Blogcritics Author: amechad

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

Book Review: Palestine - Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter

amechad — Thu, 1 Feb 2007 07:04:31 EST

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter is committed to the idea of peace. He helped broker the peace deal between Egypt and Israel after they were unable to come to agreement amongst themselves. He has long engaged in second-track diplomacy efforts in places such as Haiti and North Korea. The Carter Center has monitored elections around the world and provided forums to discuss ways to improve the world and bring peace. His support for the "ecumenical Christian" Habitat for Humanity program has provided homes for people around the world. Yet, in his latest work Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter -- by defending violence and through an unbalanced, polemical presentation -- has violated basic principles of conflict resolution and has worked against the basic principles of peace.His book is intended to convince America's Christian community to not support Israel. It is replete with statements reminiscent of a long and painful history of Christian anti-Semitism. Carter makes spurious claims of Israeli discrimination against the Christian Palestinian population, but totally ignores the serious charges of abuses of Christians by the Palestinian Authority and Islamic radicals such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In recalling his first visit to Israel, he claims that Samaritan accusations of disrespect by Israeli authorities were "the same complaints heard by Jesus and his disciples almost two thousand years earlier." Carter acknowledges that his views on Israel are shaped by his fundamentalist Christianity. He recalls a conversation in 1967 with Golda Meir in which he "said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government." It is quite odd that Carter berates Israel for its secular character, as Israeli Jews, just like European Christians mostly identify as secular. Would he level the same charges against Europe? Probably not.Carter's tome is surprisingly shoddy. Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University resigned as a distinguished fellow from the Carter Center in protest of what he referred to as a work "replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments." Professor Stein noted that his recollection of events has "little similarity to points claimed in the book." Dr. Stein noted that "Being a former President does not give one a unique privilege to invent information."Seven years after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, the author accuses Israel of still occupying portions of Lebanon. Carter claims, on page 98, that Israel retains "its presence only in Shebaa Farms." This attempt to accuse Israel of violating international law is just one of too many false accusations levelled against Israel. In 2004, Kofi Annan noted that Israel was not occupying Lebanon. A 2005 report by the UN Security Council noted that the "blue line", which does not include the Shebaa Farm area, serves as Lebanon's border and recognizes that Israel is in compliance with all United Nations resolutions calling for a withdrawal to Lebanon's international border. Carter's defence of Hezbollah's claims of Lebanese sovereignty over the Shebaa Farms area is in direct defiance of international law and numerous statements from the United Nations. Not only are Carter's statements false, but they also do not lead to peace.In a recollection of Carter's first meeting with Yasser Arafat in France in 1990, Carter claims that he "pushed him [Arafat] to fulfill his Oslo promise to modify the PLO charter to accept Israel's existence" yet the Oslo Accords were not signed until September 1993! How could Carter push Arafat to modify commitments that he would not make until three years later? If Carter is able to make such blatant errors in his book, how many other false statements has he made? How can one tell where falsity ends and fact begins? This is not an issue of political disputes or disagreeing with Carter's viewpoints but rather the falsification of fact. As one analyst noted, "facts are bipartisan," but yet Carter seems to not be able to distinguish fact from fantasy.Carter one-sidedly refers to the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and, at times, even parts of the pre-1967 borders of Israel as "Arab territories." Yet, there has been a Jewish presence in Jerusalem and the West Bank since Biblical times – for thousands of years. Carter's labelling of the territories as "occupied Arab territories" is unbalanced and misleading. While there is also an Arab claim to the territories, it is no stronger than the Jewish claim. Carter seems to accept at face value the Islamic concept of "dar al-Islam" in which any land that was under Muslim rule is always Muslim property. If one accepts this Islamic idea (it is odd that Carter, a religious Christian, seems to accept this Muslim category) than one should also refer to Spain, Portugal and Italy as "occupied Arab territory."Carter even acknowledges that some of his claims are false, including his inflammatory and false use of the term "apartheid." Despite Carter's use of the term, he has publicly acknowledged in numerous forums that the term "apartheid" is not an accurate term to describe Israel and its thriving democracy. In a recent letter responding to his critics, President Carter noted that "in Israel ... a democracy exists with all the freedoms we enjoy in our country [the United States] and Israeli Jews and Arabs are legally guaranteed the same rights as citizens." Carter defends noted human rights abuses and abusers. He claims that Syria is unwilling to accommodate with Israel due to Israel's control of the Golan Heights, ignoring Syria's long history as a dictatorship that represses its own people. Despite Hafez al-Assad's refusal to visit the United States due to an invitation from Carter in a "polite but firm rebuff," Carter describes him as "very intelligent, eloquent, and frank." He often has very positive things to say about dictators, but very little positive to say about Israel's democratically elected leadership. He has defended Syria's 30-year occupation of Lebanon. Carter spends several pages in Palestine defending Saudi Arabia and idealizing it as coming out of Arabian Nights. While he mentions that on his visit, he went off with the men while his wife "was whisked off to visit Saudi women, who were in a different camp entirely, over the sand dunes and out of sight," his romanticizing of the Saudi regime's segregation and oppression leave the reader to wonder if Carter really is committed to human rights in the Middle East. The official policy of the State of Israel has always been a two-state solution. As Carter notes, survey after survey shows that Israelis yearn for peace. From the dovish Meretz to the hawkish Yisrael Beiteinu and National Union parties, Israelis yearn for peace and have supported territorial compromise in exchange for peace in secure and defensible borders. While Israel is not perfect, there is a vibrant debate in Israeli society. Israelis understand that the actions implemented to prevent murder and harm to innocent Israelis of all religions prevent hardships to many Palestinians. They look forward to the day when courageous leaders, like Anwar Sadat, will come forward to make peace with Israel. As President Carter himself noted, "the majority of Israelis sincerely want a peaceful existence with their neighbors." It is unfortunate that President Carter has forgotten his own words, and forgotten his own quest for peace, in his screed. Sadly, as all Israelis look forward and hope for the day in which Palestinians and Israelis will live side-by-side in two states for two peoples, one-sided attacks by people like President Carter do not serve the cause of peace and coexistence so desired by Israel. Israel is committed to working with the Palestinians toward a peaceful, diplomatic solution where both sides can have a better future.

amechad lives in Jerusalem where he is a fellow at an Israeli non-profit organization. He holds a masters degree in Israeli Society & Politics from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Book Review: Contemporary Orthodox Judaism Responds to Modernity by Barry Freundel

amechad — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:23:00 EDT

In 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle made a famous speech in which he decried the lack of what he called “family values” in American society. Quayle was talking to all segments of American society. Yet, Rabbi Barry Freundel, rabbi of Kesher Israel synagogue in Washington DC and a professor at the Baltimore Hebrew University and a teacher of mine, believes that these values can be learned from Judaism. Freundel notes, in fact, that much of Quayle’s speech was paraphrased from a sermon he gave on the pulpit and brought to Quayle by his speechwriter, then a member of Freundel’s synagogue. In this age of modernity and secularism, many Jews see secular values as their values. Rabbi Barry Freundel sees this as a serious problem. Hence, he hopes to educate his fellow Jews, both religious and secular, in the values of traditional Judaism (which Quayle’s speechwriter refers to as “family values”) in his book Contemporary Orthodox Judaism’s Response to Modernity.I had an undergraduate course with Rabbi Freundel and so reading this book was a refreshing review of that course and a wonderful reexamination of Rabbi Freundel‘s insights.Rabbi Freundel shows a wonderful array of perception in his book. In his chapter on Israel, he decries the lack of Jewish values in the secular educational system and notes, with despair, that the only major American immigration to Israel (albeit still tiny) is of Orthodox Jews because, without a religious basis, Israel loses its meaning. As a recent immigrant, I can certainly attest to Freundel’s insight about Israel. If only he were here to bring some of that rabbinic insight to Jerusalem! Freundel rightly notes that “removing the Judaic quality of the state removes much of the rationale for its existence and for people continuing to put their lives on the line to maintain it. After all, why risk the dangers - unless there is an ideological component challenging people to make so great a sacrifice?”While insightful, some of Freundel’s discernments show the reactionary nature of contemporary American Orthodoxy. As the title notes, Orthodox Judaism is responding to modernity. By responding, there are times, such as in the case of women, in which Freundel seems to ignore the stagnation of halakhic development and ignores the reactionary nature of much of contemporary American Orthodoxy. While noting that the blessing thanking God for not making “me a woman” was initially a reaction to Christianity and not intended to be misogynist, Freundel notes that the corresponding blessing “who has made me according to His will” said by traditional women, was instituted only in the past millennium and was instituted for a different reason than its predecessor blessing. Yet, despite acknowledging that the blessing “who has not made me a woman” was written by humans and responded to a situation that does not exist anymore, no suggestion is made of amending the blessing to reflect positive values that are not offensive to women.While, in certain circumstances, Rabbi Freundel talks about the pluralism of views in the Orthodox world, at other times he falls short. While Freundel personally follows the view of the majority of modern Orthodoxy in accepting brain death (the position of Rabbi Moshe Tendler of Yeshiva University), he also illustrates to his readers the opposing view of Rabbi J. David Bleich and Rabbi Hershel Schachter, also of Yeshiva University, who oppose the classification of brain death as a valid halakhic definition of death. When discussing the controversial issue of abortion, Freundel stakes out a middle ground, in which he rejects the extremism of both the pro-choice and the pro-life position. Yet, he provides the reader with a discussion of the divergent positions held by the classical commentator Rashi and Rambam. In applying their positions to modern times, he illustrates the equal validity of the positions of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who prohibits the abortion of a Tay-Sachs baby, vs. the position of Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, who would permit it in certain cases. Yet, perhaps because those positions are less controversial in the interdenominational debates, he does not extend the same pluralism to his discussion of the position of women in Orthodox Judaism.Rabbi Freundel claims that “Beyond the borders of Orthodox acceptability are… [services] that allow women to be called to the Torah, and, perhaps, also to lead some limited parts of the service.” A handful of Freundel’s colleagues, such as Prof. Daniel Sperber (a professor of Talmud at the Orthodox Bar-Ilan University in Israel), have openly advocated women layning Torah in mixed settings in Orthodox minyanim. Freundel would also have to argue that services such as those held at Kehillah Orath Eliezar (KOE) and Darchei Noam in New York City or Shira Hadasha in Jerusalem, despite being sanctioned by several Orthodox rabbis and some of the greatest living scholars of Jewish philosophy, are outside the boundaries of Orthodox acceptability. While the Orthodox community is still debating the legitimacy of such services, to completely read them out of Orthodox at such an early point in the debate, shows a partisan position of Freundel which challenges an otherwise pluralistic attitude.Freundel also shows a partisan bias in his discussion of conversion. While he notes that conversion requires a commitment to Jewish observance, as well as immersion in the mikvah (ritual bath) for both men and women and ritual circumcision for men, he fails to explain why he would not recognize Conservative conversions which meet the aforementioned criteria. While the Talmud only requires that “a few of the ‘light’ commandments and a few of the ‘heavy’ commandments” be told of a potential convert, most Orthodox conversions today require the potential convert to be fully observant - a much higher burden than the Talmud (Yevamot 47a) sets out. Freundel does not adequately explain this nor the contradiction between the Talmudic passage and his outright rejection of all Conservative conversions. Of course, as a spokesperson for American Orthodoxy, as a partisan in the debate, this polemic may not be adequately explainable. While devoting the first 30 chapters to general topics of theology and halakha, Rabbi Freundel chooses to conclude his work with an important essay on the Holocaust and Jewish survival. Concluding with a challenge about the meaning of God in the aftermath of the enormous destruction that was Churban Europe -- the destruction of European Jewry -- Freundel raises some questions that he can not answer. Yet, at a time in which European anti-Semitism is resurgent and civilized and educated people justify radical Islamic terrorism which threatens Jews in Israel and around the world, the questions raised by the Holocaust must confront all Jews today with a new urgency. Freundel calls for Jews to return to the values of their heritage, as the Holocaust -- to have any meaning -- must teach us the value of every Jewish soul. Freundel notes that while Jews may have heartfelt disagreements with one another, it is imperative that such discourse is for the purpose of healing, rather than hurting. At a time in which there are leaders in Israel who call for the death of Israel’s Prime Minister, Rabbi Freundel’s call for healing poses an important call for each of us.It is fitting that Freundel concludes his book on Orthodoxy’s response to modernity with the observation that “Any ideology such as that of the Nazis or contemporary terrorists, that promotes and even glorifies mass murder of innocents must be combated as vigorously as possible on every level: militarily, economically, and perhaps most importantly, ideologically." As Freundel goes on, "It is only by presenting a better and more ennobling vision of existence and by winning people to that vision that we can finally do away with the threat that we face.” Freundel notes that “the sanctity and infinite worth of life as the core value of contemporary society must be preached, taught, and reiterated.” Freundel concludes by explaining that these points “can only be accomplished if we allow ourselves to base our own lives and the underlying philosophy of our society on appropriate objective values,” -- such as those which Freundel lays out.Hopefully, if we can incorporate some of the values described by Freundel, we will be able to do a small part to rebuild what was lost in the Holocaust and rebuild the dream of the Jewish people in the Jewish homeland. Now that’s what I call “family values.”

amechad lives in Jerusalem where he is a fellow at an Israeli non-profit organization. He holds a masters degree in Israeli Society & Politics from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Book Review: Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition by Steven Greenberg

amechad — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:32:04 EDT

The topic of homosexuality in the Jewish tradition has recently become a fervent cause for debate. In the 1990s, the Reform movement decided to ordain homosexuals as rabbis, while, at the same time, the Conservative movement, after painful deliberations, decided to refuse to ordain openly homosexual rabbis - a decision the movement is now painfully revisiting and which threatens to split the movement apart in December. Yet, until recently, many in the Orthodox world pretended that religiously committed homosexuals did not exist. That changed with the release of the award-winning documentary Trembling before G-d, which, for the first time, publicly told the stories of gay and lesbian Orthodox and haredi men and women in a manner that was intellectually honest, compassionate, and respectful of the current halakhic prohibitions relating to certain homosexual activity.I first viewed Trembling before G-d at a screening in Jerusalem in which several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Steven Greenberg, the first Orthodox rabbi to openly declare his homosexuality, spoke. At the screening, an audience member asked Rabbi Greenberg about the concept of ones -- sin under duress -- if it could serve as a halakhic way around the prohibition of male homosexual activity. The concept of ones has been talked about in the halakhic discourse surrounding homosexuality and Rabbi Greenberg brings it up himself, although only for a few pages, in Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition. I was stunned by the answer of this Orthodox rabbi. Rabbi Greenberg responded that he was not a posek -- a decisor of Jewish law, and therefore succeeded in avoiding the question of the applicability to the concept of ones to those engaged in homosexual relationships, raised by many compassionate people concerned both about the integrity of the halakhic process and the plight and suffering of observant gay and lesbian individuals.After hearing Rabbi Greenberg essentially say he did not want to grapple with the halakhic foundations of homosexuality in the observant community, it was a surprise to learn a year later that Rabbi Greenberg released Wrestling with God and Men as an attempt to formulate a new communal and halakhic response to homosexuality in the observant Jewish community.Greenberg makes numerous arguments to argue for communal acceptance of homosexuality and the elimination, through revolutionary readings of the textual sources, of the biblical prohibition of male-male intercourse. For understandable reasons, but lamentably, Greenberg spends very little time dealing with the halakhic issues surrounding lesbian relationships and more time -- but regrettably not enough -- with the rabbinic prohibition of male homosexual relationships. He dismisses the prohibition against lesbianism by stating that “when the issue of lesbian relations is raised, Orthodox rabbis are ready to admit that the Torah contains no admonition against sex between women.” (90) Yet, despite his admission that, through exegesis one can in fact find lesbian relationships prohibited deorita (biblically), Greenberg claims that because there is no explicit prohibition against lesbianism in the Torah so therefore its prohibition is merely a modern rabbinic invention - ignoring the fact that much of halakhic Jewish practice is based on rabbinic prohibitions. Modern Judaism is one in which rabbinic Judaism rules, as opposed to the Karaites, an ancient group devoted to strict interpretation of the Written Torah. In order to explore how Judaism confronts homosexuality, one must explore the rabbinic literature’s statements about lesbianism which -- unfortunately -- Greenberg covers only briefly. Greenberg, while attempting to formulate a new halakhic approach to homosexuality, devotes only one chapter, less than twelve pages to approaching the biblical verses in Leviticus which are commonly understood to prohibit minimally male-male anal sex despite the supreme primacy of such verses and its rabbinic commentary. This may be because Rabbi Greenberg's aim for this book is for it to be popular and widely read among laymen and not simply a teshuva (rabbinic responsa) about homosexuality that would be read by a larger number of halakhically-committed Jews. Unfortunately, perhaps due to a publisher decision, this book is not likely to reach much of the Orthodox community, partly owing to the risqué front cover featuring a homoerotic portrait entitled “Jacob Wrestling with the Angel.”The crux of Greenberg’s argument is based on a revolutionary new reading of the prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 that “Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, it is a toevah (usually translated as abomination).” Greenberg proposes a revolutionary re-reading of the biblical text to prohibit only violent sexual encounters between men or women. While creative (and an important statement on the prohibition of domestic violence in Judaism), relying solely on a rereading of a biblical verse is a methodologically flawed approach of enacting halakhic change.While social change does (despite some claims to the contrary) have an impact on halakhic change, the ability to do so today is extremely limited and the need for change must be recognized before the halakha changes (a position Greenberg briefly mentions when referring to Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook’s concept of “halakhic civil disobedience”). It is clear that the halakhic position outlined by Greenberg would take -- at best -- several hundred years to become legitimately recognized as halakhically valid by a large segment of the observant community.In defining a compromise position on the debate, Rabbi Greenberg mentions the concept of uprooting the prohibition on lesbian relations (generally viewed as a rabbinic prohibition), and arguing that, just as heterosexual couples are forbidden to engage in sexual relations for two weeks out of the month (when the woman is in niddah -- during her menstrual cycle and the week following), so too could consenting adult male homosexuals be permitted to engage in any form of monogamous sexual behavior sans intercourse. In comparing his position with the prohibition of niddah, Greenberg enacts a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy which questions his halakhic seriousness. While correctly noting that the (commonly-violated and Toraitic) prohibition against having sexual relations while in niddah is much more serious than (rabbinic) lesbian sex or non-anal gay sex, by emphasizing the idea that no one should inquire about ones sexual practices regarding homosexual males (as is common with heterosexual couples), Greenberg fails to acknowledge the important pedagogical reality that the prohibitions of niddah should be taught with equal force as the prohibitions against anal sex. In the last section, Rabbi Greenberg sets out certain communal and policy options that can be taken by Orthodox synagogues (and some Conservative synagogues) to ensure an openness to gay and lesbian Jews while also ensuring fealty to the halakhic process. Unless a radical transformation occurs in the way the observant community views homosexuality, this is perhaps the most useful section of the book, in explaining both how a Jewishly-committed homosexual can remain comfortable in a halakhic environment and how a congregational rabbi, committed to halakha and creating an open and welcoming community, can create a community devoted to halakha that is also welcoming to homosexuals. Rabbi Greenberg rightly points out the need for a compassionate and open framework, bounded in halakha, for pastoral counseling for the homosexual looking for a place in the observant community. It is, in fact, in this section that Greenberg lays out the most cogent halakhic framework for how halakhically committed Jews can rectify a commitment to the halakhic process with a desire to be compassionate and pluralistic.While Rabbi Greenberg’s approach to Leviticus is relatively weak, his reading of “mumar lehakhis” (the halakhic construct of a willful transgression) and “mumar leteavon” (this construct refers to someone who violates the law due to an uncontrollable appetite) can be useful in constructing a halakhic response to homosexuality. He notes that, if one assumes that homosexual activity can be classified as coming from a “mumar leteavon,” such construct is used to refer to a variety of activities that technically violate halakha but are committed by large groups of Jews. Socially, by referring to a sexually-active homosexual as someone who is an indulgent transgressor than they have served to equalize them with someone who eats non-kosher food out of lust or many non-observant Jews. The flaw, however, is in applying this category to learned and otherwise observant Jews -- the Orthodox homosexual that Rabbi Greenberg is most concerned about. He also notes the weakness in this approach as “coming out” could serve to turn the mumar leteavon into a mumar lehakhis (a much more serious transgression).Regardless of the outcome of the debate, Rabbi Steven Greenberg’s Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition is a compassionate and refreshing introduction to a conversation that needs to be undergone on how the halakhic system should respond to changing social norms. Greenberg serves to make the point that Orthodox Judaism requires a continual and honest view of the Jewish textual tradition, and that the traditional Orthodox view can not simply be a “no” but must be decided through a clear, comprehensive, and honest analysis of the halakhic issues involved.These are tough social issues, regardless of whether that exploration leads to a new halakhic view of the challenge committed gays and lesbians bring to the halakhic process or whether that exploration leads to a reaffirmation of the traditional ban on homosexual acts. It's an investigation that will, at the very least, help clarify homosexuality in the Jewish tradition as well as serve to show the continued relevance and centrality of the halakhic process to Judaism. Regardless of whether one agrees with Rabbi Greenberg’s arguments or not, he brings a unique point of view that is both committed to tradition and change, and is certainly a welcome voice.

amechad lives in Jerusalem where he is a fellow at an Israeli non-profit organization. He holds a masters degree in Israeli Society & Politics from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.