A great post at Open Shuhada Street does the tick-tock on the Goldstone bar mitzvah story. And absolutely nails the divided political culture of the Jewish community between neoconservative leaders and the burgeoning grassroots. I gather the author is Doron Isaacs. Boy the internet gets me excited.
Many South African Jews went to synagogue on Friday evening 16 April knowing that their rabbis would address the Goldstone barring. Their relatively coordinated message seems to have been two-fold: (1) Goldstone should not be barred from his grandson's bar mitzvah, and according to the communal leadership might not actually have been, and (2) nobody should forget that he is a traitor to the Jewish people. A good example is the sermon given by Rabbi Yossi Goldman, President of the SA Rabbinical Association, at Sydenham Shul in Johannesburg. Rabbi Goldman said he would "defend [Goldstone's] right as a Jew to come to shul". However he said that Goldstone "may not be counted to a minyan (the quorum of ten Jewish men required for certain prayers)" and indicated that he would possibly have denied Goldstone an Aliyah (the honour of being called to the Torah), explaining that this "one can forfeit such privilege by inappropriate behaviour". He also denounced Goldstone saying he had not only betrayed Israel and the Jewish people, but also his own grandmother.
...It was at this point, on 19 April, when most other communal bodies seemed to be in full retreat that SAZF [South African Zionist Federation] Chairperson Avrom Krengel made clear that his organisation would in fact protest if Goldstone decided to attend the bar mitzvah. This put to rest any lingering doubts that the situation was being misrepresented in the press.
[Activist Zackie] Achmat, still waiting for a lawyers letter from the Chief Rabbi, immediately issued the following short statement:
It is reported that the SAZF is still threatening to protest at the Sandton Shul if Justice Richard Goldstone changes his mind and dares to attend his grandson's barmitzvah.
I call upon the Chief Rabbi of South Africa, Dr Warren Goldstein to publicly denounce this fascist threat by the SAZF.
The Chief Rabbi did not denounce the SAZF threat, but it was reported soon thereafter he had withdrawn his threat to sue.
Two days later, now a week into the crisis, on 21 April, the Chief Rabbi attempted to recover lost ground by writing an op-ed piece in South Africa’s Business Day newspaper in which he wrote of the “ancient and sacred principle: open synagogues”. He said Goldstone was welcome to attend the bar mitzvah, but reiterated his criticisms of Goldstone, who, he claimed, “has done so much wrong in the world.”
This was to backfire almost as badly as his threat of legal action against Achmat.
The following day, as reported on the front page, Goldstone finally broke his silence through a letter to the Business Day, in response to the Chief Rabbi’s piece. In it he remarked that the Chief Rabbi’s “rhetoric about “open synagogues” simply does not coincide with how my family and I have been treated”. He went on to say: “I must state that at no time whatsoever has the chief rabbi reached out to my family.” And concluded by stating: “The questionable and unfortunate approach of the chief rabbi, in all the circumstances, makes it less, and not more, possible for me to do so.”
At this point a second wave of opinion pieces, blogs, speeches and letters appeared. A small selection would include Tony Karon’s piece in the Nation, Larry Derfner’s scorching article in the Jerusalem Post, Judge Albie Sachs’ talk at the Cape Town Press Club, Judge Dennis Davis’ further rebuke of the Chief Rabbi, and Zapiro’s brilliant cartoon (top of this article) in the Mail & Guardian, an invitation to hold the bar mitzvah in California, and a letter signed by US Rabbis in support of Goldstone.
...Jewish leaders often claim to be concerned, above all else, with anti-semitism. The echoes of anti-semitism inherent in their targeting Goldstone, in a place of Jewish worship, for being a traitorous Jew, obviously eluded the mainstream Jewish leaders. Nor were they hindered by the damage to Judaism's reputation caused by their actions. But the SAUPJ statement, picked up in various media, including the Citizen, Sowetan and Cape Times, was important in confirming for observers that the Jewish community is not monolythic in its intolerance. In fact, the groundswell of backlash against the actions of the SAZF, SAJBD, Chief Rabbi, Beth Din and Sandton Shul point to the underlying, and underestimated, tolerance of the majority of Jews.
A statement also emerged from the Cape Council of the SA Jewish Board of Deputies, stating that it “has registered its deep regret that a religious milestone has been politicised and disagrees with the manner in which this matter has been handled.” Although this statement was reported on in the JTA on 20 April, it was only e-mailed out to the Jewish community on 23 April, indicating, perhaps some trepidation. This was the first, and it seems still only, public criticism by a major organ of the SA Jewish community of this affair. Albeit late and weak, it is nevertheless important. Generally however, there was no moral leadership offered by official Jewish leaders.
...On 24 April it was widely reported that the South African Jewish leaders had reached Goldstone, assured him that no protests would take place, and that on that basis he had declared his intention to attend the bar mitzvah. Such interest had been generated in the story that the news was carried by, amongst others, CNN, the New York Times, Haaretz, the Mail & Guardian, Eye-Witness News and further publicised by the World Jewish Congress.
On publicising this, the SA Jewish Board of Deputies made the somewhat authoritarian-sounding request that “all parties immediately desist all public activities on this matter”. This is of course unlikely.
As noted above various Jewish institutions seem to have conducted themselves disgracefully in colluding in an “agreement” that Goldstone would not attend his grandson’s bar mitzvah, and thereafter, when the story broke and an outcry ensued, they seem to have lied to the public.
This is not 100% on topic, but close enough. There is a lot of anger and intolerance on this website against not only Zionism but all Zionists – liberal, conservative, reactionary, whatever. Yet here is a man, Goldstone, who clearly is a Zionist, whom most everyone here regards as a hero.
Goldstone is not the only decent Zionist in the world. I know many other people I consider to be very decent, reasonable, and honorable, who believe in the appropriateness, even the necessity, of a Jewish State. I disagree with them, but don’t think insulting them with epithets will move any process forward. Changing minds is more important than venting anger, no matter how justified that anger is.
And no, I am not defending the doctrine of liberal Zionism and its inherent contradictions and hypocrisies. All I am saying is that in many cases, so-called liberal Zionists should be appealed to with reason, rather than despised and rejected as racists. Anti-Zionists will not get anywhere on this website by making clever or scathing remarks that will earn virtual high-fives from like-minded people.
To anticipate another criticism, I am not counselling patience while others are suffering. The choice is not between doing something now and waiting until later; it is between doing something constructive – trying to actually win hearts and minds – and doing something counter-productive, that is turning off people who can be reached. If you are frustrated with your ability to change people’s minds, it will not help to give up trying and alienate them instead.
And finally, let me make it clear that I’m talking quite generally. There are a number of commenters on this site who might describe themselves as liberal Zionists who post nasty, hate-filled, dishonest opinions. Nearly all of the Zionist commenters, liberal or otherwise, have at one time or another, said something deserving of a sharp, dismissive rebuke. But my guess is that for every commenter, there are scores or hundreds of people who visit the site but do not voice their opinions. These silent people are formulating their opinions and are far more likely to be impressed with reasoning than with acrimony.
In any event, the next time someone is tempted to condemn all Zionists, think of Goldstone. There is a huge difference between disagreeing with him on his support for the idea of a Jewish State, and condemning him as a worthless racist and colonialist.
thank you for that appeal to reason.
Frankly, Richard, you are one of the people I had in mind when I said that some who “describe themselves as liberal Zionists who post nasty, hate-filled, dishonest opinions. Nearly all of the Zionist commenters, liberal or otherwise, have at one time or another, said something deserving of a sharp, dismissive rebuke.” I often find your comments to be incomprehensible, and those are preferable to the ones I do understand. You often seem stuck in losing argument, refusing to accept that you may be wrong but unable to make any sense.
However, I do think that the occasional vitriolic condemnation of all Zionists is extreme, and a poor substitute for a patient, well-reasoned explanation why Zionism really does have, and should have, an expiration date.
Fair enough, but for far too long I’ve seen the whole issue of Palestine framed in the US according to the perspective of these liberal Zionists (or, more specifically, American Jews who are Zionists, some of whom are liberal). This partly attests to the important place that some liberal Zionists have had in working on what is broadly the “pro-Palestinian” side — or even the importance of Jewish anti-Zionists who are sensitive to the types of arguments that will work on their Zionists family and friends. But I’m interested in changing American policy and attitudes, and at some point, it is important to realize that these liberal Zionists are an extreme minority in the US overall. Now one can argue correctly that they represent opinion shapers, etc.
On the hearts and minds, I agree. More generally: when arguing reason and persuasion, one needs to start from a position the audience is already at in order to find common ground and move people to examine their current positions. But some messages meet multiple audiences and there are trade-offs. For example, the anti-interventionist Ron Paul-type message plays a lot better with most folks in my neck of the woods, although it may not play well at the local synagogue.
You’re right that name-calling serves little purpose. That’s one reason rarely post — I see little reason to even engage with some of the white-supremacist zionist . . . oops,see, there I go.
DS, it’s a remarkable thing when simply telling the truth is enough to make a person a hero.
I think we need to recall that Goldstone was not alone in writing the UN report on Gaza war crimes. But Goldstone has been the one demonized. Because he is a Jew.
This is the telling thing about the Goldstone affair, not any heroism on Goldstone’s part. He did his job, he spoke the truth. It is the extreme reaction on the part of the apologists for Israel that makes his case notable. It is the evil hold that Zionism has over the minds of so many Jews, that they would so turn on one of their own.
Could these geniuses have managed this situation any worse? And the hypocracy. Now the chief Rabbi says Goldstone is a man who “has done so much wrong in the world.” To what is he is referring? Goldstone is currently reviled on this site by commenters ‘exposing’ his history of malfeasance as a judge. Show me their criticism and that of the chief Rabbi of Goldstone prior to the issuance of the ‘Goldstone Report’. Or is ‘the world’ in which Goldstone has done so much damage delimited by the boundaries of their insular community?
Pingback: Tweets that mention Goldstone bar mitzvah saga exposes moral decadence of Jewish leadership– and burgeoning universalism in the grassroots -- Topsy.com
I very much dislike to read that someone (as a Zionist) supports “a” Jewish State. This is a seriously incomplete statement to the point of meaninglessness. What does “a” mean in this sentence? If we cannot tell whether the speaker supports “this” Jewish State, we (anti-Zionists or anti-this-Israelists) do not even know if the speaker is an enemy or a friend.
If Judge Goldstone (or anyone else) wants to call himself a Zionist who supports “a” Jewish State, let him have the decency to explain what the “a” means. Does it mean “this” Jewish State (assuming arguendo that Israel is a Jewish State), you know, the one which mistreats its own non-Jewish citizens and runs this horrible, horrible (and expanding) occupation?
Or does it merely express a sort of pious wish or dream, you know, support for some Jewish State in the sky, somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, where there is no occupation, no usurpation of the Palestinian homeland, no expulsion and forced exclusion of the Palestinian people from their homes for 62 years, no barbed wire, no bayonets? Perhaps something Judah Magnes would have supported as a Jewish National Home in Palestine (among the others and not instead of the others).
Perhaps there is a Zionist somewhere who does not accept “this” Israel but is not opposed to “some” removal of Palestinian lands, some inconveniencing of the Palestinian people, but who despises the reality of “this” occupation as much as I do and wants Israel to withdraw entirely and as soon as possible from ALL the territories occupied in 1967. Such a person should stand up and explain, especially to the Jews in the USA, what he “demands” or “desires” by way of Zionism and what he detests as to “this” Jewish State.
But don’t weasel out of it by saying “a”. A lot depends on what the meaning of “a” ahhhhh is.
Pabelmont, the word “a” was mine, not Goldstone’s, but I presume that by calling himself a Zionist, he believes in the legitimacy of the Jewish State as constituted, and would hope only that it behave itself better. I have never heard him discuss discrimination within Israel, which I think is an inherent part of the state, and don’t really know what he thinks. The point is only that I think he’s a good man, and many commenters on this site respect him while condemning all Zionists without noticing the logical disconnect.
Apologies. My previous post replied to this in the comment of David Samel.
“Goldstone is not the only decent Zionist in the world. I know many other people I consider to be very decent, reasonable, and honorable, who believe in the appropriateness, even the necessity, of a Jewish State.”
I don’t argue with existence of State of Israel. I don’t argue with idea of a refuge for Jewish people in time of crisis. Few Poles would. If Zionism was just that, most of us would be Zionists.
But racism inherent in the way Israel is conducting itself is plain to all to see. Can Israel remain a refuge to Jewish people in time of crisis and become state of all its citizen? Of course.
It can enshrine this in it’s future Constitution, which of course does not exist right now in any form , allowing Israel to make racist laws as it sees fit.
However, operative word that would make Zionism palatable to me is refuge: it must never refuse asylum to Jews who are in clear and present danger and are able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin due to the fact that they are Jews. I believe that was both reason and logic behind decision to partition Palestine.
This is far cry from Israel’s current position, that it gives shelter to those who fear prosecution in their country of origin and allows anyone who fancy to play act cowboys and Indians with Palestinians cast in position of Indians and in danger of being cast as American bison.
Eva, I think you probably give Israel more credit than I do. I certainly feel that all countries have a humanitarian obligation to ensure that people do not get killed out of hatred for their heritage, but I see no reason to guarantee that people who call themselves Jewish should forever have an escape hatch in Israel/Palestine. As a Jew, I do not think there is any realistic danger of a worldwide assault on Jews that would give rise to permanent right of “return” to the land from which their ancestors might have lived millenia ago. In any event, I did not defend Israel, but people who still believe in the legitimacy of a Jewish State, which I think necessarily discriminates in favor of Jews. I don’t think that all Zionists are racists beyond redemption, and Goldstone is the obvious refutation to that notion.
David,
I don’t think that it is necessary for Israel to define itself as a Jewish State or a Non-Muslim, non-Christian state – It smells of racism just as “Christian” America would smell of racism. Equal legal and human rights for all its citizen, enshrined in Constitution would do the trick. Freedom of religion would allow people to be as Amish or as Neturei Karta or as Lubovitcher as they wish.
I expect Israel to allow Palestinians to return to their homes and businesses. I expect Israel to accept openly criminality that was linked with creation of Israel.
But. And this is crux of the matter. I allow for scapegoating and persecution of minorities. Countries can turn. Jews need a place that will accept them
I forgot to state the obvious: Palestinians in peril should be afforded the same promise of refuge.
I do not doubt that humans being human Jewish and Palestinians would preferencially seek asylum in countries with generous benefit system, multicultural society, and with large numbers of friends and family already settled there.
But, just in case.