Memo to Jewish haters of Liberals: The Middle Ages are over
The language of excommunication and apostasy has never been used lightly in Jewish history, and its implications can be dangerous.
By Carlo Strenger Tags: Israel news Yitzhak RabinLast week saw one of the more interesting recent developments in world Jewish affairs with the first annual convention of pro-Israel, pro-peace lobby J Street. The founding of J Street reopens the debate about what it means to be pro-Israel. While the good intentions of AIPAC to protect Israel's interest have never been questioned, many of us think that its strategy of automatically backing every course of action of Israel's government has often been counter-productive.
Such debate is important and welcome, but it needs to be conducted in a civilized manner - and that, unfortunately, is not always the case, and the results can be horrendous. Now, fourteen years after Yitzhak Rabin's assassination, Yaakov Teitel - the alleged perpetrator of last year's attempt to kill Israel Prize Laureate Prof. Zeev Sternhell and of many other terrible acts of destruction - has been detained. Research shows that violence of this sort in all cultures is a function of a general atmosphere that legitimizes extreme hatred. These are times in which we all need to think carefully about the language we use, and make sure that we do not encourage political violence - even if unwillingly.
Isi Leibler wrote an article in The Jerusalem Post that used truly frightening language. Referring to Jews who criticize Israel, Leibler writes: "Such odious Jews can be traced back to apostates during the Middle Ages who fabricated blood libels and vile distortions of Jewish religious practice for Christian anti-Semites to incite hatred which culminated in massacres. It was in response to these renegades that the herem (excommunication) was introduced."
Leibler's approach is duplicitous. He uses one type of language when speaking to what he takes to be his constituency, but a few days ago denied in a piece in The Guardian that he ever called for the excommunication of J Street or of critics of Israel.
How should we relate to such a publication? One option would be to simply dismiss it as a fringe phenomenon. But I think this would be a grave mistake. The language of excommunication and apostasy has never been used lightly in Jewish history, and its implications can be dangerous. More importantly: Leibler is not some obscure crank from the extreme right, but a Jewish activist with a distinguished record who has held senior positions in the World Jewish Congress; and he does not write in some obscure blog, but in a reputable, mainstream Israeli newspaper.
Hence, I want to urge Mr. Leibler to restore sanity to the discussion about Israeli politics and renounce hate speech of all sorts. I want to call on him that we need to restore dialogue even between those groups that bitterly disagree with each other.
Leibler explicitly evokes the Middle Ages in advocating excommunication. Does he really want the current disputes about Israeli policy to be conducted in the language of the Middle Ages? Does he really think that excommunication is the way to deal with Jewish Liberals who believe that Israel is often making tragic mistakes? I want to remind him that the herem has not always been used to the greater glory of the Jewish people. The greatest work of Jewish philosophy, Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed, was banned at certain times, and one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived, Baruch Spinoza, was excommunicated for apostasy by the Jewish community of Amsterdam.
In calling for excommunication of those who disagree with him, Leibler seems to endow himself with papal infallibility in knowing what is good for Israel - but in Jewish tradition nobody can claim infallibility. I want to remind Mr. Leibler of the rules of plugta, of civilized argument and disagreement that have been held dear in Jewish tradition, and I will gladly meet with him and talk.
I want to make it clear: Leibler does not call for physical violence. Yet terms like "apostates" and "excommunication" are a clear way of delegitimizing the large proportion of the Jewish people, who disagree with him. He should not forget that there might always be somebody like Yaakov Teitel who takes him more seriously than I assume he wants to be taken. I hope that Mr. Leibler condemns such acts unequivocally as every civilized human being, Jewish or not, should.
A final consideration to stop hate speech: J Street's convention coincided with the commemoration of the 14th anniversary of the Hebrew date of Rabin's assassination, an event that still casts a huge shadow over all of Israeli politics. What we need to learn from Rabin's murder is that hate speech creates an atmosphere that legitimizes violence. Re-reading Ina Friedman and Michael Karpin's Murder in the Name of God is a chilling experience. It shows the buildup of an ever-growing hatred of Rabin and the peace process not only among the Israeli right, but in the American Jewish Right, that gradually led to the halakhic rulings that killing Rabin was justified. We should all be united in stopping any language that can raise the level of hatred between Jews to murderous levels.
Click here to return to Carlo Strenger's blog
Previous blog entries by Carlo Strenger:
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
The "Buddhist seders" meme comes from NYT article about J Street where Jeremy Ben-Ami is cited as saying "We all hold Buddhist seders" and "We are all intermarried". Ben-Ami is not intermarried. His wife, Sara, is a daughter of a Rabbi and descendant of a family which co-founded Petah Tikva more than 120 years ago. And of course "Buddhist seder" was just a joke.
Those who delegitimise Israel need to be curbed. People who exaggerate our faults and encourage our enemies cannot be encouraged. There is such a thing as a golden mean.
I don't know why, but for some reason the historical precedent that seems to come to my mind right now is the period of Bar Kokhba and the Zealots. Things are not as bad as they were then, but the security situation is getting worse, antisemitism is on the rise, and public opinion in Israel and the Diaspora is becoming more polarized. But the solution offered by the settlers, that God is on our side, that we can do whatever we want in Eretz Yisrael, that we don't have to treat non-Jews living with us as human beings, whatever they may think of us, seems to be about as realistic a solution as the one offered 2,000 years ago. Hopefully things won't end so tragically this time.
Leibler in no way and by no stretch of the imagination can be considered condoning excommunication, as you seek to establish. He is pointing out that it was because of blood libel attacks from within the Jewish community that even the Jewish Establishment at the time thought that was the only thing to do to deal with such extremism. But more importantly he is pointing out that Israel, today, is facing a most implacable foe in a war that is mainly being fought in the media, in the realm of ideas as to what is acceptable, that the Israeli public is becoming increasingly discouraged and demoralised, and that the unjustified public media attacks are the main destructive force. Israel is being taught to be weak while Palestinian school children are taught to hate Israel and to fight to the death. Your propaganda, sir, would be better used to persuade the Palestinians towards peace.
No, it is not the Middle Ages, and no, Jews are not forced to live in ghettos with "autonomy" under the tyrannies of their own political leaders with an absence of an alternative. The term "excommunication" is a meaningless term in the context of Jewish existence today.
Is that right? So 'might is right' has been replaced by Int'al Law. Why is Israel Still in the Middle ages and thinks that members of the UN can ignore the UN charter? and hundred of resolutions? UN: expel Israel!
Jackie knows what she has been told and needs no knowledge of the truth. So what if the Intifada was going on for years before Oslo, conservatives KNOW that the intifada was caused by Oslo so real history is simply wrong. The First Intifada was caused by Rabin and Carter. The Second Intifada was caused by Clinton and Rabin. The Third Intifada will be the fault of Obama and Clinton, the Forth will probably be blamed on the UN or Carter.
..the Goebbels' era of mass propaganda still exists and so called "liberals" are using it to claim the moral high ground..THAT is a travesty of delusional proportions... Liberals would confer "international humanitarian rights" to people who gladly accept its protections but wo gladly ignore it in their hatreds and actions against other people they despise. Liberals are so blinded by the IDEA of "RIGHTS" they fail to distinguish their proper application..Liberals fail to admit such RIGHTS can be fORFEITED --somehow whether Nazi or Farfurist ideology is infused to a population that refuses to disposess it, somehow that population retains its "innocent" status to liberals...they have lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong -instead we are in an age of MASS LIBERAL STUPIDITY -they can't connect the dots...their minds are muddled with "rights" for rocketeers and shaheeds AND their supporters--active and tacit/passive-- instead,they apply LAW" to save EVILDOERS...Bah,humbug!
Wrong. Spinoza was not the only one. The other one was Uriel da Costa. Of course, these are the famous ones. We do not know about other just ordinary persons questioning the rabbinic party line. David
The lefties Jews can in most of the times will become zealots of defending their positions in a Taliban way, this is an oxymoron. This also only hurts the Jewish people an Israel. Example some time ago we decided on our community to do a school field trip of our synagogue to the beach, a few days before the event, y found out that a Gay pride event was going to happen the same day, and decided as director of the Sunday school to cancel the trip and reschedule, I got a lot of backlash from the leftists members of our community, and was called all kind of names, finally I send a message saying that I will not take my kids to a trip like that and if other parents wanted to do so, to go ahead and take their own sons. In other words lefties are all about defending other people rights and views as long as there are not of somebody with different ideals as them.
Interesting article but one point. Mr Lieber was a distinguished member of the world Jewish Congress. Well, this is a really negative reference since this is an exclusive club of self-declared important people and not elected by anybody but themselves. Therefore his thinking is very much in line with the "I know best" mentality.
Jackie, you stated that Rabin's signing of Olso led to the start of the Intifada. You must be very young since you said that or weren't aware of the region so much if you were around. The Intifada started in 1987. Olso was signed in 1993. The Intifada was hurting Israel's image with stone throwers being machine gunned and what not and kids dying, and the Israeli economy suffering. The PLO under Arafat was in a bad situation due to Arafat's former alliance with Saddam, so it was decided to bring in Arafat to shut the Intifada down. It was felt the Intifada couldn't continue, it would destroy Israel's image in front of Europe and the West in general.
For anyone interested, study the history of Pakistan. Two sects within Islam were excommunicated in the 1970's. Since then, the laws have been further tightened and it is illegal for those sects to call themselves Muslim or call their places of worship Masjid (mosque), (the religious name for a place of worship in Islam). The Afghan war against the Soviets, with strong backing from the clerics in Pakistan, cemented the power of the clergy in Pakistan. Gradually the clergy has since taken Pakistan to the edge of the precipice with increasing militancy and lawlessness, and considerably weakened the state. There is certainly a lesson in this for all states who are thinking of "excommunicating certain members of their society."
Wow... I find it amazing that one would compare present political-security-diplomatic issues to a Middle Ages resolution under some old Jewish Law. Time is now for more civil debate about Israeli peace and other topics such as the emergence of the JStreet advocacy group in Washington. Without some openess and willingness to talk about Peace in a serious fashion, every other effort will be effected. The low poll numbers showing little approval for Obama also reflects on the way Israelis see America (with low approval.) As a Christian, I don't understand. And I don't understand the phrase: "self-hating Jew." And why its used against Jews who have a different view. Also, I'm disturbed that the Prime Minister calls top US officials in the White House (Emanuel and Axelrod)self-hating Jews the same week Congress approves $2.7 Bil for Israel Aid. As an American, that's an insult. Israel has so much to offer the world..Get modern..start doing the right thing for your citizen.
I read the article of Leibler referred to by the author. Leibler never said "excommunicate" liberals. He referred to those who use their Jewish identity as a vehicle to give them added credibility in their efforts to demonize or delegitimize Israel and in order to paint Israel as a pariah and war criminal(e.g. Independent Jewish Voices in the UK or some Israel academics like Ilan Pappe or Neve Gordon). His point was that such persons should be exposed and marginalized as not being representative of the Jews. I do not believe that all Jewish liberals necessarily fit that category. In fact, many, like myself, liberal Jews who support Israel, would actually agree with Leibler.
Liebler lives, like so many contemoporary Jews, lives under a very specific ideologu which impact every facet of his Jewishness: the Holocuast and the State of Israel. It is his starting point for going back for examples to the Middle Ages. He does not make these statements and comparisons as an individual Jew criticisng the position of other Jews with whom he disagrees. For him this is much more profound. It is tribal, collective and he sees the liberal Jews as endangering the tribe, the group collective. He sees them as choosing to leave Jewish history and sees what he views as a conscious abondonment as suicidal, as a giving in to the gentiles who in every time and place seek to destroy us. Therefore, there can be no individual disagreements but collective solidarity. If not, you play into the hands of the enemy.He sees excommunication as a mere result of what these Jews have brought on themselves. History in his view has proven that the world is always against us.
an old friend of ours recently visited Israel. She had made aliya with us. She invited us to her hotel and also another old friend. I had asked the visitor to stay away from politics because we are poles apart. The evening went smoothly but at the last moment I was greeted by "salaam aleikum wa-rachmat allah hi wa-ba-racketot." It was a take-off on the Arabic blessing to show that the main thing is rockets, not a blessing of peace. This was a cheap shot that turns all the Arabs into potential terrorists. Maybe it is not significant. But I recall all the cheap shots that we Jews suffered from anti-semites in America. These were stereotypes that can only lead to violence.
The blood libel cries from Sweden seem to be a modified version of those that echoed in the Middle Ages so the actual time period may have ended, but the cries that the Jews killed non-Jews for nefarious purposes still exist. As far as JStret is concerned, I wonder what is a Buddhist seder -- the ones lauded by the J Streeters? Does in close with the traditional worlds of "Next Year in Jerusalem"? Somehow I doubt it. I do not think they should be excommunicated (they seem to have eradicated their connection to Judaism quite easily) and I really thing the rabbis exceeded authority by excommunicating Spinoza (the only person I can recall as being excommunicated.) As for Rabin, the Oslo agreement was a mistake that led to the first intifada and the slaughter or disabling of Jews by the thousands, but he was not the originator of the Oslo accords. Beilin is still around was and trying to destroy the country in which he lives. Killing Rabin was terrible: his memory lives on
Freedom of speech has its limitations as well as onesided opinions about Israel and Jews. Dear Carlo if the non Jews would have been so reasonable as you demand your own people to be and freeminded we would not have a problem. Self proclaimed liberal as you are as intolerant towards your fellow Jews as you claim the rights Jews are against you. Studies have clearly shown a high correlation between anti Israel opinions and anti semitism. So Carlo yes you have the freedom to critize your own people but you and your so-called liberal Jewish friends should also accept that the majority of decent Jews do support punitive actions against you including exclusion from the Jewish community and removal from university jobs like Pappe if you support boycots of Israeli universities. In the end of the day you should be loyal to your own people and country which means you do have to choose between free speech as you please and sensible self censorship.