Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Israels impending annexation of the West Bank has put the fate of the two-state solution or, perhaps more accurately its death back in the headlines. Yet neither Benjamin Netanyahus announcement of his annexation intentions, nor the Trump peace plan, killed the chances of two states, which ceased to be realistic long ago. What the great drama of annexation playing out in the Anglo-American press is really about in no small part due to the exclusion of Palestinian voices is whether liberal Zionists will reconcile themselves to this reality or continue to deny it.

While some liberal Zionists, like the Jewish Currents editor-at-large Peter Beinart, now recognize that, as he wrote last week, the traditional two-state solution no longer offers a compelling alternative to Israels path, most seem likely to choose the path of continued denial. For many liberal Zionists as well as those further to the right a two-state solution has for decades been less a practical policy proposal than an article of faith, a constitutive political fiction that has enabled them to reconcile their contradictory commitments to both ethnonationalism and liberal democracy.

The abstract idea of two states has also served a valuable strategic purpose for the Israeli government and professional Israel advocates. References to Israels putative commitment to two states in theory have become a way to shield Israel from criticism, and consequences, for actions that in practice rendered a two-state solution impossible.

The vast majority of Zionist and pro-Israel groups even, or perhaps especially, the self-defined liberal ones will be loth to confront their contradictions, or surrender their talking points, now.

Indeed, faced with annexation, liberal Jewish groups have so far responded with the same kinds of warnings they have issued for decades. In a joint statement, eight Jewish organizations including the New Israel Fund and Americans for Peace Now declared in May that annexation would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the government of Israel no longer seeks a two-state solution. Back in March, when Benny Gantz joined Netanyahus government, J Street cautioned that annexation was an absolute red line that Israel must not cross.

Yet its been obvious for years that Israels government no longer seeks a two-state solution: annexation would hardly be the first line Israel has crossed without facing any serious consequences. In fact, since before the Oslo process began in 1993, Israel has continually crossed supposedly decisive lines.

Meron Benvenisti, former deputy mayor of Jerusalem, warned in 1982 that, with the settler population in the West Bank approaching 100,000, Israel would cross the threshold past which territorial compromise would become impossible. When Israel blew past that, new lines were drawn: now 250,000 settlers, now 500,000; now construction in the E1 corridor, between East Jerusalem and the settlement of Maaleh Adumim; and now, finally, annexation of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley.

With each new line crossed, believers in a two-state solution have found new excuses to ignore the obvious. This is especially true of liberal Zionists. Since 1967, they have clung to the myth that Israels military occupation of the West Bank is temporary, and, consequently, that Israel proper defined as the parliamentary regime within Israels pre-1967 borders can be meaningfully disentangled from the half-century-old military dictatorship on the other side of the Green Line. The occupations putative temporariness enabled liberal Zionists to see themselves as genuine liberals, to define Israel as a democracy. Annexation, which would confirm that the occupation is permanent and inextricable from Israel proper, would in theory force liberal Zionists to decide between support for democratizing the one-state reality, or support for apartheid.

Wholesale ideological reversals are uncommon, however. With a few notable exceptions, liberal Zionists conversion to non-state Zionism, non-Zionism, or anti-Zionism seems unlikely. And, after all, over the course of more than a decade of Netanyahu governments, liberal Zionists have become habituated to the dissonance between their values and those the Israeli government acts on.

But the idea of two states will continue outliving any realistic prospect for a two-state solution for those to the liberal Zionists right, too. Israels foreign ministry and professional Israel advocates alike recognize that the two-state solution has served as a useful means of deflecting criticism of Israeli territorial expansion. After roughly a dozen Democratic congressional representatives signed a letter, spearheaded by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling to condition US military funding to Israel in the event of annexation, Aipac responded that doing so would, paradoxically, make a two-state solution less likely.

Netanyahu and his allies in the US are making the argument for annexation in similar terms. In a Washington Post op-ed, Ron Dermer, Israels ambassador to the US, argued that annexation actually will open the door to to a realistic two-state solution and get the peace process out of the cul-de-sac it has been stuck in for decades. Likewise, the authors of the Trump administrations peace plan were careful not only to construe it as an instrument for achieving a two-state solution but as the logical continuation of the Oslo process.

While theres no small degree of cynicism here, it also reflects a genuine ideological commitment. Most American Zionists, even rightwing ones, do not openly support an apartheid-style single state, unlike hardline Israeli settlers who oppose the Trump plan because it provides for areas of nominal Palestinian autonomy. In this sense, the position staked out by Dermer and the Trump administration is not that different from the liberal Zionist one: both envision a Palestinian state as an archipelago of isolated, non-contiguous Bantustans subordinated to Israeli control.

Yet as long as Zionists outside of Israel remain uncomfortable with openly defending an apartheid-style regime in terms that reflect the reality on the ground, the rhetoric of the two-state idea will serve as an invaluable means of obscuring the actual ramifications of their position not only from the public, but from themselves. Political fictions of such existential importance take a long time to die, if they ever fully do. The lack of a viable two-state solution does not mean liberal Zionists will stop believing in one.

Joshua Leifer is an assistant editor at Jewish Currents, where a longer version of this article first appeared

Read more from the original source:
The two-state solution is a political fiction liberal Zionists still cling to - The Guardian

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The two-state solution is a political fiction liberal Zionists still cling to – The Guardian
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

We have followed the meteoric career of Bari Weiss with keen interest, admittedly often for the shock and humor value, and two days ago the meteor left The New York Times with a resignation letter that says she was made to feel unwelcome in the illiberal new political environment at the paper.

I hesitated to write about Weisss news. First, Weiss is such a gifted careerist that even this moment feels like shtik: Bari Weiss playing her own persecution for the greater glory of Bari Weiss, and and, why play any part in that? Though I also found her letter persuasive about ways she was made to feel uncomfortable re the intolerance of the left. As a writer with leftwing goals, I know that if you stray from certain views you will bring down cascades of scorn, and its not good for independent thought. (In fact, its why I no longer have much interest in being an intellectual; theres a sense that all the hard works been done already if youre on the left, read from the script, mic check.)

But here I go because Weisss departure from the Times is real news, and important for what it says about the place of Zionism in the media.Weiss has made a career as a Zionist warrior, often smearing anti-Zionists in ways that she is quick to call McCarthyism when others employ the same methods.

Two points in her resignation letter leap out.

Weiss cites as a count against the Times the alacrity with which the newspaper amended a 2019 travel article about Jaffa for failing to touch on important aspects of Jaffas makeup and its history (as she quotes the correction), compared to its failure to amend Cheryl Strayeds interview with Alice Walker last May to say that Alice Walker has made antisemitic comments. The cases are not comparable; and Weisss comparison says way more about her than the Times. No doubt Alice Walker has made some foolish commentsin fact the Times covered them ad nauseum just two years ago, in two articles about her alleged antisemitism in an earlier interview. The question is whether Alice Walker, a person of great achievement, gets to live these comments down or are they an important aspect of her career that must be pinned to her name at all times? My opinion is, the Timess two pieces on the matter are plenty; certainly no one can say the Times hasnt publicized Walkers comments. Now look at the Jaffa article. It was a piece of pure puffery for Israeli tourism that in characterizing Jaffa as an ancient Tel Aviv neighborhood left out truly the central aspect of its modern history: the fact that barely a generation ago this city was the pearl of Palestinian culture, and that beginning with the Zionist terrorist gangs (which later supplied Israeli prime ministers), rolling barrel bombs into Palestinian neighborhoods, Palestinians were forced into the sea during the ethnic cleansing of the Nakba period, when tens of thousands of residents were evicted, including such luminaries as Ibrahim abu-Lughod. We can only imagine the outcry if the Times had run any similar travel piece about a Lithuanian/Russian village where my ancestors were subject to pogroms in the late 19th century without mentioning the blood in the soil.

This distortion is typical of Bari Weisss thinking.

The former opinion editor also brags about bringing Matti Friedman into the paper. He is a propagandist for poor little Israel a tiny village on the volcano of Islam, is his metaphor who wrote one of four pieces that the NYT op-ed page ran justifying the slaughter by Israeli snipers of Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza over a few months in 2018.

So Bari Weiss is proud of her hand in those op-eds. This position is indefensible; It goes without saying, we have never seen a piece in the Times justifying Palestinian terror attacks; were such a piece to slip through, editors would lose their jobs in an instant. No one has lost their job for approving these vicious arguments.

The Times op-ed page is surely making moves to the left these days in the context of the George Floyd uprisings But it has so far held the line on anti-Zionism and Palestinian solidarity. Yes it was big news last week that it ran Peter Beinarts op-ed saying he no longer believes in a Jewish state. Though what does it tell you about the discourse that a critique Palestinians have been saying for a very long time without getting published in the Times has to be delivered by a man who still calls himself a Zionist?

As Krystal Ball said on Twitter, There is no issue of legitimate inquiry which is more likely to get you cancelled than support for Palestinian rights. She describes Bari Weiss as an intellectual architect of that regime of censorship.

Many have pointed to Bari Weisss origins as an ideologue at Columbia U trying to get Palestinian professors dismissed. I try to give Weiss a break on that because of all the stupid things I said in my (protracted) youth, except that Bari Weiss has prolonged this role by making accusations against anti-Zionists that are if nothing illiberal. She has said we are anti-semites and as dangerous as white nationalists. In her book on antisemitism, Weiss published the foolish claim that antizionist Jews are as deeply opposed to Jewish interests as many of our communitys enemies. In a talk at a Jewish organization with Jake Tapper, Weiss dismissed Jewish supporters of BDS as being like Jews who had their circumcisions surgically reversed so as to fit in to the larger culture.

Zionism is Judaism, in Weisss view of the world, so if you dont like Zionism, prepare to be stamped as an antisemite and (justifiably) marginalized from all mainstream platforms. This is a toxic attitude and much as I am dismayed by the lefts censoriousness, Id note that Weisss school of intolerance has affected me more directly(I have been fired twice by mainstream orgs for being anti-Zionist).

Bari Weiss has also argued for Jewish power in the U.S. establishment, indeed a special status in American public life, so long as Jews are Zionist. BDS is an anti-semitic conspiracy theory aimed at Jewish power, she said. [I]f you want to be a part of the coalition of the oppressed, you need to publicly disavow any kind of Jewish power at all Support for Israel, Jewish success, apologizing for Jewish success.

Our Jewish specialness goes way back. We invented the idea that people shouldnt be slaves, and that human life is sacred, Weiss says, and that specialness is frankly why we drive people crazy still. Such belief in Jewish exceptionalism was the norm in my fathers generation, and I have certainly dipped into it at times myself; but Bari Weiss makes cultural pride problematic by infusing it with celebrations of establishment power and Israeli might. For instance, she said that Jews are insane not to perceive that they are safe walking around New York City because of Israels military strength, and she said that Jews should stop giving money to prestige institutions like Harvard and Columbia because they have given harbor to anti-Zionism.

I think Weiss is a talented writer who will be with us for a long time; but when it comes to Zionism she is an ideological hack who might as well be cribbing her fathers handouts from AIPAC and the ZOA. After Pittsburgh she declared that criticizing rightwing Israeli government officials for visiting the grieving Jewish community there was an inappropriate politicization of their visit. Even young leftwing Jews welcomed the arrival of two Netanyahu loyalists, she said, because it showed we are all one people.

You better believethey [IfNotNow and Bend the Arc] liked the fact that Ron Dermer and Naftali Bennett showed up in the same way that Israeli officials show up after the shooting of a Hypercacher in France. Its sending a message that we are all one, Am Yisrael [the people of Israel].To politicize that I just think is wrong.

IfNotNow specifically rejected this projection, but the delusion shows, Weiss has always reduced Jewish life in our country to some branch office of the larger Zionist enterprise.

It seems obvious to say that Bari Weisss departure takes place amidst a Zionist discursive collapse Beinarts apostasy, the downfall of Eliot Engel, the mutiny of 500 left-Zionist recruits at one Israel lobby group, and 1000 at J Street, the defection of even centrist Jewish donors over Israel, and the willingness of a few American politicians anyway tosuggest that military aid to Israel be cut due to its endless expansionism. This is real progress. And in that sense Bari Weisss exit is good news for Palestinian news and opinion. A reliable Israel lobbyist is going to find some other venue that is less prominent in the making of mainstream opinion. There are going to be more Palestinians in the Times. Maybe the paper wont run so many justifications of Israeli massacres.

Weiss will surely say that her departure is evidence of anti-semitism on the left. It is more accurate to say that anti-Zionism is now the spirit of left politics, and it is staking a claim on liberal institutions.

Thx to notes from Adam Horowitz, Scott Roth, James North, Allison Deger, Dave Reed, Norman Finkelstein, Michael Arria and Donald Johnson.

Go here to see the original:
Bari Weiss leaves the 'NYT' and that's bad for Zionists Mondoweiss - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Bari Weiss leaves the ‘NYT’ and that’s bad for Zionists Mondoweiss – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was born in Staunton, Virginia, to Christian fundamentalist parentshis father was a Presbyterian ministerwho supported the Confederacy during the Civil War. Thus, Wilson grew up and was educated in the segregated American South. This upbringing imbued him with both a literal interpretation of the Bible and a lifelong racist outlook which he brought with him to every position, every office he ever held. For instance, while he served as president of Princeton University (1902-1908), he refused to allow the university to admit African Americans. Despite his racist orientation, Princeton subsequently named a School of Public Policy and International Affairs, sub-colleges and buildings for Wilson. Today, in the wake of uprisings against not only police brutality toward African Americans and other minorities, but also Americas racist legacy, Princeton has removed Wilsons name from these institutions and buildings.

Wilson went on to become the 28th president of the United States (1913-1921). He led the United States into World War I, was instrumental in the founding of the League of Nations, appointed the first Jewish member of the Supreme Court and, notably, facilitated the eventual establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine through his support for the Balfour Declaration (1917). At the time he remarked, To think that I, son of the manse [ministers house], should be able to help restore the Holy Land to its people. Subsequently, this decision made him as much a hero to Zionists, and American Zionists in particular, as he was a villain to African Americans.

The Zionist Dilemma

Given todays reaction against the countrys historical racism, American Jews understanding of Wilsons legacy is being debated. The challenge for Zionists is to save Wilsons heroic image without totally disregarding his racist record. An attempt to do just that came in an essay, recently published on 2 July 2020, in the American Jewish newspaper the Forward. The essay is entitled Woodrow Wilson was a hero to Jews. What should we do with his racism? and was written by Jonathan D. Sarna, a Brandeis University professor of American Jewish history.

Sarna notes both facets of Wilsons career. On the one hand The Jews of his day considered Wilson a hero and a savior, a man of principle and ethical uprightness. On the other, African Americans learn a totally different narrative wherein Wilson staunchly defended segregation and characterized Blacks as an ignorant and inferior race.

Sarna seeks to square this circle by retreating to a frankly banal apologia: Many a flawed hero accomplished great deeds and changed the institutions and nations they led for the better. They remind us that good people can do very bad things and vice versa. This is poor consolation for African Americans. It also turns out to be a shaky basis for Jewish admiration of Wilson. This is so because the alleged good Woodrow Wilson did for the Jewshis support for the Balfour Declarationwas based on the same racist foundation shaping his behavior toward African Americans.

Wilson Supports the Balfour Declaration

What is the connection between Wilsons racism and his support for the Balfour Declaration? The president was a European race supremacist, or what today would be called a white supremacist. As he saw it, African Americans were not the only ignorant and inferior race out there. All the non-European peoples, such as those of the Ottoman Empire, including Palestinians, qualified for this designation.

On 8 January 1918, in the run-up to Americas entrance into World War I, President Wilson announced his Fourteen Points. These were the nations war aimsnotions around which to rally the American people. A major theme that runs throughout these points is the promise of self-determination for peoples then under the rule of the enemy Central Powers: Germany, Austria and the Ottoman Empire. Referring specifically to the last-mentioned, point twelve reads, The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.

Such a promise, of course, included the Arabs of the Ottoman province of Greater Syria, which in turn included Palestine and its indigenous population. This pledge might seem to conflict with Wilsons racist outlook, but one has to keep in mind that point twelve was meant as a propaganda piece in support of the broader claim that America was joining a war to make the world safe for democracy. As a vehicle for arousing the enthusiasm of the American people, it was effective. However, it transformed itself into something problematic as soon as Wilson got to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. U.S. allies Britain and France wanted to incorporate most of the Ottoman lands, which they considered the spoils of war, into their own existing empires, and so objected to point twelve.

Because of his European supremacist point of view, Wilson really had no deep objections to this expansion. The question was how to go along with his allies wishes while still appearing to honor the Fourteen Points. He achieved this goal in a way that also meshed with his racist worldview. He and his allies established the Mandate System. Real self-determination was now to be reserved for the European peoples previously belonging to the German, Austrian and Russian empires. For instance, Poland and Serbia, among others, were to be accorded the freest opportunity for autonomous development. Non-European peoples were viewed as unprepared for this reward. They were to be placed under the tutelage of a mandatory power, which in the case of most of the Arab lands meant either Britain or France. Such imperial powers, in turn, were to instruct these inferior peoples in the art of self-government. It should come as no surprise that Palestine was given over to the British as a mandate territory. Indeed, the Balfour Declaration was incorporated into the preamble and second article of the mandate document for Palestine.

Back to Sarnas Suggestion

Woodrow Wilson supported the Balfour Declaration because he was a Christian fundamentalist who believed that God desired the Jews, whom Wilson understood to have been civilized through long residence in the West, to return to their ancient home. The instruments for that return were the Balfour Declaration and the British mandate. The Palestinians were not even relevant to the issue for Wilson.

Given this history, what do we learn when, as Sarna suggests, we probe more deeply into [our heros] flaws?

It is now recognized that Wilsons major flaw was his racist worldview and the behavior that flowed from it.

This racism was the basis of his mistreatment of African Americans.

As it turns out, that same racist outlook was part of the basis for his support of the Balfour Declarationthe very act that makes Wilson a hero for both past and present Zionists.

Now we come to the second part of Sarnas suggestion, that an examination of the heros flaws invites us to think harder about our own flaws. What are the resulting implications of such a self-examination for todays Zionists?

What sort of flaw in ourselves should an examination of Woodrow Wilson bring Zionist Jews to consider?

The fact is that contemporary Israeli Jewish and Zionist attitudes toward the Palestinians in many ways mimic those of Woodrow Wilson toward African Americans.

If we are to consider Wilsons racism a flaw from which Jews too can learn, the consequence must be a reconsideration of the inherently racist Zionist attitudes and policies toward the Palestinians.

I do not know if Jonathan Sarna really meant to inspire a serious assessment of Israels and Zionisms flaws through the reexamination of those of their champion, Woodrow Wilson. However, such an assessment would certainly reveal a shared racism. Wilson never ceased to be a racist and, at least since 1917, the Zionists have been following his heroic model. How many of them can be counted upon to take up Sarnas suggestion and look into this shared historical mirror in any honest way?

Continue reading here:
Woodrow Wilson's Racism: the Basis For His Support of Zionism - CounterPunch

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Woodrow Wilson’s Racism: the Basis For His Support of Zionism – CounterPunch
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

It started because of the coronavirus, but in less than four months, its become a tradition.

Every Sunday evening (Israel time), several hundred graduates of the Southern Africa branch of Habonim Dror, the Socialist-Zionist youth movement, tune in from around the globe for a weekly conversation. They range in age from late teens to early nineties (though, to be fair, most are over 60) and include participants from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel and, naturally, South Africa.

Theyre called HED talks no, not TED, though they have definitely drawn inspiration from the series. The acronym stands for Habonim Engaging in Dialogue, and the topics have ranged from the effects of West Bank annexation on the State of Israel to coming out as gay in a Jewish youth movement (that is, when such things were rarely discussed). The content is definitely a draw, but so is the opportunity to meet up with old and beloved friends, some not seen or heard from in decades. The gatherings are held, of course, over Zoom.

The latest tally shows that since HED was launched in late March, close to 1,200 Habonim graduates have registered for at least one of the weekly talks. Were it not for the global pandemic, this brand new forum would probably never have seen the light of day. Today, it may be the largest and most geographically diverse active Jewish alumni group in the world.

In his opening remarks at the inaugural HED talk, Toronto-based attorney Stephen Pincus, the driving force behind the initiative, described it as a community bound by a deep common experience and some core values.

For many of us, the movement was a formative influence on our lives, he said. It was the place of first loves, of lifelong friendships, of exhilarating social, cultural and intellectual adventures, where we learned to think, how to relate, and how to dream.

Habonim Dror is an international youth movement with branches in more than 20 countries. Its Southern Africa branch, which also includes Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, was set up in 1930, and was initially envisioned as a scout movement. After the establishment of the State of Israel, it shifted its focus to Zionism and educating young South African Jews about Israel. For many years, and certainly during the apartheid period, Habonim was the most popular Jewish youth movement in South Africa. In recent decades, it has shared the limelight with Bnai Akiva, the Orthodox Zionist youth movement, as the South African Jewish population has grown increasingly religious.

Pincus estimates the number of graduates of Habonim Southern Africa at about half a million. Tens of thousands of Jews have left South Africa since the 1970s many to Israel, but many more to other English-speaking countries. Among this huge exodus were many who grew up in Habonim.

For many of us who lived in Southern Africa during the apartheid years, Habonim was a very powerful forum for expressing our disagreement with the situation, says Dave Bloom, former head of the South African Zionist Federation in Israel (also known as Telfed), and a member of the HED organizing committee. Bloom grew up in Rhodesia, and today splits his time between running a software business and working as a professional personal historian.

To mark the 90th anniversary of the founding of Habonim Southern Africa, a mega-gathering of movement graduates from around the world had been planned for late October. The week-long event was meant to have been held in Israel, and hundreds of former Habonim chanichim (movement members) and madrichim (movement leaders) had already registered when the pandemic struck.

We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting.

Please try again later.

The email address you have provided is already registered.

We were looking for a way to keep the energy going and keep people engaged, so we decided to start these weekly Zoom sessions, recounts Bloom. Initially, we had no idea how it would go.

The first talk was held on March 29, and since then, theyve been held on a weekly basis, every Sunday. A lot of people have compared it to the old days in Habonim when wed get together on Sunday evenings, says Bloom, who moved to Israel in 1973 and lives in the central town of Kochav Yair. It seems to have captured people at the right time and the right place, with people at home during Covid looking for things to do, and the best proof is the big group of regulars coming back week after week.

More than half the participants live in either Israel or South Africa, he says, the remainder divided among the United States (nearly 20 percent) and Canada (15 percent), with a smattering from the United Kingdom and Australia. We try to accommodate as many time zones as possible, but the Aussies are definitely getting the short end of the stick, says Bloom. The way its scheduled, theyve got to be awake at 4 a.m. if they want to participate.

Some of the sessions have a more TED-like format, with one keynote speaker, while others are more conversational. Often, there are breakout sessions toward the end to provide participants with the opportunity for more intimate conversations. Its not unusual that they spend another hour schmoozing after the main talk is over, notes Bloom.

When choosing the lineup, Pincus says he and his team are looking for balance in what he describes as the three Gs geography, gender and age. Finding younger participants, he concedes, is often a challenge, but at the most recent gathering this past Sunday, about a dozen current Habonim members, dressed in their signature blue shirts, joined the forum. All of them are participants in a year-long leadership training course in Israel; they shared stories of their experiences during the global pandemic living on a kibbutz.

Presenters at HED are generally chosen from among the large pool of Habonim graduates. If you look around, there is a wealth of talent to choose from, says Pincus, who headed the youth movement in Southern Africa in the late 1970s. This past Sunday, for example, the keynote speaker was Diana Aviv, the former head of Feeding America, the second largest charity in the United States. Originally from Johannesburg, she spoke about political and social tensions in America today.

Booked for an upcoming HED session on the state of the world economy are two other famous Habonim Southern Africa graduates: Stanley Fischer, former governor of the Bank of Israel and, before that, chief economist of the World Bank; and Bradley Fried, chairman of the Court of the Bank of England. With so many doctors among this cohort, the HED organizing committee couldnt resist the temptation of bringing a bunch of them together for a session held in April titled: Habo doctors in the time of Covid.

Officially, the sessions start each Sunday at 9 p.m. Israel time. Participants who show up early, though, get treated to a half-hour slide show of old summer camp photographs set to music that is meant to stir up memories of days gone by. It would be a mistake, however, to see these gatherings as simple reunions, insists Pincus. We wanted to create something that would get people to look forward and not just back, to rebuild this community not just for the sake of nostalgia, but with a view to practical concrete outcomes, whether in politics, healthcare, education, law or social action, he says.

Or as Bloom puts it: We hope this forum weve created will not just be about talk but also a bit about walk and that some of what goes on at our weekly sessions can be translated into some sort of advocacy work.

Visit link:
Their Zionist youth movement days are long behind them, but thanks to social distancing, theyre back together - Haaretz

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Their Zionist youth movement days are long behind them, but thanks to social distancing, theyre back together – Haaretz
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

The crisis of Zionism inside the Jewish community continues to crumble and rumble.

A couple weeks ago we reported that more than 1000 alumni of J Streets youth branch, J Street U, signed a letter to the liberal Zionist group saying its approach of urging Israel to end the occupation had failed and J Street should call for reductions in U.S. aid if Israel goes through with annexation.

J Street rejected the advice. We believe that Israel should continue to receive from the United States the full amount of security assistance outlined in the MOU: $3.8 billion per year. Though J Street calls for restricting that aid to certain purposes.

Well, heres another group of liberal Zionist alums in an uprising. More than 500 members and alumni of a Labor Zionist group famous for socialist kibbutzim the Habonim Dror movement havesigned aletterthat is in some ways anti-Zionist. It calls on the organization to answer Israeli annexation by cutting off much of its relationship to Israel: stop sending North American youth to programs in Israel and encouraging Jews to move to Israel.

The signers say they are being true to their liberal, or socialist, Zionist values, but in effect theyre advocating for a break from the Zionist core mission of sending Jews to live in Israel. They also call for boycotting Israeli emissaries who come to work with Habonim here who are from occupied territories, including East Jerusalem.

And once again, this liberal Zionist parent organization which is affiliated with the peace group Ameinu, an ally of J Street is being stiffnecked about its alumnis demand.

First, here is the letter, now signed by 548 current members and alumni of Habonim Dror North America (HDNA), calling for real action in support of liberation and safety for all Palestinians and Israelis.

We believe that HDNA must act now to ensure that we are no longer complicit in supporting the Israeli government and instead are working actively against its plan to go through with formal annexation. Thus, we are endorsing the following shifts in the movement:

1. Habonim Dror North America will immediately relocate or suspend all programming within Israel.

2. Habonim Dror North America will no longer actively encourage members to make aliyah [Jewish immigration], as aliyah made in the current political climate implicitly legitimizes the Israeli governments ongoing efforts to marginalize Palestinian rights and their freedom to self-determination.

The third step the alumni call for is barring or discouraging Israeli members of the movement from participation in North American Habonim activities until there are no longer members of Dror Israel who live or work over the green line/in settlements (including all suburban settlements around Jerusalem).

These demands are dividing the organization. The leadership, rightly perceives the letter as a direct blow to its mission: In short, this document calls for Habonim Dror to cease to exist as a progressive Zionist youth movement, leadership said in a June statement.

In a subsequent email, the chair of the Habonim Dror Foundation said the organization should not separate from Israel, no, we should further that engagement.

With our voice, we urge the leaders and members of Habonim Dror to further their engagement with Israel, and to continue to focus educational and political work in opposition to unilateral annexation in any form, and to issues of peace and social justice here and in Israel.

We urge leaders and members of Habonim Dror to join with and strengthen our allies in Israel who are on the front lines in the fight for peace and justice and not to apply litmus-tests from the comfort of the diaspora to those who stand in coalition with us.

Notice the old blackmail: The comfort of the diaspora. Youre not sending your kids to serve in the Israeli occupation forces, so who are you to judge? This is the core principle of the Israel lobby. And back on the home front, it should be noted that Habonim leadership has voiced support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

Other liberal Zionists are also responding defensively to the insurgency. Heres J.J. Goldberg, who first reported the Habonim scandal on his Facebook page, working the comfort-of-the-diaspora theme:

Its basically an exercise in self-expression. Nobody in Israel will notice or take it seriously. Theyll be called a handful of spoiled American kids who wont suffer the consequences anyway At the same time, it will reduce whatever political impact or credibility Habo has left within the presumed target audience. Politics isnt supposed to be about self-expression. Its supposed to be about changing things, figuring out how to get from A to B.

The answer to Goldberg is, self-expression is an important function in a liberal democracy; and its obvious why he pooh-poohs the letter, more than 500 angry alumni are yet another surge in the Zionist defection we are witnessing today. I suspect that many of these liberal Zionist groups are not at all democratic in their decisionmaking, that leadership makes all the important decisions and the self-expressions and their outlook is quite conservative. But they are losing traction. Liberal Zionism is now under siege.

The famous lines from Hemingways first novel are, How did you go bankrupt? Gradually then suddenly. We seem to be in the sudden phase of Zionist bankruptcy in American Jewish life.

Read more:
Another liberal Zionist group faces insurgency a call to cut ties to Israel - Mondoweiss

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Another liberal Zionist group faces insurgency a call to cut ties to Israel – Mondoweiss
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

A senior spokesman for the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces warned the Zionist regime that if it keeps lying about bombarding and killing Irans military advisors in Syria, it will see the upper hand of the Islamic Republic and the resistance front in action.In comments on Thursday, Brigadier General Abolfazl Shekarchi responded to fake reports by the Zionist regime about targeting the positions of Irans military advisors in Syria, saying, We warn the Zionist liars and their puppeteers that if they continue their mischief, they will see the upper hand of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the resistance front in action.

He rejected Israels claims alleging killing of hundreds or thousands of Iranians by its military as a desperate media war, psychological operation, and (an attempt at) manufacturing lies, Press TV reported.

The Iranian commander noted that the Zionist-Western media empire and its regional affiliates have been leading this anti-Iran propaganda campaign for some time as part of hollow muscle-flexing by the inhumane, occupying, and infanticidal Israeli regime in order to project a false image of its military capability.

He also mentioned the martyrs by name in order to further unveil the bogus Zionist regimes (attempt at) manufacturing falsehood and to lay bare its lying nature.

The cowardly regime also did its best, through the all-out support of the US and some regional Arab countries, to make up for its losses and weaknesses by bombarding the T-4 Airbase in Syrias western province of Homs in 2018, in which only seven of Iranian military advisors lost their lives along with a number of Syria-allied fighters, Shekarchi said.

The resistance front, however, returned the attack by launching 50 missiles and rockets at Syrias Israel-occupied Golan Heights, the spokesman noted, saying a large number of Israelis were killed or injured during the retaliation.

By means of the media campaign, psychological warfare and producing lies, Israel has been always trying to cover up its sheer inability and weakness as well as back-to-back defeats in the face of the resistance front in Syria during the past nine years, Shakarchi said, adding, However, it should know this that it is (only) fooling itself.

At Damascus request, the Islamic Republic has been lending effective military advisory assistance to the Arab country against foreign-backed militants and Takfiri terrorists. The support proved essential to Syrias defeating in late 2017 of the Takfiri terrorist group of Daesh that has been widely reported to have been created by the United States, Israels biggest and oldest ally that tries hard to change the balance of power in favor of Tel Aviv in the region.

The Tel Aviv regime, itself, has been found culpable in numerous reports and by many regional officials of providing safe passage, medical treatment, and other instances of assistance to Takfiri terrorists.

Source: Iranian Agencies

Excerpt from:
Zionists Will See Iran's Upper Hand, if Continue Their Mischief: General - Al-Manar TV

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Zionists Will See Iran’s Upper Hand, if Continue Their Mischief: General – Al-Manar TV
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Given its pivotal role in promising Palestine to the Zionist movement while it was already inhabited by Palestinian Arabs, the British government has a special responsibility to address the suffering caused by the decision

If any of the worlds great powers has an obligation to protect Palestinian rights to a state, enshrined under international law, it is the United Kingdom. While the United States is the dominant power today, and arguably there isno greater friend to Israel than President Donald Trump, it was Britains involvement and schemes for Palestine following the First World War that ultimately created the situation faced by Palestinians today, with regional and international repercussions that are felt by most people around the world.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to move ahead with his plans toannex large swaths of the West Bank, earmarked for a future Palestinian state, the only thing Britain has contributed to the discussion is a handwringing plea for Netanyahu to not go ahead with his plans.

Britains role in the Palestinian tragedy

The British governments stance towards Israels planned West Bank annexation, and Prime Minister Boris Johnsons article published in the Israeli newspaperYedioth Ahronoth, represents a complete and total dereliction of moral responsibility and duty.

Johnson reaffirmed his profound attachment to Israel and described himself, quite accurately, as a passionate defender of Israel. Perhaps most telling of all is Johnsons repeated references to finding a solution that allows both Israelis and Palestinians to live in an environment that allows for justice and security, while then going on to state how he was immensely proud of the UKs contribution to the birth of Israel with the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

Of course, the British prime minister is referring to none other than Lord Arthur Balfour who committed British imperial policy to the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in the final stages of the First World War. This was promptly put into action after Britain and its allies carved up former Ottoman territory and designated Palestine as a British-governed territory under a mandate of the League of Nations.

The way Britain went about this was utterly callous and completely ignored the fact that Palestinians already lived on the land they had just promised to a people the Europeans themselves were subjecting toanti-Semitic hatred. In fact, and two years prior to the establishment of British Mandatory Palestine, Viscount Herbert Smith received a receipt ofOne Palestine, complete from the British military authorities who had now handed control over to him as the first High Commissioner for Palestine a century ago. One could not be blamed for thinking Britain had just been on a shopping trip and brought home receipts for goods it had just purchased at a mall.

Often overshadowed by Balfour, Viscount Smith was himself the first openly practising Jewish cabinet member in the British government. While not an official member of Theodor Herzls World Zionist Organisation, Smith unmistakeably espoused Zionist views and lobbied for them. It was Smith who first proposed the idea of establishing a British protectorate over Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire, with an eye on making it a homeland for the Jewish people that Europe had long persecuted. In essence, Smith laid the groundwork for Balfours infamous declaration that dispossessed one people in favour of another.

Annexation will lead to more blood

While the United Kingdom is now facing homegrown resistance to its imperial past including the defacing and destruction of statues ranging from17th century slavers to racist war time leaders likeSir Winston Churchill its role in the historical abuses against the Palestinians perpetrated by both the British Empire and Zionist settlers has largely been ignored in the current conversation.

After all, what happened to Palestinians is still in living memory, with many of the generation who experienced the Nakba the forcible and illegal expulsion of Palestinians from their land still alive today. Britain cannot simply absolve itself by saying, it was too long ago, no one alive today experienced it, get over it.

Netanyahus plans to annex land illegally occupied by almost half a million Israeli settlers will be a mere continuation of what the British started the complete dispossession of Palestinians from their land at the hands of a state barely at its 72nd birthday that behaves with unscrupulous illegality.

Annexation will further appear to be a grotesque dance upon the corpse of the much-vaunted two-state solution, that died long before Netanyahu abandoned it when the Israelis, supported by the United States and its allies, negotiated in bad faith with the Palestinians knowing they were too weak to enforce any agreements made with Israel. Largely abandoned by their Arab brothers and left to fend for themselves, the Palestinians have been dealt an unenviable hand that sees them stripped of more and more of their rights with every passing year.

Inevitably, this will lead to greater violence, and many Israelis recognise this. Protesters in the central Israeli city of Petah Tikva sabotaged the Trump Square fountain on Monday so that itspurted fake blood rather than water. On the side of the fountain, named after the American president, was daubed the message: Annexation will cost us in blood.

The demonstrators could not be more correct. By pandering to a hard-right and nationalist political agenda to stay in power, Netanyahu risks a conflagration of violence. The Palestinians have already been dispossessed, disadvantaged, and treated with utter contempt. When a cornered people feel that they are continually under the boot with no hope for a political solution and with sustained assaults on their dignity, the inevitable result is violence. The Palestinians are hardly going to stand back as what is left of their ancestral homeland is also stolen from them.

This is not even a partisan issue between Fatah and Hamas, but an issue that concerns all Palestinians. We need look no further than the first and second Intifadas and, if annexation goes ahead and powerful countries like Britain maintain their silence by paying only lip service to international law while not holding their Israeli ally to account, we can expect a true third intifada which will make the unrest in Jerusalem since 2014 seem like a minor disturbance.

Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

We welcome all pitches and submissions to TRT World Opinion please send them via email, to opinion.editorial@trtworld.com

Source: TRT World

Read more from the original source:
Britain has a historic obligation to stop Israels West Bank annexation - TRT World

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Britain has a historic obligation to stop Israels West Bank annexation – TRT World
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

For the fifteenth time, Russia and China have used their veto in the UN Security Council in relation to resolutions concerning the conflict in Syria, not least to reduce Assads oppression of the Syrian people. Yet again, the international community has failed to extend a helping hand to the Syrians and once more stands by helplessly as the tragedy continues to unfold.

The latest veto created a strong wall to support the Assad regime and its crimes, again thwarting an international resolution demanding an end to the aggression against the Syrians and alleviating their suffering. In doing so, Beijing and Moscow hindered the political and humanitarian path in favour of the presence of Russian brutality behind Assad.

Disrupting humanitarian aid for Syria exposes the helplessness of the UN and its failure to protect international peace and human rights. The undisguised inability of the international organisation to do anything that the permanent members of the Security Council do not want to happen has been rooted for seven decades in the minds of the Arab public; veto is one English word that sticks in the collective memory. The US has used its veto dozens of times to protect the Zionist occupation state from being called to account for its violations against the Palestinians and their rights. Every time that the Security Council has to vote on a resolution demanding justice for the Palestinian people, the US veto swings into action. Moscow and Beijing are now imitating Americas arrogance to protect the Assad regime and defend its crimes.

Revealed: Moscow-based Syria business network helps develop Assads chemical weapons arsenal

Aside from protecting the Syrian regime from international accountability, the Russians and Chinese have resorted to using humanitarian aid as a bargaining chip. In return for the blockade on the regime being eased, they will allow aid to get through to the people of Syria who have suffered from the violence inflicted by Assad and his allies since 2011.

Some elites belonging to the Moscow-Beijing axis in the Arab world believe that using the veto does not affect the legitimacy of the Palestinian cause. However, the Russian and Chinese skill in playing the game is not to appear quite as arrogant as the Israeli occupation and its supporters, who are not physically present on the ground as those who protect Assad and his henchmen are. The fixation of these Arab elites on Moscows veto and its policy in Syria allows them to avoid taking a clear position on the crucial issue of the future of the Syrian people while also avoiding any confrontation with those responsible for the crimes to which they are subjected.

Numerous reviews by the UN have indicated that the Assad regime is responsible for committing war crimes and guilty of using chemical weapons, torture, collective punishment and starvation. There is ample physical and legal evidence to prove this, which is why Russia and China resort to vetoing any decision or resolution condemning the Assad regime. Such reviews are well known to the Palestinians and Arabs.

Without knowing this context, it is difficult perhaps impossible to know what Moscows vision is for the future of the Syrians without the Assad regime. Russias actions on the ground in Syria have been hostile, even while it expresses concern for Syrias territorial integrity and sovereignty. However, the reality is that the Russians are behaving like occupiers to secure their interests linked to the presence of Assad. This includes providing the regime with new military bases and pawning the capabilities of the Syrians for decades through sham agreements.

READ: Russia, China veto Syria aid via Turkey for second time this week

Moscows statements and stances regarding the Syrian issue and its own policy are based on using its military strength to stabilise Assads position. It also uses deception, threats and blackmail against the Syrian people and international organisations. However, the protection of Bashar Al-Assad is not only beneficial to Moscow, because it is more than likely that Russia has coordinated what it has done with Israel, the US and the West in order to serve their mutual interests.

The US is not angry with the Russian behaviour in Syria or the Security Council. Indeed, Russias use of the veto further reinforces its use by the US to protect and support the Zionist occupation and neutralise the effects of international resolutions. With its own support for the Syrian tyrant and the Zionist occupation, Moscow is giving the world another arrogant pole which confirms that there can never be justice or liberation as long as a veto can be used at the UN.

This article first appeared in Arabic inArabi21on 14 July 2020

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Excerpt from:
The veto is the muscle flexed to protect the Zionist occupation and the Syrian tyrant - Middle East Monitor

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on The veto is the muscle flexed to protect the Zionist occupation and the Syrian tyrant – Middle East Monitor
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Chaim Azriel Weizmann, the first president of Israel, and other founding members of the Zionist state could go to any extent to serve the interest of their community hobnobbing with Germans, holding secret meetings with the Turks and then finally banking on the British Empire for the establishment of the Zionist state. Once they realized that the Sun of the British Empire would soon set, they started cultivating close ties with the rising power the US.

Although Israel was primarily created to serve the British interests, through its sheer dedication it proved to be more useful for Washington that had replaced London as the global player after the Second World War. While their ties with America remained very cordial, they also ensured good relations with other Western countries and to the utter surprise of many with the Soviet Union as well that was supporting the Arab states and the Palestinians. The US and the USSR were sworn enemies but the most trusted friend of Washington never infuriated Moscow, dealing with the red power in a very diplomatic way.

Israelis seem to be adroit at sensing changes in the global power equation. They realize that the US may have been militarily a global power with immense economic potential but there are other centers of power emerging on the global political horizon and that Tel Aviv must maintain good ties with them as well. It is perhaps this logic that has prompted them to hobnob with Beijing, ignoring US warnings in a diplomatic way and allaying its fears in a very gentle manner. Tel Aviv and Washington have had common strategic goals for decades but now the Zionist state seems to have a different approach over the issue of the Chinese ascendancy on the global stage.

It is really interesting to note that Washington considers the rise of Beijing as a great threat to its global hegemony but Israel finds it difficult to keep itself away from the rising powers bounties that it is showering on other states. A strong economic power, China is also trying to match the military might of America by raising its defence expenditure. This has created consternation in the power corridors of Washington but in Tel Aviv business is as usual. It seems that Israel is determined to benefit from Chinese technology and its expertise on infrastructure development.

The Shanghai International Port Group is building a new container port in Haifa, which some US officials believe could be used to conduct surveillance on the US 6th Fleet whenever it ports at a nearby naval base. Chinese companies are building another Israeli port in Ashdod and a light rail project through the greater Tel Aviv area, which will run a few hundred yards from the Israeli military headquarters. Meanwhile, Chinese companies invested some $400 million in Israeli start-ups in 2018 and $243 million in 2019.

Washington seems to be furious over these intentions of its close ally. This May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned Israeli against getting too close to China. We dont want the Chinese Communist Party to have access to Israeli infrastructure, Israeli communication networks". He believes such things could endanger the Israeli people and the ability of the US to cooperate with Israel. But Israel does not seem to be buying Pompeos arguments. Its policymakers believe that their national interests are served well by cooperating with a rising power. Michael Oren, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington, asserts that Tel Aviv stands to gain with such cooperation saying, Israel sees China as an opportunity.

Israeli threat perception seems to be entirely different from the one held by Washington. For the Zionist state, it is Tehran and the rising Shia power across the Middle East that pose a national security threat. It is because of this reason that the radical elements want stern action against Iran which is believed to have been bankrolling Bashar Al Asad, pampering Hezbollah and arming the Houthi rebels. Tel Aviv seems to be on a mission to destabilize Iran. A string of bomb explosions and mysterious sabotage activities inside Iran seem to have a hallmark of Israeli intelligence. It is interesting to note that Tel Aviv is not interested in casting doubts on Beijing. It seems that Tel Aviv is working on a strategy to counter Iran in the region and does not believe that extra regional powers could harm its security. Shira Efron, a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, thinks China has never been in Israeli threat assessments like Iran is because the communist country is not in the neighbourhood.

Israeli has always been hungry for technology which many believe is crucial for its existence, surrounded by hostile Arab neighbours. It was the technological advancement of the Zionist state that handed it a stunning victory during the 1967 war. Its policymakers seem to have a dogged determination to maintain this technological superiority and they would not mind acquiring it from Moscow, Beijing or Washington.

But with the rising tension between the US and China, it seems that Israel will have to pick a side. Tel Aviv has received billions of dollars over the decades from America. The US has been its biggest ally. The Jewish diaspora in America is one of the biggest sources of Israel's prosperity. Western countries in general also backed Israel because of its proximity with Washington. So, this will be a litmus test when it finally comes to picking a side.

And it seems that this time is not very far. From the Covid-19 pandemic to Hong Kong, Washington does not miss any China-bashing opportunity. It is likely to throw support behind any country that creates problems for the communist state. The recent hard-hitting statements of American officials during the standoff between India and China clearly indicates the intensity of grudge that the US harbours against Beijing. Though Israel expressed reluctance in awarding some commercial contracts to China in a bid to appease Washington, it still would want to strike a balance between its relationship with the sole superpower and the rising global economic force. But will the US, which has bankrolled the Zionist state since its inception turning a blind eye to its illegal activities and earning the ire of its allies tolerate such an ambivalent position? Such a situation will definitely put Israeli policymakers in a bind.

The writer is a freelance journalist.

Email: [emailprotected] gmail.com

Read the original post:
Global balancing acts - The News International

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Global balancing acts – The News International
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 17, 2020

Photo Credit: Yeshiva University

Hes returning full-time to his true love teaching.

On June 30, Dr. David Berger who has authored several books and over 100 academic articles stepped down as dean of Yeshiva Universitys Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies after serving in that position for 12 years. Ive never wanted to be an administrator, he told The Jewish Press.

Dr. Berger will remain, however, at the institution, doing what he has done for five decades now, teaching Jewish History. He is being replaced by Dr. Daniel Rynhold, who has served as a professor of Jewish philosophy at the institution for over a decade.

Dr. Berger is the author of, among other works, The Jewish Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages and Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue: Essays in Jewish-Christian Relations. The Jewish Press recently spoke to him about his background, academic career, and his primary area of expertise, medieval Christian-Jewish disputations.

The Jewish Press: You grew up in Brooklyn, but I imagine it was a very different Brooklyn than the Brooklyn of today. How would you compare the two?

Dr. Berger: Well, I grew up in Brownsville, which was a Jewish neighborhood when I was growing up. Today, theres no Jewish community there at all.

It was actually already somewhat in Jewish decline in my youth. When we moved to Boro Park in 1961, only very few religious Jews still lived in Brownsville. The Young Israel of Brownsville, for example where I had grown up had already moved to East Flatbush.

Boro Park is largely chassidic today. I imagine it wasnt when you moved there.

When we moved, the Young Israel of Boro Park was thriving, and the other large shul was Beth El. Neither of these were charedi shuls. There was also a major Conservative shul in Boro Park. So it was certainly quite different from what it is today.

For college, you went to Yeshiva University. Which rebbeim did you study with there?

My first year, I studied with Rav Henoch Fishman, who had learned in the Mir Yeshiva in Europe. He was one of the greatest tzaddikim I have ever come across.

His shiur was in Yiddish, but I understood Yiddish, and he was a very significant influence on me. I had gone to Flatbush High School, and when I arrived at Yeshiva [University] and was told to find a chavrusa, Im embarrassed to say that I had no idea what a chavrusa was. In Flatbush yeshiva, Gemara was taught like a regular class. There was no chavrusa learning.

In any event, I was deeply influenced by him, and one of the great compliments he gave me was when he urged me to become a rosh yeshiva. He was a wonderful, wonderful human being.

My second year, I was in the shiur of Rav Ahron Soloveichik, who probably had more of an impact on me than any teacher or rosh yeshiva I ever had including the Rav [R Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik], with whom I studied the following four years. Now, I dont need to say what a gigantic figure the Rav was he was one of the great minds of the 20th century but his brother actually had a greater spiritual influence on me. He was an extraordinary person.

You subsequently got semicha from YU and a PhD from Columbia University in 1970, and taught Jewish History for many decades at Brooklyn College, the CUNY Graduate Center, and Yeshiva University. How would you compare teaching Jewish History to mostly non-frum students at Brooklyn College to teaching Jewish History to mostly frum students at Yeshiva University?

You can tell more stories and jokes at Yeshiva. In Brooklyn College, I told plenty of jokes, but they didnt always go over as well.

Theres also a much more heimishe atmosphere at Yeshiva. Theres a sense of being at ease and having a commonality of culture and purpose that makes teaching at Yeshiva different. In Yeshiva, you can also expect a certain knowledge of Judaism and Jewish texts that you cant expect at Brooklyn College.

You announced in May that you would be stepping down as dean of the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish Studies. What prompted that decision?

Twelve years of being dean were enough.

In 1975, when Haym Soloveitchik [Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchiks son] became dean of Revel, I started teaching there part-time, and then I was offered a full-time position at Revel in 2006. It was an attractive proposition since my heart was in Yeshiva all along, so I retired from CUNY after 36 years and came to Yeshiva.

A year later, I was persuaded almost pressured to accept the deanship of Revel on the grounds that I was the only appropriate person to succeed Dr. Arthur Hyman who [was in his mid-80s and] wanted to step down. So this is a job I undertook out of a sense of obligation, and I think that, after 12 years, Ive fulfilled the obligation. Ive never wanted to be an administrator.

One of your areas of expertise is medieval Christian-Jewish debates. What would you say is the one feature of these debates that most Jews dont know about?

I dont think they know very much about them at all. The ordinary educated Orthodox Jew has not been exposed to polemical literature. Some very knowledgeable Jews might have [at best] read the Vikuach HaRamban.

But in a broader context, going beyond the debates themselves, one example might be how Judaism classifies Christianity. Is it avodah zarah? Some authorities say that associating G-d with another entity shituf is permitted to non-Jews. What does that mean? To what degree does it apply to Christianity?

Its a very complicated, important, and central issue in halacha, not just polemics. But most people who know about it only know about it in an extremely superficial way.

What do you think would surprise contemporary Jews the most about medieval Jewish-Christian disputations?

I think they might be surprised by the fact that sometimes Jews may have said things they didnt mean in order to avoid persecution. In his disputation in 1240, for example, Rav Yechiel of Paris said that when the Talmud says nasty things about Jesus, its referring to a different Jesus from the one Christians believe in. Is that a sincere statement? Its a very interesting question and a matter of dispute among historians.

Heres another example: In Rav Yechiels disputation, he says the Talmuds discriminatory laws against non-Jews dont apply to Christians. They only apply to the nations of antiquity. Once again, the question of Rav Yechiels sincerity has been raised.

But the Meiri, who did not have a disputation with Christians, actually says the same thing even more vigorously and systematically. He says these laws dont apply to umot gedurot bdarchei hadatot, which literally means nations who are limited by the ways of religions that is, nations that have decent moral codes and believe in one G-d. So that means Christians and Muslims are exempted.

Christianity has changed to a great extent from the medieval period, yet many Jews remain distrustful of it perhaps because were constantly reading about Christian persecution of Jews in the past. Can you describe some of the differences between contemporary Christianity and medieval Christianity vis--vis such matters as the crucifixion?

There has been an extremely important transformation in Catholic teaching and in some Protestant teaching as well. The famous turning point was the Second Vatican Council declaration, which goes by the Latin title Nostra Aetate.

Section 4 of Nostra Aetate deals with Jews, and it says only those who were actually present at the crucifixion and urged that Jesus be crucified are responsible for his crucifixion. This guilt does not apply to other Jews at that time and does not apply to subsequent Jews. That was a transformative moment in the history of the church. The Vaticans recognition of Israel, for example, could not have happened without it.

The degree, however, to which this change affects general attitudes towards Jews among ordinary Catholics depends very much on the degree to which it is taught in Catholic schools and that varies from country to country. In the United States and some other Western countries, it has penetrated to a decent extent, but in places like Poland and Latin America, many Catholics still believe the old theology.

Despite this change and despite the extreme pro-Israel sentiment among many Protestant Christians many Jews remain fearful of Christians, believing they must have a larger agenda. Is this fear warranted?

Its a very interesting question. The attitude toward Israel in Christian circles today has very little connection with what Christians believe or dont believe about Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion.

Very liberal Protestant circles, for example, tend to be deeply hostile toward Israel even though many liberal Protestant churches dont blame Jews theologically for what they did to Jesus.

Meanwhile, evangelical or fundamentalist Protestants are generally very pro-Israel. And that has to do with their belief that G-d blessed anyone who would be good to Jews. Thats the blessing to Avraham: vnivrechu vecha kol mishpechos haadamah.

Some Jews [argue] that these Christians favor Israel because its a step toward the second coming of Jesus. Some of them believe that, but there are broader reasons for their support. Now, if you asked them behind closed doors, Do you think a Jew who doesnt believe in Jesus will be saved? many of them will say, No. And yet, at the same time, they are pro-Israel and genuinely friendly toward Jews.

So the theology here is kind of mixed up. Its not straightforward anymore.

Your field is Medieval Jewish History, but if I may ask a question about Modern Jewish History: Right now, its possible to get a PhD in this subject and be an ignoramus when it comes to sephardic history and frum history. You can know next to nothing, for example, about the Breslover Rebbe, the Chidushe HaRim, the Netziv, Rav Akiva Eiger, and numerous others. Is that a problem?

Let me say a number of things. Outside of Yeshiva University, I think what you say is absolutely correct and its unfortunate. Its possible to get a PhD and even be a professor of Modern Jewish History without knowing what a properly educated Jew should know. Thats certainly true.

In Yeshiva, the situation is [better]. At YU, there are a number of ways that pretty much force students to know more about these subjects. We offer a course, for example, on the rabbinic culture in Vilna. And the reading list for PhD students in Modern Jewish History now includes readings that require knowledge of elements of rabbinic and chassidic history.

I dont dismiss what youre saying even for Yeshiva theres an element of truth in it but there is also a great deal of truth in the affirmation that its no longer as true as it once was.

How about sephardic Jewish history? It seems that one can graduate knowing nothing about the history of Jews of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Morocco. Are these Jews ignored because their numbers in modern times were tiny compared to the ashkenazic populations of Europe and the United States?

Well, at Revel, we now have a full-time professor whose field is the sephardic world under Christendom in the early modern period. He teaches the early modern Sephardic disapora, including Latin America and what he calls the Sephardic Atlantic. So we cover that extremely well now.

Sephardic history in the 19th and 20th centuries is not covered very well thats true. But we did have a professor, Daniel Tsadik, who for the last five years or so taught courses on the history of Jews in Islamic lands. Unfortunately for us, he decided to move back to Israel this year, and at this point he wont be immediately replaced. I hope he will be able to be replaced in the foreseeable future.

Read the rest here:

Rav Ahron Soloveichik, Medieval Christianity, And Academic Ignorance An Interview with Eminent Historian Dr. David Berger - The Jewish Press -...

Category: Sephardic | Comments Off on Rav Ahron Soloveichik, Medieval Christianity, And Academic Ignorance An Interview with Eminent Historian Dr. David Berger – The Jewish Press -…
Tags: