Tag Archives: politics

Open Letter to My Students 82: Freedom of Speech

Posted on October 3, 2025 | 2 comments

As a rabbi and professor who writes every day, I pay special attention to the line in my Yom Kippur confession that asks pardon for sins of dibbur peh, the damage done simply by “speaking.” Included in that rubric is everything from conversations that are simply a waste of time, to arguing, lying, and using language lightly without regard for its weightiness: its power to convince but also to hurt.[i] Jewish law best captures that hurting power under the category of lashon hara, “evil speech.” 

America, these days, is awash in concerns for “evil speech,” especially as it butts up against our first-amendment right to freedom of speech. A lengthy history of free speech by Princeton professor Fara Dabhoiwala demonstrates how complex the topic really is, but the book’s subtitle alerts us in advance to his conclusion: not just What is Free Speech? But The History of a Dangerous Idea! 

Is the very idea of free speech dangerous? Judaism’s many warnings about speech going wrong might lead us to think so. Lashon Hara, it turns out, is but one of three categories of hurtful speech that Judaism prohibits. The least serious is r’chilut, repeating ordinary “gossip,” that might seem relatively innocuous but is, by definition, negative. Lashon hara is worse, in that it designates purposely malicious speech that will likely damage others, even if it is true.[ii] Outright slander, making up lies about someone, thereby ruining someone’s reputation (motsi shem ra), is the worst of the three.

Given these grave concerns, we might wonder if Judaism even does advocate freedom of speech. Our classic sources are certainly more focused on its limits. Some organizational websites try to demonstrate that the right of free speech is, nonetheless, a Talmudic value.[iii] Their evidence is, at best, suggestive.

But we shouldn’t expect anything better. Dabhoiwala traces the whole idea of free speech only to the 17th-century and its dawning Enlightenment.[iv]  The question ought not to be whether the Rabbis anticipated the Enlightenment (why would they?) but whether Enlightenment ideals are at least consistent with rabbinic values. The best evidence regarding freedom of speech is the very fact that the Rabbis prohibit some categories of speech in the first place; from which we can deduce that any speech other than the restricted categories is permitted!  Hence also the supporting evidence from Talmudic arguments, which encourage differences of opinion, and do not censor out the side that loses the argument. 

So freedom of speech is a modern idea. The Talmud had not foreseen it; but would have welcomed it, albeit with due regard for the damage that improper speech can inflict.

I make this argument for both liberals and conservatives, because both sides accuse one another of limiting free speech, to advance each other’s perspective in today’s culture wars.  With conservatives now in the ascendancy, it is the liberals who denounce the administration’s forbidden (and perhaps even punishable) word-list : such “woke” language as “non-binary” and “gender diversity.”[v] But when liberals held power, conservatives had similar grievances: having to say “the global south” rather than “the third world,” for instance, or (closer to home) having to worry about using the right pronouns. I make no judgement here on either set of claims. I just point out that both sides of the American divide feel victimized by having their freedom of speech curtailed.

More serious is the category of hate speech that Jewish tradition has long warned against. But what counts as hate speech? And does the first-amendment guarantee of free speech have limits. Apparently it does: we cannot maliciously yell “fire” in a crowded theater. White racists cannot burn a cross on someone’s lawn. 

But things get tricky. When he was charged by President Johnson to plan the “War on Poverty,” sociologist (and later, senator) Daniel Patrick Moynihan believed that the horrific conditions in our inner-city ghettos is partly the result of problems within black families. Can Moynihan say so? He did. And even write a treatise on it? He did that too.[vi]

Suppose someone believes that Israel is an aggressor, a colonial power. Can they say that? Yes. Write a treatise on it? Also yes.

What they cannot do is say the same thing outside a crowded synagogue, in such a way as to suggest violent action, to a crowd of people waving Palestinian flags. 

Why not? 

It helps to distinguish “word” from “message.” The same words can imply vastly different messages, depending on how and in what context they are said. Limits on free speech are protections not just against words, but against the messages inherent in them. Freedom of speech protects the flow of ideas expressed usually (although not only) through words; it does not permit any and all messages.  

One more thing. The Jewish laws of damages are framed illustratively: mayhem caused a goring ox, for example. A particularly interesting case is “pebbles,” damage caused not directly by the animal, but by pebbles that it kicks up and that fly off and injure someone at a distance. It is not just the message of the moment that we worry about; our concern (especially in this age of social media) is damage at a distance, how messages get spread and magnified until they pollute the very way people think, causing damage over time.

A reviewer of Dabhoiwala’s book concludes, “Such freedom [of speech], the skeptics insist, is not an unalloyed good. They’re right. It is an alloyed good. But alloyed goods… are the only kind we ever get.”[vii] And we need them.

[i] Iyyun T’efilah, Siddur Otsar Tefillot (Vilna: 1914; reprint. 1938), d.h. b’dibbur peh, vol 2, p. 1122 

[ii] Maimonides, Hilchot de’ot 7:2. 

[iii] See, e.g, https://truah.org/resources/freedom-of-speech-in-jewish-tradition/; https://rac.org/jewish-values-and-civil-liberties.

[iv] To John Milton’s Areopagitica (1644) and John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration (1689).

[v] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/03/07/us/trump-federal-agencies-websites-words-dei.html

[vi] The Negro Family: The Case for National Action (Washington, DC: The Office of Policy Planning and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, March 1965).

[vii] Kwame Anthony Appiah, “Watch What You Say,” The New York Review of Books (September 25, 2025), p. 66.

2 Comments

Posted in american religion, constitutional rights, freedom of speech, modernity and religion, yom kippur

Tagged , , ,

Open Letter to My Students 72: War and the Murky Middle

Posted on January 10, 2025 | 1 comment

“No one likes middles: reaching middle age, for example, or watching our own body middle expand.” So said the late (and great) Rabbi Dr. Michael Signer, bemoaning the unpopularity of his own area of expertise: the Middle Ages. 

In ethical quandaries too, rather than occupy the uncomfortable middle, we prefer doubling down at one extreme, and then demonizing the opposition, which is doing its own double-down on the other. But by definition,  a quandary contains some truth on both sides. It helps, sometimes, to temper our certainty (on either side) with a viewpoint from the murky middle. 

The war in Gaza is such a quandary. I am a rabbi for whom Jewish Peoplehood is a theological, moral, and spiritual reality; I feel called upon to sustain Jewish peoplehood for the benefit of the world — to be (in biblical terms) a blessing to humanity. In addition, I have lived through enough history to know the necessity of a Jewish State. 

But equally, I know the excesses that ethnic states are capable of; and I am an Enlightenment universalist who seeks that elusive (and probably illusive) quality we call world peace. 

As to the war, the precipitating factor, the October 7 Hamas butchery, has indelibly seared my soul. I know too that if they could, Hamas, Hezbollah and a host of fellow travelers would slaughter every Jew in sight. How, then, can I not support military attempts to eradicate this ongoing threat to the Jewish People? But equally, I cringe at the killing of innocent civilians, so how can I not support moderating the military on humanitarian grounds? 

That is the Jewish quandary of our time. Desperate to avoid the troubling middle, people plunk for one side or the other with every ounce of moral certitude they can muster. And Jews, as they say, are news; so unlike ongoing wars elsewhere, “Israel at war” generates daily headlines that both sides read to confirm or deny their respective position.

Take, for example, the New York Times analysis of December 26, 2024.  

Whether true or false, the Times has often been perceived as biased against Israel. But whatever its editorial policy, Times reporters are exceptional journalists who cannot easily be discounted. What, then do we make of this extensive background piece with the headline, “Israel Loosened its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians in Israel’s Bombing Strategy”?

To be sure, the report suffers from limitations imposed by the question it seeks to answer: whether Israel has been bombing civilians excessively. It doesn’t inquire about the war generally: the hostages, for example.  

But even so, its findings are troubling in the extreme. The Times reports a “severe” weakening of Israel’s “system of safeguards” meant to protect civilians, by expanding “the circle of accepted casualties.” In addition, instead of limiting attacks to those plotted by Israel’s central command, Israel, this time round, empowered field officers to determine bombing targets; and not all such officers operated with the same moral scruples as their superiors. At times too, Israel used heavy tonnage bombs that guaranteed the destruction of entire apartment blocks. In the past, Israel had warned apartment dwellers by “roof knocks,” exploding small charges on the roof before leveling the building, and in this war, such warnings were not always given. So yes, the bombing in this war has been particularly devastating.

But there is another side to things. The report substantiates the carnage of the October 7 attack that Israel understandably saw as “unprecedented,” in scale. It confirms also the fact that Hamas “militants hide among civilians in Gaza” with an “extensive tunnel network” underneath heavily populated areas.

Traumatized by what Hamas had done and promised to do again, Israel felt obliged to uproot Hamas entirely. It therefore widened its military targets to include not just the  Hamas chief planners, but ordinary Hamas fighters and even financial operators who move money back and forth to obtain war materiel. But that required overcoming the Hamas use of human shields. As the report puts it, “The group embeds itself in the civilian population, firing rockets from residential areas, hiding fighters and weapons inside homes and medical facilities, and operating from underground military installations and tunnels.” Israel bombed particularly heavily at the beginning, because it wanted to neutralize Hamas before Hezbollah opened up a second front from the north. 

As to roof knocks, consider Shaldan al-Najjar, an Islamic Jihad commander who had orchestrated many attacks on Israel. Israel had tried to kill him in 2014, but failed, because when it warned innocent neighbors to leave beforehand, al-Najjar escaped as well. This time, they issued no warning and succeeded – but with collateral damage.

In sum, the bombing, though not indiscriminate, was horrific. It did not target civilians deliberately, but enormous civilian casualties resulted. It expanded the circle of acceptable collateral damage but there was at least an ongoing existence of such a circle. Israel’s war was understandably severe but the severity took its toll. 

So back to the murky middle. Those like myself, who accept the attempt to dismantle Hamas must also reckon with Israel’s policies that increased civilian casualties.  

Those who champion the Palestinians should meet me in the middle, by at least acknowledging that if Israel has killed citizens who happened to be in harm’s way, it is the Hamas policy of using human shields that put them there in the first place. Hamas bears the blame for beginning the war in a particularly heinous manner, and then waging it in such a way that Israel would have to kill civilians in order to defend itself.

If the reporting is honest, however, the accompanying headline is not. Instead of “Israel Loosened its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians in Israel’s Bombing Strategy,” it might equally have been, “Hamas Fighters Embed War Machine among Civilians, Causing Israel to Expand Casualties.” 

But perhaps that is misleading on the other side. Newspapers of the Times’s stature should avoid headlines that lure either side away from the middle. Imagine the same story introduced by the heading, “Complexity of War Revealed: Civilians Suffer From Hamas Human Shield Strategy and from Israeli Expansion of Bombing Regulations.” 

I have other misgivings as well. If Hamas has been virtually destroyed by now, why is Israel still bombing in the Gazan north? And even if the Gaza strategy is not a case of ethnic cleansing, the West Bank settler movement is; if the settlers have their way, they will transport their ideology to Gaza as well. 

But equally, how is it that Hamas still retains Jewish hostages (truly civilian innocents)? And as to the Times, I would love to see other background pieces of the quality of this one: not just the Israeli failures but the cruelty and genocidal rationale of Hamas as well. 

Meanwhile, I am left with occupying the murky middle. Taking sides with certainty might feel good, but it does not do moral justice to reality. 

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Open Letter to My Students 68: The Weight of a Year Gone By

Posted on October 8, 2024 | Leave a comment

Time has weight and the Jewish year just ending has been the heaviest year in recent memory. Every day brought fresh rockslides of headline news crashing round about us. When you are buried in rubble, you struggle to get out. So I have been struggling. 

The looming presidential election alone has been a heavy burden. How can so many Americans be so cruel as to watch one school shooting after another and still reject all gun control? So deluded as to send death threats to Haitian immigrants because they purportedly eat their pets? So willing to replace democracy with a home-grown version of right-wing fascism?  But liberals must now reckon with an ever noisier far-left coalition that applauds every identity except “Jewish.” 

The state of the American electorate alone would elicit a serious Dayyenu: “Enough, already!”

Eclipsing all of that, however, is the Hamas butchery of October 7, a boulder massive enough to convert the rockslide into an avalanche, as if time itself came tumbling down upon us – and then stopped, refusing to let October 7 slip quietly into the past. Hostages are still imprisoned, or dead. Hamas is still fighting. I wake up to October 7 every day, a nasty Jewish Groundhog Day.

The closest parallel to October 7 was 9/11, which Americans watched obsessively, as if super-glued to TV screens. A direct line connects the two events as chapters in the same story. The mastermind behind 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was schooled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to “liberate” Jerusalem and rid “Palestine” of Jews – in World-War-II parlance, to make it Judenrein. The Holocaust connection is real. Political scientist Matthias Küntzel cites an Al Jazeera speech in which another Brotherhood leader, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi preached the need of every generation to produce its own divinely appointed agent to “punish Jews.” Hitler was one. Islam is destined be the next.[i]

Meanwhile, right wing anti-Semitic parties are gaining power in Hungary, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Here at home, where hurricane victims are cleaning up from inundating floods, Elon Musk’s X carries anti-Semitic charges that “Jews are conspiring to orchestrate the disasters, sabotage the recovery, or even seize victims’ property.”[ii] 

So I struggle with anti-Semitism. 

I have never believed that anti-Semitism is some metaphysical pollutant, indelibly soldered into world culture. The scientifically minded historian in me seeks a causal chain that links Nazi anti-Semitism to Islamic anti-Semitism. Küntzel provides that link. 

But here’s the rub: Having been traumatized by Islamic radicalism in 2001, Americans should have rallied to, and remained steadfast allies of, Israel. Many did, but many did not. I am no apologist for Israel’s right-wing coalition; I abhor the settler-movement on the West Bank; I deplore the Jewish thugs who carry it out. But the Hamas attack had nothing to do with that.  It would have happened anyway. And yet, so many Americans replaced their horror at the Hamas massacre with their vilification of its Jewish victims. Any rational argument accusing Israel of an overly destructive retaliation would at least deplore as well the Hamas attack and call for the release of innocent Jewish hostages. That does not happen. Opposition to Israel is not rational. 

No one I know has cheered the tragedy of children dying in Gaza. But Palestinian activists — even UN agency teachers — cheered wildly at the Hamas carnage.[iii] On October 10, just three days after the attack (before the Israeli response even began) the Harvard Student Body declared “the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence. Today’s events did not occur in a vacuum. For the last two decades, millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to live in an open-air prison.”[iv]

They were partly right. Gazans have indeed “been forced to live in an open-air prison.” But who is the culprit? Israel or Hamas? The Modern War Institute at West Point estimates the extent of the Hamas tunnel system to be somewhere between 350 and 450 miles long, and costing “as much as a billion dollars”![v] Canada’s Mackenzie Institute (which specializes in security and military intelligence) details a further eleven billion dollars held by just three Hamas leaders living in Qatar.[vi] How many starving children would all those billions of dollars have fed?

And the rockslides continue. Just yesterday, the one-year anniversary of the Hamas bloodbath, New York Public Radio’s Gothamist Daily reported hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters gathered on Columbia’s campus, chanting, “Free, free Palestine,” and, “There is only one solution, intifada, revolution.” Read that as “only one solution, violence, violence, by any means possible.” The organizer of this and other protests is Within Our Lifetime, whose cofounder, Nerdeen Kiswani, a Palestinian American CUNY Law School alumnus supports the complete replacement of the state of Israel with one called Palestine.[vii]

None of this is (or should be) actual news. It is a new-year reflection on the heaviness of time and the exacting struggle that it demands from us who are buried under it. How bad can history get? Will the American democratic experiment come to an end? How long can so many well-meaning observers miss the anti-Semitism behind the Hamas/Al-Qaeda Islamism?  How deep does university anti-Semitism go? How much war can Israel manage without losing the peace at the other end?

The Yom Kippur message of human frailty seems especially apt now. I look forward to the sound of the shofar at the day’s conclusion, a long blast that heralds my own task for 5785: to hold out hope on all these fronts, in part by digging my way through the avalanche of the past year, and rescuing memories of the way our lives once were, and the way, perhaps, they can be again. As hard as it is to recall those buried years, I know this much: underneath the rubble lie tales of kindness, hope and happiness. 

When archeologists unearth specimens of the past, they display them in museums for visitors to see. They are a mixed bag: the artistry of the human spirit; but also weapons of war. I am an archeologist of pre-5784, excavating memories of times when wars were fought and people killed, but when, also, optimism ruled; when anti-Semitism was something we studied, not something we feared; when extremes both on the left and on the right were just that – extremes; and when beauty and science and love and laughter were our lot.  

[i] “German expert warns: Islamist and European antisemitism now dangerously intertwined,” Jerusalem Post (September 26,2024).

[ii] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/10/08/hurricane-helene-antisemitic-misinformation-x/.

[iii] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/u-n-agency-teachers-cheered-hamas-as-october-attack-unfolded-called-for-execution-of-jews-in-group-chat/; https://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-palestinians-celebrate-hamas-attack-as-israel-supporters-rally-in-new-york/.

[iv] https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/10/psc-statement-backlash/.

[v] https://mwi.westpoint.edu/gazas-underground-hamass-entire-politico-military-strategy-rests-on-its-tunnels/.

[vi] https://mackenzieinstitute.com/2023/11/hamass-top-leaders-are-worth-billions-heres-how-they-continue-to-grow-rich/.

[vii] Jessica Gould  and Bahar Ostradan, “Hundreds of Columbia students walk out as NYC campuses brace for Oct. 7 protests,” Gothamist Daily (October 7, 2024).

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , ,

Open Letter to My Students 66: Nostalgia and the State of the World – Why we are the way we are.

Posted on July 10, 2024 | 1 comment

Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be – and that’s no joke. So what was it once and what is it now? We should care because it explains the West Bank Settlers in Israel, White Christian Nationalists in America, the right-wing successes of Europe, and even the American Supreme Court.

            The expert on nostalgia was Svetlana Boym, a Jewish émigré from the former Soviet Union, who taught at Harvard, and died too young (just 56 years old). As Boym tells the story,[i] the word “nostalgia” was coined by a Swiss  physician, Johannes Hofer, in 1688. He considered it a disease treatable by leeches (OMG), opium (worse), and restful vacations in the Alps (better).  

            “Nostalgia” was his second choice for a name. At first, he tried philopatridomania, which (unsurprisingly) didn’t catch on but which translates as something like “an overly developed love of home.” “Nostalgia” derives from the Greek, algos (“pain, longing”) and nostos (a word denoting a mythic hero’s homecoming). The German Heimweh (“home pain”) captures it exactly.

            So nostalgia used to be a personal yearning to return home to a better time or place. Centuries of diasporan “exile” made Jews the prototypically nostalgic people: for a place (Lashanah haba’ah birushalayim, “Next year in Jerusalem”) and a time (chadesh yameinu k’kedem, “Renew our days as of old”).

            This sort of nostalgia is overall harmless: just the practice of sugar-coating selective reminiscences of the way we think we were: “a romance with one’s own fantasies” says Boym, or (at worst) “hypochondria of the heart.” She labels it “reflective.” It is what nostalgia used to be. But all over the world, nostalgia has now morphed into a different and distinctly dangerous variety that Boym labels “restorative.” Historian Marc Lilla prefers calling it “militant.”[ii]

            Restorative/militant nostalgia seeks not just to reflect on what is lost, but to recover it. It fantasizes conspiracies by enemies who are destroying the old and the good for their own nefarious purposes. Hitler’s Germany is the best example. Putin’s Russia is not far behind.  

            Like pretty much every empire throughout time, restorationists thrive on uniting the power of the state with the ideology of religion. David and Solomon needed their priesthood. Constantine empowered early Christianity. Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne. Henry VIII founded his own Church of England. Putin works closely with the Russian Orthodox Patriarch. The racist claim to keeping America white justifies itself because it will be a white Christian nationalism.  

            Both church and state, however, draw heavily on the glue of ethnicity, the good old days when it is imagined that we were all “authentically” the same: minorities are, at best, sidelined; at worst, demonized and victimized. There is little room in Modi’s India for Muslims. Arab Muslims in northern Sudan are even now eradicating non-Arab Muslims in the south. A militant settler movement in Israel cites the Bible to justify expelling West Bank Arabs.

*

            Restorative nostalgia is part of a larger picture: a centuries-long struggle between head and heart, reason (on one hand) and romanticism (on the other).

            The Age of Reason (17th-18th centuries) celebrated the head, with a claim that as much as people may look different on the outside, we are all creatures of reason on the inside — all the same, that is. It gave birth to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) whose philosophy assumes universal human reason and arrives at equally universal human duty. Or, earlier (1685-1750), Johann Sebastian Bach, whose fugues are mathematically precise and appealing to both ear and mind.

            This dependence on reason was behind the French Revolution’s call for universalist values of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”; and its mission to end the unreasonable differences in privilege that marked the old order. Napoleon’s intended breakup of that order was a logical extension. Unsurprisingly, the European aristocracies who were threatened by that breakup exchanged head for heart: not universal reason but a romance with ethnic/nationalist tribalism. Germany for Germans; France for the French. Instead of Kant, we got Hegel, who thought the spirit of history was inexorably evolving into its preordained end, the superior German state. Instead of Bach, we got Wagner (1813-1883), whose operas glorify Germanic myths of origin.

            World War I was the natural outgrowth of this romanticized particularism, where each of the warring nations distrusted all the others. And Germany of World War II is a textbook case of restorative nostalgia militarized.

            When WW II ended, the seesaw of head and heart resumed. At first,  reasoned universalism made its comeback. The American variety stressed worldwide democracy and open-market capitalism; the Soviet alternative underscored the interests of the international proletariat. Both sought to remake the world in their own version of a universalist tomorrow. 

            When the Iron Curtain fell, only the American variety survived, and with it, a strengthened European union, globalism unbound, free trade, and capitalism unleashed: all of it, the new gospel for liberal intellectuals.

            But Jobs migrated to Asia; computers replaced people; the wealth gap widened; and religion was sidelined. A deluge of immigrants and the reality of a black president threatened the white ethnics who blamed the liberal universalist era for passing them by. So in 2016, romanticism returned with restorative nostalgia. Unsurprisingly, adherents of MAGA (Make America great again) denounce universal scientific reasoning behind vaccines and masks.

            American restorationists today romanticize the good old days of the 1950s, where (they imagine) America was mostly white and Protestant. The Supreme Court’s fetish with “originalism” is itself rooted in the assumption that the guiding wisdom of our founding fathers will overturn the liberal universalist order and reproduce the golden years when America was already great (never mind the extermination of Native Indians and an economy dependent on black slaves).

            Unlike the right, the woke left has no delusions about returning to yesteryear. But the same return to romanticism informs its claim that aggrieved minorities must hunker down behind “our own kind.” Men cannot understand women; whites cannot comprehend blacks. Hence the rise of anti-Semitism on the right and on the left, both of them romanticized, tribalized, and militant enemies of the universalists’ love affair with reason and the way we are all the same. 

            I love being a Jew; I think the Jewish People matters – but as part of a divine mission where all peoples draw upon their specificities to make their own unique contributions to a better world for all. That makes me an unrepentant universalist. Restorationist nostalgia on the right and romantic tribalism on the left will eventually end, I know. In the meantime, I write letters like this and practice having patience.   

[i] Svetlana Boym, The Future of Nostalgia (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 3.

[ii] Mark Lilla, “The Tower and the Sewer,” New York Review of Books,  June 20, 2024, p. 14.

1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Open Letter to My Students 65: Thoughts on Israel Part 2: The Student Protests in Perspective

Posted on May 16, 2024 | Leave a comment

It’s time to see the campus protests in perspective. Why do students protest? And how does a Zionist like me respond?

            The “why” has many answers. 

            Start with the human urge to matter. When you’ve given or heard your share of eulogies, you realize that except for their immediate families, most people, for most of their lives, don’t live for anything terribly profound. They work, travel, golf, take the kids to the doctor, figure out what’s for dinner, go bowling. But deep down inside, there stirs a desire to matter; and to document our mattering for posterity. American soldiers in World War II scrawled graffiti on European walls announcing “Kilroy was here.” Antique shops still sell grammar school desks where generations of students etched initials into the wooden surface.

            There is also a demographic answer. You need a certain amount of leisure time to worry about mattering, and college students have that. Between 1961 and 2010, the weekly average of hours spent studying dropped from 24 to 14.[i]  Add in class time, and you get, roughly, a 30-hour week. Some 17 hours go into socializing, dating, joining groups, having fun. 

            And there is an existential answer. The practice of musing on what life is all about starts in adolescence and deepens at College, where people read, think, discuss, and debate; and when nothing matters quite so much as deciding who we shall become and with whom we shall become it. 

            I mean no disrespect when I say that student protests are the equivalent of marquis lights on Broadway, announcing the next generation’s coming of age, a young people’s version of “Give my regards to Broadway and tell ‘em I’ll be there.” But it is a Broadway-like presence that is endowed with moral purpose, a proclamation that their existence as appendages of their parents has ended, that they are individuals to be taken seriously. It is also what Emil Durkheim called collective effervescence, the experience of being part of something big, grand and glorious: we are not alone; we are one among hundreds, even thousands, united in a cause beyond ourselves.

            The cause varies: in July of 1908, Young Turks overthrew the Ottoman Sultanate and founded modern Turkey. On May 10/11, 1968, some 40,000 French students marched to champion the Marxism of Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and Mao Zedong. On May 4, 1970, student protests against the War in Vietnam climaxed with the killing of four Kent State students in Ohio. The list goes on and on: Students Against Apartheid in South Africa; student sit-ins in the Jim Crow segregationist south. And now, student solidarity with Palestinians. 

            Not all causes are alike; not all of them turn out, in retrospect, to be equally legitimate or even desirable. The same Young Turks who brought down the Ottoman sultanate later launched the Armenian genocide. France is better off having defeated the Marxists.  

            It’s always tricky trying to learn from history, but a few things seem clear. Student protests come and go. They tend to happen in good weather, often just before students leave school for summer vacations. Protests do have their revolutionaries; they also have an abundance of peaceful and well-intentioned moral activists; but students join for a whole host of reasons, and overall, as in any crowd behavior, most participants have not deeply studied the issues in question. Even the slogans they yell can mean different things to different people.  

            It follows that in the campus protests now roiling our country, we should avoid tarring everyone with the same brush. I will ignore for now the “fellow travelers” who join protests mostly for the effervescent thrill of it all – a not inconsiderable proportion, actually. But even the seriously engaged ones span a gamut of opinions and motivations. Some of them really are bad actors: haters of Israel, anti-Semites who celebrate the Hamas butchery (rapes, murders and all), and would demolish Israel and kill every Jew in it, if they could. But most of the students are in other categories. A good number of them are legitimately horrified by images of Gazan civilians buried under bombed out rubble or lacking medicine, food and water.       

            Whether you agree with the cause or not, some of the students quite legitimately protest in favor of a Palestinian State and, by extension, against Israel’s right-wing government which has done everything it can to make such a state impossible. If I were of Palestinian descent, I would probably do the same thing. And there are lots of Jews involved, Jews who are no less Jewish because they despise the current Israeli coalition and abhor the suffering of innocents in Gaza. I do wish they showed parallel sympathy for the traumatized Israelis who just want to return home and live out their lives without being attacked again. But they are not our enemies; not traitors to the Jewish cause. We know these people. They are our children, our students, our families; They are us. 

            There is much about the protests to deplore: the biased presentation of Israel as the enemy; the group amnesia that conveniently forgets the Hamas barbarism that began the war; the politicized left-wing faculty who advocate rather than teach, enflame rather than instruct. But the Israeli government is, at the very least, complicit, if only because of its West Bank policies that compromised its moral high ground years ago and that continue unchecked each day. It’s complicated, and, as I recall from my own student days, students are genetically endowed to take sides without necessarily reveling in nuance. Their parents and grandparents who have learned to balance complexities should not rush to the ramparts to embrace simplicities on the other side. 

            One such simplicity would be to overgeneralize anti-Semitism as the dominant motivation. We should recognize that one can, sometimes, criticize Israel but still be proudly Jewish. It is also true that even poorly advised protests can sometimes have positive outcomes: the French Revolution’s reign of terror was a horrendous chapter in world history; but “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” still rings true. 

            I believe that Israel must achieve security and safety for its inhabitants; but I worry about the cost to innocent human life, and suspect that Israel is being drawn into the morass of guerrilla warfare that is inherently unwinnable (think Vietnam and Afghanistan) – especially if it leaves Israel without allies and alienates it from the next generation of Diaspora Jews. I am outraged by its failure to reign in the extreme right wing, who do believe in ethnic cleansing, and are trying to finish off the west bank while no one is looking. 

            I believe that this moment in time calls on us Diaspora Jews to strengthen the hand of Israeli protesters against this government. I believe that Israel need not stand alone; it can reaffirm its ties to allies, first and foremost the United States itself. I believe that war is indeed hell; that this war cannot end too soon. And I hope that when it does, it will not be too late for the Jewish People, in Israel and beyond, to regain its moment in the moral sun.

[i] Cf. https://flaglerlive.com/college-study-time/#gsc.tab=0; https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED511233.

Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Open Letter to My Students 64: Thoughts on Israel Part 1: I am a Zionist. So are Lots of People Who Say They are Not. Back to Basics. And What I Fear Most.

Posted on May 13, 2024 | 9 comments

This is not the first time the word “Zionist” has come under attack. Back in 1975, 72 nations supported a United Nations resolution that called Zionism “a form of racism and racist discrimination (35 nations were opposed; 32 abstained). The resolution was reversed in 1991. But here we are again, no UN resolution this time round (at least so far), but, instead, international student protesters, many of them Jewish. Most of them have never known a Jewish state governed by anyone except Benjamin Netanyahu – who is part of what I fear most: but more on that later. 

                  So back to basics: What is Zionism anyway? Put simply, it is the belief in the legitimacy of and the moral obligation to support a Jewish state — first and foremost, to protect Jews from persecution, and even outright obliteration; secondarily, to exercise the right of every people to pursue its own religious and cultural artistry.

                  Especially in the light of attempts by Nazi Germany (but also Czarist Russia, Stalin’s USSR, and others) to eradicate Jews from the face of the earth, most Jews I know – indeed, most people I know – are, therefore, Zionists. What even these Zionists may fail to grasp is that a Jewish state is not just a minor appendage to what makes Judaism what it is; the existence of a Jewish homeland has, since biblical times, been a sine qua non of Jewish being. 

                  A Jewish commonwealth of some sort goes back to King David some 3,000 years ago. In medieval times, the area was contested by warring Christians and Muslims, but throughout it all, Jewish settlements of some sort remained, while Jews outside the Land prayed regularly to return “home.” Open the Bible that is central to Judaism, almost at random, and the Land, this land, is already there.

                  The idea of Zionism as a modern nation state, however, is more recent. Pretty much none of the Middle Eastern states existed until after World War I, when the Ottoman Empire that owned most of it was dismantled and the victorious powers (England and France) carved them out: Syria here, Jordan there, Jewish Palestine elsewhere, and so on.  None of them were independent at first; they were all colonial creations. Only eventually did they develop their own sense of nationalistic selves.

                  In the competition for independence there were winners and losers. The various Arab states in the region expelled their Jews – who settled in Israel and were absorbed there as examples of the very persecuted Jews for whom the Jewish state was founded. But the people we call Palestinians faired more poorly. When the surrounding Arab states decided not to admit the existence of a Jewish state, but, rather, to attack it, Arabs within that state were displaced as well. Some fled the war zone, expecting that an Arab victory would enable them to return. But also, the Jewish government under attack by Arabs without feared the rise of Arabs within as a fifth column, and expelled many of them. These are the Palestinians who were not absorbed by neighboring Arab nations, and who have ever since been living largely in refugee camps. Various powers have arisen to represent them, Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its successor the Palestinian Authority (PA), first and foremost. Hamas is a terrorist organization that fought the Palestinian Authority and emerged victorious in Gaza, from which it seeks to eliminate Israel and its Jews.

                      But—there is a big “but.” The current Israeli government is itself a corruption of the Zionism that I and my many friends espouse.  My Zionism believes that every people deserves a national home. To be sure, the nationals who inhabit such a home would have to admit the legitimacy of a Jewish state next door, and so far, that has not happened. But the Israeli government has played its own role in discouraging a peaceful solution. Among other things, it has empowered Israeli hyper-nationalists to persecute Arab farmers and take over their land on the West Bank. The current Israeli coalition, in particular, includes religious extremists and nationalist expansionists who are indeed racist and who behave like the fascist thugs of Mussolini’s time.  

                  My kind of Zionism deplores that kind of Jewish government. It accepts the claim of Palestinians to have a home of their own – the two-state solution, as it has been called. Hamas rejects that solution: hence its attack, designed to frighten Israelis away from any Palestinian state at all, lest it too be taken over by Hamas-type anti-Israel and anti-Semitic fanatics.

                  Can you oppose those Israeli governmental policies that you judge as immoral? My Zionism says it is not just possible but mandatory. 

                  Can you oppose Israeli policies yet not be anti-Semitic? My Zionism says you can, as long as your solution is governmental/political policy change, not the dissolving of the Jewish state as somehow illegitimate.

                  Can you oppose the continuing war on humanitarian grounds and still be a Zionist? You can, as long as your opposition does not whitewash away the actual culprits on the other side, Hamas; and as long as you support the principle of Israel’s legitimacy and the right of Israel to protect itself (like any other sovereign nation). 

                  Can you join others to advocate for a Palestinian state and still be a faithful Jew? You can, as long as your partners in protest do not advocate or sloganize about such a state as being a replacement of Israel; and as long as they and you do not imagine that the entire Palestinian condition has been brought about entirely by Israel. International politics is messy; only in misguided ideological posturing is there always a single bad-guy oppressor and a single good-guy victim.

                  I, frankly, do not see how Jews cannot be Zionists. Do we really believe that anti-Semitism is gone for good? That Jews will never need a haven that guarantees us the right of sanctuary, with sufficient independence and means to guarantee it? Are we really in denial about the threat of Hamas, of Iran, or Hezbollah; and their desire to murder every one of Israel’s 7,000,000 Jews? I doubt it.

                  But here’s the kicker: the Netanyahu government’s alliance with the right-wing settlers movement that is systematically menacing and even murdering West Bank Arab farmers, in what truly is an exercise in ethnic cleansing. One argument to oppose the war is the terrible slaughter in Gaza, which less and less looks either militarily or morally sustainable. Another is the immediate need to elect a new government that will roll back the specter of west-bank Jewish fascism. Were the settlers to win, I would still be a Zionist but a theoretical one, supporting a Jewish state, but not the semi-fascist one that it becomes.  

                  Proper Zionism is neither racist nor oppressive. It is the Jewish People’s right to a Jewish state in its historic homeland; to live there in peace and harmony; and to extract from our own experience as an oppressed minority the obligation to oppose the parallel oppression of others.

9 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,