I don’t know, I’m not sure that we really needed this particularly horrid act to remind us that hatred and prejudice exist in our country.  But it does seem to offer an important sign that for all of our angst about international terrorism, we’d do well to recognize that it’s alive and well in our own backyard.

And it seems to be working. The New York Times reported today that the late Dr. George Tiller’s Witchita abortion clinic has now closed permanently…

The post Holocaust Museum Post Mortem appeared first on Jewcy.

Today the NY Times reported on an issue that has gripped the Israeli press and public for some time now:

In the two months since Israel ended its military assault on Gaza…testimony is emerging from within the ranks of soldiers and officers alleging a permissive attitude toward the killing of civilians and reckless destruction of property…On Thursday, the military’s chief advocate general ordered an investigation into a soldier’s account of a sniper killing a woman and her two children who walked too close to a designated no-go area by mistake, and another account of a sharpshooter who killed an elderly woman who came within 100 yards of a commandeered house.

In reading these accounts, I’m especially struck by the powerfully defensive reaction of many within Israel – insisting that these were either isolated incidents or that they were simply untrue. Witness Defense Minister Barak’s recent statement on Israel radio:

The Israeli Army is the most moral in the world, and I know what I’m talking about because I know what took place in the former Yugoslavia, in Iraq.

I don’t know if Israel’s army is the "most moral" in the world. I’m not sure if I even know what that means. I don’t know what we really expect when we train young men and women to kill, give them the most sophisticated killing instruments on earth, then demonize their enemies before sending them off to battle.

Israel has long claimed its army follows the military war ethic of Tohar Haneshek ("Purity of Arms"). Whether or not this was ever true, there is seems to be growing evidence that in the heat of battle (or if you prefer, the "fog of war"), the difference between "legal killing" and "war crimes" becomes increasingly fuzzy to those who wield the weapons. And I’m fairly sure that this is the case whether or not the soldiers in question happen to be Jewish.

Even more disturbing are the reports from Israeli soldiers that the Israeli rabbinate is urging them to view this conflict as nothing less than a holy war. Richard Silverstein, blogging over at Tikkun Olam, has translated some of the Hebrew press accounts, uncovering this jaw-dropping testimony from a commander named Ran:

The military rabbis sent us lots of material and in these articles the message was clear: we are the nation of Israel.  We arrived by a miracle in Israel.  God returned us to the Land (of Israel).  Now we must battle to remove the non-Jews who disturb us in our conquest of the Holy Land.  That was the main message.  And the sense of many of the soldiers in this operation was that it was a religious war.  From my perspective as a commander, I tried to talk about politics and various strains within Palestinian society.  That not everyone in Gaza was Hamas and not every resident wants to conquer us.  I wanted to explain to them that this war was not about Kiddush Hashem (sanctifying the name of God), but about stopping Qassam fire.

Expect more horrifying news in the coming weeks…

The post Gaza: Soldiers are Speaking Out appeared first on Jewcy.

Yep, I did a double take when I saw this one.  I know there all too many leftists who are appalled at the sight of Che Guevara turned into a pop T-Shirt icon, but what on on earth do we make of Che Herzl?

Beyond Jewlicious’ shallow hipster-frumster chic, this image raises some interesting assumptions about the very meaning of Zionism itself.  Indeed, there are many who fancy Zionism as the "national liberation movement of the Jewish people."  This concept was made especially famous by Chaim Herzog during his remarks in response to the UN’s "Zionism is Racism" resolution in 1975:

Zionism is the name of the national movement of the Jewish people and is the modern expression of the ancient Jewish heritage. The Zionist ideal, as set out in the Bible, has been, and is, an integral part of the Jewish religion. Zionism is to the Jewish people what the liberation movements of Africa and Asia have been to their own people.

While I understand the substance of Herzog’s argument, I have to confess that this particular defense of the Zionist enterprise has always rung a little hollow for me. First of all, I’m not sure it’s all that accurate to describe Zionism as a national liberation movement –  certainly not as we’ve come to understand this concept post WW II.

While its hard for us to admit, Zionism is the product of ideologies  (i.e. 19th century European ethno-nationalism) that have fallen pretty far out of favor today. That’s why it feels like Herzog’s comparison of Zionism to the liberation movements of Africa and Asia is more than a little spurious.  After all, those movements were uprisings of indigenous peoples against centuries of colonial oppression. By contrast, Zionism sought to create an ethnic Jewish presence in Palestine and ended up doing so at the expense of its current inhabitants.

Not surprisingly, Che himself considered Zionism "reactionary" (according to biographer Jon Lee Anderson). I know he’d be rolling in his unmarked grave if he knew that his face adorned the shirts of clueless American teenagers; I can only imagine the cartwheels he’d be doing upon learning that his image had now become fused with Theodor Herzl’s.

Anyhow, I’m not sure that reconceiving Zionism as a proto-national liberation movement is even all that compelling any more. Now that we’ve witnessed the post-modern travails of decolonized nations, we’re learning that  "national liberation"  might not necessarily be all that it’s cracked up to be. I’m not sure I have any good answers (certainly not one that would fit on a T-Shirt); I suppose I’m just suggesting  it’s worth challenging the romanticizing of nationalism in all its various guises. 

The post Che Herzl Reconsidered appeared first on Jewcy.

In a recent Nation article, Israeli author Liel Liebovitz wonders why the Israeli public has so thoroughly embraced this fiercely anti-war statement (enough to vote it as their third-favorite Israeli film of all time) while ignoring its "harrowing lessons" through its strong support of their government’s military actions against Gaza. 

Liebovitz concludes that "Bashir’s" popularity not withstanding, Israel is sadly disregarding director Ari Folman’s powerfully moral vision – particularly in light of the recent elections:

Israel of today is not Ari Folman’s. It is Avigdor Lieberman’s and Benjamin Netanyahu’s, the country of the countless men and women crying out for revenge. As we root for Waltz with Bashir, if we want to truly honor that film’s message, let us never forget that. Otherwise, all we have is just a pretty animated film.

Journalist Naira Antoun, writing in the Electronic Intifada comes to a similar conclusion:

(We) are reminded of the psychologist’s comment near the start of the film: "We don’t go to places we don’t want to. Memory takes us where we want to go." Perhaps this explains how at the same time that Gaza was being decimated, Israel heaped acclaim and awards on Waltz with Bashir; in addition to numerous international awards, the film scooped up six awards at the Israeli Film Academy. Indeed, the same Israelis who flocked to see the film gave their enthusiastic approval to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. According to a poll released on 14 January by Tel Aviv University, a staggering 94 percent of Israeli Jews supported or strongly supported the operation.

As a Palestinian viewer, however, Antoun goes even farther than Liebovitz: she faults the film for rendering Palestinians essentially invisible:

There is nothing interesting or new in the depiction of Palestinians — they have no names, they don’t speak, they are anonymous. But they are not simply faceless victims. Instead, the victims in the story that Waltz with Bashir tells are Israeli soldiers. Their anguish, their questioning, their confusion, their pain — it is this that is intended to pull us…We don’t see Palestinian facial expressions; only a lingering on dead, anonymous faces. So while Palestinians are never fully human, Israelis are, and indeed are humanized through the course of the film.

Among other things, I think these reviews illuminate the painful difficulties inherent in making an anti-war statement while the war is still raging.  A sad anecdote: a congregant recently told me that when she saw the film, a screaming match erupted in the audience after it ended.  Apparently someone screamed "That’s Gaza!" to which another responded "Shut up!" and on it went…

And on it goes…

The post Dancing Around Bashir appeared first on Jewcy.

It’s also fair to say that those of us who cherish the values of liberal democracy are recoiling at the prospect of a politically ascendant Avigdor Lieberman, whose most notorious campaign promise is a requirement for all Arab citizens of Israel to sign a loyalty oath to the Jewish state:

(Lieberman’s) loyalty oath would require all Israelis to vow allegiance to Israel as a Jewish, democratic state, to accept its symbols, flag and anthem, and to commit to military service or some alternative service. Those who declined to sign such a pledge would be permitted to live here as residents but not as voting citizens.

Currently Israeli Arabs, who constitute 15 percent to 20 percent of the population, are excused from national service. Many would like to shift Israel’s identify from that of a Jewish state to one that is defined by all its citizens, arguing that only then would they feel fully equal.

Mr. Lieberman says that there is no room for such a move and that those who fail to grasp the centrality of Jewish identity to Israel have no real place in it.

These are disturbing ideas to be sure, and it’s even more troubling that they seem to finding traction with increasing numbers of the Israeli electorate.

And yet…

…and yet in the wee hours of the night, I just can’t shake the nagging feeling that the real reason Lieberman makes us squirm is that he shines a bright light on the logical contradictions of political Zionism: an ethnic nationalist movement that has always sought to create a Jewish state in a land that also happens to be populated by millions of non-Jewish inhabitants.

Take, for example, Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which refers specifically to Israel as a "Jewish state" committed to the "ingathering of the exiles" but also promises complete equality of political and social rights for all its citizens, irrespective of race, religion, or sex.  Therein lies the tension: the first principle emphasizes the creation of a state that privileges the Jewish people and the latter promises equal rights for all its citizens.

I don’t say this easily: I’m not sure this is a nut that Israel will ever fully be able to crack.  It is indeed notable that Israel has repeatedly tried and failed to create a constitution that legally guarantees equality for all citizens of this exclusively Jewish state. In the meantime, Israel’s Arab citizens suffer from what we Americans would consider significant institutional discrimination with only limited recourse to the rule of law.

So as a nice liberal American Jew fully prepared to voice my outrage at Lieberman’s likely Tuesday morning success, here are some questions I feel compelled to ponder:

– As proud citizens and beneficiaries of a secular multi-cultural nation, are we ready to face the deeper implications of Israel’s ethnic nationalism?

– Will it ever truly be possible, in a country defined as exclusively Jewish, for its Arab citizens to be considered as anything but second class citizens (or at worst, traitors)?

– If  it does indeed come down to a choice between a Jewish or a democratic state, which will we ultimately support?

I’d love to hear your responses…

The post Lieberman and the Contradictions of Ethnic Nationalism appeared first on Jewcy.

There’s some real history here. Best’s opened for business in Chicago in 1925, founded by Isaac Oscherwitz (whose father nearly went into business with Rabbi Dov Behr Manischewitz a generation earlier).

Oscherwitz’s granddaughter Susan Berger recently wrote a wonderful and poignant eulogy in the Tribune, in which she mourns the end of an era:

This is a loss not only for my family, but for the millions of Jews who keep kosher and the many millions who don’t but learned to love my family’s hot dogs…

Oh, the memories. There was my summer on the switchboard. I almost got fired for answering the phone, "Best’s Kosher, what’s your beef?"  One of my favorite stories is when there had been a lot of stealing in the factory, detectives were hired and immediately caught the culprit. It was my Grandfather Phil, who apparently left each night with bags of meat.

The employees at the factory stayed for years. It was common before a Jewish holiday to hear African-American, Hispanic, Polish or Asian workers greet each other and say, "Hey man, tomorrow’s Tu Bishvat!"

Speaking personally, I can only say it just won’t be the same taking in a game at Wrigley without my ritual pilgrimage to the Best’s stand. Zichrono Livracha...

The post Memo from Chicago: Best’s No More appeared first on Jewcy.

There were several motivations for the statement. First and foremost, it came from a desire to express a Rabbinical voice of opposition to Israel’s military action in Gaza, which we felt was strategically disastrous and morally outrageous. It was also important to us that Jewish community leaders publicly expressed sorrow not just for the loss of Israeli life but also for the massive devastation experienced by Gazans during the past three weeks:

We condemn the firing of missiles from Gaza that forced so many Israelis to live in fear and we mourn the loss of life that resulted from these attacks. However, we are devastated by Israel’s disproportionate use of force, killing more a myriad of people, including over 450 children. In the wake of such overwhelming civilian bloodshed, we can only ask, in the words of the Talmud, "How do we know that our blood is redder than the blood of our fellow?"

Additionally, since we felt we could not address the tragedy of the war while ignoring the larger political context of the conflict, our statement contained a strong message for the new American administration:

We urge our new President to turn back the policies of previous administrations – policies which have given Israel permission to take numerous measures that we believe are counter to the cause of peace, including the expropriation of Palestinian lands, destruction of Palestinians homes and businesses and the widespread building of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

The most controversial aspect of our statement was our call for the new administration to take an assertive diplomatic approach with Israel, and not to rule out the withholding of military aid "as necessary." As anyone familiar with American Jewish community politics must surely know, withholding aid  is the "third rail" for organized Jewry –  i.e., the line that can never be crossed. And it was this was the sentence more than any other that confounded of our core group of signers.

We tried various different wordings: "if the administration deems it necessary,"  "withholding of aid as a last resort,"  "withholding aid for noncompliance" – but in the end, no wording seemed to suffice. Some felt that this was going to far and others refused to sign unless a strong statement about withholding aid was included.

I can certainly understand why this issue pushes such profound buttons for American Jews. It plays on our deepest fears and as well as our abiding sense of Jewish vulnerability. For many American Jews, the withdrawal of aid would be tantamount to abandonment by Israel’s most significant ally. But there are other Jews – and I believe their ranks are growing – who simply do not want to be party to Israel’s growing militarism and are not afraid to admit it.

For my part, I was less concerned about this particular issue, and perhaps that just reflects my own naivete. While I understand our community’s fears, I also believe that withholding aid is probably the strongest diplomatic "stick" America can wield with Israel – and in the end it may be the only one that will ever really get Israel’s attention. But whatever we might think about this issue, I just don’t agree that it must be ipso facto off the table for mere discussion in our community – and I deeply resent those in our community who reserve the right to excommunicate others who hold this opinion in good faith.

It’s all moot anyhow. No matter how we worded the statement, we couldn’t retain our core of signers. Some asked to have their names removed for various reasons. Many told me they would have loved to have signed, but couldn’t for organizational or professional reasons. After several days we called it quits.

I know there are some decent lessons in all of this, but mostly I’m just frustrated  and very, very sad. I know for a fact that there are many Jews out there who were waiting for rabbis to make a statement of this kind, regardless of the final wording. I still believe  that whatever the political realities, those of us who care about the shared fate of Israelis and Palestinians will have to find the courage of our convictions.

For me it really comes down to this: two of our most sacred Jewish values are Ahavat Yisrael ("Love of the People Israel") and Ahavat Habriot ("Love for All People"). Should it really be that hard for us to promote both with equal passion?

The post Rabbis on the Third Rail appeared first on Jewcy.