More on the Shministim's tour:
The two visiting Israeli women who refused to serve in the army spoke at NYU last night. I ran into a woman whom I’d gone to Gaza with on the elevator. We sat together, and I told her about my plan to visit Israel. I feel a need to go see my family friend who moved there a long time ago and talk the situation over. "I’m in the Jewish community the way you’re in the Episcopalian community," I said, "and she’s a better Jew than I am." I saw Terry’s face fall, and I felt pathetic. "Is that ridiculous?" "Not ridiculous emotionally. Though it is ridiculous on its face." Well I meant that my parents' friend was religious and had raised her children as Jews. Still I could see Terry was disturbed by my comment, that it expressed some self-loathing.
The two women who spoke to the packed house were named Netta Mishly and Maya Wind--though they didn’t use their last names. Netta was dark and Maya was blonde, and both were impressive, having the moral vigor of youth. Now I know what it is like to be a middle aged fading person and see a young person who has seized the world and understands it. That was Maya. She has an angular face. She was educated in religious schools, with many settlers in her class, she grew up having playdates in outposts and settlements, routinely. Netta, privileged, from Tel Aviv, was a little more gray-area and emotive.
They did not dwell on their personal stories. They are using their visit to educate people about the conflict, and the dispossession of the Palestinians. On this score they were eloquent and ferocious, showing maps of partition and of checkpoints and settlements. The usual grisly horror, rendered by morally-energetic young people. Though in Israel Maya said that even referring to the occupation is a “bad, evil word that only antisemites use.”
For me this was the theme of the talk, how isolated these young women are. They are in a militarized society in which everyone serves, in which people look forward to serving. When Netta was 15, her class had been taken to a shooting range to try out guns and she had refused because she just didn’t want to--even when people said, you will have to get used to it in another three years anyway-- and the school gave her a demerit for not taking “part in a social event.”
Everyone they know has served. Their grandparents, their fathers, their uncles. Netta had gone to her own father’s release ceremony from the Reserves. “It’s all very personal.” And everyone their age is a soldier; and they are thought to be soldiers too, until they are asked what their role is in the army, and they have to answer. That is the way life is understood. And Maya said that her real punishment had not been jail-- no, jail had actually brought her family together, gotten her mother to respect her choice—it had been the feeling of isolation in Israel society. She feels she can never be an ordinary person.
Both women were declared mentally unfit. That was the only category the army had for them, after they had gone to jail for two weeks for not serving. Very Yossarianish. And the women are in support groups, because there are so few people like them in Israeli society.
When I go to events like this, I also feel less isolated. I realize that my views are not extreme within my religious community, that I am not a nut. I had the impression that both women were for the right of return, for instance, and Nancy Kricorian of Code Pink, in pink clogs, introduced them, and Code Pink has shown incredible unapologetic leadership here.
So I felt a Jewish solidarity with the women in the brave new world of Jewish identity that we are building. Netta said that she loves being an Israeli but does not want to be a patriot, and that her worst encounters were with American Jews with their Israel patriotism. "It is realy hard and really painful," she said, "and sometimes I even cry," when people criticize her for not caring about Israel, when their only connection to Israel is the Star of David on their neck. And meanwhile through the lobby--a word she didn’t use--they are exercising some kind of "control" of Israeli policy. Yes, Netta, it's about dual loyalty, and the parallel mental/policy universe it creates.
Maya also spoke of Jewish identity. The Israeli narrative is a Jewish narrative: "The world realy hates the Jews.” And this “victim mentality [is one] that a lot of us have a hard time shaking off.” There is a “basic distrust of people who are not Jews… certainly Arabs and Palestinians.”
I can relate to all of that. The basic distrust of people who are not Jews. It is why the lobby exists, we cannot trust the gentiles with making policy in this area. It is why it is taking me years to figure out my Jewish identity, in some degree of isolation, with a self-hatred that has nothing to do with hating Jews, but, like these women, struggling with excommunication.
Pray tell, what is the “Episcopalean community?” The meaning it might have, clubbishness, snobbishness, some wealth, seldom intersects with people who go on solidarity trips to Gaza.
What else could it mean but members of the Episopalian Church? I think it still exists.
“What else could it mean but members of the Episopalian Church? I think it still exists.”
Sure, just like “the Jewish community” I think Phil uses the word community to mean ‘people like us’ or conversely, another community means ‘people not like us’
See how that works?
Suddenly it is clear: all these wonderful attributes that the Jews claim. Love of justice, compassion etc are all lies. Israel is an abject failure of humanity.
Israel has also become a monstrous insult to the true nature of Judaism. And I think increasingly, Jews in Israel and elsewhere are beginning to see that.
“The true nature of Judaism” Say, you got any of that I could buy?
You do know that Judaism is a religion, right? Religions have “true natures”?
I didn’t know that!
Okay, I’m pretty comfortable with Judaism, but please, what is the “true nature” of Catholicism? I deal with lots of Catholics and it would be an advantage to know.
jimby, chaos – I tend to go along with what you say but would like to add a modification. The views of judaism in israel and the US are radically different, so much so that I’m not sure they can claim to belong to the same community. In the US, there is a fairly vibrant life interpreting, casting and recasting what being jewish means. A lot of it is centered on jewish values and jewish identity, whether religious or cultural or spiritual. Concern for justice and universality is a big part of the jewish existence in the US – it has become part and parcel of civil rights – ideally speaking. Of course, we then have the neocons, who it seems to me, adopted the Israeli view of Judaism – which is fundamentally nationalistic/military. For israelis, being Jewish means living in Israel, which is, by definition, surrounded by enemies. Therefore you are what your enemies are not. You are jewish because you are not Arab, which is why so much ink is spilt on “defining arab mentality”. It’s an attempt to define oneself, divorced from underlying values, all boiling down to the shallow “if arabs loved their children more than they hate us…”. When in truth far greater hatred is directed at the arabs by Israelis – and by extension, muslims everywhere, all the worse for being mixed up with contempt.
What I think we see in israel is an amazing political juggling act – it’s a democracy for the “jews” there, but it’s fascism – the authocratic version – for the arabs. So what happens to “jewish values” in this kind of society is what the shministim are struggling with.
As are many american jews – not of the neocon persuation – who, when they start looking, can find very little commonality between their views and values and those of israel – the collective. People like Mooser perhaps? not to mention Phil himself. They may still react strongly to perceived aspersions cast upon jews in general, but are clearly in the process of singling out the “Jews” of Israel as people with whom they share little other than being – vaguely – from the same ethnic stock.
Of course, the solution is clear – just cut the emotional/spiritual umbilical cord and accept that the “jews” of israel have become a sect of Judaism – like shabtai Zvi’s messianic zealot followers. One that’s charting it’s own course, increasingly divorced from jews elsewhere (whom I’m loath to name “diaspora” since the real diaspora – the spiritual one is in Israel). Once we view it all in the cult meme, everything becomes much clearer, at least to me. Much more mentally peaceful too.
Viewed thropugh this prism, the two young shministim ladies have simply woken up to realize they have been abducted.
thanks Danaa, It seems to me that the problem is getting the Jews of the US to look with their eyes open at Israel. It’s as if they can’t look because it goes to the core of their beliefs. To criticize Zionism is very hard. I came of age in the 60′s with all the marching against war and in support of equal rights and so many of my friends at the time were Jewish. They were outraged at what was being done in their name as I was. I understand it will be hard but somehow it must be done or something terrible is likely to happen.
There are many sub-categories of refusniks.
One is people that refuse to serve in the IDF at all. There is a conscientious objection statute in Israel based on similar to the US, principled and consistent or long-standing organized objection to participate in war in any form.
One is people that refuse to serve in the territories.
In most cases, the IDF finds other work for those refusniks to do. Say in medical services, or something entirely administrative.
Again, same as in the US.
I get that they didn’t have a category for politically motivated refusniks, or those that became refusniks during states of conflict.
The alienation stems from the social role of the IDF as both a universal right of passage for all Jewish Israelis (and many others), and the fact that the IDF is a genuinely popular and loved and admired army.
There is little new left guilt or condemnation of soldiers (as I and very likely Phil bear). It is an honor.
One of the elements of honor, is doing something for a greater good, in spite of personal confusion or contradictions.
If the objection to serve in the IDF is fundamental, then the refusniks genuinely have the social question of “can I live in alienation to them?” or “can I live in alienation to myself?” For most, there is a way to arrange with officers to serve in a way that is not fundamentally compromising.
My sense is that Phil is nostalgic for the sixties in ways, like the former idealist communist radicals that I/we met when protesting the Vietnam War. Pete Seeger and all.
So now I’m confused, Witty. How exactly does it make you feel that in Israel, being true Jewish person and being a soldier are made synonymous? Does that bother you that the Jewish faith in Israel is being transmogrified into a proverbial “army of God?” How does that jive with your supposed liberal values?
If you had just asked the first question, “How do you feel about universal draft?”, then we could have conversed.
Instead you felt compelled to insert rhetoric, warring in words, rather than listening, self-inquiring and expressing.
We could go far, if you choose Chaos. But that would not be chaos, it would be a grassroots organic order.
Are you familiar with the two dominant strains of anarchist thought? (Chaos or Mutual Aid?)
Excuse me but there’s a big difference between a country having a universal draft, a country tying that universal draft to their religious faith.
You’re dodging the question rather conspicuously.
Chaos,
I’m not clear of the question that you are asking.
I’m also not sure why when you ask a question it seems more like a taunt than a question.
Keep running from the question, Witty. It’s not like that doesn’t bolster the point I was making.
Israelis who refuse to serve in the occupied territories are obviously politically motivated, or do you think they just don’t like the grit of the sand under their boots there?
One of the elements of honor, is doing something for a greater good, in spite of personal confusion or contradictions. True, and many a German soldier shouldered such personal anguish, bucked up, and wore that belt buckle proclaming his honor was his loyalty.
Weren’t you and Phil lucky you were never drafted. Did you spit on the drafted soldiers
when they came home? Call them baby-killers? You never said. Did the USA have
any arguably good reason to go to Vietnam, given the domino theory and the reality of what Stalin
did to Eastern Europe after WW2? You never said.
Say we ended up in a WW3 after an attack on Iran, which many influential people
are shouting for now (after a charade of diplomacy), and suddenly our congress felt the need to reinstitute the military draft (currently applicable only to males in terms of registrating at 18), would you change any features of the military draft
as it was during the Vietnam War?
Again, same as in the US.
Jesus Christ Witty, how the hell can it be “the same”. We don’t have compulsory military service. Don’t you think that is a fundemental difference which prevents it from being “the same” in any way?
Witty – the problem with you is that you know absolutely nothing about Israel as a society, or for that matter, a country. You have a ridiculously idealized version of the state of affairs there with no clue as to what the reality is over there, on any level – political, mental, professional and/or military. Frankly, you don’t even speak the same language, so what makes you a voice with any more authority on the matter than anyone else – jewish or not – on this board?
It’s as if I spoke with absolute authority about, say, Hungary, because I have – or had – some relatives there.
PLease accept your role as an outsider to Israel. They are a different sect, just like the mormons. Visiting Utah once in a while as a tourist, does not make one an authority on mormonism.
Accept different opinions Dana.
I know a few Israelis, not many.
I know the history, the motive, the reasoning, the historical and current political issues.
I’ve spent more time there than Phil for example, who has dedicated his entire blog and livelihood for the past three years.
Accept reality, Whitty. Danaa’s isn’t taking issue with you for expressing different opinions, but rather for spewing blatant falsehoods as if they were facts. If you could work on overcoming your compulsion for doing such, I believe it would do you much good.
“Blatant falsehoods”?
What specifically are you referring to?
The text buffer is pretty long for comments on this site, Witty, but it’s not that long. Give us a break here.
Start with one, or two, or five.
Something answerable, not rhetorical please.
I would, but I’m not licensed to give psychotherapy. Why should I have to prove to you that you’re lying. As if all of us didn’t see it.
“Blatant falsehoods”?
What specifically are you referring to?”
How about when you said that Irgun was responsible for most of the acts of ethnic cleansing? Or when you said that Israel had never engaged in nuclear proliferation–not qualified at all, no mention of the well-known allegations that apartheid South Africa had help acquiring its bomb from Israel. You then backed down from that, though you initially said the links I provided did not suggest Israel had engaged in this activity (which was bizarre, since I provided them to show there was evidence that they did). This could all be ignorance and not conscious dishonesty–like many ideologues you avert your eyes from facts that are unpleasant to you. But then you claim to be very well-informed on this whole topic. We are constantly admonished to become as knowledgeable as you–perhaps you should back away from that particular claim.
More often, though, you engage in double standards. I don’t know if one would call this “lying”, but when a person is opposed to any form of boycott against Israel (how about on the importation of Caterpillar bulldozers and other objects used to commit crimes against Palestinians?) and then defends the blockade on Gaza and when you suggest a plan that you would never accept for Israel, well, it looks like you have a peculiarly one-sided notion of what reconciliation and justice are all about.
The Irgun was responsible for the majority of acts of ethnic cleansing and terror. They were active since 1929 in terror, whereas the Hagana was associated with acts of terror in 1947-48 nearly exclusively (probably other individual cases), and mostly attributable to rationall exceptional conditions during war, self-orders (war crime absent a chain of command unless truly exceptional), or overt violations of orders.
The links on South Africa did include some references to Israeli extra-legal support for South African nuclear weapons, which never materialized into weapons, or pointed at any current enemy (no chance of use).
My mistake was in the “I never say never” referring to Israel never engaging in any nuclear proliferation, which as you indicated, I mistook.
The blockade on Gaza is due to the very peculiar situation of Hamas, as accountable to noone (not a state, not a political party, but claiming to be government). It is conveniently AT WAR constantly with Israel, and as a state not accountable to the norms of war. They’ve always maintained that status of fundamental deniability.
And, most sadly, you don’t recommend that that status change, even in the context of urging improvement for the state of Gazan civilians.
Israel might accept a consented international body. Certainly not Human Rights Watch, or even any agency of the UN (given their incompetent enforcement history – consider “demilitarized Southern Lebanon”).
It is a big project that it would be worth it if the left advocated for responsibly, as was done in the past for a while, but then dropped as too much work to actually get done.
My criteria of justice is peace. That means solutions that are not magical, but practical, and meet the needs of both parties. Hamas historically has not accepted any situation that leaves Israel un-harrassed, with aggressive pressure removed.
BDS is another attempt to keep the pressure on, if not by terror, if not by kidnapping, if not by shelling, then by “non-violent” means.
If you take my metaphor of a troubled marriage seriously, you would advocate for relaxation of the pressure, but clarity as to the issues.
For me, that is nearly solely for the present, cessation of settlement expansion. I believe that ALL (there I go again saying “all”/”never”) tangible issues are resolvable with mutual actions that indicate “we accept your existence and seek for YOU to be healthy”.
It takes away angers, but better that the angers disappear. War is what puts civilians at risk, and war is only constructed by angers and greeds.
Its why I advocate for “enough” rather than “no Israel” or “greater Israel”, and why I oppose those that imagine that when they advocate for “no Israel” they are not engaging in cruelty or warfare.
Asking Israel to stop building settlements has done nothing. I’d be more than willing to prevent weapons from getting to Hamas, but note that you see no reason to put any pressure on Israel or any need to deprive them of the weapons and machines they use to oppress Palestinians. You portray yourself at all times as the practical one, yet you have yet to suggest anything except coercion for the Palestinians and mere requests for the Israelis–furthermore, you make excuses for some of their violence and not for the Palestinians. It’s precisely this sort of “peace advocacy” we’ve had for decades in the US–what it does iis set the bar very high for the Palestinians, very low for the Israelis, and when there is violence on either side leading to more violence from the other, invariably we hear from people like you that the violence is the fault of the Palestinians. A balanced approach is what I favor–I am not your mirror image, one who offers excuses for Palestinian violence the way you make excuses for Israeli violence. All your lovely talk about reconciliation is rendered worthless given your one-sided stands. You’re really nothing like the people at Tikkun–they make no excuses for Palestinian violence, but they also don’t twist and turn and squirm and try to avoid admitting that mainstream Israelis (people with some of your attitudes) are part of the problem, not just the settlers.
And most of the ethnic cleansing was done in 1948 and after (one should include the decision to prevent refugee returns as part of the process and that was a governmental decision, not Irgun’s.) It was not the case that rogue units did this either–Ben Gurion covered it all up after the war and the refugees remained refugees and as Benny Morris points out, thousands of Palestinians (the vast majority unarmed) were shot and killed in the following years when they tried to sneak back across the border.
Donald,
You are truly ignorant (not knowing) of the history of my comments.
For example, on the history of the prohibition against return in the 1950′s laws, I specifically stated that they should be repealed in the context of an actual peace agreement.
There is no clarity in using warring to achieve peace. You get to Orwellian confusions, if not immediately then shortly. Such is the dilemma for an advocate of BDS, when led by anyone associated with advocacy of Hamas.
Israel is a state. For a state, defense of civilians is a primary responsibility for a state, and weapons are required to accomplish that, especially in an environment in which a significant portion of its adjacent and other neighbors regard themselves in a state of war with Israel, committed to its cessation.
The only question I would consider valid for Israel as to arms, is the manner of their use.
Don’t ask in any way for Israel to suicide. It won’t achieve the results that you hope.
“Israel is a state. For a state, defense of civilians is a primary responsibility for a state, and weapons are required to accomplish that, especially in an environment in which a significant portion of its adjacent and other neighbors regard themselves in a state of war with Israel, committed to its cessation.”
Not that you’ll extend that same privelege to any other nation. Like Palestine. And yet again you blame the Palestinians — oh, you pretend you limit your criticisms to Hamas but in point of fact, you have no qualms at all about every Palestinian man, woman and child suffering at the hands of Israeli seige, occupation and ethnic cleansing.
And when confronted again by yet another poster of your tacit endorsement, in spite of your claims otherwise, to Israel expanding its lebensraum by force of arms, you plug your fingers in your ears and sing “La la la-la.”
No wonder no one wants you as a finance auditor anymore. You’re not even honest enough for the financial sector.
“Donald,
You are truly ignorant (not knowing) of the history of my comments.”
Richard, when you say that the Irgun was mostly responsible for the ethnic cleansing when they were not, I don’t consider myself bound to look up the history of your remarks regarding the 1950′s laws. You say something stupid, I point it out, and then you try to change the subject. It’s the natural order of things.
As for Israel’s weapons, they don’t need bulldozers to defend themselves from the ravening Arab hordes, do they? But anyway, if they do need our weapons, good–it gives us more leverage. They can have our weapons if they stop killing innocent people, end the occupation, and establish a just peace.
Once again, Rivhard, you prove you know nothing about Israel. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION IN ISRAEL. That is why Jonathan Ben-Artzi spent a year and a half in jail, despite the fact that he requested conscientious objector status and volunteered for alternative civilian service every time he was called up. That is why these two young Shministim women were imprisoned for two weeks and then declared mentally unfit. This should be common knowledge for anyone who claims to be well read on Israel, but yet again you prove that you indulge in your concept of a fantasy Israel, where military conscription is just the same as it is in the US.
The US no longer has a draft. Israel has a “universal draft” which only subjects certain religio-ethnic groups to subscription, with exemptions for those who are Jewish religious students, There is no conscientious objector status allowed, nor is alternative civilian service allowed. Males are required to serve 3 years, women slightly less than 2. Males soldiers are required to perform reserve service up to age 51 and females up to age 24. There is very little that is similar about the rules of military service in Israel and the rules in the US. If you would take off your blinders you could see that. Instead you happily close your eyes and lecture others on their lack of vision and attempt to spread your ignorance as if it was some kind of profound truth. Do you really wonder why you are labeled a hypocrite?
link to wri-irg.org
Yes and no, Tree.
Most that have chosen to not serve in the occupied territories were granted alternative forms of service. Most that chose to not serve in direct military capacity, were granted alternative roles.
If you label me a hypocrite, I regard that as a badge of honor.
The difference in observation is that of Hamas and solidarity objecting to Israel’s existence as Israel (unconditional rejection), rather than the proper role of dissent (conditional criticism of policy).
Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the Israeli draft law.
I had heard from a refusnik directly that there was a conscientious objection path, so I’m sorry if I erred in believing his comments.
Good grief, Richard, I’m beginning to think your reading comprehension is next to zero. From the link YOU provided.
* There is no recognition of the right to conscientious objection for men, and an incomplete recognition of the right to conscientious objection for women.
* The procedures governing the hearing and deciding of cases of conscientious objectors are unfair and unknown (to the public).
* The imprisonment of (male) conscientious objectors is a violation of the human rights to conscientious objection, derived from art 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
* The common practice of repeated imprisonment of conscientious objectors for the same offence is in breach of article 14, paragraph 7, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
* At present the ongoing attempt to force conscientious objectors into betraying or changing their convictions by means of escalating the tactic of repeated imprisonment is of major concern. This is in breach of article 14, paragraph 7, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and contrary to Commission on Human Rights resolution 2002/45.
And yet you stated a falsehood that Israel has a conscientious objection statute just like the US and then provided a link that proved your falsehood. You knowingly posted a lie. Go ahead, wear your badge proudly. You’ve certainly “earned it”.
I posted before seeing your belated apology. At least it is one small step for you and you are to be commended for making that small step.
I would urge you, though, to realize that you are not at all well informed about Israel or Israeli law and it would perhaps be best for you and in the interest of greater knowledge to test your own assumptions and knee-jerk reactions and seek more knowledge before passing yourself off as a source of information on a subject on which you are ill-informed.
Witty once again runs his vehicle of mendacity into an oak tree!!
FPM
I am very well informed on the history and recent reported history.
I do not have a TV and do not watch one, so I do not derive my understanding from the TV mass media. I read 6 newspapers daily, including British, so do derive my current understanding from “mass media” print media, but from varying perspectives.
I question everything that I read. I particularly question the assertions of the left, including the “credible” left, having seen many embarrassingly innaccurate but vociferous (not acknowledging “I don’t know”) and condemnatory comments.
Richard, I don’t watch TV either. If I did, I doubt that I would have heard of Ben-Artzi there. You may very well read widely, but you have admitted that you refuse to read certain information, i.e. the Goldstone Report and the various Breaking the Silence testimonies, among other things, and you have very wide gaps in your understanding, which you fill with what are probably very comforting assumptions for you about how similar Israel is to the US, rather than filling them with more inquiry and reputable information. Your problem may not be one of lack of reading but rather a lack of absorption of those facts that make you uncomfortable or conflict with your fantasy about Israel. Ben-Artzi’s struggle to get the IDF to recognize conscientious objection may not have entered the MSM, but it was widely reported on blogs like Phil’s and Richard Silverstein’s, which you regularly read and post on.
Perhaps you should begin to question your own assertions, since you have proven to post “embarrassingly inaccurate” comments yourself. As you illustrated above, the information that proved your statement on conscientious objection was flat out wrong was quite simple to come by with a simple internet search, and yet you posted the falsehood. You are applying higher standards to others than you are applying to yourself. There’s nothing wrong with applying high standards, its just that when you don’t apply them at least equally to yourself (or those things you identify strongly with) you are…..well, a hypocrite.
Lets get to bigger picture questions, than these details.
1. Do you support the existence of the state of Israel as a Jewish national state?
2. Is your criticism of Israel a criticism of policies and actions, or a criticism of fundamental existence?
3. Is your support for BDS an effort to reform Israeli policies and actions, or an attempt to weaken it to the point of some regime change?
4. If other methods to reform policy promised to be more effective, and stated using a different tone (rather than condemnatory), would you make those changes in your personal approach?
And again — like any dyed in the wool Zionist — when you begin losing the debate, you seek to redefine it and change venue.
You are such a moral coward, Witty.
For me, the incidents are the distraction.
The big picture is the subject, that then describes the strategy for accomplishing.
Yes, well, I’m sure the Palestinians who were massacred would be so relieved that you merely considered them a “distraction.”
The example you set is why the term “Zionazi” is gaining momentum, Richard.
Spoken by a true intellectual and fair commentator.
“For me, the incidents are the distraction.”
What you really mean is that the incidents are an embarassment and an incovenience that undermine your argument.
No,
I mean that they provide cover to avoid the important questions.
Can you experiment with answering the questions that I asked?
Do you support the existence of the United States as a Christian national state?
Now that is a distraction.
“Now that is a distraction. ”
Translation: I respectfully decline to answer the question as to wether I support the existence of the United States as a Christian national state on the grounds that it will expose me as a hypocrite.
It seems being a good Episcopalian may mean anything in terms of self-identify, that is, without detailing precisely an issue, one has no clue what any Episcopalian’s core
universal principles are:
link to en.wikipedia.org
So, what should we make of this:
“I’m in the Jewish community the way you’re in the Episcopalian community,” I said, “and she’s a better Jew than I am.” I saw Terry’s face fall, and I felt pathetic. “Is that ridiculous?” “Not ridiculous emotionally. Though it is ridiculous on its face.” Well I meant that my parents’ friend was religious and had raised her children as Jews. Still I could see Terry was disturbed by my comment, that it expressed some self-loathing.”
What if any difference is there between “raised her children as Jews” and “raised her children as Episcopalian?” Why did Terry’s face fall? Was Terry disappointed by
Phil’s own honest self-reporting that he felt excommunicated? By Phil’s yearning to
be back in the fold & yet somehow retain a shred of his own hard-earned individualism? It’s hard to imagine Terry (who ever she is) would be disappointed
by Phil’s blurting out his internal tension between his dual thirst to be both an individual and a MOT. Does Terry know the old adage wherever there are 3 jews there are 3 different opinions? Probably not. Yet isn’t that also true of 3 Episcopalians? From what I gathered from the Wiki site, the Episcopalians never quite let go of the
Catholic Church yet never became pure Protestants. Further, socio-economic reality and religious
doctrine are of equal sacred weight and never disparate–but must be blended. How long would it take anyone to be accepted as a full-fledged Episcopalian?
What’s so hard about
I believe in one God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
And of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God,
Begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
Very God of very God,
Begotten, not made,
Being of one substance with the Father,
By whom all things were made;
Who for us men, and for our salvation came down from heaven,
And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,
And was made man,
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered and was buried,
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures,
And ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost,
The Lord and giver of life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the dead,
And the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Religions and subsets of them take on many other social meanings that go beyond (and are now more important than) pure belief. I’m betting that one reason Terry’s face may have fallen is that there isn’t much of an Episcopalean community in these larger senses. The actual church is now riven by a bitter internal schism over gay priests and bishops, intensified because–perhaps because of its rich and colorful liturgy–it seems to be the denomination that gay men find most appealing. So when I heard the term “Episcopal community” it caught me–because nowadays there almost is none, beyond of course the formal creed.
Thanks, potsherd, that was lovely. A lovely example of a catechism, the central “truths” that centralised religions make sure that all their adherents learn.
But it sure didn’t help the Episcopalians, did it? Damn those homos!
Now find me anything remotely comparable in Judaism (the “S’hma?”) and tell me about the system for inculcating it in youth. Then we can talk about “the Jewish community”.
Anyway, I’ve got to sit down and memorise that stuff. It may come in handy some day. I’m the kind of guy who likes to be at ease in any “community”.
What’s hard about it? Everything. All fantasy to me.
At least the hard core about Judiasm is that for most Jews they are born into it though their mother’s blood line; converts are nothing compared to, e.g., the converts to Christianity over history. Neither Christianity nor Islam is trial or ethnic in any sense ever remotely comparable. Same re, e.g., Buddists and so many other
religions. I know I’m not Jewish as there are no Jews in my family tree. Lots of Catholics, but I escaped from those beliefs at an early age. I don’t find any faith
worthy of devotion. I just look at what people do. When they do it in the name of any, it’s at best, stretching it, neither a net loss or net gain for humanity. Tribes are tribes, you know what you get and don’t expect anything more.
religion
For the record, Buddhism and other Far Eastern worldviews aren’t religions in the sense that we in the west use the term. There are no deities to believe in, no creeds to follow, etc. They are perhaps closer to western psychotherapy, although that’s still far short of an accurate description.
link to books.google.com
An interesting case of Jewish identity is Michael Fremer, Stereophile’s analog writer. A decade ago he was alone in the wilderness railing against the accepted view that CD was “perfect sound forever.” Today you can’t give CDs away. Fremer identifies culturally as a Jew; I have no idea how religious he is. He goes on occasional left wing rants, which can be easily ignored. But he largely seems to have sublimated the spirit of tikkun olam into something modest, manageable and victimless: better enjoyment of music. For your consideration.
If it’s not on vinyl microgrove, it’s trafe! Now there’s your tikkun olan!
I think it’s much healthier thinking to totally ignore Fremer’s jewishness when reading him.
He wasn’t exactly alone in the wilderness either, many vinyl lovers agreed.
Seems to me that the better term would be the WASP community.
You mean what’s left of it? It’s not even worth satire anymore.
That’s bigotry. To be called a wasp is to victimized by a racial slur. I don’t like it.
I consider it simply descriptive.
Phil, you are much, much more afraid of knowing people from different social and economic classes than you are of people from fifferent religions. You’ve got your social class and family all mixed up with your religion. In fact, I would say it is your religion.
You are one sad case, bud’ya.
I suggest a Suzuki SV-650, with soft luggage. But from reading what happened with you and the Clinton haters, I suspect you will end up with a “cruiser”. After all, if you will never be taken seriously again, why not go all the way?
Some painful truth here. It’s why Phil IDs with WASPS. I think there’s more WASPs appearing on Jerry Springer Show than left in the dusty corridors of Gatsby.
like these women, struggling with excommunication.
Phil, if you think anyone can excommunicate you from being Jewish, you are one sad son-of-a-bitch. And I wonder, is it really religious excommunication you are worried about? I sort of doubt it.
Haven’t you figured out that Judaism needs you a hell of a lot more than you need it? Listen, Phil, anybody tries to excommunicate me, I just turn around and excommunicate them. Hah! They won’t be so happy when they try to explain that at the big accounting, the heavenly audit!
Phil was being tongue in cheek with his use of the term excommunication. He knows there’s never been a Jewish Pope, or Anglican bishop–anyway the latter would be gay or a girl. However it is classical to be shunned by fellow Jews, pronounced dead while alive even, for example if you married a shiksa like both Phil and Mooser. No need to confess to anyone, especially yourself. Free to do what you want in the USA. I bet not even 5% of Roman Catholics go to confession anymore. Maybe the priests have too much time on their hands? LOL. From that show Predator, looks like some rabbis might too.
Well, my Mom still goes, so she accounts for some of that 5%!
Now my Dad, on the other hand, who went to Catholic school by the way, back in the days when the nuns would hit your knuckles with rulers…well, he’s a Christmas and Easter guy :-)
Sorry for the sidebar. It’s nice to just talk regularly sometimes, you know? These discussions get so intense at times.
In militarized America, disagreeing with the idolatry of the troops serving in Iraq or Afghanistan brings about similar reactions, even from those in the anti-war movement.
1% of our nation are military troops, and another 1% are Hessians, Blackwater et al.
That’s equal to the entire Jewish population of the USA. Something to ponder when
thinking about the bent of the nation, no? As Shrub said, the rest should show their
patriotism by shopping at the mall. Can’t afford to these days? Gee, what happens
when the pump primer gets clogged?
These girls are brave and indeed belong to a small and unpopular (to say the least) minority in Israel. Among non-Israeli Zionists however, I have found that the fact that I am an Israeli lends weight to my anti-Zionist arguments, and many are afraid to challenge me. I don’t fit into their stereotypes of “Israel haters” or “naive leftists”. I think Netta and Maya made the right decision not serve, but of course the fact that I did serve in the IDF gives me even more authority among armchair Zionists.
Shmuel, I think I know exactly what you mean, having been the [happy] recipient of the same puzzled, somewhat resentful silent responders from the Israel-first american jews. See my comment above about what I like to call “The great Divergence”. Wonder whether you agree about the trend. Which is all it is now.
BTW, I just saw your response on the other board. Thanks. Will reply later. Tough to keep up with all these discussions as riveting as they are.
Dana – I agree that the trend is there, and has been for quite a while (from the very beginning actually – Mordecai Kaplan pointed in out in the early 50s). Only time will tell how deep and how reciprocal the split will be. Israel’s particularly outrageous behaviour of late (see Gaza, settlement freeze, Goldstone) will certainly have an effect. What is certain is that chauvinists like AB Yehoshua who spend their lives convincing themselves that “diaspora Judaism” is not “viable” and must tie itself to Israel’s apron strings until its inevtable demise are dead wrong.
any stories to tell us? From your IDF days I mean
I served in the Spokesman’s Unit during the first Intifada. Learned a lot about propaganda.
Hi just a regular lurker popping in
I think these girls are wonderful human beings.
Not sure if I missed this but how did they, at such young ages, manage to get past the “indoctrination” if you will, which must necessarily be a part of such a society? What distinguishes them from others?
Even more surprising, one of the girls’ father is the head of Mossad (not the ones in the article, another)
Sometimes bearing the fruit in the home of someone being the head of Mossad is enough to convince children that this is no the correct path.
link to youtube.com
Video: Gilad Shalit
3 min ago
Results count.
Meanwhile…
be sure all software, add ons, etc. are updated, that no passwords are stored on your computer, etc.
et fking cetera
Use Firefox with NoScript.
Maya and Netta over at Laura Flanders. Not sure if these are the same two young women. Damn brave and honorable.
Will be exciting to know where these two remarkable young women go in their lives
Great interview…Knocked my socks off with their intellect, compassion and empathy
link to lauraflanders.firedoglake.com
Thanks Kathleen. Here’s the direct link to their interview–
link to lauraflanders.firedoglake.com
Richard Witty might enjoy watching, since he styles himself a bit of a courageous dissenter too.
It was an interesting interview.
What were your impressions?
Pingback: Isolated Jewish morality in Israel | Antony Loewenstein
Quote of the Day, care of Richard Witty:
“If you label me a hypocrite, I regard that as a badge of honor.
Explains an awful lot, doesn’t it?
It explains about the relationship between myself and those that condemn my comments without inquiry.
And your relationship between yourself and reality, for that matter.
How do you conclude that?
If likud advocates labeled you an anti-semite or a hypocrite or a terrorist, would you regard that with pride, or with shame?
I couldn’t give two shits what war criminals think of me, actually.
Oh, and by the way, since you often miss the obvious… your attempt to make a false moral equivalence between anti-Occupation Jews and others, and Likud seekers of lebensraum, failed utterly.
I see you personally as a pawn for Hamas, in not distinguishing between whether you oppose the existence of Israel as Israel, or its policies.
Hey Richard, if the activity of Israel means what it has been doing over the last 60 years, than yes, I oppose the existence of Israel in its current form. You accept it? Than you’re an apartheid, racist and genocidal accomplice. Like that?
“‘Cause if yer not with me, yer with them stinkin’ terrorists!”
Seriously Witty? And you call yourself a liberal? Karl Rove would be proud. His work still lives on, somehow, in you, of all people.
The distinction between openly opposing Israel’s existence and criticizing its policies is the difference between an enemy and a critic.
Yea guys Nazi Germany just had bad policies. It had a ‘right to exist’ tho.
If you could convince me that Israel could exist without ethnic cleansing and apartheid, Witty, I might then care about that distinction.
Would you be willing to sincerely enter that discussion?
That is what I suggest in political, legal, economic and cultural terms.
Are you going to proceed to deny that the Nakba happened? That’s your most likely predicted course of rhetoric. Just asking.
phil: So I felt a Jewish solidarity with the women in the brave new world of Jewish identity
why do you have to put in the framework of jewish identity, phil? you are so obsessed with jewish identity? the issue is what it means to be a human being not what it means to be jewish. get over yourself!
Pingback: Why is a synagogue sanctifying Jewish warriors on Yom Kippur?
Pingback: Is Cantor saying there could be genocide in the U.S.?