Not Now

What I wrote yesterday is certain to cause antagonism (even among my friends if I have any left). If anyone reads it. My usual audience is about three people, but I sent it's contents, as a letter, to The Jewish Press. If they print it I'm sure to get the venom of most of its readers. Ah, well. Let me go a little further.

There are likely to be two main criticisms: that Judaism is a single unit and the “normative” Jews are not keeping up with the times, and whatever the accuracy of the assessment, now is the wrong time to raise it. I dealt with the former yesterday (though I have some additional comments on that perspective – see below) and I'll primarily tackle the latter today.

Halloween 1517 was certainly not the time for Luther to post his theses. The Church was in turmoil – the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon were being rejected. Many believers had doubts about the primacy of church over state while others didn't. Church corruption was rife. It was a time to come together rather than publicize problems.

But for the same reasons it was the perfect time to correct faults. Now, in the twenty-first century, there is more openness in Christianity and a large menu of church services from which to choose. No one questions the divisions which have actually brought more nuance and clarity to the worship service. Adherents appreciate the differences, rather than resent them.

And the quarrels over doctrine in Judaism now dictate the same kind of solution. Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of what is right. It is time we corrected our faults. There is no right time except when things are wrong. And with internecine contention, usually more political than theological, increasing, it's bound to happen at some time in the future. Painful as it may be now, the realignment will be recognized as a necessary step in the development of Judaism and of the Jewish people, for they are not the same. “Jewishness” reflects who you are; Judaism outlines what you believe.

But, many will ask “Why now?” They will argue, that there is so much conflict now and we need unity, not to be ripped apart. That assumes we have unity and aren't being ripped apart already – an idea that is laughable. The world may view all Jews as one, but we know better. Some would like to see “dedeification.” Others would not. Some promote BDS. Others don't. Many desire egalitarianism instead of tradition, but that desire is not universal. And there are many other issues that separate us.

Despite the differences however, most Jews would like to see the state of Israel survive although there are differences concerning both political and theological matters. And even though the world staunchly maintains that “anti-Zionism,” (by which they mean opposition to the State of Israel) is not the same thing as anti-Semitism, it is difficult to take that argument seriously after a couple of millennia. The internal struggles between Jews would seem to favor their argument, even though others only use the terminology to cover their bigotry, internal and international politics, and their thirst for Arab oil.

But notwithstanding the anti-Semitic code, all Zionists are not Jewish. Christian evangelicals in the United States, and the Makuya in Japan, are two groups that support Israel. Unfortunately most of the world's nations oppose all efforts to help that tiny country. The underlying anti-Semitism, which has been buried within the psyches of most people, along with the desire to have the support of the large Islamic and Arab communities, guarantee that this attitude will exist for a long time. Morality is not an issue among nations. As Lord Palmerston said,

Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.

Politics and prejudice will continue to rule. Perhaps Palmerston was right. Perhaps the best way to defend itself in addition to military strength is for Israel to recognize, support, and encourage a variety of allies – an increasing number of Jewish religions – even among those who may erroneously believe their heritages to be other than Jewish. It is better that more than one group acts as a light to the nations. The lesson is heard more often. All those who are Jewish have that light within them, whether or not they practice normative Judaism. And if Israel must make concessions to new religious groups, so be it.

The leaders of the nations must, sooner or later, recognize that those lights include knowledge which, to this point, they lack. They must understand that in the long run their citizens will benefit more from association with the “start up” religions than with their opponents. Their future will be more secure when they ally themselves with Israel, since the need for oil will eventually disappear and new ideas, and the ferment of competition – theological, economic, political, and whatever – will take them further than servile allegiance to the ways of the past.

It may take centuries, but it has to start sooner or later.

Brandeis

I'm a graduate of Brandeis University. Class of 1960. I met my wife there and one of our sons also attended and met his wife there. I got a fine education and, overall, had a very good experience there. When I started the school was less than a decade old. It had been founded after the Shoah and one of its important purposes was to take in Jews, who had long faced quotas and additional barriers to admission at other academic institutions. Face it, no one wanted Jews. Some places accepted them without putting obstacles in their way, but that was not because they were enamored of Jews or objected to the practice of other schools. They just wanted the best students they could get, and that often led to a disproportionate number of Jews. More than would be anticipated based on numbers alone. Quality was the deciding criterion, not quantity.

Not Brandeis though. It was founded with the recognition of a mission. It was a setting where Jews were not only welcome, but which specifically made conditions comfortable for them. It was a school which, in addition to being among the best in the country, provided for the gustatorial and spiritual needs of Jewish students – not by exclusivity: its three chapels attested to its openness to non-Jews. It was a superior school that recognized both the historic bias against its people, an a historic future for that people – a future in which it would play a part.

I went because it was Jewish, favoring it over MIT, Johns Hopkins, and Cornell, having been admitted to all of them. I wasn't among the most religious there, but I wanted to be part of a principled effort to bring my people into the world community. I was proud, and I encouraged and welcomed others to a principled and defiant place, where all people and all ideas were appreciated.

But times have changed.

I am no longer proud of my alma mater. I no longer encourage others to send their children there. The school had fostered liberalism, but in recent years liberalism has metamorphosed into fad, fashion, protest, and anti-semitism. It has become the mouthpiece for dissenting minority groups, and has taken the position of providing support for them irrespective of the justification for that support. And it espouses the position that any ideas which don't echo its ideology are wrong.

In the academic world this leads to the substitution of subjectivity for objectivity in classes and discussions, and the indoctrination of students into a political philosophy. Even if the school does not itself promote this behavior, acquiescence to the spreading of such a gospel – the cowardice of a wish to be like the institutions it emulates – is an encouragement to faculty and students who loudly advocate these actions. And the more virulent the protests by individuals and groups, the more likely that the next cohort of impressionable youth will uncritically accept the most popular philosophy.

Brandeis has assimilated. It has assimilated much like the less religious Jews of the last century, and now this one. The school seems to have a wish to emulate the Ivy League schools that it was founded to make up for. It has adopted the fashions and practices of those institutions in an effort to be seen as one of them and earn their reflected prestige. Along the way it has flirted with, and frequently adopted, such practices as (among many others) the silencing of unpopular opinion, support of popular causes even when they contradict the principles on which the school is based, "diversity" and affirmative action – intended to have a student population more reflective of America (or overrepresented by minorities) whatever the academic cost, non-kosher food so that new students can enjoy the foods they are used to, and advocacy for causes like BDS and Palestinian "rights" despite the fact that they and their students have no knowledge of the facts related to these issues, only the propaganda.

It is current practice to demean those with whom you disagree: to rename sites named in their honor or in gratitude for their contributions and to destroy anything favorable to them, like what is written and what is displayed. Monuments are defaced, destroyed, covered, or removed if they affect the "sensitivity" of some viewing the lives they represent out of the context of their times. Most recently that has resulted in demands to remove statues of Christopher Columbus among others from public view. And many of our major academic centers – including some admired by Brandeis – have taken such steps. Louis Brandeis was Zionistic, but there are many, especially liberals, who view Zionism unfavorably. They are sensitive to the plight of those who, even if they arrived and squatted in "Palestine" after Jews resettled the land in which they have lived for thousands of years, claim the land for their own.

But Brandeis was a Zionist. If sensitivity is adequate justification for protests and a denial of history, it would be logical to change the name of the university and remove his statue from the campus. At the current time the students might even celebrate its renaming as Linda Mansour University in view of her courageous denunciation of Zionists.

There is no denying the excellence of much of the education provided by Brandeis, but much of the education they receive is tainted by the political stances of some of the faculty and students, and the administration's failure to require the honoring of the principles for which the school was founded. And the failure to reassert their own authority over those on the campus – students, faculty, and visitors. Right now Brandeis is disappearing into the fashionable mass of expensive academic centers that cater to the whims of those who pay the bills, and those who instigate them.

It's not the school it used to be. It's not the school I went to.

Here We Go Again

 

Every four years or so the President, whoever he is, makes a well-publicized effort to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. It usually takes place at the beginning of a presidential election cycle and is designed to show determination to solve a problem with which he has either not dealt since the last election, or failed at solving earlier. It is a political move designed to show his involvement in world affairs and his determination to solve one of the world's most heralded crises, and it is a move intended to garner votes for himself and his party. After the election and the inevitable failure of the effort, it becomes of lesser importance.

That is the background for this past weekend's flurry of activity by President Obamaⁱ and the immediate rejection of his stand by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The demand by the President, one to which Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot accede, is for the establishment of a Palestinian State based on the 1949 truce borders.ⁱⁱ He fears that such borders would be “indefensible.” During the period that preceded the 1967 war there was constant harassment of Israeli farmers from the Golan as well as incitement from elsewhere.

But that was more than four decades ago. Weapons are better now – both military arms and political propaganda – and harassment and incitement have turned to aggression and murder. There is constant rocket attack from Gaza, which Israel gave to the Palestinians in the hope of peace – a hope that was quickly discredited. There is the likelihood that the Palestinians will secure from an ineffectual and fearful UN a declaration of “statehood.” It will be the statehood of a power sworn to destroy another UN member.

And, not surprisingly, there is now a threat from Egypt that its new government will scrap an existing treaty with Israel – a “peace” treaty for which Israel gave up the Sinai and its oil fields. The abrogation of treaties, however, is not new to Islam, dating back to 630 when Muhammad attacked and took Medina in violation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he had made with the Quraysh in 628. There is a religious rationalization of this position since it is based on a general Islamic concept of Taqiya, lying to those whom you consider your enemies, and there is also a lesser form, Kitman, in which deception involves telling only part of the truth. Thus Israel is wary since it is, at best, risky to enter into any agreement with those who hold such beliefs, and even more so to do so when your “partners in peace” refuse to recognize you and vow your destruction.

That, however, is what President Obama asks Israel to do.ⁱⁱⁱ He feels that Israel should take some “risks” for peace. Use the old borders for a start and trust the Palestinians to agree to a fair bargain and a mutually acceptable two state solution. The President is intent on showing America's respect for Islam and the Arab countries, even though those nations don't trust the United States and would be happy to see our country's power and culture crushed. The contention is often made that you must negotiate and conclude peace agreements with your enemies, not your friends, but doing so – loving your enemy – is not synonymous with hating and sacrificing your friends.

The world calls for a two state solution in the Middle East, one that would include a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Indeed, from the perspective of international powers bent on accommodation of the Palestinians, division of Jerusalem – Ir Shalom, the City of Peace – makes sense – at least the public demand for it. I wonder, however, how successful the world's experience has been with divided cities. My recollection of places like Berlin, and of Jerusalem during the time of its division suggests that this is a sure road to failure. And has there ever been a city that was the capital of two different – and warring – nations?^iv If so, how did that work out? We are cautioned to remember history, and not to repeat its mistakes. The Middle East is no place to experiment, especially in the name of cynical politics.

There are those who would eliminate Israel; many who deny the occurrence of the Holocaust; and some who disingenuously deny any relationship between the Jews and Jerusalem (or "Palestine"). There are those who hold the Jews (Israel) responsible for all the problems in the Middle East, or even the world. Some claim anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism. That's true in theory, but most "anti-Zionists" use that label as a justification for anti-Semitism.

The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the upcoming Durban clone^v are certain to attract the attention of the media and, through them, the public. As to whether the questions raised are themselves legitimate, there can be much debate. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention paid to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights.^vi There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Syria should exist. Like Israel it is a creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself. But there is a dearth of critical thinking and discussion by other countries; no criticism of those neighbors as the real causes of unrest in the area. Only the rush to blame it all on Israel.

And that is basis for the current situation. Sadly, rather than take a firm stand based on America's principles, President Obama is using his “bully pulpit” to give the appearance of strength as he demonstrates his weakness. Like so many other nations he is yielding to the demands of the region's tyrannies. Perhaps he views it as being in America's interests. Perhaps he considers it good politics. But, as the saying goes, it's bad policy. It's a sure recipe for the distrust of any nation with which we have a treaty.

Presidential politics can take a terrible toll.

 

i     That and the current turmoil in the Middle East. The turmoil, in many nations, demonstrates that the causative problems have nothing to do with Israel – only to the difficulties in those countries themselves. All of the accusations that Zionism is responsible for all their problems was meant to distract their own citizens from the tyrannies that controlled them and the deplorable conditions which they had to suffer.

ii    They are described as the 1967 borders to make them sound more contemporary and to suggest that the 1967 War is the source of all the current disagreements.

iii    Israel is certain to mistrust the Arab nations and anticipate violation of any agreement with them. But it is sad that she cannot rely on a commitment of the United States. In 2004 President Bush stated that the truce lines now being promoted could not serve as the basis for any peace negotiations. If America renounces her commitment not to use “the armistice lines of 1949” as a basis for such negotiations – a position supported by then Senator Hillary Clinton – how can Israel rely on any other nation to honor any promises to her? After all, if the United States, a “friend,” doesn't have to live up to commitments to Israel, why should anyone else. And, for that matter, why should anyone live up to any commitments to the United States?

iv    A period when the destruction of synagogues may have been important, but none of the Arab powers gave any thought to the city as capital of a Palestinian state. In fact, no interest was even displayed in the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Arabs held large parts of the country, including much of Jerusalem. Only when Israel ruled the area did they discover that there was a Palestinian people and a land they should rule.

v     Scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York. It's nominally a conference on “racism” but, like the UN in general, it seems to have as its main goal the discrediting of Israel.

vi    These are usually passed off as internal affairs which should be of no concern to “outsiders.” Israel, on the other hand, …