YUTOPIA

Yom Haatzmaut has always been a controversial holiday given the religious and political significance of the State. For some, the State of Israel is a harbinger of a messianic age, while others are theologically opposed to a Jewish presence in Israel. Then of course there are secularists who minimize the religious aspect of Israel and emphasize the importance of Israel purely as a political entity.

But regardless of how one views the State of Israel, most will acknowledge (and often complain) about how Israel functions. Religiously, Israel is be too oppressive for some and too accommodating for others. Israel's public policy has also been debated at length, with similar dissatisfaction from leftists and rightists.

I have not conducted a formal study on the qualitative strength of Zionism today, but I would suspect that as the government and rabbinate continue to make controversial decisions that it would erode some of the Zionistic passion and support. On the other hand, Aliyah continues to grow at a steady pace and most Jews across denominations still support Israel in some way. I suggest that this is because the relationship with Israel does not follow usual patterns of logic but rather the commitment of emotion.

One of my favorite verses in Tanach is the insightful Mishlei 10:12 "sin'ah t'oreir m'danim, v'al kol p'sha'im t'chase ahava" - hatred awakens strife, but love covers all offenses. This astute observation is repeatedly validated in most interpersonal relationships. Someone who hates another will consistently focus on negative characteristics (real or imagined). This can range from denying positive aspects to actively stirring up trouble and picking fights. In contrast, even the most obviously explicit shortcomings are blissfully overlooked when love is involved.

In this past week's Torah reading of Tazria/Metzora we find an example of this principle demonstrated in the halakha. Vayikra 14:33-57 describes the process by which a kohein declares a house to be infected with tzara'at and the method of repurification. The first step in the process is one of exposure; before the kohein conducts his examination, he removes the entire contents of the house (14:36). Presumably this would be a practical instruction to facilitate a more thorough examination. Considering that the consequence of a diagnosis of infection is the house must be dismantled (14:45), we should expect the kohein's examination to be as comprehensive as possible.

However despite the literal airing of one's laundry in public, the kohein's inspection also literally leaves a stone unturned. Specifically, when the kohein enters the house, he needs to open the door. While the door is open the kohein obviously cannot check the obstructed area behind the door. Yet according to B. Hullin 10b the kohein only closes the door when he leaves, bypassing that hidden area. In other words, despite the practical and potentially spiritual consequences, the Torah instructs that there be some area left unchecked.

I suggest that this detail is crucial for the understanding of tzara'at. B. Arachin 16a lists some of the sins which tzara'at of the house, which include stinginess and lashon hara - bad speech. Perhaps the public removal of ones property and the meticulous examination of the violator's house parallels the personal judgments he imposed on others. However, by leaving part of the house coved (kisuyi) and outside of scope his examination, the kohein is also demonstrating to the offender that this examination is not done of hatred or revenge, but rather out of ahava - love.

I heard a speaker this past Shabbat who in extolling the greatness of Israel emphasized the triad of Eretz Yisrael - the land of Israel, Am Yisrael - the nation of Israel, and Torat Yisrael. Recent events have shown that this model is not only insufficient, but also wildly inaccurate. The "nation" of Israel is fractured both politically and religiously that the unity implied by "Am" is tenuous at best. Torat Yisrael is repeatedly abused due to rampant (and illiterate) fundamentalism on the left and right. Even the Land itself is unstable given the unsettling policies of the Israeli government.

The problems with the State of Israel are beyond the scope of this essay. What is relevant is that despite all the valid criticisms and difficulties of Israel, people are still making aliyah and strengthening their connection with Eretz Yisrael. Such a commitment would not be possible with a purely rational perspective, but would require some degree of cognitive dissonance - the ability to intentionally overlook the adversities out of the love for Israel and her people.

In other words, Eretz Yisrael, Am Yisrael, and Torat Yisrael can only survive and succeed if they are first predicated and dependent on Ahavat Yisrael.

Posted by Josh at 5:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO maintains a list of significant cultural sites worldwide in its World Heritage List. While the purpose of this list is to "catalogue, name, and preserve sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance to the common heritage of humankind."

The current issue of National Geographic Traveler magazine reviews the conditions of some of these sites, at least how they fare in respect to tourism.

Of particular note, Masada rates a 69/100 (minor difficulties):

"As a historic site away from an urban center, its cultural integrity has been preserved. The site is well-maintained, and the signage is adequate. It offers vistas of the Dead Sea and Jordan Valley rock formations of unprecedented beauty. The risk for commercial overdevelopment is high and needs to be addressed before it spoils the site."

"Breathtaking and well worth the visit. Sunrises at Masada are especially beautiful. It benefits the local population both as an economic development tool and as a reminder of the population's connection with its past."

"Over the past decade management has improved enormously. The interpretation center and the parking areas at the base of the rock have now been rebuilt in a better style and relocated so as to be largely invisible from the top of the rock, whilst the cable car is now far less obtrusive."

"Tourist volume and cable cars—which allow much greater access—are minor problems. The evaporation of the Dead Sea presents more major long-term concerns to the area."

On the downside, "Jerusalem: Old city and its walls"1 does not hold up as well rating a score of 54/100 (In moderate trouble: all criteria medium-negative or a mix of negatives and positives).

"Most beautiful light of any city, and a unique place. Building codes in new city requiring Jerusalem stone exterior was a great idea. Barrier fence and TV towers intrude on old city. Archaeology is amazing in the tunnel along the wall."

"Confusing as to what is history and what is now a modern Israeli interpretation. Guides do not provide accurate historical information—highly politicized. Local community has little benefit other than employment and shop revenue."

"The impact for any visitor is still strong, and restoration seems to be in good hands, but crowds are a nuisance and the high security is obtrusive."

"Disastrous. A political football. The way the authorities are developing it is killing the multi-religious nature of the city as well as robbing it of meaning."

"History is politics here, so hugely important Islamic heritage is not given sufficient emphasis (e.g., destruction of area around Wailing Wall to make piazza)."

The magazine's singular focus on tourism is apparent in these comments, first by discounting any religious benefit Jerusalem might have to the local community. But what is most disingenuous is the predisposed cynicism to the Israeli government. No mention is made of which "authorities" are killing the multi-religious nature of the city, but I doubt they are including the controversial developments on the Temple Mount. And while Jerusalem is indeed highly politicized, the moderators could have just as easily toured through the Armenian, Christian, and Arab quarters to counter the "modern Israeli interpretation." If they chose not to, then we could easily conclude that there might just be advantages to obtrusively high security.

Considering how much the Israeli economy depends on tourism dollars such a review in a prominent travelling magazine cannot be encouraging. However, Israel has larger concerns at the moment in maintaining its own security in both the short and long term. This of course includes making the country as safe as possible such that travel journalists are free to explore the country and return safely to write myopically critical reviews.

1. Notably, and not surprisingly, not listed as being in Israel.

Posted by Josh at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In what is not considered to be a blasphemous rumor, Depeche Mode cancelled their upcoming Israeli concert. Either the tech crew just had enough of the dangerous situation or it's some form of condemnation, but cancellations such as these are becoming a pain that Israel is used to.

All right, I'm done now.

Posted by Josh at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

It's not surprising that as we approach the GLBT World Pride in Jerusalem (August 6-12), we find increasingly critical and hostile rhetoric against the event. Jerusalem is no stranger to religious controversies, and the opposition to homosexuality is nearly universal among the major religions.

My understanding is that there are two major goals of the Pride events. The first is to provide support and encouragement for the GLBT community internally, and the second is to promote tolerance and acceptance. (Yes, I know this is an oversimplification). From the World Pride mission statement:

It is time to demonstrate to our community, to our neighbors and peers and indeed to the world, not only that we belong, but that our love and our pride can cross the harshest borders that divide people.

"In these times of intolerance and suspicion, from the home of three of the world's great religions, we will proclaim that love knows no borders." [emphasis added]

World Pride is not simply a matter of communal bonding or promoting tolerance, but a subliminal protest against intolerant religions. There is of course an intelligent strategy at work here. By assuming a greater challenge, the GLBT community can more effectively galvanize itself by breaking another barrier (if peaceful) or standing strong in the face of opposition.

But consider some of the stated themes of the upcoming World Pride:

• Our values are guided by tolerance, equality and pluralism.
• The parade in Jerusalem is conformed to the city's nature in respect toward the local orthodox populations.
• The pride events bring a new inner-faith message of equality and tolerance.
• Obeying the law and avoiding violence and harsh criticism are some of our messages.

Given the underlying attitude towards religion, these statements are disingenuous at best. If the values are guided by tolerance, then a better location should have been selected. The parade obviously does not conform in respect to the Orthodox populations as evidenced by the vehement opposition. And if the theme is truly to avoid harsh criticism (unclear if it refers to giving or receiving) then why select such a volatile location?

My issue here is not questioning the right to assemble or even the right to protest GLBT's treatment in the major religions. But I personally find it hypocritical to do so under the banner of tolerance. The choices of Rome and Jerusalem seems to be an "in your face" approach almost daring people to pick a fight. If the message is really about tolerance, then this strategy is counter-productive since the parade will most likely breed even more resentment.

I do think there can be a compromise between religion and the GLBT community, and I offered my own suggestions to that effect. But as I argued regarding pluralism, tolerance does not mean that other people must unilaterally accept you on your terms. There first has to be mutual acknowledgement and respect of each other's beliefs and perspectives, and this would have to entail avoiding obviously antagonistic actions.

If one requests tolerance, one must be willing to give it as well.

Posted by Josh at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Newsweek has an online interview with the always insightful Jonathan Sarna regarding Sharon, Israel, and their relationship with American Judaism. Sarna, as expected, is insightful and makes some excellent points but the inherent limitations of such an interview prohibit fully sophisticated answers.

For some examples, on describing the relationship between Sharon and the American Jewish population:

Here, a man [Sharon] who had so strongly advocated settling every inch of land, and was more responsible than anyone else for the settlements, was pulling Jews out of those settlements in an effort to create a viable Palestinian state and Israeli state. I think even those who disagreed had enormous respect for his ability to really change his position.

This this is a very nice thought, but I think it's overly optimistic. Yes, it is noteworthy when people change their minds and in many cases it is commendable. However, when dealing with such incendiary issues such reversals are more often then not seen as betrayals, especially when someone is elected under those pretexts. (Think Bush nominating to the Supreme Court a judge from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). How such reversals are perceived is completely dependant on which side you happen to find yourself.

On the question "Is there a feeling among Jews in the United States that if you criticize the government of Israel, you're criticizing Israel itself?" Sarna describes an evolution in popular thought:

But I think as time has gone on, it has become clear that the question is how one dissents. Certainly the Jewish community was not unanimously in support of the removal from Gaza. But I think it's now well understood that American Jewry, where church and state are separated, [are] really unable to give unwavering support to a religious situation in Israel where religion is deeply enmeshed within the state.

This is a fascinating response as Sarna attributes political dissension to different ideologies of religion and politics. It is nearly impossible to discuss Israel without at some point addressing the religious impact,¹ but in the more secularized American society it is significantly easier to overlook or minimize religion's real significance.

On the effect of Sharon's absence on American Jews:

American Jews, in some ways, are going to feel lost with whoever succeeds Sharon. They don't know the next generation of Israeli politicians, with the exception of [former prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. But he seems very unlikely at this point to take on the center. I think it's going to take time before the American Jews get to know these people, and I think the same is true on the national scene.

Jewish Americans are probably familiar with only a handful of Israeli politicians. This is probably due to the fact that the same people keep running Israeli politics. Most of those old timers have long and well documented histories such that even the uninitiated can more easily catch up on their background and ideologies. But once you get to even the party leadership, things get a little murkier.

On the change of American Jewry's opinion of Sharon:

Sharon was a man of very great personal charisma, and I think that many American Jews, even if they weren't in love with his policy, came to believe that even though it may be difficult to watch settlements uprooted, this seemed like the most sensible policy.

Here Sarna is guilty of something many writers do - the ambiguous qualifier of "many."² Still I think Sarna is correct considering the politically liberal political tendencies certainly among the religiously liberal Jewish communities. I will also suggest that the Rabin Factor probably discourages militant rhetoric from the right.

I'd recommend reading the whole article if nothing else to inspire some intelligent conversation.

1. On this point I highly recommend reading Arther Hertzberg's The Fate of Zionism.
2. Yeah, I know.

Posted by Josh at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Some people took me up on my odds yesterday regarding fundamentalist rhetoric. Returning blogger and former protocols elder Avraham noted that organizations like the OU are publicizing Sharon's name for prayers.

However, in the comments Hillel pointed to invective which has already been criticized. And although Jack Wertheimer finally discovers the mi sheberach, one coworker of mine responding to an e-mail takes a more fatalistic approach:

Don’t you think that Hashem is in charge of this. If Hashem did not want Ariel Sharon to have a stroke, he would not have had one. It is quite possible that this is part of a larger plan that Hashem has. If we pray for Mr. Sharon, will it change Hashem’s plans?

And I fully expect another pointless religious flamewar to ensue.

I'm thinking now that I was imprecise in my prediction yesterday. Due to the obvious backlash, few sane Rabbis would publicly advocate that Sharon deserves to be punished as such. But I do have a sense that it is the prevailing attitude certainly in the more right-wing communities which generally emphasize divine providence to the point of fatalism. It would not be the first time people say one thing publicly for pragmatic reasons, but privately believe the opposite. Of course, the tendencies to emphasize divine providence in general are compounded when discussing Israel - the Torah itself calls Israel a land which is under special divine supervision (Devarim 11:12).

Still, what this means is very much subject to personal interpretation and any positive statement definitively asserting why things happen requires reading the mind of God. For example, if you were opposed to the disengagement, then Sharon is being punished. If the disengagement was a Good Thing, then it's possible that Sharon fulfilled his life's mission and/or did teshuva from his earlier militant days. The problem with fundamentalism is that dogma is in the eye of the beholder.

Readers interested in actual sources in Torah for providence and evil should check out my post on Talmudic Theodicy and see the real range and limits of Torah's theology.

Posted by Josh at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Israel Prime Minister Areil Sharon is currently in a coma following a massive stroke. Accordnig to an early report on JM in the AM, Sharon already passed away, but the government is keeping the news a secret until the market closes in Israel (8:30ish AM Eastern) to avoid a possible market crash. I guess we'll hear if this is true soon enough (consider the source), but in any event, he is not doing well.

If Sharon does pass away from this stroke, I'm going to take the "over" for derashot, articles, and blog posts attributing Sharon's stroke to the disengagement. I'm figuring something like "just as Sharon stabbed the heart of the Jewish people, so God has smitten Sharon."

UPDATE
So Sharon isn't dead yet, but already we see some are refusing to pray on his behalf.
Thanks Lisa!

Posted by Josh at 9:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I just finished watching the three parts of the video "A Stab In The Heart" and was one of the more powerful things I have seen on the current disengagement (the first part especially, it gets a bit redundant afterwards).

Every Jew ought to watch this video, regardless of your positions of the disengagement or of Israeli politics in general. You may be for or against disengagement. You can think it's good, bad, or a necessary evil for the country.

And that's entirely not the point.

This film is an important reminder that even with Eretz Yisrael we are still very much in galut. I cannot think of anything more appropriate to watch during the 9 days.

Posted by Josh at 9:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)