Jewish leftists need to have the Talk

[shira]

Jewish leftists need to have the Talk

Why bother bringing up the right of return now? Why should Jewish leftists go out of their way to discuss ROR in depth with one another, with other Jews, other leftists, and, if possible, with Palestinians as well?

By Bradley Burston


These days, it's a little too easy for Jewish Leftists to avoid having the Talk. The Talk, an open-minded consideration of the Palestinian right of return, might well be divisive, corrosive, just one further blow at a time of Israeli – and world Jewish - apathy and depression and paralysis. It's certainly more comfortable to let the issue run in the background, as many groups on the left have done, either coming down at one stroke on one side or the other, as if the issue were not breathtakingly complex, or, alternatively, deciding not to decide.

It's much, much easier to simply get off the betrayed-by-Israel bus altogether, as Village Voice film editor Allison Benedikt suggests of friends in her much-shared Life after Zionist summer camp. "Most of my Jewish friends are disgusted with Israel," she writes. "It seems my trajectory is not at all unique. My best memories from childhood are from camp, and I will never, ever send my kids there."

The lack of real ROR debate on part of the Jewish left is fostered by the holding pattern of Middle East peacemaking. There is no dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians, barely any between Israel and the American administration, and at this point, next to none within Israel or the Jewish community. So why bother to bring up the right of return now? Why should Jewish leftists go out of their way to discuss ROR in depth with one another, with other Jews, other leftists, and, if possible, with Palestinians as well?

more...
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/jewish-leftists-need-to-have-the-talk-1.368082

[shira]

1. The "talk", from Israel Reconsidered...

Right of Return is ‘Right’ and a Right
http://israelleft.com/2011/06/09/right-of-return-is-right-and-a-right/

The right of return is wrong
http://israelleft.com/2011/06/07/the-right-of-return-is-wrong/

[wuushew]

2. I consider blatant kicking of one's own topics a sign of narcissism

and poor form.

Why am I wrong? :shrug:

[tootrueleft]

5. Totaly agree. Check out thread "The humanitarian show" for an example. It's disturbed.

[King_David]

20. By totally agreeing you kicked the thread.

Well done.

Cheers !

[shira]

3. "The talk" is back on at IsraelReconsidered. Dimi Reider to debate Derfner...

http://israelleft.com/2011/06/21/dimi-reider-to-join-larry-derfner-on-blog

[oberliner]

4. Looks interesting

Let's hope this one turns out better than the last partnership.

[aranthus]

6. Here is why they won't.

Burston is correct that the RoR debate goes to the heart of the issue of whether there should be an Israel and what it should be. But more than that, the RoR debate opens up the discussion of what it means to be a Leftist and a Jew and the discord between the two. To use as an example the core issue of the entire A/I conflict, "Are Jews a nation entitled to a state of their own?" I submit that Judaism answers that question, "yes," and Leftism answers it, "no." It starts in the Center Left, where people endorse Israel's existence but feel guilty about what was done to the Palestinians for emotional reasons (they are suffering after all, and the Israelis are stronger--none of which has to do with the right or wrong of it), vague reasons (Ben Gurion should have negotiated--about what and with whom isn't said--instead of declaring a state), or else utterly false ones (such as the lie that one million Palestinians were, "ethnically cleansed," from Palestine). The further one moves Left the greater the discordance as one moves to the anti-Zionist position, until one arrives at the place of being a Leftist Jewish Parentage (someone nominally Jewish, but who has little or no connection to any Jewish values or existence), at which point the discordance ends. The point being that for Jews with Leftist leanings, the conflict between the two ideological identifications is usually comfortably buried. The RoR debate brings that to the surface, and who wants to deal with it?

A further reason for not having the debate on RoR is that it's depressing. Given that RoR means the end of Israel as a Jewish state, the demand for it is a tacit demand for the end of the Jewish state, essentially a denial of an important element of Jewish existence. This means two things. First, that the "hope" that Jews have started to build up since the creation of Israel, that they would finally be accepted, may have to be reassessed. Second, since there is no way that the Jews of Israel are going to voluntarily surrender their nation, the continued demand for RoR is seen as a demand for endless war to the death against the Jewish state. The thought that both peace and acceptance are illusory is disconcerting to say the least.

[shira]

7. Good points! n/t

[Exilednight]

8. Within 30 to 35 years, Israel is going to stop being a Jewish state whether they like it or

not. Some estimates say it could happen as soon as 2035.

Arabs currently compose 20% of the population, but demographers estimate that by as soon as 2035 Jews will be a minority. Almost every demographer agrees that it will happen no later than 2048.

[oberliner]

9. Demographic threat a myth

From Ynet, 2006:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3213608,00.html

[Exilednight]

11. I wouldn't read too much into that article. First off, it's five years old and has is arguing over

a study that no one really took serious.

The study that demographers take serious is the one that does not include west bank numbers; uses Israel's census numbers; and is actually taken quite seriously. Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid, which the article doesn't mention, but is often considered the supreme source on the subject, would disagree with Ettinger.

This author claims that the study he speaks of used Palestinian numbers, which may be true. I haven't seen the study he speaks of. In the study I've read, Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid used Israel's own numbers. Ambassador Oren would also disagree with Mr. Ettinger.

The UN has pretty much come to the same conclusion, as has Israel's own government along with the US government and most academics who have studied the situation.

So let's see. I can believe some opinion writer who found a kook to confirm his beliefs- much like right-wingers find a handful of scientists that deny climate change- or I can believe a study done by an expert in the field that is taken seriously within academic circles, taken seriously within the Israeli government, taken seriously at the UN and taken seriously by US government officials.

[oberliner]

13. The study you reference is 10 years old and is not taken seriously in those places

Dr. Wahid Abd Al-Magid is not considered "the supreme source" on the subject.

Quite the contrary, he wrote a piece that talked about what he thinks should be done in order to bring about the scenario he described (i.e. encouraging tens of thousands of Palestinians to move to Israel and marry women who are part of the "1948 population").

That you would reference this "study" as some kind of authority on the matter is more than a little alarming.

Also your claim that Yoram Ettinger is "some opinion writer" demonstrates something less than a solid grasp on this topic.

[Exilednight]

14. Have you read Wahid Abd Al-Magid's study, or the yearly updates? It;s not a "piece", it's

a study that was conducted by the Arab Strategic Report. If you actually read it, and then looked at the most recent census data, you would notice that that the trends he predicted are becoming reality. Over the last two census, the Jewish population has dropped and the Arab population has risen.

Ettinger has nothing more than opinion. What actual study has he done that proves otherwise? None.



And, if the study is not taken seriously, then why are the conclusions referenced by Bibi and Obama during their exchange over 1967 borders?

[oberliner]

17. Here is a link to the Arab Strategic Report

The report is hosted by the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

Here is the link:

http://acpss.ahram.org.eg/eng/ahram/2004/7/5/Arab0.htm

Ettinger's piece was in reference to a study by Yaakov Faitelson at the Institute for Zionist Strategies.

That study can be found here:

http://www.izs.org.il/eng/default.asp?father_id=114&catid=118&itemid=208

Both clearly have their agendas and biases (note the use of the word "strategy" in each).

The latest census that you mention points to the opposite trend of what you suggest. The difference in birthrates between Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis has narrowed significantly. If that trend continues, they would eventually equalize.

As to what Bibi and Obama say - I am confident they would use whatever information they felt bolstered their case for their political agendas.

In any case, I would encourage people to read as much as they can on the subject and draw their own conclusions - but be sure to read with a skeptical eye since most who address this issue have a distinct agenda, be it Zionist or anti-Zionist.

[aranthus]

10. What does that have to do with the issue?

First it isn't true, as Oberliner's post has shown. Especially untrue if one counts only Israel within the Fence. That is still 70-75% Jewish as it has been since Israel's creation. Second, the issue is whether a person thinks Israel has a right to be a Jewish state or whether they want it to become a majority Arab state. Judaism points to the former, and Leftism points to the latter. If you are a Jew what do you think of that inherent conflict between Jewish and Leftist ideological identifications? If you're not, what do you think it means to Jews to be internally torn like that? That conflict doesn't' go away under your scenario. It becomes whether Jews should bring about Israel's demise faster by agreeing to right of return, or whether they should try to maintain their state. The question is still whether you think that Israel staying a Jewish state is a good idea or a bad idea.

[Exilednight]

12. This isn't a left - right issue. It's a facts versus non-facts issue. You can't call yourself a

legitimate democracy and prefer one religion or cultural identity over another. The idea that drives democracy is eliminating such preferences and treating all people equal.

[aranthus]

15. Don't tell the French that.

Or the Japanese, or the Italians, or the Palestinians. They all have cultural preferences built into their societies, yet they are all democracies (except for the PA). Democracies can, do, and indeed must, have a national culture, just like any other state. You're simply proving my point. Believe me, noone except those on the Left thinks the way you do, and it's not because only the Left believes in Democracy. It is very much an ideological perspective. It is only the Left that opposes nationalism and nation states, whereas Judaism clearly does not.

[Exilednight]

16. They might have cultural preference built into their society, but not into their government. That

is the difference. Democracy (small d) does not give preferential treatment to one person over another. You're attempting to intertwine culture and religion. Israeli would be a culture, Judaism is a religion.

[aranthus]

18. You need to learn a few things about Jews and Judaism before you post about them again.

Your assertion that Jews are only a religion is proof enough that you don't know very much about us. There is most definitely a Jewish culture and people hood. Again you prove my main point. The idea that Jews are merely a religion and not also a people, is absolutely not a Jewish idea.

[Exilednight]

19. I know plenty about Judaism and Jews. I'm married to one and my

father-in-law is a rabbi. Being Jewish is not the same as being French or Italian or American or insert nationality here ___________.

There is such thing as cultural Judaism, but even being a cultural Jew means that you buy into the religion and take part in aspects of the religion. If you don't recognize Judaism as your faith, then you can not be Jewish.

[tootrueleft]

22. Cheers for your input. Good post.

[oberliner]

23. If you don't recognize Judaism as your faith, then you can not be Jewish?

What about Jewish athiests?

Jewish atheism is practiced by atheists who are ethnically, and to some extent culturally, Jewish. Because Jewishness encompasses ethnic as well as religious components, the term "Jewish atheism" does not necessarily imply any kind of contradiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_atheism

I would say there are a pretty fair number of people who consider themselves to be Jewish but do not recognize Judaism as their faith (Jewish atheists, for instance).

[Exilednight]

29. There is a clash of recognition within the Jewish community over athiestic Jews. I've had this

discussion with my father-in-law. Recognition of atheistic Jews is problematic at best. An orthodox Jew would never recognize a Jewish atheist as being part of Jewish culture. Most Conservative and Reform Jews would never recognize a Jewish atheist as being Jewish. Reconstructionists usually have no problem with Jewish atheists.

My in-laws are Reform Jews and would never recognize a Jewish atheist as being Jewish.

[aranthus]

25. Actually, being Jewish is almost exactly like being American.

They are both nationalities based on ideas (American more so).

[Exilednight]

30. What are the non religious ideas of being Jewish? n/t

[aranthus]

34. Common history.

Common language (even if you don't speak Hebrew, Ladino or Yiddish, you know they're there, and you know some of the words and the cultural meanings and connections). A sense of identity. A world view that comes in part fro being the"other". Besides. Let's say that there are elements of religious ideology in Jewishness. So what? How does that deny the people hood of Jews? It may make them different (hint, we are), but that doesn't mean we have no national existence. For that matter, there are likely religious ideas in the makeup of the American nation and probably others. So what? Again, you're proving my main point that anti-Zionist values come from the Left, rather than from Judaism, hence the conflict between the two (among other reasons).

[Exilednight]

41. So does Catholicism, but that doesn't give Roman Catholics the right to make thier nation state

built under one religion. The Roman Catholic religion has their own language: Latin. They have their own music, art, and common sense of identity. They have the same identifiers that mentioned for Jews, but they don't have the right to national statehood as that of which the Jews occupy.

As far as anti-zionist values coming from the left, then why are you on a left leaning board if you supporting a right wing position? Could it possibly be that there are those on the left that support zionism as there are those on the right who don't?

[Shaktimaan]

49. Um, don't the Catholics have their own state?

Not that I think it is in any way the equivalent to Israel, nor do I agree with this argument of Catholic Nationalism, but they DO have a state, don't they?

[Recursion]

52. No; that's the distinction between the Holy See and the Vatican City-State

That difference is spelled out pretty clearly in the Lateran treaty that set up the Vatican in the 1920s.

[pelsar]

26. i alway love the ethnocentricity found here

but even being a cultural Jew means that you buy into the religion and take part in aspects of the religion. If you don't recognize Judaism as your faith, then you can not be Jewish.

we're called israelis....we're jewish, its part of our identity, its part of our culture, part of our history, but no we dont believe in the god part of Judaism......

and please don't bother telling us how our identity works......we're jewish, were israeli, were secular and we deciding it this time around. (not the western left or right, get over yourselves).

[Exilednight]

27. I'm Israeli, but I'm not Jewish. The two are different. Israel is not a secular state according

to their laws. They give preference to Jews.

[pelsar]

39. i'm very aware of the non jewish israelis...

the post was a reaction to the definition of jews and about jewish identities, hence my reaction......nor is israel a secular state, it follows the standard of most of the western worlds democracies, which attempt to balance religion and democratic and / or socialist values.

[Exilednight]

42. The problem is that Israel does not balance religion and democratic values. It gives

preference of one religion above all others. Once secularism is thrown out the window, they can no longer claim to be democratic.

[pelsar]

44. the imperfect democracy is the worlds standard....

israel is no different....all countries have preferences for their various institutions be it entrance to universities or citizenship, some base their preferences on skin color, some on education, some on financial resources, some on genetics.

again israel is an imperfect democracy just like the rest of the worlds democracies....for one to claim that somehow israel has to be the perfect democracy before it can declare itself one is just one more variation of the demonization that we're all so familiar with.

the daily discussions and court rulings testify to the conflict involved and the attempts to solve them...that is the essence of a democracy, not that its not "Perfect" as per the definition of a single interest group. (in your case you seem to believe that the "belief of secularism is the defining definition, for others it maybe gay rights, for others universal health care, for others capitalism....)

[Exilednight]

45. That would be fine, if this was still the 18th century. Israel is a nuclear state, and I would

hope that they have the maturity to live up to 21st century democratic values.

[pelsar]

50. is this one of those flexible standards kind of thing?

is it a single standard that can be used to measure the US to see if their in the 18th century as well? (the question being is israels culture part of the worlds standard?)....or is it one of the "multiple standards" where you get to modify it as per ones emotional/political outlook and therefore single israel out?

[Exilednight]

54. Israel's government allows for laws that

discriminate. The United States, for all its problems, does allow for equal protection and rights under the law - regardless of race, religion or age. The singular exception, that I can think of, would be gay marriage.

[aranthus]

33. Yeah. I love how non-Jews try to tell Jews what it means to be a Jew. n/t

[azurnoir]

37. wow pot meet kettle n/t

[azurnoir]

21. Can one be a Jew if ones family or ancestors did not practice Judaism? n/t

[aranthus]

24. Yes, of course.

One does not need to be religious to be Jewish. Nor do you have to be the child of observant Jews in order to be Jewish.

[azurnoir]

31. That's why I said family OR ancestors

you know darn well that someones grandparents, great-grandparents maybe further back had to observe the Jewish religion to be a Jew

under RoR for Jews I am eligible under the 1970 amendment

[aranthus]

35. Fine. Let's assume that you're correct. So what?

Are you saying that because there is an element of religious ideology in Jewish identity that we aren't a people? I submit that the same argument would apply to the American identity (Judeo-Christian value system), Saudis (Islam), and probably many others.

[azurnoir]

36. I am saying that to be a 'member' of this 'ethnic' group there has to a history

of a certain religion being practiced the same does not apply to being American or Japanese or Mexican the only possibility here would be Saudi but that is recent and hardly universal to all Muslims

[aranthus]

38. Again let's assume that you're correct.

Although I contend that there is definitely a religious element to American national ideology. But let's assume that you're completely correct. So what? does that mean that Jews are less of a nation? that they don't have the same national rights as other nations?

[azurnoir]

40. lol back again with the figurative 'nation' what took you so long?

Jews are a 'nation in the figurative sense that any ethnic/ religious/ political group could be called a nation

Jews as a figurative 'nation' have the same rights as any others that that live within what ever literal nation that the Jews in question live

[Recursion]

53. I don't see why they have more rights than the Kurds, Walloons, or Quebecois

All three of them have had their aspirations for statehood thwarted by geopolitical realities; I'm not an anti-Kurdite for saying their aspirations are not worth the multinational war that would result from fulfilling them.

[Exilednight]

28. Some people will say yes, but I argue no. My daughter is Jewish, but that is because we decided to

raise her. We could of just easily have raised her in my faith, but my wife wasn't keen on the idea.

I argue that the answer is no due to the fact that anyone of any culture can convert to Judaism. Not all Jews, if you believe in the Bible, are ancestral Israelites. Unlike other cultures, you can convert Judaism, but you can't convert to being French - either you have ancestral ties, or you don't.

[azurnoir]

32. true but more over

your daughter is a Jew under Halachic law, and is a Jew in any event
However I must add to your example about being French one regardless of ancestry become a citizen of France and there for be considered French with all of the privileges and responsibilities that come with that but with Israel as the 'Jewish State' I could make aliyah and be considered a full member of the Jewish State but a nonJew one can be born in Israel ones family can have lived in what is now Israel for generations but you still must under go religious conversion to be a full member of society, I base this statement n the military requirements and 'exemptions' a non-Jew is not required to serve in the military I have seen this couched here as 'well then they do not have to fight their people' but what the f##k does that statement say in itself, 'their'own people?????? 'They" in this case I guess you are Israeli

[Exilednight]

43. You just proved my point. Halachic law is the law of the Torah. If the family

doesn't recognize Judaism as their religion, how can religious law be applied? Are you going to force religious law upon someone who doesn't recognize the religion because their mother practiced? What if we chose to raise her as a Buddhist, would she still be Jewish if she didn't recognize the god of Moses?

Edit: Better yet, what if we had a son and I broke Jewish tradition and named him after myself?

[Shaktimaan]

46. But that is wrong.

Nations based on ethnicities commonly look after the interests of their ethnic group outside of their borders.
Many give preferences to them regarding immigration. This has been a commonly accepted fact since the modern nation-state began and isn't considered antithetical to democracy.

Israeli would be a culture, Judaism is a religion.

Huh? Israel has been the name for the Jewish state for thousands of years. Judaism is both a nationality and a culture. You're trying to redefine these terms to suit your argument.

[Recursion]

47. Well...

Israel has been the name for the Jewish state for thousands of years

Well... Israel has been a name for a Jewish state for thousands of years; most of the Tanakh actually comes from a different Jewish state which had a different name, ironically. (American Christians rarely read enough of the "Old Testament" -- in their words -- to see the north kingdom/south kingdom distinction, but the majority of the OT by lines is criticisms of Israel from non-subjects: we get the southern Judah/Benjamin reconstruction of the failings of the northern non-Judah/Benjamin kingdom of Israel.)

[Shaktimaan]

48. beyond that

it has been the conceptual name for the Jewish state during the diaspora. Hence the modern state's name was derived from this.
The meaning of "Israel" in the modern practice of Judaism, (in my practice, at my reform temple at least), was used in this way.

Your comment doesn't really alter my point, if it was meant to, which I don't think it was. :)

[Recursion]

51. Well, right, but the Diaspora was of Judah and Benjamin

Because the other 10 tribes assimilated into Babylon during the captivity. That is, the people who maintained their identity as Israelites were specifically the people who were not in the pre-exile Kingdom of Israel. Which is neither here nor there, but I find it interesting.