Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

Some time after King Louis IX returned to France from his first Crusade in 1254, an anonymous French Jew wrote a letter to the king, who would become the only French monarch to ever be canonized in the Catholic Church.

The letter, which was never sent, outlined the painful impact of a series of official actions Saint Louis took against Frances Jews. Focusing on Louis expulsion of Jewish moneylenders one of the few professions Jews had access to from France, the letter accused the king of having sold us into daily destruction, death, and decimation at the hands of the rulers of the land. By seizing the moneylenders property, Louis financed two brutal crusades against Muslims in Egypt and Tunisia. His holy war also wreaked cultural destruction within his own kingdom: In 1240, he organized the Disputation of Paris, a debate over the supposed dangers of the Talmud that resulted in the burning of thousands of copies of the sacred texts.

Today, as protests over George Floyds death have nationally led to the removal of monuments seen as racist, activists in St. Louis, Missouri, named in 1764 for King Louis IX, are considering a more radical question: Should the city, founded by the French and sold to the United States with the Louisiana Purchase, change its name?

Image by Lawrence Thornton/Getty I...

A view of a statue of King Louis IX of France in Forest Park in St. Louis, Missouri. Circa 1950.

Its a sensitive question. St. Louis is one of the most segregated cities in the country, the center of a metropolitan area where the Black Lives Matter movement gained national attention after Michael Browns killing in August, 2014. The city is also home to a powerful Archdiocese, and has a long and rich Catholic history. So while the argument for renaming the city is clear Saint Louiss legacy is painful for both Jews and Muslims some think the effort is a distraction from the pressing issues of racial and economic injustice that have long shaped the region. And others wonder whether focusing on St. Louiss name might hamper interfaith efforts to address those very same issues.

But to proponents of the idea, having a serious conversation about St. Louiss name and removing the citys most prominent tribute to its namesake, an enormous, sword-wielding statue in front of the St. Louis Art Museum is an essential part of any movement to honestly address the citys long history of discrimination.

Ive been talking about this for 20 years, said Umar Lee, a Muslim St. Louis-based writer and activist who has helped lead the push to change the citys name. St. Louiss history, Lee said, has been in many ways defined by state-sanctioned racial prejudice. The early French colonists were slave owners, and made slavery an integral part of the young citys economy. Built across the Mississippi River from Cahokia, a former Native American city that was once one of the largest metropolises in the world, St. Louis played a pivotal role in the federal governments 19th-century campaigns against Native Americans, hosting one of two central offices charged with overseeing what was then known as Indian Removal.

Those two formative events were the start of, in Lees words, a long history of racism and bigotry. And while they may seem far removed from the actions of a 13th-century king, for Lee and his supporters, that history is deeply connected and the name chosen by the French colonists wasnt an accident.

The genocidal movements against Native Americans, anti-Black racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, we have to tie that to religious bigotry, said Lee. In St. Louis we got rid of the Confederate monuments; we got rid of the Columbus monument. Now its time for King Louis the Ninth to go.

The conversation around St. Louiss name, said Rabbi Susan Talve of St. Louiss Central Reform Congregation, has to be contextualized in a broad reassessment of the citys colonial history. Weve been doing this work since Mike Brown was murdered, Talve said. That was a catalyst for diving a bit deeper, and including more people in conversations about what the legacy of slavery, what the legacy of colonialism are in this country.

We have a lot of reparations that we owe in this city, Talve said. We have a lot of shameful history that we have to acknowledge and tell the truth about, if were going to learn from it, and grow beyond it.

To Reverend James Poinsett, a Presbyterian minister and executive director of the Interfaith Partnership of Greater St. Louis, the way forward looks less clear. On June 11, a group of Jewish and Muslim leaders including Talve hosted an interfaith vigil at the base of the Saint Louis statue in front of the art museum. Poinsett, who attended, said he found the argument for removing the statue persuasive. But, he said, its a sensitive issue, especially because of the deep Catholic heritage in this town.

Rabbi Carnie Rose of Bnai Amoona, a Conservative congregation in the western St. Louis suburb of Creve Coeur, agreed. For Catholics, Saint Louis is a very important name, Rose said. This is, to them, a holy figure. In St. Louis, he said, a growing interfaith partnership has begun working toward helping the regions minority populations gain further equity, and he worries too great a focus on the citys name could endanger those efforts. Is this the next step? Does that help, or does that hinder? he asked. Does it [impede] communities coming together across religious divides for the sake of other goals?

Talmud has this statement: Rishon, rishon, first things first, he said.

The Archdiocese of St. Louis did not respond to a request for comment.

A Change.org petition to change St. Louiss name currently has over 600 signatures; the nascent movement has a long way to go. But Lee is already envisioning the future it could achieve. He favors Confluence as a potential new name for the city: It would refer to the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers, but also, potentially, to a new period of reconciliation in the citys painful, prejudiced history.

What might Confluence look like?

Its dedicated to racial equity, dedicated to righting the historical wrongs of St. Louis, Lee said. It has a police department that does not deal with citizens in a violent, oppressive manner. It is open to immigrants, is free of religious bigotry.

We know, if we go into history that forms of prejudice and extremism have always existed in humanity. But we can aspire to greater things.

St. Louis activists: Change our citys name

Read more:

St. Louis was named after an anti-Semitic crusader. Should its name be changed? - Forward

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on St. Louis was named after an anti-Semitic crusader. Should its name be changed? – Forward
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

By: Ebin Sandler

The Rabbinical Alliance of America (RAA) circulated a strongly worded statement on Monday, rejecting in no uncertain terms President Trumps Middle East peace plan.

[The] grandiose Deal of the Century being advocated by the Trump administration may call for the relinquishment of portions of Judea and Samaria for the purposes of making peace, says the statement, which was authored by Rabbi Yaakov Klass, one of four members who sit on the RAA executive committee.

Without hesitation, the [RAA] vehemently in the strongest terms possible calls upon the Israeli government not to acquiesce to the surrender of even one inch of our [holy land] for this Deal of The Century, Klass continues.

The statement supports the RAAs position with passages from Torah and the Talmud related to the concept of Shleimus Haaretz, which refers to the mandate to maintain sovereignty over all territories that fall within the biblical borders of the land of Israel.

The letter also refers to a well-known rabbinical ruling on the topic by Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), the spiritual leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch hasidic movement, who is also known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe admonished against surrendering any land that is part of [the land of Israel]. Under the Rebbes [ruling] and doctrine of Shleimus Haaretz, it is strictly forbidden as a matter of Jewish law to relinquish even one inch of [the land of Israel], which is Holy Land, Klass explains.

He adds, The Lubavitcher Rebbes [ruling] and doctrine of Shleimus Haaretz has been adopted by the Rabbinical Alliance of America as part of our organizational platform and policy.

The RAA issued the statement as Israel approaches a July 1 deadline to begin annexing Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, a plan for which Netanyahus government seeks the approval of the U.S.

Under the vision for peace proposed by the Trump administration, the Palestinians have been offered an independent state in Judea and Samaria, a feature that contravenes the Shleimus Haaretz doctrine and rabbinical ruling referenced in the RAA statement.

The RAAs comments on Monday follow a statement last week that seemed to signal support for Netanyahus sovereignty plan.

Extending sovereignty over Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria is absolutely essential for the future of peace in the Middle East and the world, said Klass in that statement.

Chairman of the RAAs Israel Advocacy Commission Rabbi Joseph Frager added, The RAA supports sovereignty in all existing Jewish towns and villages in Judea and Samaria as well as the Jordan Valley, but does not support a PLO [Palestinian] State.

Around half a million Israelis currently live in Judea and Samaria and the Netanyahu plan calls for annexation of about one-third of the region, leaving the remainder under Palestinian Authority control.

The RAA is a national organization founded in 1942 with over 900 members across a broad spectrum of Orthodox Judaism, who serve as congregational leaders, religious teachers, chaplains, heads of Jewish organizations and communal leaders. (World Israel News)

Please read more at: worldisraelnews.com

View original post here:

'Don't Surrender an Inch of Land': Orthodox Rabbis in US Blast Trump Peace Plan - The Jewish Voice

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on ‘Don’t Surrender an Inch of Land’: Orthodox Rabbis in US Blast Trump Peace Plan – The Jewish Voice
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

As the new Israeli government was being sworn in last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed before the Knesset that it was time to write another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism by formally annexing more territory in the occupied West Bank.

With just over a week away from July 1 the date the government has pledged to begin advancing legislation to apply Jewish sovereignty over its settlements liberal Zionist figures and organizations, in Israel and abroad, have been hastily pulling out all the stops to prevent this annexation move.

However, hardly any of these liberal Zionists are acknowledging that it was their own advocacy that helped to produce this glorious chapter in the first place.

During Israels three elections over the past year and a half, many observers of the liberal Zionist persuasion had placed their hopes in the opposition parties that ran against the Netanyhu-led right-wing bloc. Chief among these parties was Blue and White, led by the current Defense Minister and alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz. If Gantz could dislodge Netanyahu from his historic reign, some liberal Zionists believed, he could help to halt Israels settlement expansion into the West Bank, and thus keep the fantasy of a two-state solution alive.

This hope was always misplaced and at times bordered on delusional. Gantz himself openly endorsed annexing the Jordan Valley, committing during his election campaign that under any future circumstances, we are going to keep this area. We will try to strengthen it as much as possible with a national plan to support the settlements in this area.

Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz and parliament member Moshe Yaalon during a visit in Vered Yeriho observation point, in the Judean Desert, January 21, 2020. (Hadas Parush/Flash90)

Despite these very clear declarations, liberal Zionists perhaps out of desperation or despair still found ways to rationalize their support for Gantz, often convincing themselves that he would not allow such a dangerous plan to go forward. Now, the man they had propped up as a challenger to the rights annexation ambitions has become an active partner in those plans.

This obscene victory lap by Israeli leaders should make it impossible for the world to pretend that there is still a chance of a viable partition with the Palestinians. Contrary to the popular narrative, annexation will not kill the two-state solution you cannot kill something that has long been dead. Rather, annexation is dragging and displaying the two-state solutions corpse before the world.

The reality on the ground is that de facto annexation as the International Court of Justices advisory opinion on Israels separation wall noted 16 years ago is already in place, thanks in great part to the liberal Zionist governments that built and maintained the occupation since 1967. De jure annexation is merely a formalization of the status quo. It also means that, for Palestinians living under Israeli rule, annexation leaves them just as far from achieving their rights as before.

This is why annexation is so dangerous for liberal Zionists: it would make their already contradictory and untenable ideological position even more impossible to defend.

View of the separation wall as seen from the Palestinian town of Abu Dis. February 26, 2017. (Miriam Alster/FLASH90)

Many voices have been chiming in against annexation in recent weeks, from Europeans to U.S. Democrats to Arab leaders. But although these voices are getting louder, they are still largely premised on the same failed advocacy, propagated for years by liberal Zionist figures and groups, that helped bring us to this point.

Part of that failed advocacy is the centering of Israeli security concerns above all else. This discourse is led by liberal Zionists, who believe that challenging the Israeli right on security grounds is the only way to credibly advocate, but is also echoed by Arabs who warn of regional instability or an end to normalization with Israel.

The perils of this Israeli-security approach are threefold. First, it centers the safety of the perpetrators, not the victims of their policies. Second, it reinforces the notion that Palestinians are inherently a threat to Israel. Third, it tries to out-securitize the right, which liberals often lack the credibility to do (no matter how many retired Israeli generals they get to sign on to public letters). As such, this strategy not only fails to convince the Israeli right, but in fact emboldens them when the worlds security fears never materialize.

Indeed, there was a time when liberal Zionists warned that further settlement building would kill the two-state solution. There was a time when we would hear about how the status quo was unsustainable. There was a time when we heard that declaring Jerusalem Israels capital would kill the chances for a negotiated outcome.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman at the official opening ceremony of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

And yet, after each of these milestones and more were blown through, liberal Zionists adamantly kept the two-state fantasy alive, inviting the right to push their goals further and exploit that fantasy for their gains. For proof of this, look no further than the Washington Post op-ed by Ron Dermer, Netanyahus ambassador to the United States, who embraces the two-state guise to argue for Israeli annexation of the West Bank, saying it will open the door to a realistic two-state solution.

But what if annexation which seems more inevitable and politically feasible than ever before does not happen? What if Netanyahu cannot get the votes for his plan? What if annexation does not include all of Area C? What if, somehow, Washington tells them to hold it off?

These scenarios could become a cause for celebration for many liberal Zionists and their supporters, who may falsely and dangerously proclaim that the hope for partition remains alive. In doing so, they will have made the situation no more comfortable for Palestinians, who are the primary victims of Israeli policy, but will have made themselves more comfortable by putting off a long needed moral reckoning.

Intentionally or not, liberal Zionism has always been a key accomplice in the rights achievements. Today, it is the grease that keeps the machinery of Israeli expansionism running smoothly. Remember the goal of ending the occupation? Now it is about stopping annexation. And if anyone thinks that annexation is the hill that liberal Zionism will die on, they are wrong; it will simply move to the next hilltop.

Get Our Weekly Newsletter

See the original post here:
Liberal Zionism paved the Israeli right's path to annexation - +972 Magazine

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Liberal Zionism paved the Israeli right’s path to annexation – +972 Magazine
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

I love reading about Israel. Heres the history Ive come to admire.

The existence of Israel as a modern Jewish nation is a miracle.

The timeline from the late 19th century to Israels birth on May 14, 1948, is fascinating. If it wasnt all true, the intrigue and suspense would make a great novel. The original Zionists overcame impossible circumstances to make Israel a reality.

First and Second Aliyah

There has been a Jewish presence in the geographic region of Syria Palaestina since Biblical times. Starting in the 1880s, antisemitism in Eastern Europe and Russia, followed by vicious pogroms, provided a major impetus for a wave of Zionist immigration to Ottoman-controlled Palestine.

The First Aliyah between 1881 and 1903 came from Eastern Europe and Yemen. These early Zionists defined their goal as the national, political and spiritual resurrection of the Jewish people in Palestine. Many chose rural agricultural settlements called moshavot as a way of life. These first settlers built the foundations for future Jewish settlements in Israel.

The Second Aliyah took place between 1904 and 1914. Worsening antisemitism and economic hardship in Eastern Europe and Russia were the two main factors fostering this emigration. Many of these immigrants were idealistic young people who sought to create a communal agricultural existence. The Kibbutz Movement was founded, beginning with Degania in 1909. Revival of the Hebrew language, the first Hebrew school and the creation of Hashomer, a security organization, all happened during the Second Aliyah.

These pioneers laid the groundwork enabling the Yishuv (Jewish community) to chart its course toward statehood.

Hebrew language revived

An important challenge facing late 19th century and early 20th century Jewish communities in Palestine was the need to revive the Hebrew language. The process began as a diversity of Jews started arriving and establishing themselves among existing communities.

There needed to be a bridge language so people from different backgrounds could communicate with each other. Most of these new immigrants realized that acceptance of Hebrew as their common language was necessary for the development of a national home for the Jewish people.

Zionism

Zionism is a religious and political movement that succeeded in bringing thousands of Jews from the Diaspora back to the Middle East to re-establish a Jewish homeland in Israel.

Theodor Herzl was responsible for establishing Zionism as a modern political organization in 1897. Herzl was a Jewish journalist living in Vienna. He published a pamphlet, Der Judenstaat (The Jews State) in 1896 that called for recognition of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in France in 1894, had a profound effect on Herzl. Alfred Dreyfus was a French Army officer who was branded a traitor simply because he was Jewish. Herzl soon realized that antisemitism was so deeply ingrained in European society that only the creation of a Jewish state would enable the survival of the Jewish people.

Before the Holocaust, Zionists aimed to recreate a Jewish national home and cultural center in Palestine; however, after the Holocaust, the movement focused on creating an independent Jewish nation.

The Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration was a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild on November 2, 1917. It expressed the British governments support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Although falling short of all Zionist expectations and in some ways deliberately ambiguous, it was still enthusiastically received and seemed to fulfill the aims of the World Zionist Organization.

Two prominent Zionists, Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow, played key roles in obtaining the Balfour Declaration. Weizmann, a noted chemist and ardent Zionist, was able to cultivate many important political connections with top decision makers in the British government and secure their support for the Zionist cause.

Sokolow traveled to France and Italy in April and May of 1917. He was able to get commitments from the French and Italian governments and even support from Pope Benedict XV. He also made a key ally in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, who lobbied in favor of the Balfour Declaration.

The support of Britains French and American allies as well as the Vatican was a necessary precondition for issuing the Balfour Declaration. The League of Nations gave it international legitimacy when it was incorporated into the Mandate for Palestine.

British Mandate for Palestine

The British Mandate for Palestine was approved by the League of Nations on July 22, 1922. The terms of the mandate stated that Britain had a dual obligation toward both Arabs and Jews. This meant creating the necessary conditions required so each community could govern themselves. Instead, two distinct social systems developed, each with their own welfare, educational and cultural institutions. They soon became politically and economically separate entities often at odds with each other.

Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, violent confrontations between Arabs and Jews took place, costing hundreds of lives. After the 1929 conflict, the British set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the conflict and another one after the Arab Revolt in 1936. In 1939, the British issued the White Papers stating that Palestine should be a bi-national state inhabited by Arabs and Jews. It enacted several Draconian measures restricting Jewish immigration and land purchases. These restrictions were met by Zionist groups organizing illegal immigration into Palestine.

The deteriorating situation was tantamount to Britain announcing its intention to terminate the mandate and return control to the United Nations. After the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the resolution to partition Palestine on November 29, 1947, Britain terminated the mandate effective May 15, 1948. At midnight on May 14, 1948, Israel declared its independence.

Richard Lieberman lives in Mequon with his wife Laurie. He owned a printing company in Milwaukee for 40 years and is now retired.

Related

More:
First Person: Why the journey to statehood is so amazing - The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on First Person: Why the journey to statehood is so amazing – The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

No civil society group in the United States has undergone as much censorious repression as the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement better known simply as BDS and the most radical critic of Israeli policy in Gaza and the West Bank. Twenty-eight states have passed anti-boycott legislation condemning BDS. Israel has published a blacklist of groups whose members will be denied entry into the country. With an air of paranoia, mainstream Jewish and Zionist organisations have condemned BDS. And why not? It helps justify their existence.

Campus after campus has made BDS unwelcome, although it is true that support for the movement has grown among young student radicals, and it has prompted offshoots and allied groupings in Europe. However, it is also true that BDS has made little headway in American political life. Perhaps 35 out of 435 members of Congress supported a tepid resolution in defence of Palestinian Human Rights, but the House of Representatives also passed a resolution condemning BDS overwhelmingly. Whats more, there was strong bipartisan support for President Donald Trumps decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem and for a peace plan that any sane Palestinian would find unacceptable. Meanwhile, punishment for criticising Israel on US campuses occurs so often that the Centre for Constitutional Rights has spoken caustically about a Palestinian exception to free speech. Needless to say, Trump has described BDS as a terrorist organisation.

READ: European court ruling backs BDS freedom of expression

A number of my very close friends are supporters of BDS, and I trust their intelligence and integrity implicitly. The majority of BDS supporters are neither anti-Semites nor self-hating Jews, but rather radicals seeking justice for a colonised people denied the right of national self-determination. Their outraged backing for the Palestinians is, in principle, no different than what rebels of an earlier time extended to the North Vietnamese against the United States or the Algerians against France. Initially, those white critics supporting people of colour against Western imperialism were a minority; ultimately, of course, that changed. BDS is hoping for more of the same.

Existing alongside these radicals of goodwill, almost inevitably there are blatant ant-Semites involved in the BDS movement who speak about driving the Jews into the sea, abolishing Israel and possible deportations. They actually get more press coverage than they deserve and it is true that too many excuses are still being made on their behalf.

Moreover, there are reasons why the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah keeps its distance from BDS; only Hamas offers it ideological support. For better or worse, Israel remains Palestines primary economic partner while Egypt as well as Jordan, which have peace treaties with Israel, have little use for BDS.

I am not a member of BDS, nor is my co-director of the International Council for Diplomacy and Dialogue, Eric Gozlan. That decision is rooted in our principles and interests.

BDS calls upon Israel to retreat beyond its 1967 borders; provide equal rights for Israeli Arabs and Palestinians; acknowledge the right of return; knock down the odious border controls; and essentially allow for free intercourse between Arabs and Israelis. On the question of one-state or two, BDS is coy; it has no objection to an Israeli state, but not on Palestinian land. BDS thus draws the distinction between Jews and Zionists as if that helps explain the future treatment of Israeli citizens who might be Jews and Zionists, or neither, or one of the two. It is also not clear whether the right of return is meant as a symbolic demand or a practical one; symbolically, and legitimately, it calls for compensating the Palestinian community, not individuals. As a practical political demand, however, BDS has offered no ideas about how to repatriate millions of individuals into a new state with what will surely prove to be a fragile economy. Given the bureaucratic problems associated with constituting a unified state, the lack of trust or empathy between Israelis and Palestinians, the transformation of Jews from a majority into a minority, and the lack of clarity concerning the government that the Palestinians wish to introduce, there is little serious incentive for either side to support the BDS agenda.

READ: BDS Spain anti-racism course cancelled following pressure from pro-Israel groups

Admittedly, these are mostly long-term strategic considerations, but the short-term tactics of BDS are also problematic. Just as the Zionist right wing ignores Palestinian interests, BDS ignores Israeli security issues and has no constructive ideas about what to do with the hundreds of thousands of mostly reactionary settlers or the orthodox part of the Jewish community that together might well take up arms against the Israeli government in the face of any transformative political project. Without support from Ramallah, moreover, BDS would leave Israel in the position of having to negotiate with two partners thus projecting the self-defeating prospect not of one state, or two states, but three.

Israel has no sympathy for BDS, and even Meretz, a genuinely left-wing party, rejects it. Perhaps this is because there is even a lack of clarity about the meaning of boycott, divestment and sanctions. Depending on who one asks, boycott and divestment are meant to target companies with direct ties to the Israeli occupation; all companies doing business with Israel, but not universities; all corporations and all universities but not progressive academics and artists; or all of the above. Furthermore, anyone with even a cursory knowledge about sanctions knows that they mostly have an impact on working people, the poor, and the most vulnerable. There is also no reason why Israel as against a litany of far more repressive and genocidal states should alone be the subject of boycott, divestment, and sanctions.

BDS has put no meaningful proposals on the table, but its existence has pressured other, sometimes liberal and Zionist organisations like J-Street, to endorse boycotting and divesting from companies that are engaged actively in the occupation of Palestine. That is a genuine contribution. Raising awareness about the conflict among the young is another. And presenting the radical Palestinian standpoint is still another. However, the movements critics acknowledge none of this. They know it all, there is nothing to be learned, so shut down BDS, and liberal principles be damned.

It is high time for both sides to show a little humility. Engage in symbolic protests if you like, turn your backs on speakers, or even walk out of an assembly; but protest against their ideas (and tackle them seriously) not their right to speak.

READ: US state of Missouri passes incredibly dangerous anti-BDS bill

Kant knew that freedom of speech is the foundation for all other political freedoms. And there is that famous line attributed (falsely) to Voltaire: I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The hysteria surrounding BDS in the US and now in Europe is deplorable. The far-right can do what it wishes, but when liberals, socialists and people of the left start mimicking its calls for censorship and the denial of free assembly, things never turn out well. Israel has not divulged which groups supporting BDS have been banned, and this, my friends, is a dangerous precedent.

Censoring the far left has traditionally been the first step on the road to censoring others. The self-righteous critics of BDS generally surrender to the paranoia, intolerance, and extremism that they otherwise denounce. Of course, similar criticisms apply to those in BDS who ignore the enlightenment values upon which their project should be based. Such attitudes lead only to political practices that increase the visibility, publicity, and martyr-like status of their target. When Jews proclaim support for Trump or Frances Marine Le Pen, because such leaders are good for the Jews or because of the venom they spout against Arabs and people of colour generally, these opportunists are not being realistic or pragmatic. They are just being short-sighted in swallowing ideological nonsense, abandoning their principles, isolating Israel still further, and fomenting anti-Semitic resentment, while forgetting that their new right-wing allies can (and probably will) change policies in the blink of an eye.

No less than the folks in BDS, the movements reactionary critics also lack a positive vision for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian concerns simply dont matter to them. By implicitly or explicitly endorsing Israeli settlement expansion, balkanising the West Bank, and boycotting Gaza, their stubborn arrogance contributes to a politics of stasis that has become ever more odious and frustrating.

Its almost as if BDS and its right-wing critics have become mirror images of one another: les extremes se touchent. Supporters of BDS seem congenitally incapable of admitting that Palestinian leaders ever made a mistake. Palestinians are victims pure and simple; memories of the brutal Palestinian expulsion from their lands, pride and honour prevented their leaders from adapting tactics and demands to an ever-greater imbalance of power, and all this while their future state began to shrink and turn from a viable into a non-contiguous entity.

As for the right-wing critics of BDS, the situation is no different: lack of peace is always the fault of the Palestinians; atrocities committed against them during the expulsion from the new state of Israel were not really that bad, not compared to what the Jews suffered in the Holocaust; and Biblical claims to Judea and Samaria justify any Israeli use of excessive force and any of its imperialist ambitions. Like Israel, for whom it claims to speak, the extremist right is also a victim, actually a greater victim, though very few are still alive who ever experienced a concentration camp; only necessity has forced these victims into the role of conquerors.

Intransigence and self-righteousness have led both BDS and its reactionary critics to consider anything except uncritical support as what communists used to call an objective apology for the enemy. Dialogue has broken down and political positions have hardened on both sides. Hope and humanist sentiments are about all that remain for the reasonable. But there are also intelligent activists with goodwill on both sides of the barricades, and perhaps there is something simmering beneath the verbiage: ideas to rekindle negotiations, reformulate demands, change tactics and actually contribute to the prospects for peace that are growing dimmer by the day.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

Read more here:
BDS and its critics - Middle East Monitor

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on BDS and its critics – Middle East Monitor
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

A prominent and verified Twitter activist is calling for the cancellation of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and for his statues to be taken down and replaced with Malcolm X. The activist, who goes by the handle Syrian Girl, also calls MLK and Rosa Parks racist.

Syrian Girl refers to King as a racist and Zionist and adds a quote from King that reads: Israel must exist and has the right to exist, and is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world.

She then follows up the tweet by saying, The only reason he'd say is if people don't think palestinians matter.

Syrian Girl describes herself as a geopolitical analyst and counter-terrorism.

One user commented, Last time I checked Israel definitely was the only truly democratic country in the Middle East! Turns out hes right!

Another said, Lets just cancel everybody and start fresh

On Sunday, Syrian Girl also called out Rosa Parks saying she was a racist zionist supremacists. The user even included the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter in the post.

One user responded, LOL. Good luck getting BLM to support that.

This comes as many activists are vandalizing statues and calling for their removal and "cancellation" of historical figures after the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police on May 25, 2020.

Read the original:
Prominent activist calls for MLK statues to fall, and Rosa Parks to be 'cancelled' - The Post Millennial

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Prominent activist calls for MLK statues to fall, and Rosa Parks to be ‘cancelled’ – The Post Millennial
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 24, 2020

It was a brave speech at the 1969 Ideological Seminary in Kiljava, Finland. Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, then a prominent rabbi, theologian, professor and writer, in the Modern Orthodox world, was dissecting Neturei Karta, perhaps one of the 20th centurys most divisive Jewish movements in the Jewish world.

Clearly, we are dealing here with a fringe group, he said, that, in its extremism, its hyperbolic language, its extravagance and simplifies, reveals a psychological pattern of defensiveness.

Despite this, he said that there is much to learn from them, yet its fierce independence of thought, its refusal to be outvoted on matters of principle, the courage of its convictions, and the coherency of its ideology, cannot but elicit admiration. Courage, especially idealistic courage, expressed at great personal sacrifice, is so rare that even if we disagree with its thesis, it deserves respect.

In Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, where the talk was published, one reader called that admiration disturbing. He asked, Since when does sheer hooliganism with complete disregard for ones fellow man go under the heading of courage?

Lamm responded that he expected the backlash, and while he disagrees we them, I also do not throw verbal stones at anyone with whom I disagree. It is, I suppose, too much to expect that we objectively evaluate our antagonists and give them credit where it is deserved, eve while resolutely opposing them. But I, for one, cannot go along with [that].

After a long illness, Lamm died on May 31 at the age of 92. His wife, Mindella (Mindy) Lamm, died six weeks earlier on April 16, at age 88, from COVID-19. They are survived by their children Shalom Lamm, Joshua Lamm and Chaye Warburg, in addition to grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Their daughter, Sara Dratch, predeceased them in 2013.

Rabbi Norman and Mindella (Mindy) Lamb. Credit: Courtesy of Mark Dratch.

A thick skin and a big heart

Throughout his career, Lamm could be seen as someone who wanted to unify, to compromise between two different entities. If it was back when he was a rabbi in Springfield, Mass., when he wanted to unify the local Orthodox day school with the Lubavitch day school in 1958. Or when he encouraged the uniting of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and National Council of Young Israel, when he publicly said, in 1983, If you do not feel inspired by the vision of all the good that can come out consider the damage that can come from disunity.

This also came to the forefront when he was asked by former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, to resolve the Who is a Jew? issue that flared up again in the early 1990s. During his efforts, he united the various Jewish denominations to agree on a resolution to the question. While ultimately he was not successful, he continued to encourage a resolution in the matter, once saying, Communal peace is also a principle of Judaism.

And it did again when Lamm was voted to the position of president of Yeshiva University in 1976. Rabbi Emmanuel Rackman, to the left on the Orthodox spectrum, was his chief opposition. Rackman, a provost at YU, was waging a battle with YU dean Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on the issue of agunot, chained women whose husbands dont want to give a religious divorce, or get. It was at Soloveitchiks urging that the board chose Lamm over Rackman for the position.

Despite their differences, including the tone of many of the exchanges, Lamm found a place for Rackman. In Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought, Lamm, its founding editor-in-chief, wrote kind words about him, even in regards to the issue debated in the 1970s with his mentor, Soloveitchik. His moral sense was outraged by the abuse of halakha [Jewish law] by husbands who refuse to grant a get [divorce] to their wives because of greed or sheer intransigence. Rabbi Rackman evinced genuine empathy for these living widows and was impatient with the slow grinding of the mills of halakha, and he demanded that something more effective and concrete be done to alleviate their misery.

Lamm stood his ground on many issues of the day and keenly understood that there will always be varying opinions in Judaism. It was the approach to the other that he derided. While he was not once to mince his words, he always found a place for the other and their virtues.

In a 1997 speech, Lamm said that when community leaders too often an unhealthy degree of turf rivalry and back-biting and empire building. We have too many Lone Rangers who may do much good, but far less than if we all worked together as befits a community of leaders.

He said that in every system of thought, people and ideology, one can find redeeming merits. When one cannot do that, it is not only dishonest, it is also counterproductive. Overstatement and overkill usually bring ones credibility into disrepute.

While many in the Jewish orbit, and beyond, came to appreciate Lamm, not everything that he said or did was universally accepted, says his son-in-law, Rabbi Mark Dratch, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America. This was especially true with the haredi community. Over the years, some of those issues became well-known, and he was publicly attacked by several members of the Orthodox Jewish community.

Rabbi Norman Lamm. Credit: Yeshiva University.

Dratch recalled one time when Lamm was vehemently criticized, and yet he took it with ease. When he asked why he did not respond, he quoted the Talmud, which praised those who are insulted and do not insult, who hear their shame and do not respond, that the sun is going forth in its might.

He says that he had a thick skin and a big heart. The large criticisms did not bother him, as the flattery did not either, make a difference to him.

Times of great building and hope

Born in 1927 to Pearl and Samuel, Lamm grew up in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, N.Y., where he attended the local Torah Vodaath day school. It was a good neighborhood to grow up in, he said, if you couldnt afford to go to a better place.

After the Holocaust, he was shaken by the title of a newspaper he saw returning back from Six Million Jews Killed, on its front page. In a 2008 interview, he recalled thinking, What if a Nazi came here? He says that while he does not talk about it much, It was a profound feeling, something that accounted for a great deal in my life.

Also at a young age, when he first saw a film on the Kineret in northern Israel, he said, I was completely taken by it; it was my first exposure to modern Israel, and it was overwhelming.

General view of Tiberias and the Kineret, Sea of Galilee. Credit: Wikimedia Commons via Nizza Rachmani/Tiberias municipality.

He later went to Yeshiva University, where he studied chemistry. In 1948, during the Israel Independence War, he assisted with disguising rifles in blankets that were shipped to Israel. However, it was said, he felt that as a student of science, he could do more.

He soon found himself in the Catskills with Ernst David Bergmann, a nuclear scientist and chemist, who would later be the first chairman of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission. At that time, he said, his relationship to Zionism was singing and dancing Hava Nagilah. For the first time, he met people who were, connected to Zionism, but never talked about it, but just did good work [for Israel].

There he was tasked, together with several other students he had organized to accompany him, with coming up with a solution of how to make ammunition from the natural resources in Israel. They were successful in creating a formula that was used to manufacture ammunition for the Davidka, a homemade Israeli weapon that fired mortars. It was a great opportunity to express our ahavat Yisroel [love of your fellow Jew] and Zionism in a very practical way. No Hora, no Haveinu Shalom Aleichem, [just] real serious stuff, he had said.

It was at the request of Rabbi Dr. Samuel Belkin, at the time president of YU, that he pursued a rabbinic career. In 1951, he was ordained, with his first rabbinic position in Springfield, Mass. In 1954, he married Mindella (Mindy) Mehler. Her father passed away at a young age, and she told The YU Observer, I was raised in an environment of very strong women who overcame tragedy and raised a wonderful family.

While she was a public-school teacher, from that time she married, she focused her energies on YUat first, assisting underprivileged students with their basic necessities.

Once Lamm became president, she helped in any way she could. She was in many ways a partner to my father-in-law, says Dratch. He valued her advice and critique. She was very loyal and devoted to all of his activities, including travel, and hosting [guests] in the house, and befriending them.

She has been reported to have said, Those were both very tough times, but also times of great building and hope.

Spokesman for a whole movement

Part of being president was to keep the institution afloat, which Lamm did through very difficult financial times. I had no business accepting the job of president, Lamm once told Dratch, because I had no background in fundraising.

Yet he excelled in that position, leaving a very large fund to support the institution for many years after he left. Donors were attracted to his brilliance, his integrity, and he became very successful. He used the various parts in his personality and background to the advantage of his fundraising and the university, says Dratch.

A few years after he began his tenor, Lamm was faced with the school being forced into bankruptcy. It was real danger of foreclosure, says Lawrence Schiffman, professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, which brought him to raise tens of millions of dollarsa sum unheard of at the time in the Orthodox Jewish community. I believe that Norman would say that saving the school financially is his legacy.

Professor Laurence Shiffman. Credit: New York University.

Unique to YU, Lamm was in many ways expected to spiritual leadership, says Jonathan Sarna, Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Professor of American Jewish History in the department of Near Eastern and Judaic Studies at Brandeis University, while he was expected to also fill administrative duties. Looking back it is really quite remarkable, he says, noting that YU was very fortunate to have someone who really widely respected, by all segments of the community, including scholars and rabbinic leadership, thus becoming the spokesman for a whole movement [and] earned respect for traditional Judaism.

And while his communal work took away from his intellectual pursuits, he was tremendously productive, says Dratch, who never wasted a second. Despite this, he always made time for his family and personal interactions that he had with many people, and always making sure there was time for his Torah study and general knowledge.

YU today is more diverse than it ever was, says Zev Eleff, author of Modern Orthodox Judaism: A Documentary History, and that the fact that the many stakeholders have been able to create a space of equilibrium is thanks to Lamm.

He became a leader at a time of real uncertainty about the direction of so many different worlds, he saysreligiously, socially, educationally, professionally and politically. Rabbi Lamm was able to make sure that all those voices were heard, said Eleff.

Professor Jonathan Sarna. Credit: Brandeis University.

For Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff, professor of Rabbinic Literature at Yeshiva Universitys Caroline and Joseph S. Gruss Institute in Jerusalem, Lamm steered YU to a new modern era that will be his legacy. Orthodox Jews have a tendency to fight new battles with old weapons, Lamm wrote in his 1986 book Seventy Faces, and to confront novel predicaments with antiquated strategies.

This willingness to catch up with the times, says Rakeffet-Rothkoff, who is based in Israel but comes to New York to teach as well, made Lamm uniquely capable of his long tenor at YU. Being American born, Lamm, he says, brought in deans who spoke English, and recognizing the thirst for Israel among the Modern Orthodox community, brought at least one dean from Israel.

He knew how to channel the winds that were blowing; he adjusted the yeshivah to an American reality and built the bridges to the State of Israel.

As a visionary leader, sophisticated scholar, master orator and prolific writer, Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman, president of Yeshiva University, wrote in a statement, Lamm left an indelible mark on Jewish history and was a central architect of the modern Jewish experience. He was a unifying voice who approached all people with a kind smile and an open mind. His vision charged generations of students to bring their positive Jewish values into the world. Our community has lost a legend, and we mourn the passing of our teacher and guide.

The post Longtime Yeshiva University president and educator Norman Lamm sought to unify in divisive reality appeared first on JNS.org.

Continue reading here:
Longtime Yeshiva University president and educator Norman Lamm sought to unify in divisive reality - Cleveland Jewish News

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Longtime Yeshiva University president and educator Norman Lamm sought to unify in divisive reality – Cleveland Jewish News
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 22, 2020

Before the Coronavirus my first appointment of every day was attending the 6:45 am minyan (service) at my synagogue. That came to an abrupt end when on March 14 all the local synagogues shuttered their doors in response to the growing rate and risk of infection. For the last three months, until Monday of this week, every synagogue in my neighborhood has been closed and I and my fellow congregants have been left to pray individually at home. On this past Monday the synagogues resumed public prayer services on a very limited basis. Now there are a limited number of services with attendance restricted to 12 participants (selected by a lottery system) at each service. Strict social distancing must be observed (masks, maintaining 8 feet distance, gloves or hand sanitizing of hands etc.). Other Covid-19 precautions include a truncated service, the requirement to come on time and leave immediately at the conclusion of the service, and the necessity for using a personal siddur (prayer book) as opposed to the synagogues prayer books.

The mass closing of synagogues across the globe was an unprecedented historical event. Never before in Jewish history had virtually all places of worship been shuttered worldwide. It was emotionally wrenching to be without the very place one always turned to in times of need. Some saw in this is a Divine message requiring reflection and penance. Others interpreted it as G-d encouraging mankind to refocus on the importance of family. Others may have seen Covid-19 as a punishment. Whatever ones perspective on the cause and message of the pandemic, the closing worldwide of synagogues was devastating.

Now fast forward three months to June 15 when our local synagogues reopened. You would think that it would be a cause for celebration. Finally, we are able to return to that safe sanctuary, to the one place that gives comfort in trying times, to a house of prayer at a time when the world needs prayer more than ever. And yet, for me, the return this week to the synagogue brought sadness; more than I have felt during the three months of complete shutdown. To what have I returned? Not to that warm, friendly, inviting spiritual venue where I have celebrated happy occasions, mourned the loss of relatives and friends, and where I have drawn strength in difficult times. No that is not to where I have returned. My synagogue is now a sad place; devoid of vibrancy, unable to serve as it did just a few months ago.

For over a thousand years Jews the world over have prayed for the rebuilding of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem; for its return to its former glory. Once a year we gather for a national day of mourning, Tisha Baav, to mourn the destruction of the Temple. It has always been a challenge for me emotionally to relate to that loss and to that day of mourning. While I have an intellectual understanding of the Temples significance and the great loss its destruction represents, the emotional connection to that loss has always been a challenge for me. Not now. Now I am beginning to understand.

Imagine a parent who banishes his child from the home and then relents and allows the child only a brief visit to the entry foyer. What is more painful to the child the total banishment or the limited partial reconciliation?

I am that child.

By profession I am a Washington DC trial attorney. I have written several books including a biography of the Klausenbereger Rebbe. I am also the author of several blogs including Saying Kaddish and a Corona Virus blog.

See original here:

My return to the synagogue | Judah Lifschitz | The Blogs - The Times of Israel

Category: Synagogue | Comments Off on My return to the synagogue | Judah Lifschitz | The Blogs – The Times of Israel
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 22, 2020

This striking photo, taken in 1915, shows the Rue Castara in Lunville, France, where Rabbi Ernest Weill was murdered, along with other Jewish and non-Jewish civilians, by Bavarian soldiers during World War One.

The tragic event took place at this very location in 1914. The accompanying text of the photo also points out that we can see, on the left, the skeletons of the synagogue of Lunville, left in ruins after an arson attack.

Castara Street in Lunville, France. Archive National Library of France.

It was this photo that left me in wonder when I visited the synagogue a few years ago. Lunville has only one synagogue and it was the first one built in the kingdom of France since the 13th century, or even perhaps since the 12th century.

This was by permission of the king Louis XVI, who granted this favor at the request of Abraham Isaac Brisac, property manager of the Jewish community.

As you can see it has a completely different faade. One could think it had been rebuilt, but I was standing in front of the original building from 1786 designed by architect Charles Augustine Piroux.

Synagogue of Lunville, France. Photo Ticia Verveer.

In fact, the buildings we see on the photo are those that stood in front of the synagogue, which was built away from public sight.

The monumental synagogue built from pink sandstone from Vosges and decorated with royal symbols in honor of Louis XVIs recognition of the Jewish community, cannot be seen on the 1915 photo.

In the 18th century you could not have known what was behind this street and the actual building itself would not have been identifiable as a synagogue from the outside. It was tolerated to be built on condition that gatherings were held discreetly.

Visibility is everything. They had to function in a material context in which their Jewishness was officially hidden. There was no visible public status, and, in this way, the community was almost imaginary and preserved their sense of Jewishness in secret.

The permission of the king to build a synagogue allowed them to practice their religion more openly. But the non-public appearance of the building was aimed to hide the rituals and beliefs. They were only permitted to carry out the outwards forms in a secret building.

That what had disappeared by the fire, revealed a Jewish building, previously absent. So, to speak, the synagogue came out of hiding after the arson attack.

The destruction created visibility and as the vanished buildings were not replaced, anyone could read the words To the God of Israel, by permission of the King of France, the year 1786 (Au Dieu dIsral, par permission du Roy de France, lan 1786) on the front of the synagogue.

Even though a light was cast on the synagogue, it was not until in recent years that the French faade text was replaced by one written in Hebrew.

Faade of the synagogue of Lunville. Photo Ticia Verveer.

Not only buildings but also doors and windows hold a symbolic meaning. Windows are the eyes of a building, they are not simply openings, but they let in the light and allow us to look out over the world around us. A threshold could be symbolically or literally a place of safety or danger.

Doors are the guardians of a building, they let people in, or they keep people out. They bear witness to the troubles of past ages. Doors are not only functional but define the rules of behavior of a community.

This synagogue was not designed by his worshippers. It was dictated. Even when they have contributed to the building, the community had to be concerned outwardly to imitate the socially dominant group, in the construction of their building.

But architecture can never totally dictate the behavior within its spaces. Its faade serves as a shield of social agreement behind which the traditions and the patterns of the Jewish community were performed. This was a building where religion was hidden and protected.

The womens entrance at the synagogue of Lunville. Photo Ticia Verveer

The significance of the front door and the contribution it made to the overall significance of this building is the key to unlock the untold stories.

There is this opening, so low, that one must stoop to enter it.

The guide tells me that this was the door through which the children entered. Significantly the entrance doors to the synagogue were strictly specified for men, women, and children.

The childrens entrance at the synagogue of Lunville. Photo Ticia Verveer

Today, it is permanently sealed, which brings a twinge of sadness for the children that no longer will pass in and out. I can picture to myself children running towards the door, laughing, and talking in loud voices. But the door is closed now.

The Departmental archives show that Lunville was a small center with an exceptionally large number of children. During the Second World War, 40 children were deported from Lunville to a certain death. In this dark period, 149 Jews were deported from Lunville and separated from their families. Only nine survived.

Doors have been opened and closed to Jews throughout history. They are vulnerable portals, where danger lurks. I found a modern mezuzah nailed at the entryway doorpost. This mark with his protective powers for warding off evil spirits has been used by our people since ancient times.

Mezuzah, at the synagogue of Lunville, France. Photo Ticia Verveer.

Now, for me, it is a reminder that we are still facing the challenges of the outside world. There is no easy route to religious freedom, but a road of hope and despair, endings, and beginnings.

Enduring stereotypes of Jews and Jewish behavior existed long before World War I.

Waves of disease have brought waves of hate in the past. Blaming the Other has sparked hate towards the Jewish community when mysterious diseases hit societies around the world.

Today, there is a vivid Jewish community thriving in Lunville, but conspiracy theories are flaring up while the coronavirus pandemic spreads further and further.

Agnes Buzyn, Frances previous health minister, who is Jewish, has been accused of poisoning wells with Coronavirus. A caricature of her has been circulating on social media, alongside the yellow star marked Jude (Jew).

The door to hate has never been closed. The synagogue was hidden from the street behind a house in the 18th century, which was a necessity among a population that did not welcome the Jewish presence.

Let us not fool ourselves when we visit the idyllic situated synagogue of Lunville that the age-old Anti-Semitism has left the streets.

Photo Ticia Verveer.

As an archaeologist, Ticia Verveer has over 20 years of excavation experience in the Middle East, the Sahel, and North Africa. She specializes in religiously framed (armed) conflict in wider social, economic and political contexts, with a particular focus on the formation of religious, cultural and ethnic identities. Her research is at the interface where archaeology, religious studies, history, cultural heritage, and living culture meet. Ticia is Maternal Health Ambassador for Global Fund for Women, one of the world's leading foundations for gender equality. On a more personal level, being a Jewish woman, she is devoted to preserving the memory of the Shoah. Ticia is a descendant of Abraham Salomon Cohen Verveer, the grandfather of Holland's most important Jewish Romantic painter, Salomon Leonardus Verveer (1813-1876).

The rest is here:

The synagogue and the king | Ticia Verveer | The Blogs - The Times of Israel

Category: Synagogue | Comments Off on The synagogue and the king | Ticia Verveer | The Blogs – The Times of Israel
Tags:

Posted By admin on June 22, 2020

JTA About 15 years ago, a large synagogue in northern California installed a set of windows in the religious school engraved with the names of some 175 prominent Jews, from biblical figures to famous actors.

One of them, sandwiched between Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, was Judah Benjamin, the most prominent Jewish official in the Confederacy. Benjamin, who enslaved 140 people on a Louisiana sugar plantation, served variously as the Confederate attorney general, secretary of war and secretary of state.

The inclusion of Benjamins name on the wall didnt arouse much protest until 2013, about eight years after the installation at Peninsula Temple Sholom, a Reform congregation in Burlingame. That was when a congregant named Howard Wettan listened to a podcast about the Civil War as his daughter attended Hebrew school in the building.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

I connected the dots, Wettan said. I saw the name once more and said theres something really wrong with that.

Wettan launched a years-long campaign that coincided with a national reckoning over Confederate monuments and eventually persuaded the synagogue to grapple with the names significance. Benjamins name is now covered in tape and will be replaced, along with two other names, later this year.

Judah P. Benjamin, former Confederate secretary of state, secretary of war, and attorney general. (Flickr/ CC-SA-2.0/ Marion Doss)

The first handful of times I noticed it, I wasnt sensitized, Wettan said. It was just an historical artifact and I didnt place a lot of meaning behind it.

Wettans complaint brought a version of a much larger debate over national historical memory to a synagogue far from the former Confederate states.

Across the country, Confederate monuments have drawn challenges for years from people who say they glorify those who enslaved Black people and fought against the United States. Defenders of the monuments, including some white Southerners, have argued that the monuments are necessary to teach about a painful moment in American history.

But the statues that memorialize those leaders were largely erected long after the Confederacy was defeated, many in the 20th century in support of white supremacy at a time when Southern governments were fighting to maintain legal racial segregation.

A poll released Wednesday shows that a majority of Americans favor taking down those monuments. Protesters over the past few weeks have pulled down monuments on their own, as others did during demonstrations in years past.

Peninsula Temple Sholom did not put Benjamins name on the window to glorify white supremacy. The idea was to include names of significant figures from all corners of Jewish history, according to the synagogues chief community officer.

I believe the original intention was to create a wall that was somewhat educational, Karen Wisialowski said. It hasnt really served that purpose.

Wisialowski added: Having names of folks on our wall to a viewer would feel as if these were people that we were admiring and expressing pride in, and ultimately thats why we decided to take the names down.

Confederate veterans pose at the Gamble Plantation Judah P. Benjamin Memorial in Ellenton, Florida, circa 1920. (Flickr/ Florida Memory/ public domain)

Relatively few memorials to Benjamin exist as opposed to, say, the plethora of monuments to Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee. But Peninsula Temple Sholom is not alone in Jewish history when it comes to honoring the Confederacys most senior Jewish official.

In the late 19th and early 20th century, according to Jewish historian Shari Rabin, there was a general American tendency to paper over the worst aspects of the Confederacy, as well as a general interest in the war. Jews of that time, she said, celebrated Benjamin in that context, including by publishing a childrens book about him.

In the decades after the Civil War, there was a general celebration of service, and Jews want to write themselves into that history, said Rabin, a professor of Jewish studies at Oberlin College. Theres a history of Southern Jews and also American Jews more broadly using Judah Benjamin as a way to show Jewish contributions and to make a claim to Jewish belonging.

A monument to Judah Benjamin outside the Public Library, Belle Chase, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. (Flickr/ CC-SA-2.0/ Infrogmation of New Orleans)

Benjamins role as a leader of a white supremacist rebellion was the main problem with that approach, Rabin said, but it wasnt the only one for specifically Jewish memorials. Benjamins opponents tarred him for his Judaism, but he never really embraced being a Jew. He married a Catholic woman, raised his kids Catholic and was not involved in Jewish institutions. He fled to the United Kingdom after the war.

By the time of the Civil War, he was pretty far removed from organized Jewish life or personal Jewish commitment, Rabin said. The people who were calling Benjamin a Jew were the people who didnt like him.

At first, Peninsula Temple Sholom responded to Wettans complaint by doubling down on the wall as a teaching tool. Wettan would come to religious school classes and teach the students about Benjamin and the Civil War. But after the August 2017 far-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, which was sparked by the removal of a Lee statue, Wettan again asked the synagogue to erase Benjamins name.

After some back-and-forth, Wettan requested at a synagogue board meeting in December 2018 that the name be removed. In the end, a task force was formed to address the issue, and Benjamins name was covered up with tape. Some months later, the synagogue began the process of contracting an artist to replace the name.

There was a lot of concern about how weve got names literally etched in glass and someone who we think is perfectly fine on the list today we might not think is fine on the list tomorrow, Wisialowski said. Should we pull the whole wall down? Should we pull them down and recognize that we might need to make changes in the future as well, if issues come to light that are counter to our values as an organization?

Illustrative: A portrait of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach hangs in the Shirat Shlomo synagogue in Efrat, Israel, November 20, 2012. (Times of Israel)

In the end, the congregation opted to keep the wall but replace three windows bearing what they deemed to be problematic names at a cost of approximately $7,500. Along with Benjamin, the congregation is removing the names of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, a prominent Jewish musician who died in 1994, and the actor Dustin Hoffman. Both Hoffman and Carlebach have been accused of harassment and assault by several women, in Carlebachs case posthumously.

The congregation has taken the new windows as an opportunity to include more womens names. The names will be replaced by those of the biblical figure Deborah, the prominent Jewish musician Debbie Friedman, and Regina Jonas, the first woman to be ordained as a rabbi.

(Asked whether the windows also included the name of Woody Allen, the filmmaker accused of child sexual abuse, Wisialowski said, Amazingly, no.)

If an issue pops up again, if lots of issues pop up again, then we will have to also handle them based on our values, which are really, really clear about the kind of organization we want to be and the kind of message that we want to put into the world about the importance of individuals and social justice and equality, she said.

Looking back, Wettan says the years-long process gave the congregation an opportunity to articulate its values and come to a deliberate decision. It also showed him, he said, how fraught it can be to deal with historical memory and an engraved memorial.

Its easy for someone in Northern California to look at the South and say thats them, not us, he said. Its hard to change. To change, you cant be afraid to acknowledge that maybe you didnt get something right the first time.

Follow this link:

California synagogue to remove reference to top Confederate Jewish official - The Times of Israel

Category: Synagogue | Comments Off on California synagogue to remove reference to top Confederate Jewish official – The Times of Israel
Tags: