Ralph Seliger didn’t like Shlomo Sand at NYU (I loved Sand). Haviv Rettig Gur of JPost didn’t like Sand either (I loved Sand). Grrrs Gur:
[M]ost democracies are ethnic democracies. Most of the free states of this planet define a specific ethnos or nation whose interests they serve. Examples: Ireland, Finland, Germany, Romania, Georgia, Italy, Spain. All are constitutionally devoted to a single ethnicity, which is defined in their constitutions as a group that is not equal to the sum of their citizens.
You learn something new every day! But do those places not let you marry people of other ethnic backgrounds? I was shocked at the Sand lecture to learn– I’m always the last to know– that Jews and Palestinians can’t marry each other in Israel.
“unlike Jews, Muslims and Christians, the Druse do not convert people of other faiths.”
I’ll take his word on the Druse, but it’s misleading to imply Jewish attitudes toward conversion are at all similar to Christian and Muslim attitudes. We urgently need a franker discussion of this topic, as it would help gentiles understand the ways in which Jewishness is unique (“anomalous” is the word people like) among the major worldviews.
Is conversion practiced, or is tolerated a better word? While he can’t be denied entry to the synagogue, no gentile can ever become a Jew in the sense that Mr. Seliger thinks of himself. (Or, to put it another way, a convert can in the future decide to STOP being a Jew and go back to his earlier ideas, but for Mr. Seliger this isn’t an option.)
BTW, newer readers might be interested to learn that this is the same Ralph Seliger whose “misrepresentations” were the subject of a string of posts last year, starting here–
‘Progressive Zionist’ Might As Well Have Been a Neocon in Promoting Iraq War
October 8, 2008
“no gentile can ever become a Jew in the sense that Mr. Seliger thinks of himself.”
Probably not, and probably a good thing, too. However, any Gentile who cares to can do whatever the Jewish religious denomination (yup, all kinds different) he seeks out demands in the way of conversion can be a Jew in the sense that he likes to think of himself.
Or he can just pick up a couple a Yiddish expressions, adjust the cadence and syntax of his speech and start calling himself Jewish. If you met him, would you know the difference? Would you care?
At one time Jews were active proselytisers.
Jewish is not unique among major “worldviews” (?) It’s a monotheistic religion, like several others, and it shades off into those others around its edges. Since Judaism was once pretty widespread, in a time when communications were not as extant, Judaism developed a diversity of practices and beliefs. And Judaism, like many other faiths and beliefs, was reduced by pressure from Christianity and Islam, as these religions became prominent and active in the last thousand years.
“but for Mr. Seliger this isn’t an option.” It most certainly is, if he wants to. I think what you mean to say is that you would be incapable of seeing Mr Seliger as anything but a Jew, once you have identified him as such. Really, do you have any way of knowing what Mr. Seliger really thinks of himself? Why no, you don’t.
But one of the things Jews get used to (at least this one) is that people will say the most insulting things to you in the name of Philo-Semitism!
I never know whether to try and correct them, or whether I should just relax, and use the person’s misconceptions to take advantage of them.
But yeah, D if that’s the way you want it, yeah, we’re all just slaves to our Jewish identity, which we can’t modify or let alone get away from, and what that identity consists of is unfathomable, mysterious, and unlike any other religion. Because complete inflexibility and a completely unconscious submersion in our Jewish identity are the tools we used to survive 2000 years of persecution.
Makes perfect sense. And fogive me for musing on the wording of your comment.
“And fogive me for musing on the wording of your comment.”
No, that’s fine. But don’t muse too far from the point. Are you saying that in your experience Jewish attitudes toward conversion AREN’T any different from Christian and Muslim attitudes? Or are you just saying that the whole thing’s a subject that shouldn’t be talked about, because of “antisemitism”?
“We urgently need a franker discussion of this topic, as it would help gentiles understand the ways in which Jewishness is unique (”anomalous” is the word people like) among the major worldviews.” (D..)
Mooser, I have acquired some familiarity with your view that Jews are just like other folks, and I empathize with it. But I suspect that D.., along with some other people on this blog like me, has read a lot of material written by Jews concerning perspectives and problems of Jewish identity, in both historical and modern contexts. And for those of us acquainted with real-life Jews, might have discussed same with them.
You should try to forgive us if we take away from those readings and discussions the idea that most Jews think of THEMSELVES as being different in important ways from others. Sometimes the word “exceptionalism” is used by Jews and others to express this notion. At times, the terms “ethnocentrism” or “acute ethnocentrism” are invoked. Jewish writings reveal a strongly formative and enduring concept of the “Other” running through Jewish culture, from ancient to modern times.
The important thing is that these perceptions weren’t created by gentiles out of whole cloth – they came originally from Jewish thought and have largely been perpetuated by Jewish thought. Recognition of them is indicative of neither anti-semitism nor “philo-semitism”.
There’s no reason we can’t have a discussion of Jewish exceptionalism here, although some of the people listening in seem to have an animus against Jews, others seem well read and well versed.
Judaism is different from Christianity and Islam:
1. It gave birth to both. Christianity admits this kinship, but sees itself (at one time saw itself) as the young beautiful seeing daughter of the blind mother. Islam gives credence to the people of the book and to many of the “prophets” of the Bible, yet Muhammad’s prophecy is seen as the last and best and most reliable prophecy and the Bible is seen as a corrupted book that is barely studied (unlike Christianity which “devalues” the Old Testament, but studies it and sometimes revalues it).
2. Judaism is tribal in a way that Christianity and Islam are not. (That’s what you get when you’re as ancient as Judaism’s roots.) Parallels to Hinduism may be helpful. Parallels to subcontinent caste society may be helpful.
Parallels to races may be helpful. (One inherits blackness from one’s parents. One inherits Irishness from one’s parents.)
3. The Jewish people survived a diaspora. The diaspora survived harsh conditions in host Christian societies and less harsh conditions in Islamic societies.
Surviving a diaspora of such a duration and character is no small feat and attitudes towards the “other” reflect both Jewishness’s staying power and also Judaism’s reactions to the hostile environments.
4. Today the Jewish people counts 14 million and the Christian world 2 billion and the Islamic world 1 and a half billion.
Recent experiences: A. The Nazi slaughter of the Jews may not be unique in history, but certainly compared to recent Christian and Islamic experience is unique.
B. Modernity- Enlightenment has dawned in most of the Christian world, but has yet to dawn over significant portions of the Islamic world. (This may be a gross oversimplification.) The paroxysms involved in this modernity in the Christian world have included: two world wars, including the Nazi experience and a revolution in Russia that also claimed many millions.
Secularism has been one of the aspects (streams or offshoots) of this modernity. Whereas identity is an issue for other peoples that have thus been affected by secularism, the Jewish identity because of its high religious content has been particularly affected by secularism.
(Zionism was born primarily amongst a group of Jews who at first wished to assimilate into their host societies and were rejected. Unable to return to their lost religion, a new secular twist to their original Jewish society was interpreted, so as to enable an identity and survival. )
C. The American experience- America because of its “recent birth” and its “welcome” of immigrants has produced a “unique” experience of a welcoming society for Jews.
Outstanding recent Jewish contributions to culture: The contributions of secular Jewish society exposed to the freedom and confusions of modernity have produced major stars in the firmament of secular society. The triumvirate of Einstein, Freud and Marx are often cited. (Of the three Marx is the most problematic in his relationship to the society that gave birth to him and problematic in that the killing machines of Stalin and Mao might be attributed to him and Trotsky and other Jews. Freud’s contribution is sometimes seen as a pseudoscience and the fields opened by psychoanalysis are seen as weakening the foundations of western society. And Einstein’s contribution is sometimes seen as what gave us the terrors of our nuclear age.)
The Jewish contributions to the arts of entertainment, to the business and art of media and specifically to the birth of Hollywood are now seen as the Jewish control of the media.
I realize that I am not as well read as many of the contributors to this web site and so my statements may seem (and be) ignorant. I offer this comment as a starting point, not as authoritative.
Thanks, wj, for this response. I certainly agree with much of it, and don’t want to quibble with the parts for which I might feel less agreement. I think your observation here is especially insightful:
“Whereas identity is an issue for other peoples that have thus been affected by secularism, the Jewish identity because of its high religious content has been particularly affected by secularism.
“(Zionism was born primarily amongst a group of Jews who at first wished to assimilate into their host societies and were rejected. Unable to return to their lost religion, a new secular twist to their original Jewish society was interpreted, so as to enable an identity and survival. )”
Concerning Christian positions on the Old Testament, I would say that there is broad variation. Some strains of Christian thought, historically and presently, do “devalue” the old Hebrew texts. But others do not. I was brought up in the Southern Baptist tradition and know that fundamentalists of that denomination (as well as Pentacostals and some others) believe that the canonical Hebrew texts, as well as the New Testament, were written by “the hand of God”. You might say that in important ways these Protestants “revalue” the Old Testament; for example, they often place different interpretations on the words of the Prophets than would Jews. They also may tend to accept Old Testament “stories” as the literal truth whereas most Jews might regard them as historical myth.
I would be very interested to read any explanations that you (or anyone) might want to offer for that “Jewish” self-characterization we call “exceptionalism”.
CMI- I think what you mean by the “Jewish self characterization we call exceptionalism” is the idea of the “chosen people”. This is not a very pleasant topic, for personally I do not consider it one of the positive elements of Judaism.
If viewed as an added responsibility it may have the potential to exhort the merely very good unto greatness; but if viewed as some kind of a genetic inheritance it has the potential to lead to callousness towards the lives and feelings of the “Other”.
One question comes to mind: did this concept of chosenness play a role in the surprising survival of the Jewish people despite the Diaspora and its persecutions? If so, then despite my misgivings, it is owed a debt. My own inclination is to view the chosenness idea as playing a minor role in our survival. A well known adage says, “It is not the Jews who kept the Sabbath, but the Sabbath that kept (guarded) the Jews.” So in my view it is the commandments- specifically the commandment of the Sabbath that played the major role in our survival rather than the concept of chosenness.
But maybe this begs the question, for most commandments are accompanied by blessings which thank God for making us holy with his commandments. When we are called up to read from the Torah we bless God for choosing us. And the ceremonial blessing on wine at the beginning of the Sabbath and holidays thank God for making us holy (the Sabbath blessing) or choosing us (the holiday blessing).
And it may beg the question in another way for the effect (if not the purpose) of many of the commandments is separation. The laws of keeping kosher force Jews to eat separately (or order fish and salad, if they are more lenient). The law of keeping Sabbath usually involves separation from those who don’t keep the Sabbath for the 24 or so hours between sundown Friday until sundown Saturday. So if clannishness is one of the accusations against us, then the commandments must be cited as a major cause of our clannishness. And indeed separation has been one of the causes of our survival until now.
(Certainly if one wishes to focus on the negative effects of the chosenness doctrine, one need only study the writings of Israel Shahak. One can accuse him of cherry picking all the negative aspects of the Talmud, but for the most part he seems to be accurate in his criticisms.)
The question then becomes can Judaism or the Jewish people divorce themselves from the chosenness doctrine and still survive as a community? Is it possible to throw out the bath water without throwing out the baby? This has yet to be proven. (In fact one might say that certain groups of the Jewish people have thrown out the baby- the major commandment of Sabbath, say, and kept the bath water, the clannishness and the separation of the “chosen people” doctrine. But that clannishness is one of the things which keeps intermarriage down to 50% and delays the disappearance of half the Jewish people for one more generation.)
One more question comes to mind. I once listened to two Christians arguing about the purpose of the chosenness of the Jewish people. One of them claimed that the purpose was giving the Torah to the world. One of them claimed that the purpose was giving the Messiah to the world. Since the Messiah has already come (at least once) the purpose of the Jews has been fulfilled other than to recognize the Messiah so that he can come for the second time. If our purpose was giving the Torah to the world, well, certainly the Old Testament is one of the most famous books in the world and our presence might be superfluous. On the other hand the living and breathing existence of a people who keeps the Sabbath could be seen as continual giving of the Torah to the world.
According to Hillel who stated that the essence of the Torah was “love thy neighbor as thyself” (in his negative formulation: “Do not unto others what you would not have done unto you.”) and all else were details and means towards that end, then the question becomes what happens to our Torah when our emphasis is on survival rather than morality. Certainly one cannot keep the Torah in the grave, but certainly constant warfare seems to be quite far from Hillel’s formulation of Torah’s essence. This is the essence of the puzzle that the Jewish people face today regarding Israel’s survival. Will it be possible to end the warfare without ending Israel? Those who say it is possible have the burden to prove that they are realists rather than naifs.
Interesting stuff, WJ. And it’s a welcome reminder that a discussion of troubling aspects in any religion doesn’t mean that there aren’t also positive aspects.
But best of all is the way you obviously make an attempt to honestly explore different interpretations, even those you personally don’t agree with.
(One thing I found interesting in your two posts was the emphasis implicitly placed on survival, as a goal in itself. Have you thought much about this, just what it is that is supposed to survive? Is it a set of ideas and teachings, or is it “genes”? If it’s the former, then there’s really no reason to fear intermarriage. But if it’s the latter, who really cares?)
D..- On the survival issue of “genes” versus ideas, I have two responses: one very concrete and one very theoretical.
Concrete: If one feels very close timewise and familywise to the Nazi killing of the Jews in Europe, it is natural to focus on the survival of the “genes”.
Theoretical- I have a theory about the Jewish contribution to wider society that is unproven, but goes something like this. Part of the Jewish population is devoted to the survival of the people. Their contribution to wider society is minimal, but they keep the “machine” alive. Part of the Jewish population is relatively oblivious to the survival of their people, they are busy migrating away from the core, but when the passion that they received from their parents (and the core) mingles with the problems of wider society the result is great creativity and a great contribution to wider society. It could be that the major products of this migrating population have already occurred in the past, when the major migration away from the core and towards modernity occurred. But in theory the interaction of the migrating population with wider society might yet produce surprising results in the future and then it is the machine in its totality, both the self devoted core and the migrating “abandoners” that are necessary to keep the process going.
I think I have rough idea what you may be getting at, although to be honest it does seems a little mystical to me. But I agree that the drive for tribal survival is definitely a powerful energizing force, and that energy is bound to interact with the surrounding society in all kinds of interesting ways. (But why it always has to result in good rather than harm is not so clear to me.)
But mainly I brought up survivalism because I agree that it’s an important aspect of Jewishness, and I wasn’t sure if you were conscious of the role it was playing in your outlines above (your points #3, #4, A and C are all related to it). It’s another unique aspect of Jewishness — you don’t find it in Christianity or Islam.
I’ve seen this lie before, most notably by David Horowitz, who claims Israel is Jewish the way France is French. But if France treated its Jews the way Israel treats its gentiles, I suspect we’d hear a loud howl from the Horowitzim. Not that they think much of France anyway.
And of course, France isn’t even French the way David Horowitz thinks Israel is Jewish.
But of course you and I, and every other informed person, knows that man, homo Sapiens evolved in East Africa, I forget how many years ago, and spread over much of the world, several times over, since then. Right, America Fust-Cless? You know, Lucy, everybody’s great grandmother? And this makes you and a native of New Guinea, at most, about fifth cousins or so. That we are all one species, one family really, with a wide variability of skin color and various “physiognomic” details.
I’m sure America Fust-Cless believes that as deeply as I do. Right, ol’ Fusty?
“Jewish is not unique among major “worldviews””
What’s another one where membership is inherited?
let’s try. How ’bout
Untouchables?
Brahmins?
Yes, that’s an interesting parallel that I’ll think about more.
Is the caste system really “religious” in the sense of being an inherent part of Hinduism, or is it just a traditional social practice observed in regions that happen also to be largely Hindu. I don’t know.
In Hindu thought (karma/samskara), current reality is constructed of consequences of past unfulfilled action.
Of four kinds:
1. Imposed – Those that are the result of others’ past actions or social context. (We are born into the pallette of understanding and response that we are born into.)
2. Inherited – We incorporate the values and paradigms of our upbringing and time.
Imposed and inherited samskara are described as the momentum from “past lives” that explain what has happened to us beyond our explanation or control.
3. Earned – Those actions that are the result of our decisions, our actions in life.
4. Grace – The element of human nature that permanently heals, removing the degree and nature of prior effects.
Wealth is similar. Some of it is luck. Some of it is inherited. Some of it is sought. Some of it is earned. You can’t say that that which is inherited or imposed is evil. It just is.
Same with the ethnic characteristics that are inherited.
Zionism’s primary features are DUAL, not singularly ethnic.
The Israeli primary law asserts BOTH that Jews have haven, and that non-Jews have EQUAL rights.
The reconciliation of those two natural and idealistic objectives are the subject of reform, not of revolution, not of fundamental rejection.
It is relevant to consider the other options, the other contexts. Is Palestinian society more open? Is Arab or Islamic society more open? Palestinian solidarity includes imposed and inherited samskara as critical, as embodied in the right of return, that grants preferential rights to descendants of former residents, historically over those that simply desired to live there (the immigration prohibition agitation efforts from the 20′s through 1948), or have earned their right to live there in some manner.
Israeli primary law is an utter hypocrisy. ANY Jew in the world can come to Israel, get citizenship handed to them, and roost on land that was taken from native Palestinians who were run off in an ethnic cleansing and are still refugees, in flagrant violation of international law.
You can say all you want that Israeli law supposedly gives equal rights to Jews and non-Jews, but the facts are, it doesn’t. As has been pointed out, Jews and Palestinians can’t even marry in Israel.
“…ANY Jew in the world can come to Israel, get citizenship handed to them, and roost on land…”
Except, of course, that that’s not true. It depends, as always, on what you mean by “Jew.”
Any Ashkenazi (European) Jew can go to Israel. (You said “come”–are you in Israel, Chaos4700?). But not any practitioner of Judaism can.
Earlier today I cited the example of the “black Hebrews” of Dimona. These were originally African-Americans who converted to Judaism and relocated in Israel after a brief stay in Liberia. They were denied the “right of return” for nearly 3 decades, then given temporary visas, and finally, in 2003, given permanent residence.
link to en.wikipedia.org
I don’t like Sand, from the limited scope that I’ve read.
Maybe his comments are relevant to the limited Israeli question of “who is a Jew?”, to include or exclude from preferential services within Israel.
But, to me, who necessarily must address more than “racial” definition of what it MEANS to be Jewish, his emphasis is contorting and repressive. For Phil to adopt his definition by any implication is to add his voice to the contortion and repression.
Being Jewish is by association, by self-identification.
There are many movements today that confuse that. For example, the Jews for Jesus movement that conducts Shabbat services, and invites Jews in Florida to come, then unveils its Jesus messianic interpretations, is a very difficult confusion.
The leftist solidarity movements are also confusing, as they “love their Jewishness” as they reject it, and imprint that rejection (even if they still name themselves as personally Jewish identity, like Phil) by assertive intermarriage and dissolution of “teach your children”.
Its not evil. Its just a drop of Jewishness, that dissolves onto the beach in family, rather than continues to flow like a living river of family. It happens. Sometimes very Jewish individuals don’t have children, like the last Chabad rebbe. Sometimes the choice to intermarry is a conscious expansion into a version of messianic universalism. Sometimes the choice to intermarry or not have children is a mix of community love and community hate/rejection.
So if “Jewish” is not a race — as you rather succinctly define it as merely self-identification — under what pretext can Israel exist? From the very beginning it was founded as the home of the “Jewish race” — to the exclusion of Arab Muslims and Christians. It is, as the “Jewish state,” by your own definition a theocracy — it no longer has anything to do with ethnicity or blood. It is literally the modern-day equivalent to the British Puritan colonies that were originally founded on the American continent over 200 years ago. Citizenship in Israel is solely contingent on whether you are loyal to the faith.
And that’s what you defend, then, Witty?
Can somebody help me out? I can’t find the clause in the German constitution the good man is referring to. The only place where ethnic considerations are even mentioned is in Article 116, where ethnic Germans who were expelled from their Eastern European home countries in Post-WW2 ethnic cleansings are given citizenship. But otherwise, “German” is quite clearly defined as “having German citizenship” – contrary to what our Mr. Gur says.
Or, to use that loveable American expression: I call bullshit on that.
Anybody check Italy, Finland and so on?
No need to, Koshiro; the guy’s so full of shit his eyes are brown. The key phrase is “ethnos or nation.” Note the relevant operator, “or”.
In other words, all nations are … nations. Well I’ll be damned.
This is the level of thinking that gets you published in the Jerusalem Post, apparently.
Thinking? What makes you thinking there’s thinking involved at all?
Pingback: On Sand and Israeli intermarriage - Haviv Rettig Gur
Israel is a nation-state; why spend time talking about that? Isn’t the essential issue the statehood, or not, of Palestine?
The safety and the freedom of Palestinians are the core issues. They will remain core issues as long as the Palestinian people do not have the ability to protect and defend themselves.
The focus on Israel seems to take all the oxygen out of the air. I would like to suggest that the focus be, unceasingly, on Palestine, and the people of Palestine.
The reason this is an issue that involves every American, and the people of all the rest of the world, is that our freedom is not separate from the freedom of the Palestinians, or the Somalians, or the people of any country.
Palestine – One State.
Sovereign within a community of nations. Acknowledged, equal and free to choose – just like the rest of us.
Predators and targeted assassination of elected political representatives make some people feel safe, while all they are doing is making of themselves a bulls-eye target.
No. No thanks, been there, done that.
Massive, system wide, fail – guaranteed, with a timeless warranty.
Pingback: On marriage and racism - Haviv Rettig Gur
Pingback: Sand blasters | JewPI