JustASC

Every year the New Jersey Jewish News prints excerpts from local rabbis’ High Holy Days sermons. This year, I put the text of the sermons through the Word Frequency Counter at WriteWords, which is a really fun tool. That gave me a list of some of the most-repeated words in the sermons, which I asked NJJN artist Michele Perez to turn into a montage. The cool results, a snapshot of Jewish concerns and anxieties, are above.

Aaargh! The Canadian Jewish News blew the opportunity to clear up one of the main contested points surrounding the anti-Tel Aviv protest at the Toronto International Film Festival. One of the key justifications by the actors and writers who objected to including a film series on Israel was that they didn’t want to see the film festival “hijacked” in service of Israeli government propaganda. They pointed to Brand Israel, a government-backed effort to focus on aspects of Israeli society beyond the conflict, and claimed the festival served its propaganda purposes, “knowingly or not,” as protest signer Jane Fonda put it.

The programmer at the festival denied that he worked with Brand Israel, saying the “City to City series was conceived and curated entirely independently. There was no pressure from any outside source.”

But here’s Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai, paraphrased during an interview in the Canadian Jewish News:

He said that while the City to City program was initiated by the festival, the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs was involved as part of its Brand Israel media and advertising campaign, which was launched last year.

“Was involved.” What the hell does that mean? How involved? Involved how? Nailing this down was essential, because it is so central to the complaints about the City-to-City series. There should have been a follow-up question demanding specifics: Was there funding involved? Meetings between Brand Israel representatives and anyone associated with the festival? Did a third party act as a go-between? Or perhaps Huldai is taking credit for something he didn’t do, as politicians are wont to do?

John Greyson, who got the protest ball rolling by pulling his film out of the festival, cites the CJN in defense of his action:

TIFF said that Brand Israel wasn’t involved, but in this week’s Canadian Jewish News, Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai confirmed Brand Israel’s participation….

For TIFF in 2009 to bestow the honour of their inaugural City-to-City Spotlight on Tel Aviv, out of all possible ‘city’ candidates, and to seemingly collaborate with an Israeli PR re-branding campaign, so soon after Gaza — this touched a raw nerve.

The protest letter, like Greyson’s defense, is full of maddening one-sidedness, historical distortions, icky double standards, and the demand that the entire artistic community view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through their one-dimensional lens. But because I agree that it would be unfortunate for any international arts festival to be in cahoots with any government’s offical p.r. campaign, I’d like to see the question of Brand Israel’s involvement cleared up.

UPDATE: Ben Harris at JTA also has a longish piece on the Toronto brouhaha, but it also misses an opportunity to detail the direct ways, if any, that Brand Israel did or didn’t impact the programming at TIFF. From the article:

In an interview last year with the Canadian Jews [sic] News, [Amir] Gissin, [consul general of Israel for Toronto], boasted that his new marketing idea, known as Brand Israel, would help reshape public perceptions of the Jewish state and culminate in a major presence at the 2009 festival.

The presence turned out to be the focus on Tel Aviv as part of the festival’s new City to City program, which included an appearance by the city’s mayor and VIP receptions in addition to the screening of 10 Israeli films.

“Turned out to be.” Again, a meaningless sentence. Who talked to whom? What was Brand Israel’s specific role? Was it a face-to-face or concrete role? Can Gissin detail a specific series of events that led TIFF decision-makers to include Tel Aviv? Without that knowledge, I tend to focus on words like “boasted,” and wonder if Gissin is perhaps claiming credit to justify the expense of Brand Israel.

“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,” Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote.

How different? Here’ s a quote, by music exec Lyor Cohen in Sunday’s Times Magazine. I love it because there is not a single idea or phrase in it that I will ever have the occasion to use: 

FAVORITE RECENT GIFT: “Edgar Bronfman, the C.E.O. of Warner Music Group, gave me a humidor in the shape of my town house.”

Stephen M. Walt reacts to the news that Osama bin Laden has recommended his and John Mearsheimer’s book “exposing” the Israel Lobby. Walt explains how he and bin Laden differ:

My co-author and I have a very different idea of how to deal with this situation than bin Laden does. He recruits people to engage in despicable acts of violence against innocents, in the grandiose (and vain) hope of toppling all of the states in the region (not just Israel). He’s perfectly happy to kill Muslims, Christians, Jews, atheists, and just about anyone else if it will advance that goal. By contrast, Professor Mearsheimer and I reject his aims and abhor his chosen means. We believe the United States should defend Israel’s existence, and we said so repeatedly in our book. (My guess is that bin Laden missed those parts). We also think the United States should oppose Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and control of Gaza and treat Israel the same way it treats other democracies. Why? Because ending the occupation and having a normal relationship with Israel would be better for us, better for Israel, and better for our other friends in the region. In short, we want the United States to pursue a smarter and more ethical policy in the Middle East. Needless to say, that’s a far cry from bin Laden’s murderous agenda.

My feeling is, at the point where you feel the need to pedantically explain how your approach to anything differs from Osama’s, you’ve already lost the argument. 

It’s the political science version of, “My wife and I have a very different idea of how to raise children than Phillip Garrido does.”  The fact that you are compelled to explain those differences suggests something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.

Jeff Diamant at the Star-Ledger appears to have a scoop (at least
I haven’t seen it reported anywhere else) about a letter sent from the Yeshiva University, the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America to their fellow Orthodox rabbis, urging them to sermonize on business ethics in light of the NJ rabbis case.

In the Sept. 3 letter sent to about 2,000 rabbis nationwide, the leaders of Yeshiva University, the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America cited “the recent scenes of religious Jews being led off in handcuffs, charged with corruption, money laundering, and even organ trafficking.”

During the High Holidays, which begin tomorrow night with Rosh Hashanah and end Sept. 27 on Yom Kippur, Jews are supposed to take stock of their lives, and rabbis’ sermons these days can touch on everything from personal religious observance to social issues, and from personal morality to international relations.

The letter, which several Orthodox rabbis in New Jersey say they will heed, urges Jewish clergy to publicly affirm, at least once during the High Holidays, that the Torah forbids all stealing; that secular laws bind religious Jews; that Jews should lead efforts to promote honesty in society; and that when making decisions, Jews must sacrifice financially rather than bring shame to God or Jewish law.

“This is not a time for splitting hairs over possible dissenting views,” the letter, signed by six leading Orthodox rabbis, reads. “… (W)e must make the ethical demands of the Torah and the day clear in the most public of ways. We strongly urge you to join with us and loudly declare, to our own communities and to the world, that we, representing Torah, will not tolerate any but the highest standards of ethics.”

From JTA:

Jerusalem woman leaves 1,400 descendants

A 99-year-old woman who died last week left behind at least 1,400 descendents, an Israeli newspaper reported.

Rachel Krishevsky, who died last Saturday, had 11 children, who in turn had 150 children of their own, Ynet reported on Thursday. Krishevsky’s children, grandchildren, great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren number about 1,400, the newspaper said.

Krishevsky lived most of her life next to Jerusalem’s Mahane Yehuda market. A grandchild told the newspaper that she “knew all her descendents.”

What’s weirder — that a political pollster asked New Jersey voters if they think Obama is the anti-Christ, or that 21 percent either say yes or are not sure?

Here’s the question put to 500 likely New Jersey voters from September 11th to 14th, by Public Policy Polling in Raleigh, NC:

Do you think Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ?

Yes ……………………………………………………….. 8%

No …………………………………………………………. 79%

Not Sure…………………………………………………. 13%

PPP also broke it down by party: 29% of Republicans said “yes” or “not sure” compared to 13% of Democrats.

To be fair, they should have asked the same question about a conservative figure, like Glenn Beck or Joe Wilson. That would have controlled for the people who say they’re “not sure” only to hedge their theological bets. And while they were at it, they could have asked whether people believe Obama was the messiah. That would have smoked out the crazies on the left.

According to PPP:

There is a fair amount of political extremism among New Jersey voters, as there is everywhere right now. 21% of voters in the state don’t think Barack Obama is a natural born US citizen and 19% believe George W. Bush had advance knowledge of 9/11. 8% of voters go so far as to say they think Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ.

Is nothing sacred? From Arutz Sheva:

(IsraelNN.com) Want a really sweet year – beware of substitutes! The Agriculture Ministry is warning Israeli citizens to beware of fake honey being sold on the market. According to the Ministry, synthetic honey is being sold under the name of “Dvash Malchut” (Royal Honey) in the center of the country.

Agriculture Ministry monitors recently seized 2,000 bottles of the fake substance which contained over 200kg of the “honey”.

Norman Podhoretz’s new book, Why Are Jews Liberals?, is the subject of smart and sharp review by Leon Wieseltier in the New York Times Book Review.

If you want to read Podhoretz’s thesis unfiltered and don’t expect to read the book, he’s written a piece for the Wall Street Journal with the same title.  

There’s a lot to chew over in Podhoretz’s oped, but I was struck by this:

Most American Jews sincerely believe that their liberalism, together with their commitment to the Democratic Party as its main political vehicle, stems from the teachings of Judaism and reflects the heritage of “Jewish values.” But if this theory were valid, the Orthodox would be the most liberal sector of the Jewish community. After all, it is they who are most familiar with the Jewish religious tradition and who shape their lives around its commandments.

Yet the Orthodox enclaves are the only Jewish neighborhoods where Republican candidates get any votes to speak of. Even more telling is that on every single cultural issue, the Orthodox oppose the politically correct liberal positions taken by most other American Jews precisely because these positions conflict with Jewish law.

A couple of points here. Don’t be so sure that the Orthodox adopt the political decisions that are most in synch with Jewish law.  Yes, the O.U. is opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds (and, while also invoking halacha,  has called for a moratorium on capital punishment, by the way). They’re discomfort with abortion is halachically motivated (although hardly leads them into  a full embrace of the pro-life movement).

But on a big issue like church-state, the Orthodox support for school vouchers and the like seems more motivated by financial imperatives than ethical and religious ones.  Similarly, support for faith-based initiatives is driven by financial self-interest as much as it is by philosophical agreement with the evangelical movement.

The ultra-Orthodox enclaves tend to vote as a bloc, not for the candidate with the best family values, but the candidate who can deliver the most to the community in terms of security, schools, lower taxes, and social welfare. It’s only at the presidential level that the Orthdoox vote has become so markedly Republican.

Where they do diverge with the non-Orthodox majority (in general) is on Israel, and that is surely a religious divide. If you believe the land is God-given, you are bound to be more hawkish in retaining control of said land and supporting the politicans who take a hard line on Arabs. But the Orthodox hardliner is a fairly recent political phenomenon, dating to Rav Kook and his philosohical heirs, whose religious Zionism replaced the more common halachic response to Zionism, which had been theolgoical indifference or active opposition. 

The strongly Israel-centric Podhoretz might have been less enamored of the Orthodox rabbis who 80 years ago resisted political Zionism. At that time, it was the secular Zionists — even socialist Zionists, perish the thought — who did the most to make Israel a political reality. And they were certainly not adherents of halacha.

Podhoretz also asserts that the Orthodox are the most “familiar” with Jewish law and thus implies that their politics are the most valid political expressions of Jewish law, and thus Judaism. But it seems a little convenient, as the former editor of a political magazine about Jewish concerns, to accept the Orthodox worldview on politics as the most authentic Jewish politics while essentially rejecting  Orthodox social and cultural values. Anyone who finds this assertion of Podhoretz convincing – that only the Orthodox can lay claim to Jewish political values — has two choices. He can reject the entire notion of non-Orthodox Jewish political activity — even his own, if he’s not Orthodox. Or he should be prepared to adopt a full Orthodox lifestyle. And presumably, the more Orthodox the better.

But I won’t hold my breath until I see the staff or loyal readers of Commentary shun Western literature, art or pop culture; adopt sharply circumscibed gender roles; devalue university education in exchange for a life of Talmud Torah; move to increasingly insular neighborhoods; submit to the central authority of a rebbe or beit din; adopt the rules of family purity; shun military service (if they live in Israel); or wear distinctive clothing that sets them apart from other people.

After all, if you feel the Orthodox are the “most Jewish” in their political choices, why stop there? 

Of course, one might argue that Judaism has expressed itself in myriad ways certainly since the Enlightenment and well before, and “authenticity” is not measured by a strict adherence, or singluar interpretation, of  halacha. Rather, it can be expressed in a sense of peoplehood, responsiblity to Judaism’s continuation and transmission, commitment to modes of prayer, language, and study, responsibility to rescuing or providing for fellow Jews. Does Podhroetz believe the Reform and Conservative seminaries are huge historical mistakes, distorting Judaism beyond all recognition (he might, actually, but where are his payess, exactly?). Does he believe it’s been all downhill for us since the Emancipation, and Judaism would be healthier were its non-Orthodox adherents to disappear and the Orthodox emerge as the sole practitioners — or had we never left the ghetto?

Wieseltier writes that “Podhoretz’s book is punctuated with a voyeuristic admiration for the Orthodox.” Is it admiration for the Orthodox, or a certain amount of self-disdain and regret for his non-Orthodox life and intellectual pursuits?

Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal explains in the Times yesterday why the Arab world should offer no concessions, assurances or recognition to Israel unless it ends its “illegal occupation” “of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon.”

Well. so much for a peace process.

I suppose al-Faisal is entitled to his opinion, and the Saudis’ to their rejectionism, but why would the Times print a patent falsehood in the guise of opinion ?

Writes al-Faisal:

Until Israel heeds President Obama’s call for the removal of all settlements, the world must be under no illusion that Saudi Arabia will offer what the Israelis most desire — regional recognition.

At no point has Obama or any in his administration called for the “removal of all settlements.” At most, the administration has called for a complete halt to settlement expansion — big difference.

Al-Faisal’s assertion is mischievous on two counts: It implies he has U.S.-backing for his non-negotiable stance, and tries to drive a further wedge between the administation and the pro-Israel community.