Thinking About the President and the Prime Minister
May 20, 2011 
15 Comments
Many of us, either from the pulpit or around our Shabbat tables, will be thinking out loud about what President Obama said in his State Department speech yesterday, what the news will report on the meeting of Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama today, and about our feelings about Israel.
One Middle East scholar said Obama went farther than any of his predecessors in outlining a vision for a Palestinian state.
“It is very significant,” Robert Danin of the Council on Foreign Relations told Reuters. “For the first time, the United States has articulated what the territorial basis for a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians should be and explicitly identified the pre-Six Day War line as the basis for the borders. This has never been done before… This is a significant development and this is, in effect, an embrace of the Palestinian position on borders.”
You may or may not agree with Mr. Danin. In his op-ed today in Ha’aretz about Rabbi Rick Jacobs, Rabbi Peter Knobel concludes as follows:
“While we will always have differences about how best to bring aboutpeace between Israel and the Palestinians, the settlements, the role ofreligion, and many other things, the one thing about which there is nodifference is ahavat yisrael -the love of the people, the land and thestate. We in the Reform Movement stand in solidarity with Israel asmembers of a complex, loving and feisty Jewish family. Reform Judaismunder both its current and future leadership will always be one ofIsrael’s strongest supporters. Our Zionism can never be separated fromour Reform Jewish institutions, identity, practice, values oraesthetics.”
Last week Rabbi Yoffie outlined his own views, “Why the doves are wrong and the hawks are too.”
Below you will find a series of links to Israeli and American Jewishviews and news that might help inform your thinking this Shabbat.
In the preface to his book Fear No Evil, Natan Sharansky speaks of hisgeneration. “The path to liberation could not be found in denying ourroots while pursuing universal goals. On the contrary; we had to deepenour commitment, because only he who understands his own identity and hasalready become a free person can work effectively for the human rightsof others.”
- Ha’aretz: A sacred commitment, by Rabbi Peter Knobel
- RJ Blog: Why the doves are wrong – and the hawks are too, by Rabbi Eric Yoffie
- Ha’aretz: Netanyahu must look to the future if he really wants peace, by Yoel Marcus
- New York Jewish Week: Looking to Bibi, As the World Closes In, by Gary Rosenblatt
- Jerusalem Post: Livni: PM is jeopardizing Israel’s relationship with US
- RJ Blog: Celebrating Reform Zionism for the Sake of Heaven by Rabbi Daniel Allen
- Jewish Council for Public Affairs: JCPA Praises President Obama’s Commitment to Freedom, Peace, and Security for all in Middle East
Because of the non-western origins of much of our unique ideology, we have something special to offer the societies in which we live. We can be a “light unto the nations”. Ironically, the State of Israel, which you promote as the best way to live out a narrow, particularistic ideology, has actually done a great job of being a “light unto the nations” because of its scientific advances and artful culture. I am proud of Israel, for seemingly very different reasons than you are.
“I do not wish for a post ethnic, post nationalisitc Jewish people. The essence of that already exists and it is called( with great differences for sure) christianity. There is not nationalism to this western variation of our Jewish traditions.”
I disagree–Christianity is not post-ethnic Judaism. Originally it incorporated much of our Tradition’s wisdom, and still does to a degree, but it is totally different. Because of it’s reliance on one person (Jesus), it does not engender the diversity, universalism, or integrity that a true post-ethnic Judaism would. It does not really engender an open, liberal mindset, and its “universal” aspects are not the same as those which would be held by an authentic Jewish tradition. I could never, ever be a Christian. I have a Jewish soul, and must always be a Jew. I could also never, ever be a particularist who subscribes to the narrow definitions of ethnic peoplehood and religious nationalism. I am a Jew with strong spiritual ties to the Land of Israel, but I don’t view it as my “homeland” in any meaningful literal or spiritual way. That doesn’t make me any less authentically Jewish than Meir Lau.
If the essence of a post-ethnic, post-nationalistic Judaism already exists, then it is in the historic Classical expression of Reform Judaism. We are clearly grounded in Jewish thought and tradition, and very, very proud of it. It is distinctive, and yet totally compatible with a vigorously Western identity and culture. It requires no separatist identity. The absence of nationalism and ethnicity is not what distinguished Christianity from Judaism. When you strip those elements from Judaism, you do not get Christianity. There is a place for post-ethnic, post-nationalistic Judaism in our world, and I’d even say that we cannot repair our broken world without it. Notice that the emergence of post-ethnic, post-national Judaism does not require that the “old” kind of Judaism disappear. I am ethnically Jewish, descended from Orthodox families in Poland and Lithuania. I do, quite literally, come from an unbroken line presumably going back as far as Sinai. I cherish that, and I’m more proud of it than words can describe. Nevertheless, I know that this is not needed for someone to be Jewish. Everything that is unique and wonderful about Judaism comes from the mind and heart, and not at all from the body, or DNA.
Our traditions grow not from the intellect of the western world, not from the elightenment of indiviudality, but from the soil of Israel and the tradtions of the east where body, soul, and intellect are intertwined not parsed.
In the sense of history, theology, liturgy, ethnicity, and nationalism our people and views were formed in the east not the west.
I do not wish for a post ethnic, post nationalisitc Jewish people. The essence of that already exists and it is called( with great differences for sure) christianity. There is not nationalism to this western variation of our Jewish traditions. Christianity – with its western views and its supposed lack of nationality has caused great tumult in the world. Others have as well so I am not suggesting that only Christians have gone to war over religion. But in the annals of modern humanity for the past 1,000 years they are pretty adept at killing folks – especially Jews- for not accepting their world view. Theirs is a view of theology that is post ethnic and post nationalistic – except when it is not like the Irish protestants and catholics killing each other.
Our people, our one Jewish people, have many ethnicities, many citizenships for individual Jews, but only one nationality in the eastern Jewish sense. Today that is expressed by Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people even if it is not the citizenship of every Jewish person. More than 1,000,000 folks lined the streets of New York to acknowledge Israel, to stand with Israel, to demonstrate Jewish ethnicity, and Jewish nationalism. Thus may it grow and be.
Danny
Well, I am certainly thankful that we are able to continue this in a respectful way. I am able to agree with most of what you have said, if I’m understanding it correctly. However, one statement really stood out as completely opposite everything I have ever stood for or believed in:
“the Jewish people while in the west are not of the west.”
Oy vey, I’m only 20 years old and you’re going to give me a heart attack! We are “of” wherever it is that we are born and raised. Jews born in America (or anywhere else in the “Diaspora”) and raised as American citizens are full, un-hyphenated Americans who also happen to be at least covenantal members of the Jewish people, if not also Jewish by religion. We are indeed “of the west” as well as “in the west”, even if we regard our Middle Eastern spiritual heritage with great reverence (and believe me, I do). But to maintain such a separatist mentality that one can consider oneself “in the west but not of the west” is, in my opinion, dangerous and even traitorous. If one cannot live in the west without thinking this way, then that person should be living in Israel.
Is the beautiful, Holy Jewish Tradition of which we are heirs so fragile and narrow that its wisdom cannot transcend the boundaries of culture and ethnicity? I question, in the words of my teacher Rabbi Howard Berman, whether the future of Judaism “can, or even should, be solely determined by the continuation of an ethnically Jewish-born critical mass.” I believe, with all my heart and soul and might, with every fiber of my being, b’emunah shleimah, in a post-ethnic, post-nationalistic Judaism.
Soda it shall be.
In my view, and through my experience, religious systems tend to be hierarchical. We speak about the Rabbi as the Ma’ara D’atra – the singular authority. While the Reform movement may not embrace that concept, it is clearly omni present in most other Jewish congregational settings.
I agree that a people is not neccessarily tolerant. Truth be told, I am not sure if human nature in its essence is tolerant. I have no expertise so it is only an observation.
True, the Rabbis have made great efforts over the milenia to use Chanuka as a spiritual moment, to recall a miracle(God not man made) and to push not by might and not by power thinking. Alas, the facts, as we know them from history do not support the rabbinic effort.
The Macabees won the war. They went on to establish a kingdom for an extended period of time. Theirs was a political victory. When we sing ” in every age a hero or sage came to our aid” my image is of one of Judah’s brothers running under one of the enemies elphants and sticking a spear into its heart thus killing the beast and unfortunately himself.
Brit Milah, is of course, an outward sign of the covenant between the God of Israel and this new person as a member of the Jewish People. This particular moment in time represents what I think for westerners is a dilemma. If it is a religious ceremony and I am not theological( the basis of religion) then how, as a rational being, can I have this ritual performed on my child? But the Jewish people while in the west are not of the west. Ours is a people that grew without a dichotomy between religious observance and the national life of a people. Thus, even without the religious elements of Brit Milah, performing it is an act of bringing the child into membership – full membership – as a proud Jew,who may or may not become ritually observant. Brit Milah is an act of Jewish nationalism – throwing in one’s lot, albeit by parental ddecision, with the lot of the Jewish people.
To be continued I am sure.
Danny
@ Danny Allen
I believe you are right about the example you gave regarding Red Cross vs. Israel giving assistance to Haiti. However, if an American Jewish Social Justice Organization, or even just an informal group from a Synagogue on a service trip, went to Haiti to help out, it would be no less an act of chesed on the part of Jews.
Brit Milah is merely an outward physical ceremony representing the formalization of the religious covenant between the People Israel and the God of Israel. It is sort of an induction in to Peoplehood, but it need not be Nationalistic–only spiritual. It is only the Pittsburgh Platform which seems to strongly deny any sort of peoplehood other than a religious community–later thinking, partly embodied in the Columbus Platform, suggested that we are something more than just a religious community, but not quite a Nation or Ethnicity. I like this idea, and choose to call it “spiritual peoplehood”. We are linked to our fellow Jews across space and time, all over the world and through the ages, but our share history and destiny, and hopefully shared religion, but not necessarily the same culture or ethnicity. It is most definitely a spiritual bond.
With all due respect, I cannot believe what you wrote about Hanukkah. I have spent my entire life being taught (by both Conservative and Reform educators) that it is an OLD mis-conception that Hanukkah primarily commemorates the military victory. Very early on, the rabbis sought to spiritualize the message of the Chag Urim by making it about the broader message of freedom and redemption, about how the power of an idea can make even a weak minority strong enough to keep an oppressive majority at bay. Lighting the Hanukkah candles could not be farther from an expression of nationalism! The light of the candles reminds us of the strength that the Light of God and Torah gave our ancestors in many ages and places throughout history.
Finally, I must respond to the following statement:
“In the common market place of the Jewish people such conversations are healthy. In the closed world of any religion – differences are rarely tolerated without schism and pain.”
I don’t see how a “people” is inherently a tolerant environment for discourse while a “religion” is inherently closed and impossible to discuss. As far as “peoples” are concerned, there are open, tolerant cultures and societies, and closed, tyrannical ones. As for religions, we know that some are very strict and fundamentalist, while others are liberal, tolerant, and open to dialogue. In the mainstream Jewish community, people are so frightened about Jewish survival that views such as mine are considered a threat, and not tolerated very well. In a religious milieu, particularly a liberal one, it has been my experience that dialogue is most welcome.
Eilu v’eilu, I suppose. I would love to continue this exchange as well, though I prefer soda to beer.
Jordan, you are an articulate spokesperson for a view of Jews as a religious community. If you read HaModiah- the daily paper of the Agudat Yisrael, the espouse the same position. They too do not see Jews as a people but rather as a religious community.
Zionists, of all flavors and stripes, demur from this view. We see the Jews as a people, most of whom participate in the religious ritual life we call Judaism in some manner and to some degree. After all a brit milah is a religious action but no less so a strong statement of nationalism.
Lighting candles for Chanukah can be understood as a religious act, zacher l’nes, but it is a ntionalist act for certain, commemorating a military victory.
The history of Israel today, modern and strong – with the usual human flaws that we all have – is the history of the Jewish people. As I have said previously, when American Jews contribute to the Red Cross for Haiti relief the people of Haiti see services being provided by America. When Israel arrives with a full field hospital – the Haitians and the world see this as an act of chesed by the Jews.
My guess is that while we have common ground on being ritually observant Jews in one way or another, we are not going to find common ground on the issue of people hood. That is ok. In the common market place of the Jewish people such conversations are healthy. In the closed world of any religion – differences are rarely tolerated without schism and pain.
I look forward to sitting with you and others to continue this exchange. I am glad to bring the beer.
Danny
President Obama’s most recent comments have certainly been a disappointment to me. There is no question but that he appears to have accepted the Palestinian position on what the borders should be. However, he has been hard on the Palestinians as well, and most particularly Hamas. Is it possible that he’s come down with extremist views on both sides with the hope that we will meet in the middle?
My fear is that given the demographics, our time is running out and still little or nothing happens. Perhaps President Obama’a comments will give each side a “nudge” to try to work together.
In the meantime, we really do have to work hard here in the U.S. where sympathy for the Palestinian position is increasing daily. We should be working on programs to market Israel positively to the American public. As we all know, anti-Semitism is growing world wide. It is imperative that we be able to come to some sort of agreement with the Palestinians in the immediate future.
@ Larry
You provided seven “corrections”. The first, sixth, and seventh are duly noted, but I take issue with the other four.
Regarding number 2, I never said that our ONLY goal was to be custodians of Ethical Monotheism, but it is certainly one of them. We are to CONTINUALLY witness to the Unity of God–though there are many interpretations of what this means. It need not literally mean proselytism.
Number 3 is, itself, a matter of opinion and belief. Taken from the ACJ website: “The historic Classical Reform position has always held that the national period in the early history of our faith was an important formative chapter – creating the shared sense of experience and fostering the spiritual and ethical values that it was our destiny to proclaim and share with all the world once scattered in the Diaspora. This dynamic view of Jewish history rejects the concept that we are in ‘exile’.”
I am somewhat shocked and saddened at your pronouncement that “when [the National Period] is over, Jewish History will be over”. How can you think that the national period is not over? At the very least, you must accept that it WAS over for a while before the establishment of the State in our time. We had a sovereign nation millennia ago, didn’t have one for a while, and now we do again. But, the ANCIENT national period is ordinarily referred to as “the national period”. I cannot believe that you contradicted my reference to that period of history in order to suggest that it is not over. We are clearly in a new, different “national” period, which cannot be said to be a national period in broader Jewish History, but rather in Israeli History, since not all Jews on earth are citizens of that Nation as they more or less were in ancient times.
As for number 4: I am aware of the total co-equality of the parts of the Trinity in Christianity. When you shared the “Jewish” formulation, I knew that you must have intended a similar co-equality, and I rather cheekily turned it around into a hierarchy because you happened to list them in the order I believe is correct for such a hierarchy. It wasn’t nice of me to twist your words like that, and I apologize, though it turns out you didn’t immediately get what I was trying to do.
Finally, number 5: I never claimed to be the arbiter of who is a Jew. I have stated that this is something I struggle with. I am tempted to draw clear boundaries in order to show just how important I believe Theism and religion are to Judaism, but I also recognize how strongly some secular people self-identify as Jews. On the other hand, a religious group has the right to define its boundaries. A Buddhist is not a Zoroastrian just because he or she says so–one must look at the beliefs and practices of the individual, and see how they line up with those of the religion (in any and all denominational variations). If I were a Secular Jew, I would be severely hurt and indignant if people tried to tell me that I was not Jewish despite how proud I was of my cultural identity. That’s a real source of strife for me–I don’t want to hurt people or insult them or upset them, but I DO want to set positive boundaries for religious Judaism. When people introduce themselves to me as Cultural Jews, I assume that they are ethnically Jewish, but do not practice the religion or believe in God. I never argue with them or tell them they’re not Jewish, nor do I necessarily think such things. I just struggle with the fact that it sends a message when the Jewish community accepts people as members even if they make no religious commitment. People think that they are entitled to the pride of Jewish identity without study, faith, or even ethical behavior. We can have better standards than that! I’m not suggesting that we shun or ostracize secular people, or turn them away, or deny their identity, but we can certainly put the burden on them to show how they are Jewish in ways other than a blood test. Non-religious people should at least be somewhat informed in the Tradition, and their ethical posture should be informed by our basic precepts. Practicing religious people should ATTEMPT to nurture a theistic spirituality, though there should be no theological shibboleth to Jewish identity. But, this is just my opinion, and though I’m certain I’m not alone, I would never seek to push it on others.
As an occasional victim of the Orwellian monopoly of unquestioning Zionistic fervor in today’s Jewish community, I know all too well the importance of being able to say “eilu v’eilu”. My overall worldview is much more humble than it sometimes seems in my writing. Particularly when I feel threatened, as on the blogs, I tend to be extremely assertive in a way that makes me sound like an egomaniac. I know that you know this, Larry, but I’m just writing it here so that others will know as well.
@ Jordan Friedman
This argument is becoming repetitive and circular, so I’ll respond only to provide corrections, not to debate matters of opinion or belief.
First, I never said the Columbus Platform was embarrassing. In fact,it was the first in the series of retreats from the Pittsburgh Platform, as the Reform rabbinate began coming to grips with new realities in the Jewish world.
Second, it just isn’t true that the goal of Reform Judaism is to be the custodian of ethical monotheism. We long ago shared ethical monotheism with the world; and to imply otherwise is strange indeed coming from someone who cringes at asher bachar banu.
Third, the national period in Jewish history is not over. When it is, Jewish history will be over.
Fourth, the whole concept of Trinity — in Christianity or the Jewish formulation I quoted — is that the three elements are not prioritizable or separable, but are aspects of one thing.
Fifth, you are not the arbiter of Who is a Jew. It is perfectly possible and not infrequent to find someone who identifies as an atheist and a Jew, whether you like it or not.
Sixth, while I accept the distinction between Judaism and Jewishness, neither of them is the same as yiddishkeit, which is but one possible manifestation of Jewishness.
And finally, J-Street may be the only lobby that espouses the positions that it espouses, but it is hardly the only Zionist organization that stands for compassion, human rights, etc.
“the Reform rabbinate totally repudiated the anti-Zionism of the Pittsburgh Platform, along with other excesses of that platform — some of which MAY have made sense in 1885 but had become embarrassing for a progressive religion in a changing world”
What could possibly be embarrassing about either the Pittsburgh or the Columbus platform? True, the language (especially in the former) rings of pre-millenial optimism and triumphalism that today we see was taken a bit too far, but the overall spirit of the documents was, in my opinion, more befitting a modern progressive religion than some of the reactionary text that made it into subsequent statements of principles. If anything is “embarrassing for a progressive religion in a changing world”, it is, with all due respect, the narrow, primarily ethnic conceptualization of Jewish identity espoused by the 1999 platform. Frankly, I’m surprised that people rarely talk about the Columbus Platform–it re-affirmed some degree of ethnic Peoplehood, and incorporated some Zionist language, but maintained what I would call an acceptable level of universalism and a firm emphasis on Classical Theism. It even called for SOME re-clamation of ritual. Sure enough, at the next revision of the UPB, a candle-lighting ceremony was included in the Sabbath Evening Service. They knew that the Radical Reformers had gone a bit far, but the result of their revision was still very much what we would today call Classical Reform. I think that with just a tiny bit of further tinkering and modernization, one could arrive at something appropriate for the present time. Unfortunately, since then we have gone SO FAR in the opposite direction that it hardly seems like the same religion.
Back to my earlier point, nobody is calling for an end to keeping track of who is a “born Jew”, or a total end to the concept of “peoplehood” (even the Radical Reformers kept that), but I think that the benefits of conceiving of a post-ethnic Judaism in our time would be innumerable. If Judaism is to be a force for good, and fulfill its goal of being the custodian of Ethical Monotheism, then it must broaden its scope. It is axiomatic that a stable, prosperous, peaceful, Jewish Israel could, in theory, be helpful in fulfilling that goal, but I think that as long as Orthodoxy has a large presence in the region (and it ALWAYS will), such positive effects will not materialize.
“If, as you say, questioning the centrality of Israel in liberal American Judaism can get you into trouble in the community, why do you think that is?”
I think that is because people are scared. The community has fallen into the intellectual trap of responding to questions about Jewish survival and identity by retreating into shallow ethnic group mentality, rather than broad spiritual community. Of course many people also have a rich spiritual life, but it is still framed by the narrowness that saddens me and my CR friends. People have latched onto Israel as the only (or by far the best) solution to the (partly real, partly imagined) problems of living in the Diaspora.
“If the community is unilateral in its focus on Israel (even as it differs dramatically in diagnosing what Israel ought to be doing about its current situation), why do you think that is?”
I believe that such unilateral devotion fills a void, and unites groups which otherwise might not agree on much or get along. If the Movement, or a large group within it, woke up and smelled the coffee, the rest of the Jewish community, Orthodox and Progressive, would NEVER forgive it, and there would be a huge war over it. It would rip apart the Jewish community, and that would be a very bad thing. Now that we have build up such a skyscraper, we can’t really undo it without being crushed by falling bricks.
“Your attempted comparison with the Vatican or with German Lutherans is simply a non-starter, because there is no place of family origin component in those religious faiths — they do not purport to be anything but religious faiths. Despite the efforts of the Pittsburgh Reformers to make the same statement for Judaism, it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.”
And why not? The National period in our history is over. We are more than just a religion like the Presbyterians and Methodists–we are a People, but united by a religion and shared history. How different is that from the Christian concept that all Christians are united in the “mystical body of Christ”? They believe that they are somehow united in their religion even as they belong to vastly different denominations and different cultures, nationalities, etc. They feel a SPIRITUAL kinship with one another, but nothing resembling nationalistic identity. They are all baptized, and all receive communion. So, why can’t we, as Jews, be similarly united by a Covenantal bond, and do away with Nationhood? As I said before, many religions have their origins in a particular place or country, and are still LOOSELY ASSOCIATED with that particular national identity or ethnic group, but you don’t see them claiming that those places of origin are STILL CENTRAL to their religious identity. Note that it can still be meaningful and important without being central.
As a side note, I very much like your posited Jewish “trinity”. I think you got the three parts in exactly the right order, of descending importance. The first is absolutely essential, the second extremely important but fallible, and the third almost optional, but indispensably meaningful for some.
“If we are only a faith community, how do you account for the hundreds of thousands of proudly identified secular Jews?”
There is a difference between “Jewishness” and “Judaism”. Those who reject Judaism but elect to maintain their “Jewishness” (dare I say “Yiddishkeit”?) are considered to be members of the Jewish Community, but I just don’t know if I would call them “Jews”. I struggle with this very much, because I don’t want to disrespect or insult people because they are secular. I really don’t know if merely being descended from Jews without continuing to practice the religion makes one Jewish. Our religion (at least in Progressive iterations) welcomes the struggling, or wrestling, with concepts, and does not require blind faith. We do not condemn doubt or agnosticism, but rather welcome it as part of an ongoing process of growth and the search for a life-transforming relationship with God. Outright atheism is different because it does not even attempt to continue the search or the struggle. I think it’s healthy to be an agnostic Jew, as long as one accepts that a desirable end goal is Theism, but along those lines, I’m not sure if it’s possible to be an Atheist Jew.
I truly meant no offense in my comment about J-Street. I did not mean to suggest that it is the only organization that cares for the well-being of Palestinians, but I think it is the one which most strongly articulates this in its principles and statements. There are individuals in all sectors of the Zionist community who care about the Arabs as well, but I have heard far too many nauseatingly racist comments from supporters of AIPAC and the IDF. At present, J-Street is the only Zionist organization whose official positions and policies are compassionate enough and sensible enough to be worthy of my support, even though I’m sure there are many individuals in other organizations whose hearts are in the right place.
@ Jordan Friedman
Your statement, that the inseparability of Zionism and Reform Judaism is simply false, is simply false.
In the Miami Platform of 1997, the Reform rabbinate totally repudiated the anti-Zionism of the Pittsburgh Platform, along with other excesses of that platform — some of which MAY have made sense in 1885 but had become embarrassing for a progressive religion in a changing world.
If, as you say, questioning the centrality of Israel in liberal American Judaism can get you into trouble in the community, why do you think that is? If the community is unilateral in its focus on Israel (even as it differs dramatically in diagnosing what Israel ought to be doing about its current situation), why do you think that is?
One can’t help but remember the story about the woman watching the Boy Scouts parade, and proudly telling the person standing next to her, Everybody is out of step except my Willie.
Your attempted comparison with the Vatican or with German Lutherans is simply a non-starter, because there is no place of family origin component in those religious faiths — they do not purport to be anything but religious faiths. Despite the efforts of the Pittsburgh Reformers to make the same statement for Judaism, it wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. If we are only a faith community, how do you account for the hundreds of thousands of proudly identified secular Jews?
Our religion is intrinsically tied to our history, and to our trinity — the God of Israel, the Torah of Israel, and the Land and People of Israel. Our place of family origin is the land which God promised to Abraham — and those who come later in life to their Judaism are welcomed as children of Abraham and Sarah. Our Holy Place is not Cincinnati, nor Pittsburgh. While as Reform Jews we do not pray for the restoration of the Temple, we do pray every time we take the Torah from the ark — tivneh chomot Yerushalayim, rebuild the walls of Jerusalem — not the Wall, but the walls.
Meanwhile, your implication that only J-Street and its proponents are concerned about the well-being of Palestinian civilians verges on the offensive. And your suggestion of a single secular state, in your reply to Rabbi Karp in the dialogue occasioned by Rabbi Yoffie’s dove-hawk post, is at best naive. A single state in historic Palestine will not be secular — it will be Muslim. And we know the track record of the Muslim Middle East for the way it has treated its resident Jews.
“Our Zionism can never be separated from our Reform Jewish institutions, identity, practice, values or aesthetics.”
That is simply false. It has been done before, and it can be done again. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a great idea, but it is certainly possible. There are some who would say that true “Reform” values are antithetical to Zionism. I am not one of those people, but I certainly do think that the TOTAL CENTRALITY of Israel and Zionism that we see today kind of misses the point of what Liberal American Judaism is all about. Franky, I find it disturbing in an Orwellian sort of way that to even question the centrality of Israel to the Reform Jewish experience can get a person in real trouble with the Community. I am NOT an anti-Zionist, and I am NOT anti-Israel, but I simply do not like how eerily unilateral the Jewish community is on the subject, to the point where I feel obligated to play devil’s advocate and defend some opposing viewpoints. From my perspective, even some left-wing Zionist organizations such as J-Street (which is already reviled by some in our own Movement) are operating on assumptions which have not been proven to be true. I tend to like J-Street because they seem to genuinely care for Palestinian civilians, and are not afraid to criticize the Israeli Government, but the fact is that even they believe in the centrality of Israel to the Jewish experience. I have never understood this–you don’t see Roman Catholics being obsessed with the the Vatican, or Lutherans placing German flags in their sanctuaries! Where are all of the Saudi flags in Mosques? Many, many religions have their origins in a particular place or country, and are still loosely associated with that particular national identity or ethnic group, but you don’t see them claiming that those places of origin are STILL central to their religious identity.
Your use of the name “hineni” is perfect, since among the “here”s is the year 2011. The one we are in.
I guess we have all had these conversations with the self-appointed Righteous among us; the ones that have appointed themselves arbiters of everything: including who is Jewish. My more recent one was on Facebook over the last day or so and appears at the bootom of this thing: http://www.facebook.com/dak18/posts/218790351473050?notif_t=share_reply
I do not know whether to be saddened, frightened or resigned by stuff such as that. Then I read things Ms. Lipni says, or the President says, and just hope for something that seems to be as far from happening as ever before.
@ Disillusioned
You’re absolutely right. We should join with our friends in Gush Emunim and other advocates of Greater Israel, including Judea and Samaria, so that the Jewish minority can rule over the Arab majority and keep them in their place.
Down with those ridiculous J-Street admirers who are so foolish as to think that Arabs have any legitimate claims, who think that compromises are for sissies, who are so foolish as to prefer a peaceful Israel to an isolated Israel.
Shame on the URJ for choosing a new president whose views on Israel parallel those of both of his immediate predecessors, and of hundreds of respected Reform rabbis.
Let’s hold out for Joshua’s borders, a Jewish controlled regime with a subjugated Arab majority, enlivened by daily rocket fire from
Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, counting as its only allies the penguins of Antarctica.
Then you can hold up your heads with pride in Israel and your your stand-firm Reform movement, all 25 of you.
No need to worry. In a few short years, our movement will be holding Palestinian Solidarity Days at Temples Beth Ploni and Ploni as our soon-to-be fearless leader will denude our movement of any meaningful Zionism advocating for Israel to commit suicide by agreeing with the pre-1967 boundaries.
That day may soon come and when we look at our latest Reform positions on Israel wondering how we could have been so damn stupid.
The newly ordained rabbis coming out of the college have embraced the Arab version of history. The Union hires a J-Street admirer. Exactly where do you think this movement is going?