Exploring the Right
While the rest of Jewschool was checking out the JStreet launches around the country this past week, dlevy noticed that I’d gone on a different route. For the second year in a row, I attended the AIPAC Benefit Dinner at the Marriott Grand Marquis in NYC. My friend’s family are patrons; for the last two years, they have invited me to attend, partially because of my interest in Israel education, and partially because of my ability to overeat at the shmorg like nobody’s business. Regardless of my feel for AIPAC’s politics, I am grateful to my friend’s family for the opportunity to attend and learn with them.
I approach AIPAC with a healthy dose of skepticism, because, in addition to how I hold a pen, and how I waterski, I tend to be quite the lefty. I ran into another friend at the benefit, and her buddy, a member of the young AIPAC group, explained to me what it is AIPAC does in simple terms. Financial support, he said. Lobbying. I explained that I have done research in Israel education, and that I lived in Israel for a year, and he responded with more depth. I asked him if AIPAC supported a one-state or two-state solution, and he replied that it’s more complicated than that. I ruminated over a lot of sushi.
They ushered us into the dinner (some thousand Jews all shuffling from one floor of a hotel to another, I wondered aloud if anybody else felt the horrific irony of the situation) and served us more food, even though, at least in my case, the shmorg had been more than enough.
They talked about their upcoming Policy Conference, saying, “Policy Conference is our Bonnaroo,” to which half of the room laughed, and the other half asked, “What’s a Bonnaroo?” Many of my friends over the years have enjoyed attending Policy Conference because they got to meet politicians, but it was never my cup of tea. I am not attending this year.
The speakers were interesting. Chuck Schumer pointed out that his last name means “protector” and he was going to protect Israel. Another politician also spoke (I missed her name while I was attempting to attack the 1/4 chicken I had no business trying to eat), and misquoted Isaiah 42:6, saying that “Israel is a light until the nations” (emphasis mine, proper translations include “for” “in” “on” and “unto”). I think she was nervous, but still.
After these speeches, the keynote came from Daniel Gordis. He tugged at the heartstrings, talking about what it’s like for an Israeli parent when they know their child is going to be out partying all night in Israel. I liked when he said that “Israel is the one country with people from the same religion living as a nation, in the same location, and observing their religion the way they were doing 3,000 years ago.” That’s not entirely true, since we don’t have the Temple any more. Actually, what ran through my head was: “Now, with less ritual sacrifice, at least in the traditional sense!” I should work in advertising, no?
Gordis closed his speech by saying, “You want to go to an AIPAC event and hear ‘everything is ok’.” There was a quiet rumble of agreements throughout the crowd. He continued, “It will happen. One day.” “Everything is ok” is awfully subjective, and if you to reach into my brain, “OK” would mean something very different from the “OK” in, say, the brains of my family and friends that choose to live in the West Bank. Whatever your “OK” is, I hope something gets better. Because Israel is a crazy place. And so is Palestine.
“Israel is the one country with people from the same religion living as a nation, in the same location, and observing their religion the way they were doing 3,000 years ago.”
Is Gordis joking? Nothing about this statement is true. How can a jts educated rabbi be so intellectually dishonest? Or should I not even bother to ask.
This conference sounds like an utter nightmare to me, but thank you for the description. I wondered about this part, though:
I liked when he said that “Israel is the one country with people from the same religion living as a nation, in the same location, and observing their religion the way they were doing 3,000 years ago.” That’s not entirely true, since we don’t have the Temple any more.
What’s to like about this statement? It’s not true in almost any sense you could imagine – and that’s even if you accept the idea that there’s clear continuity between the ancient Israelite nation and the modern day nation-state of Israel. Can you explain what you liked about it?
not just a jts educated rabbi, but the former dean of the ziegler school of rab studies and a generally respected rabbinic voice. ugh. that kind of statement makes one wonder, is he truly that blinded by his own mythic narrative, is he actually that dumb, or is he intentionally trying to misinform people.
some thousand Jews all shuffling from one floor of a hotel to another, I wondered aloud if anybody else felt the horrific irony of the situation
What’s the irony?
…. so maybe he knows more than you. Maybe you should ask him to unpack it for you, and you’d learn something instead of just assuming you know how he means that statement, assuming he is dishonest and/or gullible. Which you know he’s not.
That’s the next step out of lazy arrogance that JewSchoolers never… quite… make.
PS I say this having read a bit of and conversed a bit with Gordis. (Just a bit.) He’s a very deep thoughtful guy. It would have been a fruitful conversation, and – given time constraints – he probably would have appreciated it.
I actually would like to hear more about this part of the event:
“I asked him if AIPAC supported a one-state or two-state solution, and he replied that it’s more complicated than that.”
On one hand, i want to respond politically and suggest that most main stream Israeli political parties (I heard Moshe Halbertal say last week, “Is there really a significant difference between Labor, Kadima and Likud?”) support a two state solution as do both the Democrats and the Republicans in the States.
On the other hand, I would like to hear more about what is more complicated. The model of supporting whatever decision someone makes unconditionally seems like the opposite of love, it seems reckless. On the other hand, when I have heard from my AIPAC supporting friends that we can have nuanced discussions only when we are not dodging bullets, I am sometimes at a loss for words.
What I have noticed is that there are many Jews out there concerned with the physical safety of the Jewish people. I on the other hand do not think about that every day. I think I spend more time thinking about the emotional and spiritual safety of this small but gregarious people. I will also add this. When I see the wall everyday from a variety of vantage points around Jerusalem, I am filled with a particular emotional response. While it was once “this makes me feel safe” it has moved into “wow, we are doing a great job of alienating a large population of people who live next door and are not going anywhere.” I have heard some of the responses that a number of Palestinians have. And while these are just a couple of individuals, none of them feel any safer because of the wall.
So I want to know, what is so complicated about following the majority of Israeli political parties into pushing for a two state solution?
since I know and assume and trust that Rabbi Gordis is a “thoughtful guy” I am at a loss as to what he possibly could have meant by such a statement. So, I am left to presume he either is unaware that his statement is a fallacy, or he is aware and makes it despite that.
OK, do you want us to deconstruct that statement?
Israel is the one country with people from the same religion – False. Is it not as if Christianity, Islam, and Druzeism exist on the land?
living as a nation, in the same location – False. Greece and Armenia are others, for one.
and observing their religion – SO false! No need to explain if you’ve spent even ONE day in Israel. Even `Ir haQodesh has hilonim.
the way they were doing 3,000 years ago. – False, and a view more typical of an insular haredi reading midrash literally than a JTS scholar. Unless JTS also taught him that King David knew what a beit midrash was and spent half his days in one.
Taken apart, it fails to stand in its individual components. Taken together, it’s a mere blanket statement pandering to messianic “me’arba` kanfot ha’aretz” sentiments.
Not satisfied? Well, we can debate it here all we like, but until Rabbi Gordis offers his take, we have no resort but to speculate.
The model of supporting whatever decision someone makes unconditionally seems like the opposite of love, it seems reckless
Except none of this is love to begin with! If all of these American “pro-Israel” lobbyists really loved Israel, they would move there to try to make Israel a better place. In the process, they unfortunately would be putting their necks on the line regarding many real, dangerous issues . . . the way that jladi apparently is.
(Excuse the obnoxiousness of my continually writing the same thing, but it’s beyond me how we assume that all of these “pro-Israel” American Jewish lobbyist really have Israel’s best interest at heart, when they don’t. They have their own lives in America’s best interest at heart–who can blame them?–but let’s at least be honest about things.)
Jonathan1,
The obnoxiousness is getting old. It’s not logically sound or categorically feasible. For starters, most people don’t base decisions that would effect every corner of their life on one issue. I should give up Shabbats with my parents, my parents with their grandkids, in order to show how really, truly, pro-Israel I am by moving there? I should give up social and economic networks I’ve built up over years, in order to maybe find a job that would support my family (who may or may not want to move to Israel either)? Maybe I (gasp), like living where I do.
If you want to hold the view that the only way to support Israel is by permanently taking up residence there, fine, but the vast majority of people of all political persuasions disagree with you. There’s no need to belabor the point. Would you call the majority of Israelis who move to the US, Canada, or other countries anti-Israel? And since it’s incredibly difficult for non-Jews to move there, are all non-Jewish, pro-Israel people just faking it?
I don’t think you have to do anything to prove whether or not you are “pro-Israel.” I really don’t think anybody has to support Israel at all. I really don’t think anybody should live in Israel if they don’t want to. I’ve never once called anybody in this forum “anti-Israel,” because I don’t think anybody here is “anti-Israel.”
What I’m trying to say, after reading SBB describe a bunch of people having a lavish party in NYC –in some kind of event to discuss the future of another society, located halfway accross an ocean–is that maybe we can all display a bit of humility on this issue. And, maybe we can all acknowledge that it’s a bit of hubris to have huge disagreements about whether “pro-Israel” means following some “party line” or whether it means advocating for a certain policy position regarding Israel, when in reality the events in Israel affect most “pro-Israel” Americans only in the most supperficial of ways. And yes, it’s an especially self-confident (shall we say) position to view things through a “pro-Israel” lense when any American Jew could get up and move to Israel without much legal difficulty.
Ok. So, I’ve beaten this horse to death. I’d be happy to read any response you might have, ML, but it would be nice if you’d actually respond to what I’ve written.
The issue for me, Jonathan1, is not that the events in Israel affect most “pro-Israel” Americans only in the most superficial ways, but that the events at these dinners in fact effect the experience in Israel in quantitatively observed ways.
But i am not sure why you commented in the first place. When I wrote that their behavior seemed like the opposite of love, I was articulating the idea that what we call “pro-israel” may in fact not be supportive in the least.
I am not sure why that calls for American Jews to mind their business. I think that American Jews should actually become more engaged rather than accepting the sushi and shtuyot that is fed to them at the AIPAC dinner.
I don’t know – based on SBB’s description of Gordis’ remarks, I don’t see much evidence that he’s deep and thoughtful, at least on this issue. With statements like this?
Israel is the one country with people from the same religion living as a nation, in the same location, and observing their religion the way they were doing 3,000 years ago.
You want to go to an AIPAC event and hear ‘everything is ok’.
It will happen. One day.
Jonathan1, what happened to your vow of silence?
I try so hard, but I have no self-control.
Gideon Levy weighs in on the matter, btw
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1148527.html
May I just point out that many people in Japan, India, and Africa practice the same religion their ancestors did 3,000 years ago? Gordis’s statement seems very strange to me for that reason.
Jonathan, here’s another hole in your argument. One does not need to be a Jew, live in Israel, or have a proverbial “dog in the fight” to have valid opinions on the matter. The fact is, people just might know what’s best for the Jews and Arabs without living there. It’s possible. It’s the basis for why Israelis are often consulted on security matters in countries where they’ve never lived or even traveled. It’s the basis for expert testimony in court cases. A well read student, or heck, professor, on the history of democracy (some people even approach this conflict from a pro-democracy angle and don’t care about which people’s nationalism is more important) might just have answers that you wouldn’t even dream of, and it wouldn’t matter where they reside.
One does not need to be a Jew, live in Israel, or have a proverbial “dog in the fight” to have valid opinions on the matter. I don’t dispute this point at all.
But having a valid (correct) opinion on a matter, regarding a country halfway around the world . . . . does not give any of us the right to pretend that our stake in Israel/Palestine–from, say, Philadelphia–is the same as the stake as those who actually live there, regardelss of how much sleep we lose over the matter .. . or how “pro-Israel” we see ourselves.
Let’s put it another way. There is a lot of critism in this comment stream about Daniel Gordis. Fine. Gordis might be completely wrong about everything he says and writes. He might be a terrible person for those reasons. Fine.
But, ML, do you see yourself as equally “pro-Israel” as Gordis, who moved with his young family to Jerusalem, where they lived through years of suicide bombings? Where he pays the exuberant taxes and deals with the beuracracy? Where his son now serves in a very dangerous army unit? You’ve written that you want to be close to your family in North America. That’s truly beatiufl. But, does Gordis not miss his family just as much as you would?
So, I’m trying to say that Gordis is without question more “pro-Israel” then ML or me (I’m writing these words from America as well.) And, we should have some some humility about the whole issue if we view ourselves as appoarching the matter from the vantage point of being “concerned about what’s best for Israel.”
I just want to point out this whole discussion has an odd premise, that the relevant metric here is centered around israel. It could be around human rights, or democracy or, chas vshalom , Palestine. From those perspectives this who conversation about living in israel as a metric for the value of one’s positions seems rather silly.
It could be around human rights, or democracy or, chas vshalom , Palestine. From those perspectives this who conversation about living in israel as a metric for the value of one’s positions seems rather silly
Agreed.
But SBB posted a piece about his/her time at a meeting of a self-proclaimed Israel advocacy organization, which led to this disagreement.
Had he/she attended a human rights organization meeting, it would be another story.
Yes, agreed.