Palestinian Voters in a Jewish State

Morning thoughts:

Sometimes solutions present themselves when you consider problems from alternate angles.

Scared of how millions of Palestinians will vote, given the chance?

Make sure your democracy is constitutional with a robust institutionalized system of checks and balances (that include the military), in which its democratic nature is preserved against populist hijacking – and make sure your citizens are educated with a modern curriculum that celebrates civics instead of martyrdom, and agree to choose the ballot over the bullet.

Make sure what makes the state Jewish – essentially, historically, timelessly, truly Jewish – is not reducible to expressions of mere ethnocentrism or jingoism, that can (and maybe דווקא should) be threatened by the very proposition of either a modern society embracing the separation of synagogue and state on the one hand, or a shared ethical monotheistic society with the daughters of the Hebrew Bible, Christians and Muslims, on the other.

But I digress.

I don’t see two (or three or four or a million) states as a viable option, for all the reasons. I see a chance for us to make it through this together in one, Israeli/Palestinian, state of all its citizens.

When you really think about it – it’s not as bad as the movie in your head. 😉

Ten Maimonidean Propositions

1) At Sinai, the people of Israel voluntarily contracted a bilateral covenant with the Creator, mediated by Moses, in which they agreed to follow the precepts instructed to them via Moses.

2) The aforementioned covenant includes a provision for dealing with questions that arise regarding the formulation or practical implementation of its precepts, especially in regards to their more ambiguous aspects that have yet to be officially regulated: consult the highest court and follow their decisions.

3) From the time of Moses until the closing of the Talmud, there was always a high court charged with determining the national calendar and with defining, formulating, and regulating the precepts of the national covenant, although the guises the high court took often changed with the epochs: an assembly of seventy elders, a council of prophets, a great congress, a Sanhedrin, a national academy’s court.

4) A record of the decisions of the high courts is found in the content of the classical rabbinic corpus – the Tosephta, the Siphra and the Siphré, and the two Talmudim – and ends with the last high court to historically serve the entire people of Israel, that of Rabina and R Ashé.

5) After the last high court of Israel disbanded, there is no entity with institutional authority to determine the national calendar; to define, formulate, or regulate the precepts of the national covenant; or to make any laws that are binding on the entire nation.

6) Nevertheless, many other institutions and individuals have, over the centuries, claimed the prerogatives of the highest court, making alternate claims to legal and social authority and even promulgating rulings, laws, and customs at odds with the recorded decisions of that court.

7) Trained in the jurisprudential tradition of the Talmudic academies and comprehensively educated in the classical rabbinic corpus, Rambam undertook the task of constructing an encyclopedic textbook of the actual laws of Israel, the Mishneh Torah (“restatement of the law”), composed in the familiar Hebrew language common to all communities of Israel, that would provide everyone without access to the classical rabbinic corpus with an understanding of what the national covenant requires of them, personally and collectively.

8) Although widely accepted throughout the Middle East and North Africa as part of the new standard in Jewish education and jurisprudence, the Mishneh Torah was also heavily criticized by detractors who objected to both Rambam’s style (in that he presented settled law while only obliquely referencing his sources) and his decisions (challenging his fidelity to the Talmudic record); however, there simultaneously emerged a scholarly defense of Rambam’s work throughout the ages that culminated in R Yoseph Qafeh’s exhaustive commentary to the Mishneh Torah, in which he provided all of Rambam’s sources and successfully rebutted all challenges to Rambam’s decisions vis a vis the Talmudic record.

9) The Mishneh Torah was the work of one brilliant, highly educated, but ultimately human scholar capable of error, and was accordingly subject to constant revision throughout the author’s lifetime (and inescapably contains idiosyncrasies and ambiguities of language and meaning); furthermore, the ever-growing socio-economic gap between the historical world of the cases Rambam discusses and our own modern world, additionally complicates any reading with the aim of practicing what is read.

10) Nevertheless, the final edition of the Mishneh Torah – when read together with the Hebrew Bible – remains the best guide to the laws of the covenant of Israel as understood and decided by the highest courts of Israel throughout history; and the intervening years since its publication have produced an abundance of commentaries, ancillary literature, and actual practice to provide necessary context and elucidation in interpreting Rambam’s decisions.

Who is Indigenous?

Who is indigenous?

The people of Israel speak the language of this Land, follow the calendar of this Land, retell the myths and stories of this Land, tend and protect this Land, and have considered this Land their ancestral home for 3200+ years.

Most of their descendants were heavily colonized by the empires that came to this Land.

Some of their descendants were exiled from this Land but kept their language, calendar, and religion.

(Are they not indigenous?)

Some of their descendants were allowed to stay on this Land but were forced to adopt their colonizers’ language, calendar, religion, and politics.

(Are they not indigenous?)

Today I met a Native American woman of the Eastern Keresan in what is today called New Mexico, a student of her people’s traditions and an activist on their behalf – who speaks English (while studying Keres), uses the Gregorian calendar (and observes her traditional calendar), and believes in Christianity (as compatible with what she’s been taught of her people’s beliefs).

(Is she not indigenous?)

Hmmm…

The Revolution of Hebrew Philosophy

When you think about it, part of the cultural revolution that occurred in Judea during the second commonwealth was the movement to institutionalize the authority of the sages in matters of law and life.

That was a radical break from the aristocratic authority of the priests they accepted previously and a rejection of the imperialistic authority of the historical strongmen others accepted around them.

The Hebrew philosophers – the lovers of wisdom – became the people’s guides to the good and holy life, not just picking up the mantle of the Hebrew prophets but (in the manner of the true philosophers) democratizing it and making it accessible to all who would come and listen.

What is a Maimonidean Minyan?

Some have suggested that what makes a minyan “Maimonidean” is the rigorous exemplification of Maimonides’ halakhic ideals and prescriptions (such as praying with the sunrise).

Others have suggested it is faithful replication of the socio-cultural conditions of the medieval Mediterranean (including the social roles and expectations typical of the period).

On the other hand, we (read: anyone who can get down with the following ideas) would like to suggest that – beyond simply adopting the shorter נוסח התפילות that Rambam recorded in his Mishneh Torah – what makes a minyan “Maimonidean” includes these points:

– Organization around the primary principles of social horizontality (intrinsic non-hierarchy) and fundamental equality before the law (for more on these concepts in Talmudic Judaism, see the work of R. Dr. José Faur z”l), resulting in communal institutions that are meritocratic rather than “aristocratic” and consensus-seeking rather than elitist, and collective loyalty to the system of the Torah as the greatest guarantor of our religious freedoms.

– Qualified adoption of the Mishneh Torah (not as a blind fundamentalist system but as understood in his responsa and by the best of our sages) as a common code in establishing communal norms and the parameters of communal legitimacy, a system meant to be implemented in the real world outside of the ivory tower; based on the understanding that the Mishneh Torah represents the fruits of the research of the greatest scholar in rabbinic history, into the system of settled laws that are actually considered binding upon Jewish communities after the Talmud, and not merely recommended or precedented.

– Recreation of the philosophical atmosphere of Jewish al-Andalus, the socio-intellectual environment that produced Rambam and that he continued in his writings and in his approach to communal leadership; recognizing that achieving positive engagement between philosophy, science, and tradition is no less necessary today than it was in Rambam’s day.

There is more to be said on each of the above points and it can also be argued that this list of core principles is far from exhaustive; the community must develop its vision, together.

But I hope the above serves to clarify some of the basic ideas of what makes a minyan “Maimonidean” in the year 5784, and what we’re trying to achieve with Qongregation Sha’are Shalom

A Short Meditation on International Law and Policy

The UN is a spectre in Israeli society and a byword among Israelis.

For its part, the UN has maintained a persistent and consistent critique/condemnation of all Israeli policies vis-a-vis Palestinians. On the receiving side, the common perception among Israelis is that the UN is a shield for organizations and even entire states that have declared themselves our mortal enemies.

The truth is somewhere in between. Some of the UN’s criticism of the Israeli state is legitimate, some of Israeli society’s response is legitimate. Much of both is reductive bluster misrepresenting the facts of history and recent events (recent from any vantage point in time, in fact).

But I think that one undeniable outcome of the UN’s endless, obsessive, and condemnatory rhetorical focus on the Israeli state, has been a general weakening of the Israeli public’s trust in international institutions.

In another reality, we might have avoided this war entirely by successfully petitioning for the extradition of Hamas’s leadership at all levels to stand trial for war crimes and by uniting the international community against Iran’s funding of genocidal organizations that train to commit war crimes.

If that alternate reality sounds as ludicrous to you as it does to me – ask yourself why that route wasn’t taken to begin with.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr Spoke Candidly on Israel

In 1968, ten days before he was murdered by a white supremacist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr of blessed memory was asked some rather direct questions:

“What steps have been undertaken and what success has been noted in convincing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Negroes, such as Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, and McKissick, to desist from their anti-Israel activity?”

“What effective measures will the collective Negro community take against the vicious anti-Semitism, against the militance and the rabble-rousing of the Browns, Carmichaels, and Powells?”

“Have your contributions from Jews fallen off considerably? Do you feel the Jewish community is copping out on the civil rights struggle?”

“What would you say if you were talking to a Negro intellectual, an editor of a national magazine, and were told, as I have been, that he supported the Arabs against Israel because color is all important in this world? In the editor’s opinion, the Arabs are colored Asians and the Israelis are white Europeans. Would you point out that more than half of the Israelis are Asian Jews with the same pigmentation as Arabs, or would you suggest that an American Negro should not form judgments on the basis of color? What seems to you an appropriate or an effective response?”

He answered:

“Thank you. I’m glad that question came up because I think it is one that must be answered honestly and forthrightly.

First let me say that there is absolutely no anti-Semitism in the black community in the historic sense of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism historically has been based on two false, sick, evil assumptions. One was unfortunately perpetuated even by many Christians, all too many as a matter of fact, and that is the notion that the religion of Judaism is anathema. That was the first basis for anti-Semitism in the historic sense.

Second, a notion was perpetuated by a sick man like Hitler and others that the Jew is innately inferior. Now in these two senses, there is virtually no anti-Semitism in the black community. There is no philosophical anti-Semitism or anti-Semitism in the sense of the historic evils of anti-Semitism that have been with us all too long. I think we also have to say that the anti-Semitism which we find in the black community is almost completely an urban Northern ghetto phenomenon, virtually non-existent in the South.

I think this comes into being because the Negro in the ghetto confronts the Jew in two dissimilar roles. On the one hand, he confronts the Jew in the role ofbeing his most consistent and trusted ally in the struggle for justice in the civil rights movement. Probably more than any other ethnic group, the Jewish community has been sympathetic and has stood as an ally to the Negro in his struggle for justice.

On the other hand, the Negro confronts the Jew in the ghetto as his landlord in many instances. He confronts the Jew as the owner of the store around the corner where he pays more for what he gets. In Atlanta, for instance, I live in the heart of the ghetto, and it is an actual fact that my wife in doing her shopping has to pay more for food than whites have to pay out in Buckhead and Lennox. We even tested it. We have to pay five cents and sometimes ten cents a pound more for almost anything that we get than they have to pay out in Buckhead andLennox Square where the rich people of Atlanta live.

The fact is that the Jewish storekeeper or landlord is not operating on the basis of Jewish ethics; he is operating simply as a marginal businessman. Consequently the conflicts come into being.

I remember when we were working in Chicago two years ago, we had numerous rent strikes on the West Side. And it was unfortunately true that the persons whom we had to conduct these strikes against were in most instances Jewish landlords. Now sociologically that came into being because there was a time when the West Side of Chicago was almost a Jewish community. It was a Jewish ghetto, so to speak, and when the Jewish community started moving out into other areas, they still owned the property there, and all of the problems of the landlord came into being.

We were living in a slum apartment owned by a Jew in Chicago along with a number of others, and we had to have a rent strike. We were paying $94 for four run-down, shabby rooms, and we would go out on our open housing marches in Gage Park and other places and we discovered that whites with five sanitary, nice, new rooms, apartments with five rooms out in those areas, were paying only $78 a month. We were paying twenty percent tax.

It so often happens that the Negro ends up paying a color tax, and this has happened in instances where Negroes have actually confronted Jews as the landlord or the storekeeper, or what-have-you. And I submit again that the tensions of the irrational statements that have been made are a result of these confrontations.

I think the only answer to this is for all people to condemn injustice wherever it exists. We found injustices in the black community. We find that some black people, when they get into business, if you don’t set them straight, can be rascals. And we condemn them. I think when we find examples of exploitation, it must be admitted. That must be done in the Jewish community too.

I think our responsibility in the black community is to make it very clear that we must never confuse some with all, and certainly in SCLC we have consistently condemned anti-Semitism. We have made it clear that we cannot be the victims of the notion that you deal with one evil in society by substituting another evil. We cannot substitute one tyranny for another, and for the black man to be struggling for justice and then turn around and be anti-Semitic is not only a very irrational course but it is a very immoral course, and wherever we have seen anti-Semitism we have condemned it with all of our might.

W e have done it through our literature. We have done it through statements that I have personally signed, and I think that’s about all that we can do as an organization to vigorously condemn anti-Semitism wherever it exists.

On the Middle East crisis, we have had various responses. The response of some of the so-called young militants again does not represent the position of the vast majority of Negroes. There are some who are color-consumed and they see a kind of mystique in being colored, and anything non-colored is condemned. We do not follow that course inthe Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and certainly most of the organizations in the civil rights movement do not follow that course.

I think it is necessary to say that what is basic and what is needed in the Middle East is peace. Peace for Israel is one thing. Peace for the Arab side of that world is another thing. Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.

On the other hand, we must see what peace for the Arabs means in a real sense of security on another level. Peace for the Arabs means the kind of economic security that they so desperately need. These nations, as you know, are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So thereis a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.

This is how we have tried to answer the question and deal with theproblem in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and I think that represents the thinking of all of those in the Negro community, by and large, who have been thinking about this issue in the Middle East.”

(Originally printed in “Conservative Judaism,” Vol. 22 No. 3 © 1968 by the Rabbinical Assembly)

The Government Needs a Plan

Neutralizing Hamas’s military capacity is the stated goal of this war (Bibi’s jingoistic propaganda aside).

Achieving that goal is necessary and while I have a lot of Questions, I don’t have access to nearly enough information to armchair quarterback the IDF in this war. So as long as the IDF is aiming to keep civilian deaths to a minimum and unless they actually cross red lines according to international law, I support their effort to achieve the stated goal.

But

Neutralizing Hamas’s military capacity is not a plan to neutralize Hamas’s political standing.

It’s not a plan to neutralize the ideology behind Hamas.

It’s not a plan to address the social, economic, and political factors that draw people to that ideology.

It’s not a plan to address its financial sponsors.

It’s not a plan to prevent Hamas from rising in another five years to continue their genocidal war against Jewish people in Israel.

It’s the first step. It’s a necessary step. But we need a government that is taking the rest of the steps and the clock is ticking.

Equal Rights + Right of Return + Reparations

Hamas needs to be eradicated and Gazans need to go through de-Nazification.

But from everything I’ve seen, the equation that ultimately solves for both security and peace in this land is

Equal Rights + Right of Return + Reparations

Why do I still think so?

Because I don’t live in a movie and I’m not afraid of democracy or justice… We will not lose our country by doing right by Palestinians (for a change) – we will strengthen it.

(And for those who have decided we need a “divorce,” lemme tell ya, I’ve been through divorce, and it’s a lot messier than you think when kids and a shared home are involved.)

Blood Libel vs The Facts

If the IDF wanted to genocide Palestinians, the war would have been over within a week. The Palestinian populations of Israel and the West Bank would be gone.

The facts are that while the airstrikes have been devastating for Gazans…

…the death rate (less than 1 out of 100, and that’s INCLUDING Hamas fighters) hasn’t been anywhere near the destruction rate (1 out of 2 buildings in Gaza city and north Gaza).

…the civilian-combatant death ratio (2 civilians lost for every combatant killed) is nearly unmatched in modern warfare DESPITE Hamas deeply embedding their weapons and fighters among civilians.

…the humanitarian corridors are still provided by the IDF DESPITE Hamas continuing to fire rockets from them at Israeli and Palestinian civilian populations across central and southern Israel (including the West Bank).

These are facts, whether they fit your tiktok narrative or not.

What’s going on in Gaza is terrible but calling it genocide is a blood libel.