The other night in Brooklyn, on the Anti-Occupation tour that will soon come to your little town, there was a great dialogue in the Methodist church in Park Slope over the Jewish idea of chosenness. I reported some of this last night: several criticisms of the Jewish idea of chosenness as serving the occupation-- from a Canadian-Palestinian lawyer and a South African black cleric named Rev. Eddie Makue.
A Jewish woman stood up in the audience to decry this. She basically said, Chosenness is a Jewish idea, and our business, don't bring theology into this. I blogged about that last night.
Typically I didn't get the whole story. I left the church to get my train, and a Second Jewish Woman stood up (reports Georgia Guida, one of my farflung correspondents): "There was a young woman who spoke out in disagreement (after waiting on a long line at the microphone). This woman said that she had lost her family in the Nazi Holocaust, and that she believes Jews aren't chosen, whether to be more responsible or whatever. Something about that concept of being 'chosen' being no different from what Hitler believed.. "
Wow. This is Israel Shahak stuff. I wanted to move the ball down the field. I got in touch with the First Jewish Woman speaker, and asked her what she had said and meant. I'm leaving her name out of this. She told me this is the sort of topic that is hard to discuss on email and deserves a face-to-face. Well I'm 2 hours away; so I wrote a provocative email: Hey, if Sam Harris and Bernard Lewis and George Bush are interrogating Islam and its 72 virgins and jihad stuff, why not interrogate Jewish ideas while we're on it?
And she said:
What I said in full to Rev. Makue was something like the following: While your criticism of the settlers are fully justified, I would omit the comment about the chosen people or I guarantee that you will be misunderstood by the vast majority of Jews. Some Jews believe that it means that Jews were chosen to receive the Torah from Moses. In Hebrew the word is closer to meaning obligated than chosen, in the sense that Jews are obligated to seek peace and pursue justice. I respectfully suggest that you leave that discussion [of the chosen people] to the larger Jewish community and to Jewish theologians.
Rev. Makue unwittingly invoked an anti-semitic tradition of Christians using their pulpits to expound on the alleged theological "deficiencies" of Jews and Judaism. I'm not saying that he's anti-Semitic. I am saying that he is insensitive to the history of anti-Semitism, and unaware of the implications of criticizing the chosen people concept as a Christian minister at an event sponsored by a church. All kinds of Jews (not just right wing settlers) believe that Jews were chosen (the Hebrew word is closer to obligated) to receive the Torah from Moses at Mount Sinai and to follow its precepts to seek peace and pursue justice. (Jewish feminist Judith Plaskow drew on this tradition when she called her pathbreaking book Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective.) I therefore found it distasteful and cavalier for him to say "they [the settlers] think they're the chosen people." Apparently oblivious to the fact that some anti-occupation Jews also believe that God chose the Jews to receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai, Rev. Makue implied that only settlers or those with pro-settler, anti-Palestinian sympathies would believe in choseness.
Smart lady. (I pray that Saifedean Ammous is listening to this.) Then she sent me this:
Far worse than Rev. Makue (whose work against apartheid in South Africa was honorable and courageous), was the strident and reductive Jewish woman who disagreed with my comments and said that any concept of being chosen "opens the door to Hitler [!]" I am angered and appalled that a Jewish woman would say this in a church and that many of the people in the audience applauded her. This further reinforces my contention that this event was not an appropriate venue for an informed discussion about choseness in Jewish theology, and that Rev. Makue should have confined his criticism of the settlers to issues of human rights and international law.
I will refrain from working with the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation; although I will continue to selectively attend events that they sponsor; if only to watch out for the instances of insensitivity towards Jews that so often occur at them.
I then responded to her:
And because you insist on staying in the Jewish community, out of concern for insensitivity to Jews, who are the most wealthy segment of American society now, and incredibly well represented in media, politics etc--that is to say, the Zionist understanding of the treatment of our minority in the west has been shown to be a false one, by history--you have foiled a coalition between Jews and Christian progressives on apartheid in Palestine.
So, you will always privilege our Jewish sensitivity over the pogroms against the Palestinians. Nothing less than pogroms are taking place in apartheid Israel. [Should have said Occupied Territories there] 100 years ago, my ancestors were freed from pogroms in Russia by the efforts of well connected Jews in the US working with Christians and politicians.
It is time that the Jewish community recognize the actual suffering and brutalization of Arabs on something approaching the sensitivity you assign to verbal slights in a progressive church against Jews. And yes I would say that the idea of a chosen people, which is an American idea, and a Jewish idea, and which is not strictly theological, but a living ideology, has to be interrogated.
She then said that I am being "reductive and dogmatic."
In my defense: We are all reductive. We all have to make choices. She is reductive when she avoids "mixed" groups on Palestine, I'm reductive when I despair of the Jewish community's ability to talk about this in an efficacious manner. Whose reduction is correct? As for dogmatic, it is true that all the folks I try and get on this blog have to sign a litmus test before they speak. It is a simple one: The Palestinians are experiencing pogroms at the hands of the Israelis.
On "choseness":
It's not a question of what you're chosen FOR — whether it's to seek peace and justice, or to rule the world — it's a question of dividing the world into two categories, us and them. If the word "obligated" makes one feel less self-conscious than "chosen," then fine: but we're still left with a world where G-d has divided his creations into the Obligated and the Non-Obligated.
This is antithetical to the message of all the other great religions, in which all men start out in precisely the same relation to their creator. This was the message for which Jesus was killed.
There's nothing wrong in believing in choseness (just as there's nothing WRONG in believing in UFOology). But its political implications are dangerous. For example, it can lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people.
Ms. Battu, the Palestinian lawyer, did not focus her remarks on choseness. She focused her remarks on material conditions in Palestine; checkpoints, settlements, and the wall.
When I spoke to her later about why it was strategically not a good idea to conflate this with a discussion of the various and complex meanings given by different kinds of Jews to the term "chosen people", she said "Thank you for the information." So once again I would like to point out to Mr. Weiss that the purpose of last night's event was not to have a dialogue about choseness. It was to have a forum about Palestine.
For sixty years we've tried to have a discussion about Palestine. But we were always asked to please not mention the theological underpinnings of Zionism, or Jewishness, or Jewish power, as these topics might be perceived as offensive. And so it is that facts on the ground have been allowed to accumulate.
"Like Rev. Makue, I'm against the occupation. However, I will not align myself with Christians who misunderstand Jewish beliefs. Therefore, I work with Jewish anti-occupation organizations (Meretz USA, J Street, Brit Tzedek v Shalom) rather than with groups such as the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation. I find that the "mixed" groups consistently attract people who are cavalier or insensitive about issues of anti-Semitism."
To that I would reply, excuse the insensitivity, but how are we to know how to discuss an issue that affects all of us, if she and others like her refuse to engage in conversations on the subject with non-Jews. Here is the culture clash again: she states as well as can be a distinctly Jewish value, while the American value is, I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it, as part of freewheeling public discourse on issues affecting our community. She should read the responses to Anne Silver's post, to sensitize her to the sensibilities of non-Jews who are left to interpret the refusal of certain Jews to discuss certain topics of obvious interest to all Americans as best they can. A consequence of her refusal to engage is that people assume her community has something to hide. It doesn't help when Neocons boast about how strong America's love of Israel is, all the while working to silence the MSM on obvious stories, like Rahm Emanuel's father's comments, [and seem to in fact have a lot to hide], and to boast that it is their job to tell Americans what to think about the Middle East. In the Episcopal schools, children are taught how to think, not what to think. And the "teach-them-what-to-thinkers" are mistrusted. If she and others who think like her lose the "how-to-thinkers" among non-Jews, that would be a seismic cultural shift not for the better.
Further, the sort of careful distinctions and refined discrimination in thinking to which she alludes is always appreciated by intellectuals, who typically welcome instruction on important matters outside their area of expertise, but tell the same people that sorry, I regard you as unfit to carry on a conversation with, and that's just going to be perceived as arrogance.
All of a sudden right and wrong aren't so black and white. Typical.
Israel and Jewishness are issues that have been forced on the vast majority of Americans who are not Jewish. How sensitive is that? No matter how you cut it, Palestine isn't my cross to bear, and I don't care one bit about the sensitivities of those who have dragged the nation into the mess.
Maybe it means that I'm not polished or an intellectual, but I really don't care about the finer points of any religion when the parsing of words is done solely to escape responsibility for crimes, or to continue committing crimes.
"Jewishness are issues that have been forced on the vast majority of Americans who are not Jewish. "
I don't understand. Please explain how Jewishness has been forced on American gentiles.
There is absolutely no question that the Zionists have incorporated the religious concept of Jewish choseness into their political program, similar to their incorporation of the concept that Ashkenazi Jews have a bloodline connection to the Levant dating from the bible. And because choseness is a function of bloodlines, it has a racialist connotation. Some might try to spin choseness as an obligatory as opposed to a supremacist formulation, but because it manifests through Zionism as supremacist, that’s its contemporary essence.
On the one hand, many Jews demand a firewall between religion and state for everyone else, and demand that the Jewish religion not get mixed in to criticism of Zionism, but on the other hand the overwhelming majority of them support the melding of religion and political ideology in the form of Zionism. And Jewish Zionists in America have then brought this politico-religo hybrid into the American state, and demanded that the US government support it, underwrite it, and even go to war for it.
Why don’t the rules that they demand for everyone else apply to them as well? Because they are “chosen.” They have actually managed to incorporate the notion of their own supremacism into American government policy both by fiat of its blind support for the Jewish state, and by fiat of the imposition of two sets of rules upon the citizenry: one set that sanctions religion in the case of Jews, and one set that suppresses religion in the case of non-Jews (a suppression that they mightily encourage). And their ability to pull this off–to put the US government to work on their own religious agenda, and simultaneously use it to harass and persecute other religions–only reinforces and encourages their supremacist beliefs.
At D, you wrote: "it's a question of dividing the world into two categories, us and them. If the word "obligated" makes one feel less self-conscious than "chosen," then fine: but we're still left with a world where G-d has divided his creations into the Obligated and the Non-Obligated.
This is antithetical to the message of all the other great religions, in which all men start out in precisely the same relation to their creator. This was the message for which Jesus was killed."
For centuries European Christians have forced Jews to convert or die/expell. It is this idea that all men have to have the same relationship with God, a Christian relationship which requires to accept Jesus as God and Savior/Messiah, which is the dangerous idea. I don't see how NOT obligating other people to have the same relationship with God MORE dangerous than obligating others to follow the same religion.
It's fascist to think that all people should do as you do, follow as you do, pray as you do.
Isn't it more tolerant/less dangerous that we think that we don't require you to think like we do?
There is something wrong with the approach, if I understand it correctly.
She only monitors these events as a member of the unadulterated Jewish left's anti-antisemitism inquisition forces?:
I will refrain from working with the U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation; although I will continue to selectively attend events that they sponsor; if only to watch out for the instances of insensitivity towards Jews that so often occur at them.
Michael, they can't have forced all Jews to convert — or you wouldn't be here. Perhaps you're exaggerating.
But I'm with you in condemning all bigotry in the name of religion.
Still waiting with my .50 caliber Ed.
The plankton in the ocean knows more about Judaism than Phil Weiss.
Its not even that non-Jews aren't obligated. To my mind they are.
Its just that Jews are, and are reminded of that obligation daily, weekly, annually.
Phil is wrong in functionally stating, "Its ok if you form misrepresentations of our theology, even if historically the same misrepresentation has given rise to genocidal actions."
And, your assumption "there will always be something wrong with what the goyim are saying when they criticize Israel" is frankly utter bullshit.
First with the word "always". Rationalizations of inevitability have too damn often been the rationale for abuse. How dare you presume to predict the future? How dare you limit the possibilities inherent in a beautiful basis of personal and collective identity?
Justice INCLUDES sensitivity.
To exclude sensitivity in a discussion of justice, is to make justice a relationship between stones, NOT between people.
Are you getting a "rush" from this Phil?
"I don't understand. Please explain how Jewishness has been forced on American gentiles."
I don't even know what there is to discuss. The national media from NPR to Comedy Central is heavily influenced by Jews.
When the nation has to tip-toe around Israel and Middle East policy in order not to offend Jewish interests or sensibilities, is there much to debate?
You know Todd I know plenty of Jews that refer to NPR has national palestine radio. I guess its a question of which way the keffiyeh/swastika crumbles. Right pal.
At Todd,
How do Jews influence the media?
Richard Witty: Justice INCLUDES sensitivity.
One cannot really judge the whole statement from the selection I guess, BUT (to use your capitalization) I still wonder if this sensitivity is a one-way street? Who informed her that the Muslim concept of jihad under no condition can be compared to Jewish concepts? Daniel Pipes?
She doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that the 72 virgins are an hoax?
I am aware that she supports your position. Is this your position too?:
I do not consider the Jewish concept of the chosen people to be equivalent to 72 virgins, jihad, etc. A concept that obligates Jews to seek peace and pursue justice has nothing in common with a concept that promotes violence against civilians and the exploitation of women.
Jihad does not mean war in the Koran, as there are other words for it, like qital and harb,” Islamic scholar Asghar Ali wrote that “Jihad has been used in the Koran in its root meaning, i.e. to strive and to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (maruf) and contain evil (munkar).”
Arndt wrote Jaspers in a letter the concept of being chosen has been
misinterpreted over centuries of history by the Jews to mean being eternally persecuted, and by the Gentiles to mean an historical record of the Devil. She said, barring a few episodes in history, this has always been so and needs to be known, to advance beyond tit for tat, that is, beyond anti-semitism by a much
more clear eye on the root of anti-semitism.
When religion is tied up with secular group thought,ideology and action–
it's never pretty, as we all know.
Most of the huge evil events are sourced by messianic movements
equipped by real secular power, whether monetary or direct force.
"Yeah, you blend."
The end justifies the means. Maybe that's it boils down? Even James Jones's followers thought they were busy creating heaven on earth.
Kool-Aid, anyone?
Don't drink any group's Kool-Aid.
Prepare to be pretty lonely.
I still deeply feel "chosen"/obligated and thankfully will for the rest of my life.
No, SOG.
All that shows is that you have some pretty stupid friends.
Being that they are YOUR friends, I'll have to apologize for being redundant.
Some jews also think any criticism of zionism, or any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic too.
I feel deeply obligated too, and always will. But it has nothing to do with feeling/believing I'm chosen. It's my choice.
Chosen…it is pretentious at best, obnoxious at worst. But perhaps you may be forgiven by the rest of us as you are not the first people in history to delude themselves with the illusion of the central position; in fact, it is quite common, possibly even human nature. Modern society ridicules such delusional thinking, except when Jews talk about it, where it is met with embarassed silence by all but backward Christian religionist of the fundamentalist variety.
"At Todd,
How do Jews influence the media?"
Why not ask the posters who continually tell Phil that he is committing career suicide?
He's Jewish. Thomas Friedman, another Jew, criticized Israel plenty and look how rich he is now. He shouldn't have any problems.
Are we talking about the same Thomas Friedman? The one at the NYTimes pushing for war against backward Arabs?