Hoenlein
People routinely ask, If American Jews are overwhelmingly left-liberal, why is the Israel lobby so rightwing? And the answer is that for two generations, even liberal American Jews have passively ceded their power to the rightwingers out of higher concerns: Jewish unity and safety.
There are now many cracks in the monolith, but the revealing thing about the interview below that Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations gave to the Israeli hotel magazine, Inbal (not online; I have the print version) is his rejection of J Street as posing a threat to Jewish unity and safety. He is warning: Jews must speak in one voice to the powers that be, and J Street is not a constituent of mine.
Bear in mind that this organization that is beyond the pale, J Street, is a Zionist organization that has had the temerity to criticize the settlement project, mildly (it opposes boycott efforts), and that has called on Obama to pressure Israel to accept a two-state solution.
Inbal: However today on the Jewish communal landscape is a relatively new kid on the block-- 'J Street.' They are not exactly up your street. How do you deal with them?
Hoenlein: I don't; J Street is not a member of the Conference.
Inbal: Can they afford to be ignored?
Hoenlein: J Street initially made a splash but their ripples are less visible these days especially since its opposition on such issues like Congress' resolutions on the Goldstone Report, Cast Lead, foreign aid and on imposing sanctions on Iran. Many of their initial supporters have seen the real nature of J Street and others are questioning whether it's a responsible vehicle to give expression to their concerns.
While everybody has the right to examine and comment on the issues, we have to be careful as our words have consequences, and when you criticize the government of Israel, you have to consider the consequences. Those that are not taken seriously can largely say what they want and are disregarded. Organizations that count have to weigh their words and actions very carefully.
Inbal: Are there lessons to learn from history?
Hoenlein: Unity has always been vital throughout Jewish history.. When we stand together, we can overcome every challenge. Sadly, when we are divided, history records we have paid a heavy price.
Hoenlein goes on to talk about his father's escape from the Holocaust. This is the psychic backdrop to his attitude and that of most Jews of his generation. He learned early on that "Jews needed to be active in politics... for survival." In his traditional view of the world, Jews are a ghettoized hated community, on our own-- and not an empowered American group supporting a militant state.
Another insight into these attitudes comes from Chemi Shalev in Haaretz, explaining the extremist demands that Israel's rightwing government imposes on supporters out of the same imperative-- unity, survival.
So opposition to settlements, for all intents and purposes, is now tantamount to delegitimization; advocating a peace agreement based on the 1967 borders is like “throwing Israel under the bus”, as Israeli sloganeers dictated to Republican candidates; and sympathy for the Palestinians is, let’s face it, no different than same sympathy for the devil. And it is through this distorted and disturbed prism that President Obama can be cast as a Muslim collaborator bent on destroying Israel and Western European countries depicted as hotbeds of Jew-haters only once or twice removed from Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Third Reich.
The same mindset that governs the Jewish world is at play in its view of the external arena. The same refusal to countenance criticism that causes Jews to push other Jews “out of the tent” and into the arms of true anti-Zionists...
Next month Peter Beinart will publish a very important book seeking to revive the J Street-center-left discourse. And good for him. But I believe he is too late. There is only the right and the left in this discourse. And if it is a choice between religious nationalism and democratic values, how will young Jews respond?
link to jstreet.org
link to jstreet.org
J Street lobbied for the passage of strong sanctions against the Iranian regime. link to jstreet.org
and here is j streets Statement in response to Israeli Ground Invasion of Gaza
link to jstreet.org
malcolm hoenlein calls for jewish unity in support of the zionist entity’s occupation of palestine?
despite its slaughter of palestinians in operation cast lead?
despite its apartheid government?
despite its brutal occupation of palestine being the reason “they” hate us?
he expects jewish-americans to rally round the zionist entity as if it were our country, right or wrong?
even though the blowback from israel’s ongoing violence against palestinians (not to mention a u.s.-backed israeli war against iran) could put not only us jews but all living beings at risk?
hoenlein obviously hasn’t thought out the possible consequences of the zionist entity run amok
or doesn’t he care?
israel firster that he is
and self-hating jew
Phil asks: “And if it is a choice between religious nationalism and democratic values, how will young Jews respond?” Never mind “young Jews.”
The USA does not enjoy a unified religious nationalism (unless the near-religious fear and hatred of “terrorists” is such), but there are the Jewish religious nationalists (who wish to preserve Israel and the Jewish people and who appear to be Israel Firsters, whilst claiming that this is equivalent to being USA/Israel Firsters, and hence, with a sigh of relief, ALSO USA-patriotic); the evangelical end-of-days religious folk who wish to see a catastrophic war at Megiddo after which all Jews will become Christians or go to Gehenna in a great end-of-world conflagration, and are thus not nationalists at all, but awfully and terribly — in the old meanings of those words — “religious”), and all the pro-Israel and pro-war folks who are worshipers of the almighty dollar and ask “how high” when AIPAC’s dollar-brandishing lobbyists. “ask” them to “jump”.
And the USA, once fairly democratic, now legalizes detention of anyone deemed (but by whom?) a “terrorist” without trial or contact (family, lawyers); affects to legalize assassination of anyone (even Americans) and regularizes torture; legalizes its non-public use by government prosecutors of secret (so-called “national security”) evidence without cross-examination of providers of such evidence at trials; legalizes its refusal to release secret (so-called “national security”) evidence to non-government litigants; and no doubt produces still other wonders, each more amazing than the last, to those who wish to call USA a “democracy”.
Can OWS and its progeny, save the 99% from these manifestations — chiefly — of the power of the 1%, among them prominently BIG-OIL, BIG-WAR, adn BIG-ZION?
Far left and far right: united in seeking the end of a small Israel, united in seeking to erase the political space that J Street inhabits, united in wanting to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian majority state. So sad.
I do wonder if there are some shills on the Jewish far left….. They dreamily think that the end of the 2SS is a blessing, while in reality they are ceding a win for the Israeli far right- and THEY are the ones with political power.
I think Israel’s real fear is a united 2SS front, based on 1967, with some flexibility on what the old city status ends up like (international and shared control like the partition plan?), and some flexibility on how the right of return and refugee compensation is implemented.
I fear idealism and insistence on addressing every injustice, will diminish our international support, and will prevent reconciliation with Israelis. We need to compel Israelis to agree with us… and demands we cannot get support on from within Israel, means a dead end. People seem to forget that the end game is consent from the majority of Israelis, even if the pressure comes in the forms of BDS and sanctions. And let’s not be deluded on how much pressure we can bring, and what demands nation states will make on Israel.
My thrust is very simply…. as tough as a 2SS seems, almost ALL Zionists will bend to accept a 2SS if the other outcome is a 1SS whereby they loose the Jewish majority state. Even if implementation of the 2SS would take years to implement, they would ALWAYS retreat to the 2SS rather than implement a just 1SS and loose the whole goal of the stupid Zionist project. But of course, they may also have ethnic cleansing planned, or attempt to push population centers off on Jordan and Egypt, and create a new iron wall (supported by Western states who are hit with more “terror” and rising xenophobia).
Us secular minded and non tribal folks in the justice camp are a minority. When we dream of people thinking like us when envisioning the future…. we may walk a path that proves disastrous when the rubber meets the road.
“rather than implement a just 1SS and loose the whole goal”
“Loose” or “lose”?
Lose (thanks, I suppose…. did you sincerely not know what I had intended, or is that a way to denigrate a comment you dislike? Sincere question.)
I feel like my position that accepting a historic injustice, and a 2SS is fairly unpopular here…. I’ll have you note that many Palestinians are flexible on the right of return, in the interest of getting sovereignty and freedom. Among refugees the sentiments vary, but some simply want the injustice recognized and want some attempt made at resolution, even if it is incomplete.
A Palestinian once told me that foreigners sometimes try to be “more Palestinian” than the Palestinians themselves. Or even Palestinians who have made the US their permanent home are more inflexible than those living under occupation. This is not to say some of the most strident and principled voices do not come out of Gaza or the West Bank, but many are sincere in their opinion that they just want a Palestine and to be done with this insane conflict.
I am not saying Israel is offering this at all at the moment (viable 2SS), but the posturing of Palestinians and those advocating for Palestinian rights does have an impact on the Israeli electorate and the possible flow in the coming years. I’d like to see peace before I die, even if it comes with a serious dose of injustice… but that is just my opinion and that of a number of Palestinians I know. Seems easy for me to say, as they are not my rights I so freely bargain away, but I am sincere in my views and literally am looking out for Palestinian interests (I really do not care if there was no Jewish state…. I think it was an absurd mistake and is a liability for Jews in Israel and worldwide).
Also, it seems untenable to be advocating that those ethnically cleansed be flexible on their “inalienable rights”…. but how am I denying them a right, when Israel has denied such a right since 1948, and cannot be expected to relent on this issue in the foreseeable future, nor compelled to relent? I don’t see the world obsessed with getting refugees back into the countries and conflict zones they came from in so many other places… I see them getting resettled.
I really think the Zionists like the political orthodoxy on the “right of return”…. because they spin it to both Israelis and the world as an excuse to continue their creeping expansion and further ethnic cleansing.
And the hypothetical big war where many Arabs/others see Israel being defeated, in the coming years? If it came to pass, Israel, with nukes, would make the improbable Arab victory a pyrrhic victory if there EVER was one.
anonymous comments,
So what do you propose be done about the almost one million Zionist settlers on the West Bank? How will they be removed in order for there to be two states?
And what do you propose be done about the Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the rest of Israel? Wouldn’t two states require their forced removal the way India and Pakistan were partitioned to make a Hindu and Muslim states?
I was fairly sure you meant “lose” but I wanted confirmation.
For an ethical purist like me, it is unacceptable. But I am sitting on my high moral horse in reasonable comfort in Australia, so I have the luxury of demanding perfect justice. I don’t have to struggle through checkpoints. My son hasn’t been flung into an Israeli prison for giving a dirty look at a soldier.
The Palestinians who are actually under the harrow have to think in more pragmatic terms, and as far as I can tell, most of them do. But they have been pragmatic since at least the early 1970s, and it seems to have got them nowhere. And I have no idea what approach would be better.
The combined Arab armies marching in triumph through Tel Aviv? Not going to happen. There may be military action and defeats for Israel on the way, but the best we could hope for is that they push the Israelis into being more accomodating.
In the very long run, Israel is bound to fade into being just another bit of the Levant, but by that time everyone will have ceased to care.
tombishop-
i would propose that the settlers are removed, over ~5 years. perhaps *some* settlers can remain, if the PA/PLO agreed to land swaps to get a corridor to gaza. but the basis would be 1967, with perhaps internationalization of the old city, or just letting the “jewish state” control it (minus the mosque). israel would have to make offers for swaps the PLO *agreed* to, to make any real alterations of from the green line.
as the settlers were evacuated, some/all of the emptied settlements would then represent a *portion* of the compensation offered to palestinian refugees (those living in camps under occupation, or coming from other countries such as lebanon).
most of the settlers moved into the west bank in a period of a few years. they can be moved within israel’s recognized borders in the same period of time, or even much quicker.
most (>90%) of the settlers are non-ideological. those who refused to move could be left there at first. they could be told the palestinian state could deal with them however the palestinian state wanted to, likely imprisoning them for land theft, or deporting them to israel. some might die massada style when the PA went to arrest them (or more likely, when the IDF attempted to remove them).
if you think it is politically or functionally impossible to remove the settlers…. answer me THIS:
is getting the racist, militant, and deeply zionist state of israel to grant people in ramallah and gaza city citizenship and equal rights MORE feasible?
really, i have no illusions about how difficult what i propose is (the last few decades are a testament to this… but the international community, and more jews abroad are now realizing israel’s game, and tides are shifting).
but i also am not delusional when considering the difficulties in the path to a *just* single state solution. in fact, a *just* single state solution seems almost impossible given the political forces and ideologies at play, while the fairly just 2SS seems very hard, but not impossible to attain.
i am open to a well-reasoned path by which israel comes to accept a *just* single state resolution, and whereby the international community actually pressures israel to adopt this. i just have not heard it. if the “single state” is the only option we have, i see a repeat of 1948 as the more likely option…. which is why so many on the israeli right have worked so hard for years to DESTROY the 2SS.
RoHa, I appreciated your question, I am not even sure if it couldn’t have happened to me too. That’s why. I vaguely remember spelling loser looser. So it was a helpful reminder.
But they have been pragmatic since at least the early 1970s,
Black September? Munich 72 didn’t convince me, I had to learn more about the context.
Concerning your forecast, I am slightly less optimistic. The “pragmatic” approach of the ideologues we are dealing with here: divert attention by playing with Orientalism/Arabophobia/Islamophobia and conspiracy theories, about Londonistan, Europistan, Ameristan–could be a prelude only to a very real future clash. These ideas are very toxic, the problem is they may work once they sunk in deeper. In history rarely the wiser prevail but the ideologues that shape perception.
And yes, there is something very irrational about the portrayal of irrational Palestinian/Arab antisemitism; that doesn’t make me feel very comfortable either.
J Street is just another alleged liberal org. couched in supremacy and pride of place,while telling US they are moderates.
And the far left and right thing(at least here in America),it seems to be the middle that backs Israel to the hilt,ala Stealers Wheel,and we are stuck.
I’m not so sure if the leadership is that far to the right of mainstream Jews.
What I know is that Jews of interfaith heritage tend to be more liberal on the Israel question. Jews with parents who are both Jewish under 30 are quite hawkish, a lot of polls show this. Beinart’s right that there has been an erosion, but it’s in large part due to the decline, across the board, of Jewish life which has meant the increase of intermarriage, assimilation etc.
But Jews who have interfaith parents intermarry at a rate between 80-90 %. Within a generation or two, most are gone forever from the Jewish faith. And the Jewish population makeup is slowly changing. Among kindergarten children, Orthodox(modern as well as ultra) are a much larger share than, say, just 30 years ago. Estimates vary but I’ve seen some pretty good numbers pointing to around 40 %.
And if you look at children in kindergarten where both parents are Jewish, that share increases even more.
And Orthodox Jews vote republican on domestic politics at a rate of about 80 %. Still, it will take at least 20 years for these changes to wash through, if not slightly more. People in their 20s are notoriously bad voters. The best voters are old people, so this will take time but the change is underway.
What I’d also say is that you have people like, say, Jeffrey Goldberg who play the liberal role, or Marc Tracy. These people are essentially neocons. The thing a lot of people miss is that the neocons have a Republican as well as a Democratic side.
After all, if you look at the Republican neocons’ position on issues like immigration, abortion and so on, they are actually often much closer to the Democrats. Israel is their guiding star. A lot of them have friends on Wall St so they look out for the oligarchs too, but that isn’t a broadbased economic conviction they have, rather than out of necessity.
Goldberg has quoted Netanyahu’s father in positive light. Netanyahu, who is supposed to be the bane of liberal Jewry. His father, who David Remnick(editor of the New Yorker) sat down with a few years ago and had dinner with. His impression? An unrepentant racist and the “biggest reactionary I’ve met in my life”.
This man is somehow who Goldberg quoted last year or so when on a panel discussion (on Iran, I think, but I don’t remember for sure. He was the moderator for the neocon conference organized by FDD, a new neocon outlet) when he said that Benzion had ‘deeply affected him’.
So I mean, it’s not like the “liberals” like Goldberg are somehow tricked into this or scared into obedience. He’s on it the full throttle.
Or take Leslie Gelb who, like Goldberg, sometimes does tepid ‘criticism’ of the Republican side to try to shield his own biases but now his colors are out. He’s all but accusing of Iran and the Obama administration of being in cahoots with each other, trying to stop Israel.
Again, this is the ‘liberal’.
So I’m not sure I buy your innocent-liberal-bystander theory, Phil.
I wish it was true, but the sad truth is, Hoenlien and co aren’t as isolated as people think. People like Eric Alterman, who I consider a true liberal Zionist(with all it’s conflicts) don’t have any influence with this crowd at all, because he isn’t for show. He is for real.
Beinart’s somewhere in-between. He covers for Goldberg and the liberals on a regular basis, in order too keep letting them have credibility in the wider liberal community. It’s working right now, but you know there was a time when even Alan Dershowitz was deemed as a genuine liberal. Now all that’s gone.
Goldberg’s next to go, he’s smoother than the Dersh, but inside it’s the same thing.
The question is, what will Beinart do? The man has genuine liberal instincs but he keeps covering for fakes who don’t. At some point, if not already, that will start to undermine him as Goldberg slowly moves from the mainstream. It won’t be as abrupt as for Dershowitz, but both have a similar style of ad hominem. Both are deeply in favour of the Commentary crowd. Neither is a liberal.
Liberal or conserative is immaterial in the Israel issue.
Using liberal or conserative wrt Israel supporters is a diversion from the Israel first issue —which is liberal and conserative supporters of Israel only differ in ‘what’ they want the US ‘to do’ for Israel.
Neither wants to end the ‘special US relationship’ that has financed Israel and protected it from international law and all accountability for it’s actions.
American, that’s my take-away too. I guess it’s easier for us non-Jewish Americans to see the forest than it is for those rooted in tribalism since birth.
The thing a lot of people miss is that the neocons have a Republican as well as a Democratic side.
Krauss, when I read in Mark Gerson’s, The Neoconservative Vision, the chapter on religion with it’s Judeo-Christian moral vision for the US, I really wished I could pay more attention on the neoconservatives publications and positions in religion at the time. I may return to the subject though.
If you ask me, apart from their much mentioned Trotskyist roots–that feel like the usual youthful aberration banality to me– whatever people consider liberal components, like abortion, immigration, women’s rights seen to be used manipulatively in the larger context of the overall “bio-political design” (or mental architecture, if you like) that doesn’t look very liberal to me. They make huge sense in the larger clash of cultures paradigm, for instance.
I was hesitant about Leslie Gelb the first time I read him in the NYT, by the way. His omissions were just too apparent, to not feel tricked by him.
Krauss, I’ve read Beinart’s book in galleys, and I’m pretty confident his liberal instincts will prevail. There is too much polemical verve in the book against the Likud, the Hoenlein types, etc. Goldberg or someone like Wieseltier sometimes do this in a pro forma way, but you can tell where the passion is. My bet is that Goldberg and Beinart won’t be “covering” for one another two years from now. Of course, one never knows.
when are y’all gonna give up the ‘we need security’ gig?
Jews don’t need “security,” they haven’t for generations. What they need is to accept being treated just like everybody else. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but you’re just not that special.
the other day, Peter Lavelle hosted Gilbert Doctorow and Gahdat Bahgat on Crosstalk. Bahgat’s remarks concluded the program; he said, “The best way to deal with Iran is to engage with them just like any other nation; trade with them, visit, have cultural exchange. That is the way to keep peace” (paraphrased).
That comment, “treat them just like any other nation” struck a chord. In 2006, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer discussed “The Israel Lobby” in Cleveland, before an audience heavily salted with members of the regional AIPAC and a local synagogue. Walt (or Mearsheimer, I forget which) concluded HIS remarks with a similar proposal: the United States should treat Israel just like any other nation; no better, no worse, with American interests uppermost in the concerns of American foreign policymakers.
You would have thought W&M had proposed lopping Israel off the US State Dept portfolio and tearing it to shreds. In the Q and A session that followed, one after another of the AIPAC etc. members there zeroed in on the suggestion that Israel be treated as anything less than the most special case in all of history. I’ve seen more mature behavior at birthday parties for 5-year olds where every snot-nosed kid in the room wants to blow the candles out.
The Cleveland event used to be online on the Cleveland City Club website; I’ll try to find it — it might have aged out of the queue.
“treated as any other country”
Ditto teta, my long held position also.
And the snot nosed kids needed to be treated like snot nosed kids.
israel treated as any other country and jews treated as every other people
Ron Paul has often stated publicly that Iran should be treated like any other nation; he says accordingly we should start, for the first time, putting some of our thousands of diplomats to work negotiating with Iran. Personally, I don’t think that’s in the cards because I don’t think our military-industrial-big banker-1%er elite socio-economic-internationally-orientated predatory corporate class, partnering with Israel Firsters, have ever supported an independent Iran. They all find it most beneficial for their selfish interests that Iran become a despotic useful tool regime as the Arab regimes have been, and will likely remain after the Arab Spring dies.
“Sadly, when we are divided, history records we have paid a heavy price.”
That’s a statement that doesn’t even make sense. But it’s typical.
You can take 99% of all zionist babble and there’s nothing in them but statements without any basis or explanation, and jingoisms, and claims without any examples or evidence.
Dummies for the dumbos.
I think Hoenlein is referring to the gratuitous hatred and divisions amongst Jews living in Judea around the time of the destruction of the second temple. Theologians attribute the destroyed temple and the nationalistic setbacks that accompanied it to “gratuitous hatred”. Historians point out the divisions between Pharisees, Saducees and Zealots as the cause of the inability to defeat (or more accurately figure out how to deal with) the Roman Empire.
I agree that the current situation does not require unity, as much as it requires common sense which is missing in the Likud government particularly on the issue of settlements. But the historical allusion was not nonsensical, although not necessarily appropriate.
I think Hoenlein is referring to the gratuitous hatred and divisions amongst Jews living in Judea around the time of the destruction of the second temple…. But the historical allusion was not nonsensical ….
Yes, wj, and I shudder to think what we Anglos might have accomplished if the ‘tribe’ had not been split in the ninth century, and before, into all those petty kingdoms of Wessex, Essex, East Anglia, Mercia, Northumberland, etc. Just think where we might be today.
Come to think of it, what a pity the German ‘tribe’ didn’t hold together in late Roman times, wouldn’t you say?
Thomson, this is a very, very ignorant response. It is so obvious he is alluding to historical events like the one Wondering offers. To what extend the use can be perceived as manipulative is a completely different question.
LeaNder, I agree with your take here. And your distinction.
Leander, sorry, but there was no ignorance in my response. You apparently missed the point of my comparison of counter-factual tribal fates. The point was to dismiss the modern relevance of all such counter-factuals, including the ‘possible’ solidarity among the Judean ‘Jews’ – which didn’t exist. What if the Jews had been indivisible? What if they were all twelve feet tall? They weren’t, and that’s all that matters.
What if, at the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields, the Visigoths, instead of fighting with Aetius the Roman, had hung together with their brethren the Ostrogoths fighting with Attila the Hun? The Huns would have won and perhaps dominated for centuries what had been the Western Empire. So what? The great nation of the Gothic tribes didn’t hold together, and ultimately they became Spaniards and Italians and Georgians. Like the Judean ‘Jews,’ they were a losing tribe in a vanished past. It couldn’t be helped – the only things that were possible were the things that happened.
Your theory about my ignorance doesn’t hold water. I learned my Sunday School lessons well.
Seems they had the same overwhelming pride of place then,as they do today,and paranoia that presages their destruction,hopefully they will realize their common humanity(it’s scientific and non negotiable)before it’s too late,hopefully they are capable of intellectual thought,unlike those primitive Afghans who find it impossible to be intellectual,as they are not up to snuff,like US.(Snark,I saw that comment about Afghans at GG)
It’s ironic how the Jewish establishment in the US is constantly whining about the loss of Jewish identity among the youth — and then they go about sucking up to Fundamentalist lunatics like John Hagee, warmongering Neocons and Republican Party/rightwing nuts who are anthema to most urban and secular Jews. In effect they have replaced Judaism with Zionism as their religion — and then they wonder why so many US Jews want no part of it. They claim to seek the survival of a Jewish community in this country, but their Zionist choice makes that priority take second place to “what’s good for Israel” as they see it. Does anyone think that the likes of Dershowitz can be an attractive role model for educated American Jews who have not drunk the Zionist Koolaid?
I’m still waiting (without much hope) for a coherent explanation of why loss of Jewish identity is a bad thing.
“I’m still waiting (without much hope) for a coherent explanation of why loss of Jewish identity is a bad thing.”
Look RoHa, why on earth would anybody want to give up an indentity which is like a psychological, rhetorical and ethical Kevlar vest? And when you consider the fact that this “Jewish identity” can be custom crafted for yourself by yourself, you’d be crazy to ever give it up. Why ever even take it off? This new miracle identity fabric is completely fungible! Covers any situation from moderate to extreme, and Oy, what it does to the girls, if you get my drift.
You got a good Jewish identity, you can get away with murder.
You got a good Jewish identity, you can get away with murder.
Truly! Slander and braggadocio, too.
Thanks, Mooser. That seems to be a good, self interested, reason why someone who has got one these marvels would not want to give it up. But a lot of the concern seems to about other people losing their identity armour. Why so?
But a lot of the concern seems to about other people losing their identity armour. Why so?
I don’t know whether this conversation is serious or not, and there is a good deal of truth in Mooser’s sarcasm, but I’ll give it a whack.
Mooser is a Jewish lone wolf, if you’ll pardon the very mixed metaphor. His Jewish identity is a fact of birth (his), culture (his) and religion (his). He seems to care about the bad stuff his fellow Jews do (at least enough to berate them for it, Jew-to-Jew, on this blog), but not so much about anything else they might do religiously or culturally, in the present or the future. He does not seem to have any interest in Jewish religious or cultural community, or in any positive collective Jewish future. Give him a personal relationship with the Almighty and memories of the Borscht Belt and he’s happy (well, maybe not happy, but you know what I mean).
Lots of us don’t see it quite that way. Religious belief can certainly be individual, but there is no such thing as a culture or civilisation of one. You may not like this particular culture or civilisation, or you may think that it has petered out and has nothing of value left to offer, but I’m sure you can understand that some of us do find it worthwhile and would rather it didn’t disappear just yet. That entails concern about this particular aspect of other people’s identities.
You may not like this particular culture or civilisation, or you may think that it has petered out and has nothing of value left to offer, but I’m sure you can understand that some people do find it worthwhile and would rather it didn’t disappear just yet.
As regards the disappearance of cultures, here is another take* on it:
*Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (2004)
Whose culture is being threatened here with disappearance?
As regards the disappearance of cultures, here is another take* on it
Without entering into the merits of Slezkine’s argument, this is not another take, but another issue. The question was who cares if Jewish identity disappears and, if it is purely a matter of self-interest, why does it entail concern about others losing this particular identity. Unless you are suggesting that this is some sort of zero-sum game in which the survival of Jewish identity precludes the survival of other identities.
Unless you are suggesting that this is some sort of zero-sum game in which the survival of Jewish identity precludes the survival of other identities.
No, I was not suggesting a zero-sum game; Slezkine did. The concept is common in American identity politics, and is an underlying theme in much of the writings and commentary of American Jews.
Broadly, at least, it’s the same issue: the ever-nigh disappearance of Judaic culture, and who’s for it and who’s against it. If Slezkine’s assurances can’t convince you that such disappearance is exceedingly unlikely anytime in the “Modern Age,” then living here in the U.S. should. Jewish culture and civilization seem to be thriving here, thank you – although not without some variation over time. As for who’s against that, I think you could travel far and wide and find very few.
Again, I think your fears are exaggerated.
However, there is reason for concern. Many people in America feel that unbridled pursuit of ‘Jewish identity’ – especially as expressed in the form of Zionism and the gathering of disproportionate political and economic power – undermines the interests of people with other, non-Jewish identities, such as, say, ‘American.’ So, yes, in some ways, you can say it might be a zero-sum game.
Shmuel, I do not think we need intolerant homogeneous societies, quite the opposite. Everyone should be able to live as he sees fit. But this part reminds me of Richard Witty’s and Jerome Slater’s complaints:
The first part could be said about you too. You do occasionally confront fellow Jews when you think they are wrong. “Historically” Mooser did not only confront/ridicule/attack fellow Jews only, at least that’s how I remember it. His wit helped to take a bit of the ideological/religious fervor out of the debate, that’s how I see it.
Concerning one’s group presence and future could it be that the childless among us are less concerned about that? Since we do not need to pass on our changing identities. His response is obviously slightly cynical, and as you know should be taken with a grain of salt.
But what is identity and where do identity politics as special interests start, divide and end?
Thomson,
I haven’t read Slezkine, but can only disagree with the apparent assertion that all of these significant consequences of modernity can be considered “Jewish” in anything other than a stereotypical or metaphorical sense, that has little if anything to do with actual Jewish identity.
And once again, you are attributing fears to me that I do not have. I have no fear that Jewish culture or identity may disappear any time in the foreseeable future – except to the extent that it may be completely swallowed up by Zionism. In such an event, it would continue to exist, but not in any form that I would consider meaningful or worthwhile.
LeaNder,
I was not referring to “intolerant homogeneous societies”, and respect Mooser’s position. I was not criticising his criticism, but pointing out that he seems to have little interest in other aspects of present and future collective Jewish identity.
It’s not about children per se (the Jewish component in my daughter’s identity, for example, is far less than in my own), but about group versus individual identity.
But what is identity and where do identity politics as special interests start, divide and end?
Excellent questions.
Shmuel, your first paragraph sums up pretty well why Slezkine never made it onto my reading list, but this recently made it onto it:
Speaking of wolfs, if I may add: I was asking myself if “Jewish lone wolf” is really a mixed metaphor, and why? …
I was not referring to “intolerant homogeneous societies”,
That’s not how I understood you. I was somehow circling identity and difference.
There has never been a time in human history when someone hasn’t been trying to rally one group against another on the basis of their differences.
Nothing new about homo homini lupus.
Speaking of wolfs, if I may add: I was asking myself if “Jewish lone wolf” is really a mixed metaphor, and why?
I was referring to a moose who is a Jewish lone wolf. There’s certainly a mixed metaphor (or at least a menagerie) in there somewhere ;-)
Ahhh, indeed, Shmuel, that helps. Anyway, wolf didn’t trigger moose in this case, which means I may have over protective of our dear palmate antler. ;)
“Mooser is a Jewish lone wolf, if you’ll pardon the very mixed metaphor. His Jewish identity is a fact of birth (his), culture (his) and religion (his)” blah, blah, blah blah…
This is truly outrageous. Shmuel does not know me, has never met me, never talked to me, and never even been within probably 3,000 miles or more of me. Doesn’t know where or how I grew up, doesn’t know what I’ve done, or what I’m doing know. (But as soon as I’m done I’ll wipe myself off, I promise)
The only thing he knows about me at all, is the comments proported to be from me which he as read on this blog. Doesn’t even know my name. Yet he’s ready, willing and able to delve into my deepest murk of my identity. Why, I’m more clear to him than I am to myself.
And look, I completely skipped over one of the most useful aspects of a Jewish identity. Apparently it confers omniscience!
However, I must contragulate myself at this point, for the conceit I brought to my comments on Mondoweiss, which, if I do say so myself, worked. I mean, all I have to do to temporarily fascinate, then frustrate, and eventually be disgustedly rejected by Jews is to aggressively insist that I am an ordinary person, and that the Jewish experience, or my Jewish experience and “Jewish identity” is quite ordinary, and quite within the run of human experience. Man, that pisses ‘em off! I wonder why?
And Shmuel, you have my heartiest permission, and in fact, my warmest encouragement, to go boil your head. And if you think I’m not good enough to be a Jew, well, I’m sorry for degrading the tribe.
“I was asking myself if “Jewish lone wolf” is really a mixed metaphor, and why?”
Oh, I didn’t have to ask myself that, not for a second. The wolf, as a carnivore, is not Kosher. He is trefe, filth. An extreme, if not gratuitous insult.
And I won’t try to kid you Shmuel, it hurt. It hurt like hell, and it’ll go on hurting for a while. Liquor, opiates, wanton eroticism, compulsive spending and fenzied living for pleasure may only dull the pain a little, but in any case, I’m willing to give them a hell of a try! Who’s with me?
“but I’m sure you can understand that some of us do find it worthwhile and would rather it didn’t disappear just yet. That entails concern about this particular aspect of other people’s identities.”
That is what I do find very difficult to understand. It seems as though the culture is more important than the people, so the people have to be kept in it regardless of whether that is what they want or whether it is good for them.
Mooser,
All we have to go on here are the comments (I think I did use the word “seems”), and you have, in the past, expressed your abhorrence at the idea of “collective” Judaism. If I have misrepresented your position, I sincerely apologise. Where you have misunderstood mine is in your belief that I have somehow questioned the validity of your Jewishness (“not good enough to be a Jew”). As I tried to explain to LeaNder who valiantly (albeit unnecessarily) came to your defence, I was not criticising you, but merely pointing out a difference of opinion between us. We Jews are supposed to be famous for that, no?
That is what I do find very difficult to understand. It seems as though the culture is more important than the people, so the people have to be kept in it regardless of whether that is what they want or whether it is good for them.
Not my position by any means.
The wolf, as a carnivore, is not Kosher. He is trefe, filth. An extreme, if not gratuitous insult.
The wolf is a highly respected animal in Jewish tradition. It is the symbol of the tribe of Benjamin, features prominently in the peaceful vision of the end of days (wolf ‘n lamb), and (along with the leopard and the lion) serves as an instrument of divine justice in the book of Jeremiah (Jer. 5:6).
Good luck with the partying though.
Shmuel, your knowledge in Judaism is absolutely appreciated. But I don’t think the lone wolf image doesn’t completely work for Mooser.
But I don’t think the lone wolf image doesn’t completely work for Mooser.
I did not mean to say that Mooser is a lone wolf in general, but a “Jewish lone wolf”, that is to say that his understanding of Judaism does not require a collective identity. I was thinking, in particular, of this exchange: link to mondoweiss.net
But since Mooser doesn’t seem to appreciate any of this, I think I’ll stop.
“But a lot of the concern seems to about other people losing their identity armour. Why so?”
“Put on the whole armour of your Jewish identity! It’s your sword, shield, and buckler. Yea, through we go up the rough side of the mountain, wander forty days through the desert, God will bring us out, with our identity intact, in our right mind!”
And to think the Reformed Jewish seminaries rejected my suggestion and detailed plan to merge Judaism with COGIC and AME! What is wrong with them? Why, Klezmer and Gospel go together like, well ,like meat and cream sauce!
Spent some time in strict Orthodox Schuls as a kid. Believe me, we’re not that far apart in worship styles.
Maybe I will live to see it, if it pleases God.
Shmuel, your comment feels a lot different, when read in the context of Phil’s article and the comments above it. Thanks for the link below too, yes complicated.
You may be right, I shouldn’t have jumped at the occasion. Maybe I should try to control this trait more carefully? Obviously the Jewish religion isn’t founded on solipsist principles, and yes, it needs a community for change, and change may well be what is needed. … I always found it hard to accept that I was born into a world were one couldn’t fight the Nazis any more, not even the ones still around, maybe that is the challenge for the Jewish community too?
But yes, I belong to the kind that would never join a group that would accept me as a member, a pragmatic response to a university psychologist who once told me, she would never take me into her group therapy, since I threatened to blow or break it up. No idea how she realized this, while carefully examining her polished long blood red finger nails, that had just switched on a tape recorder to record the four sentences I manged to get out before her verdict fell down on me like a guillotine.
This lady made sure I remained the outsider I always was, but I don’t think that Moose & his all-Jewish sports bike posse belongs (the Litvaks) into this camp, he belongs to the people that help you survive authoritarian encounters like the above. And if you allow me to wriggle out of it, these authoritarian characters seem to be shaped by group processes too.
Yeah, like you can butt in line, and when somebody dares to objects you can just call the rude flake an “anti-semite,” thus expanding your natural vest like a car crash airbag with every Jew who ever lived or ever will live until the whole bigoted dummy line crumbles aside and the girl at the desk rushes to give you a rebate (at least).
I’d be satisfied with a brief definition of Jewish identity. Is it Ashkenazi? Lost tribes? Prophetic? MOses? Abraham? Rabbinic? Polish? Andalusian? Jews that hate Iran, Jews that fought with the Persian army in 614 attack on Jerusalem, Jews that moved to Ottoman empire in 15th century, Jews that hate Ottoman — which?
Is it … which?
To some degree or another, all of the above and a lot more. Although not completely satisfying, M.M. Kaplan’s definition of Judaism as “the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people” is not a bad place to start. (No need to take the term “people” in a literal, national sense).
+1! Note: Many Recons (Kaplanian Jews) have given up on the chosen people stuff.
Shmuel, here are some notable excerpts from your comments above:
(emphasis added)
Shmuel, it seems to me likely from the above that you have apprehensions about the continuance of Jewish culture/identity that you are not acknowledging. Since our friend Mooser seems to have absented himself from the discussion, allow me to use his image as an exemplar for my point.
From its founding through the frontier days right up to the present time, America has had one dominant social characteristic: individualism. Arguably, it sports this quality more than any other major nation, present or past. I maintain that Mooser is an American through and through in culture and identity. His identity was forged from within, with helpful influences from the vast forests and snow-packed mountains to the north and west – and, believe it or not, his motorcycle.
Is Mooser Jewish? Why, yes, he acknowledges as much and reveals pride in that heritage. But is his identity rooted primarily in Jewish culture? I think not. That’s the beauty of individualism: His identity is rooted in himself and what he makes of himself. Endogamy, nepotism, communality, tribalism – they are not for the rugged individualist in the American mold. Mooser has risen above religio-ethnic constraints to represent the best in the American frontier spirit. (My apologies to Mooser for using him as an exemplar without his permission.)
In the last half-century or so, identity politics have come to dominate the progressive movement in America. The rise of the Jewish culture to prominence has tended to accentuate the prevalence of identity politics. This trend often runs counter to long-standing legal (read: Constitutional) emphasis on individual, as opposed to group, rights and liberties. There is an undeniable tension between the individualistic ideal of traditional American culture and the communality of Jewish collective culture. This tension is doubtlessly felt by many American Jews, and especially the young, adventurous, and impressionable among them.
So you would be right to feel apprehensive about the future direction of Jewish culture and identity in America. All the more so since an ugly form of Zionism has largely captured that culture. If traditional Jewish culture is not antithetical to basic American values, it certainly becomes so when dominated by political Zionism.
I think there are many unique, Mooser-like Jews out there – and more to come.
“His identity was forged from within, with helpful influences from the vast forests and snow-packed mountains to the north and west – and, believe it or not, his motorcycle.”
Let’s not go too far here. I am strictly a suburban animal. My natural habitat is the landscaped 1/4 to 1 acre lot. And from my motorcycles I learned one important rule: Leave no turn unstoned! This wheels on fire, rollin’ down the road- just notify my next of kin, this wheel shall explode!
“His identity is rooted in himself and what he makes of himself. Endogamy, nepotism, communality, tribalism – they are not for the rugged individualist in the American mold. Mooser has risen above religio-ethnic constraints to represent the best in the American frontier spirit.”
Gosh, what a nice way of saying ‘he regularly manged to skip out just one step ahead of the bill collectors, warrants, subpoenas, angry husbands and enraged wives’ You make it sound almost patriotic! Across the great divide! Just grab your hat, and take that ride! Get yourself a bride, and bring your family down to the riverside! I like the cut of your tie, Rutherford! I don’t have to speak, you defend me! A drunkard’s dream, if I ever did see one!
There is an undeniable tension between the individualistic ideal of traditional American culture and the communality of Jewish collective culture.
Is Jewish collective culture responsible for TV culture including the Superbowl and the Oscars, NASCAR and suburban conformity?
Did Judaism bring on the myriad ways that Americans flock together fleeing their souls to become an unthinking swarm?
So much for Talmudic diversity. Let it be known that Jews are the antithesis of individuality.
Thomson,
As I have written, I have no problem with Mooser’s identity (as I have understood or misunderstood it). There is one point on which my understanding of Judaism seems to diverge from his, and that is the role of the collective. I don’t see this as antithetical to the “American ethos”, but I’ll leave such considerations to those who understand that ethos better than I do.
The context of the discussion was concern about the identity of others. I explained my perspective as having to do with the identity of the group, which necessarily involves concern with the identity of individuals, but honestly, the thing that most concerns me is the preponderance of Zionism – related to content and focus rather than “counting Jews” or taking any interest whatsoever in “intermarriage” or “identity politics” or any such nonsense. Not that my opinion counts for much, but give me a Mooser over a Hoenlein any day.
Beware, Shmuel, the Mooser is bloody bright, so fiercely fighting for his right to be utterly ordinary – identity or otherwise. I can hear you shift uneasily at the mention of such – ordinary, you say? surely you mean ornery? it’s only a few consonants and one vowel away! But that much is worlds to some, if but a puff of letters to others.
I think TR is on to us all (Leander too – you can’t escape). Don’t you just hate it?
May be you should try to read Slezkine sometime – that is, if you can get through the first chapter without reaching for your last copy of Sartre’s Nausea (it’s there somewhere. I can almost see it. It is so not lost). The Bolshevik stuff alone is fascinating.
My invitation of a special tour of American boogey-men stands. It’s the best show in town. I am especially partial to Alaska. Many a Moose been grazin’ there from time ‘memorial. Much else to boogey ’bout too.
Danaa,
Your warnings are appreciated but unnecessary. I wouldn’t dream of fighting a moose (out of my weight class).
I have enjoyed my exchanges with TR, just as I enjoyed similar exchanges with him when he was called Call Me Ishmael, but I don’t think he is on to me at all. I think he presumes a lot about me, based on ideas he has formed about people I may resemble in some way.
I may add Slezkine to my reading list some day, but right now Nausea is either in the third row way in back or in the boydem somewhere, and I can’t be bothered to dig it out.
I was hoping to combine the boogeyman tour with a pilgrimage to Moose Hall, but I’m not sure I’m welcome there any more.
Hmmm? Individualism, interesting approach, TR. I am incidentially a huge fan of the American individualist literary tradition, but I wouldn’t as easily merge it with the frontier spirit or myth as you do. Just as I doubt it is the foundation of the American identity. But then, I wouldn’t consider it a unique US desire but a more universal one. In Mooser’s special case it no doubt makes sense.
This part I liked: and, believe it or not, his motorcycle.
What I like him for is his core conceit, of which he reminds us above: the ordinary man. Just as I absolutely agree that it was quite interesting to watch what ideas and exchanges it triggered over time.
“Shmuel, it seems to me likely from the above that you have apprehensions about the continuance of Jewish culture/identity that you are not acknowledging.”
I might timidly point out one thing: Although the omnipsychosemitic genius Shmuel does not know me, or where or how I grew up (in America, as a free man, not in a stolen settlement, thank you) there is one particular Jew he does know a whole lot better than he knows me. I, too, suspect he is more worried about that Jew’s “Jewish identity” than he is mine, and knows its deficiencies far better than he knows mine.
But Jewish or not, Shmuel was raised as an Israeli, so substituting passive-aggressive accusatory amateur religio-psychoanalysis for self-examination or introspection is his by national right, I guess.
My Jewish identity is perfectly clear to anybody who sees me without a hat. Even tho I get polled twice a year.
“reaching for your last copy of Sartre’s Nausea”
Please! Don’t take a chance on spoiling a rare first edition. Any comment by “Newclench” , “Wondering Jew”, or almost anything Phil writes about his family can accomplish the same thing.
And to get that nasty taste out of your mouth afterwards, I suggest a nice 2-cents-plain from an heirloom Soda-stream.
Shmuel, thank you for your reply. Excerpt follows:
Leaving the perverse distortion of political Zionism aside for now, I would greatly appreciate your expanding on the “role of the collective” in modern Jewish culture and ‘Jewish identity’. As one who was once religious, I have no problem with unobtrusive Judaism, just as with the unobtrusive forms of Christianity and Islam. I used to live ‘next door’ to the Amish in Lancaster County, PA, and found their collectivist culture intriguing, but I can’t say I ever understood their sense of personal identity. Obviously, kinship (literally) and endogamy played a huge role in anchoring their personal identities in binding communal relationships – to a degree way beyond what most Americans experience, or want to experience. Therein, custom is the law.
It seems to me that Jewish culture – whether still based on the Book and the Law, or not – shares some of the characteristics of Amish culture. Experience of it lies somewhere between Amish experience and the typical non-communal American experience. There are, of course, important differences, such as (1) Jewish culture is inherently political, Amish cultural is inherently apolitical; (2) Jewish culture (as revealed by an enormous amount of authoritative writings) posits an innate broad-based superiority of Jews over non-Jews, while the Amish merely think that they are better at avoiding the Devil; and (3) although Jews before the Emancipation tended to live secluded from the world at large, like the Amish of more recent times, Jews now largely prefer to live in the wide world and to maximize their influence over it. Jews and Amish have chosen two distinctly different ways to protect their collective identities.
Jews are the most political of all American ‘religious’ groupings. Jewish success in the national political arena in recent decades has served, in part, to inspire (or provoke) Protestant and Catholic groups in America to become more overtly involved in political activity, also. Nevertheless, it has been my observation over the years that members of Protestant and Catholic congregations/associations do not seem to derive their primary sense of personal identification from their religious affiliations, per se, nor from any political activism induced by religious affiliations, nor from the ‘culture’ derived from those religious associations. Modes of mobility, transience, and experimentation are commonly observed in such affiliations in modern America. For the typical cultural Protestant, and even cultural Catholics, personal identity is not generally anchored in the collective identity of religious groups.
If you accept the above as part of a general cultural background, help me to understand, in the context of modern Judaism, what you mean by phrases like “role of the collective,” “identity of the group,” “identity of individuals,” and, especially, “concern about the identity of others.”
What do you mean when you say that your perspective is about identity of the group, and the role of the collective? Is the collective of individuals calling themselves ‘Jews’ not well-enough identified? Are the principles/laws/customs/beliefs of the collective not well-enough identified? Are membership requirements for the group not well-enough defined? I understand that you are more concerned with “content and focus” of Jewish culture rather than “counting Jews.”
Why does the identity of the group “necessarily” involve concern for the identity of individuals? When you speak of “concern about the identity of individuals” and “concern about the identity of others,” is that the same thing? Who are the “others” – are they in-group or out?
Is a Jew defined and totally described by the fact of his/her Jewishness – by the ‘identity’ of the collective? In the modern world, obviously not. At what point does a Jew cross over a line to freedom of expression of personally-defined identity, and complete freedom of association as a citizen of a non-Jewish nation and of the world? Can a true Jew ever see human society, not as usvs.them, but as usplusthem, or as we-all?
Shmuel, I have ended this long-winded inquiry a bit provocatively, but I want you to understand that I respect your views and opinion as a thinking person. I am earnestly trying, with an open mind, to attain a better understanding of the role of Judaism, Jewish culture, and Jewish identity in the modern world. How do you see that role?
Gosh, what a nice way of saying ‘he regularly manged to skip out just one step ahead of the bill collectors, warrants, subpoenas, angry husbands and enraged wives ….
Mooser, you served as a convenient, lovable strawman to represent defiant, rugged American individualism in the face of demands for conformity said to exist in ‘Jewish culture.’ I’m sure there must be an appropriate medal or some sort of badge for such unselfish (and involuntary) service.
Thomson,
My understanding and vision of Jewish collective identity is not what you would call “tribalist” or “political” (although it may entail political action, informed by universal values and concerns), and certainly not inwardly or outwardly coercive. It is a cultural-religious identity that entails interaction with the group – both as a general property of culture, and as a specific characteristic of this culture.
When I speak of the “role of the collective” I mean in its own creative, spiritual and ethical development, in the lives of its individual members, and in its contribution to the totality of human culture. Far from inhibiting “personally-defined identity” or “complete freedom of association”, it cannot survive in any worthwhile sense without these things. And this is precisely where I see “the distortion of political Zionism”.
The rabbi I had as teacher in Jewish Culture Studies defined Judaism as “a portable culture.” He was big on the relationship between Hegel and Maimonides re dialetics. He was a strikingly handsome man, very hawk like in appearance and demeanor. (For some reason, when I think of him these days I think of Kaufmann’s Portable Nietzsche.)
“To some degree or another, all of the above and a lot more. Although not completely satisfying, M.M. Kaplan’s definition of Judaism as “the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people” is not a bad place to start. (No need to take the term “people” in a literal, national sense).”
Like I said, all purpose, covers all eventualities, all position, one size fits all, use indoors or out, uni-sex, wash-and-wear, drip-dry, FM-AM, AM-FM, factory air conditioned from our air conditioned factory.
“I have no problem with Mooser’s identity…”
That’s easy for you to say, Shmuel, you haven’t got it. I have, and I can tell you, you wouldn’t like it if you did.
From Shmuel: My understanding and vision of Jewish collective identity is not what you would call “tribalist” or “political” ….
Thanks, Shmuel, for the explanation. Sorry for my delay in seeing it; I forgot where this old thread was.
Schmuel, I sort of know what you mean regarding your approach to Jewish collective identity, I think. It’s a humanist approach by an individual who happens to have been born and raised in a (mostly?) local Jewish community? Or, rather, an individual born Jew’s humanist approach to his religion and family, extended family, co-religionists, and other friends, neighbors in fact or mentality/imagination, and in awareness of both Jewish and World history?
Perhaps, you could give a few examples of how you actually live your daily life illustrating your vision of Jewish collective identity, showing how you fit therein? (Rather than somewhere else)
It’s a humanist approach by an individual who happens to have been born and raised in a (mostly?) local Jewish community? Or, rather, an individual born Jew’s humanist approach to his religion and family, extended family, co-religionists, and other friends, neighbors in fact or mentality/imagination, and in awareness of both Jewish and World history?
That is a pretty fair summary, and the direction in which I believe Judaism was developing, before Zionism became ascendant (primarily as a result of the Holocaust). It is collective in the sense that it involves engagement with individuals, groups, institutions and “the culture” as a whole – including concern with its present state and future development. It also coexists, and often intersects with with many other collective identities that we all have (national, political, ideological, cultural, sexual, class, etc.). Amin Ma’alouf compares personal identity to a mosaic. I would add that the boundaries of each individual tile are not always that well defined.
Shmuel, I was born and raised in the Christian religion. I’ve never figured out why all Christians are not humanist. Many I know think they are, even though they never heard the term “humanist” or “humanism.” Part of the problem, I think, is that many Christians I’ve known grew up within a culture that thinks it’s impolite to discuss politics at the dinner table. I think that prohibition has really harmed the lower middl (to middle-middle?) class, and still does. I have such good-hearted people in my own family. “Let’s have a good time–we’re all together! Let’s not discuss religion or politics!”
I think, because Christianity is a universal religion big time, as opposed to small time (Judaism since biblical times), and Christian religious holidays celebrate ideas, parables, etc rather than ideas as extracted from (biased or bias) actual political history (“They tried to kill us, we won, let’s eat.”), it’s harder for Christians generally to see political implications that impact them. I’m struggling here to make my point. Bottom line is, because of the way Judaism is taught, Jews learn the importance of political engagement in childhood, generally, whereas, typical average Christians do not; many never do–another aspect is Christianity stresses the afterlife, not one’s time on earth and its nature, whereas, Judaism does the contrary; indeed to the extent one can be a full-fledge Jew as an atheist or persistent agnostic. The other obvious distinction is that Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with blood line. Your thoughts?
A thoughtful comment, Citizen – one that deserves a proper conversation, rather than the exchange of a few lines on a moribund thread. (If you’re ever in Rome …)
I’m not sure that the dividing line is religious. I’ve met a lot of Jews who are like the Christians you describe, and a lot of Christians (my experience has mostly been with Catholics, although a Valdese Protestant once told me that our home felt exactly like his parents’ home) who are like the Jews you describe.
Both Jewish and Christian holidays celebrate ideas (freedom, love, providence, salvation) as well as historical/mythological events, although some forget the ideas, while others forget the stories. Ever since we picked up the idea of an afterlife from the Zoroastrians, it has been central to Jewish thought and belief, and although most Jews have rejected it as a supernatural concept, the idea of personal and universal salvation have been largely “transvalued” to include utopian aspirations that cannot honestly be considered “of this world”.
Shmuel, I don’t think I will be getting to Rome in the time left to me on this earth. Lots of times I don’t even like to go out a few miles on errands. My parents were Catholic; I was an altar boy (purely because my father dared me to see if I could master Latin–it was that long ago). My mother said a rosary every day to her dying day. She wanted me to be a priest. I personally rejected Catholicism as I knew it when I was an altar boy, at least partially because of its artifice–in the 7th grade. (It seems all institutions need artifice). I never felt any urge to rejoin that faith when I better understood its dogma–or to join any other. None have ever worked for me on a literal or poetic level. Nor have I ever felt the urge to hedge the bet a la Voltaire or Pascal. I think we can agree as a practical matter that religion has been a mixed blessing for humanity on earth. But I digress. Yes, the Zoroastrians, they did create opera, didn’t they? I submit that the “transvaluation” of the supernatural to (ideological?) utopianism here on earth has had mixed results same as religion. “Transvaluation of all values.” Individual self-overcoming a la Nietzsche (or Budda?) versus collective “self” determination a la Bismarck, Hitler, Joshua, Netanyahu? (Not to mention a lot of those POTUSs too)
Phil Weiss wrote:
“People routinely ask, If American Jews are overwhelmingly left-liberal, why is the Israel lobby so rightwing?”
Maybe because American jews are only left-liberal when it comes to others?
America or the rest of the West being restrictionist when it comes to immigration? Or even trying to stop illegal immigration into same? Appalling! Fascist!
Israel saying only jews are welcome? Of course!
America or the rest of the West being fairly militarized, such as during the Cold War? Appalling! Fascist war mongering!
Israel being damn near Spartan in term of how it lives for its military? How noble!
America or the rest of the West being concerned with fiscal restraint? Mean-spiritedness!
Israel requesting more American money/bond guarantees so as to prevent it from going economically into the hole? Of *course.* Absolutely *necessary.*
America or the rest of the West concerned about racial/ethnic divisions/pathologies or etc.? Fascists! Racists!
Israel not even allowing an Israeli wife to bring her arab husband into Israel to live? Of course!
America or the rest of the West have any relations at all with, say, Iran? Outrageous! Appeasement! Consorting with the Devil!
Israel being bosom buddies with South Africa back in the day and working on nukes with it? How … unremarkable!
America or the rest of the West believes it has to crack down on crime and criminals because of the damage to the social fabric? Appalling! Racist! Mean-spirited! Traducers of human rights! Enemies of civil rights! Police-staters!
America actually *torturing* arabs though suspected as being involved in anti-israeli activities? Dandy! Or indefinite imprisonment without trial. Or eavesdropping on the entire U.S. population.
The Israeli Supreme Court saying it can’t really be held to its laws because such laws are not a suicide pact? How … brilliant!
“Hoenlein: Unity has always been vital throughout Jewish history.”
Up until about two-hundred years ago, Jewish unity was achieved through the internal solidarity created by adherence to Classical Judaism. The splintering of Jews into Orthodox, Conservative, Reformed and secular, greatly weakened this “unity.” Zionism is the modern attempt to reestablish Jewish unity through a Jewish version of blood and soil nationalism centered on the Jewish state of Israel. Jewish elites evidently prosper due to Jewish unity, aka kinship. Zionist Jewish elites strongly support Israel and Zionism as a means of maintaining strong internal cohesion. The whole business has a strong totalitarian emphasis, deviation is considered treasonous and not tolerated. Zionist actions and opinions are guided by the logic of the Zionist ideology and are rarely swayed by rational discourse.
Let me ad something here. Please keep in mind that Hoenlein is a member of the Zionist power elite. As such, his public pronouncements do not represent straight talk. What he says for the public needs to viewed as a stimulus designed to elicit a desired response. He is not trying to accurately describe anything. His goal is to reinforce Zionist ideology.
Absolutely. Here’s Silverstein’s piece on his recent activity in E Jerusalem, with congresscritturs and settler extremists:
link to richardsilverstein.com
Hoenlein announced plans to take over Mount of Olives for the Jewish people.
IOW;A stinkin liar.
i dunno..maybe some of them believe this stuff they spout. but for the most part i agree about “stimulus designed to elicit a desired response”. which reminds of a funny email that appeared in my inbox:
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
;) funny.
“Up until about two-hundred years ago, Jewish unity was achieved through the internal solidarity created by adherence to Classical Judaism.”
Yes, very true, but after Classical Judaism came Romantic Judaism, and finally Modern Judaism. Classical Judaism was, of course, preceded by Roccoco and Baroque Judaism. 12 tone or “serial” Judaism has not proven to have a hold on the Schul-going audience.
RE: “Zionist actions and opinions are guided by the logic of the Zionist ideology and are rarely swayed by rational discourse.”
You mean like this: link to youtube.com
(Debate is fast, sometimes muffled–pay attention to the on-going speech balloons that appear, which are accurate)
Hoenline is such a bloviating fool.
When was there “Jewish unity.”
It’s an imaginary construct like Energy Independence.
The great MJ Rosenberg is right as usual — this time about the silliness of “Jewish unity.” Although Yonatan Shapira, the great Israeli air force pilot-turned courageous dissident, warns that the Jewish tradition for vigorous debate dies down in some quarters when Israel is the subject. “It used to be, ’3 Jews, 4 opinions,’ Yonatan says. “But when Israel comes up, now it is ’100 Jews, 1 opinion.’”
“Next month Peter Beinart will publish a very important book seeking to revive the J Street-center-left discourse. And good for him. But I believe he is too late. There is only the right and the left in this discourse. And if it is a choice between religious nationalism and democratic values, how will young Jews respond?”
“There is only the right and the left in this discourse.” Is this a wish come true? When Yeats wrote , “Things fall apart: the center cannot hold.” he was bemoaning the fact and fearing for the future, but you apparently are celebrating.How much easier for the “left” if their opposition has abandoned the center of dealing with reality, and so the left has no need to deal with a real future and need only condemn the right, which has no realistic future vision either.
This is part of the reason why I might have been encouraged by Mondoweiss’s purpose of “war of ideas” and “dialogue” as stated in the mission statement of the site. In fact there are real questions to be asked, but if there is only right and left and no center, then there is no reason for dialogue and there is not really a war of ideas. (The debate is over. We have won. Our enemies are desperate. We need not deal with ideas. These people are nuts. This is the voice of non dialogue and not even a war of ideas. It is triumphalism, might I assure you premature triumphalism and in no way helps move us closer to a desirable future.)
That’s a fair point, but the actually existing “center” as opposed to some idealized reasonable center has been,when push came to shove, in Israel’s pocket. Take the Clinton Administration. Clinton really did pressure Israel to some extent and disliked Netanyahu when he was in power in the mid 90′s, but when the 2000 Camp David meeting failed to produce an agreement the Clinton Administration and many of the centrist liberals (like Tom Friedman) all united around a fairy story that said Barak made a remarkably generous offer and the failure of the talks was all Arafat’s fault.
Who is in the center these days? Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. It’s ironic, but true. They both emphasize international law, a 2SS, Israel’s (legal) right to exist, but they also see that Israel is the side largely to blame for the lack of a 2SS . In the world of American politics that puts them on the far far left.
As for Mondoweiss, for better or worse I don’t think we’re that important. The blog itself is probably making some impact in the sense that it gets quoted sometimes by Glenn Greenwald and people like that, but the fact that we commenters might or might not cheer for the collapse of a 2SS has little or nothing to do with the improbability of a 2SS. It’s Israel’s own actions and its American supporters (including many self-proclaimed supporters of the 2SS) who have made it seem like a rather remote prospect. American liberals have claimed for decades that they support a 2SS, and yet the settlements keep growing and nothing seems to shake America’s support. That’s why the 2ss is on life support.
Very, good response, Donald. I was puzzled how Wondering could so misread Phil’s statement. I had a similar impression concerning Newclench’s comment above, which in turn reminded me of RW’s standard that it was all the MW’s right/left posse’s fault that Israel moved more and more towards the right, while it actually was a natural enclave of liberalism.
It seems to be absolutely unimaginable that “right” may in fact stand for Israel and it’s supporters in this context. Right can stand for antisemites, the Nazis and the Palestinians, perhaps, but Israel? simply unimaginable, no responsive brainwaves available.
you apparently are celebrating.How much easier for the “left” if their opposition has abandoned the center of dealing with reality, and so the left has no need to deal with a real future and need only condemn the right, which has no realistic future vision either.
what are you talking about wj? if there’s a celebration going on point me in the right direction.
This is part of the reason why I might have been encouraged by Mondoweiss’s purpose of “war of ideas” and “dialogue” as stated in the mission statement of the site. In fact there are real questions to be asked, but if there is only right and left and no center, then there is no reason for dialogue and there is not really a war of ideas.
what questions will solve this: link to mondoweiss.net
WJ,
That’s all blah,blah.
Name an idea on Israel I/P that hasn’t already been ‘dialogued” on 21,840 times.
The only worthwhile dialogue left is dialogue telling people to quit wasting their time talking to Israel and start doing something about it.
definitely so!
Sorry,I’ve seen Bucky Beaver repeatedly on C-Span;nothing there.
Malcolm Hoenlein is absolutely correct, and perhaps inspired by Eastern Wisdom. Hundred voices good, one voice better.
If you google “hundred flowers” you will learn that in February 27, 1957, the supremely wise (but sometimes overly given to experiments) Mao Zedong launched campaign under the slogan “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.” Initially, as you may imagine, the population was baffled. Then for five weeks in May/June there were uncountable meetings, poster walls plus millions of letters were sent to various authorities. While the bustle and creativity had same appeal, all too often the “flowers” were pure poison, like the idea that Communist Party of China should not be guaranteed to rule, thus denying the China the right to exists as a Communist state. It took years to properly re-educate all intellectuals that took wrong directions.
And neither State of Israel nor American Jewish community has vast resources and facilities that People’s Republic could use to re-educate all the misguided folks. We do not have coal mines or collective farms where misguided bloggers could get their sound minds restored through honest labor. Three years of work in a calling center plying credit cards or some other financial products could have a desired effect, but it is not a practical proposal, especially in the Diasporah. So, let us grow one huge flower and sing in harmony.
Phil, what do you see happening when the American voice takes over the so called debate from the jewish left and the jewish right? You did note that it was now the jewish left and the jewish right who was having this discussion but there may be another voice in the room once they perk up their ears and pick up on what is being discussed and how it is affecting them directly.
How do you think that is going to work out for all involved?
Do you foresee the possibility for red state and blue state americans to feel that a foreign peoples have been operating in their midst pressuring both the press and the politicos with money and jobs?
Or is that too conspiratorial to be considered?
Consider that these things have a life of their own once they are sent into motion and pass the point where the dialogue can be monitored and controlled.
“Do you foresee the possibility for red state and blue state americans to feel that a foreign peoples have been operating in their midst pressuring both the press and the politicos with money and jobs?”
It would definitely help if these people would not pressure press and politicos with money etc. And if they do, avoid ultra extravagant demonstrations of their money power. You do not need to snoop into obscure web sites like mondoweiss.net to notice what Sheldon Adelson does. And if there will be war with Iran and it will go not better than Iraq and Afghanistan (but more disastrously for the economy), this time there will be no fig leaf of WMDs or 9/11: Israel with have the copyright. Attack Israel (c).
But worse come to worse, Israel supporters can do what they promised to do: find a safe heaven that does not rely on any other country. From there, Adelson can ran casinos in Macao.
I wonder if Adelson had ties to Lansky and Annenberg.Or is he a self made man?
“Hoenlein goes on to talk about his father’s escape from the Holocaust. ”
Of course he does. Is there any leader of a Jewish organization who does not blame his paranoia and psychopathy on the fact that the Holocaust occurred??
“Of course he does. Is there any leader of a Jewish organization who does not blame his paranoia and psychopathy on the fact that the Holocaust occurred??”
Ooooh! Woddy’s a baaaad boy! Bad, Woody! Very bad! Leave Jews alooooone! Shut yo’ mouf!
I’m Reading some interesting books these days, Woody. “A Voyage Long and Strange” by Tony Horwitz, which takes a look at the American Continent between Columbus (1492) and the Mayflower (1620) and “Slavery by Another Name” by Douglas Blackmon. “The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II” is the rest of the title. An important book from 2008.
“Unity has always been vital throughout Jewish history.. When we stand together, we can overcome every challenge. Sadly, when we are divided, history records we have paid a heavy price.”
Wake me up when the Conference President is not someone living in the past, but a humanist concerned with justice for all. I nominate Jesse Lieberfeld.
Until then, the Conference is a useless and bigoted organization that harms Jewish individuals.
“Hoenlein says irresponsible ‘J Street’ threatens Jewish unity (and survival
Yeah, right! However, according to Ron Kampeas it seems Hoenlein and AIPAC are giving off nothing more than crocodile tears. In fact it sounds like Hoenlein, AIPAC and J-Street are all in cahoots. Ha! what a surprise.
You don’t say! :)
J-Street: aka keep Israel for Jews so I can buy my walled-off gated community holiday home errr I mean keep my identity.
Most of my conversations with my jewish buddies about “the jewish people,” their suffering and the myriad existential threats facing them have generally taken place (especially in high school) in very comfortable homes while puffing on some very expensive herbal remedies – we would talk about these kinds of things, then jump into someone’s parents Volvo and head off to a concert or a house party.
I would always say, “what the F are you guys talking about, you, me all of us live in a nice town, in nice houses, we got a good herb guy and we’re about to go see George Clinton at Smith College, and are gonna party our brains out afterwards — Aren’t we kind of losing site of how generally great our lives are??”
Jesus! I’m the last poor, uneducated, irreligious, morally compromised, somewhat criminal, uncultured and slovenly Jew left in the world! Doesn’t somebody want me for a museum or something? Maybe a bad example to scare little Jewish kids straight, or something?
Look, I didn’t inflict myself on a Jewish girl, doesn’t that count for something?
As the great Moses Maimonides said: “When I hear the words “Jewish identity” I immediately reach for my revolver”
Thank God a friend was there to grab it away from him, or another great Jewish thinker would have been prematurely lost.
Wait a minute, let me Google this. The story may be apocryphal.
“Jewish lone wolf”
You know Shmuel, I meet Jews pretty much like me every day. The difference is, I’m the only one among them stupid enough to post on Mondoweiss or read it.
A shortcoming I will do my damndest to correct.
“When I hear the word ‘kulture’ I reach for my Mauser.”
“When I hear the word ‘kulture’ I reach for my Mauser.”
See what I mean? Why use a dangerous weapon to accomplish what any healthy adult cat can do?