Ruchi, I just saw some of the American “coverage” of what’s going on in
Israel. PLEASE
tell all your people who get their news from the American media
that it’s so outrageously biased they shouldn’t believe a thing.I’m in
agony over what decent people must think of us because of what they see
and hear (that after a little minor “tit for tat,” Israel decided to
attack
those poor innocents in Gaza). And they won’t ask because they have no
reason to think there’s anything to ask about. They probably have no
idea that the Israeli action is a defensive response to Hamas firing
lots of rockets at Israel unprovoked. They probably have no idea that
Hamas still intends to wipe us out completely.I’m really not scared
(maybe I should be, but I’m not), but it hurts me terribly to see how
innocent viewers are being deluded into believing the worst of us.
A few figures: In 2011 alone,
627 rockets from Gaza hit Israel. This year there have been 1,697,
including 764 until Nov. 14, the day when the present Israeli response
started. Can you imagine any other country taking all that without
responding?
We are with you, Israelis.
We know. At least, those of us know who haven't closed our minds and hearts and decided to participate in the demonization of Israel.
I am not sure what media outlets your reader is referring to, but I have not noticed such a bias. If anything, I think Americans feel very much aligned with Israel in terms of the threat of terrorisism and the hard choices that must be made in how to combat it. I think the news coverage very much reflects that. Acknowledging that innocent people on both sides are losing their lives, and the simple truth being far more people in Gaza have been killed, is not bias. I think the media has been very clear that Israeli actions in Gaza have come in response to a barrage of rocket attacks that are terrorizing Israeli citizens and causing casualties. Reminding ourselves of the suffering experienced by those in Gaza does not undo that fact. It reminds us to examine a complicated issue with a healthy dose of humanity. I will continue to pray for all innocent people caught in the middle.
JEM, I think you forgetting something in your response. Far more people are being killed in Syria than in Gaza. The suffering of the innocent people in Gaza is caused by Hamas. They force their people to be human shields. What is Israel supposed to do? Israel does not target civilians and celebrate their deaths. Hamas does. The bias in the media is when they make ISrael out to be the Goliath when in reality we are still David.
Ruchi, what would you tell someone who thinks you are bias and makes the comment that "it takes two sides to fight and that nobody begins a war without a cause and reasoning"?
Bear in mind that Hamas runs Gaza because they were elected by the people of Gaza.
I'm not sure I understand your point about more people being killed in Syria and how that directly relates to the situation at hand?
Also, the point of my post was precisely not to engage in the finger pointing that always accompanies these types of conflicts. I in no way suggested Hamas was not to blame, or Israel was to "blame" for the suffering in Gaza. I only suggested that it is happening and it is not the job of the American or international media to not report on it because Israel does not have any other option to defend itself. Of course Israel has the right to defend itself. But any such conflict inevitably leads to the tough decisions I alluded to in my post. America has made many decisions, some I agree with and some I disagree with, in our own fight against extremism. However, I am thankful for media outlets that reports on the casualties so that I can reflect on the loss of of life war inevitably brings.
Not sure I agree with your statement about Israel being the David vs. the Goliath in this context but I think that is taking my post past the point for which it was intended. It was certainly not a criticism of Israel in any way. Also, DG, I think your statement is very oversimplified given the complexities of a 60+ year conflict. Do children vote for Hamas? Regardless, human loss of life matters to me irrespective of who they voted for.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone! I'll continue to keep Israel in my thoughts and prayers, especially my friends there, and the civilians of Gaza as well.
"human loss of life matters to me irrespective of who they voted for."
Those who voted for people who advocate and glorify killing innocent civilians and annihilating Israel have lost my sympathy.
On second thought, I didn't word that strongly enough: Those who voted for people who take pride in murdering innocent civilians and are actively trying to annihilate Israel have lost my sympathy.
Yes, DG, and alas the cycle of violence continues.
"He who is compassionate to the cruel will ultimately be cruel to the compassionate."
— Midrash Tanhuma Metzora 1; Yalkut Shimoni I Shmuel 121
JEM–the cycle of violence continues? I wonder why?
‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel’ – Benjamin Netanyahu
I am not a fan of Netanyahu or the Israeli government but some things are pretty obvious–like Hamas wanting ALL of the Jews dead (as they openly admit).
If you are not open to believe this than I do not want to confuse you with facts.
Although emotions are strong here, understandably, let's keep the tone respectful so I can keep it going. It's important to talk about this.
Thanks Ruchi! Anon- I have not said a single thing about the Hamas leadership. I have no illusions about what Hamas stands for. I simply argued that the citizens of Gaza are suffering too and reporting on the deaths there is a necessary and important. I think that regardless of their "voting" for Hamas (I don't necessarily believe a lot of them feel like they have a whole lot of choice) this does not mean that I don't feel for innocent civilians. You cannot on one hand describe Hamas as brutal and ruthless and then simultaneously act like all of Gaza lives in a free political system where they can choose whether or not to support Hamas. I think the recent gruesome video circulating the internet supports your proposition and mine.
As I have stated several times now, I believe Israel has the right to defend itself. I also believe that the US has the right to defend ourselves against extremism. Despite this, at times I find myself forgetting that many civilians live in the areas where drones strike or where we are at war. Many civilians are killed in Afghanistan. Some or many of them might even be voting for the Taliban or the tribal leadership in Pakistan that supports Al-Qaeda. However, unless they are directly involved in these acts I will continue to pray for their safety and feel sadness when their lives are lost. I think the circumstances in their lives are probably much more desperate and complicated than I can possibly imagine so I will not determine the value of their lives by who they "vote" for.
The cycle of violence continues for many reasons. I believe that one of those reasons is that we sometimes tend to dehumanize the enemy because it makes very hard situations a little easier to deal with.
JEM, thanks for articulating this view. It clarifies for me my own feelings, which before reading this were far less coherent.
I, too, feel sorry for any individual Palestinians who genuinely want to live in peace, are opposed to the attacks on Israel, and did not vote for Hamas but nevertheless suffer as a result of the Hamas actions. However, Hamas has widespread support; it's not just the leadership that is responsible for this.
You claim that it isn't bias to say that far more people in Gaza have been killed. But context is everything. What makes the claim outrageous is that it suggests a moral equivalence: Gazans kill Israelis; Israelis kill Gazans. In fact, the Hamas government of Gaza is responsible for the deaths of both. They can have peace and independence anytime they want, but they would rather kill. And they have plenty of support from the populace.
Many Westerners have a simplistic view of war, believing that if only "we" stopped fighting "they" would, too, and everyone would work out their differences in peace. But when the other side glorifies war and killing, that pacifistic attitude doesn't work. They keep killing and we are reduced to incessant attempts at appeasement.
I think maybe one of our disagreements is to where to draw the line between government/leadership and citizens. I think you are right in that leadership is elected by citizens (again to varying degrees depending on the level of freedom and existence of choices) but at the same time leadership makes the decisions and then justifies their decisions to their constituents. I think in many cases people go along with something that they never would have decided for themselves given the same set of facts (Iraq war?). This also brings up the issue of propaganda. One of the reasons why Hamas is so successful is that they expertly play this game. Given that there is very little access to media and unbiased information I can understand how the Palestinians believe that Israel is 100% to blame for all their problems. Perhaps I have an overly idealistic view on this. I just find it useful to give people the benefit of the doubt. When the Israeli government does something I disagree with, or any government for that matter, I don't hold that against the citizens. Just like I hope I'm not held accountable for every bad decision the United States makes. My personal solution to this huge complexity is to hold only those in power responsible.
In terms of the bias, I think that all news stories on a subject like this one are necessarily lacking because it is impossible to delve into the entire history of this conflict when reporting on the latest skirmish. I think that the media outlets have been clear that the Israeli actions were in response to constant rocket fire started by Gaza. Most have reported the huge number of rockets fired at Israel as well which I think provides the necessary context. Unless they are going to include a dissertation on the failure of the peace process I'm not sure they can provide the context you are looking for. People who lack necessary background information are never going to get the full scope of even the most unbiased news story. Ultimately, I don't think the solution to this is to ignore the casualties in Gaza. Also, since the vast majority of people in the US support Israel that just doesn't support this bias in the media you are alleging.
I don't think it is overly simplistic to view war as a cycle that each side promulgates at least in part. There is a constant and delicate balancing act that goes on and each side is bound to make some wrong calculations. For example, I think Israel severely discredits the Fatah government by continuing to build settlements. Just my opinion and certainly reasonable minds can disagree on the significance of that. However, I think that if Palestinians don't see Israel and Fatah making progress on some of these key issues then why not support the more militant approach that Hamas offers? Desperate people choose desperate measures. I find terrorism abhorrent, but that does not mean that I don't see how certain US policies in the mideast have led to terrorist groups gaining power and how some of our recent actions are actually solidifying their causes. It is rarely the case that one side is to blame for everything.
Also, the cycle of violence I'm referring to predates Hamas by many years so I don't think it is fair to say they are responsible for all the casualties. In recent memory they have certainly been the most culpable party but that does not erase the long history of violence and missed opportunities on both sides.
JEM, you make a lot of interesting points (especially the unpopular ones). But I must disagree about your lack of bias perspective. As one example, the news media reports deaths in numbers, irrespective of whether the dead were innocent civilians or terrorist accomplices.
There is an important distinction to be made between morality and pragmatism: A policy may be perfectly moral but unwise. Giving in to terrorism, for instance, is generally unwise. It encourages the terrorists to repeat their actions. It is necessary to be tough with terrorists and their abettors.
Jews have every moral right to live in Judea and Samaria (the "West Bank"), as it constitutes the historic, God-given Land of Israel. People can debate whether it's wise, but I would say that unless giving it away is going to bring true peace, there is absolutely no reason to give it away and there is every reason not to. The Fatah government has not shown any real interest in making peace (I don't mean "peace agreements" that amount to unilateral Israeli concessions). Since the signing of the "peace agreements" Fatah has continued to support terrorists. We can't assume that if only Israel gave in to all their demands they would suddenly turn peaceful. They have given Israel no reason to expect that.
As for the violence predating Hamas, of course it does. Arafat, for instance, was an arch-terrorist. I'm only talking about Hamas's responsibility for the consequences of its recent attacks on Israel. The Arabs have consistently rejected opportunities for an independent Palestinian-Arab state. They rejected it in 1947/48 when it was offered by the UN and would have been gladly accepted by the State-of-Israel-in-the-making. Instead, they waged war on Israel. They continued to reject it, and in Khartoum in 1967 (shortly after failing to destroy Israel by war) they proclaimed the famous "3 No's": no peace with Israel, no negotiations with Israel, and no recognition of Israel (see http://www.sixdaywar.org/content/khartoum.asp). From what I've read, the peace treaties eventually signed with Israel by Egypt and Jordan have been extremely unpopular in those countries; in contrast, they were celebrated by Israelis. Israelis continue to hope for peace and are willing to give up a lot for it, but Palestinians continue to attack and kill. Israel gave up the entire Gaza Strip and got missiles in return. Of course there are some Palestinians who genuinely want peace, but they seem to have no power or influence, so it would be suicidal to trust them to pacify the others.
DG, are you saying those can be separated or they can't?
It is hard when the pragmatic assessments, which are themselves hugely complicated and not neutral, get added onto claims about what God promised or did. In fact I'm not sure that pragmatic assessment can be separated from theological-moral ideas. I guess for people who believe that the land was given to them by God, the pragmatic assessments will be decided against that background. And for people who don't believe that the land was God-given, the pragmatic assessments are likewise influenced by that idea.
Does your belief that the land was given by God to the Jews inevitably go together with a belief that Arabs and Jews are somehow biblically determined to always be enemies?
I'm saying that both morality and wisdom/pragmatism have to be taken into account when making decisions. A proposed action may be neither, both, or one or the other. For instance, stealing may be pragmatically advantageous but immoral; recovering your stolen property when it's being guarded by armed thugs may be moral but unwise.
No, I don't think Arabs and Jews are biblically doomed to be perpetual enemies. For one thing, Arabs weren't even in the area (at least not as a significant presence) for most of history — not until the seventh century, long after the Bible. If you want to know how and when the ancestors of the present Arab population moved in (surprisingly recently!), read the book From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters. Second, as I said above, Israel is so eager to make peace with the Arabs that the Palestinians could have a state anytime — despite the Jewish claim to the land — if only they would agree to make peace. It's up to the Palestinians.
Ruchi – I agree that making the distinction between types of casualties provides a more complete picture. Practically speaking, I don't think of it as "bias" because there is a complete vacuum of verifiable information. Also, we can't agree on how to assess it. DG and I might come up with quite different numbers 🙂 Perhaps the media could include a brief disclaimer of sorts – that there is no verifiable information on actual civilian casualties since Hamas has a history of using human shields, lack of access, etc. This would at least alert people to the complexities of the situation that basic numbers don't capture.
However, I do still think that even correcting for combatant casualties, more innocent civilians die in Gaza than in Israel and essentially this is what the media is reporting. Hamas certainly contributes to this but I think it is a stretch to say Hamas using human shields accounts for it all. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world so any military intervention there is going to lead to civilian casualties. I am not saying this is all Israel's fault. Just a sad fact. It's even more sad that Hamas uses this suffering to consolidate their own power which leads to more suffering. I think our main disagreement, and my main disagreement with DG, probably just stems from how we divide the leadership from the people. And like I said before, reasonable minds can certainly disagree about this!
DG – I am not religious so I don't see the morality of this issue as having anything to do with who has a God-given right to the land. I understand this is deeply significant to some people and I respect that, but I have to be upfront that it has 0% weight in my calculations. From my perspective, the moral imperative is achieving peace between two groups of people who want the same land. There is a moral imperative to find a just and practical solution to the refugee problem. Pragmatically, both sides are going to have to give things up. I am certainly not arguing that Israel should give the Palestinians everything they ask for and I don't think at any time in history that has been on the table. I think we fundamentally disagree about some of the reasons why the peace process has broken down in the past and perhaps even about some of the root causes of this conflict. However I don't want to turn this thread into a history match because there are many different valid perspectives on the history of this conflict, far too many to cover here. Suffice it to say there is a lot of distrust and animosity on both sides regardless of where it came from. My opinion about what needs to happen moving forward stays the same regardless. Peace is going to have to be a 50/50 endeavor moving forward. Unfortunately, Israel does not get any points for good behavior in the past. Unfair but true. Public opinion in the territories has steadily been shifting in recent years with the majority of Palestinians now favoring a 2 state solution. This is only one piece of the puzzle but I hope it is enough to make Israelis disagree with your assessment that they have no reason to give anything away and every reason not to. Like I said before, halting settlements would be huge step in the right direction.
The worst move would be to halt settlements unilaterally. Experience shows that concessions only lead to the expectation of more concessions. Israel offers a concession in exchange for something, the Palestinians refuse, and then Israel is expected to make the concession anyway — and to offer further concessions in exchange for that something that the Palestinians refused to do before.
I disagree with your ultimate assessment but your position is certainly understandable . Admittedly this has not brought the desired results in the past. Maybe I am overly hopeful that things can shift and start to move in a different direction.
I believe the American media like I believe in the tooth fairy.
dear Anon, i'm not Ruchie, but:it is just such a simple minded statement that 'nobody begins a war…etc' or 'it takes 2 sides to fight'. have those people forgotten hitler or pol pot or …name any serial killer, rapist, child murderer. there are people who are evil and who dedicate their lives to murder and mayhem. and sometimes their cause or reasoning is that they want to rule the world or eliminate a certain group of people, or get some thrill from hurting someone. or take something milder- the person you might see on the bus or in the store or on the playground who decides she wants something for free and makes a scene and then someone objects to her actions and protects himself- was that ' it takes 2 to fight'?
I agree with Anon #2. Check out this VERY interesting, and probably highly controversial piece by the inimitable Daniel Gordis: http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/when-balance-becomes-betrayel/
No controversy here–just reality..horrible;
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162395
so, is this ceasefire good for israel or bad? judging by past experience, many of us guess it's bad but only time will tell if the IDF really succeeded in diminishing their mettle and firepower or merely slowed them down a bit.
Does O Judaism require compassion for all people and value of all human life, including enemies or children of enemies?
Does Reform Judaism?
Haha! That was a trick. It's all one Judaism. Short answer: yes. Longer answer to follow after Shabbos (this is one of the earliest sunsets of the year :).
no way!! Torah Judaism states the principle that one who is kind to the cruel will end up being cruel to the kind. It also states that if someone rises up to kill you, you should rise up against him first in self-defense.
Ruchi, I think according to the terminology I've seen around here that I should better say "I AFFILIATE Reform" than that I AM Reform. So I don't know what Reform Judaism says about this. I know Tikkun Olam or repair of the world is a big deal. But I think I recall that Leah indicated once that R Jews interpret the central Jewish values (from what I remember she said) "God, Torah, Israel" to mean the STATE of Israel, whereas I think you suggested that for O Jews it's the people/nation of Israel. This to me would imply a stauncher Reform tendency to Zionism than O Judaism might (conceivably) have.
Rena: so how broadly can you interpret the "him" to rise up against (who rises up against you)? Just the actual killers with weapons in hand, or all their people as well? I have my own views which are like JEM's but I am asking this sincerely because I'm wondering truly how O Jews interpret these things.
And it sounds like Ruchi is going to disagree with Rena, so I'll just stand by on that.
True, but Reform Judaism, being a liberal entity, also supports the underdog (although who, exactly, is perceived as the underdog, is certainly debatable). I would actually be super-interested in hearing a Reform perspective here. It seems to me that a Reform Jew might actually be more likely to support Israeli restraint (did you read the Daniel Gordis piece linked above?).
In any case, Judaism supports compassion in emotion, but not always in action. Rena describes how a Jew must *behave* while I describe how a Jew must *feel*. Sometimes (think parenting) we have to do tough love, but to be robbed of our compassion is to become patently unjewish.
Golda Meir expressed just this when she said, "We can forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."
In what ways is Reform Judaism a liberal entity? Do you mean that Reform Jews tend to vote for the Democratic party (sounds true to me, but I don't really know)? Or that the history of Reform Judaism is tied up with the development of the political philosophy of classical liberalism (makes sense given the 18th century Enlightenment origins of both, but again I don't know)?
I did read the Gordis piece and the Brous response when I saw your link. Totally well written, both of them, and the most illuminating exchange I've seen regarding the intra-Jewish conflicts over this. I never really understood the points of conflict this clearly before. Gordis helped me to understand the partiality element better than I ever had. But my sympathy lies more with Brous' view.
Doesn't Reform Judaism consider itself a liberal form of Judaism?
I'm not surprised that your sympathy lies with the Brous view, but don't you see how that is both more "Reform" and less "Zionist"?
I thought Gordis said some very important and honest things about loyalty and the problem with "Jewish universalism". He got more of my respect in that than I expected I would want to give him.
In the way he took toward making those claims, I felt like he did misrepresent Brous' view, as she also asserts in her response. He wanted to criticize a "Jewish universalist" view that exists among some Jewish leftists, most of whom I imagine (but don't know at all) are or affiliate Reform or Conservative. Brous was not really the one he needed to focus on for this; he could have found a less Zionist Reform position to shoot down than hers. She seems to me quite Zionist and supportive of Israel and of Israel's right to defend itself.
Or is it "less Zionist" to say that Palestinians have suffered and deserve to live dignified lives? Does Zionism brook no criticism of Israeli policies? I am less and less sure of what Zionism means in view of your question and in reading this thread.
A language-police digression: I still don't really get what "liberal", "left" and "right" mean with regard to flavors (your word) of Judaism. Is Modern Orthodoxy the same as left Orthodoxy, and is that liberal? Is "left" the same as "liberal" in this context? Is "right" synonymous with "more stringent"? Are Chassidic Jews (like Libby) to the "right" of strict Lithuanian/Yeshivish Jews? Are the fringe anti-Zionist O Jews further "right" or "left" than religious Zionists (as DG once helpfully explained them)? Are Conservative Jews more Jewishly "liberal" than Orthodox Jews, whereas "left/right" are only within O Judaism? Does this categorization of left and liberal refer primarily to Jewish practice and really only very secondarily refer to how each of these groups tends to vote?
Yes to most of your questions. "Right" typically lines up with "more stringent" and classically voting Republican – across the denominations, not just within Orthodoxy. "Left" typically lines up with more open/liberal in observance, and politics. I consider Orthodoxy "right" and Reform "left."
How odd that I didn't realize that wasn't universal.
Fringe anti-Zionists would be considered to be radically right.
I figured that was the breakdown, but historically "liberal" and "left" in political theory don't mean the same thing . . . long story there . . . so I wasn't sure. And it is sort of a linguistic and historical accident, isn't it, that right/left observance corresponds with right/left voting? Or isn't it? Did O Jews tend Republican even before Reagan?
Historically, Republicans weren't always conservative. Lincoln was a Republican; the Democrats were more pro-slavery. For decades afterwards, Republicans had no chance in the south.
People who are religiously conservative (not capital-C Conservative, but in favor of retaining traditional Judaism) tend to be socially conservative as well, i.e., Republican in America today.
How is Reform Judaism not liberal? I will use Gay Marriage as an example, whether you agree or disagree with it. The Torah specifically states that it is an abomination. Reform Judaism accepts it. I would say that is a liberal position.
I am definitely not the person to report what Reform Judaism says about itself, certainly Leah or someone else can give the definitive word on that; I would imagine that Reform Judaism does define itself as liberal–but I was wondering in which sense(s) and how the different senses of "liberal" converge or not. "Liberal" can mean "loose with the rules" (everyday meaning); and it can mean "for small government and minimally-regulated competition" (European liberal parties define themselves this way); and it can mean "for larger government and regulation" (U.S. context); and Ruchi suggests it can mean "roots for the underdog".
So it raised for me the question–a language-police issue, not at the core of what is going on in this thread–how those different "liberal" positions come together in Reform Judaism. It may view itself as liberal in one sense, but be seen as liberal in other ways as well that may only be incidental, or maybe are essential. I suppose a better illustration of the terminological complication is Conservative Judaism. Certainly Conservative Jews don't always vote for conservative candidates. But I bet some do. And probably it is seen by O Jews as a liberal Judaism. And yet I think it was created historically as a reaction to Reform Judaism, so it defined itself "conservatively" in contrast to that.
I've definitely gotten linguistically stuck with words like Conservative and Traditional. Classically (i was about to write "traditionally" – argh – ) those words denote faithfulness to tradition (synonymous with "Orthodox" probably), but intra-Orthodox, those terms denote forms of Judaism that are more liberal than Orthodoxy. Then there's Traditional Judaism which only exists in Chicago…
Finally, saying you're a Conservative Jewish voter is almost never the same as saying you're a conservative Jewish voter…so go figure.
Back on terra firma, though: yes on the Reform conundrum. I'll give Leah a shout to help us out.
A few thoughts at this early hour:
1. Both Rabbis Gordis and Brous are affiliated with the Conservative Movement.
2. Reform Judaism certainly does view itself as a liberal movement; it is known as progressive outside the United States.
3. I have never heard or seen any principle that states the Movement "supports the underdog."
4. Initially, the Reform Movement was opposed to Zionism and the creation of a Jewish State. This position was categorically reversed around the time of the establishment of the State.
Most importantly:
The Reform Movement supports and defends Israel's right to exist EVEN when it means that military force must be used to ensure the safety of her citizens.
"We have long made clear our distress at the barrage of rocket fire from Gaza targeting Israelis, and just a few weeks ago called on the international community to pressure Hamas to bring an end to the attacks. Instead, the rocket fire from Gaza has increased, necessitating Israeli military action. We are, as ever, greatly saddened by the loss of innocent lives – Israeli or Palestinian – and hope that the military operation can be completed with speed and in a way that minimizes the loss of life. We in the Reform Movement continue to pray and advocate for the safety of Israelis who have for too long been the targets of violent and unremitting rocket attacks." ~Rabbi Rick Jacobs, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, 15 November 2012
Feeling compassion for those whose leaders show such complete disregard for human lives is consistent, we believe, with the behaviour mandated by the KBH.
Ok, "liberal" means "progressive" in this context.
What is KBH?
Thanks, FS.
I have definitely gotten the distinct impression over the years that Reform Judaism supports the underdog. Not necessarily as a matter of formal policy, but as a matter of fact. And I'm not saying that's wrong. All Jews are supposed to do that, where appropriate. Maybe I'm wrong.
KBH = kadosh baruch hu = the Holy One, Blessed is He = God
Key phrase: where appropriate.
Hamas publicly executes those whom it considers traitors. Their bodies are dragged through the streets. Does anyone really blame the palestinians in Hamas-controlled areas for going along with the regime? I would certainly vote for Hamas if I risked death in not doing so, all the more so death to my children. – MP
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/Civilian-Casualties.html?s=mpw
MP – truth.
Anon: That Aish article puts it so well.
Can we talk about what Zionism and pro-Israel means for O Jews, in light of that Gordis/Brous exchange? Gordis basically argues (which I think is not an accurate characterization of what she wrote) that Brous isn't loyal enough to Jews, is too "universalizing" instead of standing up for her own people.
But that made me wonder what made Brous look so disloyal to him. I want to understand whether for O Jews is it non-Zionist or anti-Zionist or not pro-Israel to say, as Brous does (not sure of the rules regarding quoting in this context):
"I believe that the Israeli people, who have for years endured a barrage of rocket attacks targeting innocents and designed to create terror, instability and havoc, have the right and the obligation to defend themselves. I also believe that the Palestinian people, both in Gaza and the West Bank, have suffered terribly and deserve to live full and dignified lives. And I happen to . . . [believe {inserted by SBW}] that the best way for Israel to diminish the potency of Hamas – which poses a genuine threat to Israel – is to engage earnestly and immediately in peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority."
If O Jews or others like Gordis view this statement as not pro-Israel, is it because it extends some sympathy and even the idea of full and dignified life to Palestinians? Or because it advocates peace negotations–although explicitly for the reason that in Brous' view negotiations would reduce the threat of Hamas; in other words, for Brous negotiations would be a means to the goal of securing Israel, which one might think is not the right means to thatgoal, but does the very idea even when considered as a means toward securing Israel make it an anti-Israel idea? Is any idea of negotiation with Palestinians *by definition* not pro-Israel to the O Jews on this blog? I am just confused as to whether 'pro-Israel' means for you (e.g. DG, Ruchi) 'against any Palestinian claims whatsoever' by definition.
There is nothing anti-Jewish or anti-Israel about letting Palestinians live full and dignified lives. Nor is there anything anti-Jewish or anti-Israel about advocating negotiations in order to make Israel safer. The problem is the moral equivalence. As Gordis put it: "But what’s deeply troubling about it is that every single expression of sympathy for Israelis immediately coupled to a similar sentiment about the Palestinians. Absolute balance, even on a week like this, has become the supreme commandment. 'Thou shall love thy neighbor who attacks thee as yourself.' "
Imagine your son comes home all bruised and bloody because another kid beat him up unprovoked. Your son fought back in self-defense, while carefully trying not to hurt the other boy too badly. Do you care about the other kid's bruises as much as you care about your own son's? Would you consider it fair if all I told the community was that "Both boys hit each other and both were injured"?
For a discussion of the media bias problem, see http://jccat.org/2011/06/
Sbw, question for you: is it possible that since you don't view the entire Jewish community as an indivisible whole to which you are connected, you don't feel as connected to the Jews in Israel as I might? Put bluntly, do you feel like they are "your peeps"?
Pro-Israel also means recognizing what Israel is doing for the Palestinians. See http://www.flickr.com/photos/idfonline/8198855841/ for data on Israeli aid for Gazans DURING the recent fighting.
DG, interesting links. I think Olesker makes a great point about how media coverage of ALL news is superficial owing to lack of viewer/reader interest and attention span, and that becomes clear to viewers/readers who care a lot about any complex issue, Israel among them. I would even add that I don't think there is entirely "unbiased" news, because even the choice of what facts or details or descriptors to use requires a point of view, a starting point.
Ruchi, you are right that I don't feel as connected to Jews in Israel, or anywhere, as you do, and so I don't have the kind of reflexive loyalty as I would with my kid in DG's scenario. But does that mean I am less able to make good judgments about the situation? Aren't impassioned parents sometimes not quite distanced enough from kid-situations to see where their own kid participates in a dynamic that overall is a disservice to him? I am not saying, by the way, that I *am* some great judge about the Israel situation; I have a lot to learn and need to read more history and news sources. But my lack of reflexive loyalty doesn't disqualify me from coming up with judgments of the situation, I think.
That's why I put both factors in my analogy: he's your kid and it was self-defense. In other words, both loyalty and justice.
Regarding the media bias, some is deliberate and some isn't. The more outrageous examples are inexcusable. And the choice of what to report also reflects a bias, as do headlines about Israeli attacks on Gaza with the reason for them buried deep within the article for those few who actually bother to read the whole article.
SBW, most Orthodox Jews I know are more hawkish than dovish in their views of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. (Saying that Israel has a right to defend itself is not really saying much.)
Why that is, I believe, is based on Torah principles of brooking no compromise with evil. I do believe (bracing myself) that more liberal forms of Judaism are willing to advocate patience, compromise, peace with the enemy, much more than more "conservative" forms of Judaism, due to this principle.
Why the tactical history of the State doesn't speak for itself, I don't know.
This no-compromise-with-evil is indeed central to Gordis' piece, the claim that there is good and evil here and we have to call it what it is. I really do want to understand this better, how good vs. evil become the basic terms for him and O Jews (Frume Sarah pointed out Gordis is capital-C-Conservative), how those metaphysical terms come to characterize a human conflict with a very messy history. It is so hard to see just where the pragmatic and historical-factual parts get combined with the metaphysical parts. Same on the "dovish" side, how do the pragmatic and historical-factual elements get combined with a hopefulness (that I can see hawks seeing as naive) and I guess what Gordis calls universalizing tendency.
That criticism of a "universalizing" tendency among dovish Jews is troubling me. To be loyal to the idea of dignity for all human beings is to be disloyal to Jews? Is that a pragmatic disloyalty or a metaphysical one? I was reading some recent scholarship about how Jewish identity has always been bound up with ethical relationships to other identities, never just a self-sufficient identity. Hmmm.
I don't see them as separable (the pragmatic/historical and the metaphysical) but that parallels my view of the world in general.
Why do you call the belief that all humans deserve dignity into question? That's NOT what Gordis argues. He simply says don't be afraid to favor your own family (read: fellow Jews)- in fact, Judaism mandates it.
Jews have never been a cruel people – we are not even allowed to HUNT for sport for crying out loud.
Ethical relationships to other identities? Now that sounds interesting. Can you expound?
Looooots to say on all this, and likely more than anyone wants to read.
Gordis seems to chastise Brous on the basis of how she appears to him to be making moral equivalences between Israeli action against Gaza and Gaza action against Israel, and he specifically points to the construction of her prose–i.e. following sentences expressing concern about Israelis she has sentences expressing concern about Palestinians. In my language-police capacity I am fascinated by how he moves from that analysis of her sentence structures to analysis of her morality, in my view overlooking how she IN those sentences with that structure expresses her partiality to Jews and Israelis.
This is why I said above that he could have found a much better target for his criticism, e.g. any one of the progressive Jews who explicitly avow a more universalizing and less Jewish-loyalty-first view. But for Gordis as I understood him, Brous' reference to Palestinian rights to full life and dignity STRUCTURALLY suggests disloyalty. He doesn't say this directly but he objects to the sequencing of her sentences and the pattern of references in each. Her sentence STRUCTURE appears to him to place Israelis and Palestinians on too even a ground with her claims for loyalty to Israel, and he takes her as an example of a "universalizing" tendency of liberal Judaism on the basis of the equivalences he reads in her sentence structure. I could quote, but then I'd be quoting his analysis of his quotes of her, which would get messy.
The question of universalizing tendencies in "liberal" Judaism is a great one, so I learned a lot from his material even in disagreeing with it, but Brous was not his best example by far.
The argument I read about Jewish identity involved undermining the claim that the idea of Jewish identity is self-sufficient or (you might say) metaphysically independent; rather Jewish identity is seen as having been produced in different contexts, in a complicated ethical relation to some ambivalently "other" identity–Egyptian, German, etc.
What Frume Sarah said. I'm really not going to expound here because it's a billion-series blog post. I will send you (Ruchi) some excellent articles on Reform Judaism that will perhaps clarify your misunderstandings and questions, ie about Reform Judaism "supports the underdog" and the differences between Conservative and Reform Judaism (hey you should have taken my class at Fairmount Temple this month 🙂 ). I'd be happy to send anyone else these articles just shoot me an email to leahwc7 at gmail dot come.
Short version of my PERSONAL views: I agree with both JEM and DG. I cannot NOT have compassion for innocents on all sides who are maimed and killed – I certainly remember the midrash where God chastises the Melachim for rejoicing in the death of the Egyptians. I categorically disagree that those who are "kind to the cruel will be cruel to the kind." HOWEVER, the media bias is clear, absurd, and gross. There is an attempt to create a moral equivalence that does not exist. We will not have peace until the Arab leadership decides it no longer wants to completely eradicate Israel and the Jewish people. As they have made that goal the center of their political and religious platform, I do not see this situation ending any time soon, or ending well.
RE: Gordis/Brous: My read of Brous's article was that she was expressing what I just expressed above. Gordis absolutely attacks her in a way that is not menschlich. There are plenty of ways he could have expressed his feelings without essentially calling her a traitor. What happened to spirited disagreement? HE KNOWS she is a dedicated supporter of Israel because he was her teacher and mentor. To publicly attack her personally is unseemly and totally lacks derech eretz. Just my 2 cents.
He attacks her personally??
Thanks for taking the time to respond, and thanks for the articles.
You have probably seen Gordis' rejoinder to Brous' and others' responses, http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/on-the-absence-of-outrage/
Like I said, I respect Gordis for laying out so clearly the stakes of "particularism" and Jewish loyalty. I am still trying to figure out the moral/theological claims that get mixed in with general "anthropological" claims about caring more for your own than for others.
Whoa. Lots of responses there. Very, very interesting. Thanks for linking. I like him more and more, the more I read 🙂
As I said above, to me they are indivisible – have always been. And to some Jews, separation of church and state marches on into the Land of Israel – hence the burning intra-Jewish animosity there.
What a great article!
I feel like Gordis speaks out of both sides of his mouth. First he says it's about taking a stand on good vs. evil, then he cites as exactly the point, “Rabbi Daniel Gordis asks Rabbi Sharon Brous to love Jews a little more than she loves Palestinians.” The latter (love Jews a little more) is totally different than taking a stand on good vs. evil.
Seemed to me that he was calling some things some Palestinians do as evil; hence, love those that are defending themselves a bit more than loving those that are perpetrating evil.
I think you are being charitable. On the one hand the point is to love your own people more than others. Ok, I see it as a thing to argue. And on the other, the point is to take a stand on good vs. evil. But then the way he connects it all together the two distinct "stands", with their distinct rationales (one loyalty to mine, one moral-universal), end up, without his explicitly saying it, getting intertwined. And he sort of hops back and forth between saying that he is advocating simple loyalty and saying it's a good/evil issue, with the effect of mixing the two. It's rhetorically powerful but a little sneaky to me.
Also, I'd like to respond to Ruchi's comment to SBW, "Does Reform Judaism?
Haha! That was a trick. It's all one Judaism. Short answer: yes. Longer answer to follow after Shabbos (this is one of the earliest sunsets of the year :)."
We are all Jews, but let's not kid ourselves that it is all one Judaism. I think the next comment by Rena highlights this as she references "Torah Judaism" in the context of 2 statements that may be written in our tradition but one of which I categorically disagree with – that is not "my Torah" Judaism. And I think that bringing the whole "Judaism United – Movements Divided" thing into this is irrelevant. Jews of all denominations support Israel in many ways and many are Hawks and many are Doves – of ALL denominations. So let's stick to the original post that references the huge media bias the world seems to have (Sorry JEM I disagree with you on that one 🙂 ). Just my 2 cents, again. I'm up to 4 cents now 🙂
I don't think it irrelevant. One of the commenters asked, because that's what the post made her think about. I think that's valid.
When I made that statement, I was trying to highlight one of my pet peeves: when people say "does Orthodox Judaism believe." Because Orthodox Judaism doesn't have its own Torah. In fact, the statement that you categorically disagree with above, comes from the Talmud. That's not an "Orthodox" work. It's a Jewish work.
Just reread the thread and it turns out that I asked! It was sparked by the "pet peeve" I mentioned. So, relevant or not, when someone asks me what "Orthodox Judaism" believes I often find myself or others contrasting it with what other movements believe. And then often I don't know so I ask for help.
Yeah, I can see why it would be annoying to you to be asked what "O Judaism" believes. I have thought about this when asking those questions. When I have those questions I could just ask you what Judaism believes, keeping my reservations about whether I should accept your answer as true for all the Jews here to myself, and guessing that there are differing views and hoping that others jump in with those. Or I could ask, awkwardly, "what you believe Judaism believes". Please tell me what solution you prefer.
But really this is one of the most interesting paradoxes on this blog for me. Some time back someone noted that O Jews actually have somewhat easier relations with secular/unaffiliated Jews because the latter can be seen simply as people who don't practice the Judaism that O Jews identify as Judaism per se, whereas strongly self-identified R&C Jews pose more of a challenge to the basic O self-conception. (He said it more clearly than that.)
And indeed I do have less of a horse in the race, so to speak, regarding what Judaism "really" is, because if you describe some Jewish something that doesn't appeal to me or that sounds impossible for me to live or believe, then I can pretty easily just dis-identify with that and chalk it up to "why I'm not very actively Jewish".
It's not really annoying. Just intellectually off-kilter. I don't really mind if anyone keeps asking that way, I just feel that every now and then I have to issue a correction.
Explain what you mean by "paradoxes." In what way is that paradoxical?
I get asked all the time, "What does Orthodox Judaism believe" and also "What does Reform Judaism believe." I answer: Here is what Judaism says, and here is how the various denominations interpret that. So yes, in that sense there is "one" Judaism. But even amongst different Orthodox factions the interpretation of "what Judaism says" can be vastly different. And Talmud is Torah she'be'al'peh – a Jewish work that is considered almost as Divine as the Chumash. A Jewish work, yes, but again with varied interpretations, amongst ALL groups of Jews. I can find many statements that support my opinions, in the same way that there are many statements that support yours and other people's. So my "Torah" is my interpretation of the vast body of amazing literature that Jews have produced. This is so NOT the same as what people often refer to as "Torah Judaism." That was what I meant.
And I do think it's basically irrelevant to the post. The discussion has played out this way, so ok it's relevant to the comments. But delving into whether this denomination or that denomination supports one group of people over another in this conflict only furthers misunderstanding of each of these movements, because there is no real time or space to get into a meaningful discussion about it – in short comments you cannot gain a deeper understanding of why, say, the Reform movement has evolved as a culture of "supporting the underdog". What gets read is: "the Reform Movement supports the Palestinians." And this is categorically inaccurate. What Frume Sarah said is really the key, "Feeling compassion for those whose leaders show such complete disregard for human lives is consistent, we believe, with the behaviour mandated by the KBH."
Leah, indulge me with answering this (although you consider it irrelevant and possibly distracting/counterproductive):
Does Reform Judaism believe that Orthodox Judaism is practicing a mistaken form of Judaism?
If yes, then does it consider itself the heir of "Torah Judaism"? If no, then as a progressive movement, does it consider all the movements valid ways to practice? If so, that would explain the difference you describe between how you respond to "what does Reform/Orthodox believe" and how I do.
Which is, when they ask "what does Orthodox Judaism believe" I say, I'll tell you what Torah teaches. And when they say "what does Reform believe" I'll answer if I know but usually I don't know so I say "I don't know." And when they say "why does Reform Judaism believe xyz" and it's an opinion I don't agree with, I'll just say that I don't know why.
I feel it's the most respectful way for me to deal with the issue.
Re: Talmud. There is nothing in the Talmud that I would say I categorically disagree with. Have a hard time understanding, yes. Not practiced that way today, yes.
Vastly different opinions among Orthodox Jews about Judaism? Like what?
Ok…so it was a lot of questions.. sorry! Answer what you wish. And if you don't wish, I fully respect that and will always consider you a personal friend.
I would indulge you with pretty much anything 🙂 Except eating anything with banana. I really dislike banana.
No – just a different form.
Yes, all movements are valid ways to practice. And, well, Yeah 🙂
Yes, actually it's a similar answer. I'll say, Here is what Judaism says (or the Torah teaches is sort of the same thing), and if I know the answer to OJ I'll answer and if not I usually ask you 🙂 When I get asked "why does OJ believe this" if I can answer with a Torah-based response that doesn't delve into too many interpretations, I will, and if not, again, I ask you 🙂
I agree – I think we can support each other's communities in this way.
There is lots of decisions that are the accepted rulings in the Talumd I don't agree with and/or understand, but I accept that that is Jewish Law, and the Halacha, whether or not I agree with it. As a Reform Jew, I don't believe I am Divinely bound to accept it as law for myself. Which I realize creates many issues when our communities want to mingle 🙂
Kashrut is a great example. The myriad of intricacies have different weights in different communities. Mixing fish with other foods, who accepts what hechshers (a food may be perfectly kosher but with a hechsher someone doesn't take for example), extra stringencies and the machlokets that come with them. Also, for example, while Judaism permits some forms of birth control, some communities have prohibited it. etc.
well yeah this is not personal it's just a discussion. I would never consider our disagreements non-friendship! We are just touching the surface of our differences what I love about your blog is that we can have this sort of discussion w/o it being attacks. I wish I had more time to go into greater detail – we are just 4 short weeks away from departing on our insane odyssey and I am SWAMPED!
There *ARE* lots of decisions. Not there IS. Oy. Need more caffeine STAT!
"all movements are valid ways to practice"
There can be multiple valid ways to practice, but what about theology? When there are contradictions, they can't all be right. So in that case what would you say? That Reform is right and Orthodoxy is wrong? That no one can know the truth and all movements are equally likely to be right (in which case you have no particular reason to believe in Reform theology either)? That no one can be sure of the truth but the Reform are more likely to be right? (You do realize that whatever your answer, you believe you're right about it, which means that you also believe that anyone who believes the opposite is wrong.)
Another difference. I love bananas.
Re kosher/birth control I would hardly call those differences vast. For example here in Cleveland there is a guest home for people that need housing while coming for medical treatments. As long as you keep kosher and are shomer Shabbos (Orthodox benchmarks) everyone uses the same kitchen.
DG: I don't see most theological contradictions as contradictions – to me they are differences, because I don't believe anyone can truly know what God is – we all have our beliefs and any one of us could be right or wrong. So yes I think all or any of the denominations are likely to be right – and you're correct, I do not base my allegiance to Reform Judaism on its potentially being "right." And I do believe there are some Jews who are wrong and their theology is contradictory to mine. But they are on the very fringes of Judaism (in both directions). I don't feel that way about mainstream Jews of whatever flavor.
Ruchi: I hear that – to me they feel vast but that's prob because I'm not a part of that community.
So why *are* you loyal to the Reform movement?
Interesting, your last sentence. Usually, differences that seems so vast on the inside look negligible from the outside.
Long answer for which I have no time right now – I'll try to comment about that after shabbes.
One paradox is that you are trying to convey what Judaism is, but in the discussion, which you very much want to have, it ends up looking like you are describing one variant or particular view of Judaism–which is not what you mean to be doing at all. And then a sub-paradox that the blog tries to perform is, I think, creating a unity even in the divergent views, so that agreement-in-disagreement makes a sort of unity. Although as you say, sometimes you really do believe that the other views are Just Wrong.
Another paradox is that you want to show what Judaism is in its "proper" form, like what it really says and means and looks like in practice in its complete form, but then that gives people like me the possibility of thinking, "ok, so yeah, if that is what Judaism is, all the more reason I don't want to be that". This was most evident in the wave of alienation I felt in reaction to the thread on intermarriage. Giving me/people a "big picture" of Judaism makes it in a way easier to reject. Which is totally not your goal, I know. I guess they deal with these issues in Jewish-outreach-school, so these paradoxes may be part of your everyday consciousness.
Ok, let's take them paradoxes one at a time.
1. I am fully aware that what I describe as "Judaism" includes many things that some find foreign. I'm OK with that. To say that they don't consider it JUDAISM – is a stretch, no? Example: I will say "Judaism teaches us to unplug on Shabbos." Now some will say, "That's not the Judaism I keep" but they may acknowledge that it's in the sources. Basically, the dichotomy that exists among my readers regarding what they intellectually accept as Judaism and what they actually keep. Others will say, "No! That's not Judaism" which I will challenge. I don't see this as paradoxical.
Are you trying to say that the content here could alienate Jews from Judaism since it's describing an "extreme" form?
2. Unity in divergent views – YES, this is absolutely a goal. I'm thrilled about that.
3. I guess three, your second paragraph is the same as 1? Maybe?
Jewish outreach school! Love that.
1. But Leah just stated that there is no one, single Judaism. I know you disagree. You see it, I think, more like a continuum of practice and observance, and so the other "movements" are to you (I think) mistaken only in naming themselves as "complete" forms of Judaism, i.e. in kind of elevating their on-the-way status. And also mistaken in what you see as doctrinal changes to The One Judaism.
1a. I think even saying these things I just said about the other movements might be pretty inflammatory to some people. I could say more about how my own relaxed feeling about it is a symptom of the relative ease of relationship between you/O and me/whatever-barely-practicing-Jewish. Since I'm not invested, we can just talk. Although maybe if I felt ganged up on I might not be as relaxed.
2. Yes, unity in divergent views–but you still think you are right (and so do most people)! An ongoing paradox.
1b. Yes about possibility of alienation. You could maybe persuade me (more easily than convinced Reform/Conservative types probably) that the form of Judaism you describe is more "authentic" or the Real One. But that same relative disinvestment in my part that makes it possible for you to persuade me also makes it possible for me to react, "And . . . no thanks."
3. Reading the blog has gotten me to view a little more critically some of the "progressive" stylings of Jewish practice I see around me. If what you write here is all true and there is One Judaism, then some of the Judaism I have lived is just made-up, compensatory, contingent stuff they are doing. But I figure it is very much not your intention to get me alienated from the only Judaism I ever felt sort of identified with!
I'd love to be a fly on the wall of Jewish outreach school.
1a. Right, which is why I don't phrase it like that. The way you say something makes all the difference. The way I would phrase 1. is this:
I believe that there is one codified halacha, with extremely minor variances from community to community. I believe, based on what I know, that this is how God wants us to live. I also acknowledge that there is no one on earth who keeps all of it flawlessly, myself included. The reasons for this may be ignorance, forgetting, philosophical disagreement, laziness, peer pressure, or emotional reluctance. I don't believe in movements. I believe that as Jews, we are all equally obligated and that God will judge us after 120 years based on an unfathomable (to us) algorithm that takes the following (and more) into account: awareness, upbringing, personality makeup, peer group, life's difficulties, intelligence, emotional strength, spiritual proclivity.
2. Still not a paradox to me. Maybe because I've been exposed to so many Torah ideas that encompass the very same positive ambivalence (peace over truth, for example). Don't you like ambivalence? 🙂
1b. (I will forgive you for going out of order.) Alienation…wow. Have I created a monster? That almost made we want to shut the lights on the blog (of course I won't. I'm addicted). If you say "no thanks" is it to *my* form of Judaism (so to speak) or to any? For example, after learning with my group, some people have moved from Reform to Conservative. I don't believe in movements (remember) but the way I look at it is the more observance the better. The more faith/love/awareness the better.
Oh, you must read Letters to a Buddhist Jew. You simply must. Will you? And especially the last chapter (but only in order).
3. Again, alienated because you think Judaism is deeper than that? Or alienated because you want less than that?
Outreach school. Not that there is exactly such a thing. There are courses and seminars. What do you think the fly would hear? 🙂
Lots going on here. New numbering system, focusing on what are maybe the big points:
A. You have recommended that Tatz book so highly, and now to me personally, so ok, I will read it. I have a feeling I will disappoint you though, and not like it as much as you do and find it alienating. But ok.
B. Your question about double alienation, i.e. from O Judaism and Judaism as such: I think this is maybe the paradox or irony that could be most worrying to you. I find it really fascinating.
B1: In your demystification of O Judaism I see in more detail (rather than from the distance I used to have) how that life is not for me, so no thanks to that, yes.
B2. But seeing how O Judaism looks at Judaism has for me had the effect of relativizing or somehow slightly undermining (*for me*) Reform Judaism, which was what the shred of Jewish identity I had was tied to. I used to think, "I'm Reform!" because my parents told us that was what we were, and always thought Reform was a real "thing", a full-fledged real "brand" of Judaism. But based on what you say I can see how O Jews might say it isn't. [I recognize this is inflammatory and probably offensive to non-O readers, I'm just trying to narrate my thoughts, and I will say in a minute how for me in the end RJ isn't any *more* relativized than OJ.] I didn't understand how the idea of a "Reform Movement" looks from the O perspective (as you explained I believe in the loooong thread on this).
So I guess yes, learning your perspective has to some extent alienated me from Reform Judaism–which was the only Jewish identity I ever really connected with myself. (Or maybe it just compounded some preexisting alienation, since I can't say I was very much connected to RJ.) And yet that sense of distance from RJ doesn't make me want to move "up the continuum" either. It shows me my distance from the whole continuum.
Example: Recently I was at an adult Bat Mitzvah, or whatever it is called, and I was at the service thinking of it in what I imagine to be your terms, how estranged it might look to you from "Jewish prayer" (lots of English, mixed gender seating, I guess you've been to Reform things and know what I mean). But to me that way of doing it, not having much reflected on Reform/O/movements/continuum, used to be REALLY a 'real' way to do it, not (as I guess it is to you) a slightly off-base, somewhat newfangled, Americanized, un-Jewishized way. So now I see that "way" of doing it more like you have said–as a historical development in Judaism with various sources and agendas. It has lost the slight metaphysical sheen it used to have for me.
B3. But then, also O Judaism for me does not have the metaphysical, transhistorical sense it does for you. I still see it as relativized–historically contingent, an interpretation rather than "true Judaism". Interesting but not for me. So in a way the insights here have undermined my unreflected (and minimal) RJ identity so that it is *just as* relativized as my view of O Judaism, which is not an identity or practice I want to pursue. So that just leaves a sort of gap, where before I had some kind of sense of "what I am" Jewishly. I'm fine with that gap, I even like it because it is so interesting, but it is probably a lot more of a gap between me and Judaism than you might wish for me or anyone.
D. I don't know, tell me, what WOULD the fly hear? I guess things like I'm saying–how to manage the complex task of suggesting/showing that Judaism is the "whole thing" as you describe it (e.g. Every Single Commandment) without distancing people from the kind of Judaism they have known.
A. I figured as much, but am willing to take the risk. Thank you. So curious to hear your thoughts.
B. I find it fascinating too, but in a horrified (at myself) way.
B1. So you don't mean it doesn't have meaning, depth, etc etc. You mean from a pragmatic standpoint you could never see yourself living that way? Or both?
B2. I don't know what to think about this. Very conflicted. Very. As an aside, when I am at such an event, I focus on what I believe is the spiritual component (ie, look how much people are investing in their Judaism; look how much they care and want to connect, etc). This coexists naturally with my unavoidable awareness of where halacha is being sidestepped. How's that for a paradox?
B3. Yes. But maybe this is the beginning of a new journey? If you stayed in the gap, I would be sad, but sometimes you need a gap to create something to fill it. (Sadly, some fill it with other religions – as on my "precariousness of Jewish education" post.)
D. Nah. No focus on the former "whole thing." There are two parts: one, educational technique, and two, encouragement for being in a tough field, not letting your family miss out while you "educate the world," and spiritual inspiration to keep at it.
Technique would include things like how to answer tough questions, how to create and market and plan events, etc. Nothing all that scandalous, actually 🙂
No letter now. Just me speaking from the heart. I want to thank you for continuing to be here. Your relationship here has enriched me enormously as a person and as a educator. Truly, I have a lot of gratitude to you.
Those are very kind and generous words. Even more so insofar as what I wrote made you feel horrified, which I regret. I am thinking you must feel horrified because for you–my weird formulation here–the metaphysical 'pull' or trajectory of truth and reality is 'upward' toward more Judaism, which for you culminates in OJ. So here you show me and everyone all these things that you feel so strongly about and find to be so compelling and joyous, that ARE YOU, in your deepest core; and also ARE your life and the lives of others on here; and even more than that ARE TRUTH, and you clearly put all this effort into the blog and how to couch everything to maximize that 'upward pull' of joyous truth, that to you is just undeniable and real, and I come along and say "Interesting! Learned a lot! But no thanks". Ouch.
So that brings us to B1 about meaning and depth. I don't know whether answering will end up more horrifying than before, but here goes. It is not that I read the blog and think, "Ok, so THAT is what OJ is about. Eew. Yuck. Way freakier than I even thought." Yes I could never live your way. Yes I don't share the beliefs that you have and do not feel in myself a desire to share them (except it would sure solve a lot of my ambivalence problems). Yes, ok, it is a little freaky. But now I can say that with a sort of affection. And it's not really a big criticism in my world; I have a lot of friends who are a little freaky in their various beliefs and practices, in spheres including politics, eating, pet-care, raising children, etc. So 'freaky' is mainstream in a way in my life and I don't mean it here insultingly.
If I say that OJ as I've learned about it here doesn't exert that 'upward metaphysical pull' on me, does that mean for you that I am saying it doesn't have meaning or depth? I think for you that *would* be kind of a letdown to hear, because it is not a matter for you of communicating an UNDERSTANDING of that pull but of the EXPERIENCE of it. But to me the fact that you have communicated the understanding of it is not a small accomplishment.
Other comments:
I am personally totally intrigued by your conflictedness at the kind of event I described. This is the most "like me" I've ever seen you!
I don't know about the whole "journey" idea. The term annoys me. That word is so common these days for people who have cancer, are on a diet, just all over the place. Just overall I don't like the idea that I'm "on a journey" because I feel like my own biggest psychic or personal struggles have to do with being "where I am" rather than where I "should be going". I realize that for you journeying and improving (way back you did a post on striving to take on more Jewish practice) is The Whole Point. For me I guess I could say that I'm trying to "journey in place" or just get to where I already am. So no, I don't feel like I'm beginning a new journey. Just being where I am as much as I can. Which to me is strangely challenging.
Related to that is the "Jewish gap" question. In fact thinking about it I am actually more at home "Jewishly" than I think I've been in a long time in that gap I described. Which I know is not a *Jewish* gap in your eyes, just an emptiness, so not a place to be at home. The gap feels to me really freeing. I'm liking it. It is "being where I already am". This is in part a result of the blog participation, so thanks to you as well. You seem already like a 'rich' (in all the right senses) person and educator, so I'm honored to think I enriched you.
It's not your fault I'm horrified. And I'm getting over it 🙂
I wouldn't say it "culminates" in OJ but I would say it's the most likely arena for "most mitzvah fulfillment" since the biggies are in place (kosher, Shabbat, mikveh). Of course, interpersonal mitzvah observance will continue to be a struggle, for anyone, so that's why I won't say "culminates" because it's hardly a guarantee.
Actually, I really appreciate when people are intellectually honest and say "interesting! learned a lot! but no thanks" – as long as they're not checking out. Like, stick around and let's keep chatting. What you actually do is your business.
Regarding B1, I actually love that. That makes me smile.
Re: the journey, yeah, that was possibly a patronizing thing to say.
Re: the gap, can you say more about being more "Jewishly at home" there.
The gap is not so much about what I have learned here about Orthodoxy, it is maybe more about what it meant to me to find a little distance from Reform identity. Not that I'm rejecting RJ; it's probably the best fit for me in terms of the progressivism, the melodies I know, and congregations with a range of views about Israel that might sometimes differ from the official line Leah has provided us with, which lets me keep my ambivalences on that.
But I don't want it as an identity. They all feel like boxes. I like feeling distant from all of them. So I feel at home in having a gap between me and any particular Jewish identity. It feels unforced, freeing. I guess this is partly a result of the blog: first, the post on how even "Christmas tree and easter bunny" (or whatever you wrote) Jews are Jews; and second the very fact that I am "Jewish enough" to hang around on an Orthodox blog (I know, I know, only about 70% O). So the gap between me and any particular Jewish anything feels pretty right.