I’m surprised that I’ve seen no coverage of political theorist Michael Walzerâs lecture at Yivo Institute last month on the issue of Jewish identity: "Are We a People?" Surprised because it was such a strong lecture, and such a disturbing one.
Walzer answered the question at once: Yes. Jews are a people in a way that no one else is a people. We are both religion and nationality. That identity comes from Godâs covenant with our people as recorded in the Torah, and is at once a religious and political self-definition. We have obeyed the same laws for a long time, and this has made us a Jewish nation, irrespective of whatever I or any one else has to say about it. âThere are many nations, but we are one among them. And we are also a religion⦠We inherit a religiously inspired culture.â
Being both a religion and a nationality makes us an anomaly. We’re like the French but unlike the French we do not include Muslims and Catholics. And we can be members of the French nation but not the same as other members of that nation. âJews are French, English and Russian with a difference.â We have been a ânationâ for a long time. Jews may be comfortable and prosperous in America, but: âwe are not simply at home.â Being full citizens in a stable democracy is a relatively new condition for Jews, and âwe canât be entirely confident about its permanence, Jewish history is full of warnings.â Now the existence of a Jewish state, Israel, âmakes things even more complicated.â We are connected to Israel, âto another place, to another geographical place and and a different history⦠this makes us different from other Americans who do not have these connections.â
Now to Israel. Israel is âthe political center of world Jewryâ¦
Jewish identification is very different in
American Jewish identification is also surprising: it is religious, Walzer said. The most remarkable fact of Jewish life in the U.S. is the religious revival of the last 15 years or so, which took social scientists by surprise. Despite all the concerns about assimilation and intermarriage, Jewish religious life is more vital than ever. There are Jewish day schools, a Jewish feminist movement. Novelists write Jewish novels and unlike Bellow and Malamud, they aim their work at a Jewish audience.
At the same time, the boundaries of Jewish life in the
A number of comments.
–Walzer gave a great lecture. The last time I went to a lecture at Yivo introduced by Marty Peretz, I felt ripped off. Last fall, Niall Ferguson gave a Scottish minstrel show about Jews and money, completely avoiding the core subject. This time Walzer delivered for my $15, a serious and honest description of how he defines Jewishness. A description you might quarrel with, but one based on great learning.
–At one level, the lecture left me feeling good. As an irreligious freethinking intermarried alienated Jew, Walzer was saying, there is a strong tradition for you too.
–The most uplifting part of the lecture was that he did not talk about the Holocaust or antisemitsm AT ALL. It came up in the Q-and-A, and he said that this was the first question when he gave the talk in Israel: why no talk about antisemitism? He said that these were grim bases for Jewish identity, that these events ought to be folded into Jewish history, not offered as a way of identification. Hallelujah. The audience applauded.
–The parochialism left a sour, tyrannical feeling. Walzer, having appeared on the scene as a liberal, has late in life occupied more and more the life of Judaism. Some of this is to his great credit as a scholar. He learned Hebrew in his 50s. But the orientation is defiantly particularist. He is not interested in Judaism as a universalist religion, as the anti-Zionist rabbis and liberal theorists offered it to the world. He doesnât really want to share. He presented it as a good thing that Jewish novelists are writing for Jews, unlike Bellow and Malamud. I repeat that statement because I find it so shocking. At a time when Jews are more prosperous and comfortable than ever in history, the community is to be congratulated for turning inward. In celebrating this, Walzer seems essentially conservative.
–The talk was not very political. Walzer came off as a kind of religious moral philosopher, with hints of Leo Strauss. He was interested chiefly in intellectual and religious movement, he doesnât care if Jewish numbers are down; what matters is the spirit of the thing. Given his lack of politics, and interest in religion, Walzer can embrace the irreligious in Jewish life, but he doesnât seem to have any place for the unnationalistic. He never used the word Palestine or Palestinians. He briefly mentioned the critics of Zionism in American academic life. He said they were hostile and alienated, and he thought this a bad thing.
–As I am part of that alienation, I felt there was a
blindness on his part in the lecture to the contradictions in his nationalist
definition. Those who feel it a moral crisis that
–At one point, Martin Peretz teased Walzer about being in
the prophetic tradition. Walzer said he is not prophetic. No: It seems to me he was
more in the conservative rabbinical tradition, dedicated to the study of Jewish
law. The prophetic tradition in this country is today epitomized by the left,
by Tony Kushner, Sara Roy, David Zellnik. These Jews are trying to imagine a
different way of being Jewish, seeing the moral questions before their eyes.
–More on parochialism. Is there an integrationist price
people ought to pay in
But I didnât get time to ask a question. I had to run. Though I will say I was filled with gratitude to Walzer for a generous performance, one I will be mulling for months and even years to come.
Related posts:
{ 50 comments }
It is negative to reinvent religion in Israel.
It has to be France, republic and secular.
A minority may practice religion, any religions of the Holyland, and without any preference.
The Jewish religion has proved to be unproductive. It is a historical failure. Totally unproductive on its own.
Jews of Europe needed the education of the Christian universities to become productive.
The Christian universities became productive only after the reformation and especially after the Hegelian liberation from the domination of the Holy Scriptures.
In America, we will march backward if more religion will be introduced. It will lead to competing factions, and Balkan is our future.
End the grip of the religion on the people.
If you can explain the cult-nature of Habad to the public, most people will be immunized against its supernatural superstitions.
Save us from Habad, and its brothers: Evangelical Christianity and Wahhabism.
Phil's piece raises a lot of issues. A quick observation on just one of them:
When hearing Zionists like Walzer speak to his tribesmen, I find it useful to imagine the Gentile community listening in. What must they think of their neighbors? Should they trust them when the chips are down? All this talk of being "in-but-not-of" a society is usually couched in terms of the (heroic) psychic burden of the Jew. But it can't be easy for his neighbors either.
"There are no English, French, German or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America." (Chaim Weizmann at the First Zionist Congress)
"But the big surprise was that secular democratic institutions are apparently not sufficient to base a society on"
Certainly not in a society that inherited a "religiously inspired culture."
"He never used the word Palestine or Palestinians."
Perhaps because those were "grim bases for Jewish identity," that ought to be folded and sent into oblivion.
"But meantime he is blinding himself to the Whyâs of Jewish alienation, which is a trend in its own right. "
Jewish alienation is not a modern trend. Even the flavors of it are toppings.
Now having lived outside of a dominantly Jewish community, I regard my Jewish community as more important and native than when I lived in a suburban New York upper-middle class Jewish "ghetto".
My family had similar experiences, of coming to regard Jewish identity and even Zionism as more important as we grew older, even conflicting with longstanding philosophical underpinnings.
I think the distinction of intimate vs critical modes of thinking are important to understanding Jewish identity and the apparent ommission of "self-reflection" or "apology".
An intimate view is entirely subjective, a good thing if sincere.
The question of how do we be a good "we", rather than a cruel "we", is also a good question, but it is a second question.
"Jewish alienation is not a modern trend. Even the flavors of it are toppings."
"… coming to regard Jewish identity and even Zionism as more important as we grew older, even conflicting with longstanding philosophical underpinnings."
"… Jewish identity and the apparent ommission of "self-reflection" or "apology"."
"The question of how do we be a good "we", rather than a cruel "we", is also a good question, but it is a second question."
Mr. Witty, are you using some kind of algorithmic text generator?
David,
If you don't understand my meaning, I'll be happy to explain further.
Existential being in general, and the next qualifying step of accepting that one is Jewish (if one is), is intrinsic, unconditional.
External events don't change it. One may wish that Israel did something different (and act to affect that), but it does not change the inherent issues of identity.
The ritual of Passover coming up, are an internal struggling ritual for definitions of Jewish self-identification. You can see it in the various seders that different Jews practise.
There are universal metaphorical elements to all seders, AND there are unavoidable parochial. "God brought US out of Egypt" (not them, not history), is asserted.
There is some identity, seeded by an historical (or even mythical) event or period.
The difference between an alienated Jew and a self-identifying Jew with questions and ethical concerns, are in the character of identity ultimately.
It is an important recognition, with many wonderful possibilities.
Being Jewish (by some definition a native urge/obligation to make things whole – tikkun olam) is a wonderful commitment with no ambiguity.
Risking oversimplifying, both the objectivist dogma and the trivial nationalist dogma, conflict with our identity and even role.
Thanks, RW. Since so much talk about Jewishness is meant to deceive — either ourselves or others — it's always good to make that extra effort towards clarity.
I'm not sure "possessing a native urge toward making things whole" is going to work as a definition of Jewishness. First because so many people who identify themselves as Jewish possess no such thing, and second because so many who do possess such a thing are not Jewish.
The only thing that unites all who choose to think of themselves as Jewish is the conviction that the rest of God's creation wants to persecute them.
"I'm not sure "possessing a native urge toward making things whole" is going to work as a definition of Jewishness."
Its not a definition. There are many that are not Jewish that seek to work to make things whole, thankfully.
It is a characteristic of full Jewish identification though, our nature and our obligation.
"The only thing that unites all who choose to think of themselves as Jewish is the conviction that the rest of God's creation wants to persecute them."
As Phillip reported Walzer's comments, that is incidental to Jewish identity in fact. It is observed that Jews have felt and been persecuted. While genocide does not justify harms to others (and among most that have actually experienced genocide are particularly sensitive to harms on anyone), it also cannot be forgotten and should not.
It is a reminder of the horrors that are possible in the name of ideology, or religion, or any other dogma.
When you use the term "only" in your statement, you are insulting David.
Its something that you can't possibly know what is in the hearts and minds of "all" Jews, or any group.
Please don't indulge in the permission to ridicule a community in that way.
"The most uplifting part of the lecture was that he did not talk about the Holocaust or antisemitsm AT ALL. It came up in the Q-and-A, and he said that this was the first question when he gave the talk in Israel: why no talk about antisemitism? He said that these were grim bases for Jewish identity, that these events ought to be folded into Jewish history, not offered as a way of identification. Hallelujah. The audience applauded." Phil Weiss account of Michael Waltzer lecture
"While genocide does not justify harms to others (and among most that have actually experienced genocide are particularly sensitive to harms on anyone), it also cannot be forgotten and should not." Richard Witty refutes Phil Weiss and Michael Waltzer
Richard Witty insists on the same old Likud propaganda line that we've heard so many times on this blog that it's hard to get up the energy to react to it anymore. Then Richard goes further in his 'sensitive Jew' posture to deliver the usual Likud warning about what happens when gentiles question the ethnic cleansing of Palestine:
"It is a reminder of the horrors that are possible in the name of ideology, or religion, or any other dogma."
Please. Spare us.
"Jews are a people in a way that no one else is a people."
Walzer
I should answer in RW style (cf. the other post):
If the relationship between jews and humans does not specifically resemble the normal way peoples interact (not a definition of which is better or worse), then to use the word "people" is confusing. A "swarm" comes to mind. In fact other less benign names come to mind.
Now for the "makings things whole" part:
"Being Jewish (by some DEFINITION a native urge/obligation to make things whole – tikkun olam) is a wonderful commitment with no ambiguity."
RW
"Its not a DEFINITION. There are many that are not Jewish that seek to work to make things whole, thankfully."
RW
Sure you and you swarm make things a whole mess, RW.
Eddie and Anonymous,
Its clear that you do not understand my meaning.
Please consider this space a portion of face to face encounter, and not permission to dump on another.
My point of view is only similar to "Likud" from a very knee-jerk and simplistic poltical point of view.
Why are you posting on the topic of Jewish identity, if that is not really of concern to you?
The discussion of Jewish identity is a question of identity, NOT a question of relationship to the rest of the world. If anything its focus is within the Jewish community itself, and therefore not really of political nature at all.
The accusation of "likud" or "liberal" or "solidarity" don't come into play when discussing issues of identity.
What comes into play is the degree of self-acceptance and engagement that one experiences.
Certainly the character of relationships between communities is a large element of any question of Jewish character or integrity. But, the MAJORITY of references are within Jewish community itself, and among those that self-identify as Jews.
Phil is Jewish, and writing on themes of Jewish role, ethics, and identity. In many ways my comments are directed to him, more than publicly (though I've not yet heard his comments).
We have many mutual friends, close friends, with varying views on Jewish identity, political emphasis and options. When he writes of his father, it is rich to me. I know his father, and his reflections are enlightening to me, interesting, full of meaning.
RW wrote: "You can't possibly know what is in the hearts and minds of "all" Jews, or any group."
But we often speak in collective terms, particularly when we are concerned with the political, rather than the private, implications of ideologies. Wasn't that precisely what Michael Walzer was doing? And your own comments certainly seemed to be discussing something called "Jewishness". Why am I unqualified to comment?
And it's not I who brought the subject up. There are people causing much harm in this country and in Palestine who claim to be acting in the name of something they call Jewishness (but not Judaism). As long as they do this, it behooves us to try to understand what they have in mind. I disagree that apartness is "incidental" to that sense of identity. (By the way, it's certainly not incidental to Walzer's sense of Jewishness: "We are simply not at home [in America]. … We can't be entirely confident about the permanence [of our welcome]." There's a man who obviously is keeping his bags packed.)
"But we often speak in collective terms, particularly when we are concerned with the political, rather than the private, implications of ideologies."
Identity is NOT ideology. Walzer, according to Phillip Weiss' summary, was NOT political, but exactly of the private, the communal private (as odd as that may sound to you).
You insisted that it was political in nature, and that is all you are willing to speak to, and critically.
Walzer's points relates to the intrinsic nature of being Jewish. Its not chosen, as in selected from a menu, but it is accepted and participated in, as in adopting one's responsibility rather than not (or better, adopting one's enjoyment, rather than not).
It is a great balance between individuality and communalism. Its measure is of the character of its community. But, it is not anti-individual in the way that subordinating one's personal will to an army chain of command is (or the willingness to martyr).
Most importantly, it is human, in all the good and bad meanings of that term.
If asked, "are you a member of the human race?", most would respond without apology, yes, certainly. Even knowing the range of brutality and insensitivity that many human beings are capable of.
"Are you human?" Yes, of course.
"Are you proud of being human, or apologetic?" Its a silly question. I am just human.
The same question applies to me as a Jew.
"Are you proud of being a Jew?" A silly question. I am a Jew. It doesn't matter if I am proud or apologetic of what other Jews do. I'm a Jew, independant of judgement.
Its just the way it is.
I can make amends for actions, but feel guilty for identity, no.
"You insisted that it was political in nature, and that is all you are willing to speak to, and critically."
Jewishness is very much an ideology. We see its consequences in terms of political actions every day. The course of world events compels us to discuss it as an ideology, and that is the perspective I am taking. (And of course I am not looking at Judaism.) You seem to be more interested in it as a private emotional response — which it is also. That's just not what I'm interested in here. Or to put it another way, I'm interested in how the personal and the emotional manifests itself in such things as AIPAC, CAMERA, Jenin, and Quana.
So perhaps we aren't disagreeing so much as just talking about different things.
(P.S. Fifty years after the Palestinians are driven from their homes in order to make room for a Jewish homeland and Michael Walzer devotes an evening to the proposition that the Jews are a nation. Surely even you can see the political aspect in that.)
David,
Of course I see that there are political implications to everything.
The reason that the question is still relevant includes the history of un-amended (as in making amends) effects on others (Palestinians, but not only) for suffering inadvertently caused.
It also includes the perennial drama of assimilation, vs participation, vs separation (on a continuum) of Jewish life that has repeated over millenia. (in all: Babylonian, Greek, Roman, Arab, Moorish, Northern European, American contexts and attractions).
It includes persecution in which an OTHER defines Jewish self-identification. (The most extreme case is of genocide, in which first the story is of an invocation of shame – anti-semitism – then repeated and believed and contorted without self-reflection enough to evolve into genocidal intent.) My wife's uncle who survived slave labor camps in Hungary as a young teenager, had adopted science as his reference to the point of literally formally renouncing his Jewishness (can a 14 year-old make a permanent description or commitment like that?). He is now a Jew, not a practicing Jew, though one of his children is now orthodox. He told me "Hitler made me a Jew".
An external definition. I've had a similar experience, though obviously nowhere near as extreme. That is that even suggesting that Jews have a right to self-identify and self-govern, I've been attacked vehemently. Although there are seeds to my Jewish participation, dissenters and idealists made me a Jew, in the sense that I could not remain an external vehement critic of Israel in the flavor of demonizing Judaism as spawning the experiment of Israel (that could war, occupy, harm others).
Making amends is important. It is the right thing to do, to negotiate righting the wrongs that have been done, to cease needing to contort, so that Israel CAN self-inquire, rather than having non-participating others feel with any legitimacy they have a right to determine the character of Jewish community.
Richard, you are missing the point of Phil's blog. It is not enough to preen yourself as a Jew fully in a Jewish identity here. We're simply not having any of that. We're a liberal progressive audience, of any in America the most receptive to and admiring of the Jewish identity and the Jewish contribution to this country. But we're not having any of what you're selling. What we would like to hear is something along the line of, 'yeah, we Jews have somehow substituted support of the Israeli gov't for the practice of Judaism, to the detriment of a whole population living in the ME and also to the detriment of American foreign policy. How can we begin to correct this?'
Eddie, one of the goals of the Hasbara trolls that infested Phil's old site was to stir up hatred and name-calling. That way no real discussion could proceed. I'm sure they'll find their way here eventually, but in the meantime let's not do their work for them.
I think Richard was raising the very idea you want to discuss, when he spoke of "making amends." I too think it's an important subject, and it's one that Phil might want to explore in his new site. How WOULD one make amends for what has been done? (Where making amends means something more than just paying your fine and going back to business as usual.) It's complicated because so much of what has been done has been done in the name of Jewishness. As Elie Weisel would tell the Gentiles, they must "come to terms with their past."
However, I'm not at all sure that modern secular Jewishness is very well equipped to come to terms with it's past. In fact I think it may even be impossible. Certainly any making amends to the Gentile would mean the end of the identity of victimhood.
I'd like to see Phil Weiss explore this theme further.
David, I'm not talking about 'making amends for the past'. I'm talking about what is going on in the present, in the Middle East, and how our country is aiding and abetting what is going on, and how that situation has a good chance of leading us into a massive war. I don't want to hear any more about the Holocaust. I don't believe that there is any need for American Jews to 'make amends' to Gentiles. The achievements of the civil rights era wouldn't have happened without American Jews for heavens' sake.
What I am wanting to hear from Richard is something about what he thinks American Jews can do about AIPAC.
Eddie,
Why don't ask Phil what range of comments he hopes for here?
I would hope that he, and others, would be open to differing thoughtful perspectives (which I believe mine are).
I definitely do NOT bring to a discussion of Jewish identity, solely the political.
The only comment I would make about AIPAC is that they have a right to organize, and to the extent that they have a unified opinion, to articulate it.
I think the best way to differ from AIPAC is to focus on presenting a MORE rational argument, and if numbers and dollars add to the more rational argument, to organize those. There are a few excellent organizations that do present alternative approaches to AIPAC's public presence.
I have some peripheral involvement with Brit Tzedek v-Shalom, and have organized some fundraising for Jewish World Services, both of which are liberal in orientation.
Just for some reference though, an angrier presentation is NOT a more rational one.
I think a strictly political reference is nearly always NOT a righteous one, as it ignores the focus of Jewish life and history which is righteous and kind living, constructing a vibrant community.
I also don't know of what amends Jews should make to gentiles. I do feel that the acknowledgement to the Palestinians that harms were done in an effort at survival and emergence, is accurate and would be helpful.
That does NOT equate to an apology for existing, or for self-identifying as Jewish, or for desiring to self-govern without perpetual assault, in Israel.
I think liberal Jews should recognize and apologize and work to correct the damage that organized Jewry has done to Christian US citizens by, since at least 1948, dragging them into conflict with Arabs and Muslims in order to foster Israel. From the "Funny Arab" to the "Terrorist Palestinian" we came in a straight line to 9/11 and war in Iraq and expensive oil. We may yet get nuclear explosions eradicating the greatest achievements of Western Christian civilization.
The point is that Walzer continues this inward, self-concerned thinking about "Is it good for the Jews" where, really, nothing else is of importance. He doesn't get it, and doesn't want to get it.
Phil is a great light, but his response to Walzer's lecture makes it seem that even Homer nods.
David, come on, do you really think that talk about making amends is for true?
"Making amends is important. It is the right thing to do, to NEGOTIATE righting the wrongs that have been done…"
RW
Can't you understand what he is talking about. It's not the deed, it's the process, the ever lasting negotiation, ever increasing talk ever mounting deception. Sit and wait for your amends. Try to squeeze RW for any meaningful idea of it. Then sit and wait for more and more evasive talk.
Sorry for the caps, no working html tags here.
PS. Don't let this Richard Witty control your flow of ideas. He is a posturer and even I who know so little of English can perceive there's something deceptive about his name.
Walzer: "There will be accusations of parochialism and disloyalty. We shouldnât try and deny the anomaly so as to be liked; we shouldnât be critical of ourselves. We should embrace the anomalies. âWe need not make excuses.. We have a simple position to defend. It isnât that hard for our neighbors to live with our differences. We are what we are and we need to make a secure place for ourselves in the world.â
Walzer might think it fine for American Jews to have dual loyalties, but most Americans do not. They especially don't appreciate it when these dual loyalties lead this country into disasters like Iraq and what appears to be Bush's upcoming attack on Iran. Nancy Pelosi was supposed to keep Bush from attacking Iran without congressional approval. Then she went to speak to AIPAC and when she came back she stripped that provision from the Iraq funding bill. Basically AIPAC pressured Pelosi into giving Bush implicit permission to attack Iran anytime he wants to.It doesn't inspire much trust between Jews and gentiles when Jews appear to care more about Israel than they do the United States. It is especially not helpful when AIPAC pressures Pelosi into bypassing the constitution for the benefit of Israel. I still don't see how it hurts Israel for Bush to have to come to congress before he bombs Iran.
Richard Witty is indeed a person or at the very least an existing online entity. I've read his comments in other forums. He has always had intelligent things to say and has always been courteous, which cannot be said for some in this forum.
Anonymous – if your skepticism as per Mr. Witty's actual existence is driving you to distraction, why not ask Phil if he indeed exists.
And Eddie – You wouldn't happen to really be Paul Teese from the PA Green Party, would you?
I'm a person.
"Making amends is important. It is the right thing to do, to NEGOTIATE righting the wrongs that have been done…"
Yes, I noticed that weasel word too, anonymous. Oh well, even if RW is not capable of it I still think the concept of amends remains the crux of the matter.
I don't mean amends in the sense of reparations but in the truth-and-reconciliation sense: a willingness to take responsibility for what was done and to criticize the ideological roots of those deeds. A willingness to say that something was morally wrong and to take responsibility for it is desperately needed in the Jewish community, and yet it's not something that I think the community is particularly well equipped to do.
It will come up more often as the Iraq situation deteriorates and Jews try to further distance themselves from the neocons. As progressives talk of an "alternative AIPAC" the question of their motivation will arise. Is it just because the old lobby has been damaged as a base of power, or is it because they recognize that real evils have been done to others? They must be asked whether they're prepared to recognize that genuine wrongs have been done — to the American people, the Palestinian people, to all Muslims.
What it is about modern secular Jewish identity that might make it hard to accept this kind of individual responsibility is something that Phil might want to explore.
"Phil is a great light, but his response to Walzer's lecture makes it seem that even Homer nods."
Robert Hume
And I do not think RW came out of the blue with his Saruman-like sanctimony towards Phil for nothing (cf. previous posts). I'm affraid Phil is adrift.
"What it is about modern secular Jewish identity that might make it hard to accept this kind of individual responsibility is something that Phil might want to explore."
David
Or to join.
Philip – Very much enjoy your commentary, but reading your comments section makes me want to take a shower.
I didn't come out of the blue.
I've known Phil personally for 38 years (mostly as a teenager, but more recently mostly at family gatherings – real events like funerals, weddings, bar mitzvahs).
It stimulated me to look for his articles, and discovering that he had a blog, to attempt to converse about his points.
We primarily agree, particularly the need for conscience, humility, kindness in dealing with the various political issues involved, and to act from a collective kindness (contrary to the neo-con view that the actions of states are immune from ethical scrutiny, that their duties are not the same duties at all as individual ethics).
I know that Phil has been personally attacked by some advocates of AIPAC, and that has rationally contributed to a distrust of their conclusions and methods.
We've both been called "self-hating" Jews for our political conclusions and expression. And, I don't know about Phil, but I've been called "traitor" by dissenters for my acceptance of being Jewish (rather than primarily self-identified as assimilated), and any affection for Israel and encouragement to defend Israel.
My personal experiences shifted what I now call an ignorance of my Jewish identity.
1. Marrying a child of a holocaust survivor and getting to know my wife's family closely.
The survivors themselves were all Israeli residents from 1948 – 1956, and primarily liberal secular. During the war they obviously experienced horrific treatment, though as Hungary was an independant fascist ally of Germany, they only experienced loss of their property, prohibition from practising their profession (one of two doctors in a town of 20,000, illegal to practise medicine!!), ghettoization until 1944. Slave labor and death camps only started in late 1944, when the Germans occupied officially, and were desparate to complete their "mission".
Following the end of the war, they were refugees, and physically chased from their former home town, being blamed for the war itself, still the old "blood libel" accusations, and fear that Jews would seek to reclaim their lost homes.
They settled in Budapest, got educated, still without full civil rights, and as hated and harrassed in their own nation, illegally migrated to Israel.
My wife was born in Jaffa in 1956, during the 1956 war. Her father had the good fortune of being a highly regarded chemist and moved to England at the first chance he got, where my wife grew up.
2. Having children. I faced the choice of how do I want to bring them up. Quaker, Unitarian, Yogi, Jew, American. I chose liberal Jew.
3. Growing older. Now reflecting on my parents' consciousness. WW2 occurred to them when they were 15 – 19 years old. They themselves heard of their kinsmen's sufferings during their formative years. The enormous hope of the formation of Israel occurred when they were 22. The key wars, especially the unilateral attack of 73 occurred when they were 47. For Israelis and for adult diaspora Jews, the 73 war was the shifting event from possibility of eventual acceptance and reconciliation, to a much greater degree of hopelessness.
In Israel itself, prior to 73, Likud and its predecessor parties never had a prayer of winning more than a moderate minority of parliament seats, let alone control of the government.
The labor position of assertive defense, but not expansion, makes sense to me. (The Likud position is intentional and gradual annexation, a DIFFERENT view.) The Meretz position is similar to labor, but with more emphasis on social equality and amends to Palestinians. ALL are Zionist parties. Even Meretz.
My current political perspective on Israel is just left of the center of the range of Labor. It used to be more firmly supportive of Meretz perspective, and those simultaneously sober idealists within Meretz are still very appealing persons. (Yossi Beilin for example.)
I'm 52. My formative political references were the Vietnam War (14 – 19), the communal and cooperative movements of the early 70's (19 – 25), the budding green movements of the early 80's (26 – 30).
I empathize with my parents' personal history, as vicariously MORE traumatic than mine (they didn't experience the holocaust itself firsthand, but did experience the hatred of their neighbors for "getting us into that war"), but still attempting to be simultaneously progressive, kind and confident and self-assertive.
Absent the critical references of my adult personal history, I'd struggle to find my root. Memory combined with study and self-reflection has formed a confident keel for me.
A life of kindness (containing apologies) and healing, but not a life of existential apology, is the message.
"For Israelis and for adult diaspora Jews, the 73 war was the shifting event from possibility of eventual acceptance and reconciliation, to a much greater degree of hopelessness."
You were sitting on 78% of the original Palestine PLUS the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan Heights, and Sinai, and you were expecting acceptance and reconciliation?
We have been a ânationâ for a long time. Jews may be comfortable and prosperous in America, but: âwe are not simply at home.â Being full citizens in a stable democracy is a relatively new condition for Jews, and âwe canât be entirely confident about its permanence, Jewish history is full of warnings.â Now the existence of a Jewish state, Israel, âmakes things even more complicated.â We are connected to Israel, âto another place, to another geographical place and and a different history⦠this makes us different from other Americans who do not have these connections.â
>>>>>>
This sounds somewhat strange to me and I must say that thruout history this idea of a nation of Jews within another nation has not worked out. In fact it sounds like the old carnard Jews attribute to anti semites.
I think you would find some Jews and most non Jews in the US replused by the idea of Jews creating a "seperate nation" of Jews within another nation.
My wife and children are Jewish. I would count as an atheist "ethnic convert" so I'm not a disinterested party here. I think you are twisting Mr. Witty's words Sid. The Jews I know in America are fully American, whatever that means, and no more of a threat to national security than Chinese-Americans, Anglophiles, or other ethnic groups that maintain a sense of connection to their history and culture.
Reading the comments here and the undertone of some of the messages, is it any wonder that some Jews may not feel completely "at home". Any serious student of history would have to engage in significant denial in order to ignore the rough deal Jews have had. I don't find Mr. Witty's comments upsetting or disconcerning at all. I find them authentic, reflective, and even hopeful.
I find the comments here somewhat representative of an ugly impulse I've observed at anti-war rallies I've attended. These are impulses I've observed for a long time on the far right.
Philip – Perhaps you could comment some more on this phenomenon.
Clark, those aren't Witty's words, they're from Michael Walzer's speech. And Sid is not the only one taken aback by them. Read the comments.
Clark wrote: "I find the comments here somewhat representative of an ugly impulse."
This I believe is your second indignant post. Why don't you actually discuss the comments that you consider beyond the pale, so that others will be able to decide whether you have a point or just an enormous sense of persecution.
RW wrote: "A life of kindness (containing apologies) and healing, but not a life of existential apology"
I'm curious. If one were to apologize (purely hypothetically) for, let's say, using their economic power to entangle this country in a war on behalf of tribal brethren on the other side of the globe, would that be an "existential" apology, or just the old-fashioned kind?
(Your use of the term "existential apology" reminds of the constant Zionist invocation of "existential threat.")
The ability to apologize is a power, a confidence.
Its predicated on the knwoledge that one is actively a self-reflecting individual or community, attempting to live a moral life.
Absent that confidence that comes as the result of sincere self-inquiry (including discussion with those that one effects, and the study of history), one's life is a moral gamble.
The practise of political analysis can be genuinely righteous, or it can be malicious and hateful.
"I'm curious. If one were to apologize (purely hypothetically) for, let's say, using their economic power to entangle this country in a war on behalf of tribal brethren on the other side of the globe, would that be an "existential" apology, or just the old-fashioned kind?"
I wouldn't consider that to be true (certainly not stated kindly), and therefore would not apologize for that.
Of course you don't agree with it, Richard. I'm asking whether that kind of apology would be the good kind or the impermissible kind.
You see, I'm trying to explore the likelihood of ever seeing real "amends" (a subject that you were the one to bring up). I'm worried that anything that might have been done in the name of "Jewishness" is off the table as far as apologies go — which seems a bit constraining, and not fully consistent with the "sincere self-inquiry" of a "self-reflecting individual attempting to live a moral life."
RW, the h-word, when said, is like a puff of bad breath, an instant empathy killer. Whenever I hear the word I immediately think "here enters the merchant of guilty". No word carries the weight of "responsibility avoidance" more clearly than the h-word, which has been used by jews and by war winners to justify the most atrocious acts against people all through the world and like a black hole inside the innards of history draggs the whole understanding of the human quest to a halt. If you insist acting like a fallen angel with tied wings sat upon a willow bough I, for one, will stop communicating with you: "The ability to apologize is a power, a confidence… I also don't know of what amends Jews should make to gentiles." P-a-t-h-e-t-i-c. The other guy can go take a forever shower.
"Why don't ask Phil what range of comments he hopes for here?" Perhaps comments devoid of the h-word or the a-word so we can go forward?
________________________________
non-negotionable Jewish identity
________________________________
I remember a lecture of Walzer in Frankfurt some 20 years ago. One central point was this: Unlike labour negotiations on pay rise or bargaining about other material things that can be divided, identity is something that cannot be negotiated. Jewish identity seems to be of that kind – Jews can't (or are not willing to) say: we give up this or that element of Jewishness and trade it for acceptance by the Gentiles.
This 'exceptionalism, uniqueness, anomaly' identity belongs to a different moral universe and inclines Jews to look at the Gentiles the way the ancient Greek looked at the barbarians.
As Kant observed 200 years ago, this accounts for the animosity of all nations towards the Jews.
Klaus
Frankfurt, Germany
"This 'exceptionalism, uniqueness, anomaly' identity belongs to a different moral universe and inclines Jews to look at the Gentiles the way the ancient Greek looked at the barbarians."
Or the way the German looks at the non-Aryan?
Indeed Klaus – is this exceptionalism and uniqueness similar to the type of Aryan supremacy your forefathers (and perhaps you?)have promoted with such fervor?
If not, how do you explain the animosity so many feel towards the Germans?
"This 'exceptionalism, uniqueness, anomaly' identity belongs to a different moral universe…"
Klaus
Yes, and I struggle to identify what kind of morality there could be in such unholy universe.
"If not, how do you explain the animosity so many feel towards the Germans?"
anonymous
I explain it easily: brain-washing effects may become permanent in weaker minds, like yours. Lack of will to pursue the truth buried under an immense rubble of war propaganda. The desire to cover your war crimes by pointing the other way, the list may go on forever, but your brain is too small to contain it, otherwise you would not have acted in such hateful way.
German-Aryan Supremacy
______________________
Yes indeed, Hitler's German-Aryan identity was a moral universe apart. We have had our 'superiority'. That's why I can only shake my head in disbelieve when I hear about a 'superior Jewish birthright'.
Klaus
"We have had our 'superiority'. That's why I can only shake my head in disbelieve when I hear about a 'superior Jewish birthright'."
See, RW, unlike you, some people do have a working backbone, not a petrified rod made to sustain a mere willingness to repeat the same mistakes again, and again.
Please point out where RW stated that Jews were somehow superior?
And try not to be so hateful.
Please point out where RW stated that Jews were somehow superior?
And try not to be so hateful.
superior Jewish birthright
__________________________
When Israel was challenged about the sense of its 'right of return' – the immigration of foreign-born Jews, the Sharon adviser Natan Gissin responded by saying (according to Reuters): "We have a birthright to live in the land of our forefathers".
Clearly: To be a born Jew (born in Argetina for instance and holding Argentinian citzinship) overrides the birthright of a Palestinian born in Palestine.
That's a 'superior birthright'.
Klaus
I'd like to pose a few questions regarding the issue of superior birthright
If Tonto, whose Sioux ancestors escaped the murderous colonizers by hiding in the mountains in Canada, feels that the former Sioux land in what is now the USA rightfully belong to his people, does he have a sense of superior birthright too?
Do Muslims who hold that Israel/Palestine is "Muslim land" have a sense of special birthright?
Imagine another scenario.
Imagine that an area of Germany become inundated with Muslim immigrants and there was a subsequent "White Flight" from the region of native Germans. Soon the region becomes 90% Muslim and decides it wants to enact Sharia as the law of the land. Not for all of Germany, just their little region of Germany. When they are not granted the power to do so, they hold a referendum which results in a declaration that they wish to secede from the rest of Germany and have their own little state where they can have the freedom to impose Sharia on their area.
Do you imagine that the native Germans would protest such moves? Why would these immigrants and their children born in Germany, not be allowed to secede, much like their Muslim bretheren in Kosovo did from Serbia? Is there a sense of a special birthright that these native (Aryan) Germans have to that land?
Klaus – You and David seem very invested in the idea that Jews believe that they are special, in a way radically different from how other groups view themselves. Given the earlier writer's point about Germanic/Aryan supremacy this is a little rich coming from you, but given that legacy I can see why it is important on some psychological level for you to make Jews guilty (guiltier?) of your own group's past (and ongoing) sins.
"If Tonto, whose Sioux ancestors"
The trap
"Imagine another scenario."
The deception
"…supremacy…"
The moral blackmail
The point:
"As it was, Walzerâs exaltation of OUR âanomalyâ as American citizens seemed a little complacent and self-congratulatory, and BLIND to the anomalous status of OTHER citizens with historical vectors of non-Americanness. Indians, say, or Mexican-Americans. No: OUR difference was being sanctified here…"
Phil
Klaus and David, congratulations, you have just been promoted to german supremacists chasing sharia abiding sioux spies from kosovo in order to relieve your psychocybernetic souls from the smell of burnt jewish flesh.
More evasive imagination, Ciaba?
You're taking Philip's words to make the argument that Jews are supremacists.
Philip? Care to respond or do you not actually read your comments?
If you don't I can't say I blame you.
Comments on this entry are closed.