Posts
21 hours ago
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Debbie Schlussel - Sharia's Here: Tennessee Muslims Seek Alcohol-Free "Buffer Zones"
Debbie Schlussel - Sharia's Here: Tennessee Muslims Seek Alcohol-Free "Buffer Zones"
OBAMA'S RABBI
Last week Gavin asked me how Jews define themselves. Since I didn't see how I could reasonably clarify that one with less than a small book, I put it aside to wait for a plausible hook to hang it on. Sure enough, one came along, in the surprising story of Michelle Obama's rabbi cousin. Not, as you might think, the story of a Jew who married into her clan, which wouldn't have been all that surprising. No. This is the story of a tradition started late in the 19th century of American blacks identifying with Judaism to the extent they proclaimed themselves Jews; the cousin, Rabbi Capers Funnye, is part of an offshoot of the tradition which actually seems to be serious about their Judaism.
I admit I've never heard of the entire phenomenon. Just goes to show you how varied the Jewish world is, I suppose. Assuming they're Jews. Are they? And how do you know? More importantly, who decides?
One of the books I'm reading, Paula Fredriksen's Augustine and the Jews, tells about many non-Jews who attached themselves to Jewish communities in the pre-Christian period of the Roman Empire. Judaism was different in those days, but the book makes clear that the gentiles remained gentiles, even when supporting the Jewish communities with funds and participating in their communal activities.
And that was probably the last time Judaism was potentially appealing to large numbers of non-Jews for 18-19 centuries. In the interval, you were lucky if you got through a century with your community intact. There must have been movement on the edges, so there was a definition of being Jewish: anyone with a Jewish mother, or who had been converted halachically - which meant, by a rabbi.
In the second half of the 20th century this changed... twice, and in very different ways. It changed in the US, and it changed in Israel.
It changed in the US because, as touched upon in the previous post, for the first time ever it was possible to be an integral part of mainstream society and Jewish society simultaneously; yet Jewish society was taking on a plethora of new forms that would not have been recognizable as Jewish until recently. This meant a significant number of non-Jews were willing to consider joining the Jews, and intermarriage with non-jews while retaining Jewish identity meant the matriarchal definition appeared too narrow. The Jews lost their consensus on what they were, and then on who they were; today's American Jewry is characterized by a diversity and breadth of expression far greater than any previous Jewish community, including the fractured and disparate one of the final generations of the Second Temple Era. American Jews agree, in a general way, that they have a common history, the kingpin of which is the Holocaust; they sort of agree that being Jewish means having a communal or societal conscience, and they more or less sort of agree that Israel is important. The single most important space for Jewish expression is the liturgical area: American Jews tend to identify by belonging to a temple/synagogue/shul congregation.
Meanwhile, in Israel, it all works differently. Jews are the mainstream society. They speak the ancestral language, Hebrew, as their native tongue, and the national calender is Jewish. The state of war we live in is intrinsically tied up with being Jewish, too. Which means being Jewish in Israel is essentially automatic unless you're an Arab or Druze, and need have nothing to do with liturgy, belonging to a congregation, or any of the fundamental aspects of being Jewish in America; on the other hand, since it's the kind of thing you need the willingness to lay your life down for, it's far more serious than it is for many American Jews. The non-Jews in Israel, and halachically there are hundreds of thousands of them, mostly from the former Soviet Union, are in many ways more actively Jewish than most American Jews, even if they have absolutely no connection with a synagogue.
Which leaves the halachically minded orthodox with two separate battles to lose. In America they've lost the argument about conversion, and are retreating into their own enclaves. In Israel, they're losing the argument, too, though it's a very different argument, and their ability to retreat into enclaves is limited; on the other hand, the demographic dynamic means that within a few generations the problem (if it is one) will largely disappear: The Jews in Israel will be Jews, even if some of their forbears were Slavic non-Jews. I won't hazard a guess as to what will happen in America. Perhaps most American Jews will be African Americans who decided they were Jewish.
taken from:Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
50 INFLUENTIAL RABBIS
Newsweek has published its annual list of the 50 most influential American rabbis (and Jeffrey Goldberg nitpicks it here). I can't nitpick it, but I can make some comments, snide or otherwise.
1. What an American idea! You've got Fortune lists of rich folks, halls of fame of the best baseball players, so why not have a list of top rabbis?
2. Only in America, of all diasporas Jews have ever lived in, have they been so at home and part of the surrounding society that it's even vaguely conceivable that a top general publication would think to include them in its remit to such an extent. And even that, only since the 1960s. Where else? Australia, perhaps? Canada? Surely nowhere else, and never before. If you wish, we can argue about this, but don't expect to convince me.
3. As Israelis go, I'm rather well informed about America in general and its Jews, too. At a stretch, I've heard of ten of these 50. I have the ability to string together two sentences about, at most, four. In a Jewish world with two centers, American and Israeli Jews are slowly but inexorably drifting apart; the rest are slowly orbiting around the one or the other.
4. Tho, now that I think of it, I bet 75% of America's Jews don't recognize ten of these 5o, either.
5. The list was put together
by Sony Pictures Entertainment Chairman & CEO Michael Lynton, News Corporation Executive Vice President Gary Ginsberg and JTN Productions CEO Jay Sanderson
Huh?
6. The criteria used were
.Are they known nationally/internationally?
.Do they have political/social influence?
.Do they have a media presence?
.Are they leaders within their communities?
.Are they considered leaders in Judaism or their movements?
.Size of their constituency
.Have they made an impact on Judaism in their career?
.Have they made a "greater" impact?
Which is a telling list of criteria. It seems to me there are only one and a half criteria for the significance of a rabbi.
1. Has he made a lasting contribution to the Jewish discussion that has been going on for millennia? (A sub-set of this would be, is he an important Posek, articulator of Halacha)
2. Is he important to his community (but often this, too, is a subset of the previous one).
We're talking about rabbis, after all. Arguably, David Ben Gurion was the most important Jew of the 20th century, which demonstrates that Jews can be important to the Jewish world, at least the modern Jewish world, without being a rabbi. But that would be a different list.
PS. Don't jump down my throat for using the masculine. I actually expect women to get there, by and by, but that's a different subject.
taken from:Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations (http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/)
THE "REAL" TWO-STATE SOLUTION
THE "REAL" TWO-STATE SOLUTION
Hudson New York
How to Build a Palestinian State
The words and deeds of many Palestinian officials, whether they are from Fatah or Hamas, do not seem to be bringing the Palestinians closer to fulfilling their aspiration of creating a modern and democratic state next to Israel.
In this regard, the Palestinian Authority leaders in the West Bank are continuing to act [and speak] in a way that only radicalizes Palestinians and demonizes Israel and the Jewish people.
Preparing for statehood is not only about building infrastructure and institutions; it is also about educating the people about the importance of living in peace with your neighbors and respecting their right to live insecurity.
Almost every day, the Palestinian Authority, which is dominated by the secular Fatah faction, provides the world with evidence that it is not leading its constituents toward the path of moderation and co-existence. And this is without mentioning what Hamas is saying and doing.
If the Palestinians were serious about building their own state, they should not wait for Israel or any other country to present it to them as a gift.
Had the Palestinian Authority invested perhaps half of the money that went into Yasser Arafat’s secret bank accounts or to support the shopping sprees of his wife in Paris, it is highly likely that the Palestinians would by now have had their own state.
Had the Palestinian leadership built schools, hospitals, universities and housing projects instead of building a casino, there is no doubt that the Palestinians would have had their state several years ago.
Had the Palestinian Authority invested some of the billions of dollars for the welfare of its people, combating poverty and unemployment, it is certain that the Palestinians would not have resorted to violence in September 2000. That is because when the Palestinians launched the second intifada, many people had nothing to lose.
So has the Palestinian Authority since learned from its mistakes?
No.
While it is true that the economic situation in the West Bank has improved in the past two years, largely thanks to the fact that the international donors have finally begun holding Palestinian leaders accountable and are pressing harder for transparency, the messages coming out of the Palestinian leadership are not encouraging.
In the past week alone, the “moderate” Palestinian leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas took two decisions that will only have a negative impact on the future of the “peace process.”
First, Abbas’s representatives dismantled a Palestinian teenager musical band for performing in front of Holocaust survivors in the Israeli city of Holon. An Israeli-Arab woman who was in charge of the ban has been told by Abbas’s lieutenants that her life would be in danger if she ever showed her face again in Jenin. Fatah activists later sealed her apartment and confiscated all the musical equipment, accusing her of “exploiting” the children for a “political event” - the Holocaust.
In the second case, Abbas’s Chief Islamic Judge, Tayseer Tamimi, issued another fatwa [religious decree] that imposes the death sentence on any Palestinian who sells his lands to Jews.
And then there is Mohammed Dahlan, one of Fatah’s senior operatives who is closely associated with Abbas, who went on Palestine TV to proudly declare that his faction has never recognized Israel’s right to exist.
He also boasted that as a former security commander he and Fatah had killed more suspected Palestinian “collaborators” with Israel than Hamas.
Dahlan, who has long been hailed by US Administration officials as a “moderate” leader and a staunch supporter of the peace process, even went as far as urging Hamas not to succumb to pressure to accept Israel’s right to exist.
The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank has also been fighting “normalization” with Israel by boycotting Israeli products and banning Palestinian teenagers from participating in joint Jewish-Arab events aimed at promoting tolerance and coexistence.
It is no wonder then that public opinion polls continue to show that Hamas’s popularity is on the rise and that a majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings.
Over the past few weeks, numerous Palestinian spokesmen have been warning against the “dangers” of having a right-wing government in Israel. According to these spokesmen, the rise of Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to power is an indication of the Israeli public’s shift to the right and the beginning of the end of the “peace process.”
The Palestinian officials say they are particularly worried about Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the two-state solution.
But were these folks expecting? That Netanyahu and Lieberman would give them more than what former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin had either given the Palestinians or offered to give them?
There is absolutely no reason why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu should be worried about American and European pressure on him to accept the two-state solution.
Even if Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution tomorrow, he will quickly discover that the Palestinian Authority in particular and the Palestinians in general are the least prepared for establishing an independent and normal state alongside Israel.
Netanyahu and Lieberman can sit relaxed. Even if they offered the Palestinians a state, they will discover that there is no credible partner, neither in Ramallah nor in the Gaza Strip, to deal with.
Finally, the failure of the Hamas-Fatah “reconciliation” talks means that the world will have to live with the fact that the two-state solution has already been realized. In the end, the Palestinians got two states - a mini-Islamic republic in the Gaza Strip and an incompetent, powerless and unreliable entity in parts of the West Bank.
Almost every day, the Palestinian Authority, which is dominated by the secular Fatah faction, provides the world with evidence that it is not leading its constituents toward the path of moderation and co-existence. And this is without mentioning what Hamas is saying and doing.
If the Palestinians were serious about building their own state, they should not wait for Israel or any other country to present it to them as a gift.
Had the Palestinian Authority invested perhaps half of the money that went into Yasser Arafat’s secret bank accounts or to support the shopping sprees of his wife in Paris, it is highly likely that the Palestinians would by now have had their own state.
Had the Palestinian leadership built schools, hospitals, universities and housing projects instead of building a casino, there is no doubt that the Palestinians would have had their state several years ago.
Had the Palestinian Authority invested some of the billions of dollars for the welfare of its people, combating poverty and unemployment, it is certain that the Palestinians would not have resorted to violence in September 2000. That is because when the Palestinians launched the second intifada, many people had nothing to lose.
So has the Palestinian Authority since learned from its mistakes?
No.
While it is true that the economic situation in the West Bank has improved in the past two years, largely thanks to the fact that the international donors have finally begun holding Palestinian leaders accountable and are pressing harder for transparency, the messages coming out of the Palestinian leadership are not encouraging.
In the past week alone, the “moderate” Palestinian leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas took two decisions that will only have a negative impact on the future of the “peace process.”
First, Abbas’s representatives dismantled a Palestinian teenager musical band for performing in front of Holocaust survivors in the Israeli city of Holon. An Israeli-Arab woman who was in charge of the ban has been told by Abbas’s lieutenants that her life would be in danger if she ever showed her face again in Jenin. Fatah activists later sealed her apartment and confiscated all the musical equipment, accusing her of “exploiting” the children for a “political event” - the Holocaust.
In the second case, Abbas’s Chief Islamic Judge, Tayseer Tamimi, issued another fatwa [religious decree] that imposes the death sentence on any Palestinian who sells his lands to Jews.
And then there is Mohammed Dahlan, one of Fatah’s senior operatives who is closely associated with Abbas, who went on Palestine TV to proudly declare that his faction has never recognized Israel’s right to exist.
He also boasted that as a former security commander he and Fatah had killed more suspected Palestinian “collaborators” with Israel than Hamas.
Dahlan, who has long been hailed by US Administration officials as a “moderate” leader and a staunch supporter of the peace process, even went as far as urging Hamas not to succumb to pressure to accept Israel’s right to exist.
The Palestinian leadership in the West Bank has also been fighting “normalization” with Israel by boycotting Israeli products and banning Palestinian teenagers from participating in joint Jewish-Arab events aimed at promoting tolerance and coexistence.
It is no wonder then that public opinion polls continue to show that Hamas’s popularity is on the rise and that a majority of Palestinians support suicide bombings.
Over the past few weeks, numerous Palestinian spokesmen have been warning against the “dangers” of having a right-wing government in Israel. According to these spokesmen, the rise of Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to power is an indication of the Israeli public’s shift to the right and the beginning of the end of the “peace process.”
The Palestinian officials say they are particularly worried about Netanyahu’s refusal to accept the two-state solution.
But were these folks expecting? That Netanyahu and Lieberman would give them more than what former prime ministers Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon and Yitzhak Rabin had either given the Palestinians or offered to give them?
There is absolutely no reason why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanhayu should be worried about American and European pressure on him to accept the two-state solution.
Even if Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution tomorrow, he will quickly discover that the Palestinian Authority in particular and the Palestinians in general are the least prepared for establishing an independent and normal state alongside Israel.
Netanyahu and Lieberman can sit relaxed. Even if they offered the Palestinians a state, they will discover that there is no credible partner, neither in Ramallah nor in the Gaza Strip, to deal with.
Finally, the failure of the Hamas-Fatah “reconciliation” talks means that the world will have to live with the fact that the two-state solution has already been realized. In the end, the Palestinians got two states - a mini-Islamic republic in the Gaza Strip and an incompetent, powerless and unreliable entity in parts of the West Bank.
taken from:B'NAI ELIM (http://bnaielim.blogspot.com/)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
