will adopt the slogan:

Israelis And Palestinians. Two People, One Future.

The new group is the inspiration of Youth Against Delegitimization (YAD), which is sponsored by the Jewish Council of North America (JCNA).  YAD believes that the real way to ensure Israel’s legitimacy is by embracing its identity as a nation of Jews, Muslim and Christians.  Hence the decision to add Palestinian youth and staff to the trips.

It is rumored that hedge fund titan and purported Israel-hater George Soros and Palestinian entrepreneur Sam Bahour engineered a coup, wresting control of Taglit from Sheldon Adelson and Michael Steinhardt, its current neocon funders.  When Soros promised the board that he would triple funding and bring an extra 100,000 Diaspora Jewish youth to Israel, it voted to endorse the radical shift in the group’s mission.

The struggle for control of the group has initiated a free-for-all among other right wing funders, with a rumor that Dr. Irwin Mieskeit, noted bingo king and hospital reseller, is angry at the loss of Birthright as a re-education tool for Diaspora Jewish youth.  He is rumored to be considering founding a competing group to be called, My Birthright Not Yours, which will only visit sites sacred to the settler movement.  Included in this group’s tours will be paramilitary training, personal audiences with Mossad hitmen, briefings with IDF commandos preparing them for their next targeted killing assignment.  Parents of tour participants will even be offered shares in Dr. Mieskeit’s real estate projects which are miraculously transforming East Jerusalem into a Jewish city once again.

In comments offered jointly to Arutz Sheva and New York Jewish Press, Mieskeit is reported to have said about the new group:

A bruch on them, we can never support this Birthright fraud nor an effort to bring a more balanced view of Israel.  Who needs balance?  We know right from wrong.  We’re right, they’re wrong.  With those Birthright shmegegees, the next thing you know they’ll be talking about Nakba and Palestinian suffering, wah, wah, wah.  Crocodile tears.  That’s what it is.

Look, let’s be honest.  A little Holocaust trauma goes a long way when you’re trying to steal the land of another people.  I’m not above making Jewish girls cry if it helps me buy the Shepherd Hotel for a song and a dance.

Birthright tours under the old regime were noted for making shidduchs and producing new Jewish couples to take their place proudly on the stage of Jewish history.  Dr. Mieskeit invoked a hidden fear of many Jews thinking about sending their children on intimate tours with Palestinians:

We’ve already got enough Jews marrying out.  Do we need those Palestinian boys shtupping our girls, knocking them up and producing little half-breed Jewrab babies?

Returning to Birthright for All–now, for the first time the program will be open to Palestinian youth as well, enabling them to rediscover their connections to the land of their forebears.  Instead of avoiding the Territories as previous Birthright tours did religiously, the new tours will include travel throughout Israel and the Territories.  In a first, the new Birthright proposes to visit both settlements and their next door neighbor Palestinian villages.  While a Birthright for All spokesperson said that tour participants may help with the Palestinian olive harvest, insurance and legal liability will prevent any of the young people from participating in the pogroms sponsored by the settler youth.

Here is a statement from the new organization about its goals:

Taglit Lekulanu will introduce a more realistic perspective on Israel by exposing participants to both Jewish and Palestinian narratives. The trip will be open to Palestinian and Jewish Americans and staffed by both Jews and Palestinians.

The trip will bear witness to the occupation, spending a morning with MachsomWatch at West Bank checkpoints and taking tours around the Separation Wall and Hebron. There will also be meetings with Palestinian human rights activists and a visit to Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem.

Inside Israel, meetings with IDF officers and Jewish Agency representatives will be complemented by meetings with Israeli anti-occupation activists and civil rights organizers struggling for equal rights for Israel’s Palestinian citizens. Participants will also visit unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev and learn about the social struggle of Arab Jews. And of course there will be time to explore Tel Aviv’s famed nightlife and shopping.

Make sure they tell ‘em about all the real estate opportunities available in Jaffo through evicting poor Arabs from their run down apartments, tearing ‘em down, and turning ‘em into luxury condos for white Jews.  This way they can realize their Zionist dreams of rebuilding the homeland while making a handsome profit at the expense of the lowly and downtrodden Arab usurpers.  That oughta keep ‘em comin’ back for more…

Note: Events related above may or may not take liberties with fact.  They certainly bear a greater resemblance to truth, at least as I see it.

Israel’s Loyalty Oath: Let’s Drink to New Jewish Republic

Tuesday, October 19th, 2010

It seems a virtual certainly that sometime in the coming weeks Israel’s rightist government will pass a law requiring new citizens to affirm Israel as a Jewish state.  As currently formulated the law would only require such an oath of non-Jewish citizens, which would effectively bar most non-Jews, especially Muslims or Arabs, from becoming citizens.  As such, the law would be racist on its face and likely rejected by the Israeli Supreme Court. Bibi Netanyahu is calling for amending the bill so that it includes all new citizens including Jews, hoping that this will pass muster with any justices who may have quibbles over the law’s diminution of democratic values.

As one of my commentators with whom I rarely agree wrote:  it’s an answer to a question no one is asking.  There are very few non-Jews seeking to become citizens of Israel.  So the oath is a political provocation by Avigdor Lieberman meant to gin up hysteria and support among his far-right nationalist base.  As I’ve written here, the only reason this bill will become law is as a quid pro quo from Bibi to his farther right allies hoping to retain their support when and if he extends a settlement freeze.

One of the very strange outcomes of this law may be to deny Israeli citizenship to Jews.  Since few Arabs seek to become citizens and mainly Jews do, it is the Haredi Jews who seek citizenship who would be barred from it, since they refuse to acknowledge that Israel is a Jewish state in pure halachic terms.  Wouldn’t that be a delicious irony?  I’m guessing that the State will find a way to create an exemption for the ultra Orthodox allowing them to circumvent the entire oath process, just as it does to exempt their children from military service (though on different grounds).

israelis demonstrate against loyalty oath

Thousands of Israelis protest against Lieberman loyalty oath (Tal Cohen)

Aux armes, citoyens!  My interest tonight is strategizing how the progressive left should respond to the eventuality of the passage of this bill.  Two days ago, Israelis held a large rally denouncing the loyalty oath.  A good start.  But I think we should prepare for a longer term campaign against this racist law.  We should prepare a series of acts of resistance.  For example, I can see a rally on the day the law is passed with a mass of Israelis proclaiming en masse an alternate oath affirming Israel as a state of all its citizens regardless of religion or ethnicity.  I’d love to see an oleh chadash (new immigrant) leading such an oath-taking as a symbolic but powerful protest.

I would begin asking American Jews to withhold whatever portion of their UJA contributions are designated for Israel.  Jewish leaders tend to avoid and ignore issues unless there are financial ramifications that harm fundraising campaigns or cause deep embarrassment.  This issue could cause both.

We must also continue to point out that such a law will reinforce a slogan that hasn’t been widely heard since the 1970s when the UN General Assembly passed a “Zionism is racism” resolution.  At the time, many of us disagreed strongly with such sentiment.  But can we honestly do so now?  Yes, there are those of us who can argue that Zionism as we express and define it is different than what passes for Zionism in arch nationalist right-wing circles in Israel.  But that may be too much subtlety for the world to bear when it sees an Israeli government prepared to use a sledge-hammer domestically and on the world stage to define itself and its interests.

At another earlier protest, an Israeli professor likened this bill to the 1935 Nuremberg Race Laws which set the stage for the Holocaust:

Israeli educational psychologist Prof. Gavriel Solomon said that “the idea of Judenrein or Arab-rein is not new… Some might say ‘how can you compare us to Nazis’. I am not talking about the death camps, but about the year 1935. There were no camps yet but there were racist laws. And we are heading forward towards these kinds of laws. The government is clearly declaring our incapacity for democracy.”

A state which needs such oaths is a state unsure of its own identity, lacking self-confidence, perhaps sensing unconscious guilt at the injustices that lie  at its foundation.  It signifies a state at war with itself.  That is why you don’t see firmly established democracies like the U.S., Britain, Germany, France racing to affirm their identities as Christian nations.  These are countries more or less comfortable in their own skins.

When it affirms this oath as law it will cease being Israel and become the Jewish Republic, as Gideon Levy writes.  And let us be very clear, they are not the same thing.  Jewish citizens should no longer be called Israelis, but rather Judeans.  At that point, Judea or whatever you want to call it might just as well have a king as a Knesset.  Let’s call him Yvette I, shall we?  Let’s rebuild the Temple and install Moshe Feiglin as High Priest.  King Yvette can reign from Jerusalem and have his winter palace at Nokdim (the settlement he calls home), just as Herod built his at the fateful Masada.

It’s at this point I seek to join the party of Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zakkai, who, according to a legend some claim to be apocryphal, could see the handwriting on the wall during the Roman siege against Jerusalem.  He escaped the city in a coffin during a period of plague, negotiated with the Roman general conducting the siege, who allowed him to flee to a little town called Yavneh.  There he established a rabbinic academy that sought to come to terms with the trauma of the destruction of the Second Temple, and hence laid the groundwork for the survival of the Jewish people as they scattered to the Diaspora.

In other words, Lieberman and even Bibi are sowing the seeds of Israel’s destruction.  It’s really plain and simple (but also horrible).  If you are prepared for this to happen you will stand and watch.  If not, you will do something to object, to resist.

We should remind Israeli and Diaspora Jewish leaders that the specter of BDS hovers over ever such Israeli act and strengthens the movement.  This reinforces the notion that Israel is its own worst enemy, and that all its opponents need to do is sit back and watch as Israel virtually destroys any credibility or sympathy it may retain on the world stage.  Indeed, such laws perfectly illustrate the Midrash which states that the Holy Temple was destroyed due to the sinat hinam (senseless hatred) of two brothers for each other.  Today, we’re looking at an Israel which destroys itself inch by inch while the rest of us (or at least some of us) look on in horror and disbelief.

To conclude, let us all say no to a state that defines itself solely in religious terms; to a state that affirms that Judaism is its dominant religion; to a state that subordinates democracy to religion; to a state that is Jewish to the exclusion of all else and all others.  Ours is a vision of an Israel that affirms and values the religions of all its citizens; that offers equal rights to all citizens; that embraces all ethnicities while derogating none (including Judaism, lest dyed-in-the-wool Zionists claim that this means the death of Israel or Zionism).

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE