This is Entry 24 in the Mondo Awards end-of-year Inspire-us contest.
According to the Israeli chief rabbinate, a Jew is a person known to be a Jew. They apply the reasoning that errs on the side of “putting a fence around Torah”, meaning to not risk any assimilation of foreign thought, tradition, that could dissolve in any way the teachings of Torah and as interpreted by rabbis.
The effort to “put a fence around Torah” is driven by the fear of offending God, the fear of misrepresenting divine intent, an application of ‘better safe than sorry’.
To the Israeli chief rabbinate, there is no default that one is a Jew, regardless of how one represents themselves. There is the requirement to prove positively. You are not a Jew unless you assertively prove that you are a Jew.
According to halacha, there are two ways to be a Jew legally. One is by virtue of one’s birth. Jewish racial identity is passed matrilineally, if one’s mother was Jewish, then you are Jewish. That applies to both self-identifying and distinct Jewish children of Jewish mothers, AND to assimilated or even converted children of Jewish mothers.
The population of those that are Jewish by that racial halachic definition is exhaustive, and comprised MOSTLY of those that do not identify externally as Jewish, or even know that they are Jewish.
If a Jewish mother has only one child, the likelihood that the child will be female and the Jewish gene will be conveyed is 50/50. Two generations in a row of one child, the likelihood is only 25% that the grandchild will be Jewish. If the average family size is more than one, then approximately 50% of the subsequent children will be Jewish even if they don’t know it.
For those families that marry within the Jewish community, the likelihood of Jewish descent is 100%, the rabbinic “sure thing” (no gamble).
The question though is to how to know if a stranger that a Jew encounters is Jewish or not. For personal identification, it's not a big deal. People can avoid others on any trivial or profound, substantative or prejudicial basis. For political rights in a democracy (even a professed Jewish democracy), it is a big deal.
According to Jewish writings, 10 of the 12 original tribes assimilated or converted. That means that if proportional, 5/6 of the world’s Jewish population doesn’t have any way to determine if they are Jewish or not.
Another virtuous form of the fear of offending God, is the fear of being too restrictive, in this case of assaulting Jews inadvertently, halachically legal Jews among Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, etc. Orthodox assert daily as a prerequisite to prayer, “I hereby take upon myself the obligation to love my fellow man as myself”. That is the golden rule, interpreted in Christian ideal as applying to all human beings. It is the basis of non-violent civil disobedience for example. Most orthodox think of that as applying to the Jewish community, members of the shtetl in particular.
While, there is certainly religious support for defending against actual aggressing enemies, the question of whether it is acceptable to unilaterally discriminate or aggress against civilians is a very different religious question.
It’s a similar question to the old ethical cliché (a great one), of “the person you are speaking to may be the “messiah””, a predisposition of respect and attention rather than a predisposition of aggression and distrust.
The second substantive meaning of the question of “who is a Jew?” relates to the Torah defined mission of the Jewish people, the purpose that we were instructed to remain as a coherent people, rather than only be assimilated. That is to serve as “a nation of priests”. Substantively, that means to transform, to offer to the One the components of the world, towards removing the obstacles to coherence (sin) or of making what is incomplete and disparate complete and coherent.
In addition to being Jewish by birth, to the orthodox, there is a path of conversion. One may become Jewish, or affirm one’s latent “Jewishness”, by voluntary transformation, achieved through prayer, personal disciplines, study, good deeds.
So, what is a “Jewish soul” in that respect? My sense is that a large component of that is the instinct to make things whole, to heal interpersonal relations, to heal ill-health, to accomplish good even through business, and some in the form of politics (though I think that is a necessary but small component of the instinct of tikkun olam).
Whether that instinct is a “Jewish” instinct or a human one is irrelevant to me. What I recognize is a member of the “brit”, the healing conspiracy. The specifics are in the nature of appealing to a non-form, transcendental and simultaneously immanent One. It is an “irony” to me that Muslims participate in that worship of the One without form, and should comprise a basis of mutual respect (if it were not for the trappings of each). We should be primarily allies, and only incidentally adversaries. People aren’t that humble though (too many Jews and too many Muslims). Both communities proceed morally beyond successfully doing their work, and instead emphasize how wrong the other is, rather than how complementary.
When I meet a Muslim that heals in the way that I apply the Jewish mission, I don’t offend them by saying overtly that I consider them a member of the “brit”, but a part of me thinks of them in that light, with respect, a kindred spirit (with some limits),a supporter of the conspiracy for good.
Similarly, when I meet an activist that is essentially motivated by compassion for all, is warm-hearted to all genuinely, and seeks the greater good from intimate to political (more than just applying ideology), I see a kindred spirit.
To my mind, the Jewish mission, the covenant of Jewish obligation to cultivate the sensitivity and skillsets to make whole what is disparate is critical to continue. I will and do “teach my children”, both racially through mother’s genes and culturally through pragmatic compassion, prayer and good deeds.
Israeli law does not affirm the fear of offending the 5/6+ that are legally Jewish but don’t know it, nor can anyone on the planet accurately determine. And, Israeli and Jewish community do not affirm the relevance of those Jewish and non-Jewish conspirators to the positive mitzvah of making real peace/coherence in the world.
So, in that sense we are confused, and need good soulful guidance and support.
The formation of Israel remains a religious gamble. 60 years ago, most that assessed the state of Israel through a religious perspective regarded it as an exception, a diversion or even an affront on God’s “will”. A minority conceived as Israel as the equivalent of instructions to Joshua, ‘conquer, but know that it is God’s action that is making it happen, not yours’. Its hard to know if that military as agent for God’s will is still the minority view.
The proof in the pudding though is NOT the successful conquering, even over a hundred years, but the real Jewish mission of achieving peace, justice and coherence and making a Jewish state that is Jewish substantively (conforming to the ethical commandments, “If you keep my commandments, I will give you the rain in its time….”), and not only in name.
Even for the neo-religious, the exclusive Jewish definition is at best a secondary means to a larger end. “My sanctuary will be a house of prayer for all the nations.” We should keep our eye on the prize.
Why is it that in every one of Witty’s post, irrespective to whom it is addressed, I get the feeling that it’s being directed to Phil and that he is somehow trying to save his (Phil’s) soul by reminding or enlightening him of what a Jew is about? Christians and Muslims get some form of brownie points whenever they succeed in putting someone on the path of rightiousness; do Jews have the same rewards?
yes Jews do get those brownie points, it is called a mitzvah, and i once wrote a piece called My Tribal Minder, about a guy who was trying to stop me from writing stuff, for the sake of the tribe. i dont know if richard witty has this goal..
Got the link to My Tribal Minder.
link to mondoweiss.net
Terrific piece. Happy New Year, Phil.
Phil, I think you’re misunderstanding the word “mitzvah”.
In American English, that word is synonymous with “good deed” – something nice that you didn’t have to do, an optional extra that makes the world better.
However, in Jewish-religious usage it is not optional. It is actually just one of the 613 rules by which a Jew must live. (There are things a Jew must do, and things a Jew is prohibited from doing.)
Linguistically, the word comes from the same three-letter word as “to order” or “to command” – the 613 rules by which a Jew is commanded to live.
For the record: it would be impossible to overstate my disgust with the rules of orthodox Judaism. That is, however, the word used for them in that framework.
Actually, the term mitzvoh contains within it a much larger iceberg of meaning, than what you trivially translate, and possibly than what some orthodox understand.
That is that the term mitzvah ultimately means “to link” or “to complete”. Its really not just a laundry list of orders.
Some of the 613 noted commandments (there are many others, elaborations and also many other configurations) include inexplicable requirements, and some are obvious and direct applications of the golden rule.
There is the unitary Hillel summary of mitzvot, stated while standing on one foot. “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.”
There is the Torah summary of two “Love the Lord, thy God with all thy heart and might; and love thy neighbor as thyself”.
And, then there are the ten commandments.
The majority of the 613 are related to the Jerusalem temple services, which have been replaced by prayer instead by archaic sacrifice. (Though many still pray for the restoration of the literal temple – on the same site as the Al Aqsa Mosque. Zero sum. Or, there is also the more universalistic interpretation of the instruction to re-establish the temple service as prayer to the ONE God, of which the nut – the living part – of Islamic intent and prayer would conform.)
The confusion between trivial literality and poetic prayer, is common among those that don’t inquire further than what irritates them. (Some orthodox follow the mitzvot in the passive and trivial spirit that you suggest. Here I am writing, and on a computer on shabbot, certainly a critical literal violation.)
I’m sorry to have posted such a lightning rod for the contempt of the religious. In some circles, I would now not be permitted to study Torah. In other circles, I would be encouraged by the sincerity of the inquiry to continue my daily prayer and study.
“All my relations”.
” I’m sorry, I was told there would be no math.”
‘The likelihood that the child will be female and the Jewish gene will be conveyed is 50/50.’
‘The Jewish gene’? What does that mean?
The haploid human genome contains around 23,000 protein-coding genes, says Wikipedia. Almost any mix of these 23,000 genes from a Jewish mother and a gentile father could be expressed or suppressed in a child … or passed on to a grandchild, even if recessive.
Even if there were a unique ‘Jewish gene,’ the probability of a child from such a union being both female and having Witty’s mythical ‘Jewish gene’ would be (0.5 x 0.5) = 0.25, not 50/50.
Both the science and the statistics in this essay are hopelessly garbled.
I guess you didn’t read the post. Or maybe it wasn’t perfectly clear.
If a Jewish mother had two children, the chances that any of their grandchildren are Jewish would be 1/2.
Jewish mother
Of the two children of Jewish mothers
1/4 would have two girls – consequences, 100% of their children are Jewish, even if they marry non-Jews
1/2 would have one boy and one girl – consequences, 50% of their children are Jewish, even if they marry non-Jews
1/4 would have two boys – consequences, 0% of their children are Jewish, if they marry non-Jews.
(1* 1/4) + (1/2 * 1/2) = 1/2
Thats the math of it.
Again, if 5/6 of the world’s Jews were lost (10 of 12 tribes) and half of their children are legally Jewish, then those that undertake violence on close neighbors are likely harming a large portion of those with Jewish matrilineal (genetic) identity.
Someone who is attacking, is someone who is attacking, Palestinian or Jew. That requires defense, even if they are “right”.
Noting that a large minority (or majority even) of Palestinians may be legally Jewish (and entitled by right of Jewish return to Israel) is a functional way to add another layer of reflection before vicious Zionist state action, or persecution.
Its a basis of questioning the rabbinic determination of not letting people in unless they prove that they are Jewish.
Too arcane? Too irrelevant to the political situation? Too distracted from the chosen theme of dissent?
>> Noting that a large minority (or majority even) of Palestinians may be legally Jewish (and entitled by right of Jewish return to Israel) is a functional way to add another layer of reflection before vicious Zionist state action, or persecution.
This is freakin’ hilarious! In the 21st century, a Palestinian shouldn’t be allowed to return to the land from which he was ethnically cleansed (because, despite laws to this effect, Zio-supremacists don’t believe in justice), but if he can demonstrate that he is “legally Jewish”, this “functional way” of “adding another layer of reflection” may entitle him to return to his home.
The clown has hit a home run with this one!! :-D
Eljay,
One point of my article, is that even by the standards of the rabbis, they cannot possibly distinguish who is a Jew (a descendant from the covenant) from who is not a Jew.
Its not a denial of the argument from the current/recent perspective based on residence and right of return.
Those are different arguments, with many merits, but also with rationalizations and tensions.
>> Eljay,
>> One point of my article, is that even by the standards of the rabbis, they cannot possibly distinguish who is a Jew (a descendant from the covenant) from who is not a Jew.
Thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my misinterpretation and for the accompanying derisive language.
“according to Jewish writings, 10 of the 12 original tribes assimilated or converted…. ”
The twelve tribes of Israel are mythology not history. Your whole life might as well be centered around a Harry Potter novel.
“Too arcane? Too irrelevant to the political situation? Too distracted from the chosen theme of dissent?”
Too familiar. Too Nuremberg race laws. Nazis and rabbis determining, more or less arbitrarily, who is and who isn’t a Jew. Disregarding whether the individual self-identifies as a Jew, and what, if anything, that means to him/her.
I don’t have that goal in the sense of wanting you to divorce your wife, marry a Jewess, have Jewish children, be loyal to Israel and think only tribally.
If anything my goal is for Jewish discussion, to move more universalistic, more benign, more considerate, more predisposed to love thy neighbor (not knowing if your neighbor is like you or not), and to encourage that expression in inter-personal and political relations.
I do hope that you constantly add to your portfolio of interests to include inner life as important and a sense of “all my relations”.
And, I do hope to suggest that Jewish life is a viable righteous life, that deserves respect more than dismissal or condemnation.
And, I definitely suggest that you become familiar with orthodox theologies so that you can dialog with them in some realistic manner, rather than dismiss them as other or strange, oriental.
It’s not Jewish or Orthodox life we have a problem with. It’s the current Zionist idea that the Holy Land must be dominated by Jews at any and all costs.
So, are you upset that Bethlehem and Via Delorosa are under Israeli sovereignty?
I thought your objection to Zionism was based on how Palestinians are treated.
I’m confused.
In anarchist theory, noone needs to dominate, that people (s) can work things out.
And when some power dominates, some other community feels dominated and resentful. Even Pax Romana(s) that afford all people the benefits of civilized life (civilized defined externally) is resented.
I saw “Life of Brian” the other day, Monty Python’s spoof of the time of Jesus. In the Judean Peoples Front meeting:
“What have the Romans ever done for us”
“Roads, aqueduct, sewage, public education, courts of law”
“Ok, aside from roads, fresh water, public sewage disposal, public education, courts of law… what have the Romans done for us”.
The neo-conservative “democracy in every pot” theme is a form of Pax Romana, externally imposed better way. Hated for being foreign, not consent of the governed.
Maybe that is the basis of the theme of a single democratic state.
But, it is confused by association with Palestinian nationalism, which is not confidently democracy, so much as a pendulum swing from external Zionism (external to the 50% that don’t subscribe), to external Palestinian nationalism (external to the 50% that don’t subscribe).
Still waiting for the single democratic state that does NOT originate in and derive its motive and culture from Palestinian nationalism.
It’s Dolorosa, Richard, Via Dolorosa.
And it’s “that you can have a dialogue” not “that you can dialog”
(sigh*)
So, are you upset that Bethlehem and Via Delorosa are under Israeli sovereignty?
I didn’t even read your whole reply yesterday, especially not what precisely you responded to.
Reading Pamela’s short statement now, I wonder, are you aware you mistake dialog with looking out for trigger phrases you can then twist into whatever is available in the conscious layers of your bedlam mind?
Try understanding what and why I am writing, rather than just looking for problems with it.
You’d find MANY reassuring suprises.
That would be dialog.
I do not undertake violence, nor actively advocate for it, ever. So, absent that intent to harm, there is no such thing as a “bedlam mind”.
What do you think my essay is saying, as a starting point?
In what respect was your response to Pamela, who suggested that no one here has a problem with Judaism, a response to something she said, other than what you think she might think?
Look Richard, I am not looking forward to find surprising elements in what you write. There are far better minds than you, I prefer to listen to.
But if you allow me to again take your self-definition as an utterly ethical peaceful person that at least tries to take religious commandments seriously, than how am I to read this:
So, are you upset that Bethlehem and Via Delorosa are under Israeli sovereignty?
I thought your objection to Zionism was based on how Palestinians are treated.
I admittedly have troubles to read these lines as coming from a peaceful and ethical person. May I re-phrase them?
Gotcha! So your real problem is that several places important to Christianity are under Israeli control?
Why do you pretend then, you are interested in how Palestinians are treated by Israel?
Show me were Pamela wrote something about Bethlehem or Via Dolorosa being under Israeli sovereignty? And that this is in fact her problem.
Try another approach than condemning me or my comments LeanDor.
When I say that I am confused by her use of the term “Holy Land”, that is honest.
I got that you don’t want to get involved in discussions of Jewish identity, but it is a theme that Phil has articulated as important to him.
And, this post is an articulation of a universalistic response to more tribalistic forms of religious assertion.
But, you don’t see that. Instead choosing to call me names.
Why not proceed farther than what irritates you?
Also LeanDor,
It is a gross misrepresentation of “everyone” here, that no one here has a problem with Judaism.
Otherwise, you would write favorably of my comments, rather than condemningly.
Maybe you don’t understand what it is I am saying. Bother to find out.
I certainly have problems with Judaism, as it is currently practiced by the orthodox Jews.
My problem is that the definition “Jew” is forced on me by know-nothing creeps who assume that the religion *IN THEIR STYLE OF PRACTICE* is a genetic condition, that is imposed on anyone born into a family of Jews (again, per their definitions).
I would be less angry at the religion Judaism (for all of the horrendous ways it is practiced) if it weren’t be shoved down my throat and imposed upon me, against my will.
If you want to live by those rules, go for it (but spare the children and animals). When things got so crazy that I could not marry my beloved because of the Israeli race laws, I consider myself to have been attacked directly and you can expect my contempt and active resistance. When people use the laws and myths of Judaism to excuse what Zionism does, don’t expect understanding from those of us who are not Jews.
I guess you didn’t get that gist of my post was a critique of the neo-orthodox definition of “who is a Jew?” and what that means.
That at least 5/6th of the halachically legal Jews in the world, don’t even know that they are Jews, it is prospectively a great sin to exclude any of them the right of return.
And, by the second definition of “who is a Jew?”, that of affirming the Torah described Jewish mission, evolved through prophetic and rabbinic articulation, that a Jew is one that has the instinct to make what is disparate, whole. Meaning the mystical (transcendent to the material ecological), the intimate (making peace and prosperity within the family), community (making peace and prosperity between neighbors), planet (making peace and prosperity between the nations).
That that is the conspiracy of the “brit”. The intention was that that instinct confirmed by commitment be conveyed parent to child, racially and by teaching.
I value Judaism in that light (the covenanted conspiracy to good – a verb), and I assume that the struggle within Judaism as to whether it is judged and reform to the standards of mission versus the standards of association, is a permanent one, a tension.
Richard, if you want me to listen and not only curiously study the phenomenon Richard Witty, you have to work on your style, e.g.:
The population of those that are Jewish
Are they populating themselves? or do you simply mean the group thus defined as Jewish?
I honestly wonder about e.g. Shmuel or The Magnus Zionist think about this “intellectual endeavor”.
I can’t understand much of your grammar as well.
If you desire to communicate rather than ridicule, better that you ask me what I mean, rather than shoot first.
Seriously, Witty? You are not one to talk about horrible writing skills.
“It’s Dolorosa, Richard, Via Dolorosa.”
LOL
link to youtube.com
The guy never quits; with every one of his sentences, he’s still trying to make an honest Jew out of Phil. He has the determination of a Saudi morality police.
“… I don’t have that goal in the sense of wanting you to divorce your wife, marry a Jewess, have Jewish children, be loyal to Israel and think only tribally… If anything my goal is for Jewish discussion, to move more universalistic, more benign, more considerate, more predisposed to love thy neighbor (not knowing if your neighbor is like you or not), and to encourage that expression in inter-personal and political relations… I do hope that you constantly add to your portfolio of interests to include inner life as important and a sense of “all my relations”… And, I do hope to suggest that Jewish life is a viable righteous life, that deserves respect more than dismissal or condemnation… And, I definitely suggest that you become familiar with orthodox theologies so that you can dialog with them in some realistic manner, rather than dismiss them as other or strange, oriental.”
Lots of subconscious jargon in them thar words, especially about the non-Jewish wife in his opening words that must be first and foremost on his mind.
Don’t judge before inquiring Walid.
Goldstone Report, you hypocrite!
I’m not judging, Richard, but simply observing; your recurring reprimands of Phil’s Jewishness led me to that conclusion. You don’t tell him what he’s doing is wrong because it’s wrong but that it’s wrong because he is supposed to be a Jew and therefore not committing the wrong. Maybe it’s a tribal thing with you but I can tell you that it’s Jews like Phil that are helping keep a lid on things for other Jews that have nothing to do with what Israel is pretending to be doing in their name.
Your description was “subconscious jargon”.
My description of my hoped impact on Phil was accurate. It definitely referred to themes that I’ve mentioned before, that Phil exemplifies and comments on.
I hope that he lives a moral, substantive life with depth and kindness in word, deed, action in all his relations.
Phil has brought up MANY themes of what comprises actual and potential Jewish identity, and how that relates to the political themes that he espouses.
(Following this generation, those Jews that remain Jews will be those that choose to affirm their Jewishness, including those that have and bring up Jewish children, that affirm Jewish identity.
It is a present -> future phenomena, not a residual one, not one of Jewish name and Jewish parentage, but of Jewish life.)
Relative to that, there is contempt articulated towards those that are so “archaic” as to find Jewish life in the present->future valuable or relevant at all. There is often a “subconscious” wishing expressed that it just disappear, preferably by entropy. And, there is advocacy for that hoped for entropy to speed up. Thankfully, there isn’t stated advocacy for annihiliation.
The premise of the BDS movement that is oriented to revolution in Israel (single state through external political pressure) doesn’t give a crap about Jewish identity as it regards Israelis’ consent to political changes as irrelevant, inherently and inevitably corrupt.
The premise of the BDS movement that is oriented to reform in Israel (two state, with equal rights for all Israeli citizens, green line as border – or consented adjustments, and limited “right of return”), MUST address Israeli and Jewish consciousness and articulate alternative perspectives that accommodate a democratic Jewish state.
So, to the extent that Phil expresses any interest in Jewish consciousness and experience, then I infer from that that he is interested in a reform approach, rather than a revolution approach.
As he’s said before, he vacillates.
If the thinking of the religious is ignored/dismissed, then they will react, and often fanatically. If there is thinking that can be articulated that allow a religious Jew to affirm their religion while also affirming the humanity of Palestinians, that will go FAR towards reform. I read orthodox like Gershom Gorenburg in that light, as well as some of the actual Rabbis for human rights. (Some have deemphasized the religious origination of their convictions, and some have deepened it.)
I personally want an inspiring Jewish orthodoxy, a sober one. I find great value in it even as I just dabble at its practice. (I’m writing here on Shabbas, but I do pray and study Torah daily. Most importantly, I do attempt a sober and kind life, seeking goodness for all.)
Richard, I believe that you seek goodness for all but you want this goodness to be according to your Jewish orthodox model. I won’t say more as I have no business getting in on a discussion between Jews on what’s a Jew since I don’t know enough about it but I disagree with your thinking that the BDS movement is intended to either revolutionize or reform something or other in Israel ; it wants to get rid of the occupation and nothing more but you’re seeing it as a strategy to destroy Israel.
Are you ever going to start prodicing any evidence to support your interpretations fo BDS, or is your pland to simply lie and run?
Jewish consciousness is no one’s concern but those of individuals. What you are demanding of BDS is absurd – it’s not intended to be group therapy for Jews Witty.
If it was to remove the occupation, that would be an example of “reform”, and I would support the goal enthusiastically, as I do, and still not support the means.
It is a truth that most of the primary public proponents of BDS, the ones that I am aware of: Omar Barghouti, Ali Abunimeh, Anna Baltzer, do also advocate for a single-state at the same time as they advocate for BDS.
The movements are then indistinct from one another, interpretable by even sympathizers with the goal of ending the occupation, as a trojan horse.
Shingo,
Do you see other options than:
1. BDS does need to consider how its communication affects Jews and Israelis, to achieve their consent.
or
2. BDS does not need to consider how its communication affects Jews and Israelis, that their consent is irrelevant.
Come on. Stick your neck out.
Who gives a crap how it affects Israelis? If Israelis find BDS interlorable, they have every means at their disposal to put and end to BDS, by ending the occupation.
No I am going to ask you again Witty,to produce a link to any statement by the BDS movement that it it’s agenda is the dsteruction of Israel or a single state solution.
Stop avoiding the ssue Witty and answer the damned question.
Why should it? The message is clear. End the occupation. End the settlements. Lift the siege on Gaza and trurn back to the 1967 borders. When a sentence is handed to a someone found guilty of a crime, the consent of that criminal is not considered, nor should it be.
Too bad. Israel is inspable of reform, so tough measurs are required.
That’s not most, that’s 3 people Witty. Where is the BDS mission statement that mentions anything about a single state solution?
There are those tha support a single state who do not support BDS. You’re blowing smoke.
Rubbish. They are indistinct if and only if they both share that in their mission statement. You’re caught in your own lies yet again.
You are absolutely shameless Witty.
You are givign Witty far too much credit Walid.
The reason Witty is making the blatantly false allegations is becasue:
1. His one and only concern is the confort of Israel and Israelis
2. He can’t admit that, so his tactic is to make baseless allgatiosn that BDS is not what it claims to be (ie. a Trojan horse)
3. He knows that Israel has become so extreme and irrational that it is incapable of ending their expansionism, their occupation, the settlements and the opreesion of teh Palestinians. He claims that the only means to end the statu quo is refiorm, but he knows as well as anyone that Israel is not capable of reform.
I hear your opinion.
Do others concur?
“Who gives a crap how it affects Israelis? ”
The distinction is between a movement that Israelis will change (after their hearts and minds are enlightened), vs a movement that forces Israel externally to undertake a course of action.
Again, the language in the Palestinian web site advocating for academic BDS does not overtly endorse a single state. Instead, in advocating for an end to occupation (not defined there what is meant), they imply that they seek 67 borders.
That CONFLICTS with the overtly stated goals of Ali Abunimeh, Omar Barghouti, and Anna Balzer, the three most prominent advocates for BDS that I am aware of.
The only change Israelis have shown a capacity for is moving further to the right and becoming more extreme and militant.
Thats false.
Following the first intifada, Israel moved demonstrably to the left. Maybe not as far as you would have liked, but it is not a heart valve politically (heart valve being one way). It is a tide.
Did they withdraw from the OT and stop building settlements? No. Hence there was no move to the left.
The comment was on Israeli public opinion. You described it as “never changing”, when in obvious fact, it does.
Maybe Mooser can tell us how Richard racially teaches his children both by mother genes and culturally through pragmatic compassion.
…. I will and do “teach my children”, both racially through mother’s genes and culturally through pragmatic compassion, prayer and good deeds.
Richard Witty wrote:
“If a Jewish mother has only one child, the likelihood that the child will be female and the Jewish gene will be conveyed is 50/50….”
Mr. Witty, given all that you wrote in this vein what then was the great outrage at Walt and Mearsheimer originally saying (in their LRB article I think) that to many Israelis jewishness was alot about “blood”?
Never understood that, and just felt that it must have had some merit which is why Walt and Mearsheimer excised that from their later writings. Now however and again I still don’t understand the objection: It obviously *can* be all about blood, and indeed blood alone, right? (E.g., one with an indisputably jewish mother for instance.)
Judaism is not a genetic condition, it is a social construct. You can no more declare people to be Jewish by virtue of birth than a Mormon can retroactively baptize their ancestors.
You can call a rock a Jew, if that pleases you, but you’d be just as wrong.
[edited and reedited and reedited before pressing Submit. This is one of the most infuriatingly arrogant fictions of people who follow Judaism. ]
A very important point, worth much repetition. Race is fiction – or at least the idea of race conceals the fact that the genetic differences between people regarded as of the same race are more significant than the differences between all those regarded as of one race and all those regarded as of another. Richard Lewontin and other Jewish geneticists have been very eloquent on this matter.
Fictions are part of life, of course. Mormons can’t in general baptise the dead in the sense of pouring water on them but they can baptise for the dead in pursuance of their social construct, and presumably there are religious rules stating how this can be done. Rabbinical definitions of Jewishness are themselves applications of religious laws. Presumably the reasons that would support a change in rabbinical ideas and definitions have to be reasons of a religious, not of a secular – moral or scientific – character.
Well I read this and thought to myself, what a load of nonsense.
I know a Jew in my city whose parents refused to meet his Catholic fiancée, and only agreed to do so after they had children of their own. I also know a Jewish woman whose family never saw her again after she converted to Catholicism in order to marry a man of that faith.
Now that gay marriage is legal in my country, I wonder what the Jewish attitude is toward a Jewish boy who marries a goyish boy?
Religion makes people very, very stupid, and in its current form, Orthodox Judaism is a racist cult and must be denounced as such.
Richard’s navel-gazing essay was depressing. I felt sorry for him. His entire identity is subsumed in being characterized as a small component in a greater whole, and somehow that makes him exceptional. Being part of that culture means he’s in a bubble where he believes he is racially and intellectually superior to others, and he makes clumsy statements about being a “liberal Zionist” which either makes him seem like he’s intellectually dishonest, or willfully blind.
Judiasm has been hijacked in the name of a slow-motion genocide, an insane landgrab that is no longer justifiable under any pretense. The more people like Richard attempt to conflate Judiasm with Zionism, the more damage he does. 2010 was the year that hasbara died. Someone needs to break the news to Witty.
Happy New Year, Richard
May you find enlightenment in the upcoming year
And to you all.
If one is opposed to religions in general, actively opposed, does that make them BOTH anti-semitic and anti-Islam?
If that practice and sentiment motivates their activism, their urge for justice and peace, is that to be rejected, or invited?
Is the sensitivity to the deep/ecological as well as the political a prerequisite qualification of leadership, or is ti a disqualification?
OZ&VnaDz0U26
“The distinction is between a movement that Israelis will change (after their hearts and minds are enlightened), vs a movement that forces Israel externally to undertake a course of action.”
Israelis have had DECADES to change their minds, they’ve only become more fond of violent colonialism. As someone mentions above it is nonsense to say we can’t sanction a criminal until the criminal himself decides to mend his ways. There is no need to address ‘Jewish consciousness and articulate alternative perspectives that accommodate a democratic Jewish state.’ anymore than the campaign against Sth African Apartheid had to appeal to Afrikaner consciousness and articulate alternative perspectives that accommodate a democratic Afrikaner state.
“Again, the language in the Palestinian web site advocating for academic BDS does not overtly endorse a single state. Instead, in advocating for an end to occupation (not defined there what is meant), they imply that they seek 67 borders”
The unified Palestinian civil call for BDS is very specific about it’s aims. There is nothing implied but what it expressly calls for
“That CONFLICTS with the overtly stated goals of Ali Abunimeh, Omar Barghouti, and Anna Balzer, the three most prominent advocates for BDS that I am aware of.”
Abunimah & Balzer SUPPORT the BDS but it is not their call. It matters not what they wish to see happen over & above the aims of the BDS campaign. They can not and do not purport to be spokesman, merely supporters. If any of the prominent advocates of BDS call for pink flying elephants to patrol the skies over Israel it does not change the aims of BDS. You are conflating the aims of the campaign and the views of some people who support it.
As to what was (presumably) the point of the original post – for me it’s like arguing which wallpaper is best to decorate the fairies home at the bottom of the garden. Race & religion are purely human inventions.