It's election day and I'm sitting in the apartment finishing up my last paper before I can truly begin my winter break. Outside, a truck circles around the block, blasting music and summoning residents, "Go vote, go vote! Whoever doesn't vote is giving a vote to the left!" Now I don't feel so bad about not being able to vote - I'm quite content to give my vote to the left, thank you very much.
If you are curious about whether you would give your vote to the left, provided you were able to vote in Israel, check out this link to a questionaire that will tell you with which Israeli party you are most aligned.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
An Election Video
Next Tuesday, Israel will be holding elections. The Holocaust Survivors' party, which advocates for pensions for Holocaust Survivors, in an attempt I suppose to appeal to a wider audience, merged with the Green Leaf Graduates, a break-off party from the Green Leafs, who advocate for the legalization of marijuana. Here is their campaign commercial. Enjoy.
Some Thoughts on Multiculturalism
Yesterday I took a break from writing my take-home final on "Hidden Dangers in Multicultural Discourse" to go to the hospital for a hearing test (long story - and my hearing is normal).
When I arrived at the ear, nose, and throat clinic, there were a few people on line to speak to the receptionist, who, it seems, was on her lunch break. In front of me were three men: an older man with a closely trimmed beard, a black kippah, and a sweater vest, a younger man with a sweater and a pair of jeans, and an older man with a long black skirt, a suit jacket, and a keffiyeh. We waited for what seemed a very long time before the older Jewish man said to the younger Arab man (in Hebrew) "you know, I was here first." The younger man quickly disputed this point. The two men, who had been standing next to each other peacefully in front of the receptionist's desk argued with quickly escalating voices. "Hold on a minute!" said the older Arab man (who I learned was the younger Arab man's father) in Hebrew, "Hold on a minute!" He stood in between the two arguing men and the Jewish man pushed the older Arab man with his elbow, still arguing, "I was here first!" There was a slight physical tussle - and it was hard to tell who was at fault but it seemed to me that the Jewish man was the agressor, but before it escalated very far, the Jewish man pulled back, took out his telephone, and announced that he was calling the police. "Hello?" he spoke brusquely into his phone. "I'm on the fourth floor at the ear, nose, and throat clinic. An Arab pushed me, he assaulted me, you'd better come." As he spoke, the younger Arab man scoffed in Hebrew, loud enough for everyone in the waiting room to hear, "I did no such thing. Thank G-d there are so many people here who can speak for me." Another young Arab man who was in the waiting room walked assertively toward the Jewish man. "When the police come, I'll tell them what you've done." The older Arab man, the father, said to the Jewish man, "Why do you do this? Because he is Arab?" The Jewish man said, "because he assaulted me - even if he was Jewish and he assaulted me I would think they should do a background check. He might be dangerous." "It was because he is Arab." The older man declared, and his son sighed, "What kind of a country is this, anyway?" By the time the police arrived, the receptionist had already returned, had gone through the paperwork with both men, and the younger Arab man and their father were in the back, seeing a doctor. The Jewish man insisted that the receptionist look into her files to find the name of the younger Arab man so the police could perform a background check, but she refused. She looked defiantly at the police officer and declared, "He's already gone and I can't give you his name. It was just a small thing, so let it go." Shortly thereafter, the policemen and the Jewish man left.
I'm not sure how to interpret this episode, and my examination of it is made more complicated by my not having understood everything that went on because I'm not fluent in Hebrew. However, I thought that the aggressiveness of the encounter would have been troubling anywhere, but was compounded by the way that the Jewish man believed (perhaps rightly) that in a conflict with an Arab man, the police would be on his side and would be suspicious of the Arab man. I don't know who was really at the counter first, but I wonder if the Jew was expressing discomfort at the idea of an Arab having an opportunity to be served before him. Or maybe the Jew really had been there first, and maybe the Arab had said something provocative that I simply didn't understand. I don't know, but I found the whole scene quite disturbing.
And all of this happened, as I mentioned, while I was in the middle of writing my exam on multiculturalism. Which led me to think about my own observation of the interaction: why did I see two individuals and immediately label them as Arab and Jew and see their conflict as representative of all of the tensions between Arabs and Jews in this country? Why do I essentialize these individuals as representatives of the very broad and diverse groups "Arab" and "Jew"? Why didn't I think of them as a short man and a tall man, or a young man and an old man (framing the conflict as a generational one), or any number of other factors that may have made these men similar or different? What is it about culture/etnicity that makes it the most important categorization and marker of difference for me in this context? And if, as I believe they did, some of the tensions of the episode occurred through the social construction of ethnocultural identities as being in opposition to one another, what can we do to change these structures?
I have since finished and turned in my final exam. I haven't written or talked much about my multiculturalism class, but it was a profoundly important class for me, I think, as it helped me sharpen my own understanding of concepts such as culture, identity, belonging, etc. that are important to my own studies and are completely fundamental to the way that our societies operate.
The last question of the exam was to provide definitions for a few key words, citing some of the readings that we have discussed in the class. I thought I would post my definitions for your perusal, so that you could have a taste of what I've been learning in my multiculturalism class:
A) Language:
Language is a system of vocal and written signs that create the conceptual framework into which we are born, and through which we categorize and understand our experiences, dividing between ideas to create what we understand as meaningful relationships of sameness and difference – our very thoughts are dependent on the linguistic tools available to us (Burr 7, 36-38, 44; McLaren 43). The words we use do not have fixed meanings, and they constantly change depending upon their context (Burr 32). Because language can be contested, it is a site of struggle over power (Burr 41). Western language is organized according to binary oppositions, which creates a dependant hierarchy, organizing subjects according to unequal distributions of privilege and power (McLaren 55-56).
B) Identity:
Identity is the ever-changing combination of the various aspects of our lives and the social discourses surrounding these aspects (Burr 51). For each aspect of our lives, there are multiple discourses that provide meaning to these aspects for ourselves and others (Burr 51-52). However, there are only a limited number of discourses available for each aspect, and sometimes these aspects seem to be in conflict with one another because of the limits of available discourses (Burr 52-53). It can seem as though ascribing to one aspect of one’s identity is a betrayal of another aspect (Burr 53). This is exactly the problem that arises when multiculturalists essentialize cultures and assume that someone whose identity includes this culture as one aspect must entirely ascribe to the discourses surrounding the culture, even if other aspects are in conflict with this discourse (Yonah 97).
C) Multiculturalism:
Multiculturalism is a broad term that encompasses a variety of approaches to include and recognize the existence of multiple cultures within one society. These approaches range from constructing the notion of a common culture and delegitimizing otherness to reforming existing institutions to provide social and educational opportunities that will allow cultures that are share a natural equality to achieve a structural equality to emphasizing cultural differences, constructing them as essences that result from a “primeval past of cultural authenticity” to recognizing representations of race, class, and gender to be “the result of larger social struggles over signs and meanings” and focusing on the task of “transforming the social, cultural, and institutional relations in which meanings are generated” (McLaren 48, 51-52, 53) They include a variety of strategies emphasizing either recognition, redistribution, or a combination of these factors, and may suggest forms of self-governance for cultural groups or integration of all groups into a society that would be restructured to better include multiple voices (Yonah 96-99). They may entail educating toward “tolerating cultural differences that are consistent with civic equality” or some other white liberal value or they may involve “substantive discussions” in which non-dominant perspectives are aired and considered (Guttman 71, Marker 22).
D) Narratives:
Historical narratives are the way that the events of the past are constructed into a framework of causality, and are used to create positive national discourses so that the past is used to justify the present (Al-Haj 47). These narratives are often deeply connected to the “homogenizing efforts” of nations to create a community “imagined in its national oneness” (Beckerman 26). They define the values and priorities of societies, and make it difficult to accept the “authenticity of alternate cultural interpretations” (Marker 8).
Works Cited:
Al Haj, Majid (2005). “National Ethos, Multicultural Education, and the New History Textbooks in Israel.” Curriculum Inquiry, 35:1, 47-71.
Beckerman, Zvi. (2007). “Rethinking Intergroup Encounters: Rescuing Praxis from Theory, Activity from Education, and Peace/Co-existence from Identity and Culture.” Journal of Peace Education, 4:1, 21-37
Burr, Vivien. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Gutmann, Amy. “Unity and Diversity in Democratic Multicultural Education: Creative and Destructive Tensions.” J. Banks, ed. Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives. Jossey-Bass, 2004. 71-96.
Marker, Michael (2006). “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge and Limits to Multicultural Discourse.” Urban Education, 41:5, 1-24.
McLaren, Peter. “White Terror and Oppositional Agency: Towards a Critical Multiculturalism.” Goldberg, David Theo, ed. Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Yonah, Yossi (2005). “Israel As a Multicultural Democracy: Challenges and Obstacles” Israel Affairs, 11:1, 95-116.
When I arrived at the ear, nose, and throat clinic, there were a few people on line to speak to the receptionist, who, it seems, was on her lunch break. In front of me were three men: an older man with a closely trimmed beard, a black kippah, and a sweater vest, a younger man with a sweater and a pair of jeans, and an older man with a long black skirt, a suit jacket, and a keffiyeh. We waited for what seemed a very long time before the older Jewish man said to the younger Arab man (in Hebrew) "you know, I was here first." The younger man quickly disputed this point. The two men, who had been standing next to each other peacefully in front of the receptionist's desk argued with quickly escalating voices. "Hold on a minute!" said the older Arab man (who I learned was the younger Arab man's father) in Hebrew, "Hold on a minute!" He stood in between the two arguing men and the Jewish man pushed the older Arab man with his elbow, still arguing, "I was here first!" There was a slight physical tussle - and it was hard to tell who was at fault but it seemed to me that the Jewish man was the agressor, but before it escalated very far, the Jewish man pulled back, took out his telephone, and announced that he was calling the police. "Hello?" he spoke brusquely into his phone. "I'm on the fourth floor at the ear, nose, and throat clinic. An Arab pushed me, he assaulted me, you'd better come." As he spoke, the younger Arab man scoffed in Hebrew, loud enough for everyone in the waiting room to hear, "I did no such thing. Thank G-d there are so many people here who can speak for me." Another young Arab man who was in the waiting room walked assertively toward the Jewish man. "When the police come, I'll tell them what you've done." The older Arab man, the father, said to the Jewish man, "Why do you do this? Because he is Arab?" The Jewish man said, "because he assaulted me - even if he was Jewish and he assaulted me I would think they should do a background check. He might be dangerous." "It was because he is Arab." The older man declared, and his son sighed, "What kind of a country is this, anyway?" By the time the police arrived, the receptionist had already returned, had gone through the paperwork with both men, and the younger Arab man and their father were in the back, seeing a doctor. The Jewish man insisted that the receptionist look into her files to find the name of the younger Arab man so the police could perform a background check, but she refused. She looked defiantly at the police officer and declared, "He's already gone and I can't give you his name. It was just a small thing, so let it go." Shortly thereafter, the policemen and the Jewish man left.
I'm not sure how to interpret this episode, and my examination of it is made more complicated by my not having understood everything that went on because I'm not fluent in Hebrew. However, I thought that the aggressiveness of the encounter would have been troubling anywhere, but was compounded by the way that the Jewish man believed (perhaps rightly) that in a conflict with an Arab man, the police would be on his side and would be suspicious of the Arab man. I don't know who was really at the counter first, but I wonder if the Jew was expressing discomfort at the idea of an Arab having an opportunity to be served before him. Or maybe the Jew really had been there first, and maybe the Arab had said something provocative that I simply didn't understand. I don't know, but I found the whole scene quite disturbing.
And all of this happened, as I mentioned, while I was in the middle of writing my exam on multiculturalism. Which led me to think about my own observation of the interaction: why did I see two individuals and immediately label them as Arab and Jew and see their conflict as representative of all of the tensions between Arabs and Jews in this country? Why do I essentialize these individuals as representatives of the very broad and diverse groups "Arab" and "Jew"? Why didn't I think of them as a short man and a tall man, or a young man and an old man (framing the conflict as a generational one), or any number of other factors that may have made these men similar or different? What is it about culture/etnicity that makes it the most important categorization and marker of difference for me in this context? And if, as I believe they did, some of the tensions of the episode occurred through the social construction of ethnocultural identities as being in opposition to one another, what can we do to change these structures?
I have since finished and turned in my final exam. I haven't written or talked much about my multiculturalism class, but it was a profoundly important class for me, I think, as it helped me sharpen my own understanding of concepts such as culture, identity, belonging, etc. that are important to my own studies and are completely fundamental to the way that our societies operate.
The last question of the exam was to provide definitions for a few key words, citing some of the readings that we have discussed in the class. I thought I would post my definitions for your perusal, so that you could have a taste of what I've been learning in my multiculturalism class:
A) Language:
Language is a system of vocal and written signs that create the conceptual framework into which we are born, and through which we categorize and understand our experiences, dividing between ideas to create what we understand as meaningful relationships of sameness and difference – our very thoughts are dependent on the linguistic tools available to us (Burr 7, 36-38, 44; McLaren 43). The words we use do not have fixed meanings, and they constantly change depending upon their context (Burr 32). Because language can be contested, it is a site of struggle over power (Burr 41). Western language is organized according to binary oppositions, which creates a dependant hierarchy, organizing subjects according to unequal distributions of privilege and power (McLaren 55-56).
B) Identity:
Identity is the ever-changing combination of the various aspects of our lives and the social discourses surrounding these aspects (Burr 51). For each aspect of our lives, there are multiple discourses that provide meaning to these aspects for ourselves and others (Burr 51-52). However, there are only a limited number of discourses available for each aspect, and sometimes these aspects seem to be in conflict with one another because of the limits of available discourses (Burr 52-53). It can seem as though ascribing to one aspect of one’s identity is a betrayal of another aspect (Burr 53). This is exactly the problem that arises when multiculturalists essentialize cultures and assume that someone whose identity includes this culture as one aspect must entirely ascribe to the discourses surrounding the culture, even if other aspects are in conflict with this discourse (Yonah 97).
C) Multiculturalism:
Multiculturalism is a broad term that encompasses a variety of approaches to include and recognize the existence of multiple cultures within one society. These approaches range from constructing the notion of a common culture and delegitimizing otherness to reforming existing institutions to provide social and educational opportunities that will allow cultures that are share a natural equality to achieve a structural equality to emphasizing cultural differences, constructing them as essences that result from a “primeval past of cultural authenticity” to recognizing representations of race, class, and gender to be “the result of larger social struggles over signs and meanings” and focusing on the task of “transforming the social, cultural, and institutional relations in which meanings are generated” (McLaren 48, 51-52, 53) They include a variety of strategies emphasizing either recognition, redistribution, or a combination of these factors, and may suggest forms of self-governance for cultural groups or integration of all groups into a society that would be restructured to better include multiple voices (Yonah 96-99). They may entail educating toward “tolerating cultural differences that are consistent with civic equality” or some other white liberal value or they may involve “substantive discussions” in which non-dominant perspectives are aired and considered (Guttman 71, Marker 22).
D) Narratives:
Historical narratives are the way that the events of the past are constructed into a framework of causality, and are used to create positive national discourses so that the past is used to justify the present (Al-Haj 47). These narratives are often deeply connected to the “homogenizing efforts” of nations to create a community “imagined in its national oneness” (Beckerman 26). They define the values and priorities of societies, and make it difficult to accept the “authenticity of alternate cultural interpretations” (Marker 8).
Works Cited:
Al Haj, Majid (2005). “National Ethos, Multicultural Education, and the New History Textbooks in Israel.” Curriculum Inquiry, 35:1, 47-71.
Beckerman, Zvi. (2007). “Rethinking Intergroup Encounters: Rescuing Praxis from Theory, Activity from Education, and Peace/Co-existence from Identity and Culture.” Journal of Peace Education, 4:1, 21-37
Burr, Vivien. (1995). An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.
Gutmann, Amy. “Unity and Diversity in Democratic Multicultural Education: Creative and Destructive Tensions.” J. Banks, ed. Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives. Jossey-Bass, 2004. 71-96.
Marker, Michael (2006). “After the Makah Whale Hunt: Indigenous Knowledge and Limits to Multicultural Discourse.” Urban Education, 41:5, 1-24.
McLaren, Peter. “White Terror and Oppositional Agency: Towards a Critical Multiculturalism.” Goldberg, David Theo, ed. Multiculturalism: A Critical Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1994.
Yonah, Yossi (2005). “Israel As a Multicultural Democracy: Challenges and Obstacles” Israel Affairs, 11:1, 95-116.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Thoughts about Israel
.מחשבות על ישראל
A lot has happened in the three and a half weeks since I last posted. My semester ended, I visited the United States for two weeks, and I attended the Wexner Winter Institute, where we focused on learning about exercising leadership with Marty Linsky. I've returned to Israel and started a new semester, and tonight, Jessica and I accepted a spontaneous invitation to a shiva (period of mourning) dinner at a synagogue near HUC. I'd love to write about any and all of these topics, and perhaps soon I will, but tonight, my mind is on Israel once again. In this post, I hope to address three primary topics: 1) Reflections on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza; 2) My relationship with the Land, People, and State of Israel; and 3) My thoughts about what ought to be the relationship of a Reform rabbi to Israel.
Operation Cast Lead
As were most people, I was enormously relieved when Israel pulled out of Gaza. I was in the U.S. at time and was glad that I would be returning to a country that was no longer actively engaged in warfare. As each day passes, people I hear from become calmer, and reflections about the war are quickly turning into election prediction and analysis. Israel is holding general elections next Tuesday (February 10), where the right-wing Likud party is expected to win, resulting in Benjamin Netanyahu assuming his second term as Prime Minister. Although Netanyahu and Obama don't see eye-to-eye, hopefully they will be able to work together to hammer out some kind of peaceful situation. Unfortunately, I believe that Tzipi Livni would have a better working relationship with President Obama and would therefore better be able to deliver peace to the region.
My recent post on the necessity to call for peace even when violence seems unavoidable and justifiable generated significant debate on this blog as well as within my personal conversations with others and with myself. I maintain that the cycle of violence must come to an end - we do still need peace. I will not judge those who engaged in Operation Cast Lead, as it's not my place to do so, but all I can say is let there be no more violence. My prayer for peace is renewed with the inauguration of President Obama, and I hope that Israel's own politicians will reflect this vision as well.
Of course, the catalyst of Operation Cast Lead and the monkey wrench in the peace plan was and will likely continue to be the radical leadership of Palestinian terrorist organizations, specifically and primarily Hamas. As long as Hamas is dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza, establishing peace with the Palestinian people is a distant dream. So, one of those factors needs to be changed. Either the leadership of Hamas should be engaged to reevaluate its position on the existence of Israel, or the people of the Gaza Strip need to be engaged to assert new representative leadership.
Examples of such leadership may be able to be found in the surrounding Arab world. There was a surprising lack of condemnation from Arab countries around Israel during Operation Cast Lead, and this reveals the hesitancy of modern Arab leaders to declare their solidarity with radical threats to their stability. It is becoming more clear that it is in the best interest of Arab nations to pressure for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to generate stability in the region, and hopefully these forward-thinking Arab leaders will offer their guidance and support in an initiative for peace.
Was Operation Cast Lead justified? It's extremely hard for me to answer that question, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for Israelis as well. I can say that I wish the situation hadn't been so dire as to encourage Israeli leadership to turn to force as a solution. I can even say that I wish the operation had never been launched. But it was launched, and my prayer now is that somehow it will help pave the way to peace. I'll be sure to write more on this as time goes by, but that's enough on this topic for now.
My relationship with the Land, People, and State of Israel
In a week, I'll reach the 7-month mark of living in Israel, and my perspectives on Israel have certainly changed over the last half-year. Here's a summary of where I was before I arrived:
Land - My two trips here in 2005 and 2007 were very special to me, and I had felt a special connection to the land. This is where all that history happened and therefore became to me an example of what Mircea Eliade calls a "sacred center."
People - Even moreso than the land, I am connected intrinsically to the Jewish people. This was powerfully felt the first time I was at the Western Wall; it was much more significant to me to be at a place thought about and prayed toward by Jews for thousands of years than were the stones themselves.
State of Israel - The State of Israel was to preserve the Land and People, and therefore I had no strong feelings or connections to the State qua State.
Here's what I'm thinking now. These are rough thoughts, so I look forward to challenging them and having them challenged in the near and developing future.
Land - The Land of Israel is much less magical for me now than it was a couple years ago. I do still find it significant that biblical events took place here, but the theological significance of that fact is less than it was. On the other hand, when our class examined pre-State approaches to Zionism, I was ambivalent about initiatives to locate Jews in a land other than Palestine. While for me personally, the Land doesn't hold theological value, I recognize that this land is traditionally very important to Jews and that there are millions of Jews today who do view the land as theologically significant. For our People, then, I support the existence of Israel here even though for me, the Land itself has marginal spiritual value.
People - I am still committed to the People of Israel, though I reject the notion that a Jew is superior to a non-Jew. I do believe that there are ethical values of Judaism that have shined through the ages in a more easily accessible fashion than some other traditions and therefore that the Jewish religion has made and will continue to make significant contributions to the development of humankind. The Jewish people, bound together by (but not only by) this religion are a diverse and opinionated family, with all the blessings and challenges that come along with that. I feel an innate bond to other Jews, and I am devoting my life to the values and people of Judaism. I am excited by the prospect of learning more about what, exactly, the Jewish People is and how it manifests itself in communities. I am very interested in communities, and I want to learn more about them and how one is and can be a member and a change agent of them. Of the three categories I'm examining now, my dedication to the Jewish People is the strongest.
State - I've been struggling the most with the State of Israel this year on a number of levels. First of all, there's the security issue. Does the Jewish State have an imperative to be more ethical than a non-Jewish state? No. However, personally, I expect more from the Jewish State than from other states because of the long ethical tradition that I mentioned earlier. There's a lot riding on Israel, and I believe that it can be a terrific model of Middle Eastern democracy. Let's live up to the highest ethical standard and wage a peace campaign like the world has never seen.
On another level, I've been struggling with the religion/state dichotomy (or lack thereof) in this country. Spend some time here, and you'll find that the religious intolerance in this country is absolutely shocking and appalling, at least from an American perspective. Freedom of religion simply doesn't exist here, and that is such a hard concept for me to internalize. People get up in arms when they hear that the practice of non-Islam religions is banned in certain Arab countries, but no one (except the Progressive Jews) says anything about the anti-Jewish (as defined by the ultra-orthodox) discrimination that occurs in this country. It's a shandah, and it's one of my biggest problems with the State.
Of course, the question of whether to make aliyah (immigrate to Israel) has been on my mind the whole time that I've been here, and I seriously don't think it's in the cards for me. The above two issues are enormous elephants that I'm not sure I can get over, and I lack the vision and courage to combat them here. I seriously admire those who do make aliyah in order to help Reform Israel, and I remain committed to Israel's continued progress because of my Jewish connection to the People that live here, but submitting myself to a country that will draft my daughter into an army wherein she won't be able to speak at her own wedding ceremony is too much for me to swallow right now.
So suffice it to say that my personal relationship with the State of Israel is in a somewhat rocky place right now, though I refused to turn my back on the State and leave it to its own devices. I may not approve of everything that it does, but I approve of what it aspires to be, and (like in America), I will work as I can to help realize the (my) Jewish dream for Israel as a land of pluralism, peace, and morality.
My thoughts about what ought to be the relationship of a Reform rabbi to Israel
So then we come to what I think about others' relationship to Israel. Although I find it very difficult to determine what others might believe or advocate personally, perhaps if I approach this from an institutional level, I can come up with some cogent thoughts. In general, what kind of relationship should a Reform rabbi have toward Israel?
I think I'll echo the director of our Israel Seminar, Dave Mendelsson, who told me that one of his goals for our Israel education program is that students will have a complex and deep relationship with Israel. It doesn't have to be positive (mine isn't purely positive, that's for sure!), but the realities of our communities are that many American Jews are keenly aware of and interested in Israel, and if for no other reason, engaging our community on their deeply held convictions is necessary for effective rabbis.
I also believe that Israel has a lot to gain from Progressive Judaism, and I would hope that Reform rabbis will perceive the street of impact as two-way. Of course Israeli issues and concerns will impact the way American Jews think about their People and faith, but the People and faith of Diaspora Jews should also impact Israelis. Progressive Judaism can offer a focus on pluralism, a commitment to ethics, and a renewed spirituality that I think could be beautifully received and enacted in Israel. I hope that Reform rabbis recognize their own worth with relation to Israel and don't give in to the extant pressures of Diaspora Judaism to bend to the will of Israel.
Overall, I hope that my rabbinic colleagues will join me in supporting Israel by hoping for its continued progress toward peace and pluralism. We should also challenge ourselves to break out of our west-centered mentality and remember that when we say "Jews," we include over 6 million Israelis in our parlance. Let's stop assuming that Jewish = eats bagels and recognize that our communities are not entirely (or shouldn't be entirely) bifurcated. Just as we should feel free to offer words of encouragement and criticism to Israel, so should we be open to similar words from the other side of the sea.
Of course, these are all very general and very similar to my own perspective. But it's worth keeping these thoughts in mind as I head into my future years of rabbinical school. Will it be hard readjusting to life in America? Will I continue to think about Israel on a frequent basis when I'm back in the States? How will Israel affect my rabbinate? These are important questions for me to keep alive, and I hope that my colleagues will continue to challenge me as I hope to challenge them.
I think that's enough for now. Now that I'm back at school and readjusting to the swing of things, I hope to be able to get some more thoughts down in the blog. It's good to be back. Here's to a great semester!
A lot has happened in the three and a half weeks since I last posted. My semester ended, I visited the United States for two weeks, and I attended the Wexner Winter Institute, where we focused on learning about exercising leadership with Marty Linsky. I've returned to Israel and started a new semester, and tonight, Jessica and I accepted a spontaneous invitation to a shiva (period of mourning) dinner at a synagogue near HUC. I'd love to write about any and all of these topics, and perhaps soon I will, but tonight, my mind is on Israel once again. In this post, I hope to address three primary topics: 1) Reflections on Operation Cast Lead in Gaza; 2) My relationship with the Land, People, and State of Israel; and 3) My thoughts about what ought to be the relationship of a Reform rabbi to Israel.
Operation Cast Lead
As were most people, I was enormously relieved when Israel pulled out of Gaza. I was in the U.S. at time and was glad that I would be returning to a country that was no longer actively engaged in warfare. As each day passes, people I hear from become calmer, and reflections about the war are quickly turning into election prediction and analysis. Israel is holding general elections next Tuesday (February 10), where the right-wing Likud party is expected to win, resulting in Benjamin Netanyahu assuming his second term as Prime Minister. Although Netanyahu and Obama don't see eye-to-eye, hopefully they will be able to work together to hammer out some kind of peaceful situation. Unfortunately, I believe that Tzipi Livni would have a better working relationship with President Obama and would therefore better be able to deliver peace to the region.
My recent post on the necessity to call for peace even when violence seems unavoidable and justifiable generated significant debate on this blog as well as within my personal conversations with others and with myself. I maintain that the cycle of violence must come to an end - we do still need peace. I will not judge those who engaged in Operation Cast Lead, as it's not my place to do so, but all I can say is let there be no more violence. My prayer for peace is renewed with the inauguration of President Obama, and I hope that Israel's own politicians will reflect this vision as well.
Of course, the catalyst of Operation Cast Lead and the monkey wrench in the peace plan was and will likely continue to be the radical leadership of Palestinian terrorist organizations, specifically and primarily Hamas. As long as Hamas is dedicated to the annihilation of Israel and as long as Hamas remains in control of Gaza, establishing peace with the Palestinian people is a distant dream. So, one of those factors needs to be changed. Either the leadership of Hamas should be engaged to reevaluate its position on the existence of Israel, or the people of the Gaza Strip need to be engaged to assert new representative leadership.
Examples of such leadership may be able to be found in the surrounding Arab world. There was a surprising lack of condemnation from Arab countries around Israel during Operation Cast Lead, and this reveals the hesitancy of modern Arab leaders to declare their solidarity with radical threats to their stability. It is becoming more clear that it is in the best interest of Arab nations to pressure for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to generate stability in the region, and hopefully these forward-thinking Arab leaders will offer their guidance and support in an initiative for peace.
Was Operation Cast Lead justified? It's extremely hard for me to answer that question, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for Israelis as well. I can say that I wish the situation hadn't been so dire as to encourage Israeli leadership to turn to force as a solution. I can even say that I wish the operation had never been launched. But it was launched, and my prayer now is that somehow it will help pave the way to peace. I'll be sure to write more on this as time goes by, but that's enough on this topic for now.
My relationship with the Land, People, and State of Israel
In a week, I'll reach the 7-month mark of living in Israel, and my perspectives on Israel have certainly changed over the last half-year. Here's a summary of where I was before I arrived:
Land - My two trips here in 2005 and 2007 were very special to me, and I had felt a special connection to the land. This is where all that history happened and therefore became to me an example of what Mircea Eliade calls a "sacred center."
People - Even moreso than the land, I am connected intrinsically to the Jewish people. This was powerfully felt the first time I was at the Western Wall; it was much more significant to me to be at a place thought about and prayed toward by Jews for thousands of years than were the stones themselves.
State of Israel - The State of Israel was to preserve the Land and People, and therefore I had no strong feelings or connections to the State qua State.
Here's what I'm thinking now. These are rough thoughts, so I look forward to challenging them and having them challenged in the near and developing future.
Land - The Land of Israel is much less magical for me now than it was a couple years ago. I do still find it significant that biblical events took place here, but the theological significance of that fact is less than it was. On the other hand, when our class examined pre-State approaches to Zionism, I was ambivalent about initiatives to locate Jews in a land other than Palestine. While for me personally, the Land doesn't hold theological value, I recognize that this land is traditionally very important to Jews and that there are millions of Jews today who do view the land as theologically significant. For our People, then, I support the existence of Israel here even though for me, the Land itself has marginal spiritual value.
People - I am still committed to the People of Israel, though I reject the notion that a Jew is superior to a non-Jew. I do believe that there are ethical values of Judaism that have shined through the ages in a more easily accessible fashion than some other traditions and therefore that the Jewish religion has made and will continue to make significant contributions to the development of humankind. The Jewish people, bound together by (but not only by) this religion are a diverse and opinionated family, with all the blessings and challenges that come along with that. I feel an innate bond to other Jews, and I am devoting my life to the values and people of Judaism. I am excited by the prospect of learning more about what, exactly, the Jewish People is and how it manifests itself in communities. I am very interested in communities, and I want to learn more about them and how one is and can be a member and a change agent of them. Of the three categories I'm examining now, my dedication to the Jewish People is the strongest.
State - I've been struggling the most with the State of Israel this year on a number of levels. First of all, there's the security issue. Does the Jewish State have an imperative to be more ethical than a non-Jewish state? No. However, personally, I expect more from the Jewish State than from other states because of the long ethical tradition that I mentioned earlier. There's a lot riding on Israel, and I believe that it can be a terrific model of Middle Eastern democracy. Let's live up to the highest ethical standard and wage a peace campaign like the world has never seen.
On another level, I've been struggling with the religion/state dichotomy (or lack thereof) in this country. Spend some time here, and you'll find that the religious intolerance in this country is absolutely shocking and appalling, at least from an American perspective. Freedom of religion simply doesn't exist here, and that is such a hard concept for me to internalize. People get up in arms when they hear that the practice of non-Islam religions is banned in certain Arab countries, but no one (except the Progressive Jews) says anything about the anti-Jewish (as defined by the ultra-orthodox) discrimination that occurs in this country. It's a shandah, and it's one of my biggest problems with the State.
Of course, the question of whether to make aliyah (immigrate to Israel) has been on my mind the whole time that I've been here, and I seriously don't think it's in the cards for me. The above two issues are enormous elephants that I'm not sure I can get over, and I lack the vision and courage to combat them here. I seriously admire those who do make aliyah in order to help Reform Israel, and I remain committed to Israel's continued progress because of my Jewish connection to the People that live here, but submitting myself to a country that will draft my daughter into an army wherein she won't be able to speak at her own wedding ceremony is too much for me to swallow right now.
So suffice it to say that my personal relationship with the State of Israel is in a somewhat rocky place right now, though I refused to turn my back on the State and leave it to its own devices. I may not approve of everything that it does, but I approve of what it aspires to be, and (like in America), I will work as I can to help realize the (my) Jewish dream for Israel as a land of pluralism, peace, and morality.
My thoughts about what ought to be the relationship of a Reform rabbi to Israel
So then we come to what I think about others' relationship to Israel. Although I find it very difficult to determine what others might believe or advocate personally, perhaps if I approach this from an institutional level, I can come up with some cogent thoughts. In general, what kind of relationship should a Reform rabbi have toward Israel?
I think I'll echo the director of our Israel Seminar, Dave Mendelsson, who told me that one of his goals for our Israel education program is that students will have a complex and deep relationship with Israel. It doesn't have to be positive (mine isn't purely positive, that's for sure!), but the realities of our communities are that many American Jews are keenly aware of and interested in Israel, and if for no other reason, engaging our community on their deeply held convictions is necessary for effective rabbis.
I also believe that Israel has a lot to gain from Progressive Judaism, and I would hope that Reform rabbis will perceive the street of impact as two-way. Of course Israeli issues and concerns will impact the way American Jews think about their People and faith, but the People and faith of Diaspora Jews should also impact Israelis. Progressive Judaism can offer a focus on pluralism, a commitment to ethics, and a renewed spirituality that I think could be beautifully received and enacted in Israel. I hope that Reform rabbis recognize their own worth with relation to Israel and don't give in to the extant pressures of Diaspora Judaism to bend to the will of Israel.
Overall, I hope that my rabbinic colleagues will join me in supporting Israel by hoping for its continued progress toward peace and pluralism. We should also challenge ourselves to break out of our west-centered mentality and remember that when we say "Jews," we include over 6 million Israelis in our parlance. Let's stop assuming that Jewish = eats bagels and recognize that our communities are not entirely (or shouldn't be entirely) bifurcated. Just as we should feel free to offer words of encouragement and criticism to Israel, so should we be open to similar words from the other side of the sea.
Of course, these are all very general and very similar to my own perspective. But it's worth keeping these thoughts in mind as I head into my future years of rabbinical school. Will it be hard readjusting to life in America? Will I continue to think about Israel on a frequent basis when I'm back in the States? How will Israel affect my rabbinate? These are important questions for me to keep alive, and I hope that my colleagues will continue to challenge me as I hope to challenge them.
I think that's enough for now. Now that I'm back at school and readjusting to the swing of things, I hope to be able to get some more thoughts down in the blog. It's good to be back. Here's to a great semester!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dinner with the Neighbors
This evening I had dinner with our neighbors the Katzes. They are lovely kind people who welcomed me into their apartment because they knew that Daniel was away. We chatted for a very long time over soup, salads, and pasta - they told me that they cooked just about every recipe that they have for something without meat or fish! They told me stories about living in a Moshav during the Yishuv period - about the culture that existed here at that time, the way that people were trusting with one another and everyone knew everyone else. They talked about their family, about the way the Hebrew language has changed over time, about technology, and music, about Obama, and even about their pet turtle who has been living with them for over forty years. They were very patient with my Hebrew, asked me a lot of questions about myself, and I am so appreciative to have had such a lovely evening - and very proud of myself to have spent a whole evening speaking Hebrew (three hours!!)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
At the Foot of a Mountain We'll Climb Together
And now we have a new president. A new vision for our future. From the depths of our hard times, we look up and see the heights to which we can travel, and through the strength of the words of our new leader, we trust that our legs will carry us there. And we hope together, as we set off on that perilous journey.
I watched the inauguration by myself in our Jerusalem apartment, Barak Obama's assured voice overwhelmed by the simultaneous Hebrew translation that covered some of his words. Alone in my apartment, I cried, smiled, I was overwhelmed by the historic implications of the moment, and the personal implications of having someone I trust in the highest office of America, when almost half my life has been otherwise.
Today, I am proud to be an American.
http://wepress.org/inauguration/
I watched the inauguration by myself in our Jerusalem apartment, Barak Obama's assured voice overwhelmed by the simultaneous Hebrew translation that covered some of his words. Alone in my apartment, I cried, smiled, I was overwhelmed by the historic implications of the moment, and the personal implications of having someone I trust in the highest office of America, when almost half my life has been otherwise.
Today, I am proud to be an American.
http://wepress.org/inauguration/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
