Embrace the Treyf
Again, not my title. It’s the name of Jewish Women Watching’s new Sukkot project. Generally I’m an amused JWW fan, but I have mixed feelings about this campaign that I’m having some trouble articulating. I completely agree with the underlying idea, which is that the mainstream Jewish community needs to push itself to consider a broader range of issues and approaches to justice work, even– and especially–when those things challenge the status quo. But calling those issues and approaches “treyf,” even to make the point that the mainstream community often won’t touch them, seems somehow counterproductive. It might actually reinforce the misguided notion that working to rid our communities of entrenched sexism and homophobia is a radical fringe idea or that some communities aren’t already working against gentrification and for affordable housing for all.
So what do you think? (And it would be lovely if we could limit the nastygrams on the subject of Palestinian human rights, please.)
September 24, 2007/ 12 Tishrei 5768 – Jewish Women Watching, the anonymous collective of feminist rabble rousers, will be appearing in sukkot around the country in the upcoming week. In addition to a surprise personal appearance at the JCC sukkah (details below), thousands of Jews received Sukkot decorations from the renegade group.
Unlike the uninspired plastic fruit and paper chains that normally adorn the sukkah, JWW’s decorations consist of postcards urging the Jewish community to take their social activism one step further. Each postcard juxtaposes a social justice issue that is considered “kosher” in the organized Jewish community with one that is considered “treyf”. For example, while fighting anti-Semitism is encouraged, fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia does not get the same stamp of approval.
In two other postcards, JWW critiques the focus on band-aid solutions versus more sustainable projects. The underlying question of these cards is: “If we really want no one to go hungry, then shouldn’t we be doing more than mitzvah day?” The most inflammatory card points out the Jewish community’s extraordinary focus on human rights abuses against Darfurians while ignoring human rights abuses against Palestinians. In all of these cases, the group demands that the Jewish Community “embrace the treyf,” that is, devote resources and attention to issues that are considered treyf as well as those already stamped kosher.
Full press release, including more postcards and an opportunity to see JWW appear in person in NYC.
Update: Check out Mik Moore’s post on the JWW campaign over at JSpot.
Sorry, terrible slogan. And I’m in favor of most of that (would like to see the details on “redistributing our wealth” before signing on, however). Those cards won’t be in my sukkah.
It’s especially uncomfortable since the word “treyf” means carcass.
The idea is nice, but the terminology is not awesome.
One more group of Jews who don’t understand economics, politics, history or the Jewish (or any other) religion. It’s amazing G-d doesn’t just smite us all – Moses must really have been persuasive.
some Jews just seem to have a built-in self-destruct switch. Fine. Embrace treyf. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
It’s a failure to understand “framing”. They’re accepting the right wing definition, rather than challenging it.
I suspect JWW all accept the conventional wisdom that the New York Times is a “liberal” paper, and that HRC’s election will be a giant step for American liberalism. Think Norah Ephron criticizing Clinton’s socks.
A better slogan would be, “m’taher the sheretz.” There must be 50 ways…
>“JWW’s decorations consist of postcards urging the Jewish community to take their social activism one step further.”
Hmmmmmm…. That is to say: “JWW’s decorations consist of postcards urging the Jewish community to take LEFTIST activism one step further.”
It appears that the JWW live an alternate universe where the RAC, AJWS and JCPA don’t exist. Enough already with the blanket dismissal of everything the mainstream American Jewish community does. Selective criticism (e.g. ADL and the Armenian genocide) is far more effective – and necessary.
wow, can anyone say horrible framing?
I’m all for fighting racism, homophobia and classism and confronting human rights issues…but no way in hell am i ever gonna put my support behind any initiative whose slogan is “embrace the treif”. Embrace the Radical? Embrace the Future? Embrace Justice? COME ON! Don’t tell me “embrace the treif” is the best they could do.
I will embrace this treyf. This is clever and funny. I’ve posted the Darfur/Palestine one in my office now. JWW’s point is clear and uses common Jewish slang — “Oh, Mike’s politics/attitude/family/literary tastes are kosher. Not like Tony. That guy’s treyf.” I see no problem with the use of slang.
And Warren, I don’t need to have JWW hash out finer points of economic policy before signing on to support equality. Me thinks you’ve missed the forest for the trees. The overall point is to expose (and prompt rethinking) of social values which the Jewish community applies only selectively.
And while AJWS, the RAC, JCUA (which is what I assume mhpine meant by JCPA), Hazon, et al, exist, their total budgets are tiny — TINY — compared to the legacy institutions. We’re talking Hadassah, AJCongress and AJCommittee, ADL, the JNF, not to mention the federation in every major city. In Jewschool-proximity circles we may pay attention to the work of so-called “innovative” Jewish orgs, putting them at the top of our awareness, but most American Jews are actually not familiar with this cadre of recent comers to the American Jewish scene.
That being said, I also agree that the framing of the “mainstream” begs definition. Which mainstream? Mainstream grassroots Jewish American opinion or mainstream Jewish American institutional opinion? There is a big, big gap.
There’s something a little…nebulous about conflating human rights “abuses” against Darfuris (i.e. being murdered and raped) with human rights “abuses” against Palestinians. First off–who’s even committing the “abuses” they’re protesting about? Are we talking about Lebanon? Jordan? Israel? Iraq? Hezbollah? Hamas? Fatah? PFLP?
Israeli human rights “abuses” usually have to do with something like not allowing enough Palestinians into Israel to work or simply closing its borders with Palestinian areas. First off, it’s humorous that leaving Palestinians alone to develop their own economy is called “abusive”. Second, when Israel does let in thousands of Palestinians to work it’s accused of “exploiting” Palestinian “cheap labor”. There is literally no way to win.
Now a real example of human rights abuse might be the Lebanese Army’s recent months-long shelling and practical demolition of the Nahr al-Bard Palestinian camp in northern Lebanon. Does JWW want us to go protest at Lebanese embassies worldwide?
If you want to talk about the PLO’s and Hamas’s practices of murdering Palestinian dissidents and political competitors, that would be a good thing for Israel and other foreign governments to pay attention to. But the truth is that nobody cares.
And even the worst of that is not remotely comparable to the suffering of the Darfuris, who are murdered en masse on account of their race on a daily basis. The attempt to compare the two cases is nothing short of inane.
More broadly it’s not like the Palestinians are underrepresented on the world sympathy/money stage. They get the largest foreign cash payout per capita of any population on earth. How much more “help” do they really need?
KFJ,
The RAC is not some fringe group. In fact, it is the most representative political actor of American Jewry today. It has an extensive social justice agenda that fights “racism, sexism, classism and homophobia.”
For that matter, so does the much derided AJC/ADL/AJCongress alphabet soup – especially at the local levels. You want to talk about how Foxman or Harris have moved their organizations away from the universalistic goals, that’s a worthwhile conversation to have.
I confront racism, misogyny, homophobia, and any other sort of bigotry whenever I encounter it.
However, since I get the most criticism when I speak out against antisemitism, Holocaust denial, or the atrocities in Darfur– it seems that’s where my energies are most needed. Once I was accused of racism simply for noting that there was a genocide in Darfur.
Speaking of Darfur– the human rights abuses there (systemic and planned rape and murder of a population for their race, i.e. genocide) far outweigh anything the Palestinians have ever suffered during the entire Arab-Israeli conflict. Are the lives of black Africans worth so much less than others?
RR –
I also had some mixed feelings when I first saw the campaign, despite my appreciation for JWW. My attempt to sort it out is over at jspot (http://jspot.org/?p=1611). The title gives the thrust of the post away: “Embracing the Treyf, or Kashering It.”
Yeah, the darfur/palestinian thing is a bad joke. And they really need to work on their slogans.
Annie: “Taraf” means “torn”. Which is apt, despite right-wing/Orthodox (not necessarily the same!) framing, is an apt term for these issues – they’re selectively TORN apart from the big picture issue, or conversely, they ARE the big issue torn apart from the smaller (in the case of Anti-Semitism vis-a-vis racism and bigotry).
You know, some people out in the circles I belong to claim that Darfur is being “used as a distraction issue” from Palestinian human rights issues. While I find this characterization highly offensive, the way Establishment Jewry ™ treats it, I don’t think I can disagree much. In my mind, embracing these oppression issues, in addition to others (Iraq, Iran, China, Burundi, and other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa that you never hear about) should be as solidly kosher as the Chief Rabbi’s plates.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess that people likely to have the most visceral negative reaction to the word ‘treyf’ aren’t the demographic they’re aiming this at.
I agree with Mik’s post over at Jspot.
Anyone got a catchy slogan that focuses more on questioning what is all too often considered trayf when indeed it is kosher?
I’m struck by the contrast between this poster and the JFSJ-cosponsored immigration poster (see the JSpot.org post and the poster itself.
The JWW poster (and by the way, in Los Angeles, JWW=Jewish World Watch – very kosher) sets up a series of either-or distinctions and invites the reader to take sides. Kosher=safe & conventional & slightly bad, in the way that convention always is bad. Treyf=dangerous & innvovative & morally superior, in the way that the prophet always judges those to whom s/he prophesies.
The JFSJ/HIAS/etc. poster (which credits a number of organizations already involved in lots of the things on the “treyf” side of the JWW poster) embraces the Sukkot tradition of welcoming and asks, simply, “Are our doors open?” The poster – which clearly has a position – doesn’t force the reader to take sides but rather invites everyone into the conversation. More importantly, it doesn’t mock people who are doing their best to do the right thing, even if it is “merely” kosher.
It really highlights the different approach to social change and intra-Jewish advocacy that JWW and JFSJ represent. If I wanted to preach to the choir and look hip doing it, I guess I’d go with the JWW poster. But if I really wanted to make people think, and maybe make a little change, I’m pretty sure I’d go with the JFSJ flyer.
in addition to the idiocy of calling substantive justice “treyf” also think it is cowardly of JWW to promote their fairly juvenile campaigns anonymously. they seem more interested in making a splash than making a difference.
I see the forest, but I’m not taking a hike on this trail that goes into it without a map.
“Embrace the treyf” seems to come from the same school of thought as bread on the seder plate. We need an orange instead.
Shawn,
there are fundamental differences between the organizations that made the immigration poster and JWW, and I think those differences were clearly represented in the messaging in the poster- Both of these messages are needed.
JWW is not focused on Jewish service, advocacy or organizing for the most part- as anyone who’s been familiar with their past campaigns knows, their goal is to push the envelope make people engaged with the status quo slightly uncomfortable. The question is – have they successfully done that here?
BCS & BZ- The Guerilla Girls-esque tactics of JWW are key to their work, which is not aimed at bringing people together, per se, or working within any kind of system. My guess is that they would agree you also need all the groups that are actually trying to create this change, but you also need groups that don’t have strings attached- JWW can say things that other grant-unded groups can’t who need to maintain their ties in order to move forward productively- it’s like having kucinich and ravel in the debates even though they’re clearly not going to win (sort of- i think that was a poor analogy but i’ll leave it up).
Aliza-
I wasn’t disagreeing with JWW’s tactics (when they’re good, they’re really good); I was disagreeing in this case with the content of the message. Objectives that represent core Jewish values aren’t “treyf” and shouldn’t be labeled as such.
Aliza, I understand the difference between the two organizations. But I do think the goal of both posters was to invite (JFSJ/HIAS/etc) or challenge (JWW) people to question their assumptions and take a new look at the status quo — metaphorically to step outside the home into the other-space of the sukkah. Your question, though, is the right one.
The press release states, “In all of these cases, the group demands that the Jewish Community “embrace the treyf,” that is, devote resources and attention to issues that are considered treyf as well as those already stamped kosher.” But “kosher” and “treyf” just aren’t both/and categories; they are either-or categories. Something can’t be a little bit treyf.
So the effect — at least for me — was at best to dismiss, and at worst to mock, some extremely important work by valuable progressive (and, to be sure, not-so-progressive) organizations as oh-so-mainstream. People still are writing letters to Jewish media outlets criticizing Darfur efforts because, after all, why should we help others when Jews need help more. So the solution is to criticize Darfur advocacy from the left? It doesn’t make sense.
(And on the flip side, as BZ points out, there are plenty of terrific Jewish organizations already fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia; confronting human rights abuses against the Palestinians; fighting for fair housing and socioeconomic equity.)
I’m far more interested in making points that will compete with viewpoints like this one, which is an entirely pointless attack on Daniel Sokatch of the Progressive Jewish Alliance (to respond to this piece, please send your letters-to-the-editor to [email protected]). We need to be competing for the hearts and minds of the folks reading that article; the JWW poster, which more or less preaches to its own choir, will do nothing more than to alienate those readers further from the critical self-reflection they need.
(And on the flip side, as BZ points out, there are plenty of terrific Jewish organizations already fighting racism, sexism, and homophobia; confronting human rights abuses against the Palestinians; fighting for fair housing and socioeconomic equity.)
Ok, this is the second time in this thread that I have been attributed with things I didn’t say. I don’t disagree with any of that, but I didn’t say it.
Ok, this is the second time in this thread that I have been attributed with things I didn’t say. I don’t disagree with any of that, but I didn’t say it.
BZ- we get mixed up ’cause we’re hair twins, right?
I wasn’t clear – I did have BZ in mind, specifically this line:
So please let me rephrase: On the flip side, as BZ pointed out, there are plenty of terrific Jewish organizations already fighting — for Jewish reasons and on the basis of core Jewish values — racism, sexism, and homophobia; confronting human rights abuses against the Palestinians; fighting for fair housing and socioeconomic equity.
Better? 🙂
My point was, like BZ’s, to object to the labeling as “treyf” things that are “core Jewish values.” More importantly, I think that calling them “treyf” undermines the work that many Jewish organizations are doing to frame those issues as core to Jewish concerns. Of course, much work remains to be done — by PJA, JFSJ, both JWWs, etc. — to convince the “mainstream” that they are core Jewish values. Calling them “treyf” reframes them as marginal, which they aren’t, and they shouldn’t be seen as such.
This exchange actually is helping me understand my own inchoate thinking a bit better. Specifically, previous JWW campaigns — such as Strange Bedfellows / Practice Safe Politics — have been successful precisely when they have called attention to the gap between certain Jewish values and specific activities by Jewish organizations (whether one calls that gap “hypocrisy,” “thoughtlessness,” or “strategeric misunderestimation” depends on how charitable one wants to be). I think that this poster, because it ends up expressing those core values on both sides of the “kosher”-“treyf” divide, ends up losing much of its rhetorical force.