American Jews Into Israeli-Americans
I was unsure whether I should write about this, since it's kind of delicate, but the conclusion of Mark Kleiman's Rosh Hashanah post has inspired me:
Personally, I identify as Ashkenazi. The Zionist project has much to be said for it, but it's not especially my project. I don't regard visiting Jerusalem as an ascent, and in my opinion the Holy One (blessed be He), desiring that there be a national home for the Jews, in His infinite wisdom and mercy created Long Island.
A bit flip, to be sure, but something I fundamentally agree with. By contrast, my most recent visit to Temple Rodef Shalom with my aunt, uncle, and cousins in Northern Virginia made me genuinely uncomfortable along a variety of dimensions, despite it being a totally standard Reform synagogue seemingly populated by the same none-too-observant Askenazi liberals as all the others I've attended. Let me count the ways . . . well, there were really only three.
First, entering the building from the parking there is, hanging over the door, a large sign reading "Temple Rodef Shalom Supports ISRAEL." I have, in essence, some very banal political gripes with that. There are, clearly, banal readings of the phrase "X supports Israel" such that I wholly endorse the sentiment. On the other hand, it seems to be deliberately playing on the ambiguity between "supporting Israel" in the sense of opposing those who wish to destroy the entire country and "supporting Israel" in the sense of, say, standing behind whatever policy choices the government of Israel happens to make. This latter thing, of course, I don't do at all. I don't support Israel's current attitude toward President Abbas' efforts to forge a national unity coalition on the Palestinian side, I didn't support Israel's recent attack on Lebanon, and I don't support George W. Bush's Israel policy. What's more, I don't at all appreciate the sentiment that offering uncritical "support" of Israeli foreign policy is or ought to be an article of faith of the Jewish religion; certainly Israeli Jews don't see it that way, otherwise there'd hardly be such a thing as Israeli democracy.
Much less pointed, but in some ways more deeply troubling to me, were two little bits of symbolism. One was that the temple's youth choir, Shir Harmony, wears these odd outfits that, as best one can tell, are supposed to be modeled on some kind of Iraeli Kibbutz uniform. The second is that in the main sanctuary, you have an American flag and you have . . . an Israeli flag.
On the last thing, there's the simple point to make that were one to raise the specter of a community living in Northern Virginia and harboring "dual loyalties" one would be condemned as an anti-semite. And yet, there it is. Not one flag, but two.
That said, there's nothing especially odd about seeing foreign flags -- which is to say dual loyalties of a sort -- in the United States of America. Indeed, a certain number of foreign flags and dual loyalties are integral to America's self-conception as a nation of immigrants. If you stopped by an Italian-American organization you would, of course, see Italian flags. Similarly, an Irish-American organization would feature Irish flags. But here's the rub -- Americans Jews aren't Israeli-Americans. I mean, some of us are. My one friend actually was born in Israel and he and his family moved here when he was young. But that's not typical.
Most American Jews -- and specifically American reform Jews -- aren't in any sense offshoots of modern Israeli society in general or of modern Labor Zionism in particular. Indeed, it's rather the reverse. Diaspora reform Judaism and Ashkenazi Jewish culture in North America represents an alternative conception of modern Jewish identity. An alternative conception that is, in many ways, directly antagonistic to the model represented by traditional Zionism and the kibbutz. This isn't, after all, 1923 when one might think vaguely of relocating to Mandate Palestine some day. Israel is there. It's up and running. One can move there with ease -- the right of return and all -- and the quasi-official view of the Israeli state is that one ought to move there and embrace the Zionist project. Like Kleiman, I guess I have a certain sympathy and even admiration for the Zionist project, but it's not my project.
It's fascinating and noteworthy that those who did embrace the project robustly have managed to create a modern Israeli cultural tradition, but that's not my tradition. My ancestors are from Eastern Europe, not the Middle East. They spoke Yiddish, not modern Hebrew. And I don't know exactly what they were up to in the Pale but they certainly weren't making the desert bloom.
This is getting very long already, and I don't quite know what the point is, but I sort of wanted to get it off my chest.
Comments
Nice post; this goy thanks you. I would only add that I've sometimes seen an American flag in a church sanctuary, and I consider *that* highly inappropriate. (I've never seen another country's flag in church that I can recall.)
Catholic churches often have the U.S. and Vatican flags.
Yeah, there's some "Christian flag" that the Protestants cooked up.
But of course, that flag stands for a religion, not a state.
Same with the Vatican flag I guess, the sovereignty of Vatican City notwithstanding. (Someday when I have nothing to do, I will have to get on the web & find the civic code of Vatican City online, if it's there & translated into English.)
Clearly you hate yourself.
This is going to be considered trollbait, but I was reading the other day about Stalin's attempt to create a Yiddish-speaking Jewish 'homeland' out in the far east of the USSR. It was doomed from the start, and most of the Jews who remained in Birobidzhan packed up for Israel after 1990. In short, New York State did it a heck of a lot better.
The Israeli state policy of considering every Jew an 'Israeli in waiting' is so radically different in perspective from the American model of settlement. Not less valid, but different. As for Yiddish culture, I like this graf from an essay on programming I once read:
To me, that sounds more like the American project.
Walker Percy's 'Love among the Ruins', which was published decades ago, is set in a future America that's fallen to pieces as has the Catholic church, one branch of which, the American Catholic Church, not only displays the American flag on the altar but plays the star-spangled banner at the elevation of the host.
Yeah. And, specifically, I don't think that nationalism is a solution to the dilemmas that Jews face in the modern world.
On the other hand, isn't the globalization, assimilation, miscegenation and cultural homogenization which the USA actively or tacitly promotes a threat to the survival of the Jews, and isn't this a reaction to this? The smaller countries, cultures and languages in Europe (e.g. Danes, Dutch, Irish) are also under a similar threat.
I put it to you: would it be a better world if we were all just "human," or would it be a more boring world?
"would it be a better world if we were all just "human"
Human beings will always form weird little subcultures. Not that Judaism is one, but I am thinking Wire and Buffy fans. Or bloggers. That the new associations and identities are voluntary may make a difference. I wonder about a partial merging of culture and politics. I also wonder about why, as a resident of Dallas, I couldn't ask and declare for citizenship in Miami or Stockholm.
Most of my family that is actively religious, incidentally, are German Methodists who converted to Roman Catholicism after adulthood.
The smaller countries, cultures and languages in Europe (e.g. Danes, Dutch, Irish) are also under a similar threat.
You've never actually been to any of those countries, have you? But please, say what you really mean, and invoke the Muslim horde across Europe.
Not to worry, Matthew Yglesias---you're safe. No one will ever accuse you of harboring dual loyalties. Although your post meanders well past the point of clarity, your meaning is plain: you feel no loyalty to Israel. What's so "delicate" about that? Why not say it in plain English?
And good luck finding a synagogue where you feel comfortable!
A bold, wonderful post, Matt. Although I'm a (very lapsed) Protestant raised in the Bible Belt, I'm married to an athiest Jew from California who proudly identifies herself as extremely Jewish. For her, it's all about the culture and the history and the religion be damned. (As she puts it, the distinction between religious and ethnic Jews didn't exist for Hitler -- everybody went into the boxcars and off to the camps.) She's most appalled by how American Jews, even Reformed, continue to conflate America's foreign policy and mission in the world with Israel's.
High time she and you and other American Jews starting speaking out against the extreme positions that are put forward as "mainstream" -- even if it means commiting a taboo by speaking out against one's own tribe. I admire your courage. Raise your voice, man, AIPAC and JDL need to know you exist. And you may even be part of a silent majority.
Substitute Spanish for Yiddish/Hebrew and the Mexican flag with the Israeli flag and watch the political sympathies churn.
It all depends upon whose ox is being gored. (I've no idea how that translates into Hindi.)
And, as a poster above noted: read Walker Percy's "Love in the Ruins". A masterful, funny, funny book.
As an English WASP married into a Boston-area Jewish family,
I'm comforted to hear your take on the "Supporting Israel" deal.
It's been seeming weird to me as well to see what might be
interpreted as a right-wing political statement, at an otherwise
impeccably liberal and diverse (inter-faith, blacks, lesbians,
gays, and goys welcome) Reform temple. But what do I know ?
Still, it's a little meshuggenah, no ?
Ummm, pseudo in NC, I've been to all three of those countries, in the case of the Netherlands and Ireland within the last year.
I wasn't thinking about Muslim immigration when I wrote my comment, although they are obviously part of the immigrant populations in the Netherlands and in Denmark, with a few Muslim immigrants in Dublin too. So don't project your dark thoughts onto me. It's not who is immigrating and mixing, it's the fact of immigration and mixing that I'm talking about.
In Ireland, there is a lot of Polish immigration (from within the supra-national EU) into Ireland. There is a labor shortage which draws them and other immigrants. There is also Irish emigration to the UK, US and more and more to continental Europe.
Anyone in Amsterdam or Rotterdam could not fail to notice the large-scale immigrant populations in those cities, and the prevalance of English language channels on TV. The Dutch require rigorous intensive Dutch language instruction of their immigrants in the attempt to keep English from becoming the lingua franca of the Netherlands, but they're shoveling sand against the tide.
It's just a fact that the Irish, Dutch and Danes are small populations in this world, as are the Jews. Small populations either: (1) zealously guard their identity by endogamy within the tribe and maintaining traditions and a sense of separate identity (also known as chauvinism or xenophobia), or (2) intermarry with other groups within the larger population, abandon identity, language and traditions and disappear as distinct groups.
Identity as an American and fealty to the USA are not supposed to be based on ethnicity, but rather on adherence to the ideals of the Constitution, equality, etc. Europe is struggling with the question of national identity within ethnically based nation states within a supra-national EU which may operate in a way similar to the USA.
There has been a long celebration of ethnic miscegenation in American pop culture, going back to "Abie's Irish Rose," and continuing through "Who's Coming?"
Of course, the children of Abie and his Irish Rose would not be considered Jewish under some versions of Jewish law, and would be unlikely to adhere to Jewish religious practices and traditions, exclusively marry Jews, etc.
After a few generations of this, ethnicity is attenuated to something very weak. I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing, but practiced on a deep and global scale, it will lead to the disappearance of small groups like the Jews, Irish, Danes and Dutch.
Which is why, if the Jewish homeland were in fact Long Island, the Jews would melt into the American pot and disappear in the way that German-Americans have sort of disappeared, despite being one of the largest immigrant groups into the US (in the 19th century). An American with an Irish surname, descended from a famine refugee in the 1840s and having ancestors from many other countries, is not Irish.
Even on other levels in the US, regional accents, foods, and traditions are disappearing.
As a miscengenator myself, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it may be in the interest of the human race, but you have to recognize that something is being lost, too. Little subcultures of identity, like NASCAR, Buffy fans, Manchester U fans, or whatever, would not substitute for it.
I've heard that members of Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations sometimes buy into "Left Behind"-ish end times prophecies that would appal their priests and pastors, simply because theologians and clergy who disagree with these prophecies tend to remain silent on the subject.
The passionate tend to displace the indifferent, the certain displace the doubting, regardless of any underlying truth.
I think the difficulty of this issue stems from the confusion about what it means to be a Jew itself; as a religion, as an ethnicity, as a nation, and how that correlates to the Nation-State of Israel, and it's flag which carries the star of David. Italian, Irish, & German immigrants, become Italian, Irish & German americans; assimilating to the point where they lose essentially all Italian, Irish or German identity outside of a hyphenated American experience. But a Jew is always a Jew no matter where she is.
"Dual-loyalty" most certainly does exist, if you want to be honest I wouldn't even bother accusing the like of Douglas Feith or the AIPAC types who openly brag about fleecing the American Government vis a vis Israel of dual loyalty because their affection for the U.S. stems only for what it can do for Israel. But dual loyalties do exist, and not just among the children of Israel. The trick is trying to distinguish between loyalty to the Jewish state & loyalty to the Jews.
And since we're getting all Pat Buchanan, what about the situation with Mexican immigrants & Mexican nationalism?
Personally, the whole matter seems a bit to Teddy Roosevertish to get bent out of shape over. I'm not especially concerned with "dual-loyalty" and don't consider whether particular ethnic groups & communities have suggicient American Nationalistic character to be a high priority. I take a generally more sympathetic view of Israel than do most liberals, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't be concerned over the fact that American Jews' Jewishness causes them to empathize with a state that is largely comprised of other Jews.
I couldn't agree more with this post. I had the misfortune to sit through a very long sermon at Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio, in which the Rabbi spent the entire sermon voice near unequibocal support of Israel's recent war in Lebanon--going so far to say that the IDF would have won if not for a political failure to let them continue--and concluded by saying that Jews have a *religious* obligation to support Israel, which I found highly offensive.
I couldn't agree more with this post. I had the misfortune to sit through a very long sermon at Temple Israel in Columbus, Ohio, in which the Rabbi spent the entire sermon voicing near unequivocal support of Israel's recent war in Lebanon--going so far to say that the IDF would have won if not for a political failure to let them continue--and concluded by saying that Jews have a *religious* obligation to support Israel, which I found highly offensive.
Doug Rushkoff wrote an amusing essay about his discomfort with flags in synagogues that I think you would like. It's in "Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."
Your post articulates many feeling I also have. I guess I haven't been able to put them into words because I am still sputtering about the rally the Cincinnati Jewish Federation held a mile from my house last month, the purpose of which was to "thank President Bush for his support of Israel," and which featured (among other speakers) our congresswoman, Jean Schmidt. Anyway, thank you for reminding me I am not the only American Jew who's having trouble with my religious tradition being turned into an arm of Likud.
P.S. I vote with the guy who wants you to change this typeface.
I found this a delicate expression of your delicate thoughts. I wonder if it might be useful for you to spend at least some time trying to think about the issues you raise in spiritual terms as well as the political ones you discuss here. I know you identify as an ethnic or cultural rather than religious Jew and do not believe in G-d, but I think it is important to realize that the phenomena you cite here have spiritual significance and implications for individuals and communities as well. (And that their spiritual meaning in turn impacts temporal and political behavior and thinking.) You might also find it valuable in a self-revalatory sense to explore your reaction to your observations in light of whatever religious teachings you acquired in childhood and still recall, and whatever concepts of spirituality you may hold today.
The issue of the flag is interesting. A few years ago I visited several synagogues in Romania. I definately recall seeing Israeli flags in them. In the not too distant past, there were cities like Iasi or Chisinau that were over 50% Jewish, a higher concentration of Jews than live on Long Island or anywhere else now except Israel. Now Romania has less than a 10th of 1 percent of Jewish population. I don't really know how significant this is, but I do find it interesting that the synagogues in a place that could be considered the homeland (or at least place of origin) for a sizable chunk of Ashkenazi Jews now exhibit the flag of Israel. Is Israel the homeland for Romanian Jews?
"realize that the phenomena you cite here have spiritual significance and implications for individuals and communities as well"
I don't get that at all. That's exactly where the dissonance comes
in: temple (or church) is the focus of the spiritual aspect of a
culture, and that's precisely why it's jarring to see a symbol of
a particular state - a political symbol - in that context.
Episcopalian churches don't display the British flag; Catholic churches
churches don't display the Italian flag (nor even the Irish flag).
So it seems like a distraction from spirituality. It's not a huge
deal, but it just seems a little strange.
I say this as someone with a lot of intellectual admiration and respect for our dear MY, but see the discomfiting phrase "the Zionist project" in print so many times before I start to get uncomfortable. For many of us, I would imagine, the preferred term for "the Zionist project" is "Israel", just as our preferred term for "Zionists" is "Israelis".
As a PS:
"And good luck finding a synagogue where you feel comfortable!"
Just what I was thinking. I only really know from conservative shuls, but the ubiquitous Siddur Sim Shalom features a "Prayer for our country" (i.e., the U.S.) and a "Prayer for the state of Israel" that most conservative congregations include in their liturgies. It's always one of my favorite parts of the service, actually.
"Episcopalian churches don't display the British flag; Catholic churches don't display the Italian flag (nor even the Irish flag). So it seems like a distraction from spirituality. It's not a huge deal, but it just seems a little strange."
I can maybe sorta see that, but as opposed to pretty much any other potential religion/country combination in the world, Israel is the only Jewish state out there, so it would strike me as even more strange for a synagogue/temple to have no displays at all relating to Israel than it does that they do have such things. Though I certainly agree with the inappropriateness of spouting extreme nationalist sentiment in the middle of a religious service.
Richard: For some practitioners, the concept of a land of Israel has a theological and spiritual significance that is not just political in nature. For example, the pentateuch and prophets address extensively this issue of the relationship between the people of Israel as G-d's chosen people, G-d, and the land, in a way that the land itself has spiritual significance. So, depending on one's beliefs and theology, the issue of the land of Israel may be as much or more spiritual than political. The comparison of British flag in Episcopal church is not helpful, because that's not a part of Christian theology. (Although some fundamentalist Christians have developed a sort of Zionist obsession of their own that I think is at odds with more conventional Christian teaching.) I think that understanding this is important to the issues Matthew is discussing. For example, can American Jews today have a sort of spiritual allegiance to the land or national of Israel but politically consider themselves citizens of only America? Does the spiritual allegiance demand a political one, and to what extent? Do non-religious Jews still have some form of spiritual allegiance to Israel even if they no longer believe in the G-d of the promise? Does the flag Matthew saw represent something spiritual, political, or both? Your comment illustrates why it's important to understand the spiritual as well as the political aspects in play here. If there's one lesson of the history of humans and religion, it's that people are very much prone to mixing the political and the spiritual without analyzing what they're doing and that sometimes this can have incredibly dangerous results.
Just what I was thinking. I only really know from conservative shuls, but the ubiquitous Siddur Sim Shalom features a "Prayer for our country" (i.e., the U.S.) and a "Prayer for the state of Israel" that most conservative congregations include in their liturgies. It's always one of my favorite parts of the service, actually. - DJ Ninja
I actually dislike the "Prayer for the State of Israel" in the Sim Shalom: I find a line or two of that prayer to sound too "dispensationalist" for my tastes. Interestingly, some of the staunchest defenders of that line are also the sorts of folks who don't like using certain tunes because they sound too "Christian". To each his/her own I guess.
Anyway, I much prefer the "Prayer for the State of Israel" in Machzor Hadash. As much as I may not subscribe to Zionism as an ideology, it seems reasonable that if you do support the basic idea of Zionism: that Jews should have a secure place of refuge in a Jewish state, you should be praying for peace in that state primarily.
P.S. my favorite part of the service would be the morning B'rachos and the Psukdey-d'Zimra, if I could manage to wake up on time to arrive to hear them in the synagogue ;)
and the Mexican flag with the Israeli flag
More than one commenter made the excellent point of bringing up Mexican nationalism. I wish Mr. Yglesias had addressed this. Oh, wait:
"But here's the rub -- Americans Jews aren't Israeli-Americans." etc., etc. Again, most American Jews are not from the modern state of Israel. They are not descended from immigrants from the modern state of Israel.
The trick is trying to distinguish between loyalty to the Jewish state & loyalty to the Jews.
No, the trick is trying to distinguish between loyalty to Likud/Kadima & loyalty to the Jews. This is the step in the progression that leads to all the scolding of "self-hating Jews" for not abiding by that bit from the Mishnah, "Jews == modern Israel == one particular pole of Israeli politics." I've heard Rabin and Barak denounced in their time by some of the same people who currently conflate "criticism of Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanon" with "hating Israel."
flippantangel,
FWIW, when Zionism first emerged as an ideological entity, it was opposed by Jews whose orientation toward Judaism was primarily religious because it viewed Judaism as an ethnicity just like any other rather than viewing us as "the chosen people" quite unlike any other -- who have been kicked out of our homeland and who ought not to have sovereignty their until the Messiah comes.
How and why Zionism became "kosher" ... how it went from being something which was an antagonist to religious Judaism, whether of the Reform or Orthodox variety (Conservative Judaism, bizarrely IMHO, embraced Zionism fairly early on -- and given the position of Conservative Jews in Israel, this has gotta be one of the worst decisions in terms of benefits ever made), to being the sine qua non of being a Jew is something I've never understood.
Which brings me to Brklynblogger's wife, which is the converse: Zionism is, in a late 19th century/early 20th century sort of way, a "natural" consequence of viewing Judaism as a "culture" or "ethnicity" -- if Judaism is an ethnicity, why shouldn't we have a state of our own just like every other state?
As someone even whose coloration marks him as clearly the products of Northern European forests rather than Middle Eastern deserts in which I'd surely fry to death rather quickly without sun lotion, I'll second MY's comments here and add that the world's a topsy-turvey place, nu? Unless one's a Satmar or something, it's hard to be a religious Jew and not, at some point, be thrust into an environment where Zionism, a secular and ultimately anti-religious-Jewish philosophy is shoved down your throught as normative, while those Jews who are completely secular are free from such influence.
And I thought we Jews were supposed to be a subtle and clever people: and yet so many Jews don't even see how the religious Jewish embrace of Zionism rather goes against Judaism. Of course, I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's impossible to be both a religiously oriented Jew and a Zionist, but the degree to which this is the norm, rather than a position requiring one to be very aware of the conflicts between the two positions, is rather bizarre, nu?
DJ Ninja -- There is a difference between being Zionist and being Israeli. One is a belief in an idea, the other is a citizenship of a state. Ahmed Tibi is an Israeli, but not a Zionist.
Adding on to Richard Cownie's comments: as a famous rabbi (or prophet or G-d, depending on your persuasion, mileages may vary) said: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto YHWH the things that are YHWHs.
On the rare occasions in which I, a secular, atheist, Jew, venture into a house of worship, the sight of a national flag makes me wonder "Who is supposed to be in charge here? Who or what is being worshipped?" The last 15 years, esp. the last 6, have made clear to me why idolatry is so dangerous - it is one of the wiser aspects of Judaism. And the placing of flags in churches, synagogues, mosques, Friends' meeting houses (if there are flags in any of these) strikes me as idolatrous.
The Dutch require rigorous intensive Dutch language instruction of their immigrants in the attempt to keep English from becoming the lingua franca of the Netherlands, but they're shoveling sand against the tide.
Perhaps you should have chosen a better metaphor; the Dutch are pretty good at resisting tides. Likewise, Dutch cultural identity has been subject to predictions of doom for about as long as the country has existed, yet seems to have survived remarkably well.
Likewise, Dutch cultural identity has been subject to predictions of doom for about as long as the country has existed, yet seems to have survived remarkably well. - pseudonymous in nc
Conservative Judaism has also been subject to predictions of doom for about as long as the denomination has existed: are we Conservative Jews the Dutch of Judaism? Do I have to start wearing wooden shoes to shul?
;)
"DJ Ninja -- There is a difference between being Zionist and being Israeli. One is a belief in an idea, the other is a citizenship of a state. Ahmed Tibi is an Israeli, but not a Zionist."
Obviously. However, there are those who don't recognize the concept of Israelis, and some-if-not-many of these individuals tend (at least in all the English translations I read) to refer to Israeli as "Zionists," at least when they're feeling charitable or otherwise constrained by international media. My point is that, obviously, a Zionist is one who ascribes to a certain (specific) ideology, but the term has other overtones as well, depending on source, usage and context.
But anyway, to further illustrate your point, I suppose that, unlike Ahmed Tibi (and I suppose, MY), I might describe myself as a Zionist but not an Israeli.
And the placing of flags in churches, synagogues, mosques, Friends' meeting houses (if there are flags in any of these) strikes me as idolatrous.
Sure, but idolatry is a spiritual issue, right, not a political one, so analyzing it that way requires looking at what's going on spiritually, too. Similarly with DAS' comments--there are spiritual implications to that shift in how religious Jews view the issue of Zionism and how it plays in congregations and worship that are significant separate from the political issues, although they have political ramifications.
By comparison, look at the way some evangelical Christians have embraced American exceptionalism in a way that sees Americans now as a chosen people to carry out some sort of divine mission. Now, certainly many Christians have serious theological objections to this view. It also has some noxious political implications in terms of the ascendance of the Christian right. But it also has serious spiritual implications for both groups and individuals. These issues are interrelated but separate and they all have siginficance of their own worth considering.
Matthew, your detachment regarding Israel was once quite common among affluent, established American Jews--back before World War II. The main voice of the old German-Jewish establishment, for instance, was the American Jewish Committee, which at the time was quite anti-Zionist.
Following the Holocaust, however, even the most comfortably-situated diaspora Jews no longer felt quite secure enough to think of Israel as superfluous to their long-term safety. Support for Israel and Zionism thus became a near-universal sentiment among the world's Jews.
Of course, memories fade, and today it's gradually becoming more and more normal for American Jews once again to think, as you and Mark Kleiman apparently do, that Long Island is sanctuary enough for them.
I sincerely hope that your complacency turns out not to be as misplaced as that of the anti-Zionist Jews of the 1930s.
Following the Holocaust, however, even the most comfortably-situated diaspora Jews no longer felt quite secure enough to think of Israel as superfluous to their long-term safety. - Dan Simon
I understand the psychology of this shift, but it is hardly irrational. It'd take a miracle possible only the times of the Messiah to fit even all American Jews in Eretz Yisroel, even if the land be expanded as much as the whacko-righties want it expanded. And with Israel there, I would reckon other nations would be even less likely to take refugee Jews in, after all, "they can always go to Israel".
So, while I understand the psychology of "we Jews need a refuge" (as if Israel has been such a good refuge, considering how much it's under siege), it is not at all rational. If, Hashem forbid, our complecency is misplaced and, e.g., this Goldeneh Medina ends, even Israel could not guarantee the long term safety of us Jews.
look at the way some evangelical Christians have embraced American exceptionalism in a way that sees Americans now as a chosen people to carry out some sort of divine mission. - flippantangel
Actually, evangelical Christians in this country have long embraced American exceptionalism. The issue is that in the past the evangelical Christians who embraced such a vision were post-millenialists who were in many ways quite liberal. What's changed (and I'm still curious about the time-frame of this change and the reasons for it -- in large part it seems to be an orchestrated "reaction" against the New Deal and Civil Rights movement finishing up in the South what Reconstruction started) is that pre-millenialist evangelicals have turned away from their traditional apathy toward political institutions and become quite active and exceptionalist while the newly dominant "Christian Reconstructionist" and "Dominionist" strains of post-millenialism are thoroughly reactionary in their exceptionalist program.
Call me a closet neo-con (FWIW, I think in many ways the neo-cons have correctly identified many areas of concern, it's just that they are part of the problem rather than the solution, and their ballyhooed "new approaches" are really just warmed over righty-tighty real-politic), but I see nothing wrong with "American exceptionalism" per se: we ought to be a "City on a Hill". It's just what that means is that we need to set an example of how we want other countries to behave by behaving that way ourselves. A lot of what passes for "American exceptionalism" nowadays is just really a moral relativism of "whatever we do is correct as long as we do it but wrong if you do it".
On the other hand, it seems to be deliberately playing on the ambiguity between "supporting Israel" in the sense of opposing those who wish to destroy the entire country and "supporting Israel" in the sense of, say, standing behind whatever policy choices the government of Israel happens to make.
Thanks for saying this... similarly, I happen to not support many-- most, these days-- of the things my government does, yet still believe in America, you know, having a government. Hell, I have fairly serious problems with the actions and opinions of some of my own family members, but it doesn't mean that I want them wiped off the planet or anything-- I just think they're [sometimes spectacularly] wrong and will probably have to pay for being wrong at some point. I'm not Jewish, but I'm also not so consumed with liberal guilt that I can be shamed into unequivocal support of actions and opinions that I think are wrong, for fear of being accused of bigotry. I will say that I mistrust anyone who attempts to manipulate me that way, however, and for very good reason.
DAS, I have nothing against inherently against American exceptionalism, per se. But I think when contemporary conservative evangelicals assert that America is the "new Israel" and a Christian nation with a special mission in the eyes of God, the spiritual implications of this are very problematic and dangerous. Any time one talks about exceptionalism, there is an edging towards claims of being somehow less fallen and tainted and therefore in need of redeeming grace, and the spiritual implications of that are disastrous (from an evangelical perspective).
btw, there's a sort of irony in the juxtaposition of the phenomenon you mention: pre-millenialist Christians moved out of their historical apathy or deliberate avoidance of politics (my understanding is that this has as much to do with economic, technological and social changes that moved a great many of these people out of rural isolation into having more contact with broader society, as well as opportunistic individual leaders, as much as it has to do with the factors you mention.) But the embrace some of their leaders have made of Israel in the last decade plus has an oddly post-millenialist-ish rationale. There's a whole crew of right wing Christians who are more gung ho on the Zionism than Zionists because they think the re-establishment of the nation of Israel is essential under prophesy for the return of Christ.
This is a great post, I think you should not be afraid to do more of this kind of thing (especially now that you are writing on your own blog and not beholden to non-censorship of any sort of troublesome comments that might appear! :-))
Just throwing one thing out there for you, re: the flags thing et.al., something quick, no time to write up well. You mention Italian societies as examples. Well, some American immigrant cultures are very tied to the Catholic church, it's not just ancestral country. A Catholic will still say "oh by the old Polish church" or "that's an Irish church." And in that situation, it is not uncommon to see something like flags of the U.S. & Poland, or U.S. & Ireland, in the lobby of those churches, and to see relief efforts concentrated on that country when some disaster happens. Comes, of course, from the neighborhood surrounding which built the church. (In my Midwestern hometown, growing up, to most people, Greek Orthodox & Serbo-Croatian were also one & the same thing.) Since Jews built Israel, what you are talking about fits right into the picture. It depends how heavily the religion is allied with the culture of the country of origin, of course. But there is no intention implied that every single Catholic is a supporter of the I.R.A much less Ireland....people don't presume that; indeed plenty of Catholics were prejudiced against Irish...why should it be different with a synagogue? If a synagogue is too "Israeli" for your taste, then just shop for another. Why should all Jews be labeled by the tendency for this to happen? It's a homeland for a religious culture, however it was created.
"For many of us, I would imagine, the preferred term for "the Zionist project" is "Israel", just as our preferred term for "Zionists" is "Israelis".".
Surely "the Zionist project" is not identical to "Israel" ? For one
thing, the state of Israel has a substantial minority of Arab
Muslim citizens. So not all Israelis belong to the Zionist
project; and clearly many people supporting the Zionist project
are not Israelis, as shown by the existence of these pro-Israel symbols
in the USA.
On the spiritual significance of Zion, I'll profess my ignorance.
I have much to learn.
Religion being used to push political agendas? Wow, how surprising.
I have attended mass at close to 50 different Catholic churches from Boston to Los Angeles and I have never seen an Irish, Italian, Polish, Mexican, Vatican City or American flag in any of them.
My perspective, as a Catholic having grown up in a mostly jewish town in suburban NY, and in college joining a mostly jewish fraternity (for some reason I'm just most comfortable living among secularish jews), is that the parents of nearly all of my friends were stridently pro-Israel, and the children were ambivalent. And the trend continues. Many of my friends and their generation of reform jews from the NY suburbs married non-jews, and their kids will be even less jewish. That's the downside to Long Island as the alternative home for Jews -- the threat to the survival of the jews comes from assimilation. Of course, there are places like New Square NY where that's not going to happen, but for folks like Matthew, its much more of a "threat."
I went from being an agnostic "cultural" Jew growing up, to a shomer shabbat Conservadox Jew on a very liberal California University campus after being sent on the JCC funded trip to an Orthodox/Zionist program in Israel, to being Conservative when I moved to Baltimore, where Orthodox means really really right wing, to just joining the only synagogue in my area that I feel comfortable, a Reconstructionist synagogue. The members reflect a variety of left leaning views on Israel including non-Zionist views. I rejected joining the unaffiliated synagogue across the street from my house for many reasons including the sign at the door that reads "Baltimore stands with Israel."
And yet, my new schul does display both the American and Israeli flags, something I commented on to my husband as seeming idolotrous. I think I'll raise it with the board. But for those of you who have felt uncomfortable in reform or conservative schuls over the Israel issue, try Reconstructionist, the only American founded branch of Judaism. At least you'll be unlikely to get those Likudnik drashot from the bimah.
Matt,
This is (one example of) why a lot of (North) American Jews feel differently than you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mackenzie_King
You write, "I don't support George W. Bush's Israel policy."
You don't support his "America policy" either, but you can still love and support America.
And, "in the sense of, say, standing behind whatever policy choices the government of Israel happens to make. This latter thing, of course, I don't do at all."
Most pro-Israel Jews I know don't do that either. I work with quite a few - and all of them (including myself) are against the occupation, against settlements in the West Bank, think right-wing settlers are nut jobs, and are in favor of a Palestinian state.
I know a handful of the "Israel can do no wrong" crowd - but even they were shocked by the Hizballah/Lebanon fiasco.
And for that matter, most Christian Zionists I've come across are only pro-Israel to the extent Israel does what they want. Their leadership went into convulsions when Israel disengaged from Gaza.
The "standing behind whatever policy choices the government of Israel happens to make" crowd - from my perspective - is limited to bingo halls and hillel kids who have yet to learn how to think for themselves.
You write, "My ancestors are from Eastern Europe, not the Middle East."
Except were you to go on a tour of where they're from, you might come across some monuments - both intentional and unintentional - that seem to suggest that your ancestors were not entirely welcome there.
Italian Americans and Irish Americans (to use your examples), lucky for them, wouldn't have the same experience if they went to visit their European roots.
Other than conflict, what have we been given to occupy our time? Music? Humor? Food? Each other? Sex? Beer? Stars in the sky? Trees? Fellow creatures? Mountains? The sea? Bike Rides? Swimming? Movies? Walks in the woods? Learning and Knowledge? None of these compares to the high you get from feud. Try to take a politics junky on a long camping trip.
ally's gift -- yay Reconstructionism! I was bar mitzvahed in a Reconstructionist shul -- in Jerusalem, even though Reconstructionism was founded on Park Avenue West, a few blocks from where I ended up living in NYC for 10 years. Recently, here in my current home of Hanoi, Vietnam, I was contacted by a pair of Lubavitchers who were traveling around letting every Jew in the country know that a Lubavitcher rebbe had just been stationed in Ho Chi Minh City and it was now possible to obtain whatever services one needs a rabbi to obtain. My wife is a non-Jewish Dutch woman -- her only vague spiritual identification, derived from her father, is "humanist", which is actually an accredited non-theistic spiritual denomination in Holland, one that traces its roots to Spinoza, who was of course an agnostic Dutch Jew. She, however, can read and understand Yiddish, because it's highly similar to Dutch, both being varieties of low German with simplified grammar and many foreign borrowings, except for a lot of Hebrew roots, many of which, however, are recognizable to anyone who has lived in Amsterdam for many years, since they entered that city's slang during the centuries when it hosted a large Jewish population. And, for reasons that defy logic and rise to an almost kabbalistic level of coincidence, her stepsister, who also has no Jewish background, lives in Israel with her sabra husband, and speaks fluent Hebrew.
If nothing else, I feel that being Jewish has afforded me an encounter with a kaleidoscopically bizarre network of cultural nodules.
First, MY deserves thanks for being forthright about his discomfort. Second, almost everyone who goes to synagogue has criticisms. Religion, like politics, and like ethnicity, makes strange bedfellows. Many synagogues are politically to the right of their worshippers, many others to the left.
Third, I think that Mark Kleiman and MY have departed a little from their admirable commitment to reality-based views. Long Island isn't the Jewish homeland, however much one might wish that it were. Similarly, Israel is not just a place with a lot of Jews.
Israel's relation to American Jews is different in kind from the relation of Ireland to Irish-Americans; MY is correct. It is different again from the relation of the Vatican to Catholics, although there are points in common. It is different, once again, from the relation of Canadians or Australians to England, although again there are points in common. The relation of Chinese-Americans to Taiwan (they are not FROM Taiwan) also bears comparison. In some ways, the relationship may be sui generis. But the relationship is so strong, that what happens in synagogue expresses that relationship, whether we will it to or not.
To TAKE AWAY the Israeli flag would be a huge statement of OPPOSITION to Israel. To leave the flag there where it has been for years, to have kids dress like kibbutnikim (not like soldiers, after all), even the banner, "We support Israel," expresses sentiments that are honestly widely shared among the people there and not very extreme. And with all that, some people will of course feel uncomfortable, and some will complain, and that is their right.
thanks your post.
thanks.. .
thanks..
thanks. . . .
egvelae eaev we
haokkk
pornocumuyuz lan biz :D
thanks babyy :)
thanks ... . . . . . . . .
thanks oh..
chat
sohbet
Video
komik video
komik video
aşk şiirleri
Tr Video
avrupa sohbet
89com
komik video
sohbet
sohbet
Kurtlar Vadisi
bedava oyun
genç sohbet
islami sohbet
Bol Sohbet
chat
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
turkiyemirc
mircturkiye
mirch
mırch
mirc indir
mirc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc indir
mırc yukle
mirc turkiye
turkiye mirc
turk mirc
mirc turk
türkçe mirc
türkce mirc
türkçe mırc
turkce mirc
turkçe mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mirc
mirc chat
mirc sohbet
mirc ara
muhabbet
chat
blog
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkiyeforum
türk forum
mirc
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
sohbet
chat
bedava sohbet
turksohbet
turkiye sohbet
sohbet odaları
bedava chat
chat odaları
türk chat
türkiye chat
turkada
turkmirc
mirc inndir
karar
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
seks shop
hikaye
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye
porno
sex
hikaye
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye
thanx
thanks ;)
thanks...
Post A Comment