From nearly the first seeds of our civilization, we Jews have been a rambunctious people, even stiff-necked and quarrelsome. We have always had troublemakers, heretics, fifth columnists and self-haters. It is as if one of the conditions of choseness is the ability to choose to oppose. To state the thought differently, it is as if we are caught in a dialectical process and there are unwelcome trade-offs for our noble and epic accomplishments and sanctity.
It isn’t surprising that in this period of great danger to Israel and Jews, we have Michael Lerner and Adam Shapiro, as well as others, with their harmful language and actions. Precisely because these are Jews who go to an extreme in their anti-Jewishness, they attract media attention. Hating Jews is always in season and it’s all the better if the haters are themselves Jewish. It may be a bit heretical to say this – I have good sources – Lerner and Shapiro can serve as poster boys for the proposition that rather than by birth, Jewish identity should be determined by current actions and attitudes.
For all of its antecedents, Lerner’s virulent hatred is stunning. The cartoon that he included in the now notorious New York Times ad was in caricature and language no less anti-Semitic than the standard fare of Der Sturmer and Mein Kampf. Lerner’s formula for Tikun Ha-olam – the betterment of the world – is, in addition to self-enrichment and self-promotion, hatred of Jews.
For all of the ugliness of the man and his message, his formula is a sure bet to attract funding – and especially from Jews. We have traveled so far along the path of rejecting our heritage that self-hate has become natural, even logical, in a Jewish world which accepts and promotes the idea that each Jew is free to define what it is to be a Jew. It is inevitable that for some – and perhaps many – being a Jew means being anti-religious, being hateful to Israel, being hateful to other Jews. I’m afraid that we have not seen the worst yet.
Apart from our hard core fifth column, there is a large contingent of fellow travelers, Jews who too readily endorse everything that comes with a “peace” label, even if this means constantly beating up on Israel. There is little solace that Rolando Matalon and Marcello Bronstein of Congregation Bnai Jeshurun on Manhattan’s West Side and Irwin Kula, the top professional at CLAL, have resigned from the advisory board of Tikkun Community. What they were doing there in the first place is a question that needs to be asked, especially of Kula.
As for Shapiro, the media are doing a handstand over his treachery, over a Jew who gives homage to a man responsible for the murder of Jews. The contrast with media treatment of John Walker is extraordinary. It is a crime for an American to abet the Taliban and brave and humane for an American Jew to abet those who have engaged in terrorism against Jews. Perhaps Tikkun should give Shapiro a humanitarian award, with Yasser Arafat making the presentation.
For all of our fifth columnists, Israel’s actions throughout the Intifada demonstrate a remarkable determination not to harm civilians. We constantly hear of invasions, heavy bombardments and fierce military activity, the obvious image being of indiscriminate Israeli use of force. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, including the low number of Palestinian civilian casualties. Perhaps the media should compare civilian casualties in Afghanistan with West Bank and Gaza statistics.
There is, of course, ample ground to criticize Ariel Sharon whose government too often appears to be confused and without a plan. Admittedly, there’s nothing on the horizon that has a good prospect for success. Sharon’s choices are more difficult still because he faces constant and conflicting pressures from domestic and diplomatic sources. This is scarce justification for a strategy that consists too much of sending the tanks in – accompanied by bellicose statements – and then getting them out after the predictable international protests.
The latest foray into Ramallah illustrates the reason why there is much doubt about Sharon. After declaring Arafat a terrorist and enemy, a status that should readily justify an Israeli effort to at least capture him, Sharon sent in tanks to encircle the PLO compound and destroy part of it. As is routine for Israel but not for the U.S. in Afghanistan or other armies, there were squads of reporters and photo-journalists along for the ride, all the better to do Arafat’s bidding and to depict him as brave, ready to die and defiant against overwhelming Israeli force.
Israeli spokesmen say that the goal is to “isolate” Arafat, a term that is void for vagueness. This has been a strange isolation, as sycophants, misfits, reporters, peaceniks, and others have come and gone and as Arafat has staged one photo-op after another. If the PLO leader is being isolated, it is also true that around much of the world he is being looked at as a hero.
And what is Israel doing to make its enemy’s life more miserable? According to a report on the front page of this Sunday’s Times, “The Israeli army provided [Mr. Arafat] with 1,000 pieces of pita bread, two dozen water bottles, cheese, eggs, twenty flashlights, twenty boxes of candles, and medicine for those who are trapped inside.”
It appears that the Sharon government is suffering from a severe bi-polar disorder, perhaps because of the dualism inherent in the Sharon-Peres arrangement. There are grounds for criticism by those who believe that the Prime Minister has been too soft and there are grounds for those who believe that he has been too harsh. What should be off-limits is the hatred exhibited by Adam Shapiro and Michael Lerner.
Tuesday, April 02, 2002
Monday, March 25, 2002
A Time to be Silent
The dreckmeisters who are responsible for the shameful Jewish Museum exhibit are on a well-trodden cynical path that unites third-rate artists and museum officials who share the view that sensation is a far better drawing card than talent. In New York alone there are thousands of artists who receive little or no attention, although many are gifted. They lack an eye for self-promotion and the willingness to shock just for the sake of shocking.
There are also no-talent Andy Warhol wannabes – himself both gross and grossly overrated – whose goal is to achieve fifteen minutes of fame. They instinctively sense that all they need to do is to pass off sick art as the real thing. The stuff sells because the media play it up and because museums that are eager for paying customers exhibit it. The Jewish Museum is following an ignoble tradition.
Its exhibition is called “Mirroring Evil,” the incredible point being that certain artifacts of modern culture evoke Nazi imagery. This from a Jewish museum! The concept is inadvertently apt because if the museum would look in the mirror it might recognize that rather than the clichéd images of Coca Cola and Lego, the displays are themselves evil. Statements by several of the featured dreckmeisters add to the innate indecency of the exhibit.
The museum has made things worse by its own language. An ad placed in the Times deepens the pain and raises the question of whether museum officials are attempting a sick joke or just don’t get it. One question in the ad asks, “How has art helped to break the silence?” What silence?
There should be silence in the face of an evil that is too monstrous to describe. Instead, we have an ever-escalating array of Holocaust-related activity and advocacy, the result being that the destruction of European Jewry has been cheapened. It has become a political football, just another item on the stuffed agenda of public life and one of many unfortunate historic occurrences. We have eschewed silence, thereby eroding both the memory and spiritual dignity that should intensely inform our reaction to the Holocaust. Instead of prayer and meditation, we have noise.
There have been meaningful evocations of the Holocaust, such as Yad Vashem, Elie Wiesel’s Night and moving lamentations written by the Bobover Rebbe and Rav Shimon Schwab of blessed memory. But the tide has turned decisively against silence and therefore against memory. If there is anything to be said in favor of those who mounted this exhibit, it is that they are honest in their determination to banish silence.
We must face up to the truth that we are overwhelmed by Holocaust-related activities that involve ambulance chasing lawyers, greedy accountants, expensive experts and consultants, publicity hungry politicians, fundraisers, organizational machers and too many others to mention here. The Holocaust is now being represented by litigation, political activity, press releases, staged events and fundraising excesses. Along the way, some attention is paid to the survivors, although in the main they now serve as useful props for their exploiters.
If the Jewish Museum has sinned by imitating museums that have judged art by a sensation quotient, it is also the case that it is following in the footsteps of our recent communal life. For all of our claim to want to help the survivors and their families, they have received paltry sums.
It’s telling that we have to say that the Holocaust and its remembrance is not about lawsuits. I don’t care whether the Swiss, Germans, Poles, French, Austrians or any other European countries or corporations are compelled to hand over more funds. The murdered are no less murdered because their alleged representatives are appearing in courtrooms around the world or because the media carry hundreds of stories about activities to recover stolen funds or property. What the Swiss and others have stolen largely remains stolen because these were masterful thieves.
For all of its apparent good intentions, we do not need an organization of the children of Holocaust survivors two generations after 1945. If we continue on the present path, before long we’ll have a grandchildren’s organization. We do not need the backroom deals of the restitution agencies, some of which have been implicated in sealing the theft of Jewish property in Germany. We do not need self-important machers treating Holocaust funds as their personal play dough. We do not need the nasty politics and in-fighting that has from day one been the story of the Holocaust Memorial Council in Washington.
We do not need political hacks staging press conferences to announce that this or that 90-year old survivor has gotten a check for $392.50 or to announce such famous victories as banks allowing survivors to deposit their modest restitution checks without being charged the customary fee.
Individuals who want to pursue their claims should obviously do so without the raucousness and phony sincerity that have accompanied much of the recent litigation. If they prevail, with few exceptions their victory will be trivial, certainly in human terms but even in monetary terms.
It is right to denounce the Jewish Museum because of its shameful exhibit. The tawdry art on display may set a new low for Holocaust insensitivity but it is unlikely to be the last low, unless our community pulls back from the excesses and inanities that increasingly characterize our Holocaust-related activities.
There is, as Solomon wisely wrote, a time to speak and a time to be silent. Jews have come to believe that silence means weakness, that it is a surrendering to our enemies. We evoke as examples the unfolding Holocaust when too many Jews did or said nothing and also the long period when Soviet Jews were the Jews of silence. It remains that there is a time to be silent. After too much noise and too much activity that send a message that Holocaust remembrance is about litigation, politics and money, we need to be the Jews of silence.
There are also no-talent Andy Warhol wannabes – himself both gross and grossly overrated – whose goal is to achieve fifteen minutes of fame. They instinctively sense that all they need to do is to pass off sick art as the real thing. The stuff sells because the media play it up and because museums that are eager for paying customers exhibit it. The Jewish Museum is following an ignoble tradition.
Its exhibition is called “Mirroring Evil,” the incredible point being that certain artifacts of modern culture evoke Nazi imagery. This from a Jewish museum! The concept is inadvertently apt because if the museum would look in the mirror it might recognize that rather than the clichéd images of Coca Cola and Lego, the displays are themselves evil. Statements by several of the featured dreckmeisters add to the innate indecency of the exhibit.
The museum has made things worse by its own language. An ad placed in the Times deepens the pain and raises the question of whether museum officials are attempting a sick joke or just don’t get it. One question in the ad asks, “How has art helped to break the silence?” What silence?
There should be silence in the face of an evil that is too monstrous to describe. Instead, we have an ever-escalating array of Holocaust-related activity and advocacy, the result being that the destruction of European Jewry has been cheapened. It has become a political football, just another item on the stuffed agenda of public life and one of many unfortunate historic occurrences. We have eschewed silence, thereby eroding both the memory and spiritual dignity that should intensely inform our reaction to the Holocaust. Instead of prayer and meditation, we have noise.
There have been meaningful evocations of the Holocaust, such as Yad Vashem, Elie Wiesel’s Night and moving lamentations written by the Bobover Rebbe and Rav Shimon Schwab of blessed memory. But the tide has turned decisively against silence and therefore against memory. If there is anything to be said in favor of those who mounted this exhibit, it is that they are honest in their determination to banish silence.
We must face up to the truth that we are overwhelmed by Holocaust-related activities that involve ambulance chasing lawyers, greedy accountants, expensive experts and consultants, publicity hungry politicians, fundraisers, organizational machers and too many others to mention here. The Holocaust is now being represented by litigation, political activity, press releases, staged events and fundraising excesses. Along the way, some attention is paid to the survivors, although in the main they now serve as useful props for their exploiters.
If the Jewish Museum has sinned by imitating museums that have judged art by a sensation quotient, it is also the case that it is following in the footsteps of our recent communal life. For all of our claim to want to help the survivors and their families, they have received paltry sums.
It’s telling that we have to say that the Holocaust and its remembrance is not about lawsuits. I don’t care whether the Swiss, Germans, Poles, French, Austrians or any other European countries or corporations are compelled to hand over more funds. The murdered are no less murdered because their alleged representatives are appearing in courtrooms around the world or because the media carry hundreds of stories about activities to recover stolen funds or property. What the Swiss and others have stolen largely remains stolen because these were masterful thieves.
For all of its apparent good intentions, we do not need an organization of the children of Holocaust survivors two generations after 1945. If we continue on the present path, before long we’ll have a grandchildren’s organization. We do not need the backroom deals of the restitution agencies, some of which have been implicated in sealing the theft of Jewish property in Germany. We do not need self-important machers treating Holocaust funds as their personal play dough. We do not need the nasty politics and in-fighting that has from day one been the story of the Holocaust Memorial Council in Washington.
We do not need political hacks staging press conferences to announce that this or that 90-year old survivor has gotten a check for $392.50 or to announce such famous victories as banks allowing survivors to deposit their modest restitution checks without being charged the customary fee.
Individuals who want to pursue their claims should obviously do so without the raucousness and phony sincerity that have accompanied much of the recent litigation. If they prevail, with few exceptions their victory will be trivial, certainly in human terms but even in monetary terms.
It is right to denounce the Jewish Museum because of its shameful exhibit. The tawdry art on display may set a new low for Holocaust insensitivity but it is unlikely to be the last low, unless our community pulls back from the excesses and inanities that increasingly characterize our Holocaust-related activities.
There is, as Solomon wisely wrote, a time to speak and a time to be silent. Jews have come to believe that silence means weakness, that it is a surrendering to our enemies. We evoke as examples the unfolding Holocaust when too many Jews did or said nothing and also the long period when Soviet Jews were the Jews of silence. It remains that there is a time to be silent. After too much noise and too much activity that send a message that Holocaust remembrance is about litigation, politics and money, we need to be the Jews of silence.
Monday, March 11, 2002
Jews and Journalists
A number of New York City tax assessors were recently arrested in what may be the most serious public scandal to hit us in a long while. They are accused of taking bribes in exchange for substantially reducing the assessments on major buildings, resulting it is said in the loss of tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. According to prosecutors, the chief conspirator is a former assessor now in private practice, a respected Jew who contributed to and raised money for communal causes, including the Israel Symphony Orchestra and the New Israel Fund.
The story was front page in the New York Times and there were long investigative follow-up stories for several days. So far as I can tell, there hasn’t been a word in the Anglo-Jewish press, although there are key Jewish angles, including the possible involvement of prominent landlords who benefited handsomely from the scheme.
Are our newspapers right to ignore the story?
Not if we use the standard that is employed regularly when the perpetrators are Orthodox. Then there is a feeding frenzy as reporters seek to uncover every connection that puts the religious community in a bad light. We learn about shuls and schools, charities contributed to and the organizations in which the accused persons are involved. Wouldn’t it be right to read in our newspapers that a top macher for the New Israel Fund - an agency that is as self-righteous as it is anti-religious – has been accused of being a class A corrupter?
The answer is no because as they say – or used to say – two wrongs do not make a right. Orthodoxy-bashing does not provide a license to bash someone else. Jewish media should report on wrongdoing by Jews only when there is a clear communal angle, as when an institution is accused of criminal activity or has been the victim of such activity or when a Jew who has a significant organizational or institutional position has been charged. Otherwise, the story should be left to the general media to cover.
This is, in fact, the usual practice. Our publications do not pay attention to run of the mill crime stories, except I believe when the fellows at the mill are Orthodox. There may be a credible explanation for this differentiation; mine is media bias against the Orthodox.
Even when there is a significant Jewish angle which merits coverage in our newspapers, there are ample reasons for restraint. Screaming headlines and overheated stories should be avoided, if only because there is still more than residual validity to the once popular notion that people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
Restraint should be the rule also because of the frequency of prosecutorial inflation, the tendency to make accusations that go beyond the known facts or to use inflammatory language when announcing arrests. This practice – which, of course, some prosecutors avoid – arises in part because there often isn’t a complete picture at the early stages of a proceeding. It is convenient to ignore elements that may raise questions about guilt and it is comfortable for prosecutors to exaggerate because the stratagem attracts media attention – and few members of this fraternity are publicity-shy – and it provides leverage for the plea bargaining that usually occurs down the road. The legal and ethical basis for this approach to prosecutorial discretion has never been disclosed, presumably because there isn’t any.
There certainly aren’t any good reasons for journalists to buy into a practice that is suspect. Yet, prosecutorial overkill plays into the hands of crime reporters who lap up every heated charge and spicy detail as if they are the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Reporters invariably operate under deadlines and other conditions which result in an extraordinary amount of carelessness.
If we utilize the standard that I have suggested, Jewish newspapers are right to ignore the tax assessor indictments. This is not a Jewish story. By the same standard, because Temple Emanuel is a major congregation and its head cantor has an important role in its services, it is appropriate for our publications to treat the cantor’s arrest on serious pedophilia charges as newsworthy from a Jewish standpoint. Even so, there is good reason for a restrained approach, including the sad display of prosecutorial abuse that accompanied this man’s arrest. He was picked up early in the morning or actually during the night and the operation included a small media army whose interest was perked up by the salaciousness of the story.
For the general media, every criminal case is inherently worthy of attention, although of course, they all do not receive equal attention. There is, I think, a connection between the responsibility of Jewish media and the responsibility of publications and news sources that serve the general society. Unless the fact is fully integral to the story, the general media have no business reporting on the race, religion or ethnicity of persons accused of criminal acts. This should be obvious in view of the opprobrium attached to bigotry or any form of stereotyping. It is a standard that should be easier to meet than the equally valid goal of Jewish newspapers not providing coverage to criminal charges brought against Jews unless, as noted, there is a clear communal aspect.
It remains, though, that the general media regularly offend by dwelling on and even highlighting story lines that emphasize religion, race or ethnic background. Of course, they are selective in their discrimination, essentially giving attention to members of distinctive groups, such as Blacks and Orthodox Jews. With respect to the latter, the New York Times and Daily News are repeat offenders, often including situations where there is no apparent reason to explore that which should be off-limits. Strange or not, the Daily News has gotten worse since Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Presidents Conference of Major Jewish Organizations, took control of the newspaper.
The story was front page in the New York Times and there were long investigative follow-up stories for several days. So far as I can tell, there hasn’t been a word in the Anglo-Jewish press, although there are key Jewish angles, including the possible involvement of prominent landlords who benefited handsomely from the scheme.
Are our newspapers right to ignore the story?
Not if we use the standard that is employed regularly when the perpetrators are Orthodox. Then there is a feeding frenzy as reporters seek to uncover every connection that puts the religious community in a bad light. We learn about shuls and schools, charities contributed to and the organizations in which the accused persons are involved. Wouldn’t it be right to read in our newspapers that a top macher for the New Israel Fund - an agency that is as self-righteous as it is anti-religious – has been accused of being a class A corrupter?
The answer is no because as they say – or used to say – two wrongs do not make a right. Orthodoxy-bashing does not provide a license to bash someone else. Jewish media should report on wrongdoing by Jews only when there is a clear communal angle, as when an institution is accused of criminal activity or has been the victim of such activity or when a Jew who has a significant organizational or institutional position has been charged. Otherwise, the story should be left to the general media to cover.
This is, in fact, the usual practice. Our publications do not pay attention to run of the mill crime stories, except I believe when the fellows at the mill are Orthodox. There may be a credible explanation for this differentiation; mine is media bias against the Orthodox.
Even when there is a significant Jewish angle which merits coverage in our newspapers, there are ample reasons for restraint. Screaming headlines and overheated stories should be avoided, if only because there is still more than residual validity to the once popular notion that people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
Restraint should be the rule also because of the frequency of prosecutorial inflation, the tendency to make accusations that go beyond the known facts or to use inflammatory language when announcing arrests. This practice – which, of course, some prosecutors avoid – arises in part because there often isn’t a complete picture at the early stages of a proceeding. It is convenient to ignore elements that may raise questions about guilt and it is comfortable for prosecutors to exaggerate because the stratagem attracts media attention – and few members of this fraternity are publicity-shy – and it provides leverage for the plea bargaining that usually occurs down the road. The legal and ethical basis for this approach to prosecutorial discretion has never been disclosed, presumably because there isn’t any.
There certainly aren’t any good reasons for journalists to buy into a practice that is suspect. Yet, prosecutorial overkill plays into the hands of crime reporters who lap up every heated charge and spicy detail as if they are the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Reporters invariably operate under deadlines and other conditions which result in an extraordinary amount of carelessness.
If we utilize the standard that I have suggested, Jewish newspapers are right to ignore the tax assessor indictments. This is not a Jewish story. By the same standard, because Temple Emanuel is a major congregation and its head cantor has an important role in its services, it is appropriate for our publications to treat the cantor’s arrest on serious pedophilia charges as newsworthy from a Jewish standpoint. Even so, there is good reason for a restrained approach, including the sad display of prosecutorial abuse that accompanied this man’s arrest. He was picked up early in the morning or actually during the night and the operation included a small media army whose interest was perked up by the salaciousness of the story.
For the general media, every criminal case is inherently worthy of attention, although of course, they all do not receive equal attention. There is, I think, a connection between the responsibility of Jewish media and the responsibility of publications and news sources that serve the general society. Unless the fact is fully integral to the story, the general media have no business reporting on the race, religion or ethnicity of persons accused of criminal acts. This should be obvious in view of the opprobrium attached to bigotry or any form of stereotyping. It is a standard that should be easier to meet than the equally valid goal of Jewish newspapers not providing coverage to criminal charges brought against Jews unless, as noted, there is a clear communal aspect.
It remains, though, that the general media regularly offend by dwelling on and even highlighting story lines that emphasize religion, race or ethnic background. Of course, they are selective in their discrimination, essentially giving attention to members of distinctive groups, such as Blacks and Orthodox Jews. With respect to the latter, the New York Times and Daily News are repeat offenders, often including situations where there is no apparent reason to explore that which should be off-limits. Strange or not, the Daily News has gotten worse since Mort Zuckerman, chairman of the Presidents Conference of Major Jewish Organizations, took control of the newspaper.
Sunday, March 10, 2002
RJJ Newsletter - March 2002
I recently visited a small Russian Jewish high school to determine whether it is eligible for certain support. The place was a mess, with the library in total shambles, and the academic program was at a low level. The Talmud teacher could not read the text. At an annual cost of $4,000 per student for a dual curriculum, the school could have done better, but certainly not much better.
Welcome to the underclass of day school education, a world occupied by starved schools, students from poor and immigrant homes, woefully inadequate facilities and severely limited programs. Although not at the school that I visited, there is usually one saving grace, as the terribly underpaid but devoted faculty – especially in Jewish subjects – compensate for some of the shortcomings through their heroic dedication.
When I think of these schools – how little they have and the lack of concern about their situation – it’s hard to sympathize with those who claim that at $20,000 or more per student, special education is short-changed. All children deserve, of course, an education, the opportunity to develop their skills to the greatest potential and to acquire knowledge and competency that will allow them to live more fulfilling lives.
There is therefore something sacred about special education, which doesn’t make it into a sacred cow. Why is there constant agitation – charges and angry demands – about this educational sector when nearly all the rest of education is provided with far less, when as at the school that I visited there are students who will fall far short of their potential because the education they are receiving is primitive and limited, because the schools they attend must get by on a fraction of what is available elsewhere?
If educational resources and funding were free-flowing, so that schools were given all that they need to have to do a credible job, a case could be made for giving lots more to special education, on top of the substantial sums that are already given. Funding, however, is zero sum, so that choices must be made and preferences in one direction inevitably mean that there will be less to go around in other directions. In public school systems everywhere, special education is gobbling up an ever-increasing share of the budget and this has a direct bearing on what is available to support the rest – and lion’s share – of the program.
Two powerful forces contribute enormously to this development. As more students fail in regular classrooms or seem to have special needs, the trend is to shift additional students into special education. This trend is accompanied by ongoing lobbying to provide more services and experts for the children in special education. There are speech experts, hearing experts, counselors and other professional and the bill for all of this adds up to an enormous figure. The extraordinary thing about this is that for the privilege of not entering a regular classroom and having few students to worry about, the experts are invariably paid a good deal more than the teachers who are on the firing line in classrooms with a full complement of students. There is something wrong about this.
It is at times problematic whether special education is beneficial. While there are situations when students require entirely separate classrooms, in others it may be better to integrate the special needs students into regular classrooms. There is, in fact, much talk about mainstreaming, yet the imperialistic nature of special education works against the accomplishment of this goal. Too many students are confined to entirely separate programs for all or nearly all of their education, an experience that cannot imbue them with self-esteem or prepare them adequately for adulthood and fruitful careers. At the least, greater consideration should be given to whether at $20,000 per participant, there might be better ways to deal with special needs within regular classrooms.
This isn’t to advocate the elimination or even sharp curtailment of special education. It is to urge restraint and balance, to consider the claims made for this educational sector in light of the impact of the larger educational enterprise for which we and society have responsibility, as well as in light of the impact on all students, whether in special ed or in regular classrooms.
Welcome to the underclass of day school education, a world occupied by starved schools, students from poor and immigrant homes, woefully inadequate facilities and severely limited programs. Although not at the school that I visited, there is usually one saving grace, as the terribly underpaid but devoted faculty – especially in Jewish subjects – compensate for some of the shortcomings through their heroic dedication.
When I think of these schools – how little they have and the lack of concern about their situation – it’s hard to sympathize with those who claim that at $20,000 or more per student, special education is short-changed. All children deserve, of course, an education, the opportunity to develop their skills to the greatest potential and to acquire knowledge and competency that will allow them to live more fulfilling lives.
There is therefore something sacred about special education, which doesn’t make it into a sacred cow. Why is there constant agitation – charges and angry demands – about this educational sector when nearly all the rest of education is provided with far less, when as at the school that I visited there are students who will fall far short of their potential because the education they are receiving is primitive and limited, because the schools they attend must get by on a fraction of what is available elsewhere?
If educational resources and funding were free-flowing, so that schools were given all that they need to have to do a credible job, a case could be made for giving lots more to special education, on top of the substantial sums that are already given. Funding, however, is zero sum, so that choices must be made and preferences in one direction inevitably mean that there will be less to go around in other directions. In public school systems everywhere, special education is gobbling up an ever-increasing share of the budget and this has a direct bearing on what is available to support the rest – and lion’s share – of the program.
Two powerful forces contribute enormously to this development. As more students fail in regular classrooms or seem to have special needs, the trend is to shift additional students into special education. This trend is accompanied by ongoing lobbying to provide more services and experts for the children in special education. There are speech experts, hearing experts, counselors and other professional and the bill for all of this adds up to an enormous figure. The extraordinary thing about this is that for the privilege of not entering a regular classroom and having few students to worry about, the experts are invariably paid a good deal more than the teachers who are on the firing line in classrooms with a full complement of students. There is something wrong about this.
It is at times problematic whether special education is beneficial. While there are situations when students require entirely separate classrooms, in others it may be better to integrate the special needs students into regular classrooms. There is, in fact, much talk about mainstreaming, yet the imperialistic nature of special education works against the accomplishment of this goal. Too many students are confined to entirely separate programs for all or nearly all of their education, an experience that cannot imbue them with self-esteem or prepare them adequately for adulthood and fruitful careers. At the least, greater consideration should be given to whether at $20,000 per participant, there might be better ways to deal with special needs within regular classrooms.
This isn’t to advocate the elimination or even sharp curtailment of special education. It is to urge restraint and balance, to consider the claims made for this educational sector in light of the impact of the larger educational enterprise for which we and society have responsibility, as well as in light of the impact on all students, whether in special ed or in regular classrooms.
Friday, March 01, 2002
The Accuser’s Tale
What do Shimon Peres, Yitzchak Rabin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon have in common, apart of course from their service as Prime Ministers of Israel? Probably a good deal, including devoted even heroic service to the Jewish State. There is apparently another shared factor, something that may have escaped most of us, namely their alleged willingness to betray Israel.
The apparent sins of Messrs. Peres, Rabin and Barak arise primarily from their negotiations with Yasser Arafat and the PLO and their concessions regarding land. Mr. Netanyahu earned his credentials as a seller-outer by conceding much of Hebron and other territory, pursuant to agreements made by his predecessors. But is Ariel Sharon a betrayer? Isn’t he the fellow of Lebanon fame or shame two decades back? A war hero, as a couple of the others are, who has taken forceful action against Yasser Arafat and terrorists? How can he be accused of acts that border on treason, which is what the charge of betrayal is really about?
If you think it absurd that anyone would make such an accusation, consider the following excerpts from three pages of ads in last week’s Jewish Press. They were placed in the name of “Friends and Families of Victims of Oslo.” I have changed the punctuation because in addition to the more serious sin against decency and truth, those who are responsible for the ads are unlearned in the basics of the English language.
• “You – Arik Sharon by staying in office and keeping these ‘disloyal –
incompetent Leftists’ in office with you – are betraying your people and your country.”
• “You – Arik Sharon are now as ‘responsible for these murders‘ as are your Oslo associates who imported their friend Yasser Arafat and his army into our country.”
• “After listening to the ‘speech of surrender’ by this ‘fake Shimon Peres clone’ called Arik Sharon, this ‘Peres clone’ in effect said to the people of Israel: ‘You people of Israel – ‘be damned.’ My first and foremost loyalty is to stay in power and for this I am beholden to Shimon Peres and his Leftist friends.”
Sick and sickening? Of course. These ads are three pages of an amalgam of paranoia and hate. They follow many similar ads and presumably are the forerunner of more such bile.
There is no direct way to challenge people who write in this vein. To attempt to engage them is an exercise in futility and it unwittingly accords a measure of legitimacy to their lunacy. Dementia is a condition that is impervious to reason and facts, they being the primary staples of civil discourse. Because hate is dynamic and always has the capacity to escalate and even breed violence, it is necessary to challenge the haters and those who give them aid and comfort. There is, as we sadly know, a rather recent history that we cannot forget.
It is necessary, in particular, to challenge the Jewish Press for publishing material that crosses so far into entirely offensive territory. I know that these pages are presented as ads, but it says something that no names are provided. I doubt that the paper accepts all the material that is submitted as ads. Nor does the First Amendment and freedom of the press provide a sanctuary or justification for publication of this material. Freedom brings with it responsibility and, hopefully, a measure of restraint and it always entails the obligation to make choices and to exclude that which is totally offensive and defamatory.
It cannot be said too strongly that no Jewish newspaper should publish a stream of hate messages accusing Israel’s leaders of selling out their country. There is a right – and it is also a necessity – to criticize, to question and challenge governmental policies, at times in sharp language. This right was expressed in many publications not long ago when Mr. Barak was Prime Minister. As tough as the criticism was, it was expressed in language of disagreement and generally in recognition of the pressure he was under and the difficult choices he faced.
Disagreement about Israeli security is inevitable because the situation that the Jewish State is in does not allow for ready and foolproof solutions. The country is located in a very dangerous part of the world. In addition to the Palestinians and terrorists, it has to consider and contend with the virulence of Islamic fundamentalism and the persistence of Arab hostility. As much as some of us may think otherwise, it cannot ignore world opinion and diplomacy or the mood at the White House and U.S. State Department.
Israeli leaders make their decisions and negotiate in clouds of doubt. There are no easy choices, no sure-fire successes. There are sleepless nights, arguments with trusted and respected colleagues, constant media scrutiny, pressure from the U.S., intelligence briefings that provide frightful information and they know that every important security decision they make may endanger the lives of soldiers and civilians. Israel’s leaders also know that as events unfold, their choices may turn out to have been errant.
None of this makes them immune to criticism. Precisely because the stakes are so high and there is always the prospect that their actions or choices may prove to be wrong, it is necessary to question and to disagree. It is even proper to say that, as for example in Mr. Barak’s actions, the security of Israel is being endangered. There is plenty of room for disagreement about the Golan and negotiations with Syria, whether Israel should have withdrawn from South Lebanon, whether Israel should remain in Gaza and how much of the West Bank should be ceded.
What there isn’t room for is the kind of hatred expressed in these ads, a hatred that is predicated on the notion that the whole world hates Israel and Jews, that everyone else is our enemy, and that Jews who disagree with this assessment are themselves self-haters. Israel has too many dangerous enemies, but it is nonsense to believe that the whole world hates us. It is dangerous to believe that Israel’s salvation or security lies in our hating everyone else.
The apparent sins of Messrs. Peres, Rabin and Barak arise primarily from their negotiations with Yasser Arafat and the PLO and their concessions regarding land. Mr. Netanyahu earned his credentials as a seller-outer by conceding much of Hebron and other territory, pursuant to agreements made by his predecessors. But is Ariel Sharon a betrayer? Isn’t he the fellow of Lebanon fame or shame two decades back? A war hero, as a couple of the others are, who has taken forceful action against Yasser Arafat and terrorists? How can he be accused of acts that border on treason, which is what the charge of betrayal is really about?
If you think it absurd that anyone would make such an accusation, consider the following excerpts from three pages of ads in last week’s Jewish Press. They were placed in the name of “Friends and Families of Victims of Oslo.” I have changed the punctuation because in addition to the more serious sin against decency and truth, those who are responsible for the ads are unlearned in the basics of the English language.
• “You – Arik Sharon by staying in office and keeping these ‘disloyal –
incompetent Leftists’ in office with you – are betraying your people and your country.”
• “You – Arik Sharon are now as ‘responsible for these murders‘ as are your Oslo associates who imported their friend Yasser Arafat and his army into our country.”
• “After listening to the ‘speech of surrender’ by this ‘fake Shimon Peres clone’ called Arik Sharon, this ‘Peres clone’ in effect said to the people of Israel: ‘You people of Israel – ‘be damned.’ My first and foremost loyalty is to stay in power and for this I am beholden to Shimon Peres and his Leftist friends.”
Sick and sickening? Of course. These ads are three pages of an amalgam of paranoia and hate. They follow many similar ads and presumably are the forerunner of more such bile.
There is no direct way to challenge people who write in this vein. To attempt to engage them is an exercise in futility and it unwittingly accords a measure of legitimacy to their lunacy. Dementia is a condition that is impervious to reason and facts, they being the primary staples of civil discourse. Because hate is dynamic and always has the capacity to escalate and even breed violence, it is necessary to challenge the haters and those who give them aid and comfort. There is, as we sadly know, a rather recent history that we cannot forget.
It is necessary, in particular, to challenge the Jewish Press for publishing material that crosses so far into entirely offensive territory. I know that these pages are presented as ads, but it says something that no names are provided. I doubt that the paper accepts all the material that is submitted as ads. Nor does the First Amendment and freedom of the press provide a sanctuary or justification for publication of this material. Freedom brings with it responsibility and, hopefully, a measure of restraint and it always entails the obligation to make choices and to exclude that which is totally offensive and defamatory.
It cannot be said too strongly that no Jewish newspaper should publish a stream of hate messages accusing Israel’s leaders of selling out their country. There is a right – and it is also a necessity – to criticize, to question and challenge governmental policies, at times in sharp language. This right was expressed in many publications not long ago when Mr. Barak was Prime Minister. As tough as the criticism was, it was expressed in language of disagreement and generally in recognition of the pressure he was under and the difficult choices he faced.
Disagreement about Israeli security is inevitable because the situation that the Jewish State is in does not allow for ready and foolproof solutions. The country is located in a very dangerous part of the world. In addition to the Palestinians and terrorists, it has to consider and contend with the virulence of Islamic fundamentalism and the persistence of Arab hostility. As much as some of us may think otherwise, it cannot ignore world opinion and diplomacy or the mood at the White House and U.S. State Department.
Israeli leaders make their decisions and negotiate in clouds of doubt. There are no easy choices, no sure-fire successes. There are sleepless nights, arguments with trusted and respected colleagues, constant media scrutiny, pressure from the U.S., intelligence briefings that provide frightful information and they know that every important security decision they make may endanger the lives of soldiers and civilians. Israel’s leaders also know that as events unfold, their choices may turn out to have been errant.
None of this makes them immune to criticism. Precisely because the stakes are so high and there is always the prospect that their actions or choices may prove to be wrong, it is necessary to question and to disagree. It is even proper to say that, as for example in Mr. Barak’s actions, the security of Israel is being endangered. There is plenty of room for disagreement about the Golan and negotiations with Syria, whether Israel should have withdrawn from South Lebanon, whether Israel should remain in Gaza and how much of the West Bank should be ceded.
What there isn’t room for is the kind of hatred expressed in these ads, a hatred that is predicated on the notion that the whole world hates Israel and Jews, that everyone else is our enemy, and that Jews who disagree with this assessment are themselves self-haters. Israel has too many dangerous enemies, but it is nonsense to believe that the whole world hates us. It is dangerous to believe that Israel’s salvation or security lies in our hating everyone else.
Monday, February 25, 2002
Thoughts on Chabad
The explosive growth of Chabad in the short period since the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s death is a remarkable development. While many expected the movement to atrophy, what has happened should not be surprising because it was put into motion during Rabbi Schneerson’s final years. Although there has been internal conflict aplenty, Chabad has remained intact, largely because of arrangements that are testimony to the Rebbe’s organizational genius.
Chabad grows mainly because its young people understand that their mission is to serve as shlichim or emissaries and that, except in limited instances, this requires that they find new opportunities for service, either by establishing new institutions or projects in places where Chabad is already present or by going to entirely new locations. Married couples in their twenties who have little experience – except perhaps travel during their years of study – settle in communities where there are few or no other observant Jews. They intuitively know that this may be their only opportunity for success, that their first assignment may also be their last.
This system rewards boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship. There have been missteps in some places and projects and there obviously are shlichim who cannot rise to the challenge. The overall record is spectacular, even if we do not include Chabad’s tremendous achievements throughout the Former Soviet Union where it is far and away the dominant Jewish force. Whether measured by institutions established, people reached, attention paid, children taught, publications or funds raised, there isn’t anyone close to what Chabad is doing in North America.
Chabad succeeds in what may be regarded as unpromising locations because as old-world as the shlichim appear to be, they are super-flexible about other Jews’ religiosity. They also are adept at employing technology for the cause, know how to market their message and know that empathy and being there are far surer paths to people’s hearts and pockets than theology. The movement inherently eschews the hit and run Judaism that is the stock and trade for too much of contemporary outreach. For all of the Rebbe’s insistence on halachic fidelity in Israel in deciding “who is a Jew,” nearly everywhere else Chabad welcomes the intermarried, as well as those who have undergone a non-Orthodox conversion and patrilineal children. At times it seems as if the shlichim are more comfortable with Jews of questionable status than they are with other Orthodox Jews.
In view of the powerful trend away from religious life among Jews in major places of Jewish settlement and the corollary trend of a steadily rising percentage of those who are counted as Jews being of questionable status, Chabad’s activity inevitably entails a huge gap in practice and even belief between the clergy and laity. This is a familiar phenomenon in other religions but strange, if not alien, in Orthodox life. It isn’t that there is one code of Jewish law for Chabadniks and another for other Jews. There is one code, with the expectation that there will be minimal compliance among the masses.
Chabad’s outreach is not measured by the standards applicable to other outreach, where the goal is to promote substantial religious advancement. While the movement includes an indeterminate number of returnees to Judaism, what emerges in the main from Chabad activity is tacit acceptance of a Judaism that is defined downward. Furthermore, solitary religious acts are invested with a redemptive capacity irrespective of any subsequent observance. It is sufficient for a man to put on tefilin once, a woman to light candles on Friday night or for secular Jews to participate in a Chanukah ceremony.
Whatever the theological correctness of this approach, overwhelmingly those who participate in Chabad will themselves or their offspring be ultimately lost to Judaism. Minimalistic expectations yield minimalistic results. Chabad’s approach emerges primarily from practical considerations, for there is no other way for emissaries to stake out new territory where there are no observant Jews. In the field especially, the movement has become quite pragmatic.
Apart from inevitably targeting Jews of dubious status, the movement seems to want to expand its message beyond the very limited demographic confines of the Jewish people, to become in a way a catholic or universal religion that non-Jews can identify with. This is evident in its fundraising activity such as the annual Los Angeles telethon, the universalistic message of various publications and in billboard and media advertising that promotes the Rebbe and Messianism.
Messianism has emerged as the most controversial aspect of Chabad, largely – but not only – because of David Berger’s fierce criticism. The Moshiach message was trumpeted relentlessly by the Rebbe in his last years. Whatever his intentions, not unexpectedly more than a few of his followers have concluded that he is the anointed. The Rebbe apparently did nothing to dispel this notion. With the passage of time, the likelihood is that identification of the Rebbe as the Messiah will become stronger, for fantasy is a powerful force with the capacity to unloose beliefs and images that can readily withstand reality. There are echoes of our historical experience that need not be elaborated on.
With very few exceptions, those within Chabad who do not accept the messianic outlook are silent, perhaps because they are intimidated by the powerful Moshichist camp centered primarily in Crown Heights and Israel or because they want to avoid an open rift within the movement. Most likely, there is a majority that accepts to one extent or another the messianic message because, after all, the Rebbe was closely identified with it.
If the recent pattern continues, as I believe it will, Chabad will expand further in adherents and places of activity and become an even more powerful presence in Jewish life. I also believe that the messianic impulse will become stronger, which is to be deeply regretted because the movement accomplishes much that is good and if not checked from within, Chabad’s messianism is destined to force a schism in our religious life.
Chabad grows mainly because its young people understand that their mission is to serve as shlichim or emissaries and that, except in limited instances, this requires that they find new opportunities for service, either by establishing new institutions or projects in places where Chabad is already present or by going to entirely new locations. Married couples in their twenties who have little experience – except perhaps travel during their years of study – settle in communities where there are few or no other observant Jews. They intuitively know that this may be their only opportunity for success, that their first assignment may also be their last.
This system rewards boldness, creativity and entrepreneurship. There have been missteps in some places and projects and there obviously are shlichim who cannot rise to the challenge. The overall record is spectacular, even if we do not include Chabad’s tremendous achievements throughout the Former Soviet Union where it is far and away the dominant Jewish force. Whether measured by institutions established, people reached, attention paid, children taught, publications or funds raised, there isn’t anyone close to what Chabad is doing in North America.
Chabad succeeds in what may be regarded as unpromising locations because as old-world as the shlichim appear to be, they are super-flexible about other Jews’ religiosity. They also are adept at employing technology for the cause, know how to market their message and know that empathy and being there are far surer paths to people’s hearts and pockets than theology. The movement inherently eschews the hit and run Judaism that is the stock and trade for too much of contemporary outreach. For all of the Rebbe’s insistence on halachic fidelity in Israel in deciding “who is a Jew,” nearly everywhere else Chabad welcomes the intermarried, as well as those who have undergone a non-Orthodox conversion and patrilineal children. At times it seems as if the shlichim are more comfortable with Jews of questionable status than they are with other Orthodox Jews.
In view of the powerful trend away from religious life among Jews in major places of Jewish settlement and the corollary trend of a steadily rising percentage of those who are counted as Jews being of questionable status, Chabad’s activity inevitably entails a huge gap in practice and even belief between the clergy and laity. This is a familiar phenomenon in other religions but strange, if not alien, in Orthodox life. It isn’t that there is one code of Jewish law for Chabadniks and another for other Jews. There is one code, with the expectation that there will be minimal compliance among the masses.
Chabad’s outreach is not measured by the standards applicable to other outreach, where the goal is to promote substantial religious advancement. While the movement includes an indeterminate number of returnees to Judaism, what emerges in the main from Chabad activity is tacit acceptance of a Judaism that is defined downward. Furthermore, solitary religious acts are invested with a redemptive capacity irrespective of any subsequent observance. It is sufficient for a man to put on tefilin once, a woman to light candles on Friday night or for secular Jews to participate in a Chanukah ceremony.
Whatever the theological correctness of this approach, overwhelmingly those who participate in Chabad will themselves or their offspring be ultimately lost to Judaism. Minimalistic expectations yield minimalistic results. Chabad’s approach emerges primarily from practical considerations, for there is no other way for emissaries to stake out new territory where there are no observant Jews. In the field especially, the movement has become quite pragmatic.
Apart from inevitably targeting Jews of dubious status, the movement seems to want to expand its message beyond the very limited demographic confines of the Jewish people, to become in a way a catholic or universal religion that non-Jews can identify with. This is evident in its fundraising activity such as the annual Los Angeles telethon, the universalistic message of various publications and in billboard and media advertising that promotes the Rebbe and Messianism.
Messianism has emerged as the most controversial aspect of Chabad, largely – but not only – because of David Berger’s fierce criticism. The Moshiach message was trumpeted relentlessly by the Rebbe in his last years. Whatever his intentions, not unexpectedly more than a few of his followers have concluded that he is the anointed. The Rebbe apparently did nothing to dispel this notion. With the passage of time, the likelihood is that identification of the Rebbe as the Messiah will become stronger, for fantasy is a powerful force with the capacity to unloose beliefs and images that can readily withstand reality. There are echoes of our historical experience that need not be elaborated on.
With very few exceptions, those within Chabad who do not accept the messianic outlook are silent, perhaps because they are intimidated by the powerful Moshichist camp centered primarily in Crown Heights and Israel or because they want to avoid an open rift within the movement. Most likely, there is a majority that accepts to one extent or another the messianic message because, after all, the Rebbe was closely identified with it.
If the recent pattern continues, as I believe it will, Chabad will expand further in adherents and places of activity and become an even more powerful presence in Jewish life. I also believe that the messianic impulse will become stronger, which is to be deeply regretted because the movement accomplishes much that is good and if not checked from within, Chabad’s messianism is destined to force a schism in our religious life.
Thursday, February 21, 2002
Israel in the Mind of American Jewry
For all of the era of good feeling in American-Israel relations, there is a disquieting factor that should give us pause. We need not be overly concerned about the White House singing Hava Nagila with less gusto than it now does or about Americans becoming less enamored of the Jewish state and people. The former is nearly a sure bet, while the attitude of Americans isn’t likely to change any time soon.
What is unsettling is far more proximate, as it springs from within our ranks. The disaffection of a substantial part of American Jewry from our traditions, beliefs and practices has been accompanied by the loss of feeling for Israel. As Jewish identity withers away, there is inevitably the corollary withering away of identity with the Jewish state.
This is a development that is scarcely discussed or appreciated, in large measure because our community is in denial about the consequences of advanced assimilation and Judaic abandonment. Too many of us believe – or want to believe – that we can abandon our religious heritage without abandoning Israel in the process. We have convinced ourselves that the transformation of Jews from a religious people into an ethnic or civic group can be accomplished without eroding that which has nurtured us, including the passionate commitment to Israel.
This act of self-deception is psychologically rewarding, which is usually the case with deceptions of this sort. It is also intellectually possible because, after all, in our communal life there are nearly everywhere secular Jews who are deeply committed to Israel. If Jewish leaders can be entirely unreligious – and many are also intermarried – and yet feel passionately about Israel, why can’t the same be true of the rank and file of several million secular American Jews?
The problem with this reasoning is that what we know for certain about American Jews strongly indicates otherwise. There is a wealth of survey data showing that half of American Jews who have disaffiliated are not emotionally attached to Israel. They haven’t been there, do not want or intend to go, and what happens in Israel is of no particular concern. As is evident on college campuses, there is strong hostility among many Jewish students to the notion of a Jewish state, which is also to say that there is greater sympathy for the Palestinian cause than for the Israeli.
The statistics are especially troubling when we consider that a significant proportion of American Jews are yordim or ex-Israelis and their offspring. They have roots in Israel and family there. If their numbers were removed from our population surveys, identity with and support for Israel would be significantly lower.
The extended current intifada and the severe economic and security crisis it has engendered shows how the changing character of American Jewry has profoundly affected the perception of Israel. In terms of what is immediately at stake, the intifada is not 1967 or 1973 and so it is understandable why we have not seen the fervor of fundraising that erupted at the time of the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. But the danger to Israel today is clear and present. There is now the reality – and not just the prospect – of permanent war, of an intractable Islamic mindset that will not accept Israel’s existence, peace agreements and other diplomacy notwithstanding. The implications for Israel’s physical and economic security are enormous.
Where have American Jews – including those who still identify themselves as Jews – been during the past year and a half? They’ve been mostly stay-at-home, with their checkbooks pointed away from Israel. There was expensive hoopla for one great rally that was canceled by September 11th. There haven’t been any emergency campaigns and the UJA or what remains of it is nowhere to be seen.
This is telling because for decades “UJA” was part of the American Jewish vocabulary, a symbol and link to Israel that transcended the organization’s incessant fundraising activity. My guess is that few Jewish teenagers have a clue as to what the acronym stands for.
As some of us know, the UJA has been taken over by the Federations and submerged in that world’s bureaucratic quagmire, in much the manner that megacorporations take over competitors and then put them to sleep. The Federation world wanted to a) reduce allocations to Israel and b) provide targeted funding to favored projects – the promotion of pluralism is one major example - rather than to give the money more directly to Israel.
Fundraising and support for Israel, including at a time of national crisis such as the country is now going through, is a permanent casualty of the realignment that has taken place. This realignment could not have occurred if American Jews circa 1990 were as deeply committed to Israel as they once were.
While Birthright Israel and other activities are attempting to reverse the erosion of Jewish identity and the attendant erosion of commitment to Israel, they operate in an environment that at least tolerates and often encourages and welcomes the abandonment of our religious life. Experience and logic powerfully point to the conclusion that when Judaism is abandoned there is little prospect that our 2000 year intense commitment to the land of our people will survive.
As we have good reason to be frightened about the sad domestic state of American Jewry, there are parallel reasons why we should be frightened about the state of the relationship between American Jews and Israel.
What is unsettling is far more proximate, as it springs from within our ranks. The disaffection of a substantial part of American Jewry from our traditions, beliefs and practices has been accompanied by the loss of feeling for Israel. As Jewish identity withers away, there is inevitably the corollary withering away of identity with the Jewish state.
This is a development that is scarcely discussed or appreciated, in large measure because our community is in denial about the consequences of advanced assimilation and Judaic abandonment. Too many of us believe – or want to believe – that we can abandon our religious heritage without abandoning Israel in the process. We have convinced ourselves that the transformation of Jews from a religious people into an ethnic or civic group can be accomplished without eroding that which has nurtured us, including the passionate commitment to Israel.
This act of self-deception is psychologically rewarding, which is usually the case with deceptions of this sort. It is also intellectually possible because, after all, in our communal life there are nearly everywhere secular Jews who are deeply committed to Israel. If Jewish leaders can be entirely unreligious – and many are also intermarried – and yet feel passionately about Israel, why can’t the same be true of the rank and file of several million secular American Jews?
The problem with this reasoning is that what we know for certain about American Jews strongly indicates otherwise. There is a wealth of survey data showing that half of American Jews who have disaffiliated are not emotionally attached to Israel. They haven’t been there, do not want or intend to go, and what happens in Israel is of no particular concern. As is evident on college campuses, there is strong hostility among many Jewish students to the notion of a Jewish state, which is also to say that there is greater sympathy for the Palestinian cause than for the Israeli.
The statistics are especially troubling when we consider that a significant proportion of American Jews are yordim or ex-Israelis and their offspring. They have roots in Israel and family there. If their numbers were removed from our population surveys, identity with and support for Israel would be significantly lower.
The extended current intifada and the severe economic and security crisis it has engendered shows how the changing character of American Jewry has profoundly affected the perception of Israel. In terms of what is immediately at stake, the intifada is not 1967 or 1973 and so it is understandable why we have not seen the fervor of fundraising that erupted at the time of the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars. But the danger to Israel today is clear and present. There is now the reality – and not just the prospect – of permanent war, of an intractable Islamic mindset that will not accept Israel’s existence, peace agreements and other diplomacy notwithstanding. The implications for Israel’s physical and economic security are enormous.
Where have American Jews – including those who still identify themselves as Jews – been during the past year and a half? They’ve been mostly stay-at-home, with their checkbooks pointed away from Israel. There was expensive hoopla for one great rally that was canceled by September 11th. There haven’t been any emergency campaigns and the UJA or what remains of it is nowhere to be seen.
This is telling because for decades “UJA” was part of the American Jewish vocabulary, a symbol and link to Israel that transcended the organization’s incessant fundraising activity. My guess is that few Jewish teenagers have a clue as to what the acronym stands for.
As some of us know, the UJA has been taken over by the Federations and submerged in that world’s bureaucratic quagmire, in much the manner that megacorporations take over competitors and then put them to sleep. The Federation world wanted to a) reduce allocations to Israel and b) provide targeted funding to favored projects – the promotion of pluralism is one major example - rather than to give the money more directly to Israel.
Fundraising and support for Israel, including at a time of national crisis such as the country is now going through, is a permanent casualty of the realignment that has taken place. This realignment could not have occurred if American Jews circa 1990 were as deeply committed to Israel as they once were.
While Birthright Israel and other activities are attempting to reverse the erosion of Jewish identity and the attendant erosion of commitment to Israel, they operate in an environment that at least tolerates and often encourages and welcomes the abandonment of our religious life. Experience and logic powerfully point to the conclusion that when Judaism is abandoned there is little prospect that our 2000 year intense commitment to the land of our people will survive.
As we have good reason to be frightened about the sad domestic state of American Jewry, there are parallel reasons why we should be frightened about the state of the relationship between American Jews and Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)