May 2007

The PresenTense Institute for Creative Zionism was featured in a full-page article today in Haaretz’s business section, also known as The Marker. While the English translation hasn’t yet been posted, I wanted to share with you this great milestone in the movement towards a Zionist renaissance–one built upon the notion that the creativity of the Jewish People is brought to its full potential by our unity and our resolve to continue improving the world through improving our place in it.

As Ahad Haam foretold over a century ago in his essays and pamphlets–and particularly in his “Jewish State, Jewish Problem“–the creation of a political entity for the Jewish People will not alone save the Jews from the challenges we face in every generation. Instead, the State must serve as a focal point and a tool–a means for continual growth and development, for persistent creativity. We aspire to take up the challenge of developing new ways to approach Jewish life in the here and now, new ways that will affect the future of the Jewish People around the world–and if the extraordinary growth of the Israeli hi-tech industry is any indication, Israeli social entrepreneurship is certainly poised for an explosion in creativity which we hope to be a part of.

Among the critical issues raised by the War in Iraq is whether Iraqi Kurdistan, a region almost entirely autonomous since 1991, should gain complete independence. The most obvious obstacles preventing its secession are pressures from Turkey and Iran, who fear that their own Kurdish minorities will rise up against them, and are willing to invade the region to prevent a Kurdish state, as well as the divisive issue of Kirkuk: an oil-rich city not a part of Kurdistan thanks to Saddam’s policies of the 1980s, but a city Kurds have long laid claim to and want to see reintegrated into their region of control.

But for Israel, and in particular Zionists, the question of Iraqi Kurdistan raises especially relevant– and sensitive– questions. Consider a few of these examples: the Kurds are a people long denied self-determination, despite numerous promises from the international community; the Kurds have been victimized in nearly every country in which they reside, whether as second-class citizens or as the object of genocidal policies; the Kurds have their own distinct culture and language, going back thousands of years; the Iraqi Kurds, against all odds, have established a democratic and prosperous society, battling against both internal terrorist elements and belligerent neighboring countries bent on the prevention of their independence. Even more, Iraqi Kurds are self-declared allies of Western civilization and enemies of religious extremism, whose presence in Northern Iraq has been of critical assistance to U.S.-led efforts in the region.

It is true that Iraqi Kurds have largely limited their aspirations to even more formal autonomy within the new Iraqi republic, instead of declaring its secession. Time and time again Iraqi Kurds have shown their commitment to helping stabilize Iraq, and solving even the most contested and divisive issues (i.e. Kirkurk) through peaceful means. Yet, it is no secret that a vast majority of Iraqi Kurds are in favor of eventual independence and feel increasingly distanced from their Arab countrymen in the south. The question is who, when the time comes, will support their independence?

When the Zionist dream was realized in 1948, its supporters inherited a number of responsibilities as part of a world order that protects the right to self-determination.  Just as world Jewry has a responsibility to be vigilant and active against genocide across the globe, Zionists today have a responsibility to support and assist fellow minorities who seek and deserve national independence.  Alongside the advantages to an independent Kurdistan in Northern Iraq– including a safe source of oil, a Western-aligned country in the War on Terror and a moderate, democratic regime in a radical region– Zionist should recall how crucial our few allies were when we sought statehood.

This Shavuot, I will be teaching a class at the Tikkun Leil Shavuot held at the Manhattan JCC on American Jewish attitudes towards Israel.

If you can’t make it, but are interested in the subject, check out the source sheet I prepared.

Instructions for use: Print sheet. Find a partner for chevruta (paired) reading and discussion. Read through the sections together and reflect on the questions listed above. Repeat with larger group–and mend the tears in the community fabric.

חג שמח

This morning as I bent down to pick up my copy of the NYTimes I was pretty excited: finally the paper was covering what was going on in Gaza. And then I read the caption: “Israel Attacks…7 Palestinians Killed.”

Whoa.

They sorta forgot to show the death-squads fighting in Gaza, or the rockets being launched on Israelis; Instead, it was back to the stock-story: Israel kills Palestinians.

Of course, I wasn’t the only one to see this. Check out this analysis:

American networks have also been reporting on the internal Gaza clashes, while only mentioning the Qassam attacks in passing.An American television producer explained to Ynet, that as sad as it may sound, Sderot is a story that has been going on for years, and is no longer news.

Israel’s complaints to the United Nations Security Council were simply not reported. In Europe the issue also received very little coverage, especially compared to the factional fighting that has been going on in the Gaza Strip between. The Europeans claim the reason for this is that most of the airtime in the past few days has been dedicated to the change of leadership in France, and the little airtime left was set aside for the difficult images from Gaza, and not Sderot.

So…what in the world can one do if the media is clearly deciding which news gets covered based upon how well it sells?

The escalating situation in Gaza is worrying–causing Gazans to request an Israeli re-occupation of the Strip–and revealing. While, as a non-Palestinian I do not believe I have the right to interfere in Palestinian internal disputes, I think that we observers have to realize that the two-state solution is no longer a viable option: there is no such thing as a unified Palestine.

Instead,  a three-state solution should be sought. Israel should recognize that the Hamas government truly governs Gaza–and that since Israel no-longer has forces in the Gaza Strip, that Gaza is an independent country under the sovereignty of the Hamas. Israel should then recognize the Fatah leadership of the West Bank as the legitimate government of the Palestinian Authority, whose jurisdiction is only in the West Bank, and submit to negotiations with Abbas and the Quartet solely based upon those lands and peoples.

By de-linking the two areas Israel would free the Fatah/PLO leadership from having to justify the affairs of their Gazan neighbors, and would recognize the reality that Palestinians in the West Bank have known for quite some time (and spoke to me openly when I would travel there in 1997): The Gazans are not of the same People as the West-Bank Arabs.

Two-States for Two-Palestinian-Arab-Nations, that should be the slogan; the Three State Solution is the only viable option.

With Jerusalem Day tomorrow I thought it was time to debunk the most commonly repeated bit of Palestinian mythology. The idea the eastern Jerusalem is an Arab city, or that Jerusalem as a whole was ever truly an Arab city, is a lie that has been repeated so many times that most of the world seems to believe it. Straight faced reporters on major networks all over the world will speak of “Arab East Jerusalem” as if it is an undisputed fact of history and of present circumstances. It isn’t.

During Ottoman rule, from the late 15th through the early 20th century, Jerusalem had either a Jewish plurality or an outright Jewish majority. In 1854 Karl Marx was a reporter for the New York Daily Tribune. His article of 15 April 1854 reported the population as follows:

…the sedentary population of Jerusalem numbers about 15,500 souls, of whom 4,000 are Mussulmans [Muslims] and 8,000 Jews.

At the time Jerusalem was little more than the old, walled city. Jewish settlement outside the walls wasn’t permitted by the Ottoman rulers until 1865. The entire Jewish population was in the old city. If we judge east and west from the 1949 armistice line (pre-1967 borders) then the entire Jewish population was in what is now referred to as “Arab East Jerusalem”.

What made east Jerusalem Arab? 19 years of illegal Jordanian occupation ending in 1967. In 1948 when Jordan captured the old, walled city they destroyed 58 synagogues. 58! I somehow don’t think Arabs were worshiping in those synagogues. Yep, in 1948 there were still lots of Jews in “Arab East Jerusalem”.

Here is a description of how Jerusalem was divided until the Six Day War written by former Israeli President Chaim Herzog in his 1982 book The Arab-Israeli Wars:

…Jerusalem had been divided between two warring elements: barbed wire in profusion, fortifications, trenches and battlements cut through the city…

Mount Scopus [was] an Israeli enclave on the site of Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital; it had been completely surrounded in 1948, but held out against all Arab attacks. The second enclave was Government House, which had been the residence of the British High Commissioner of Palestine…

So… there were Israeli and U.N. enclaves surrounded by Jordanian held territory in “Arab East Jerusalem” rather than a clean east-west, Jewish-Arab devision. Does this sound like workable, defensible borders as envisioned in UN Resolution 242? Not to me, it doesn’t.

Yes, the majority of the eastern part of the city today is Arab. That’s true, in part, because Jerusalem has grown and swallowed up several Arab villages and, in part, through natural population growth in the Arab community. There are also a number of Jewish neighborhoods in the eastern part of the city.

It may be possible, someday, after a period of peace, to separate Arab areas that aren’t part of the historical city and place them under Arab rule. Right now, though, I don’t see this is practical. I do not support dividing the city again and I do not accept the idea that any part of Jerusalem is intrinsically Arab and must be ceded.

If you, like I, support keeping Jerusalem united you may wish to visit OneJerusalem.org. Tomorrow is the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem on the Jewish calendar. To me, that is something to celebrate and cherish.

Exterminate! Exterminate! Annihilate! Has anyone else noticed that Hamas sounds an awful lot like the Daleks lately? For those not familiar with the British science fiction television series Doctor Who, the Daleks are supposed to be the most evil creatures in the universe. They were introduced in the series’ first season in 1963 and have appeared in almost every season since, including the 2006 season. The Daleks scream “Exterminate!” and on rare occasions “Annihilate!”. The most frequently heard Dalek utterance: “You will be exterminated!” That’s the same promise Hamas made to the Jewish people last month. The Dalek’s goal: to commit genocide, killing everyone and everything that isn’t a Dalek. Sounds a lot like Hamas, doesn’t it?

Hamas does have it over the fictional Daleks in one way: the Daleks never promised to drink their enemies’ blood the way Hamas promised to drink Jewish blood. Maybe Hamas members are really the most evil creatures in the universe.

Hannah over at FearNottheGods has a very interesting post up, one that deserves much much more discussion. I started off over in the comments on her blog–and I recognize that I’ve made this argument before–but want to rehash the argument a bit here to see where it can go:

We’re at a time in the Jewish World in which a world empire has set a global culture of sorts towards which most of the world bends. Two thousand years ago it was the Greeks, today it is the Americans–different era, same dynamic.
Jews have, as always, adapted to these times. American Judaism–in particular–is undergoing a revival directly parallel to the general revival in religiosity in the US, one that is highly focused on the commodification of spirituality–the get-what-you-want-when-you-want-it experience of davening-with-the-cool-kids. That in and of itself is totally fine by my book–you should be able to pray any way you want. My question is, however, what is the philosophical basis of these prayer-experiences?

I would argue that what lies behind these prayer experiences is a belief in the divine nature of humans, the universal benevolence of God regardless of background or type, open individual access to the Creator, God’s ultimate acceptance of all of God’s creators without regards to the literal laws of Scripture, and the ideal that the messianic days in which nation should not rise up against nation are close at hand if we want it.

In other words, American Judaism has returned to the Midrash of Jesus.

As I write on Hannah’s blog, it should be noted that the Jews weren’t always against Jesus and his followers. Jesus was a Pharisee, and much of what we think he preached was echoed by great Sages such as Hillel and Rabbi Akiva. It has even been argued that some of the great rabbis– specifically Eliezer– harbored respect for Jesus’s midrash.

The great split began when the Jewish followers of Jesus–the Minim–started preaching that the polity they belonged to (that is, the community that was their primary concern) was not bounded by the Jewish People. At that point, Minim found more in common with the Notzrim — or the non-Jewish followers of Jesus– in that they both believed that certain policies were for the good of the larger collective–called the Flock, which potentially included all of Humanity. The more the Notzrim grew, and the more the School of Jesus moved away from a grounding on Jewish collectivity, the further away this community strayed from the Jewish polity. This occurred for one simple reason: when one values a set of a ideals (religious or “rational”) over the set of human beings bound to one by formal and traditionally held notions of collective responsibility (family, tribe, nation), one becomes willing to act against the self-determined interests of that collective in the sake of the ideal-determined prescribed action.

As such, the prayer “Al’Ha’Malshinim” was added to the eighteen benedictions of the Amidah is called “Al’Ha’Malshinim” and not “Al’Ha’Kofrim’ (translation: “about those who turn-on-us” and not “about those who turn-on-God”), and the break between the two communities continued ever since.

Chabad, as much as elements within them believe in the Rebbe, have never taken themselves outside of the Jewish People. In fact, other than a Messianic belief in a human being (which is entirely rabbinic — the messiah in rabbinic mythology is a man, son of David), Chabad does not–at this point–believe that its political interests are different than the interests of the general Jewish community. Sure, they might disagree–but the bottom line is that their fundamental loyalty is to the Jewish People. Not so with Messianic Jews or Minim, whose fundamental loyalty is to a system of ideals that is larger than one People, a system of ideals that preaches as Jesus did: “Who are my Brothers? You are all my brothers”–that is, a Universalism that denies the importance of bounded, particular collectives.

Where does this put the Satmar? Those who actively aid the enemies of the Jewish People are, as far as I’m concerned, outside of the Jewish People. Those who don’t remain part of the Jewish People, even if they disagree with our current trajectory. Where does that put those not born Jewish who live as Jews? Within the Jewish polity: “your people are my people,” and only later, “your God is my God.”

This distinction, therefore, is directly relevant to the question of Zionism: if Zionism is the movement to fulfill the collective potential of the Jewish People, we need to first identify who is a member of the Jewish People and who is not. In other words, in an age in which there is a defined sovereign Jewish polity that decides its affairs based upon the opinion of its members–through democratic process–we must redefine who is a Jew accordingly.

I love that as a Jew living in Israel, I am part of a multi-thousand-year-old political tradition. For the last fourteen days, every morning and evening as I walk to and from work, I’ve passed by the Prime Minister’s house and seen people camping out in front calling for him to resign. Recently, they’ve added a sign saying XX number of days that Olmert and Peretz are still “clinging to the horns of the altar.” This most prominently references a story at the start of Kings I.

On his deathbed, King David tells his son Shlomo that Yoav is responsible for the shedding of the innocent blood of Avner ben Ner and Amasa ben Yeter.

“Moreover, you know also what Yoav ben Zeruya did to me, and what he did to the two captains of the army of Israel, to Avner ben Ner and to Amasa ben Yeter, whom he killed, and shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle that was about his loins, and in his shoes that were on his feet. Do therefore according to your wisdom and let not his hoar head go down to She’ol in peace.”  (Kings I 2:5)

Yoav had also thrown his lot in with the wrong candidate, Adoniyahu, rather than siding with Shlomo in the political struggle. So as the story unfolds, we are told:

“And Yoav fled to the tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the altar…and Benayahu came to the tent of the Lord and said to him, ‘Thus says the king, Come out.”

And he said, ‘No; but I will die here.’…

And the king said to him, “Do as he has said, and fall upon him, and bury him; that you may take away the innocent blood which Yoav shed, from me and from the house of my father.’…

So Benayahu ben Yehoyada went up, and fell upon him, and slew him; and he was buried in his own house in the wilderness. And the king put Benayahu ben Yehoyada in place of him over the army.”

In a figurative way, we must ask: Where is today’s Benayahu ben Yehoyada, and how long will we, the People, allow Yoav to cling to the altar?

Spaces just openned up for South Americans, Europeans and Israelis in the Summer Institute for Creative Zionism–and with our growing list of Faculty (don’t worry, some younger folks and women are soon to be added) it’s a summer you won’t want to miss.

The best part is that there are two ways to participate. For those able to devote three evenings a week for four to six weeks, you can apply for Fellowship. Fellows have more intimate access to Faculty, and will work throughout the summer with teams in the incubator to develop their craft. And the best part is that the program is flexible enough so that Fellows can keep up on their work throughout the summer–the hours of 9am to 5pm are not programmed, and the wireless internet can help you telecommute if you need to.
If, however, you will be in Israel for a week or two, you can still participate–as a Member! Members have access to programs throughout the summer–with some restrictions–and have free access to the Institute house in Rechavia, Jerusalem, and creative space. It’s a great opportunity to meet and connect with young innovators from around the world–so if you’ll be around, apply today!

— Next Page »