JustASC

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky of Congregation B’nai Yeshurun in Teaneck writes in the Jewish Press:

[Obama's] terming Islam, as a religion, part of the “solution” for global peace would have been more meaningful had it followed the simple truth that Islam is the only religion sparking violence across the globe today.

Hmmm…

Israeli settlers attack Palestinians in West Bank

Hindus attack Christians on Indian island

Buddhists attack a church in Cambodia

Sikhs attack temple in Austria

Belfast Protestants Attack Cops, Soldiers for Second Night

Protestant soccer mob beats Catholic man to death

Seven charged with sectarian murder in Northern Ireland

Israeli settlers’ attack on Palestinian family captured on video

The Forward is publishing my oped piece this week talking about the importance of sustaining Jewish weekly newspapers in challenging times (it was generous of the Forward to publish the article since ostensibly they compete for our readership).

[The] Jewish press is one of the last settings to represent Jewish community in all its diversity. Within our pages, Orthodox must confront Reform, hawks must deal with doves, upstarts can learn from veterans. It’s a conversation that is happening almost nowhere else.

Is helping to sustain this kind of conversation the business of a Jewish philanthropic fund? Look at it this way: Some in journalism are looking to the nonprofit business model to save the profession. Champions of nonprofit newsrooms like ProPublica and local news sites like MinnPost.com say it is a compelling philanthropic interest to sustain the instruments of democracy and community identity. Federations can boast that they got there first.

Commenting on the shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Museum and the murder of a security guard there, Jonathan Sarna writes:

“It’s open season on Jews,” one of my friends remarked upon hearing the news of the shooting at the Holocaust Museum.
The response, I first thought, sounded like typical Jewish paranoia. The alleged shooter was an 88-year-old white supremacist fanatic operating alone, and his only victim, in the end, was a non-Jewish security guard. Why magnify an isolated incident into an incipient pogrom?
But, on second thought, isn’t this the third “isolated incident” directed against Jews in just over a month?
On May 6, Johanna Justin-Jinich, a student at Wesleyan University, was murdered by an alleged stalker who, according to reports, wrote in his diary that “I think it’s okay to kill Jews, and go on a killing spree at this school.” His plan, apparently, was to kill a much larger number of Jewish students, to create in his words (recalling the 1999 high school massacre in Colorado), a “Jewish Columbine.”
On May 20, four men were arrested in New York after planting what turned out to be fake explosives near two Riverdale synagogues. According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric Synder, the men were “eager to bring death to Jews.”

Concludes Sarna:

Nevertheless, three “isolated incidents” [the quotes are Sarna's, suggesting he doesn't think they are quite so isolated as they seem] in just over a month should give us pause. While it may not be “open season” on Jews in America, it is surely long past the season when concern over anti-Semitism can be dismissed as typical Jewish paranoia.

The question, it seems to me, is not whether Jews should be concerned over anti-Semitism, but how they should address and express this concern. The statement “it’s open season on Jews” imagines a widespread threat, arguing for a communal lockdown: Armed guards at every synagogue, no yarmulkes on the street, perhaps removing signage on Jewish institutions. Are we ready for such measures? Does the daily experience of America’s five million Jews justify such measures?

Or perhaps it argues for a law enforcement strategy — a summit of anti-hate groups like the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center and law enforcement officials working together to determine where current measures to monitor hate, prevent attacks, and punish perpetrators are lacking.

The three incidents make an odd troika. One by a spurned stalker, a second by a quartet of ex-cons goaded and abetted by an FBI informer, the third by an elderly white supremacist with a history of anti-Jewish and anti-black activity. As much as they are linked in their anti-Semitism, they are almost completely dissimilar in their motives and plans of attack.

That being the case, what do we do with our “concern”? Fear without some sort of strategy is a Jewish telegram: “Start worrying — details to follow.”

Haaretz  columnist Aluf Benn analyzes this White House photo of Obama, which we put on our cover this week:

A photo released by the White House, which shows Obama talking on the phone with Netanyahu on Monday, speaks volumes: The president is seen with his legs up on the table, his face stern and his fist clenched, as though he were dictating to Netanyahu: “Listen up and write ‘Palestinian state’ a hundred times. That’s right, Palestine, with a P.” As an enthusiast of Muslim culture, Obama surely knows there is no greater insult in the Middle East than pointing the soles of one’s shoes at another person. Indeed, photos of other presidential phone calls depict Obama leaning on his desk, with his feet on the floor.

Putting aside the shoe thing for a moment, that’s a lot to read into a photo. Note that his fist is not clenched. It’s actually a common gesture he makes when talking. The foto at left is from his Cairo speech.

As for the shoes: Really? This is what presidents do when they want to send a message? They release subliminal signals through Flickr fotos using obscure cultural body language (that, by the way, is offensive to Muslims, not Jews)?

Of course, you could make the exact opposite case — that the White House released the photo to demonstrate to Israel that rather than feeling confrontational with the Israeli P.M., Obama felt relaxed enough to literally kick back and shmooze. 

Or you could make no case at all, and focus on the policy issues, which contain enough fodder for debate without all the kinesics.  

(By the way, a CBS News story making the rounds at the Daily Beast and HuffPost says “Israeli TV newscasters Tuesday night” interpreted the photo as an “insult” to Israel — but doesn’t quote or name a single one of these newscasters. Were the ”newscasters” expressing their personal opinions, quoting Israeli officials, or reporting on the feelings of the street? Were they perhaps just quoting from Benn’s story? No way to know from the CBS dispatch.)

The Orthonomics blog debates Johanna Ginsberg’s recent article saying local day school enrollments are holding steady but scholarship requests are soaring. Orthonomics ask, what if all these family enroll, but eventually realize they can’t meet the monthly tuition bill and the schools run out of scholarship money? If budgets and contracts are set on the basis of enrollment, isn’t it a disaster waiting to happen?

It seems that in many private schools, monthly payments are the exception, rather than the rule). In Jewish schools, the scholarship process follows/runs parallel to the application process. In the past, perhaps, this has worked just fine, but for the upcoming school year of 2009-2010, it is looks like this process could turn disasterous. Remember, that while the scholarship committees are trying to figure out how to distribute the limited discounts/scholarship dollars, the school is in the midst of their hiring and contract process. 

Incidentally, the Times has a piece today on this issue as it affects a private college, and how the school decided during the admissions process to say no to otherwise qualified kids who couldn’t pay.

Check out the interesting comments that follow the Orthonomics post.

A few of my old reliables have emailed this piece by Jake Tapper, crowing that at last Obama has been “exposed” as the Muslim he really is. Writes Tapper:

With insane rumors suggesting he was some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his campaign did everything they could to emphasize his Christianity and de-emphasize the fact that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was born Muslim…. 

Since the election, however, with the threat of the rumors at least somewhat abated, the White House has been increasingly forthcoming about the president’s roots. Especially when reaching out to the Muslim world.

Well, obviously. But Obama’s critics pretend to wonder why, during the campaign, Obama’s camp bristled at the other side’s emphasis on his middle name. These same critics deny the practice was a nasty bit of religion-bating.

(Unless you’re Frank Gaffney, when religion-bating is front-and-center of your problems with Obama. Here he is, in an execrable wink-and-nod post:

In the final analysis, it may be beside the point whether President Obama actually is a Muslim. In The Speech and elsewhere, he has aligned himself with adherents to what authoritative Islam calls Shariah – notably, the dangerous global movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood – to a degree that makes Bill Clinton’s fabled affinity for blacks pale by comparison.

It may also be beside the point if Gaffney actually beats his wife, but let’s not go there.)

Obama’s critics played a nasty double game during the campaign: Making sure to emphasize Obama’s middle name and exaggerating his Muslim background while pretending to be “shocked, shocked” that anyone would think they were trying smear him as a Muslim. “What’s wrong with suggesting he’s a Muslim?” they’d disingenuously ask in emails, just before or after sending an email denigrating Muslims and accusing Obama of being pro-Palestinian.

Jews should know better. How many of their grandparents changed their last names when they immigrated and sought jobs in the Goldene Medineh? “Passing” was  a Jewish obsession in the first half of the 20th century, when a Jewish last name or background was enough to block them from certain professions and universities. It was only after we established ourselves in industry, academia  and the professions that all those closet Kanes and Jeffreys could live proudly as Cohens and Jacobs.

Not all tried to pass, but enough did that we should realize the historical amnesia behind our bating of Obama on this issue.

And if the historical argument doesn’t hold sway, just imagine if anti-Semites got into the game by emphasizing the Jewish roots and names of our public oficials. Oh wait: they already do that. Here’s a charming post from whitecivilrights.com:

Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve system in 1913, EVERY SINGLE CHAIRMAN of the Fed, without exception, has been Jewish.*  That tradition has continued in the appointment by President Dubya of Ben Shalom Bernanke (Yes, that’s his real middle name) as successor to Alan Greenspan. 

As a community we go nuts whenever someone (factually) tallies the Jews in the neo-conservative movement or emphasizes the background of the Bush advisors who were (actually) Jewish. We have created an entire anti-anti-Semitic infrastructure based on elimnating prejudice.  

So hate Obama for what he said in his Cairo speech. Blast his economic policies or the pressure he is applying to Israel on the settlements. But either lay off the Muslim crap, or admit that you learned nothing from the 20th-century history of anti-Semitism.

* Total nonsense, by the way. I counted 5 out of 14.

NJ’s Sen. Frank Lautenberg was in Israel recently, his first trip since 2004. The Jerusalem Post has an interview.

Shmuel Rosner posted about Pew’s new survey on marriage and religion, and later my response putting into perspective a stat he found surprising: that 70% of Jews are married to Jews.

Now I just pray that I’m right.

Ron Kampeas at JTA has some inside info on the Obama administration and the settlements. I wish he could name names, and I hope it appears in an article in addition to the JTA “Capital J” blog. It deserves wider distribution:

First – and I have this on the best authority – because the Americans simply do not trust Israel on settlements any longer. The feeling in the Obama administration is that Israel has turned “natural growth” into a “loophole you could drive an elephant through,” someone involved in the talks told me. Not only that, the mistrust is institutional – it has accumulated over the years and throughout the Bush administration. Without adding anything further, I can say my informant in this case would be in a position to know this at the highest levels.

More importantly, the settlements and their expansion are at the crux of Palestinian mistrust of Israel. The settlements have squeezed Palestinians off of their farm land, out of their livelihoods and have made getting around the West Bank a chore at best, a nightmare at worst. Nothing would signal goodwill more emphatically than an earthmover or two left to rust.

Writing at Jewschool, Rabbi Brent Chaim Spodek, Rabbi-in-Residence/Director of Jewish Communal Relations at the American Jewish World Service, responds to my column on his boss Ruth Messinger’s’ talk at JTS:

The NJJN argues that “tribal identity” is a prerequisite for the pursuit of global justice. This couldn’t be further from the truth – the pursuit of justice is more accurately seen as a prerequisite for Jewish identity. Judaism is a system of practices – some ritual, some interpersonal – and to claim the “tribe” of Judaism, without claiming its practices, is to claim a hollow shell.

The Rambam says (in Issurei Biah 19.17): “Anyone who is brazen or cruel, and hates other people, and does not treat them kindly, is highly suspected of being a Gibeonite, for the characteristics of the holy nation of Israel is that they are humble and kindly.”

In other words, behavior defines identity – not the other way around. There are some, like Korach, who believe that the whole nation of Israel are holy, and it is a legitimate religious stance to be concnered only with the needs of this holy slice of God’s creation. To quote Yeshayahu Lelbowitz, that is nothing more than racist chauvinism.

First of all, I never argued that Jews should be concerned “only with the needs of this [Jewish] slice of God’s creation.” I was careful to point out that

Engagement with the wider world and a commitment to social justice is a Jewish (and human) moral imperative, as well as good PR for the Jewish people and a way to engage those for whom particularist Jewish causes seem either narrow or irrelevant. And Messinger is right to be worried that in an era of economic triage, Jewish leaders will retreat from being a “light unto the nations.”

I got the phrase “tribal identity” from Ms. Messinger’s herself, who said:

This is a time when we need to determine what we stand for, who we really are. We must be able to help people of all ages answer the question: “Why be Jewish?” To resonate, the answer must be more than tribal identity.

“More than tribal identity” suggests that some measure of tribal identity is okay. 

I accept “tribal” in all its senses. Yes, it is a matter of behavior and religion, but I wouldn’t press that point too strongly because if you demand certain behaviors or beliefs as a measure of Jewish belonging, you end up writing a lot of people out of the enterprise. (Many in the Orthodox community would be happy to excise members of the tribe who don’t follow certain behaviors. Check out the conversion process in Israel, for example.)  A certain amount of “blood” identity has its advantages. It forces Jew A to accept Jew B as a Jew beyond each’s ideological and denominational definitions.

But the Jewish definition of “tribe” is not only about having a Jewish mother (let’s set aside the Reform movement’s views on patrilineal descent for a moment). And it’s not only about a commitment to social justice.

It’s about:

•  learning a particularist language, sometimes but not always literally;
• sharing a historical and textual narrative and finding one’s place in that story;
• sharing and learning from a particular historical experience/s;
• sharing certain folk behaviors, from foodstuffs and literature to music and humor;
• often but not always sharing a theological worldview and a language of prayer and spiritual connection;
• often but not always sharing a calendrical rhythm for ritual and shared observance;
• often but not always sharing geography–neighborhoods, villages, and for some a country;
• feeling a sense of mutual responsibility to other members of the tribe — not necessarily an exclusive responsibility (Rabbi Spodek suggests I argue for that, but I don’t see where), but perhaps the sort of responsibility a mother feels to her own child ahead of other children, or a sibling feels to a sibling ahead of the rest of humanity.

I get the feeling that Rabbi Spodek accepts this definition of tribe, because he lists a number of up and coming organizations that each promote and draw their energy from one or more of the criteria I list. Hadar, Drisha and Pardes foster “textual fluency;” Elat Chayyim, B’nai Jeshurun, and the Institute for Jewish Spirituality are “facilitating meaningful davening and meditative experiences;”  the Six Points Fellowship, JDUB and Storahtelling “are finding renewed power in the arts.”

But having acknowledged the multiple ways in which organizations are expressing a Jewish identity (he doesn’t like the word “tribe.” People? Community? Club?), Rabbi Spodek, quoting Ms. Messinger, reduces all of “Jewish behavior” to this: a calling for us to “work for greater equity, for social justice, and for global citizenship.”

If that is the only Jewish behavior or belief  that counts, then what is the worth of all the other organizations he names, those ”thousands of Jews [who] are reengaging and reinvigorating Jewish practice in a variety of exciting and dynamic ways”? Aren’t they hoplelessly tribal, when they could be working for the common humanity?  Why study Talmud when you could be reading Michael Harrington, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Jonahtan Kozol?

I wrote that ”tribal identity” is “a prerequisite for the pursuit of global justice” not because I put tribe ahead of humanity, but because, like all those Jews exploring and promoting textual fluency, meaningful davening, and the renewed power of the arts, I think the Jewish impulse to serve humanity is inspired in large part by our particularist language, behaviors, and affinity.

We learn to serve humankind because our tribal practices and beliefs — the counterculture that we create in apposition to the wider culture — model and reinforce that message. It is those who dedicate themselves to promoting and teaching this language, and creating a shared sense of Jewish identity, who put the “Jewish” in American Jewish World Service. Otherwise, it’s just Oxfam with a different donor base.

I hoped to avoid cliche, but Hillel had it right: “If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? And if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” 

And I always remember what I learned from Rabbi Yitz Greenberg. He was once challenged by some Jewish philanthropists who felt Jewish money is better spent on building hospitals than it is on building Jewish schools. “How can you justify building a yeshiva when lives are at stake?” they demanded. Yitz said he told them: “Because what I am teaching the children will help them grow up to build hospitals.”