Toning It Down
I’m getting really sick of having to defend my Judaism every day to other Jews who wish to dismiss me, my ideas, my site, etc., for presenting divergent opinions on the state of Israel than those offered by most of modern Jewry. It’s unnerving to me that every day should be an uphill battle to verify that, no, I’m not an antisemite, and yes, it’s okay to be critical of Israel—it’s been a Jewish tradition since before the state even gained its independence. Truth be told, I’m actually not too fond of the fact that the majority of posts on Jewschool have been particularly harsh and critical towards Israel as of late—especially since I’m probably moving there in two months and it’s a bit inconsistent with my actual feelings towards the nation. I myself am not an anti-Zionist, though I am exceptionally critical of Zionist philosophy, as well as Israeli governmental policy.
The things is, the subject of Israel has become more pertinent than ever in recent weeks—for both political and personal reasons—and I think the topic not only deserves attention and discussion, but needs it. I can understand why some people would be upset by a number of these articles—they deal with a very emotionally charged subject matter and from a perspective that doesn’t favor Israel or Zionism, which is unhelpful when people feel threatened by a rising trend in antisemitism. It’s understood, but still unacceptable to me.
For younger people like myself, the fact remains that we have yet to wholly resign ourselves to the ideologies and political agendas of our forbears, and would thus like to thoroughly discuss and explore the subjects of antisemitism, Israel, Zionism, and Palestinian disposession, for ourselves, among other things, rather than to swallow whole the platform fed to us by Jewish agencies like Hillel, for example, who (much like our parents, peers & community leaders) in their Israel advocacy materials, deny Palestinian history and the negative consequences of Zionism.
Could we be considered fair, or even just, if the only items we read or conversations we hold on the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict come from a place of uninhibited support for Israel and Zionism? Is that even responsible, or honest? How could we consider ourselves responsible adults if the only resources for news or polemic we accept on the subject are LGF, IsraPundit, Arutz Sheva and the Jerusalem Post? Would that not leave us with a very narrow and one-sided perspective of things? And thus, doesn’t Jewschool fill a void, by providing a venue for alternative voices—even if some of them are ones that (even I feel) should be disageed with?
See, contrary to the suggestions of some of our less-tolerant visitors, our interest in facilitating discussion of these subject matters can not be confused with antisemitism, overt anti-Zionism, nor self-loathing (which is the most frequent accusation), as it stems only from a place of commitment to Israel, Judaism, and the Jewish people. I consider myself a Jewish patriot. But being a true patriot has nothing to do with default capitulation to our leaders nor mindless flagwaving. It means questioning, standing, speaking and acting—struggling for the fulfillment of an ideal. If I am to be accursed in this community for fighting to see our ideals manifest, then so be it. Because I would rather leap straight to the controversial issues, discuss them, and make my own assessments—judge for myself—than cave to pressure from people like some of our Right-leaning commentors, who aim to make me feel bad about myself for being rational and critical.
We welcome your engagement on the subject matters presented on Jewschool. We want you to rip these articles to shreds and, to the best of your abilities, debunk an author’s position. But please, for the love of G-d, stop tossing about accusations about me and the other contributors to this site being self-hating, antisemitic, or flatly anti-Israel. Attacking us and denying the validity of the points we raise will not eschew the problems we present, nor will it help the arguments you’re seeking to make. Please, keep a civil tongue in your head and respect the fact that presenting different opinions about Israel than mainstream/establishment Jewry’s doesn’t not make one a terror supporter, nor does it make that individual interested in the destruction of Israel. It simply makes us honest about the diverging opinions available on the subject (like ’em or not) and gives us an opportunity to explore and engage them.
In the meantime, I’m taking a hiatus for the week (I have a grant interview in Rhode Island on Wednesday), and am asking our other contributors (cough—John Brown—cough) to lay off on Israel, at least til I get back. Ease up folks… Ariel Sharon and his policies are not Israel and its people, and frankly, looking back on this last week’s posts, they deserve a break.
Thanks, and have a good one.
your site rocks…just chill…keep up the good work, ignore the morons, as with any internet site (or the internet altogether) there is always the good and always the bad.
peace
Why is it that anyone who presents a reasonable counter-argument about Israel is “rewarded” with being tarred and feathered as a “self-hating Jew” or other anti-Semitic drivel? It’s this kind of crap that drives people AWAY from Judaism. Who wants to be a participant in a community if all you hear/see/feel is raving Jewish McCarthyism?
I think you are doing a great job. I have been in similar circumstances. I am a co-chair of a Hillel at a small college and I have been accused of being “anti-Israel” for bringing in speakers with different viewpoints. It’s a tough spot to be in, and people are blindly passionate. Keep doing what your doing. It’s a great website that presents things in clear light. If people have a problem with it, they have the rest of the internet.
B’shalom,
Remember waht drives these accusors. As a people we have been driven out of so many lands. We have been massacred like rats. The state of Israel is that place which exists with the least amount of anti-semitism.
Don’t get too comfortable here in the US, we can write our own Neimoller here:
First they came for the Muslims…
Sorry for the incomplete phrase…
Who will they come for next?
You’d make an excellent Jewish mother, what with the guilt and all 😉
Mo, this site is awesome, and is one of the few I check daily. I think I’m one of the few that actually read the “Editor’s note” before being critical of any articles posted.
The site isn’t here to spread self-hatred, it’s here to present alternate viewpoints on our religion, and the politics surrounding it. In fact, and while trying not to appear too corny and with a brown nose, the connection could be drawn to Tom Cruise’s character in “A Few Good Men.” Questioning the actions of one’s political leader is what a true patriot does. Your alligiance isn’t to a Person, but to a State. And while it may not always appear that you are for Israel (I can think of a certain cartoon drawn, in my honour :-), deep down you would have to be to involve yourself in these sorts of arguments.
Good luck with your grant interview, and I look forward to seeing the nachas you post when the grant interview is successful.
Your first sentence really got to me, because it’s exactly how I feel about my stance on Israel (and my secularism): I’m sick of defending my Judaism to people who think they’re better Jews than I am. I’m was with you all the way–if anything, I would have been much less accomodating and understanding of my critics than you are in this post–until the end, when you ask John Brown to tone it down. It’s your blog and you can do what you want, but I don’t think that the proper response to such criticism is toning down.
In other news, today at Sarah Lawrence College’s Admitted Students Day, an unknown campus group stenciled swastikas all over a banner likening America to Nazi Germany for going to war in Iraq.
I can’t deal with it anymore.
I don’t get it. Is it fair or just or honest to only read conversations that say that 2 + 2 = 4? What about other points of view, that say that 2 + 2 = 5 or 6? Am I being biased here?
I am a Jew. I support Israel. Contrary to Arab propaganda, I do not support it because of a “tribal” or ethnic connection to it. I support it because I think that its actions are moral, just, and good. If Israel became like its neighboring dictatorships, I would stop supporting it. (Not its right to exist, but its policies.)
As for a patriot’s right to question authority, yes, absolutely! Just remember, if your words start sounding too much like the words of those who wish to kill you, there might be something wrong.
I like this site when it brings up fresh jewish topics. To me, quotes from Neturei Karta and Chinese Govenment’s news service are a waste of time in discussions unless we are discussing fringe groups as such or censorship. Basically, I think your so called open discussion is not critical enough of the North American left that has chastised great Zionist pacifists like Michael Lerner. We are at a critical point where the racists that claim to be liberal are getting a voice and crafting an unbalanced history of Israel. Slowly masses who fear terrorism at home in Europe and North America are buying the notion that Bin Laden is right.
right on
is this all about avi green’s ranting and raving
Is it is a mark of the times (fear and divisiveness) that alternative views get rejected for sitting outside of the consensus of ý’you are either with us or against us’… Questioning not the foundation or existential right of Judaism, but the methods employed in its name, is that such a sin. Did Abraham question the existence of the Mighty or just the means (Sodom & Gomorrah)?
Just as we should demand a tolerant and self-explorative soul-searching from our Muslim brothers and sisters when it comes to using a religious dogma to justify hatred and killing (and kid yourself not – it is internal evolution that will bring about change – the crusaders did not disappear by force, they grew up); we should watch our own leaders with alarmed concern when the trials of the past are used to justify the cruelties of the presence.
The Buddhists say: â€Hatred shall not cease by hatred, but by love aloneâ€. Is it possible we can learn something also from the Middle Way?
Consciousness is evolving in its many dimensions. There is only one G-d. The rest is our opinions, and they shape our reality. “Don’t do unto others what you wish not for yourself; all the rest zeel oo-gmor (go out and practice)â€. That is the Torah on one foot (one lesson – its essence). No one, not even a self-hating Jewish child, would like to see their door knocked down at 3am by people with boots and rifles. This is not about what is right, but about what works. Grooming new generations of people who hate us will not bring peace. Period.
Fresh faces who question their foreparents version of the truth is what makes a tradition alive. Dogma is what kills the spirit and stifles evolution. Good on ya, Mobius, you make my battered Jewish heart sing ;^)
What bothers me is that people who disagree with your views resort to name calling rather than offering a counter argument to support thier views. I think this sort of behavior just serves to weaken thier position and makes anyone on thier side look like a bunch of jack-asses by association.
You have every right to voice your opinions. I can’t promise to always agree with you, but I can promise to always support your right to speak your mind.
Yasher Koach!
Mobius, you’re not a jerk because you are critical of Israel. You are not a jerk because you are critical of Zionism. I agree with you and I believe that Judaism requires and encourages criticism and questioning. You’re a jerk because you are self righteous and assume that people who disagree with you are brainless morons. I mean, look at what you wrote! You accuse us of “default capitulation to our leaders [and] mindless flagwaving.”
I mean how self righteous of you – and this is in a post where you try to be, what, civil? How utterly arrogant and insulting. I seriously do not mind opinions that are different than mine, as long as they are presented in a certain manner and do not imply that one has a monopoly on the truth. It just pisses people off right from the get go. If what you are really trying to do is foster enlightened discourse, then you may want to moderate yourself. And what’s with all this anti-Hillel stuff? I’ve been closely involved with a number of Hillels, both in Canada and in the US, and I have always found them to be accomodating places, open to a range of opinions and values and hardly the homogenous entity you make it out to be. Granted, if you want to start an ISM group, perhaps Hillel is not the best place for you to be, but like I said, it is hardly populated exclusively by right wing mindless Zionist nutbars.
As far as my own “default capitulation to our leaders [and] mindless flagwaving” – I am hardly a default capitulator or a mindless flag waver. I have come to conclusions that are very different from yours regarding Israel and Zionism. My opinions are based on endless personal experience and intense study. So if you want to engage me in conversation, great, it might be a valuable experience for both of us, but PUHLEEZE don’t insult me right from the start.
ck_dave. that is best wake up call i have heard for young mobius. bergman, i hope you read k_daves post.
Fabulous site, man!
I just discovered it yesterday and
put a link in.
Anyway, don’t let people who throw abuse at you get you down. I got some of the same nonsense when I put up apehatorah. Just remember that people who need to dump on alternative perspectives are formulaic robots, who deal with a complex and crazy world by retreating into mind-dumbing simplicity (it’s cheaper than booze or Valium).
The issues confronting Israel are among the most complicated ones around today faced by any nation.
(Personally, I don’t see any way out of their various military and social conundrums, but that’s a different topic). To me, that means everything has to be on the table — all ideas, all perspectives, debate from all sides. Only thus might some new ideas or solutions be discovered.
Your site really fosters that process, so, yasher koach!
I like this site when it brings up fresh jewish topics. To me, quotes from Neturei Karta and Chinese Govenment’s news service are a waste of time in discussions unless we are discussing fringe groups as such or censorship.
What he said. I’m pretty critical of many political positions taken out within the Zionist spectrum — I say this as a Zionist — but the umpteenth iteration of racist fringe cranks is, to be frank, just boring.
Now, I say this as someone who has liked and appreciated a lot of the content here and the shifting community that has formed around it. So I hope noone will mind if I insert a critical note. But “news” items from professional tokens Neturei Karta? The nth iteration of Trent’s Michael Neumann’s half-cocked, half-fixated news “analysis”? Comments sections literated with copious cuts-and-pastes of random two-year-old news articles seeking to paint the Arab-Israeli conflict as black-and-white?
Yawn. Don’t get me wrong; Jewschool — Mobius, John Brown (=Babylonian?), whoever — should post whatever gets its rocks off. But it’s not like the stale and spurious make for compelling content. So, on we want you to rip these articles to shreds and, to the best of your abilities, debunk an author’s position — yes, but when would have to be awfully sanctimonious to actually enjoy (pa)trolling the blogosphere and correcting everything one thought erroneous.
What has made Jewschool in the past interesting imho has been fresh voices and new ideas that are worth engaging in. F’rinstance, the idea that one can actually criticize Israel without hating it. That a Jew has more positions open to her than either blindly supporting all of what it does or rejecting its very existence as a Jewish state — the tired binary into which so much of the world seems still folded; which polarizes discussion by inviting folks either to hate Israel or to hug it to death; and to which so much totally illogical yet equally sanctimonious so-called “criticism” seems committed to.
8opus wrote:
“but the umpteenth iteration of racist fringe cranks is, to be frank, just boring.”
what racists?
why do you attack NK and yet don’t even make any attempt to even discuss what the Rabbi said
“But “news” items from professional tokens Neturei Karta?”
NK was protesting Sharon’s visit to the White House. It’s not “stale”.. Why do you call it “news” in sneer quotes? Because you don’t like the Rabbi’s opinion?
“The nth iteration of Trent’s Michael Neumann’s half-cocked, half-fixated news “analysis”?”
Again, you could try to participate in a civil discussion with us regarding what these people say
Or you could just dismiss them as “half-cocked” “cranks” if you can’t, or won’t be bothered do the former.
Babylonian,
I appreciate that mobius left you in charge, but I really don’t understand your problem with 8opus’ comment. Especially as you ignore the substance that deals directly with the “Tone it Down” post under discussion. If we were dealing with the NK post, you might have a point. But since we’re dealing with “Tone it Down,” it seem as if you are the one inhibiting a civil discussion here.
Random links from random sources are what make the site so much fun…if I want regular news I’ll go read the Onion or something
Zionista wrote:
“I appreciate that mobius left you in charge”
I’m not in charge of anything. The only thing I have been given the ability to do is post stories.
“..but I really don’t understand your problem with 8opus’ comment.”
I just thought there were inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in it
It seems like more attacking the messenger, rather than discussing the message.
“Especially as you ignore the substance that deals directly with the “Tone it Down” post under discussion.”
Well, I’m still not clear on what this is all about. I’ve yet to hear from mobius on it.
In my mind I am able to separate the concepts of Zionism, Jews and Israel
It seems to me like other people have problems seeing them as distinct concepts.
anti-Zionism is not anti-Jewish. anti-Zionism is also not anti-Israel.
“If we were dealing with the NK post, you might have a point. But since we’re dealing with “Tone it Down,” it seem as if you are the one inhibiting a civil discussion here.”
I haven’t attacked anyone, I asked 8opus some questions.
“anti-Zionism is not anti-Jewish”
Okay we’ve heard this argument. I get it. I don’t really like, but I get it. That is what we discuss here all the time.
“anti-Zionism is also not anti-Israel”
Don’t kid yourself. When you are against the multi-faceted concept of Zionism, you are denying the right of Israel to exist.
This is a tradegy. Even Derrida and Sontag, two of the most challenging post modern thinkers, support the existence a moral and just Jewish state in Israel.
Wake up wrote: ” When you are against the multi-faceted concept of Zionism, you are denying the right of Israel to exist. “
I have no problem with Israel existing.
Would opposing Communism mean I don’t want China to exist ?
baby is so cute, i guess the last post means he equates communism with zionism. at least that a step up from equating zionism with nazism, the more ususal comparison made by his like minded antisemites. i just love people who find no need to critique saudi arabia, which prohibits jews from entering their country, prohibits the open practice of christianity, and is ruled by muslim law (thus the stoning of adulterous women, prohibitions on women driving, leaving the country without their male guardians consent, etc.) baby, your views arent worth debating, theyre the thoughts of an ugly little self hating anti semite who was mistreated by his parents and is striking out at the adult world. the only thing interesting about you is the cause and possible cure of your pathology.
avi wrote: “i guess the last post means he equates communism with zionism”
no, other than their both being “isms” that are separate from the state itself
“baby, your views arent worth debating, theyre the thoughts of an ugly little self hating anti semite who was mistreated by his parents and is striking out at the adult world. the only thing interesting about you is the cause and possible cure of your pathology.”
allright! let’s hear it for Jewish unity!
Babylonian: In my mind I am able to separate the concepts of Zionism, Jews and Israel
It seems to me like other people have problems seeing them as distinct concepts.
(I hope the italics prompt worked)
It’s nice that you can conceptually distinguish between Zionism, Jews and Israel. But while Zionism is a concept (albeit one that grew up into a practicable ideology), Jews are not so much a concept as a people, and Israel is a modern state. There is an awful lot of overlap here so that constructing thick distinctions between these three components is not entirely constructive. Zionism was and remains the ideolology of a movement for national liberation of the Jews. It is fair to say historically that Zionism was not consistently popular throughout the history of the movement. But losing 2/3 of a peoples’ stateless community can do alot for the popularity of such things. The goal of Zionism was and still remains, but perhaps with more streamlined focus now, is the reintegration of the Jewish people, with all the national integrity we deserve, into the homeland and the region from which our national identity was launched, and from where we were violently expelled.
I will gladly leave the spiritual and religious implications to those who are more capable than myself of discussing them. But from a historical and national perspective, I am often compelled to challenge the opposition to Zionism by other Jews.
Whoops…. worked too well.
From:
http://tinylink.com/?Ma0FYBDccA
“Certainly, if Zionism is defined as an ideology which advocates dispossession, oppression, and racism—which, unfortunately, is how most Palestinians have experienced it—I have no problems calling myself anti-Zionist.
“However, there is something fundamentally wrong with someone who does not identify with a certain ideology defining what that ideology is. (One can only remember Rev. Pat Robertson’s definition of feminism as an ideology which teaches women to ‘leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians’)” (Stephen Zunes, Tikkun Magazine, Vol. 19; No. 2, p. 53).
It is easy to critizise Israel when you live in the USA. Kant said: “Perception is the reality of the ignorant”, and that is what most of the anti-semitic world sees, a perception of an abusive and criminal State of Israel. When Palestinians commit acts of terror, the world see a defensless “militant” fighting for freedom. When we defend ourselves, we are just criminals and assasins, only to be compared to Nazis. I agree, the State of Israel is not perfect, but at least we have a democracy and a judicial system that unlike our neighbours, will come to terms with the truth, regardless the outcome. I appreciate your website, and I will defend your right to expose your opinions, as I would expect you to let me give you mine.
Shalom
Zionista wrote:
“if Zionism is defined as an ideology which advocates dispossession, oppression, and racism”
Well that’s the thing.. The Zionism my grandmother grew up on bears little resemblance to the Zionism of today.
As far as I understand the history, the original form of Zionism didn’t advocate a separatist Jewish state, only a Jewish homeland in Palestine (originally Uganda).
But then revisionist Zionism became the mainstream and now the original form of Zionism, which advocated living in cooperation with Arabs seems to be more or less extinct.
Babylonian,
That is a selective exploitation of Zunes’ quote, and a distorted version of Zionist history (specificaly, the idea that Zionism “originally” intended a Jewish homeland in Uganda). Revisionist Zionism (Jabotinsky, et al) no more became mainstream than Labor Zionism. What both of these strains of Zionism did become have been political parties with competing agendas (among many others). Your critiques do not appear to approach the subject of Zionism and Israeli society with the constructive scepticism that an honest critique should.
There are a lot of muddled terms here. I’m doing some research on Brit Shalom (for those of you who don’t know, it was a small group of Yishuv intellectuals, 1925-1933) right now. People like Arthur Ruppin, Hugo Bergmann, Hans Kohn, Martin Buber, and Judah Magnes all considered themselves Zionists (except perhaps for Kohn, who seems to have dropped out with his anguished cry of “Zionism is not equal to Judaism”). Yet they opposed the positions of the mainstream Zionist movement (Labor, at the time) on every question, from immigration (they thought an agreement should be reached with the Arabs to limit it), to imperial patronage (they thought it should be rebuked), to labor (they thought developing a totally separate economy from the Arabs was not necessarily the best idea), to the idea of gaining a majority (they strove for a politics that would ignore the representation question completely, putting them to my mind a century ahead of their time). Now, can a group that was opposed to setting the achievement of a Jewish majority in Palestine as a political goal be considered Zionist? You tell me. They still believed in a strong assertion of Jewish identity, in the connection of Jews to the land of Palestine, in the value of returning to manual labor; they also had a rather more spiritual and yes, religious outlook than much of the movement at the time. If we allow their Zionism, I think we can allow even bi-nationalists today, who oppose every aspect of Sharon’s policy and who are often described as “opposing Israel’s existence”, to be called Zionists, assuming they still affirm the connection of Jews to Palestine and their right to live there in security. If we do not allow Brit Shalom’s Zionism, then we do indeed restrict Zionism to particular political conceptions of majority politics and so forth, and then Babylonian and others will probably have to continue to describe themselves as “anti-Zionist,” with all that entails.
Sam wrote: “Now, can a group that was opposed to setting the achievement of a Jewish majority in Palestine as a political goal be considered Zionist? You tell me.”
I think so.
It of course depends on the definition of Zionism:
If the essence of Zionism is to encourage Jewish immigration to the ‘holy land’ but not to dispossess anyone of their land, then yes.
If the definition of Zionism is to create a Jewish state, and artificially create a Jewish majority, then no.
“They still believed in a strong assertion of Jewish identity, in the connection of Jews to the land of Palestine, in the value of returning to manual labor; they also had a rather more spiritual and yes, religious outlook than much of the movement at the time. If we allow their Zionism, I think we can allow even bi-nationalists today, who oppose every aspect of Sharon’s policy and who are often described as “opposing Israel’s existence”, to be called Zionists, assuming they still affirm the connection of Jews to Palestine and their right to live there in security.”
If that’s the definition of Zionism, then I would have no substantial argument against it, and I can’t imagine how anyone could.
There is a fellow on PalTalk, Rabbi Emess, who degrades all “non Haredi” Jews as ” stealing” the identity of True Jews, as he perceives it to be. I can’t say WHAT that could be, I tend to treat all Jews alike, whatever the movement. I am a convert, which means a heck of a hard road to convince people I AM Jewish, PROUD I am, and wonder about cretins like this guy, or anyone. All Jews, Eretz and Diaspora, should have the freedom to express their thoughts on Israel without name calling. We all have an opinion and forums like this show that we can conduct a dialog and learn along the way.