When I was young, Jewish organizations put their feet down about the use of the terms "good Jew" and "bad Jew." It was too divisive. But that didn't make the issue go away. I always felt like a bad Jew: I was interested mainly in non-Jewish culture, rarely went to synagogue, tried to be hip, and dated some non-Jews, married one. When I started writing on Jewish issues, my critics always said, "Why do you consider yourself a Jew?" or "The correct response to you is, 'Sayonara, go away.'" One editor said I should write a book called, Being a Bad Jew.
My guilt about this is not strictly my problem. I believe that Leon Soros got maumaued out of playing a leading role on Jewish politics because he was made to feel that he was not strongly-enough identified as a Jew. Good Jews hold their goodness over bad Jews. I just got a press release from the Rabbinical Assembly, the Conservative rabbis, bragging that the new Israeli ambassador to the U.S., is a Conservative Jew and so are the lion's share of AIPAC Jews.
At this week’s AIPAC conference in Washington where Dr. Oren spoke, the overwhelming majority of rabbis who were in attendance are Conservative. “The numbers speak for themselves,” said Rabbi [Julie] Schonfeld. “On matters of Israel, as well as the other pressing issues of the day, Conservative rabbis predominate in public life."
I noticed this myself. A lot of people wearing yarmulkes. I don't think there's a lot of intermarriage among the AIPAC faithful. The alternative lobby, J Street, is aware of this too. A few weeks back, Jeremy Ben-Ami said at the 92d Street Y that his efforts are welcomed by "unaffiliated" Jews–people who didn't know where they could put their feelings about Israel because those feelings weren't welcome in the official Jewish community.
The point I'm getting at is that culturally and politically, the trend we're heralding on this site and embodying too, is the reclamation by bad Jews of their Jewish identity. Jewish identity used to be officially circumscribed. How many Jewish friends you have? Do you have a Christmas tree? Do you date non-Jews? And so forth. All questions drawing on Jewish law. And bad Jews became bad Jews because Jewish law had little bearing on their modern problems. (Or much of Jewish law anyway.) Which is why a lot of modern American Jews fell away. Especially with the horrifying occupation and the Iraq war, which had Jewish religious endorsement. A lot of neoconservatives are good Jews. Bill Kristol is. Jeffrey Goldberg is an observant Jew, too. So is Tom Friedman, who wanted to smash something in the Arab world, when he supported the Iraq war.
But the bad Jews were afraid to speak up about the Occupation. Because deep down, they felt guilty; they knew they were bad Jews. And the better Jews were taking care of things. That's what's changed. Now the bad Jews aren't getting pushed around so much. They know that the good Jews screwed things up–and maybe one reason they screwed things up was their definition of Jewishness, which is ethnocentric. (Though in fairness, a lot of good Jews, like Jerry Haber, have been leaders here.)
Bottom line. In the process of taking their political power, the bad Jews are going to remake Jewish identity on universalist terms. Being Jewish doesn't have to mean wearing a yarmulke and lighting candles on Friday night or even marrying a Jew. It could mean working for the American Jewish World Service. Or even just reading Kafka all the time and studying Jewish history and thought. So I guess I'm not really an assimilationist. AIPAC got me to take my stand, inside Jewish life.
Related posts:
{ 117 comments }
← Previous Comments
If you include the anti-Semitism of Jews toward Jews, Black might be considered to provide evidence of it; otherwise, you are misreading his work – or not reading it.
You are incorrect in your assertion that only laws relating to personal status, such as marriage and divorce are left to the religious authorities. There is a contradiction between your statement that the High Court of Justice ensures application of all laws to guarantee liberty and justice for all and the High Court statement: "Both security and political considerations explain and justify such discrimination."
I didn't say that a jury system is a prerequisite for a democratic justice system; I listed it as a difference in the practice of democracy in the US and Israel. I don't create the straw dogs you demolish with such derision – you create them in order to appear as if you are refuting my statements because you are unable to refute the truth of the statements.
JES49: Herzl says that the immediate cause of Anti-Semitism is 'our' excessive production of medicore intellects; its remote cause is 'our' loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; 'our' national character is historically famous; 'we' are now, and shall henceforth remain, a historic group with unmistakable characteristics common to 'us' all. He appears to consider anti-Semitism to be caused by the character and behavior of Jews. "Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed. Its remote cause is our loss of the power of assimilation during the Middle Ages; its immediate cause is our excessive production of mediocre intellects, who cannot find an outlet downwards or upwards–that is to say, no wholesome outlet in either direction." (From "Causes of Anti-Semitism" The Jewish State) "I referred previously to our "assimilation". I do not for a moment wish to imply that I desire such an end. Our national character is too historically famous, and, in spite of every degradation, too fine to make its annihilation desirable. We might perhaps be able to merge ourselves entirely into surrounding races, if these were to leave us in peace for a period of two generations. But they will not [92]leave us in peace. For a little period they manage to tolerate us, and then their hostility breaks out again and again. The world is provoked somehow by our prosperity, because it has for many centuries been accustomed to consider us as the most contemptible among the poverty-stricken. In its ignorance and narrowness of heart, it fails to observe that prosperity weakens our Judaism and extinguishes our peculiarities. It is only pressure that forces us back to the parent stem; it is only hatred encompassing us that makes us strangers once more. Thus, whether we like it or not, we are now, and shall henceforth remain, a historic group with unmistakable characteristics common to us all." (From "Effects of Anti-Semitism," Ibid)
I said "The breeding of good eugenic characteristics was considered goal worthy at the time." Eugenics was considered, on a world wide basis, to present worthy goals; elements of it remain incorporated into modern ideas about medicine. Searching 'eugenics' + 'Zionism' brings up many citations of work by those who identified themselves as Zionists, and their topic as Zionism. Zionism is not the monolithic construct you appear to consider it, but is made up of many elements.
Searching 'eugenics' + 'Zionism' brings up many citations of work by those who identified themselves as Zionists, and their topic as Zionism. Yes? Name some. All I appear to come up with are those affiliated with "Jew Watch". Come to think of it, could it be that the Palestinian Arabs practice eugenics? After all, their preferred marriage partners are close relatives in the male lineage, ideally first cousins.
Margaret, I would suggest a thorough reading of The Jewish State. Herzl, when referring to the fact that Jews had lost their ability to assimilate in the Middle Ages, was referring to the fact that they had been banned from all but commerial activities and petty trade. (Hint: Do you understand your family's prejudice now?) When he speaks of "excessive production of mediocre intellects", he is referring mainly to the Jews of Eastern Europe (Herzl, himself, was, like Philip, of Hungarian origin and quite assimilated) who were restricted to live in the "Pale of Settlement", denied an education and barred from most professions. In other words, Margaret, Herzl is not saying that anti-Semitism is caused by the inherent behavior of the Jews themselves, as you suggest, he is saying that for the Jews to try and escape anti-Semitism is futile, because the cards have been stacked against them since the Middle Ages. For Herzl, the proof of this came in the form of the Dreyfus trial where Alfred Dreyfus, despite being the model Frenchman "of the Jewish faith", was accused and convicted of treason (sound familiar?) amid cries from he mob of "Kill the Jews!"
First, I believe you mean "strawmen", not "straw dogs". Second, I'm not the one who brought up the jury system:you are.
Margaret, again, you're speaking jibberish here. True, b'tselem (an organization whose work, BTW, I generally respect) is monitoring a society that finds itself in a state of constant warfare, as you say. Okay. So what? The U.S. also has organizations that monitor Guantanamo and other installations. The Israeli "cultural acceptance" as opposed to the U.S. lack of "cultural acceptance" reflect different realities; not different values (or at least not appreciably different values), and I think you are in serious error in calling such acceptance "cultural". The same is true with the policies of your government being aligned more closely with Israel's (whose should they have been aligned with? Syria? Iran?) You need to ask yourself why, during the past eight years, there wasn't a repeat of 9/11. Was it because al-Qaeda lost interest? Or was it because the U.S. government through its cooperation with Israel – as well as the intelligence agencies of a large number of states – prevented such attacks. For your sake, I hope it's due to the first, because if it's the second, both you and Obama are in trouble!
There is absolutely no contradiction. The courts in the U.S. (even the Supreme Court) have declined to rule on matters due to security and "policy" considerations (that should, I belive, not have been translated as "political", but rather as "policy"). At any rate, "security and policy" considerations are certainly not left up to the religious authorities!!!
JES49: This discussion has been useful in developing my understanding of issues I consider vital. I find your attitude unpleasant. Your assertions are opinions you do not bother to support; you construct straw-dogs because unable to disprove what I say, and demolish them with vigor. Fail. I've learned a lot responding. If you consider a question unanswered or a point not addressed, repeat it. Assertions of opinion or new straw-dogs won't compel a response.
Let me also say that Herzl's vision is compelling to me, individually – I also loved News From Nowhere. There are major differences between what Herzl says in the phamphlet available at Gutenberg and what Israel is and does as a State. But I do believe that if my neighbor, my friend, my relative is unsafe because of ethnicity, then I am unsafe. The idea of not having people who are Jewish as part of my community, because someone so violently disliked "Jews" that they were not safe, makes me sick and angry. I don't want to live in a society which considers such a threat acceptable. I do not believe that such a threat would be allowed to continue in my physical community. I have good reason for that belief, because crimes committed from hate do occur, and the consequences are notable in public statements that such threats are not from the community, but from isolated and sanctioned individuals. Anti-semitism is one form of adverse discrimination; crimes committed because of a discriminatory hatred all bring public condemnation.
You wouldn't be allowed to define yourself as a Jew, for Israeli nationality purposes, nor would your marriage be recognised there. Even in Britain, where the Orthodox rabbinate has a lot of power and is extremely strict, you would be excluded from many of what you might suppose would be generically 'Jewish' activities.
Margaret, you give no source for your account of the Nazi race laws, but I believe it is incorrect. In cases where one only out of four grandparents was a member of the Jewish religion, it was the normal procedure as I understand it to look at the individual's lifestyle, to see whether they identified themselves as Jewish or not, and to classify them accordingly.
Roland, there does seem to be considerable controversy.
…to see whether they identified themselves as Jewish or not, and to classify them accordingly. And how does this coincide with a genetic ideology of racial superiority? Many German Jews did not identify themselves as Jewish, and they went to their graves protesting that they were Germans!
Rowan, I wouldn't be allowed to come to England and simply define myself as British for nationality purposes either!!! Marriages performed outside of Israel are all recognized by the Ministry of the Interior and registered as such in the population registry. And what are "generically 'Jewish' activities" by you? Today there are healthy Conservative and Reform congregations all over Israel that offer a full range of services (including marriage and burial).
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.