January 2007

I’m two for two on blogging NY Times articles, but unless I’m crazy, it has been paying an unusual amount of attention to issues of the Jewish community’s response to anti-semitism (See my last blog on the NY Times mag article on the ADL).

See today’s article, titled “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html

The AJC has just released a report arguing that “progressive” Jews (aka liberal) who criticize Israel are “feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism.” Now, maybe I’m naive, but I didn’t think the AJC was this conservative! Having not read the report (which you can read here: www.ajc.org) , I have to withhold some judgment, but this issue falls under the rubric of one of our generation’s biggest questions: how does anti-Zionism relate to anti-Semitism? For further reading on this subject, I urge everyone to pick up a copy of Walter Laqueur’s recent book, “The Changing Face of Anti-Semitism” in which he discusses this topic.

My sense is that anti-Zionism can be a form of anti-Semitism, but when most people criticize Israel, they are not being anti-Zionists and if that’s an accusation you want to make, you had better have some serious evidence. Most of the time they are (thoughtlessly and unfortunately) expressing political opinions about a state, without considering the implications. As much as I despise the politics of Tony Judt, Kushner, and others mentioned in this article, I think the AJC has crossed a line.

This past week, millions of Americans–and hundreds of millions of YouTube viewers from around the world–were revealed a special insight into the emotional stupidity, ignorance and ethnocentrism of Orthodox Jewry. Looking through the eyes of Hulk Hogan as he tries to do everything to make Orthodox Jews feel at ease, one can understand the feelings of resentment that non-Orthodox Jews feel towards the Orthodox: the stereotypes they engender, the coldness they show to others, the harmful effects of acting as if everyone understands the nature and justifications for
Mitzvot.

For those who have not seen the full video, see it now. Question: why in the world would Jews act in the way they did–literally repelling offers of hospitality? Why in the world could they not have just once said, “Hi, so great to have you in the neighborhood. Please, come in. Thanks so much for bringing cookies–unfortunately we can’t eat them for dietary reasons but would love to treat you to something to eat and drink?” The worst probably was the rabbi at the BBQ–who, after learning that Hogan went out of his way to buy Kosher meat and hoped nothing less than to treat his visitors each on their own terms, was berated in a ridiculous and insensitive way. This is a Rabbi?! No wonder we have the problems we have within the Jewish community, let alone without.

I don’t think I saw one show of Jewish hospitality throughout the entire show. Instead, forgetting the lessons of Abraham and the beauty of our tradition, these Jews were so self-obsessed that they forgot the human element behind the mitzvot, and the importance of Kibbud Orchim and the need l’Kabel Kol Adam b’Sever Panim Yafot.

And don’t think that this happens only to the Hogan’s. It happens every day–even in Israel, where Orthodox Jews are so damn sure of the justice of their actions that they forget the importance of explaining why they do things in a way that brings out the beauty of the tradition–the wisdom of mindfullness in food and action.

Anyone who cares about Judaism, anyone who believes that Orthodox Judaism has a beautiful wisdom to share with the world, should raise their voices in protest against this type of behavior. As a Jew who is orthoprax, and believes in the wisdom of Halakha, I am ashamed–and look forward to the day I will be able to rebuke these Jews in person.

The Pirate Bay (a site for people who like sharing pirated movies and other similar items) has been in a lot of trouble. The police have taken their servers, the media conglomerates have gotten angry, and so on and so forth. They haven’t yet been expelled from their country, but if they keep it up, the government of Sweden (where they are currently based) may end up doing that. They decided that they needed to do something: as a pre-emptive measure, they decided to try to buy their own country.

“Arr, matey,” one said to the other, “let’s buy an island! No one will be able to touch us there. We can establish our own laws which will make piracy legal, shiver me timbers!”

Hence the Buy Sealand project. Since the owners of Sealand have been pretty mum about any sort of negotiations, the pirates have had to change plans, and just buy any old island in the ocean and establish their country there. On their site they have a forum for discussion about what their proposed country will be like, and it’s pretty hilarious. Here, let me show you some quotes from a discussion called “What’s your goal“:

Defence kinda depends on the situation. See, the (glorious) nation of Iceland doesn’t even own a defence, and noone’s tried to annect them yet Wink

But if this “island” is gonig to have hundreds of pounds of equipment, If may be quiet attractive to a sea pirate.

Iceland are part of NATO, so it’s a pretty dumb idea to attack them.

Ok .. and “pirate land” couldn’t join NATO aswell?? Cool

Why is this interesting for a BoZ reader? Like so many other things, it’s just like the Jews! I’m sure that many of the people posting on the Buy Sealand project forums are very intelligent, but there are probably a bunch of kids too who have no idea about what it means to run a country or even to have sovereignty in the first place. Just read above and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

Just like “pirate land,” when Zionism came around, a bunch of Jews—many of whom were very educated but also many didn’t have much of a clue about how to run a country—decided that they wanted to have a state. How different is Herzl and co. from the pirates: “Arr matey, let’s have a Jewish state so that we can live in peace!” Just like “pirate land,” a large part of creating it was buying land. Just like “pirate land,” those interested seemed like a bunch of crazies at the time. Just like “pirate land” will probably be, the Jewish state is in many ways isolated from the rest of the world and criticized for breaking “international law,” whatever that means.

Today, we have established a Jewish country. However, just like the pirate folk will begin to discover, having a country isn’t just about the national theatre and a university. It’s also about building electrical grids and growing food and the economy and real-life pirates who want to take advantage of your generosity and naivetֳe. In many ways, we need to wise up and start thinking past the idea of having a country in the first place, and start making the necessary improvements to conquer the wilderness of our own past.

Al Jazeera reports,

About 45 Jews from the village of al-Salem in northern Yemen, have sought refuge in a hotel in Saada City, the provincial capital, following death threats from local Shia fighters.

The warnings, issued by followers of Bad al-Din al-Huthi Hussein, the late Muslim cleric, asked the Jews to leave the province within 10 days.

The warnings, issued by followers of Bad al-Din al-Huthi Hussein, the late Muslim cleric, asked the Jews to leave the province within 10 days.

Dawood Yosuf Mousa, a local Jewish community leader, said that the Jews were worried about their lives if they return to their homes as security was not well provided there.

Mousa said: “We want to return to our homes, but local authorities haven’t told us to return yet. If we return now, the followers of al-Huthi would slaughter us and kidnap our children.

“We can’t protect ourselves, so we demand the president provide us with protection and security. We didn’t react to the threatening letter, but, instead, we turned to the state for protection.”

Mousa said that there were soldiers at the hotel for their protection, which seemed more secure than in their areas.

Their hotel bill is being paid by a generous Yemeni Muslim businessman. Not much coming out of the Jewish community on this one. Knock, knock.

[Hat tip: EH]

Historical narratives are crucial for policy; without a story explaining why things are the way they are, and happened the way they did, policy makers–and in a democracy, the public–can not make sense of policy options confronting it. Unfortunately, due to trends in the Academy pushing academics towards greater and greater specialization–and especially due to social pressure against academics since Edward Said to produce a theoretically-robust narrative concerning the Middle East , historians heretofore have not stepped up to the task. And then came Michael Oren.

With his new book, Power, Faith and Fantasy, which Max Rodenbeck calls in the New York Times review “a diverting tale over all, full of forgotten twists and memorable characters,” Michael Oren provides such a narrative, thereby providing Americans with a starting-point of reference when thinking about how the US will extract itself from the long, hard slog that has seemed to drain away America’s will for change or ability for motivation. No, it is not a specialized study like Oren’s Six Days of War, and so there are certainly parts which could be drawn out with a finer brush. But it would be a mistake for look for such details–the point, here, is the narrative, and the need for a new frame of reference through which we may decide upon our common destiny.

The days leading up to Jimmy Carter’s visit to Brandeis were full of excitement and controversy. Everyone had an opinion (and they still do) and in regular Brandeis fashion, wasn’t afraid to voice it. We all had different expectations of Carter’s talk, but nothing could really prepare us for the reality of not only a former President’s visit nor the visit of uninvited off-campus protesters from all sides of the spectrum who would like to push their agenda.

The event certainly received much publicity, including the New York Times. It really was quite the publicity stunt for Mr. Carter. An anti-Israel pundit speaking at the “Jewish university”? Forget the fact that Brandeis is really non-sectarian (i.e. not Jewish) but it was a big win on Carter’s part from that perspective. However, I also believe that this event was a good thing for Brandeis, because it has opened the playing field for real discussion about these issues. Whether or not Carter is a liar and anti-Zionist (he certainly claims that he is not), I believe that Brandeis students are intelligent enough to realize that both his talk and Alan Dershowitz’s rebuttal were highly rhetorical and that our own discussion, which continued last night with an event called “Reflect and Connect,” must and can be positive and constructive.

Carter spoke for about fifteen minutes, and gave a pretty tame version of what is in his book. During the Q&A session—45 minutes of questions pre-selected by “The Student and Faculty Committee to bring Jimmy Carter to Brandeis” (all of which are now visible at www.carterquestion.com, so go and comment there)—Jimmy Carter dodged questions and ate his words, claiming that certain statements in his book (for example, that Palestinian terrorism is acceptable until Israel accepts a peace agreement) were “stupid” and that he was working to change them in the next edition (if there is one!).

As Alan Dershowitz (who spoke about an hour after Carter left the building) said, there is the “Brandeis Jimmy Carter” and the “al-Jazeera Jimmy Carter.” This is really quite true. There were a lot of things that Carter said in his speech that I agree with, and contrary to what people in the Jewish community say, he still deserves our respect as a former world leader and one who was crucial in creating peace (however cold) between Israel and Egypt.

However, as Jonathan Sarna said yesterday in my class on American antisemitism, we often learn more about the victimizer than the victim from anti-subversive movements. Jimmy Carter may or may not be an antisemite (though Sarna has been making frequent comments about him in class) but I think that the same idea can be applied to Carter, because just as we can learn about someone from how they understand ink blots in a Rawshack test, we can learn about someone from how they selectively read and understand history. I believe that Jimmy Carter’s frequent claims in his speech that Israel is effectively breaking the Israel-Egypt peace accords by continued presence in the West Bank stems from his personal wish to see himself as a sort of peace-bringing Savior to the Jews, to see himself as the one who established peace in the Middle East.

His claim that the peace treaty stopped future war between Israel and her neighbors is partially true—Egypt has been at peace with Israel for almost 30 years. However, the idea that this will bring total peace to Israel is based on the misconception that Egypt is the most powerful country in the Middle East (outside of Israel). This may have been true during the Cold War, but today this is no longer strictly true. For a long time, Iran has sought to increase their soft and hard power in the region, and today poses a unique threat both to Israel and the rest of the civilized world.

I also believe that we can learn about the Christian community’s understanding of Israel from Jimmy Carter’s speech. He made a comment about how he was taught “since he was three” to respect “God’s chosen people from whom came Jesus Christ [sic].” Is not the belief that the Jews came straight out of the Bible — and thus can ignore the real laws of geopolitics and simply make peace with her enemies who still wish to destroy her, the lamb sleeping with the proverbial wolf — the same kind of Biblical understanding of Israel which informs much of the evangelical Christian community, who often see Israel as a means to their own eschatological ends rather than the revival of Israel as the sociopolitical manifestation of the Jewish People, the Zionist goal?

I’ve got to go to class, but I’d like to leave you with a great clip of part of Alan Dershowitz’s rebuttal to President Carter. He said many controversial things (some of which I’ll comment on in the future) but one of his better comments was a question to President Carter.

It’s official.

Less than 24 hours after sanctimoniously comparing himself to the perennial Jewish scapegoat, Alfred Dreyfus, President Moshe Katzav was informed that he will be indicted on charges of alleged rape and other incidents of sexual harassment.

This is certainly an embarrassing day for the Jewish State - it’s “top citizen,” it’s ceremonial leader, it’s representative to the world will most likely be convicted of the most egregious and sickening of crimes. 

Nonetheless, this is a necessary and positive step in the right direction for the Jewish people and the citizens of Israel. Plagued by inadequate and sloppy leadership over the last year, the State of Israel need go through a cleansing process. Halutz is gone. Katzav is on the way. And maybe, just maybe, the country will see the same sense of justice brought to its other inept leaders.

David Grossman was right: “there is no king in Israel.”

But perhaps not for long. Perhaps, with Israel’s judicial system taking the lead, its country’s prospects for true and effective leadership will emerge onto the political landscape with a tour de force so desperately needed.

Tomorrow is going to be nuts. Here’s how it’s going to go down:

• 2pm, doors open and they let us in to hear Carter speak.
• 3:30pm, Carter actually starts speaking
• 3:45pm, he will stop speaking and he will start answering questions pre-selected by a committee. One of my friends had his question selected which is excellent.
• Sometime later, after Carter runs away, Alan Dershowitz will take the floor and take any question people throw at him

If you want to watch the festivities, it will be broadcast over the web. They won’t let me bring my computer into the gym (Secret service blah blah blah) but watch out for thoughts and comments here afterwards.

In the middle of this fawning article about Shelly Yachimovich is this great quote about why Olmert should resign:

Q: Should Olmert suspend himself because of the investigation?

A: “Unequivocally. He should have suspended himself, and one of his deputies should have taken over. The loss of public faith in the top political echelons runs so deep that if Olmert feels responsibility toward the state, he must [suspend himself]. The loss of public faith in the regime is a threat to democracy, and could lead to longing for a strong leader to make order. The public doesn’t want elections, doesn’t believe its elected representatives, and is convinced everyone is corrupt. But that’s not true. There are many honest public figures.”

Yes. Halutz’s departure was good; Olmert’s will be better, not matter who will follow: Israel needs to feel that its leaders are willing to be accountable for their actions.

Taking a page from the reactionary handbook, Tikkun Magazine has gone out of it’s way to defend an evangelical former president who has either forgotten how bad Apartheid really was or, being from the Jim Crow South, doesn’t really care about suffering as long as it furthers his political position. In an email newsletter, Tikkun’s editors write,

Carter’s book has been the occasion for an assault on him personally. ADL leader Foxman was reported to describe Carter as “a bigot” and rabbis from the Reform movement cancelled a trip to the Carter Center while Jewish members of a 200 member advisory board resigned—all in protest of Carter’s book title “Palestine: Peace or Apartheid.” As the interview with Carter in the Jan/Feb Tikkun issue makes clar, Carter was warning that in the West Bank Israel either had to make peace or it would be eventually establishing an apartheid reality, not claiming that Israel itself was an apartheid reality. But Carter’s substantive analysis has been largely ignored as assailants attack on nit-picking details of his historical account. In this article, Carter explains the kind of discourse he had sought to develop (unfortunately not realizing that in the Jewish mainstream even the most liberal Jews often resort to attacking the legitimacy of the person raising questions about Israeli policy rather than dealing with the substance of those criticisms. That’s how Tikkun got to be perceived as radical by many Jews who have never actually read our magazine or Rabbi Lerner’s book Healing Israel/Palestine, which would have dispelled any claim that we are anything but moderate centrists who are both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, seeing both as having many legitimate points, and both acting in ways that are cruel and provocative. Click here for more.

Wow Tikkun, you really out-did yourself this time.

— Next Page »