Is social justice the soul of Judaism?

No Comments, Yet

1. matthew says:

   January 15, 2007 at 10:59 pm

   It’s a good discussion– it helps that i can picture you actually speaking your lines, some nuance is lost if you just read your text.

   did you actually study Buddhism, with a ‘guru’? I’d certainly characterize my own practice of orthodox judaism as having built on a strong foundation of Taoist practice (still do the I Ching daily), Quaker values, and AmerIndian views of identity. But joining the observant Jewish community in Israel DID change my politics– and I think it changed yours too.

   I do still believe many of the same things about politics that I believed before: radical change to protect the environment, revoke corporate charters instantly when corporations misbehave, social justice, equal opportunity and protection before the law for all people, and (the kicker) indigenous people’s rights in their homelands. What’s happened to me here is a recognition that not all of those values are compatible at all times– and that one makes a choice to prioritize them, inevitably.

   When I chose to value my own people’s indigenous rights to live and worship in our homeland, I recognized that circumstances have dictated that in order for that to even continue to exist in its limited form today, not all those other rights can exist for everyone here. For me as a Jew to have the right to visit, worship, or live in Hebron or Bat Ayin, given the reality since the intifada, means that many Palestinians’ freedom of movement and autonomy is compromised. That’s regrettable– but I won’t give up my rights.

   Reply
2. joe says:

   January 17, 2007 at 12:34 am

   matthew – I can’t argue with that. But then the sad truth is that if nobody gives up their rights then everyone loses. Others believe they have an equal but opposite right to you, how do we ever get to any middle ground without compromise?

   mob – For what it is worth, I refuse to believe in a deity whose morals are no better than mine. Either the values of justice, equality and fairness beat in time with his heart, or the universe is entirely meaningless.

   Reply
3. matthew says:

   January 17, 2007 at 4:22 pm

   Joe, I don’t see that I or Jews in general must give up our right to live and worship in Hebron, Shiloh, Alon More, or the Temple Mount in order for Palestinians to have equal rights of autonomy or freedom of movement. Why? What does one thing have to do with the other, really?

   During the ’90s the Palestinians had freedom of movement and autonomy (not full sovereignety, but certainly the PA and local councils had more say over Palestinian daily life in their towns than Israel did). At the same time Jews were free to live and worship in our holy sites, more or less. Yet once the intifada started, Israel– and Jews in general– had no choice but to fight.

   Given that, we had and have a choice: while fighting this war, we can seek to maintain our freedom to travel to, live in, and worship at our holy sites in Yehuda, Shomron, and Gaza. We have abandoned our right to live in Gaza and the northern Shomron; we have abandoned our right to worship in Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem. We have not given up our right to live and worship in Hebron or some other places. But it is already a compromise.

   Palestinians’ rights themselves are not impinged upon by Jewish settlements; rather, it’s their imaginary future rights to settle all unoccupied or currently Jewish land. Likewise, the roads all over the territories were available to their use before the intifada; it is the intifada and the security response to it, not the settlements themselves, that causes Palestinians’ rights of movement or autonomy to be restricted.

   Such nuance is important. GIVEN intifada and rejectionism, some rights of Palestinians and Jews are not possible. Are those truly givens, or can questioning those be the first step?

   Reply
4. joe says:

   January 17, 2007 at 5:18 pm

   Hello again matthew. Well, from a Palestinian point of view, the intifada occurred because of the inbalance of power in the West Bank and Gaza. I am not defending the violence – which I believe history shows as being totally counter-productive – but the reality is that Palestinian violence is caused by frustrations of sixty years of occupation. So in that respect Israel did actually have a choice. If the grievance of Palestinians had been adequately addressed in the 90s, the intifada would not have started. To fight back just compounds the problem, it does not solve it.

   I have been to the Abraham tomb in Hebron. This is not the result of a fair compromise.

   Regarding the settlements, I disagree. Their very existance calls into question the concept of Palestinian rights to their own land – which has been in their family for generations. Further, there is considerable evidence that settlers go out of their way to impact negatively on their Palestinian neighbours. For example, one settlement has a sewage overflow pipe that flows directly onto a Palestinian village’s best land.

   I don’t know enough about settlement roads to comment. I was under the impression that many of them were quite new, maybe I am wrong about that.

   There are many religious sites in Israel and the West Bank, including those sacred to more than one religion. The best solution, one would think, would be where everyone of the appropriate religion/s was allowed full access to the sites. But that is inevitably going to cause conflict.

   Reply