Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Flickr
Friendfeed
Last.fm
LinkedIn
MySpace
Reddit
Stumble Upon
Technorati
Twitter
Vimeo
YouTube
What I’ve Been Up To Lately
- Remember kids, Twitter Torah experiment at 2:30PM EST: Collaborative discussion on Parshat Balak. Get in on it at #balak. 1 day ago
- RT @spagnoloacht Video of my Creative Commons Salon presentation on the Jewish Digital Narratives platform http://blip.tv/file/2305108/ 1 day ago
- Yes Men pull out of Jerusalem Film Fest http://su.pr/1uJUsU 1 day ago
- More updates...
Talking Torah in Lieu of Politics
The makeshift minyan @ the Brit Tzedek confernece
It’s mah birfday. Today I moved all that much closer to being entirely untrustworthy (I’ll be 30 in two years).
I’m at Jay’s in upstate NY. I just got back from DC, where I was on the opening panel at the Brit Tzedek v’Shalom Conference. I stayed at ZT’s and had an awesome Shabbat dinner with his local chevre, including Joelle from NHC who I finally got to meet after years of conversing online. Shimshon, who lives in Bat Ayin, and Lior, who is an Israeli anarchist, were also in D.C. entirely coincidentally (oh, the irony) and so we got to hang out. I also got to see Julian for the first time in years. I met some really great folks, both at ZT’s and at the conference. There were a lot of Jewschoolers there: Kung Fu Jew, Aliza W., Backbeat, and ZT. And I seem to have left folks with a good impression cuz there was a long line to speak to me after my talk and nobody wanted to tell me what an asshole I am.
First, photos: From D.C. random; From the conference.
So what’d I talk about? Mostly Torah.
I began by saying that you’re never going successfully appeal to the sympathies of the American Jewish community on behalf of Palestinians. Why should we care about people whom, by and large, we believe are trying to kill us? Rather than focusing on the conflict as a Palestinian rights or even human rights issue, when speaking with other Jews, we should focus on the occupation as a Jewish issue. How is the occupation bad for the Jews? How is it bad for Israel? What are the sacrifices we’re making, in terms of lives and resources, in order to hold onto the Territories?
But more importantly: What is it that we’re fighting to preserve by having a Jewish state? What is it that we stand for as a people? And what is the value of having a state if, in the process of establishing and defending it, we sacrifice that which we represent in the world (or otherwise alter that representation to be something no longer consistent with our tradition)?
I went on to say that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for the Jewish people to do teshuvah: To turn back to G-d and embrace the Torah.
Then I explained what that means — what teshuvah looks like, and started breaking down the klalim gedolim — “the big everythings” in Judaism: We’re all the children of Adam. Love your brother as yourself. We’re all created in the image of G-d. These are the values we stand for: The unity of being. The oneness of G-d. The fellowship of humanity.
And then I started getting more specific: What does the messianic ideal look like? That we should be free to live in the land of Israel without anyone to oppress or disturb us. That non-Jews will look to us an exemplar of righteous conduct in the world. That they will cling to us for guidance out of the love of their own hearts. I then said that we need to ask ourselves how we can conduct ourselves in a way that endears the nations, rather than one that brings them to revile us.
Furthermore, I noted that the land of Israel is the altar of the world, and examined what that means, in terms of entering the land with a purified consciousness and a sacred vision. Are we conducting ourselves in the land in such a way that it sanctifies the altar or desecrates it?
These are the themes I believe we ought to be exploring, whereas, I find, that they’re universal among Jews, both secular and religious, more so than any sort of universal political ethic. Whether devout or non-believing, both care about Jewish values and our legacy as a people, whether we’re fulfilling our potential as a nation, and at that, whether we’re committing a chilul Hashem (a desecration of G-d’s name, via the desecration of our legacy as a righteous nation) or a kiddush Hashem (sanctification of the name, via embodying the highest principles and aspirations of our tradition). Thus, it’s a more effective strategy for addressing the issues surrounding Israel and the occupation.
I also spoke about Holocaustism and Rube Goldberg Syndrome: How we’re collectively suffering from PTSD — best indicated by our inability to hear anything remotely critical of Israel without interpreting it as a call for the genocidal destruction of the Jewish people. I mentioned how we’re genuinely afraid of non-Jews despite the leaps in tolerance that have transformed the world in the last 60 years, and how we need more therapists, psychologists and psychiatrists working in the Jewish community to address these issues. I spoke about the Jewish community’s need for healing.
Another subject I explored was our need to overcome our hypersensitivity to language. One of the big issues that came up for attendees, as they described it, was that hearing others using words like “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” made them nervous and uncomfortable — not because they necessarily believe that that’s not what’s happening in Israel, but because they’re worried about the motivations of those who use such language.
I paraphrased Yakov Rabkin, in his book Enemy Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism: “Zionists have always been more concerned with the intentions of their critics than with the substance of their critics’ arguments,” and then explained how I did my own point-by-point comparison of laws on the books in apartheid South Africa to the laws on the books in Israel today, and found practically no distinction between the two. In expressing that opinion online, I was attacked as being a self-hating Jew and an enemy of Israel.
That being the case, here we have an issue: The word “apartheid” makes people very uncomfortable because it carries so much weight. Its implications are wholly inconsistent with the vision we have of Israel, let alone how we relate to the nature of the occupation. Not to mention, of course, that such terminology fuels hysterical anti-Israel sentiment. It is the ultimate shonde fer de goyim. And yet, the concept of apartheid is, more or less consistent, in my estimation, with what is going on in the Territories.
So the question is, if we can’t use that language — if it becomes off-limits, because of the hostile reaction it elicits from ourselves and others — what kind of precedent does that set? How long will it be before we run out of language with which to accurately discuss the occupation? (Someone had even suggested, during the conference, that we stop using the word “occupation!” ) How long will it be before all difficult words become unusable and we no longer can describe precisely what’s going on? We need to learn to move past our hypersensitivity to such language, which is ultimately a superficial manner of response, and focus on the substance of the arguments themselves.
The other issue, connected to this point, is that we’re far too obsessed with language. We can sit and talk all day about language, and what’s intended by people’s usage of purportedly incendiary language. And all that’s fine. But if we focus solely on the language itself without ever addressing what’s actually happening on the ground in Israel — if we only debate how we talk about what’s happening there and never work to resolve the issues themselves — in five years there isn’t going to be a state left to defend.
The most affirming part of my experience was not the pleasant and flattering reception I received, however, but rather listening to Marcia Freedman’s address the following day where she more or less elucidated the same principles I had presented in my talk regarding the need to discuss the conflict as a Jewish issue rather than as a Palestinian rights issue. After however many decades working in the Israeli political scene (which includes time serving as a member of the Knesset), she too had arrived at the very same conclusion I had come to in only three years. That makes me feel as though, not only am I on the right track, but I’m ahead of the game, which gives me a lot of hope for the future and the role I have to play in bringing about a just resolution to the conflict.
Anyway, that’s about the gist of it. There’ll be a video online within the month, so I’ll link to it when it comes out.
In the meantime, I gots to get back to Freedman and back to work.
I can very much understand the temptation to use a kind of Jewish discourse as a political rhetoric that allows Jews to desire the end of occupation. This idea of a Jewish-based and Torah-bound reason as the starting point of a Jewish anti-occupation consensus has a certain pragmatic appeal. However, this appeal works for precisely the wrong reasons, that is, it convinces Jews once again that their narrow interests and beliefs are served by anti-occupation. This reproduces in some fairly powerful ways the very logic of the ethnostate that we should oppose.
Indeed, it seems that here you’re called for a strengthened/renewed articulation of Jewish religion/values/peoplehood as a space through which to contest occupation, when these are also–partially, and, to be sure, in a much different form than the one you advocate–is also a series of terms invoked to justify and extend occupation. I would suggest that what is necessary is a disarticulation and a reconfiguration of what the word “Jew” means (as well as the noun that this adjective modifies, e.g. Jewish people, Jewish religion, Jewish values). But put more simply, more pragmatically, this means the Jew must accept as ethico-political responsibility the fact that the Palestine question is not for the Jews to resolve by decision/goodwill, but rather, that Israel, the ethnostate–and not the “Jews” to whom it should no longer have an affective link– should at the very least submit to the international consensus and the requirements of international law.
If Israel cannot do so, then, let the U.N. do it by force.
Happy Birthday, young man! (Don’t you worry, you’re still younger than me.)
I disagree with with you Sam. I find Daniel’s approach to be just what the apothecary ordered.
pragmatic: getting jews to think of the occupations as bad for them.
probably never going to happen or, at least, not going to happen soon enough to make any difference: getting the jews to stop being ethnocentric.
i’d rather play to our ethnocentrism (and i am the first to admit to my own ethnocentrism) than try to convince us to abandon it (especially when, as a jewish ethnocentrist, i’m the worst person to try to make that argument).
today is my birthday too!
happy birthday!
Happy birthday!! May the coming year bring you blessing.
(And for what it’s worth, I liked 30 a bunch. 30 was a great year. I can say that confidently from my vantage point of 32…
I am so glad you blogged this. I’m going to share this post far and wide, because what you’re saying here seems really wise to me, and (as you may have noticed!) the internet is kind of short on wisdom of this nature, sometimes. *g*
Happy birthday!
I am a whopping two days older than you, which has given me ample time to run a recon mission in 28. It seems safe. Come on in.
Really interesting stuff here… I wish I’d known about this conference. I’ll admit that it’s hard for the idealistic and anti-racist part of me to accept the idea of focusing on what’s good for the Jews / making this a Jewish issue instead of getting Jews to care about what’s good for other people… IE understanding this as a Jewish issue rather than a Palestinian one. But I do believe you’re right in that it’s far more pragmatic and thus a necessary re-focusing the movement needs to do in order to win over more hearts and minds. Happy happy birthday!
mensaje para shmuel–pinche tacayo–y dan,
so people–indeed, the people whose “hearts and minds” (fucking reactionary phrase) i expected to move are against what I said–. You don’t find it convincing, which is not so bad. I insist, however, that if cool people like Dan are totally at ease with their own “ethnocentrism” (that is, racism) then we are fucked.
Dan, kol ha kavod, a really wonderful articulation of the ikar of the issue, and possibly the first time I’ve completely agreed with you in a presentation of politics.
Contrary to what you sometimes think of me, I DO agree with you that occupation is terrible for the Jewish soul. And I even more strongly agree with you that what we really need to do is decide, as Jews, what we are doing in the holy land, and live in a g-d fearing way (however that is defined, preferably not by mainstream rabbis). If we can’t decide what we are doing in Israel, if we don’t conduct ourselves in a way we can be proud of, we don’t deserve to be here– On Either Side of the green line.
Where we disagree, if we still disagree, is about the current practical alternatives, and about the current willingness of the other side to stop killing us. I don’t think occupation is a good thing, nor is the wall, but I think that unilateral withdrawal (see gaza, lebanon) and peace-treaties with non-democratic entities (see Arafat/Oslo, Egypt/Sinai– considering Egypt leads the world in anti-semitic propaganda) DO NOT WORK. I don’t see better alternatives to occupation at the moment.
I wish I did; for awhile I was pushing for the ‘peaceways’ plan, which would allow for an EQUAL number of Palestinians to ‘return’ into Israel as there are settlers. If settlements expand, more Palestinians get to return. Swiss cheese states– Israel and Palestine– with islands of sovereignety on both sides. If it addresses the biggest demand of extremists on BOTH sides– Return, and Settlement– and involves MUTUAL recognition and respect of homeland, then it could remove the violent edge from the conflict. And once neither side fears violence, free movement and boundaries might become no more of an issue than Alaska-Canada-US or the EU.
Unfortunately this idea got no traction or support, really from either side, so it seemed to be a non-starter. But times could change.
sam… racism? maybe you should read my post on obama’s preacher.
prioritizing the needs of your own community before others’ is not racist.
and yeah, i’m ethnocentric: i love judaism, jewish people, jewish culture, and being jewish in-and-of itself. while that level of appreciation is not to the exclusion of any other “race” or culture, my own people and my own culture are my first love and my first priority. i don’t think that’s racist at all. i’m physically related to the jewish people. they’re my family, my friends, and my actual real-life community. why shouldn’t i put them before other people? i think it’s more racist to suggest we should be one homogenized “grey” race with no distinction or difference between us. hyper anti-racism itself is a form of discrimination.
Dan,
Sorry, but I disagree with you about trying not to be reviled by other nations, about even the term “occupation.”
You imply that we should indeed be a light unto the nations and then say we should have consideration for those who complain that the light is hurting their eyes, that they’re trying to sleep.
You say that we should be Torah Jews and then discount Hashem’s promise that all of Israel is rightfully ours. (Or do you think that the land was promised to Abraham’s Ishmaelite descendants?)
Yes, as a Jew I must behave properly. But if I am to be the lighthousekeeper, how can I do my job if there are people in the lighthouse who are bent on destroying me and the lamp? Yes, it seems inhumane to push them out of the building onto the rocks, battered by stormy seas – but the Jews are not the ones stopping them from going to the mainland.
I see how my last post was not particularly clear. But i am unconvinced that ethnocentrism is not a racism (or that what you call “hyper anti-racism” is a form of discrimination–and of course, we need to try to understand what discrimination is as well). But I also was not trying to vilify racism in the standard PC way.
Perhaps what I should have said is there is a need today to think historically and–for those of us who think we should work for an emancipatory politics–strategically about the uses of the word Jew today. The question I am asking is something like: what are the political and cultural sequences and aspirations that this word organizes? And for whom? What does the word Jew make possible or thinkable? This question leads not to something like a grey race (but I always preferred _No Control_) but rather gives the word Jew, hopefully, new alliances, different foundations. Put in quite other , that is, more practical terms I think one could say, for instance, that Palestinian is now part of the word Jew, part of the “my community” you announce above (a community that constantly tries to make itself singular but cannot, a community that you and I constantly try to appropriate through the possessive “my”).
happy happy. i always think of you on yr birthday- too many fond memories to count!
xoxoxo
You just made me feel really old – I was 4 days short of 28 on the day you were born – Happy Birthday..
Yeah, Rod, I, too, am old enough to remember the day Mobius was born (though not really old enough to be his father).
Mobius – the next audience to preach this phenomenal Torah to is the advertising and media establishment in Israel. The politicians all take their cues from them, and the people, well, ever since the days of Ahab, the people of Israel have been suckers for a good flim-flam.
And Happy Birthday, bis a hunnert n tzwanzig!
Pragmatic: Jews DO almost all agree that occupation is bad for us. Dan, I don’t see who, left or right or kadima center, or religious or secular or whatever stripe, thinks occupation is GOOD in any way.
The question is what to do in place of it that will not result in more Jewish loss of life. Unilateral withdrawals didn’t work; peace treaties and negotiations didn’t work. The (far) right would LOVE to end occupation today– by expelling Palestinians. I don’t know that being against the status quo is a particularly meaningful stand, in an era where the prime minister’s approval rating is between 3% and zero.
Somehow led to this site, I think the only coherent comment is the last by Matthew. . . Israelis in particular and Jews in general, Zionist or otherwise, in their vast majority no longer need to be convinced that the occupation should be ended. The question we all struggle with is how to do so in a manner that will ensure security, and the Jewish, democratic nature of Israel.
The larger issue that comes up reading the comments is that the frame of reference here is generally skewed: the desire seems to be to make apologies for Judaism in light of the received knowledge of reigning liberal morality. Jews committed to Judaism should be struggling to do the reverse: bringing the received knowledge of Torah to bear on manufactured modern morality.
Matt, while I certainly believe in the centrality of Torah to the Jewish tradition, and while I also concur with the morality of the Prophets, the Torah’s “ancient morality” is also manufactured by man, specifically fitting a paradigm in which we no longer live, and is thus flawed and imperfect as well. Frankly, I find it preposterous when individuals uphold the morality of the Torah over modern liberal values when the Torah advocates killing homosexuals and blasphemers, repressing women, committing genocide against idolaters, and so forth. Halakha says that a rapist is obligated to marry his victim. What kind of skewed morality is that? One that certainly doesn’t take the women’s experience into account — that’s for certain.
That said, modern liberal values are flawed because they often lack gevurah. Torah law is flawed because it lacks chesed. The optimal goal is a synthesis of Torah and modern values — an interplay and exchange. Not the domination of one over another.
torah law as applied in the days of the sanhedrin seemed in practice to be pretty mellow, what with massive requirements for witnesses, and according to talmudic sources a death penalty that was applied maybe once every seventy years if that.
Ironically, modern liberal values, in discussions and the like, must be framed against, say, the texas death row…
As sympathetic as I am to the idea of invoking Torah/Jewish Spirituality to oppose the Occupation rather than the rights of Palestinians, I think that ultimately it is a losing proposition. There are two reasons for my pessimism: 1) Torah/spiritually based arguments on behalf of ending the Occupation invariably come off sounding insipid, whiny, and ill-informed, usually relying on broad cliches or verses that the settlers and right-wingers can easily refute. The right-wingers/settlers/fascists, on the other hand, are absolutely focused on the sources and can quote poskim, meforshim, teshuvot etc. to make their case, while progressives can only say things like “V’ahavta l’reacha kamocha’ – and are helpless when the Right points out that this verse only applies to Jews – and possibly only religious Jews at that! There are some exceptions to this inability to articulate a Jewish/religious anti-imperialism – the late and sorely missed Yishayahu Leibovits comes to mind, as do Daniel Boyarin and Shaul Maggid – but by and large liberal Jewish anti-Occupation polemics are generally pretty lame.
2) Related to #1 above, I am not ultimately convinced that Torah says what we want it to say about Israel, Zionism and the Occupation. Perhaps that’s why the anti-Occupation “spiritual” arguments are so lame. I, of course, remain opposed to the Occupation – and I would love to see substantive Jewish-spiritual/Torah arguments for this position. I remain skeptical, however.
I looooove this posting!
I haven´t come a cross such a reflective view of the conflict and of Israel´s apartheid policy and judaism for a loong time.
yes, u are ahead & right!
keep it up!
u bring a light, more room & hope…