Anat Hoffman, Chairperson of the Israeli organization Women of the Wall, was arrested for allegedly reading from the Torah scroll at the Western Wall, which is forbidden for women under Israeli law, thanks to the stranglehold that the ultra-Orthodox have on Jewish religious life in Israel. She was later released and her organization claims she was not reading from the Torah, but merely holding it.

The official Orthodox Western Wall Rabbi, Shmuel Rabinowitz, has said that he would prefer to “distance politics and disagreement from this sacred place,” which means, status quo status quo status quo. In this view, women should not be permitted to pray from the Torah at this sacred site, because the ultra-Orthodox view of Judaism is the only legitimate view of Judaism. It seems, as Israel becomes more and more myopically a Jewish State, it is becoming less and less the state of the Jews, most of whom are not Orthodox, and many of whom are horrified by the increasingly illiberal policies of Israel.

The ultra-Orthodox are currently trying to rewrite conversion laws that would give them control over who gets to be a Jew, potentially alienating much of world Jewry from the Jewish state. Many converts would simply not be recognized as Jews. They already control the institution of marriage.

It is hard to witness these ridiculous acts of religious intolerance among Jews. I hope that the Israeli electorate will one day cast off the politicians who kowtow to the religious extremists in their midst. The Iranian people are currently fighting to be free of an insidious theocratic government that, among other things, wants to see the Jewish State destroyed. The Jewish people shouldn’t allow theocrats of the same mindset take over their country from within. What have the last sixty years been for if Israel is not a place where a Jew–any Jew–can fully live as Jew, even if she happens to have a different conception of what that means than the Orthodox?

We must show each other the respect we demand from others.

It’s a great piece simply for challenging the assumption I certainly grew up with that there is something essentially liberal about Jews, and that if only we lived up to our ‘Jewish values’ the state of the Jews would be a utopia because it is the state of the Jews. He takes a nice look at one of my favorite books–The Yiddish Policemen’s Union by Michael Chabon–as a jumping off point for how surprised so many Jews are when faced with the reality of “seeing Jewish conservatives, fundamentalists, quasi-fascists and militarists…” I’m certainly pained when I read about Jews like Dan Gertler, profiting from the misery of others, the way non-Jews certainly have for centuries.

It is the shock that Jews can be illiberal (and he does also note the illiberalism of the Jewish State is often overblown, but read his piece to hear why) that leads so many to disillusionment with Israel. I imagine if Tibet ever gained its independence, those Tibetan utopians who hang on to His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s every word, would experience the same shock when the reality of politics, power, and diversity of opinion gained their full national expression.

States, especially states founded on ideals rather than accidents of history and geography, always disappoint. Why should Jewish disappointment merit so much anxiety? Probably because Diaspora Jews in the 21st century, unlike Tibetans or Kurds or Chechens, can opt out of the national project if we want. Many do. I did for most of my life.

But I’m not now. And the reason is because I haven’t give up on the idealism of Jewish values I grew up with. No, these values are not being expressed by the policies are the government of Israel right now. But that doesn’t mean things can’t change.

There are other visions of Zionism than Bibi Netanyahu’s and Avigdor Lieberman’s. There is a lively debate forming over a rebirth of a cultural Zionism that draws in inspiration from Martin Buber and Ahad Ha’am, a Zionism that calls on  Jewish home in Israel without political hegemony. Critics note that these attempts all failed in the past and that cultural Zionism never saved the life of a refugee in need, whereas political Zionism has saved hundreds of thousands. But past failure doesn’t guarantee future failure, and progressives must grapple with the real politics of Zionism without losing sight of the why of Zionism. Do the Jews want a national homeland because we are an ethnic group like any other with national aspirations? Or do we want a homeland because we believe we are an historical people with an historical mission? Can these two ideas co-exist? No easy answers to these questions, but we need our best minds to grapple with them in the 21st century.

The most important argument Gorenberg makes in his piece is the argument that calls me back to thinking about, writing about, talking about, and caring about the Zionist project, even as I am angered and pained by how the Israeli government kowtows to the ultra-Orthodox and the Settlers, denies Arabs equal rights, continues to occupy the West Bank and to strangle Gaza (although that situation is changing a bit).

Gorenberg writes:

The only thing that a state of the Jews offers is an arena in which Jews can work for such a [liberal & just] society, without the excuse that other people are responsible for the failures. For American Jews willing to look at the illiberalism of Israel in 2010, turning away isn’t the only answer. There are organizations ready to harness your dissatisfaction. Don’t give up, get involved.

There is a lot of talking going on and not a lot of listening to the voices from Israel and from Gaza who suffer under siege and insecurity. That the flotilla was a political act, rather than a “purely” humanitarian mission is clear, but also beside the point.  My heart goes out to the soldiers who were injured and nearly abducted, to the activists who were injured and killed, to the families of both, to the citizens of Gaza and the citizens of Israel living in fear and my heart goes out to the politicians who made this mess and to those who are trying to heal it. Some of them are the same, some are not.

For those who do want opinions on all this, there are several places to find it, and they multiply by the hour.

Crisis in Israel breeds punditry around the globe.

A few of note:

Gershom Gorenberg, author of The Accidental Empire and proud South Jerusalem resident, provides some historical context for decisions leading up to the flotilla raid from a progressive Zionist perspective. He describes the raid as “a link in a chain of premeditated folly.”

Amos Oz’s essay on the post-1967 Israeli infatuation with the use of force is thought-provoking and painful.

Another Israeli thinker of great stature, the author David Grossman mourns “how far Israel has declined.”

For a calm and thoughtful response from someone  to the right of Gorenberg, Oz and Grossman, the American-born Vice President of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, Daniel Gordis, offers his thoughts in the NY Times, lamenting the loss of life, but stating with resolve that Israel will soldier on, alone if it must.

From a more official perspective, Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States launches a defense of his government’s actions and argues to discredit the label of “peace activists” which the flotilla’s organizers assert.

And here is Tikkun’s Rabbi Michael Lerner on the crisis, offering a prayer and a hope for justice and peace to all sides.

I hope that when the dust settles, the world does not allow this to become an “us vs. them” scenario, a excuse for anti-Semtism or anti-Muslim sentiment, or another bludgeon with which to bash Israel’s very existence. I fear it already has become both of those things. The international outcry about the recent actions of North Korea, or the continued trade in conflict minerals from the Congo, or the continued repression of activists and minorities in Iran have all been greatly lacking while the world fixates on Israel and Gaza. There are many pressing problems in this 21st century and we must try to move forward from the traumas of the last century so we can address them. It is nearly impossible to heal from a trauma while the violence continues, yet space must be created, as it has not been yet, for all sides in this conflict to heal. The heated rhetoric, the PR war, is not helping.

I’m praying, as Rabbi Sharon Brous of IKAR in Los Angeles put it, that the world and the people of Israel and Palestine can find “a third way” from all of this. There are people of good will on all sides, and I hope they find each other.

Speedily and in our time.

In Praise of Naivete

We will of course continue to address the Iranian bomb, terror, the Goldstone Commission report and other global problems. But we must give them a proportionate, sane amount of attention, and we must not invest most of our national energies in them. If our decision makers are guided by our real needs, rather than those dictated by the headlines, even issues insoluble thus far may come closer to a solution. [read the whole thing]

Wherever you stand on this topic, there is plenty to think about here and a wonderful example of how this conversation can happen in a civil and open-hearted way.

Here is The Forward’s Intro to that conversation:

In the September 25 issue of the Forward, we published an essay from columnist Jay Michaelson titled, “How I’m Losing My Love for Israel.” In it, he wrote that defending Israel’s actions in his liberal social circles had grown “exhausting.”… Michaelson’s article sparked a firestorm of debate and discussion, online and elsewhere. In addition to an outpouring of letters and comments — some angry, others appreciative — there were in-depth responses from some prominent thinkers…

In light of the strong reactions to Michaelson’s essay, the Forward decided to continue the conversation. To that end, we invited four writers of varied political orientations and backgrounds to weigh in on the debate thus far. And we offered Michaelson an opportunity to reflect on the passions provoked by his essay.

Read the rest.

An ad for the Israeli cellular company CellCom has set off anger by using the Separation Barrier in its latest ad campaign.

“I think the message of this advertisement is that there are people, normal human beings, on the other side of the fence who simply want to play football. For a commercial advertisement it is a brave move and I believe it is welcome,” Peace Now’s director, Yariv Oppenheimer, told Channel 2 TV.

But some Palestinians groups are angry. This does raise the question, who has the right to decide what depictions are appropriate here? Who gets to decide what’s offensive?

Sadly, there is little that the two sides can agree on, including roadsigns. Is there a better metaphor than that for the roadmap for peace? Oy.

*The photo above is from this article about the divide between Israelis and Palestinians. The caption does not identify the Israeli, but he is Itamar Ben-Gvir, an extreme right wing settler who has spoke out in favor of right wing terrorists and even harrassed then-candidate Obama during his visit to the Western Wall during the campaign. He’s a real charmer.

The two-state condominial arrangement starts out with the creation of a democratic Palestinian state (composed of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem) much like that suggested in other two-state proposals with the boundaries of the Palestinian state roughly determined by the pre-1967 Green Line. The Palestinian state (”Palestine”) would have most of the features of a democratic nation-state, but from the outset it would be an ethnically defined state, a state of the Palestinian people, whereby a close parallel was maintained to the definition of Israel as a state of the Jews…Both Palestinians and Jews under the condominial proposal would be granted the right to settle anywhere within the territory of either state. Together the two states would thus form a single, binational settlement community. Palestinians would have the right to settle anywhere within Israel, just as Jews would have the right to settle anywhere within the territory of the Palestinian state. Regardless of which of the two states they live in, all Palestinians would be citizens of the Palestinian state, and all Jews would be citizens of Israel. [read the whole thing]

What really intrigues me about this idea is its recognition of the State as a set of structures, services, and modes of participation that do not necessarily depend on geography (in defiance of Robert Kaplan’s recent assertion that geography is making a comeback–but hey, Jews have always defied whatever historical trend was afoot, right?).

In way it is a Diaspora notion of the nation-state taking the idea of scattered peoples and building insitutions to match their reality. The way Palestinians living in Israel would be governed or Jews living in Palestine would be governed makes me think of the Babylonia Exilarch, who was supposed to rule of the Jews living in exile after the destruction of the Temple. It didn’t really work because it’s not so easy to excercise authority from a distance, the local rules and mores took presedence, and the Jews lacked any real power. But the idea was there. The spiritual homeland, the longing for Jerusalem, allowed people in the exile to define themselve by a place without living in the place; to defy geography while recongizing its importance. It’s a tension with which all exiles live, and one in which those who have no intention of moving “back” learn to flourish.

Taking that mind-set and building a binational terrority consisting of two states is brilliant. Flawed and unlikely to happen in reality, but utterly brilliant. It allows both peoples the right to ethnic self-determination and territorial self-deterimination. The settlers wouldn’t have to leave their settlements and the Palestinians could “return” to the homes they lost in 1948. Of course, how the competing claims on the same land, the same houses, and the same trees would be worked out under two different legal systems, is anyone’s guess. But this kind of creative thinking is certainly thought provoking.

So says Hamas after meeting with Jimmy Carter this week. They praised his concern, asserted their enthusiasm for a state for the Palestinian people, and refused to offer Israel any concessions on even a right to exist. A shame.

They could use engagement transform themselves into something other than a violent terrorist group, something that has the best interests of the Palestinian people at heart, but they won’t. One can only hope this continued hard-line will only make them more and more foolish in the face of continued outreach. Bibi Netanyahu’s failure to offer anything new in his own remarks suddently looks generous compared to the rigidity of the Hamas fundamentalists. And that might have been Netanyahu’s plan all along. If the Obama administration finds no partners for peace on the Palestinian side, then the status quo is all that remains, in spite of the American President’s best efforts to save Israel from its politicians. And the status quo means ever more death and suffering, and more likely every day, the end of Israel as a Jewish state or as a democracy.

“The Shin Bet security agency says there have been numerous recent incidents where militants have tried to lure Israelis on sites, including Facebook.”

So the Chinese have forged Israeli fruit, sold it to Iran, where authorities discovered it and became briefly outraged that some of their own would do business with Israel. The situation has resolved itself, but it does suggest the absurdity of both the mistrust between Israel and Iran (Zionist fruit?) and the really weird inclination for forgery and fraud in the Chinese economy. On a more scary note, Iran has apparently arrested several people for preparing terrorist attacks around the June elections, and is accusing them, as usual, of being “Zionist Agents.” Iran does tend to accuse everyone of being Zionist agents, but still, a scary development, especially considering the other prisoners they are holding at Evin Prison.

Amnesty International says that prison holds hundreds of the thousands of political prisoners in Iran. In 2003, Zahra Kazemi, a Canadian-Iranian photojournalist, was beaten to death there.

In other “fruit” controversies, the 11th Annual Tel Aviv Gay Pride Parade is coming up, and two couples (one gay men, one lesbians) will get married at the parade, even though their union will have no legal standing. Though Right-wing foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman has “come out” in favor of civil unions because they serve his main constituency, Soviet immigrants, many of whom are not considered halachically Jewish and have trouble marrying thanks to the religious authorities choke hold on marriage in Israel (Israel does recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the country), his proposal doesn’t do much to help to help the gay community, as it wouldn’t really make marriage a civil affair, and the Orhtodox rabbinate would maintain control (though perhaps they’ll come around on the gay thing one day).