Thursday, 30 July 2015

The Senator vs The Colonel

South of the border the battle for the Democratic nomination for the 2016 federal election has become far more interesting than many thought it would.  Initially it was expected to be a coronation for Hillary Clinton with a bunch of also-rans falling to the side.  Enter Bernie Sanders, former socialist senator and suddenly the new and possibly viable challenge to her majesty, Hillary I.
In fact, attention on the entire race for the next president has shifted because of Sanders' ascension.  I was worried that the Democrats would quickly crown Hillary while the Republicans, led by The Donald, would alienate all but their most devout supporters after months of eviscerating one another.  Instead attention has started to focus on Clinton and it hasn't been at all flattering, causing her poll numbers to dive while Sanders, a socialist, has played to the Obama-enhanced culture of entitlement that has casts its ennui over the United States.
Should we be happy about this?  Let's take a look at Sanders and see.  He's held a variety of public posts at various levels of government (which is more than the current president can say) and that's probably a good thing.  However, he remains a socialist which is a bad thing.  Not just that but he's an old time socialist.  Remember that before American Jews began marching against the Soviet Union in the late 1960's and 70's in support of Russian Jewry, they were marching for the USSR because of its perceived facade of being a workers' paradise.  Sanders seems to be from that type of American Jewish socialist, the kind that still think that Lenin and Stalin were on to something positive even if the tens of millions they murdered were a regrettable but necessary sacrifice in the name of international communism's success.  He believes in bigger government, more regulation and higher taxes, especially for the rich where he advocates confiscatory rates of 90% on the highest incomes.  I guess he looked at Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal and felt that since democratic socialist produced such amazing economic outcomes there it would be prudent to attempt similar things in the United States.
It seems to me that another Sanders has been overlooked in this nomination race and he might make a very attractive candidate.  This Sanders isn't a Senator, nor has he ever held public office to my knowledge.  He does however hold the military rank of Colonel which is a significant achievement in its own right.
But it's more than that.  Unlike Senator Sanders, Colonel Sanders provides people with stuff they can palpably enjoy, that mouth-watering chicken coated in a fatty batter and eleven herbs & spices which is then deep-fried to destroy any possible health benefits.  There's also the tasty fries, let us not forget.  Finally, unlike Bernie Sanders who wants to create high youth unemployment by raising the minimum wage to uneconomic levels, Colonel Sanders happily employs many youth at the current minimum wage, teaching them important life skills like the ability to ask the question "You want cole slaw with that?"  (No one does, by the way)
Therefore, if the Democrats are smart they'll dump both Clinton and Bernie Sanders and put forward the Colonel as their 2016 candidate.  He comes with his own catering and the smell from the hall at the national convention will be irresistible to hesitant voters.  A chicken in every pot indeed!

Tuesday, 21 July 2015

The Surrounding Perspective

One of the recurring themes I notice when I survey non-Orthodox Jewish blogs is how upset Heterodox Jews generally are with Orthodox Jewry's refusal to recognize their versions of Judaism as legitimate expressions of the religion.  One recent post (I forget where) even emphasized that Orthodox is itself a recent invention so it should have no pretensions to greater legitimacy than, say, Reform.
I think a big reason for this is the influence of surrounding society.  No sector of Judaism is immune to this.  In fact, I'd be willing to wager that almost all sectors of Judaism fall prey to this influence.  On the Heterodox side assimilationist tendencies and a desire to be religious "correct" mean allowing surrounding society's value to set the values of what they call Judaism.  On the Orthodox side there is an increasing tendency to set Judaism's values davka in opposition to prevailing secular ones even when some of those secular ones (honesty in business, for example) are quite commendable.
If that's the case, why doe Orthodoxy set itself apart from the other so-called streams of Judaism?
It seems that this is based on the response to secular society's influence as described above.
Consider that in North America we live in a Chrisian-majority society.  Now, how would one define Chrisianity?  Well to keep it simple, it's a religion composed of multiple groups all of whom sharing one belief in common, that God sent Yeshu haNotzri to save us from our sins and then died for us.  Other than that, when one looks at the spectrum of groups within Chrisianity one sees really very little in common other than that.
The Heterodox understanding of what Judaism is has been influenced by this.  When one looks at the various groups in Jewish society one might conclude that Judaism is also a religion composed of multiple groups all of whom sharing one belief in common, that God did not send Yeshu haNotzri to save us from our sins, etc.  How else to describe Reform's rejection of Jews for Jesus when many adherents to the latter are far more ritually observant than the vast majority of the former?  When one looks at Humanist Judaism in one corner and Satmar Judaism in the other, there is really nothing else that the two have in common Jewishly.  Like Chrisianisty, this is a minimalist position.
In contrast to this, the Orthodox position rejects the idea that Judaism is a religion like Chrisianity.  The Orthodox definition of Judaism demands a belief in God, acceptance of the divinity, antiquity and unity of the Torah and the revelation at Sinai.  Any set of beliefs that is missing one of those points is not authentic Judaism.  In contrast to the Heterodox position, this is a maximalist position.
This is perhaps why Open Orthodoxy, despite its continued claims of fealty to authentic tradition, has been perceived as crossing the red line into Heterodoxy.  One of its major decisors openly admits he doesn't believe that any of the history of the Torah is true.  Other leaders extol the desirability of halacha being altered to accept homosexual marriage even if they haven't found a way to do it yet.  Even its greatest rabbinic proponent, an internationally renowned posek in his own right, revealed an unseemly secular influence when he recently proclaimed that it was time to ordain women as rabbis because he wanted to accomplish it before he retired.
Keeping the concept of the surrounding perspective is important for the Torah observant community as well.  The rise of "Taliban Judaism" in Judaism with Burka Babes and segregated buses is linked to the appearance of, well, the Taliban on the world and religious scene as well as a reaction to the increased lewdness and promiscuity of secular society.  But just as the Open Orthodox are wrong to try and redefine Judaism along the lines of secular liberalism, we in the Torah observant community should avoid limiting Judaism to those chumros which oppose society's mores simple because we want to oppose society.  Torah is not a shield from arayos, it is a way of living that serves as an example to mankind and as a result it should lead, not follow even in opposition.

Thursday, 16 July 2015

Back To Munich

An Israeli satirist in the 1960's and 70's, one of Ephraim Kishon's best pieces was an essay that start off as a historical retelling of the events leading to the infamous Munich agreement in which Britain and France, desperate to prevent a major European war with the Nazis, y"sh, agreed to split the northeastern half of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, and give it to Germany.  Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister, returned home in triumph waving the agreement above his head and announced that he had arranged "peace in our time!"  Winston Churchill, the dour old codger that he was, replied "You could have chosen war over disgrace.  You chose disgrace and soon you shall have war."  And everyone told him to shut up and stop war mongering.
Peace in our time lasted about a year.
Now while it is easy to criticize the British and French for their absolute stupidity in negotiating with Adolph Hitler, y"sh, we have to remember the historical context of the agreement.  World War I, the Great War as it was still called, had ended only twenty years earlier after devastating large parts of French and slaughtering millions of soldiers and civilians.  Not lost on many people was the absolute uselessness of the war.  It started because a Serbian shot an Austro-Hungarian prince.  It ended with society-shattering effects and caused the rise of the Soviet Union.  Europeans, with the exception of the Germans, were still war weary.  If cutting Czechoslovakia in half meant avoiding a war they were all far it and Chamberlain said as much in the lead up to the agreement.
But back to Kishon.  In his piece he starts off by telling the story of how negotiations began and proceeded but as it goes on he slowly starts changing the names of the politicians involved.  British and French politicians become American and UN ones from the early 1970's.  The German names turn into Arabic ones.  Naturally the Czech names become Israeli.  By the end it's a story about the Western powers along with Russia discussing the dismemberment of Israel with the Arab League while the Israelis sit in the hall, uninvited to the negotiations that will determine their fate.
Sound familiar?
The deal signed between the major nuclear powers and Iran has all the hallmarks of being a repeat of the Munich agreement.  Naive leaders from Western democracies sit across the table from ruthless terrorist thugs.  The Western leaders make it very clear that they either will do anything to get a deal (America, Britian and France) or have no interest in making the terrorist thugs accountable for any deal that gets signs (Russia, China).  The terrorist thugs (Iran) who are in a bit of a predicament due to international sanctions and the low price of oil quickly realize that despite their overwhelming advantage, their opponents are playing to lose.  They drag out negotiations, all while continuing research towards weaponized nuclear technology, continue to openly vilify the Western leaders who can't seem to fawn over them enough and then sign a deal which is possibly worse for the West than Munich was.
What's truly pathetic is watching the President of the United States now stumping for that deal and growing ever more frustrated as people refuse to see it as the greatest deal of the century.  First we are given the false dichotomy - it was this or war.  Well no it wasn't.  It was this or continuing crippling sanctions and an end to negotiating for the enemy against your own country.  It's not surprising that Obama doesn't mention this option as he has worked for years against levelling sanctions against Iran.
When someone brings up North Korea breaking a remarkably similar agreement only a few years ago they get yelled at.  When someone brings up the American political prisoners in Iran and how this deal ignores them, they get yelled at.  When someone brings up Israel's fears of a nuclear Iran they get told that Israel is the actual aggressor in this situation.  Yes, the world is that bizarre.
For Israel this deal, and the eagerness of the nuclear powers to drop sanctions, invest in Iran and suck up to its leaders is bewildering.  Agreement or not, it is generally known that Iran subsidizes proxy armies like Hezbollah in multiple countries throughout the Middle East.  It's generally known that Iran is also a major sponsor of worldwide terrorism and is keen on building up its military capability despite having no current aggressive enemies (other than Israel, of course).  Why is this all being ignored?  Why are terrorist thugs who have an established track record of lying being taken seriously when it comes to their signatures on this wretched document?
I hope and pray that we have not witnessed this century's Munich agreement but when all its supporters can say is "Well it's better than no deal" or angrily attack detractors it's hard not to think so.
What can we as Jews do?  We must remember our Father in Heaven who didn't bring us back to our Land and help us re-establish its sovereignty just to have a bunch of Persian nutjobs wipe it out.  We must pray and learn in the hope that our merit will protect us and give our defenders the strength to preserve Jewish life and society.  We must not take this silently but must plead with Heaven for mercy.  Perhaps we will be heard.

Thursday, 9 July 2015

Socialism Is Infantalism

The Greek tragedy that is, well, um, Greece, continues to unfold before the eyes of an alternatively horrified and bemused world.  Grexit, the involuntary exit of Green from the EU end the Euro creeps closer sending financial markets into spasm of uncertainty.
What is most fascinating to watch is the behaviour of the guilty parties in this crisis, specifically the Greek government and their supporters in the public.  Greece didn't enter this position of bankruptcy overnight and without warning.  Rather the situation was created by multiple governments that paid steadily rising benefits to an increasingly less productive workforce.  It was assisted in this by a tremendous sense of entitlement on the part of the Greeks themselves.  They were quite happy to take the money their government didn't really have but when they were asked to cut back to alleviate the situation they weren't so generous.
At the national level the current government has been acting the same way with its creditors.  Sure we may owe hundreds of billions of dollars, they have told an annoyed Angela Merckel, but since we can't repay it you should just write it off and then loan us more!
The final laugh, if you will, was the referendum last weekend in which a majority of Greeks voted to refuse the austerity terms of a further financial buyout. The Greek government, bolstered by the result, insisted that Europe and especially Germany must acknowledge the democratic voice of the Greek people.  The German response was classic: well we also have a democratic voice and it has said that it wants its money back.
They say maturity occurs when a person realizes his parents were right to force him to eat his spinach when he was young.  In Greece it seems they're still having ice cream sundaes for breakfast, lunch and dinner while resenting any suggesting that they might benefit from fruits, vegetables and bran.
Now as Jews we have a long history with Greece and especially Greek culture.  There has been an entwining of theirs and ours for over two thousand years, ever Alexander the Great stopped over in Yerushalayim on his tour of the MiddleEast and south Asia.  Our Chazal held a special respect for the Greek language and a special loathing for its culture.
As opposed to Judaism which emphasized the spiritual and rejecting physical hedonism as a valuable goal, Greece seemed to philosophize its way into a culture in which physical perfection was everything.  A great example of this was Greek opposition to Jewish circumcision during Maccabean times.  For Jews circumcising is a final step towards perfecting the body that God left in our hands to perform.  For the Greeks it was simple mutilation.
This Greek philosophy seems to have found its way into the culture of its descendants.  Modern Greece as it collapses today is the final end run of a philosophy that demands physical gratification without consideration of its cost.  The Greeks have been happy to take hundreds of billions of Euros for their pensions but refused to believe that the tap would be turned off if they refused to be accountable.  Faced with the consequences of that idiocy they simply insist they should not have to be "punished" and demand more free candy from the story.
Why does this matter to us?  Because the Green attitude is contagious.  In any prosperous society there is a greedy tendency to demand entitlements from the government but resent any attempt by the government to receive the finances to pay for those entitlements.  We are instead subject to moronic statements like "Well just tax the rich more!" and "Tax the corporations!"  Tax anyone, just not us!  For the West Greece (and soon Spain, Portugal and Italy) is an advanced warning as to what happens when governments allow their populations to become spoiled brats who want a five star society while paying one star rates.  As citizens of the West we ignore this vivid warning at our peril.
But worse and perhaps very ironically, the Greek attitude has infected the part of the Torah observant community that styles itself as the true vanguard of the Jewish nation against assimilation and outside influence - the Chareidi community.
Take a look at the Chareidi community in Israel, especially that segment that sits and learns all day long while living on outside donations but more significantly, on Israeli government largess.  Look at the behaviour of their politicians, especially over the last few years when they were in opposition and forced to deal with cuts to their entitlements.  The resemblance to Greece couldn't be more obvious. Give us the money, they and their representatives shout, but don't expect anything back from us, not even a 'thank you'!  The degeneracy and immaturity of the socialist entitlement system has created a culture of dependency that is not to be ignored.
When the very community that imagines itself exemplifying the opposite views to Greece is itself displaying those values we need to seriously appreciate the power afflicting the Torah community and the battle that will be needed to overcome it.

Tuesday, 7 July 2015

Finding The Right Balance

One of the interesting facets of Judaism is the perceived divide between mitzvos bein adam l'Makom and bein adam l'chaveiro.  Despite there being no real distance between the two categories since the latter are also part of the former, all mitzvos being done at the command of the Creator, common practice seems to suggest that people really do see them as mutually exclusive categories.
What's more, those people who do often seem to see Jewish practice as embracing one or the other.  Thus you find many folks on the left side, including the Reformative community, who seek to excel in bein adam l'Chaveiro through "tikun olam" efforts while disregarding what they perceive as the archaic ritualistic side of Judaism or seeking to make it egalitarian, again as part of "tikun olam".  On the right side you see a desire for mehadrin and chumra often at the expense of human decency.  The same guy who insists on four hechsherim for his jug of milk having no trouble cheating his fellow Jew blind, for example.
Why does this divide exist?
I would like to suggest that it's because we really don't build ourselves a relationship with the Creator like we should. 
Now on the surface that sounds silly.  On the right we have people who shout Baruch HaShem at every opportunity and on the left we repeatedly hear justifications for ignoring mitzvos starting with the words "Well, what I think God really wants is..."  But in both cases there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what that relationship is supposed to be.
Let me bring as an example the Carlebach-style kabbalas Shabbos services that are currently in vogue.  Full disclaimer up front: I can't stand them and haven't gone to Friday night services at my shul since the Rav made them a permanent feature.  Why?  I used to think it was because it took so long but I've davened at Sephardi and Ethiopian kabbalas Shabbos services that are just as long and didn't get annoyed or too hungry.  I think what bothered me most were many of the attendees who, during the singing parts, really got into things but when Maariv started and it was time to actually pray, shut their siddurim and started to have conversations which kept up straight through to kiddush at the end.  I mean, it's great that these folks come to shul to connect but at the end of the night when they get in their cars and drive home one has to ask: what did they connect to?  They didn't come to pray, to open their hearts and souls to God.  If the service had just been quiet, contemplative prayer they'd feel no reason to come out at all.  In short, they expect God to entertain them, to serve them instead of it being the other way around.
The disconnect is no different on the right side of the community either, mind you.  Every time you read about a frum Jew involved in a financial scam, a pedophilia incident or some other despicable act and see a black hat, bear and peyos staring out of the mugshot on the screen you are looking at someone who really wants to connect to God but only through certain actions.  He has compartmentalized God into a supervisor of rituals, not daily life, his protestations to the contrary.
And what can one say about a kollel culture in which performance of many public mitzvos is shunned because it would take away from learning?
Perhaps one of the biggest priorities of Jewish education, both elementary and adult, has to be the emphasis on the lack of divide between the two types of mitzvos and that attributing a perceived lesser importance to one is as Jewishly destructive as abandonment of both.  People who spend their lives helping the poor need to know that keeping Shabbos is just as important but people who do everything they can to ensure an enhanced Shabbos also have to know there is a world out there that needs Jews acting in consonance with the Torah to improve it.  In that way we can perhaps progress towards being the example to the nations that we are supposed to be.

Sunday, 5 July 2015

The Unending Insecurity

On one hand, history has given us Jews enough reason to feel insecure in our identities.  We have enough expulsions, massacres, rapes and devastations to keep up from seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses.  Even now in the early 21st century in a place like North America, the insecurity continues.  Like the battered child who is rescued from years of abuse but can't get past jittery anxiety in a safe foster home because of the depth of the trauma, diaspora Jews as a population seem to believe that the good times we currently live in are a facade that will eventually disappear.
The problem is that coping mechanisms that have developed to handle this belief are both dysfunctional.  On the religious side we have many Torah-observant Jews who miss the old ghettos of Europe and have voluntarily rebuilt them her in Canada and America.  You know the type.  They dress like their grandparents did in the alte heim, they insist that Yiddish should be our first language and they continue to insist that the Gentiles around us are the same nasssssssty goyim as they were in Europe.  Can't beat 'em so avoid 'em.
The other group are the secular part of our brethren.  Like their predecesors in Western Europe they see assimilation and eventually abandonment of our heritage as the solution to the hatred hiding below the surface.  Can't beat 'em so join 'em.
However, both these approaches ignore the single most important positive Jewish event in Jewish history of the last two millenia - the rebirth of Jewish sovereignty in Israel.  This has created a third group of Jews, one which is aware of its insecure position in the world but sees its Jewishness like the British see their Britishness and the Chinese their Chineseness.  They are Jews, they have no jealousy of other groups and see no reason to either hate or suck up to them.  This third group is quite unsettling because neither the first nor second quite know how to handle it.
For the ultraOrthodox the idea of Jews confidenly living in this world with their Jewishness simply being part of it is difficult to comprehend.  Their philosophy is that Judaism is at odds with life in this world.  For the secular population which is happier being Jewish American or Canadian as opposed to being Canadian or American Jews the idea of a Jew without a hyphen on either side of the world is also bewildering.
This explains perhaps why Israeli jews are getting increasingly frustrated with their North American brothers.  Israel, despite all its successes, lives under the black cloud of hatred that covers the skies of the MiddleEast.  It knows that it is one whackjob with a bomb away from a mortal crisis.  It desperately wants to live in peace but isn't prepared to commit national suicide to achieve that peace.  But when it reaches its hand across the ocean for help or support what does it get in response?
From the ultraOrthodox it gets no hand back.  Like their cousins in Israel the Agudah community and those to the right of it are parochial.  They have little interest in the greater good of the Jewish nation.  Only those pan-communal causes that might affect its well-being draw its attention. 
From the secular community there is a hand back but its swatting the Israeli one away.  American Jews, or rather: Jewish Americans, long ago lost that family feeling that should bind all Jews one to another.  For them tikun olam is about recycling, not about bringing the Divine into this world.  Alternative marriages, abortion on demand, Obamacare and ecofasicm are their priorities, not their brothers in Israel who are on the wrong side of the politically correct debate since they're oppressing those supposedly poor so-called Palestinians.
It's a mindset I've always been curious about.  At one point in North American history Jews dealt with open hatred and exclusion from the majority population by building up their own communities and showing they could be as diverse and successful as their Gentile rivals.  Jewish hospitals, schools and universities are the legacy of that fierce desire to succeed with or without the approval of the Gentiles.
Something changed in the middle 20th century, it seems.  With the increasing acceptance of Jews into Gentile institutions like universities and country clubs the pride that demand that our fathers and mothers build their own society disappeared.  Suddenly the greatest Jewish goal was to be accepted as a member of the local WASP club or get into the local university.  Jewish success was measured by how assimilated you could be while still calling yourself a member of the tribe.
To this day that lack of Jewish self-respect haunts and harms us.  What is J Street other than a Judenrat desperate to seek the approval of the politically correct Jew-hating crowd?  Why does the ADL oppose Sheldon Adelson's latest initiatives to ensure Jewish continuity other than because it makes Jews stand out instead of making them seem like just another member of the American mosaic?
Israel is the future of our people.  Israel is the centre of our national life.  It is time we took a cue from the confident Israelis and recognized that we need no approval from society around us, that we don't need to tailor our views to their approval and that our destiny is decided by the Divine will, not that of the Western world.  We don't need their country clubs.  We need our Land, our Torah and our self-respect.

Thursday, 2 July 2015

The Questions Not Asked

With the recent news that Rabbi Avi Weiss has finally pulled the trigger and pulled out of mainstream Orthodoxy there is much discussion across the Torah observant community with how to interact with this new "denomination".  Is it a form of Torah observance, as its adherents claim?  Is it simply right wing Conservatism with a mechitzah as its detractors point out?
Based on what I can see from my lonely perch out here in the Jewish hinterlands, I think the entire discussion is missing a very important point.  Rav Avraham Gordimer's critique of this recent move on Rabbi Weiss' part exemplifies it perfectly.  He points out Rabbi Weiss' various innovations which are certainly openly to criticism for their lack of halachic fealty, for example.  No argument here.  Rabbi Weiss has made a career out of being controversial, sometimes for excellent reasons (his support of Israel and Soviet Jewry back in the day) and sometimes for politically correct ones (his obsession with creating women rabbis and somehow normalizing homosexuality within Torah observance).  All along he has acted with the authority reserved for a major posek or Gadol haDor, positions for which he is unqualified but which he has arrogated to himself.  Yet he seems completely mystified by the hostile response genuine Torah-observant leaders have given him and seems to have concluded that their approach is "ossified".
He certainly makes his goals sound laudable.  He wants to be more inclusive, he wants a greater spectrum of observance and these are all great things but the problem occurs when people announce that their Torah observance must accomodate their personal preferences, not the other way around.  A lax approach, a "customizable" denomination might attract more people but it is not proper Torah observance.
But all of this focusing on women's ordination and legitimizing "alternative lifestyles" misses the important point and here it is: can I still eat in Rabbi Weiss' house?
Not that I'm in danger of getting invited, you understand but the question stands.  Recall that the three pillars of Jewish life are kashrus, taharas mishpacha and Shabbos observance.  They are not shul, tikun olam and Carlebach-style services.  By focusing critique on these areas we fall into the trap of redefining the priorities of Judaism and change it from a national-religious system in which the home is the centre and preserve of the faith to a synagogue-based ritual system in which Judaism is practised in certain parts of one's life while being irrelevant in the others.
In all the writings of the YCT crowd that I've seen there is no mention of redefining Shabbos observance.  The Rabbi Kanefskies of the world who are so troubles with the blessing of Shelo Asani Ishah don't recommended that husbands and wives do mikveh trips together or any abrogation of niddah requirements.  There is no call to certify non-Jewish wine or cheese like the Conservatives did. 
So can we eat in their homes?  And should that not matter?  After all, the reason Torah-observant Jews feel cut off from Reformatives is because of their rejection of the authority of the Oral law.  Off the top that means that any claims they make to have "authentic" Jewish practice in things like food and Shabbos can be swiftly rejected. 
With the Open Orthodox this will be much trickier.  If someone insists that they accept the truth of Matan Torah and the authority of Chazal along with the Shulchan Aruch then I might strongly disagree with some of their decisions but I still have to accept that many of their practices have an authentic legtimacy.  If they don't but still act Orthodox in many areas of their lives is it still as acceptable?
For all I know, Rabbi Dov Farber keeps a strictly kosher home.  On the other hand he rejects the truth of Matan Torah which means that he lives a Jewish lifestyle not out of any sense of a binding legal obligation from God Himself but because he thinks it's just what the right thing is for Jews to do.  Is his kosher home a real kosher home?
By focusing on public roles and community rituals we obscure these more important questions.  It is entirely possible that Open Orthodoxy is a new "stream" of Judaism, a right wing Conservatism with a mechitzah.  if that's the case then they join the other Reformative groups and sit outside true Torah-observance.  But if they are still genuinely Orthodox in some way, are they not worth the effort to keep them within the fold?

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

What Do We Care?

There's no escaping the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States legalizing homosexual marriage across their country.  The media and the internet are saturated with coverage.  Even Facebook has gotten into the act with people overlying their profile photos with rainbow flags.  The number of people in the West who support heterosexual-only marriage continues to shrink rapidly and the issue becomes more of a liability for politicians than anything else.   The question I wish to ask today is: what does it matter to us Jews?
On the surface of it, not much.  The average homosexual, like the average heterosexual, isn't a rampaging crusader but rather just wants to lead a normal, quiet life.  Attendance at gay marriages is still optional, not compulsory.  Let them do their thing and leave us alone to do ours.
However, the threat to Judaism in the West isn't from the average heterosexual.  In all other ethnic, religious and cultural communities there is a minority which can't stand the idea that their views are not the standard views across society.
The homosexual community is no different.  That the state permits gay marriage isn't enough for this group.  The idea that there are other communities out there that dispute the "enlightened" ruling of the court and continue to believe it's forbidden is intolerable to them.  These are the people who look specifically for religious bakers and sue them in human right's court when they are refused a wedding cake.  For these people the ruling will not simply be about getting married.  They are in a state of cultural war with traditional religion because traditional religion opposes their important values and they can't tolerate that.
Look at it a different way.  In more savage parts of the world culture wars are conducted at the business end of an automatic rifle.  ISIL uses its military might to enforce it's version of Islamic law on its conquered subjects.  You can be sure that prohibiting gay marriage is part of that cachet.  In the West we don't fight that way.  Instead of rifles we have lawyers and instead of tanks we have judges.  The culture war is fought in a more civilized, genteel fashion, but the end result is the same: the winning side seeks to impose its values on the losing side and goes apoplectic when it fails.
The reason we need to care is because of this militant minority.  There have already been cases where businesses being run by religious Chrisians have been targeted and legally attacked for refusing service to a gay couple seeking to get married.  On one hand you can sympathize with the gay couple.  After all, if you read a story in the paper about a Black man being denied entry into a restaurant because the management only wanted White customers you'd be justifiably outraged.  On that level this is no different.
On the other hand, consider that in the cases involving gay couples the businesses made efforts to assist the couple by recommended alternative companies that would offer the same product at the same or an even better price.  The response by the couples was uniform: We don't just want a cake.  We want you to bake that cake.  Why?  If I went into a store and got the strong impression my patronage was not wanted because I'm Jewish I would take my money and recommendations elsewhere. I wouldn't double-down and insist that this business serve me.  Why would I want them to benefit in any way?  These couples did the opposite - they chose to punish the religious individuals financially and legally.
Small time, sure, but what happens one day when a gay couple walks into the local Orthodox shul and demands to rent the social hall for their wedding?  What happens when a gay groom demands an aufruf?
Assaults on religious freedom have been protected by law until now because of the idea of freedom of conscience.  Read the media now and the liberal lobby is already re-framing that argument.  It's no longer about freedom of religion but about freedom from discrimination.  You wouldn't tolerate an institution that forbid interracial dating so you soon won't have to tolerate a shul or church that forbids homosexual marriage.  Imagine the day when someone looks at an Orthodox Jew applying for a job and says "We don't want people who don't support gay marriage working here".
Seen that way we as Torah-observant Jews might be a more precarious position than we think.

Sunday, 28 June 2015

Garnel Ironheart - The Book!

First, there was the book that brought me into existence, The Curse of Garnel Ironheart.  Then, after the conclusion of the three books of The Unending War trilogy there was the establishment of this blog which allowed me to share my thoughts with the world.  And now, as the next logical step in my process towards Jewish world domination, comes Navonim - Towards Intelligent Judaism, a collection of the finest essays on my Jewish ideology, Judaism and Jewish politics and thoughts on many parshiyos of the Torah.
One of the main reasons for my starting and maintaining this blog was and is to add my voice to the cacophony inundating the Jewish world today.  I certainly hoped I'd have more of an impact than I did but still feel great about all the views I could share and the occasional discussions that those views engendered.
So when I was recently contacted by Hadassa Word Press (the same company that contacted pretty much every Jewish blog they could find, I think) and asked if I'd be interested in publishing a book based on my blog posts I decided to take advantage and submitted a manuscript.
Navonim - Towards Intelligent Judaism consists of many of the posts I wrote on my Navon ideology along with my thoughts on Orthodoxy today and, as mentioned, some Torah thoughts in the third section.  It's a fine collection of essays sure to give the dedicated reader hours of enjoyment and insight.
At this time it's only available directly from Hadassa Word Press either as a download or as a pricey bound edition which will enhance the appearance of your book shelf and excite the comments of your friends and neighbours.  While you're there, pick up more copies of the books of The Unending War trilogy, the story that brought me to life!  However, if you wait I am told that it will eventually appear on Amazon as well.
And who knows?  If enough people buy the book, or should I say: sefer, and notoriety develops perhaps I too will merit to have it burned at Meron on Lag B'Omer.

Friday, 26 June 2015

An Accessory To Mitzvos

There's been a terrible tragedy in the community I live in.  A week ago during a party a 6 year old girl slipped under the surface of the swimming pool she was in and laid at the bottom for several minutes (no one really knows) until she was discovered.  She was hauled out of the water, had CPR done and was immediately taken by ambulance to the local emergency room.  From there she was transported to the nearest Pediatric ICU, the one in my town.  She is still there, intubated and ventilated with no improvement over time.  Investigations have shown that her brain and brainstem are completely gone.  No change is expected.  Tragedy.
The parents are in a difficult spot.  Their position on the Jewish definition of death is absence of heart beat.  Therefore as far as they are concerned their daughter is alive.  What's more, they see themselves as being machmir in having decided that if this little girl's heart should stop beating they want all resuscitative efforts to be made to restart it.  The hospital staff, approaching this from a secular ethics perspective have decided that she's dead and that taking her off the ventilator would be acceptable.  All they need is the parents' permission which, naturally, they're not getting.
So I went one evening to visit the family and offer them a refuah sheleimah even though my heart wasn't into it.  I mean, yes there is God in Heaven and He can perform whatever miracles He wants unhindered but we don't walk around on a daily basis assuming that those will happen simply because we need one or prayed really hard for it.  The patient has unfixable brain damage.  According to the brainstem position in halacha she's already dead.  I wished them a refuah sheleimah and hoped we'd see nissim v'nifla'ot but in my head I knew those weren't likely to happen.
It's the reaction to this tragedy that has me shaking my head though.  The parents belong to a sect of Judaism that loves to do kiruv.  In fact, other than other chasidim and stricter members of the Yeshivish community they even see other frum Jews as targets.  Kiruv is their life, what they were trained to do since they were kids and what they see as the highest activity in their day.  They constantly run campaigns to get women involved in Shabbos candle lighting and going to the mikveh.  Important thigns.
It still bothered me to see lots of piles of pamphlets piled around the waiting room where people had gathered to comfort the family.  The pamphlets detailed various mitzvos like lighting Shabbos candles and mikveh.  Two women related to the family made it clear that they expected people to take on various mitzvos with the kavannah that it should help convince God to bring the girl a speedy recovery.  In other words, this was another mitzvos campaign.
I tried to be understanding.  In their mind the mishnah in Avos, the one right at the beginning about being servants of God without expecting a reward, probably doesn't apply here.  Or perhaps there's a statement or two in that book they're always talking about, the one the first Rebbe of their movement wrote which they consider more important that any other Jewish book except (maybe) the Chumash.  Fine, I get it.  We do mitzvos and with the kavannah that the girl gets a refu'ah from Heaven.  Any parent desperate for their child to recovery would grab at something like this.  Who can blame them when the alternative is heartbreak for the rest of their lives?
What bugged me though was listening to the parents talk about this mitzvah campaign.  For them it isn't a maybe.  It's not that they're saying that they'll give it their beset shot and what happens, happens.  They fully expect that if enough people go to the mikveh or put on tefillin because of their efforts God will upend the natural laws of the world He established and ensures run with inviolability and heal this girl's dead brain.  And the girl?  She gets to lie in an ICU bed with a tube in her throat until that happens.  She gets to stop being a person and instead gets to be a symbol, an accessory to the latest mitzvah campaign and an opportunity to hand out pamphlets and push the group's agenda.  Should I be bothered that this will happen to her?

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

Book Review: The Challenge of Jewish History

I'm a bit of a history buff so when new books come out on Jewish history that pique my interest I enjoy reading through them. Challenge of Jewish History by Rav Alexander Hool caught my eye while I was shopping on Amazon for something else so I threw it into my cart.  Having recent finished it I can happily say I was not disappointed.
Rav Hool starts off by pointing that out traditional Jewish history and secular standard history contradict each other on a very important fact: how long did the Second Temple stand for?  According to Seder Olam and various mephorshim it was around for 420 years.  According to accepted secular history it was almost 600 years in standing.  Which is correct?
I began reading the book with a cynical eye.  After all, there is no shortage of books written by well-meaning rabbonim who try to disprove standard history or science in order to "preserve" the truth of a statement in the Talmud or Bible that conflicts with known facts.  (cf. the famous Talmudic mud mouse)  These books inevitably start by claiming that there is an obligation to believe the literal meaning of everything Chazal said, not just in halacha which is obvious, but in science, geography and other secular areas.  Thus if modern science contradicts a Talmudic scientific statement then modern science must be wrong.  All that's left is to present a highly selective assortment of statements by Chazal to prove that they were right.
This book is nothing like that.  Rav Hool starts out by demonstrating all the evidence for the standard secular historical version.  He then points out the inconsistencies or flaws in the historical record that are recognized by archaeologists and historians.  His conclusion is the secular historical version of a 600 year Temple is workable and if it wasn't for our sources saying it was only 420 years he'd have no problem with it.
He then brings in the Jewish view on that history.  His only references to the Bible or Talmudic-era sources are direct quotations from verses and chapters containing numbers of years in various areas.  The assumption, naturally, is that these numbers are correct just as the assumption regarding the secular information was.  This leads him to prove that there is a need to reconcile.
The way he does it is brilliant.  According to secular history the Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Persian and Median empires.  Persia, in turn was conquered in its entirely by Alexander the Great.  Subsequent to his death the empire split into four kingdoms with the Seleucid and Ptoelmaic ones being the most relevant to us since they took turns ruling over Israel.
According to Rav Hool's information there is a fundamental error in the narrative.  Using recent archaeological discoveries he brings convincing evidence that Alexander did not conquer the entire Persian empire, just a big chuck of its northwest.  As a result Persia continued on in parallel to the Greek empire and subsequent kingdoms.  This has the result of contracting history and shaving 200 years neatly off the secular version, bringing it in line with the Jewish accounting.
Again, this is not a book of Chareidi apologetics.  The data Rav Hool brings is from the current archaeological literature, not Jewish speculative sources which allows a greater sense of reliability.
Using this data Rav Hool is able to suggest who Achashveirosh was in Persian history along with other historical events that occurred to our ancestors at that time as well.
I heartily recommend this book for folks with an interest in Jewish history. Despite getting tedious at times (Rav Hool loves his details!) it makes for a very interesting read overall and a new appreciation for events in that far off time.

Monday, 22 June 2015

Restoring This World

For centuries we, the Jewish people, lived in homeless exile.  As a result of being under the rule of other nations, even in our Land, we were denied the ability to observe large areas of Torah law.  Two thirds of the Talmud, Kodoshim and Tahoros were out of the picture.  Much of Zeriam was inapplicable to the majority of Jews, even in Israel.  And with only limited judicial autonomy much of Nezikin was also just theoretical.  It is no wonder, then, that over 1800 years Judaism developed an obsession with those few parts of the law that was still relevant to regular life.
Along with that focus came a new interest in the spiritual.  From vague references in the Torah to mysterious stories in Nach and occasional descriptions in the Talmud the spiritual developed over the centuries, especially after the "discovery" of the Zohar and the writing of the Ari HaKadosh came to light.  In the last few decades, the push by the spiritualist, especially with the new dominance of Chasidish thinking over the Chareidi community and the outreach efforts of Lubavitch, have led to its having effects on every day Jewish thinking.
What is this effect?  Consider the standard Lubavitcher line: this world is an illusion.  Imagine its implications.
One can understand why this issue is of great concern to Jewish thinkers.  God is infinite but if He is where does that leave room for us in the universe since He already occupies every nook and cranny?  One solution is that there is nothing else occupying that space because it's not real.  The door to my office, my car, my cell phone, none of these truly exist in this philosophy but are mere covers for their true spiritual essences which are all that really matter.
What has such thinking done to us?  It seems to have created a belief system in which this world is given no value at all.  Well, why should it have value?  It's not really there.  Besides, if the only thing that matters is Olam Haba then anything that is of value for this world alone is also meaningless.  The result is a culture in which there is an emphasis on the spiritual, on the purely bein adam l'Makom aspect of Judaism and a concomitant disdain for all other aspects of Judaism.  That's why we see endless examples of frum Jews who are meticulous in their observance of kashrus and complete menuvalim in their business and interpersonal affairs.
The emphasis on the spiritual has also contributed to the great divide between the secular and observant segments of our nation.  Secular Jews, for lack of a proper Torah education (or sadly, sometimes because of one!) are focused on the physical, on what they can see and feel.  They aren't so much worried about Heaven but about making that next mortgage payment and ensuring their families are well cared for.  They prize effort and achievement in this world.  Imagine the rejection they feel from observant Jews who sniff at their accomplishments because it has nothing to do with Olam Haba.  Imagine their disgust at Jewish leaders who work to ensure their followers remain in penury so as to minimize the temptations of this world in order to maximize their reward in the Next.
But it does not have to be this way.
As Rav Kook, ztk"l, taught, there is definite holiness in this world because God created it and it impossible for something that was produced by his supernal holiness to be void of its own inner kedushah.  Yes, everything has its own spiritual component but God is not on deity of trickery.  If there's a door post in front of me the physical component exists as surely as the spiritual one does and since it is one of His creations it has value.
This is where Religious Zionism needs to set up a counterweight to combat this galus-based philosophy.  In the absence of a State, in a wandering life where the questions of dealing with life in this world in all its facts, economic, agricultural, military etc., are absent one does not have to ascrbie any value to This World.  Having return to our Land these issues come up anew.
Modern Chareidism has dealt with this issue by retreating even deeper into the "only the spiritual matters" position.  We are told that the Israeli army doesn't really protect Israel, the Chareidi community's Torah learning (and, oddly enough, only theirs) does.  The Michtav MiEliyahu's radical position that all effort in This World is worthless and only a "going through the motions" because it's the spiritual realm where reality actually happens is waved about as the "authentic" Jewish position on these matters when it's really not.
Religious Zionism needs to point out that the reason God gave us the Torah in this world is because He wanted us to use it in this world.  There is holiness in all that goes into building Israel.  There is spiritual worth in all those activities which protect Jews and help them prosper.  It is through this understanding that we can reach out to our religiously alienated brethren and show them that, despite their lack of proper Torah observance in many areas they are part and parcel of the Jewish nation and essential components to it.  Their hopes and dreams have meaning and, if sublimated to Torah values, can be essential in pushing forward our progress through the Final Redemption.
There is, of course, danger in this approach.  A two way bridge encourages traffic in both ways.  Emphasizing material value could come at the expense of appreciating spiritual value and only with both as the primary emphasis in approach worship of the Creator does one truly fulfill the Torah imperative.  However, the cost of not doing it is what we see today - the vast majority of Jews, including in Israel, bereft of any sense of purpose or feeling of meaning in being Jewish.  Could this change not help bring them closer to our heritage?

Monday, 15 June 2015

Feminine Orthopraxy

I wonder if this is what it was like in the early days of the Reform movement in Germany.  You know, a group of people get together and create a new sect, they proclaim their ideology and start to attract people and the establishment wonders how long it will be before this fringe community disappears.  Except that it doesn't.
Are we witnessing a new sect in Judaism arising in our midst now?  With the ongoing efforts of the Open Orthodox to pump out women rabbis and erase as much of the gender separation intrinsic to Judaism as they can without crossing certain red lines it's worth wondering if, ultimately they will become yet another "stream" in modern Jewish life, like the Reform, Conservatives, etc.
Some might wonder why I might describe them as a group separate from Orthodoxy?  It's important to note, for example, that they do not advocate changes in Shabbos, kashrus, or taharas mishpachah, the three pillars of Jewish religious life.  From their publicity photos we seen men and women dressed in appropriate head coverings and clothing.  This isn't about women in tank tops and bare headed men shouting "We're traditional!"  These are folks who keep the vast majority of the rules to the best of their ability except for one or two areas where they have decided that the lack of a definite prohibition in chumash has allowed them to innovate.
It's important to remember as well that during its heydey in the mid-20th century, the Conservative movement wasn't that far from modern Orthodoxy.  In many Conservative synagogues the only non-Orthodox feature was the mixed seating, and we would do well to remember that at that time many Orthodox synagogues were experimenting with partial mixed seating (family seating I believe it was called), further blurring the differentiation.  
The Conservative example is instructive in another way though.  Yes, in 1950 the only difference between a Conservative synagogue and the Orthodox shul down the street might have been the seating arrangement but fast forward 50 years and suddenly those two buildings were now irreconcilably different.  The Orthodox shul was still plugging along with the same old rituals and arrangements while the Conservative synagogue was fully egalitarian, pushing homosexual rights and emphasizing an ecofascist tikun olam over archaic rules such as not driving on Shabbos.  It seems odd to think that the trigger for the ongoing deviation from Jewish norms towards secular liberalism with token ritual acts was the mixed seating but it's hard to derive another conclusion.  Mixed seating, after all, represents the demand of the Jewish congregant to get something out of his service as a price of participation instead into of contributing to it altruistically and that has made all the difference.
The current effort by the Open Orthodox to make Judaism more egalitarianism, while certainly more limited that the open breaches advocated by Conservativism back in the day are no less significant and indicative of the same attitude. This generation may only be interested in ensuring women have equal learning and teaching opportunities with men but their daughters will surely wonder why the buck stops there and demand further change.
But where is the breaking point?  How do we differentiate this group from normative Orthodoxy and know that it's not part of the acceptable routine?  There are a couple of clues.
There is, for example, this quote from Rav Daniel Sperber:
“One of the major things halacha needs is compassion,” said Sperber, illuminating the question through the prooftexts brought by foremost halachic scholar Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. He used a section that stated that it is not halacha, rather a traditional practice that menstruating women (in medieval times) did not attend the synagogue — unless, the text continues, it causes them undue personal suffering, in which case they should attend.
“Smicha is an important event, but it’s sort of like a halfway house,” said Sperber. “You need to know the Shulhan Aruch [a codex of Jewish law] well, and then how to get over the Shulhan Aruch.”
Sperber charged the new rabbis with making sure people are not suffering, and to “push aside the next gatekeeper” and go into the next room filled with a halacha of compassionate love and peace.
Now Rav Sperber needs neither my complements nor my criticism.  He is a fine talmid chacham with a well-earner authoritative reputation. Having said that, a legal expert who is advocating a significant change in the law and resorts not to precedent, wording or textual analysis but rather to love and peace is one that doesn't have much of a case.  The phrase "get over the Shulchan Aruch" is also a red flag.  Yes, the greatest poskim in the world might have that kind of flexibility in their decision making, graduates of a basic smichah program, male or female simply do not.  
But perhaps the real money quote comes from this article in Haaretz:
“We must not be afraid of the title ‘rabbi.’ I’m impatient. I’m too old. If the Torah doesn’t move forward with the people, it will remain in the desert, and that will be a disaster."
That one line solidifies why what these programs and participants are doing, despite their sincerity and protests to the contrary, is not Orthodox.  Note that the first two statements start with the first person singular: I.  I want this.  Not 'this is important' or 'this is necessary' but rather it's all about me.  And what's the follow up sentence?  The Torah, if it does not accommodate her, becomes irrelevant.  This position isn't Orthodoxy, it's anti-Orthodoxy.  Someone who feels the Torah has to change to remain relevant and guiding is Orthoprax and needs to be called on it.
Given its obsession with egalitarianism the movement needs a new name: Feminine Orthopraxy, FO, sounds right to me.  What do ya'll think?

Friday, 12 June 2015

Another Migration Needed

It's no secret that small town Judaism is withering across North America.  From one coast to the other large communities are managing to maintain themselves or even grow but the small ones are diminishing and disappearing.  This stands in stark contrast to the situation in the early and mid twentieth centuries when small thriving Jewish communities dotted the landscape of Canada and the US and the history of Eastern Europe and its long-lived shetl society.  What's changed to cause this to occur?
Right now I'm reading through a history of the Jewish community I come from.  That community was always small, maxing out at around 700 families through the 1970's to 2000 but now down to somewhere around 500.  What made it thrive?  Why is it slowly falling apart?
I would venture the following reasons come into play here:
1) Migration - most small Jewish communities in North America started off slowly, isolated small groups settling in growing villages.  All this changed after waves of immigration from Europe occurred, initially after the Czarist pogroms in the waning days of the Russian Empire, then the post-World War I refugees and finally survivors of the Holocaust.  In each case a number of immigrants decided the big cities weren't for them and moved to smaller peripheral towns looking for work and opportunities or to join family already living there.
Today there are no migrations going on.   The last large one was the Russian exodus in the 1990's and there is no large Jewish community in the world right now, with the possible exception of France, looking to move en masse.  Even if the French do make the right decision and flee Croissant Country they will likely either go to Israel or Montreal, not scatter themselves around North America.  Thus any small communities hoping to grow from the run-off from nearby metropolitan ones are likely to be frustrated.
2) Retention - life in a smaller centre isn't easy for lots of Jewish folks.  For the frum there's a sense of isolation from the larger community.  There are less services, less shiurim, less options for davening and less perceived opportunity for personal growth.  Even those frum families that build a life in small communities tend to see their children move away after the year in Israel or university as those kids seek to make their own lives and want contact with a larger group of people than they grew up with.  What's more, where the children go the parents often follow.
3) Opportunity - as mentioned in (1) lots of arrivals in small Jewish communities in the early and mid-twentieth century chose the location because the big cities were already full of immigrants competing for a limited number of low-level jobs like peddling and scrap dealing.  Today small towns often provide less employment opportunities than large cities because of the concentration of growing industries in metropolitan areas.
4) Education - once upon a time a cheder was enough of an educational institution for a small Jewish community.  Most people weren't frum and were more than satisfied with their children learning to read Hebrew and a couple of tunes for Adon Olam. Nowadays those who choose Jewish education with a serious intention of teaching their kids something of our national heritage choose day schools and those things are bloody expensive to run.  It's a small wonder that any small communities, including the one I live in, manage to maintain a elementary level school.  We have no hope of anything secondary, even a mixed community model.  Parents who don't want their children moving out for grade 9 don't want to live in such a place.
For these four reasons there is little hope of reversing the ongoing trend of declining small town populations.  But what are the advantages of living in a small community?
In my humble opinion I think it's time for another migration but now it should be an internal one.  It's time for the frum populations of large cities to consider heading out to the boondocks.  Why?
1) Cost of living - Jewish communities in large population centres are faced with huge costs.  Housing is expensive.  Schooling is expensive.  Property taxes are expensive.  Food is expensive.  The smaller towns some distance from these areas offer many advantages here.  Housing is more reasonable.  Schooling is a little more reasonable.  Property taxes aren't quite as high.  Food is still expensive but a lack of restaurants means one eats out less so that'll cut the total somewhat.  People struggling with unsustainable mortgages or big city tuitions might want to consider how fiscally relieving life in the smaller city might be.
2) Educational opportunity - yes, I wrote that there is much less choice in a small town but the flip side is that, since the local community school is desperate for any tuition-paying family it can dredge up, the frum family finds itself in an unaccustomed position.  In the big city yeshivos and other institutions generally dictate to the families.  You want your child to get a Jewish education?  You have to follow their rules even when those rules dictate how to live in your own home.  In the small town it's quite often the opposite.  The school is often more than willing to bend over backwards to accommodate a family with a large number of children and if there's a chance for additional donations, so much the better.  Letters from the school like "If you show up to get your kids make sure you're wearing a full sheitl and head to toe robing" are replaced with "Show up naked to get your kids for all we care, just send us kids!"  Imagine the power that comes with that.
3) Social pressure - surrounded by a non-religious majority the environment where other frum folks judge you based on their preconceived notions of how you should act disappears.  You don't have to keep up with the Jonesteins in a small town and that can be liberating for many.  Imagine living the frum life because you want to, not because you don't want to be cast out from the neighbourhood social circle.  What's more, in a small community everyone matters.  The same person who is a cipher in the crowd in the big city is a meaningful contributor whose presence is noted in the little community.
In summary, despite the disadvantages there are many good reasons a frum family, struggling to keep up with the bills and chafing under endless social pressure would do well to consider migrating to a small town.  It might be the start of a positive frum life for many.

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

The True Palestinian State

Once upon a time Salim Mansur, a poli sci professor at the University of Western Ontario (go 'Stangs!), was a virulent critic of Israel, indistinguishable from the rabid Jew-haters that daily fill their air waves and media, both electronic and print, with their venom.  Somewhere along the line he had an epiphany and came to realize that Israel is not the evil entity he thought it was and began to write positive things about it.  Despite a strong backlash from his community and former "friends" he has continued to be a passionate advocate for peace in the Middle East along with supporting Israel.  His latest piece, written together with Geoffrey Clarfield, deserves to be widely read because it destroys one of the enduring myths that Jew haters around the world thrive on.
The thesis is quite simple and is uncontested history.  During the First World War Britain promised both the Jewish community of Israel as well as lots of local Arab tribes that it would assist their efforts towards self-determination if those groups aided British efforts againt the Ottoman Empire.  The Jews and Arab tribes complied and only later discovered that the British had promised the same patch of land to different groups. As the conventional history goes, Israel was promised to both the Israelis and the so-called Palestinians, setting up this endless conflict that serves only to cause death, misery and keep Tzipi Livni busy travelling around.
But the truth is quite different.  Yes, Britain promised Israel to both Jews and Arabs but what we are never reminded of is that Israel, or more specifically Mandatory Palestine, consisted of both what is Israel today (including Yesha) and the Kingdom of Jordan.  What's more, the Mandate was conferred officially by the League of Nations which meant that the building of a Jewish homeland on that land was the exclusive objective the British were supposed to be assisting.
Instead, as is well know, the British decided that their political needs outweighed their sense of honour.  In order to reward the Hashemi tribe of Hejaz (the western part of the Arabian penninsula) who were getting whupped by the Saudi tribe in a regional war they moved their allies up to Jordan, drew a border down the river and Aravah and created the kingdom of Transjordan (now Jordan).  What's more, in addition to betraying the terms of the Mandate they made sure the new kingdom would be Judenrein even as they encouraging the flooding of what was left of  "Palestine by Arabs and North Africans from across the Middle East in order to swamp the Jewish population and create a demographic situation in which they could credibly claim that there was no further point in encouraging the building of a Jewish state.
Mansur and Clarfield summarize this history admirably and then point out the blindingly obvious: Jordan is the real Palestine.  Demographically it's 75% or more so-called Palestinian.  The queen is a so-called Palestinian as well as the royal progeny.  Meanwhile the Hashemis are a distinct and foreign minority holding power only because, despite a rubber stamp parliament, Jordan remains a dictatorial monarchy.
As the authors point out:
The political and ethnographic disappearance of the Palestinian nature of the Arabs of Eastern Palestine (Jordan), has largely been a tactic used by the Arab League, and its allies on the left, to put Israel and its supporters on the defensive, for many Arabs have made public statements in favor of the Jordan-is-Palestine argument. They just happen to do so in a way that usually implies the destruction of the Jewish State.
For example, on Feb. 2, 1970. Prince Hassan of the Jordanian National Assembly said, “Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine: there is only one land, with one history and one and the same fate.” On March 14, 1977, Farouk Kaddumi, the head of the PLO political department told Newsweek, “There should be a kind of linkage because Jordanians and Palestinians are considered by the PLO as one people.”
Also in 1977, speaking to a Dutch newspaper, PLO representative Zouhair Muhsen said, “For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.”
Perhaps the most revealing public quote by Muhsen was when he bluntly stated that “There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. … The existence of a separate Palestinian identity serves only tactical purposes. The founding of a Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing battle against Israel.” (And this goes some way to explaining why Arab states rise and fall so quickly. They have little historical or ethnographic unity, with the exception of Egypt.)
Mudar Zahran is an Arab, Muslim, Palestinian Jordanian who has had to flee Jordan because he has told the truth to his fellow Arabs — that Jordan is a Palestinian State. In a recent article he has bluntly stated: “There is, in fact, almost nothing un-Palestinian about Jordan except for the royal family. Despite decades of official imposaition of a Bedouin image on the country, and even Bedouin accents on state television, the Palestinian identity is still the most dominant … to the point where the Jordanian capital, Amman, is the largest and most populated Palestinian city anywhere. Palestinians view it as a symbol of their economic success and ability to excel. Moreover, empowering a Palestinian statehood for Jordan has a well-founded and legally accepted grounding: The minute the minimum level of democracy is applied to Jordan, the Palestinian majority would, by right, take over the political momentum.”
This then is the ultimate proof of the supposed "I hate Israel but I love Jews" lobby.  There is a Palestinian state and it has the capacity to absorb the supposed Palestinian diaspora.  So why is it that we keep hearing about how Israel is occupying Palestine when it's really next door?