. . . A little more nuanced look at Jews, Jewishness, and the state of Israel
A link from Scott Paul writing at "The Washington Note" blog, provides the necessary backgound to my comments which follow:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002333.php
I reread the editorial from the Forward and Scott’s post and, as an American with a maternal heritage that is Jewish, I find the points that Scott Paul makes salient and lucid, not too nuanced by half, which is the way one (this one anyway) must read the editorial in order to be convinced its really critical not just of Israeli behavior but of Jewish exceptionalism.
I've always thought and been proud in theory that being a Jew means that one understands the dignitiy of all individuals, with none being more worthy than any other. (admittedly that's a secular interpretation, and many would place more emphasis on Jews as "chosen"). If being chosen includes suffering righteously then you can’t have it both ways; when its time to suffer, you suffer, not just when its convenient or rhetorical.
Myself, at least since law school days and being awakened to international law vis a vis Israel-Palestine, I have never seen Zionism as much else than a political movement, and a pretty crass one at that. However, it’s been pretty well conflated, in my observation, with the meaning of Israel and Judaism in the popular mind, certainly in the mind of most Americans, and most American politicians. That’s a state of affairs that seems to please most everyone in the Israeli lobby just fine.
The subtleties and talking out of both sides of the mouth have been so well perfected by many Jews who yoke faith and political “realities” that its no wonder most “pro-Israeli” non-Jews just defer to the latest propaganda handout from AIPAC. Jews themselves are no doubt confused.
I appreciate the notion of trying to redefine what it means as a Jew to have some connection with Israel the state, but for the life of me I can’t see how it can be done. And I’m tired of having the blood of my ancestors hijacked for moralistic purposes not reflected by the actions of that state, the Zionist thugs who manipulate the sad legacy, and even the well meaning do gooders at the Forward on occasion.
As to the new moral ethic that the editorial says we should examine, trying to follow Goldberg’s assertion, that would have to be either a straw man or a call for Israel and its functionaries to quit stoking the we’re-more-moral-than-thou subplot at every turn. After all that’s where political ethics and its moral basis meets the reality of political action.
For myself, of the “two pillars of modern Jewish identity”, it has never been a contest. If one loses one’s moral compass, isn’t the “bond” with the state of Israel pretty meaningless?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002333.php
I reread the editorial from the Forward and Scott’s post and, as an American with a maternal heritage that is Jewish, I find the points that Scott Paul makes salient and lucid, not too nuanced by half, which is the way one (this one anyway) must read the editorial in order to be convinced its really critical not just of Israeli behavior but of Jewish exceptionalism.
I've always thought and been proud in theory that being a Jew means that one understands the dignitiy of all individuals, with none being more worthy than any other. (admittedly that's a secular interpretation, and many would place more emphasis on Jews as "chosen"). If being chosen includes suffering righteously then you can’t have it both ways; when its time to suffer, you suffer, not just when its convenient or rhetorical.
Myself, at least since law school days and being awakened to international law vis a vis Israel-Palestine, I have never seen Zionism as much else than a political movement, and a pretty crass one at that. However, it’s been pretty well conflated, in my observation, with the meaning of Israel and Judaism in the popular mind, certainly in the mind of most Americans, and most American politicians. That’s a state of affairs that seems to please most everyone in the Israeli lobby just fine.
The subtleties and talking out of both sides of the mouth have been so well perfected by many Jews who yoke faith and political “realities” that its no wonder most “pro-Israeli” non-Jews just defer to the latest propaganda handout from AIPAC. Jews themselves are no doubt confused.
I appreciate the notion of trying to redefine what it means as a Jew to have some connection with Israel the state, but for the life of me I can’t see how it can be done. And I’m tired of having the blood of my ancestors hijacked for moralistic purposes not reflected by the actions of that state, the Zionist thugs who manipulate the sad legacy, and even the well meaning do gooders at the Forward on occasion.
As to the new moral ethic that the editorial says we should examine, trying to follow Goldberg’s assertion, that would have to be either a straw man or a call for Israel and its functionaries to quit stoking the we’re-more-moral-than-thou subplot at every turn. After all that’s where political ethics and its moral basis meets the reality of political action.
For myself, of the “two pillars of modern Jewish identity”, it has never been a contest. If one loses one’s moral compass, isn’t the “bond” with the state of Israel pretty meaningless?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home