fbpx

March 19, 2014

Palestinians and Israel as the ‘Jewish State’: Symptoms of neurosis

Two more views on the issue of calling Israel the Jewish State:
The problem won’t go awayTwo definitions, two implications

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, in an interview quoted in The New York Times, repeated his objection to recognizing Israel as a Jewish state: “It’s my narrative, it’s my history, it’s my story.” He continued, “I’ve never heard in the history of mankind that others must participate in defining the nature of others. It’s really ridiculous.”

Ridiculing is, indeed, one of the core human defense mechanisms, as is the appeal to “the history of mankind,” which is a version of “everybody knows.”  Defense mechanisms defend against acknowledging a reality: “My child is gay,” “Obama was born in the United States,” “Israel is a Jewish state.” A neurosis is the building of a private world against the facticity of the world outside, the obstinate Other. The neurotic does everything one can to enforce that private world. When something on the outside occurs that significantly damages the world one has built on the inside, there is a neurotic need to “undo.” The Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is a psychological need to “undo” Israel, as if another state just appeared yonder, Atlantis rising up out of the ocean. “Not sure what it is, but as long as it ain’t Jewish.”

If Israel were Jewish, then the last century would be real. The final collapse of Muslim dreams of world domination, at its heyday in the 11th to 14th centuries, was real in the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. England and France really did divvy up the loot and plunder the land. The vast humiliation really did happen. A Western-dominated United Nations really did divide Palestine between Jews and Arabs, and the Palestinians and their co-belligerents really did lose the wars of 1948 and 1967. Lost wars often create changed borders and refugees, who eventually are resettled in new homes. To hold on to old borders, to prohibit refugees from resettling, to insist that the descendants of those refugees be repatriated is a way to undo. To prohibit Israel’s name from appearing on maps, and to drum into each succeeding generation the illegitimacy of the “Zionist entity,” is to hopefully rewind history. All are acts of denial.

When I was studying Hebrew in Jerusalem back in 1980, I was studying the prepositions that go along with the Hebrew word hi’keerHi’keer et means to know something — as in conocer in Spanish — that is, to be familiar with somebody or something. The term hi’keer b’ means “to recognize politically.” Here is the example our teacher, a soft-spoken young woman who suddenly had iron in her voice, gave:  “Ha-palestinayim lo makeerim b’Yisrael, aval hem makeerim et Yisrael heitev.” The Palestinians don’t recognize Israel, but they are very familiar with Israel.” Up-close-and-personal familiar, as in retaliatory strikes in response to terror attacks.

Palestinians know that Israel is a Jewish state (just as Israelis had to admit that Palestinians are not just southern Syrians), otherwise they would not be committed to its eradication and feel the unpleasant effects of that commitment. I understand that for most Palestinians, a peace treaty with Israel is a suspending of the conflict to a more propitious time. This does not outrage me. But it sobers me when I think about Middle East peace.

Erekat, the moderate, admits as much. Whatever his narrative, his history, his story, is, it does not include the facticity of the last 100 years, including the rise of the Jewish state.

Looming in the background to all this, of course, is the half of Palestine not represented at the peace negotiations, Hamas. Hamas, at least, is true to its colors. Calling Israel the “Zionist entity” at least recognizes Zionism as a historical fact. Hamas will not accept the semantic sleight of hand that Erekat, Mahmoud Abbas and their ilk favor. Hamas is straight up: the eradication of Israel and its Jews, now and forever, whatever you want to call it, regardless of absent adjectives.

Perhaps this neurotic need to undo is just neurotic as a fox. Abbas and Erekat know that their hold on East Palestine is only as good as the next election. And if history is any guide, any election that Hamas wins will be the last election. If the Palestinian populace, 60 percent of whom are against recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, turns against them, they will be out of office and power permanently, which means off the United Nations dole. I believe that in their heart of hearts, they wish that Israel would be scraped off the map and the Jews shoved into the sea. Absent that, they want at least to maintain power and office. As Yasser Arafat knew, the way to stay in power is to be in constant negotiations or in non-negotiations. At Camp David in 2000, Arafat snatched war out of the jaws of peace. It gave him a few more years in power, his rep as a warrior and untold millions of U.N. largess stashed away. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state would most probably fast track Abbas and Erekat to being deposed.

Abbas and Erekat don’t have to go near Camp David and find themselves on the brink of peace. Their neurotic stand is supported by another psychological malady from which much of the Western world suffers, a neurosis without which the Palestinians might have to face reality:  the psychological need to work off the guilt of imperialism and colonialism. One way to work off guilt is to identity with the victim and to see oneself as working on behalf of the victim. Palestinians have ably marketed themselves as the archetypal victim of colonialism and imperialism. The effort required from those working on their behalf — thankfully for those who feel responsible for world suffering — is neither complex nor too demanding: Harm and delegitimize Israel as much as possible.

Why go after truly rapacious evil states such as North Korea, or thug-ocracies China and Russia; why not decry the massacres occurring in Syria and Nigeria, or the specter of starvation in eastern Africa, when you can engage in self-congratulatory slacktivism by going after the low-hanging fruit of the Jewish state? Delegitimizing Israel is easy and trendy to boot. Confronting any of the real evils in the world requires facing reality, complex thinking and moral fortitude — qualities that neurotics avoid. They prefer avoidance affected by slogans and neat fabrications. Western guilt and Palestinian denial form a mighty dysfunctional duo.

Not recognizing reality, that Israel actually is a Jewish state, is to enforce a neurosis, a war against the world. Unfortunately, the world targeted here is Israel, and the war is real. We’ll know that the Palestinians are no longer delusional when they publicly resign themselves to the fact that Israel is, indeed, a Jewish state and then start to get on with the rest of their lives.


Rabbi Mordecai Finley is the spiritual leader of Ohr HaTorah Synagogue and professor of Jewish thought at the Academy for Jewish Religion, California.

Palestinians and Israel as the ‘Jewish State’: Symptoms of neurosis Read More »

Recognizing the ‘Jewish State’: Two definitions, two implications

Two more views on the issue of calling Israel the Jewish State:
The problem won’t go awaySymptoms of neurosis 

There are two ways to characterize the State of Israel in Hebrew. One is Ha-M’dinah Ha-Y’hudit (“The Jewish state”) and the other is M’dinato shel Ha-am Ha-Y’hudi (“The state of the Jewish people”). There is a significant difference between the two that we ignore at Israel’s peril.

To use the terminology “the Jewish state” is to imply it is exclusive to “certified Jews” (see below). To use the latter (“The state of the Jewish people”) is to be inclusive of Klal Yisrael (i.e. all of world Jewry, although Israeli citizens have duties, rights and privileges that Diaspora Jewry does not share), as well as of the 1.5 million non-Jewish Israeli citizens, currently 20 percent of Israel’s population.

The former challenges Israel’s democratic principles; the latter enables democracy to flourish.

The former allows the State of Israel and “Greater Israel” (i.e. biblical Israel) to be conflated as one; the latter allows for the establishment of two states for two peoples on land both claim as their historic legacy.

The former gives license to ultra-Orthodox politicians to determine Israel’s religious standards, practices and character; the latter promotes freedom of choice and equal rights for Israeli Jews and Israeli non-Jews in matters of religious preference without the state’s interference or preference for one religion or religious stream over another.  

Israel’s Declaration of Independence articulates clearly the state’s democratic principles:

The State of Israel … will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions … ”

Unfortunately, these values have been compromised. A recent article by Bernard Avishai in The New Yorker observed:

“ … neo-Zionist ideas and Ben Gurion’s rash compromises with rabbinical forces over two generations ago [resulted in] laws that have left Israel a seriously compromised democracy this Jewish state allocates public land … almost exclusively to certified Jews, creates immigration laws to bestow citizenship on certified Jews, empowers the Jewish Agency to advance the well-being of certified Jews, lacks civil marriage and appoints rabbis to marry certified Jews only to one another, founded an Orthodox educational system to produce certified Jews … assumes custodianship of a sacred capital for the world’s certified Jews —  indeed, this Jewish state presumes to certify Jews in the first place. … In Israel, having J-positive blood is a serious material advantage a fifth (soon a quarter) of Israeli citizens are Palestinian in origin, and thus are materially, legally disadvantaged by birth.” 

A “certified Jew” is what ultra-Orthodox rabbis confer upon an individual whose mother and maternal line is Jewish going back generations, or upon converts who meet the approval of those same ultra-Orthodox rabbis.

“Non-certified Jews” include individuals born of a Jew whose Jewish status is questioned by those ultra-Orthodox rabbis, or who converts to Judaism with a Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist or Renewal rabbi, or even with most Modern Orthodox rabbis in Israel and Diaspora communities.

“Non-certified Jews” cannot get married in Israel or be buried in a Jewish cemetery in Israel even if they are Israeli-born, have served in the army, paid taxes and/or were killed in battle or in a terrorist attack.

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis not only determine Israeli citizens’ Jewish status but have taken control of most Jewish holy sites, including the Western Wall and Plaza, Rachel’s Tomb, and the Cave of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron. They have sought to separate the sexes in public areas and on public transportation, to shut down government services on Shabbat and Holy Days, to grant draft deferments to “certified Jews” studying in their yeshivot, and to disburse large sums of Israeli taxpayer money to ultra-Orthodox schools and synagogues.

Israel’s internal challenges are broadly three-fold: Maintain its Jewish majority, its Jewish character and its democracy.

For Israel to retain its Jewish majority, there needs to be a two-state agreement so that 1.5 million West Bank Palestinian-Arabs can be relieved of Israeli occupation and become citizens of a Palestinian state. Before Michael Oren became Israel’s ambassador to the United States, he wrote that Israel needs at least 70 percent of its population to be Jewish in order to assure its Jewish majority over the long term. This means that those advocating the annexation of the West Bank into Israel as a one-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would create a serious threat to Israel’s identity as the state of the Jewish people.

For Israel to remain a democratic society, it needs both a functioning judiciary and a Knesset that respects the separation of synagogue and state and assures equal treatment under the law for all Israeli citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish alike.

For all these reasons, designating Israel as a “Jewish state” compromises Israel’s democracy, Jewish majority and Jewish character.

To call Israel “the state of the Jewish people,” however, honors Israel’s Jewish diversity, preserves its Jewish majority, and protects and sustains Israel’s democratic traditions.


Rabbi John Rosove is senior rabbi of Temple Israel of Hollywood and national co-chair of the rabbinic cabinet of J Street.

Recognizing the ‘Jewish State’: Two definitions, two implications Read More »

The growing anti-genocide movement translates “Never Again” into action

In April 1945, just a few days after their liberation, survivors of Buchenwald are famously reported to have constructed handmade signs that said “Never Again”, posting the words throughout the concentration camp. Since that time, these two words have become shorthand for our collective and sacred responsibility to act in the face of genocide and mass atrocities – a duty echoed last month at the United Nations and throughout the world as part of the International Day of Holocaust Commemoration.

While the international community has quite frequently recounted the lessons of the Holocaust, it has too often failed to heed them. It is a sad truth that the appalling images etched into our global consciousness of Nazi death camps have been followed by unimaginable genocidal horrors in Cambodia, Rwanda and Sudan as well as by the unspeakable mass atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Indeed, according to genocide scholar Barbara Harff, 46 genocides have claimed the lives of tens of millions since 1945. 

We now face a new set of crises with genocide and mass atrocities threatening millions in several nations. In the Central African Republic, there is a grave danger that sectarian violence between Christians and Muslims could escalate. In South Sudan, a political conflict with ethnic undertones has the potential to upset a delicate peace in the fragile new nation. Nearby, Omar al-Bashir’s regime in Sudan has openly proclaimed its desire to wipe out the Nuba People; the regime has been working toward this goal for years with aerial bombardments targeting civilians, and a government-orchestrated famine. And in Syria, Bashar al-Assad's security forces continue to brutally massacre his own people.

Over the past six decades, far too many people – from common citizens to world leaders – have thrown up their hands in the face of dangers like this. Some believe that there is simply nothing they can do. Others suggest that the outbreak of genocide is impossible to detect or too complicated to prevent. 

In fact, genocide is usually predictable and preventable; and each and every one of us has vast potential to fight it. In Washington D.C late last month, Jewish World Watch brought together a multi-faith group of activists, including students and faculty from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law’s Human Rights Clinic to turn the words “Never Again” into action.  We come from communities all across the country, representing 375,000 concerned citizens from all faiths and backgrounds. 

This group told our elected officials three things. 

First, it’s usually possible to foresee genocide and mass atrocities long before they strike. Years of research have shown us how to spot the warning signs. They include a history of prior genocides, the presence of ethnically polarized elites and ongoing civil wars, instability, the spread of extreme and exclusionary ideology, and state-sponsored discrimination.

Second, international action can be effective and it does not always have to mean boots on the ground. There are many models for successful intervention. In Aceh, Sumatra, it was diplomacy that persuaded the GAM to lay down their arms and commit to a peace process. In Columbia, the FARC is engaged in final negotiations with the government to transition into a political party. These cases show that constant vigilance, active international engagement and negotiations and diplomacy in high-risk areas decrease the likelihood that military intervention will be necessary.

Third, citizens are ready to play their part. Over the past decade, an anti-genocide movement has risen across the United States that numbers millions of supporters and more than 100 organizations. 

Last month, we saw the power of this movement, when Intel announced that it would produce “conflict-free” computer processors, guaranteeing that all of the company’s mineral suppliers were not sourcing from warlords. This decision was the direct result of years of work by anti-genocide activists. With consumer support and activism, store shelves will soon be filled with conflict-free products, which could make a decisive difference to help end mass atrocities in places like Darfur and Sudan. 

It is time for people of conscience to unite.  This year we will mark two decades since the Rwandan genocide, 99 years since the Armenian genocide, and 69 years since the liberation of Auschwitz.  By now, we should recognize that it’s not nearly enough to say the words “Never Again”… we have to live them.

Rabbi Harold Schulweis is the Co-Founder of Jewish World Watch.

Varun Soni is the Dean of Religious Life at the University of Southern California.

The growing anti-genocide movement translates “Never Again” into action Read More »

Beastie Boys settle lawsuit with GoldieBlox over song parody

Yet another reason to love the Beastie Boys: Those guys know how to settle a lawsuit.

The band settled for an undisclosed amount with GoldieBlox over the toy company’s video ad that featured a parody of their hit song “Girls.” ”That settlement includes (a) the issuance of an apology by GoldieBlox, which will be posted on GoldieBlox’s website, and (b) a payment by GoldieBlox, based on a percentage of its revenues, to one or more charities selected by Beastie Boys that support science, technology, engineering and mathematics education for girls,” a spokesperson for the company told Rolling Stone.

Back in November, GoldieBlox’s video of little girls building a Rube Goldberg-like contraption to a version of “Girls” with more female-friendly lyrics went viral. The Beastie Boys expressed that they viewed this  as copyright infringement. So GoldieBlox filed a lawsuit claiming the whole thing was entirely kosher because the ad was a parody and therefore protected under fair use.

The Beastie Boys said that while they loved the idea of empowering young girls, they also loved the idea of honoring the wishes of their deceased bandmate Adam Yauch, who indicated in his will that nothing he’d created could ever be used to sell products.

The band pulled the song from the video and posted an apology letter to their website. Then, in December the Beastie Boys filed a counter-suit, accusing the company of stealing music.

So yes, things got ugly, but we think this is a pretty great ending. Perhaps they might want to brainstorm with Natalie Portman for names of worthy charities? Just a thought.

Beastie Boys settle lawsuit with GoldieBlox over song parody Read More »

Bruce Pearl tapped as Auburn basketball coach

Bruce Pearl, who led the U.S. team to the gold medal at the 2009 Maccabiah Games, was hired as the head coach of the Auburn University men’s basketball team.

The former coach at the University of Tennessee, Pearl was hired Tuesday to replace Tony Barbee, who was fired last week. Pearl reportedly signed a six-year contract worth $2.2 million per year.

He moved to ESPN as a college basketball analyst after being fired at the Southeastern Conference school in 2012 for recruiting violations. Auburn also belongs to the SEC.

“I’m humbled and blessed to back in the game that I love,” Pearl, a founding member of the Jewish Coaches Association, said in a statement. “I don’t know how long it will take, but it’s time to rebuild the Auburn basketball program, and bring it to a level of excellence so many of the other teams on campus enjoy.”

The three-time national coach of the year had led Tennessee to the NCAA Tournament for five consecutive seasons prior to his firing. Before Knoxville, where he gained national attention for painting his upper body orange for a women’s basketball game, Pearl had enjoyed success in coaching stops at Milwaukee and Div. II Southern Indiana.

His American squad at the Maccabiah Games defeated host Israel, 95-86, in overtime to claim the gold medal. His son Steven was a member of his Maccabiah and Tennessee teams.

Bruce Pearl tapped as Auburn basketball coach Read More »

Why evil committed in the name of God is worse

If I could ask one question of a religious person — of any faith — it would be, “What is the worst sin in your religion?”

The answer to this question can often tell you more than that of any other question about that person’s religion, or at least about that person’s own religious values. If someone were to respond, for example, “non-marital sex” or “atheism,” that would be, most of us would agree, unimpressive. These are sins in every monotheistic religion, but they are hardly the worst sins. Most of us would surely deem murder, or torture, or any serious act of immoral violence as a far worse sin.

The answer to this question is one of the few issues about which most religious Jews agree. When it comes to naming the worst sin in Judaism, they would respond “chillul haShem,” desecrating God’s name. This means doing evil while acting religious — or, to put it more simply, doing evil in God’s name.

From a Jewish perspective, as horrific as murder is, murder committed by an atheist individual or government is not as damaging as murder by a religious individual or government. From the victim’s perspective, of course, there is no difference. 

Why is murder committed in the name of God worse? Because it ruins God’s name. And belief in a morally demanding and morally judging God as the only means to a better world is at the heart of the Jewish message. When God is rendered the source of evil rather than the source of good, hope for a good world is shattered.

That is why the evil committed in our time by Muslims in the name of God and of religion has had a particularly negative effect on this generation’s faith in God. Never has atheism been as robust as it has been in the last few decades. 

It cannot be a coincidence that this period has also seen more evil done in God’s name than any time since the Middle Ages. And while religious spokespeople have, of course, condemned Islamic terrorism, few Jewish or Christian — not to mention Muslim — clergy have regularly spoken out against all this evil in God’s name. Instead, far more Jewish and Christian clergy have devoted considerable time to speaking out against “Islamophobia.” They have inferred from all the murder and maiming done in the name of Allah that it is not God’s name that most needs defending, but Islam’s. In so doing, these Christians and Jews have damaged religion and the essential religious message that God is good and demands good.

One might add that the Roman Catholic priests who molested young boys — and sometimes, but much more rarely, young girls — also not only horrifically harmed their victims but God’s name as well. 

Exactly 40 years ago, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin and I wrote our book “The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism.” One of the nine questions was, “If Judaism Is Supposed to Make People Better, How Do You Account for Unethical Religious Jews?” 

We ended our answer to that question with an appeal to observant Jews who were known to be dishonest in their business affairs: If you are known for keeping kosher and also known for shady business practices, we wrote, please stop those practices. But if you do not stop those practices, please stop keeping kosher.

If Jews and Christians better understood the commandment against “taking God’s name in vain,” perhaps the greatest sin would have been more obvious to them.

“Do not take the Lord your God’s name in vain” is how the King James Version translates what Jews call the third commandment (Jews and Christians number the Ten Commandments somewhat differently). This translation is understandable, but it is a serious mistranslation.

Literally translated, what the commandment states is: “Do not carry [or “lift”] the Lord your God’s name in vain.”

And who is it that carries God’s name in vain? The person who commits evil in God’s name. The proof that this is the correct translation is not only linguistic. The very fact that God says that this is the one commandment whose violation He will not forgive makes it clear that this is the worst sin, and that it cannot possibly mean one who says “God” in a non-religious context — such as saying, “God, that was a terrific movie.”

If religious Jews and Christians want to make a moral dent in the world, there is no greater place to start than by announcing loudly and clearly what the greatest sin is. Until then, atheism will only increase. No atheist arguments alienate people from God as much as bad religious people do. 

And when the religious world is largely silent about the religious evil that permeates our world, it reconfirms the irrelevance of God and religion to making a good world. As I said, the problem is not protecting Islam’s reputation — that is the job of Muslims — it is protecting God’s reputation.


Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host (AM 870 in Los Angeles) and founder of PragerUniversity.com. His latest book is the New York Times best-seller “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph” (HarperCollins, 2012).

Why evil committed in the name of God is worse Read More »