I would have expected my first post on this blog to be about Jewish religion, but sadly I was motivated to post this after hearing the Rabbi’s sermon last Shabbat.
Now, setting aside my belief that I don’t think ANY religious leader with a pulpit should ever use it for politics, I would like to engage the Rabbi in a respectful argument leShem Shamayim.
“The whole world is against us” is a common trope in Jewish history, and its latest incarnation is apparent in the current attitude of the government of the State of Israel. It may be proper when it is used as a warning against being too trusting of the world, but too often it is used to absolve Israel of its own crimes. When there is overwhelming criticism of Israel for its actions, one must see if they have some sort of merit rather than dismiss it off hand as global anti-Semitism.
Human Rights Watch has responded to the letter from its founder, which can be found here: (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/20/why-we-report-open-societies). Contrary to the letter, HRW does NOT excessively focus on Israel, and quite frankly puts a lot of focus on the rising theocracy in Gaza. Only when HRW uses the same set of standards and attacks Israel for human rights abuses does it come under fire. In other words, the only ones who use double standards are those who would apply a more favorable view of Israel because it is a democratic society. Besides, the Israeli government has cited the very same organization in order to shine a light on Palestinian crimes and abuses. (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/10/26/human-rights-watch-applies-same-standards-israel-hamas)
What was more of an affront to my values, however, was the way the Rabbi (by quoting another writer) seemingly dismissed the suffering on the ground as somehow ginned up by Hamas as a PR tactic, and suggested that the people of Gaza were only under pressure from their government to create these stories. NO ONE should so callously treat human suffering from any side, even if the suffering is expedient for a faction or government. After all, what would be the attitude of our community (and indeed, good-hearted people around the world) if someone were to belittle the suffering of the rocket-battered denizens of Sderot? It’s no secret that many factions want to exploit suffering for gain; however, the suffering itself remains very legitimate, and frankly should be “taken at face value.” Should one ever accuse a victim of domestic abuse of “making it up” just to attract the attention of the media and police?
Again, this is all in the realm of politics, and differing opinions may disagree. However, there was one view proliferated which I found extremely offensive. The Rabbi took Israel’s supposed “loner” position in the world, and compared it to another well-known solitary figure, the biblical patriarch Abraham. In a world of polytheism and idolatry, the latter was the sole individual in the era after Noah who recognized the truth of one God. Though beleaguered in trying to spread his message, he eventually won respect and followers by standing up for the ultimate truth. Thus, by analogy, Israel and its allies should stand for the truth in the face of overwhelming opposition and defeat the Goldstone Report.
What is wrong with this analogy?
First of all, the nature of Abraham’s truth was that it was revealed from Heaven itself. God’s own voice instructed Abraham on the eternal lies of `Avoda Zara. That message was continued by Moses and confirmed by the revalation at Sinai.
The truth that the Rabbi purported to stand for, on the other hand, was not miSinai. Instead, it is a narrative we choose for ourselves because it fits our interests to do so. The Defense Minister is not a prophet who can ultimately confirm to us that Hamas’s use of “human shield” tactics ultimately absoves Israel of the majority of civilian casualties in Gaza. Conversely, Richard Goldstone is no prophet either, nor should his report be taken as the ultimate truth (as it has been for others). We all take varying narratives fitting our own worldviews and present them as truth. This merely tells us that we are farther from Truth with a capital T than we think. Nonetheless, to put the narrow interests of Israel on par with the universal message of Abraham is not only completely off the mark, it borders on blasphemous (comparing human ideas to God’s Truth), and is completely unbecoming of a rabbinic sermon.
I hope sermons in the future will engage our intellect and enrichen our pursuit of a closer relationship with The Holy One, rather than blatantly compel us to political action.
Barnaby Yeh, AKA Baruch Bar-Navi, is a congregant at Tikvat Israel.
Barnaby,
I’m not completely finished reading your entire post, but the first thing that strikes me is this:
“my belief that I don’t think ANY religious leader with a pulpit should ever use it for politics”
I’m thinking that Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel would all disagree with this statement – I think that religious leaders do have an obligation to voice their informed opinions about politics, world affairs, and critical issues of the day – not that we should all accept their “take” without question, but I do think that the blanket statement that politics from the pulpit/bimah is NEVER appropriate is too broad!
bravo on this sentence (and paragragh): “NO ONE should so callously treat human suffering from any side, even if the suffering is expedient for a faction or government.”
i’m with you 100% on that one!! and i think we are too often quite callous in dismissing the suffering of the Palestinians…
Barnaby:
Thank you for posting this. It is very well written and argued . I very much liked your distinction between truth “miSinai” and the narratives we chose. It is too easy to assume that our favored political narrative must coincide with God’s truth. We see too much of that in this world already. On the other hand, there is a place for religion to tell us something about politics, as Janaki pointed out. How do we find the right place?
I hope you write more thoughtful pieces for us, and ignore the unfortunate tendency of some people to make personal criticisms rather than enter into a civilized discussion.
My first reaction is to the alternate identity that you, Mr. Yeh have assumed. Bar Navi, son of the prophet, is grandiose. Instead of taking moral principles to heart, you minimized the ongoing Palestinian terror against the people of Israel since 1948. You didn’t acknowledge that the Palestinians routinely hide and launch weaponry in civilian areas, including homes, schools, hospitals, mosques, schools, even ambulances. Often Palestinians are victims of extremist Palestinians who: keep them in line by murdering and maiming them; from munitions stored in living spaces, and from attacks on Israel that backfire. The incursion into Gaza was raw self defense on the part of the people of Israel. Many Palestinians have become masters of manipulation of the truth and of the media. Recall that hatred for Jews and for Israel is taught in Palestinian schools. Palestinian leaders have refused for more than 60 years to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Many Palestinians fled Israel in 1948 assured that they would be returning after the demise of Israel and its Jewish citizens. Their progeny are still hoping. How many people long to return to a country after their parents have left? Do Chinese seek to return to China, Poles to Poland, etc.? This stated desire to return to Israel is a political ploy. I hope that you’ll focus on the suffering of the people of Israel as they continue to undergo the terrorism carried out by the Palestinians. Let us hope that the Palestinians contain themselves so that there is no longer a need for Israel to defend itself against them. Survival is a basic need.
I also thank you for starting an interesting discussion and perhaps giving a kick-start to the TI blog. While I personally am feeling critical of HRW’s and the UN’s attacks on Israel (mostly I feel defensive and singled out as opposed to most of the rest of the world — odd, btw, since Israel would not consider me its citizen, but no matter), I am also mindful that Israel’s leaders are sometimes blind to a more universal worldview because they are so very concerned for Israel’s survival. It’s obviously a legitimate reason for defensive actions, including the use of military tactics when necessary (IMHO), but that doesn’t doesn’t make it a simple matter.
As far as the matter of religious leadership making political statements, this is my take: I think it’s the duty of religious leaders to explain their political opinions to congregants, etc. when they believe those opinions are supported by religious texts. It’s also the right and duty of congregants and other believers to dissent when their interpretation of religious teaching is different from that of the leaders (particularly in Judaism, where everyone knows two people will probably have at least three opinions!). It also makes perfect sense for me that an impassioned religious leader would take up a political cause as an individual, perhaps in conjunction with political organizations… thank goodness for Dr. King and Rabbi Heschel after all! But I become wary when a *religious* *organization* begins lobbying or petitioning members of the government directly on behalf of its constituents, except perhaps in the rare case where there is near unanimous agreement on a political matter by members of the religious group. (And btw, that kind of influence is illegal in the US, although I believe there are religious organizations, mostly Christian, that are constantly crossing this line.)
This makes things difficult for American Jews where Israel is involved, particularly since Israel itself inherently mixes religion and secular matters in ways not permitted in the United States. That’s why we have some lay groups, like AIPAC, to support the views of some Jews, and opposing lay groups like J Street which support the equally valid views of other Jews. (In the interest of disclosure, I do not fully support either of these groups, because I find I agree and disagree with various Jewish-Israel interest groups depending on the specific issue involved.)
In short, I support Rabbi Gorin’s right — and as I see it, duty — to let us know what he thinks about political matters that involve Judaism, and I also support the right and duty of intelligent persons in the congregation to express disagreement with the Rabbi’s opinions. Dissent is allowed here — thank goodness!
Roz, Your reply is entirely bizarre. You wrote:
“How many people long to return to a country after their parents have left?” to imply that Palestinians should not hope to return to the land their families worked, sometimes for hundreds of years, that their orchards should mean nothing to them, that the homes taken over by Israeli Jews should mean nothing to them, that their desire to return is a “political ploy”. And yet, it is entirely the same thing that Jews are doing, for a far longer period.
Jews return to Israel because we had a connection to the land – that’s why we’re there. That connection has persevered through repeated exiles, and with far less to directly call our own – when we returned to Israel, very little of it was connected to our specific families – the olive orchards weren’t planted by us; the farmland wasn’t farmed by us, the flocks weren’t herded by us, the houses weren’t built by us, and yet, we still after a thousand years loved the land. So, if we look on their love of their parents’ homes as a political ploy, how can you deny that they might look the same way at us, given the parallel?
It would be to your credit to grant their connection as real – as real as yours or mine, to grant their fear of Israelis as real – because most of them have only met Israelis with guns, and only experienced Jews as a source of terror or humiliation. They are real people with real families, and even in the territories, most of them merely wish to get on with the business of having their lives and families. I know this personally, from meeting and working with people in the West Bank, people who work for peace. Of course their perspective of who is right and wrong differs from mine, but the cost of a whole soul is to recognize other perspectives and honor them as best one can while working to build the bridge.
On that note, I want to take you to task for your assumptions about Barnaby. You are out of line to speak to him in the way you have. Bar-Navi, in case you missed it is a pun on “Barnaby” (Spell it in Hebrew – that’s how it comes out) . It is quite common for bloggers to take on punning or clever or pseudonymous names like this. But even if it weren’t it’s not anyone’s place to assume they know what’s in someone else’s head.
Alona it would be prudent to review the actual history of the State of Israel, rather than revisionist versions. Much of the Palestinian land within Israel’s boundaries was purchased from the Palestinian owners at least once by the Jewish National Fund. When I was a child and a teenager, we were frequently contributing to and collecting money for the Jewish National Fund to purchase that Palestinian land. It was quite serious when Palestinians determined that the Jews in Israel would be slaughtered and/or conquered. Arab nations launched warfare o destroy the newly established Stae of Israel. Resident Palestinians were urged in messages transmitted to them over loudspeakers in trucks that they should leave their homes temporarily in preparation for returning to a Judenrein state. That’s how other Palestinian land was abandoned. It’s important to be aware of what happened in 1948. Should your sentiments and underlying wishes be realized, the State of Israel as a Jewish State would disappear within a few generations. Your position appears to be based on Palestinian and Arab anti Israel misinformation and propaganda.
For once I agree with Rabbi Gorin. Israel’s position in the world is unique and it stands alone as a beacon of democracy in that part of the world, perhaps as Abraham was alone in spreading the word of G-d. And Israel, is not perfect, like Abraham was. If Bar Navi wants to hear only ultimate Truth he may wait for Moshiah to hear that.
Palestinians have only themselves to blame. The sooner we all realize that the better it will be for all of us, including Palestinians. BTW, I am not belittling the suffering. I am just pointing out that their suffering is the result of them choosing wrong leaders who steal all the financial help from all over the world. The same leaders choose to use whatever money is left to teach their children hatred.
And the last point. Feeling everybody’s pain may be a sign of a bleeding heart, but in the real world the choices are very difficult to make. If during WWII Americans felt the suffering of German children and decided not to carpet bomb Germany, how many more of American, French, Polish, Jewish children would suffer and die? Or if USA didn’t bomb Hiroshima feeling the suffering of Japanese children?
Sure now you can discuss what should have been done. When you are a back seat driver it’s easy to be compassionate.
Try it when decision is yours. Sharon decided to give Palestinians their own land and inflicted suffering on entire Israel.