Judging Judaism from the Outside

Although the main chunk of my volunteering in Israel revolves around tutoring English in Israeli schools, another opportunity is to work at the local soup kitchen in Nes Ziona. Many people really enjoy it because it is different from the schedule of the schools. The lady who runs the kitchen is full of spirit and kindness, and it’s also nice to chat and get to know the locals that filter in for lunch. Additionally, the soup kitchen in Nes Ziona is run by Chabad. While we don’t work closely with the Chabad, and the kitchen is only funded by them, they often filter in, chatting with the locals or grabbing lunch at the kitchen. Yesterday, one of my close friends confided in me about something that she had been holding in for awhile, something that had happened in the soup kitchen that had aggravated her. My friend regularly volunteers there every single Sunday with another friend of ours, who happens to be male. She confided in me that she becomes incredibly frustrated when the Rabbis or the Chabad men walk in and go straight up to our male friend, introduce themselves, shake his hand, and then proceed to walk away. My friend is constantly in shock. She tells me, “I don’t want to hate religious people, but where are their morals? How can they make me feel like nothing, like I’m invisible, only because I’m a woman.” She then told me another story she’s been holding in. She was biking away from the soup kitchen when she fell off her bike. She hit the ground hard, screaming. She turned around to see if anyone was there, and as she looked around she saw a few Chabad men, praying. They saw her fall, yet they ignored her. There she was, on the ground, almost in tears and not one single person asked if she was okay. Can they not take a quick break to ask a fellow human being how they are after they tumble right on the ground? Not even a simple, “b’seder?”

I know she was partly expressing herself because she had pent up her anger, and partly because she felt that because I was religious I could either defend Judaism, or go down burning with them. Yet, there is no possible way I can defend the actions of these people. I may be religious, but I am not religion itself. I choose to follow the laws of Judaism because I find them beautiful, and because welcoming religion into my life has enhanced it, infusing it with more meaning and understanding of my world. While I can attempt to defend the religious, telling her that while she may have fallen, this fall wasn’t life threatening, and there is a law that when praying the Amida, we can not be distracted by anything. I can tell her that many religious males feel uncomfortable in front of women, because they are choosing to guard their touch, for that special moment with their wives. But I cannot tell my friend it’s okay that she feels invisible and unimportant. These are her feelings, and I cannot deny them. Yet, it pains me to hear her judge Judaism in and of itself based on the actions of others.

It’s easy to judge Judaism from the outside, and even I fall victim to this judgment. I can’t say I support the many religious children who throw stones at people wearing shorts or pants walking through Mea Shearim, I can’t ignore the comments that some religious men choose to yell at “immodestly” dressed women. I cannot and I will not defend these actions. I too get angry at these people and I don’t see these particular actions as representative of the Judaism I practice. In Israel especially, it’s easy to see judgments flying around because of the large numbers of both Haredi and secular Jews. However, I refuse to judge Judaism by the ways in which others practice it. I would like to think that our religion is something more than seeing how others do it, it is a feeling and a spirituality that can only be felt through both knowledge and practice. As a result of Judaism’s many Halakic laws, it is inevitable that much of Judaism becomes mechanical and seemingly meaningless. It’s easy to get lost in the rules of Judaism: dressing a certain way, not turning a light on on Shabbat, or only eating Kosher. These are the easy parts of Judaism, the no brainers. The difficult parts are believing- the faith- and the commitment and the responsibility to better ourselves. Everyday is another day that we get the opportunity to make ourselves a better person. To right the wrongs we’ve made, to find inner peace, and to make others in and around our lives feel better. A truly holy person finds peace within themselves but also passes this on to other people. To me, this means rising above judgment of the other- both those that are secular and religious, and focus on our own happiness and our own deeds. We should therefore judge Judaism not on how others are doing it, but how it makes us feel, what it teaches us, and what it has the potential to do. Therefore, while I can’t defend the actions of another that makes my friend feel invisible and unimportant, I can encourage her to not see religious people as religion, and to explore Judaism in order to inspire her own life- not the lives of others.

International Holocaust Day- January 27

Tomorow, January 27th, 2010 marks the 65th year since the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet forces. Each year, leaders from around the world make their way to Germany in order to commemorate this day. People use this time to think back at the horrors of the Holocaust, and to look forward- with eyes of prevention to prevent further genocides and state sponsored discrimination.

However, tomorrow, when people around the world look back at the worlds biggest and most systematic genocide in known history they might not know that antisemitism in 2009 was at it's highest since the Holocaust. I think that people today have succeeded in separating the Jews of today, from the Jews of the Holocaust. I believe much of this antisemitism has arisen because of popular disagreement with Israeli policy. However, instead of gearing their disagreements towards the Israeli government alone, their frustration has spilled over to the Jewish people. It is as though Jews and Israeli policy, have morphed into one. Therefore, despite one's personal connection to their Judaism or to Israel, Jews are being targeted, only because they are Jews. After the controversial operation in the Gaza strip (Operation Cast lead) -which was just as controversial and disagreed upon within the Jewish community as it was in the world- antisemitic acts around the world equaled the TOTAL number of acts that were recorded in 2008. Now we also have to remember that these are the statistics that are collected, out of those which are reported, therefore we can probably assume that the number of acts actually committed was also much higher. Apparently, the world is justified to stop and criticize their ancestors for the terrible antisemitism Jews faced in the 30's and 40's but are mum on today's situation. Lets remember yesterday's antisemitism, but forget today's. How is it possible that a world leader is even able to stand up in front of the UN and accuse Israel of deceitfully controlling the world's economy and political situation?? Does this banter not sound identical to Germany's propaganda? Ahmadinejad said at the UN meeting:

"The dignity, integrity and rights of the American and European people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a minuscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the US in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner." For the full speech, click here.

While many UN representatives got up and left his speech (also note, many didn't even show up in the first place), let us not forget that he still had a hefty audience. And even if there had been no one there to listen to him, his speech was still recorded, and published worldwide, his words did not fall upon deaf-ears. After the speech, Elie Wiesel, acclaimed academic, Holocaust survivor and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was accosted for being a "zio-nazi" at a UN EVENT- simply because he supports the Jewish state. (To see the video click, here) Ahmadinejad's threats against the Jewish people- his foresighted premonitions, that he is going to "wipe Israel off the map" also eerily remind me of Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939. (NB: that this is BEFORE the final solution- annihilation of the Jews of Europe, was decided)

"In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance only the Jewish race that received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!"

So while world leaders look back at the Holocaust, do they neglect to look at the years that led up to the extermination camps? Is the Holocaust only valuable for the clear genocidal part?- the gas chambers, the mass shootings, and the slave labor?? Or should it also include the elements that led to these horrible atrocities: world leaders denouncing Jews by inciting hatred and prejudice based on lies for propagandist reasons and a spike in antisemitic acts and general attitude towards Jews. Without these elements, the efforts of the practical genocide would have failed. These integral stepping stones led the path to the death of 6 million Jews. If this is so, then how can the world turn their back on today, which is mirroring this time period as well. Where is the world's outcry? Weak sanctions that cripple a country, rather than it's leaders? None other than a country which is trying to fight for what's left of it's democratic character, but it being beaten down by these same leaders. Now, I don't think that a second Holocaust against the Jews is creeping around the corner, what I'm trying to argue is the hypocrisy of the situation. Of leaders all over the world commemorating one group of Jews, without any plan to stand up to situations that are popping up in their very countries today. Has their been such a time that "Never Again" seems so much like a lie- an easy placebo to soothe the conscience of the world.

Legitimacy for discriminatory security

On Christmas day, a man by the name of Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, attempted to detonate plastic explosives he smuggled onto his flight headed towards Detroit from Amsterdam. Although, the heroic acts of the passengers prevented the terrorist attack, the situation immediately brought us back to the days of 9/11; specifically, questions about airport security and terrorism. This flight was lucky, but the next flight could have disastrous consequences if the passengers hadn't been both brave and lucky to have caught the situation. Which brings us to the aftermath of the situation: new airport security. The United States has announced that people from the following countries; Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen — will face special scrutiny and extra security checks at the airport when flying to the US, or through a US airline. Following this announcement, the world has cried out against these new measures: where is the fairness?, the democracy? and human rights? The other day, the New York Times reported one man's sad story, of how he lived his entire life in Britain, but because of his original nationality, Nigerian, he was (in his opinion) unfairly searched at the airport. His search reflects the discrimination he was subjected to, only because of his of national origin. Airport security tell people that the public will be served and treated in a fair, lawful, and nondiscriminatory manner, without regard to … national origin. So bascially, you’re not going to be subject to discriminatory screening based on national origin, unless you happen to be from one of 14 specific countries and then you will. Glad that they’ve cleared up that confusion. So in return to this discriminatory policy, the world objects ;how far is the US willing to go in order to "secure" their population? Discrimination and unlawfulness??

So now, I ask, what is the familiar story line I'm reading?????oh yeah.... Israel. Examples are constantly popping into my mind, on how the media blasts Israel for how far it's willing to go in order to secure it's population. Just last week, the Supreme Court of Israel announced that it will begin allowing Palestinians to drive on route 433 again. WAIT- yes, this is true, there are roads that Palestinians are not allowed to drive on, and of course this is one prime examples for Israel's enemies to cry out: apartheid! But... really... if we truly logically think of these actions, and not in a a way that looks to explicitly discriminate Israel but to look at the situation with fresh eyes, we begin to actually see, that perhaps: yes this is an "apartheid-like" action. I really hate to use this word, I prefer to use discriminatory, but I can understand where the term is from. Although the reason that Palestinians are not allowed to drive on this road, is explained through legitimate security concerns, the situation begs, is there really any legitimate security concerns that allow for a people to be discriminated against? This terribly delicate balance is difficult to deal with. The examples are rich in Israel: the security wall: which inconveniences the lives of many Arabs, in the name of Jewish security, roadblocks in the territories (the classic example of a pregnant women crossing the border- do you check her- she might have a bomb in her belly- or do you let her go and risk her being a suicide bomber.) We come to immediate conclusions that discrimination is in fact needed in order to save lives. If we value life so much, than discrimination is a necessary evil or order to save lives.

I think that this is a a situation that makes most people uncomfortable. There are no rights or wrongs, because it seems that no matter which side you take you feel wrong. You either devalue life, or you discriminate. Therefore, I respect the media's scrutiny of such situations because without it we would become complacent, and begin to believe that "inconveniencing lives" is not important at all- that it may not even picture into the discussion. However, I believe that the situation is much deeper than this. Those who shrug off these types of concerns as a mere annoyance, because of the noble minded goal of saving lives, also devalue our respect for the basic pillars of humanity. I'd like to argue that without the feeling of awkwardness we lose faith in the unity of human kind- what kind of life do we want to live, as what kind of people? I once ran into an incredibly heated debate with a Jewish girl, who just couldn't wrap her mind around the idea of the Israeli security fence- (of course she called it the apartheid wall) While I tried to statistically show her the fact that suicide bombings and attacks on citizens have dramatically decreased- thus saving lives- she wouldn't even hear it. Key to her was the fact that there is a wall that segregates one people from another: one people is so important as to completely inconvenience the lives of another. (economic suffering, loss of land, restricted water access and most importantly reduced freedoms) Now trust me- I feel for the Palestinians whose lives have been turned upside down by the construction of the wall. I am also very sensitive to the wall because of it's political implications: it could mean the possible annexation of land on the Israeli side, without Palestinian input or negotiation. However- I also understand the impact it has made in saving lives- and because of this- and only this, I support it.. grudgingly.

The generation of desperation

It's no secret that today's society is increasingly becoming more and more secular. The number of false idols in our valueless world is only growing. Which is why it is particularly interesting that within the Jewish tradition, there is a growing number of youth who are turning towards religion, away from this society. By this I am referring to the growing trend of Bal Tsuva's in Judaism- those "who return" to religion. Not only do I notice it within friends of friends and friends but I've also studied it in my Jewish history classes- where the upward trend of today's Jewish history is the return to religion. I suppose the answer to the question- why are people becoming more religious in a society that is becoming more secular- is obvious. Today's youth are grappling for meaning and depth in a society that is quickly losing any remnants of both. This brings me therefore to my main question or topic of this post, a question that I too was once faced with. To get to this question, let me tell a short story. While debating with someone, who claimed they were deeply atheist (at least to me- to counter my faith and belief) they revealed how they perceive the growing trend of religious people; as a form of desperation. These people are not able to face the truth or the reality of a meaningless world, and random world. They need a crutch; to use the tool of HaShem and religion in order to survive. The time-old question: Is it desperation for meaning instead of truth that is driving us towards religion? Is it what we want, not what is. And let's face it, this argument is nothing new. Was it not Marx who said that religion was the opium of the people- a line that resonates with popularity today? The idea that people are desperate for meaning, and can't face the actual realities of this world, and instead convice themselves of illusions. The world is what it is, what we can know, and religion is included in this knowledge. If this is so, than religion is simply a product of this world, and therefore a product of man. For man, the fear of facing a meaningless and random world (where especially in older times, where there was lack of proper government etc.. there was also needed a moral code and rules)was unreal, and so it became easier to believe in meaning. The idea that no path has been written for us, nothing is for any reason, and our existence is a mere coincidence of science, is difficult to accept. In essence- people are desperate for an answer, and are prepared to create illusions and crutches in order to understand. The world has no answers, but for those we create for ourselves. Now- I know it now sounds like I'm on the path to either put down religion or defend it, but I don't think it possible to do either in this blog.... or even ever. Religion today has become an incredible personal decision and a personal debate for each man. Rather, I want to argue against this idea that religion is a form of desperation, or that religion is the opium of the masses- although I do believe it has the potential to be both.

In the past, religion was a given, not a choice. People lived in a G-d drenched world, where G-d permeated every aspect of life. Today, our secularizing world offers most (lets stick to Western societies)the choice of how they want to live. Either world we embrace, we can easily find a community with open arms. So now the question becomes, how do we choose, where does the turn from one world to another come from? While it may be true that many people nowadays are perhaps initially turning towards religion because they are lost, or confused and can’t find their place or yadayadayada to whatever sappy story you hear, (and therefore can be considered desperate) I really wonder if this is what will keep them into religion once they return? I think that the key, at least for me here, is the aspect of spirituality and happiness. While we can use tools in order to get somewhere, we wouldn’t stay in this state for our entire lives, and also, we wouldn’t stay happy. I think that the answers given by a given religion also reflect how much spirituality and happiness they provide for each person. (reflected by how the truth resonates to each person) Therefore, sometimes the beginning of the path may be rocky and unclear, the journey and destination must have some authenticity. (to the person, not universally authentic or true) Are we continually desperate for answers, so much so that we are willing to accept anything that comes our way- or only that that rings true, both in our fufillment of happiness and our measure for truth. Further, the idea that faith can bring us an easy answer towards life is also completely unfounded. The concept of complete faith is much scarier and difficult to do than believing in nothing. Although it may seem that pure faith is easier, (because everything is in Gds hands and everything is done for the best- even the worst experiences in your life- because at the end of the day, Gd is only trying to improve you),as someone who is struggling to do this it's not as simple and easy to do. This is mostly because we have to put our instinctive intellect aside in order to believe. (When bad things happen we don't intuitively see the best in it, we get angry) So in this respect, does desperation lead us to give up all of our inhibitions and rationality in favor of something we can never really know. Perhaps this is the most difficult part of religion- to believe and to have faith. If we believe firmly that there is nothing out there, (or in an agnostic sense- that we can never know what is out there- but there is no way to ever know)then we allow ourselves to be the masters of our own life. 'If it feels good do it' type of ideology. Does life in this respect not become much simpler? We avoid sense of rules and fixed set of morals. Happiness is the next meal, the next lay, the next paycheck. Yet, if this is so, we can also allow our societies to be completely turned around, because we can never truely know what are the right values. Who says my values are better than yours?- no one. Therfore, the idea that the Nazis valued the life of animals, over the life of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and many Eastern European peoples (those not of Aryan decendancy) is fine. With no fixed set of values and mroals, I can't say that this is wrong (even to this day)- and many a peoples in this day, did just that. The value of life, comes only from the Judeo-Christian tradition of fixed morality. The idea that I cannot say what is right or wrong, but that the instruction and the communication (mainly through Torah)from a higher being- from someting infinite intead of finite, comes from religion. SO is this desperation too? I suppose it could be argued that the want of a fixed set of morals is desperation, but it can also be argued, that without this, we are not desperate for it, but that we decsend into a life of utter chaos. (Hobbes' state of nature type of thing)

I just want to take a minute here, to talk about the people turning to religion, whom I do see as desperate. (oh no! am I ruining my entire argument?) I think that parts of our society turning towards relgiion do so because they are desperate and need something to guide them. In this sense religion is good. Why are types of Judaism, like black hat Judaism so popular? becuse these are instructing you exactly how to live. Judaism has high potential to simply be a rulebook, or a book of riddles. (void of spirituality and connection to something loftier) People are living mechanical yet simple lives according to Torah. This is an escape for them, rather than a place for real answers. I once spoke to an incredibly wise person , who really inspired me, who told me that this was the easy answer to religion. Yes we question what we are learning in Yeshivas and seminaries but we are also just accepting what has been written in law without the means of questioning these old traditions. I think Judaism in particular has one of the most interesting histories, because of the way that Halachic law was cemented. Here I'm referring to the process of law and tradition. People will say; if you don't know which prayer to say over the wine?? Simply go out and see what your neighbors are saying,and this is the law. Tradition is therefore as strong as law. (Reference here to "tradition! tradition!" circa fiddler on the roof) tradition in Judaism is just as strong as law. Biblical Jews were not wearing the Hasidic garb, this sort of tradtitional dress was taken from Russian and Polish neighbors when Jews used to live in these areas for many years. Our ancestors were not wondernig the land of Israel wearing a fur hat, or the big black coat. The evolution of Judaism through influence of others, has been sealed into something just as strong as law. Which makes the older traditions of instituting halacha very interesting. Why did one city's law take precedence over another? because one shtetl had 100 more people, and therefore this law was put into the history book. Now our many learn these laws, but don't get the oppertunity to dig deeper into this process. This answer, to me, seems more layered and complicated and doesn't fit the reason why so many people are now becoming religious. So no, I cannot deny the aspect of desperation as reason for why some people become religious. However, the idea that the entire framework of religion is such, is definatly not true. If we are to really explore the depth and the framework of Judaism, in a way that doesn't just let us live our lives mechanically, then we are not desperate because this life only complicates our lives, and forces us to question, debate and challenge all of our prenotions and ideas. If religion is the desperate search for a definate answer then the true study and loyalty to Judaism will do just the opposite. So in my conversation with this wise friend, we discussed how the real potential in Judaism lays not within accepting the answer but rather to challenge the answer at every oppertunity. Religion in this way is not only a way of life, but a journey of exploration, and new discovery. The mere idea that Judaism offers this facet is important.

So maybe what I'm trying to say is that the answers offered in Judaism have potential(this I must concede to) to be a haven for the desperate, more than the truth of a meaningless world. But Judaism isn't all an easy street for the desperate. It would be naive to believe that it was simply this. Using Judaism as the exploration for truth, one will find the exact opposite. There are more quetsions and the path is deeper and longer- and it is in this way that 'nothing' can be a better haven for the desperate. However, the act of teshuva and returning to religion gives more meaning, spirtiuality and perhaps happiness than the endless pursuit of material goods- and living how we want. We gain a sense of vision impossible to understand in a secular world, and a set sense of truth with a brand of values that resonate. Maybe I'm wrong, or maybe I really am desperate, but if this is so, then this answer for my desperation is the wrong answer. Opium to hide the reality of the world is prhaps wrong, perhaps the opium of the people today is the idea that all we have is nothing. This allows us to live how and where we want without consquence, and this allows the blindness of the youth to continue grappeling with no answers. Is this the true condition of the human? Perhaps. Or perhaps this is what we've allowed ourselves to believe, because we can't really face the truth of the human condition within the framework of religion. How will we ever know?? Well, this million dollar question takes us right back to the beginning, and our personal decision about religion.

This was somewhat of a difficult topic for me to explore, so if I was unclear (which sometimes in my head I'm so completely clear but on paper... not so much) please ask and I'll attempt to explain what I meant. Also if you completely disagree or if I haven't fleshed out my argument well enough... go on and comment.

Generations

I recently just finished reading Amos Oz's "A perfect Peace". The book was incredibly weird to say the least, however, when reading an Oz book- you can never really go wrong. Sure enough his incredible talent was once again revealed in this book- despite even the translation. The book is set in a Kibbutz (surprise, surprise for Oz;))and revolves around the lives of the Kibbutznicks. Set in 1966, the book focuses on the two generations of the Kibbutz; those who built the kibbutz; based on their ideological Zionist principles formed in Europe, and the younger generation that inherited the consequences and realities of these ideas and principles. The younger generation in Oz’s book represent the ultimate embodiment of the dreams and hopes of the early Zionists. The book therefore struggles with the realities of this embodiment. It shows how ‘the Sabra’ is burdened with the heavy ideals and expectations from the older generation. They, in some sense, come to resent the life that they are forced and expected to live. This gap in generation is further highlighted by the introduction of a newcomer to the Kibbutz, Azariah, a man described as “born in the wrong generation". He was born in Europe, survived the Holocaust, and ended up on this Kibbutz. Azariah acts and thinks similar to the original Zionists of the land of Israel did, as a result of his early childhood in Europe and his experience in the Shoah. In some sense, among his generation, he is the “Jew”, and is never fully able to assimilate amongst the Sabras.

The older generation of the Kibbutz, are seeing their ideas come into fruitation, yet are somewhat removed from its complete success. The older generation, despite their attempts to be part of the land, feel as though they can never become natives to the land of Israel, and therefore they want to insure those born in the land, embody what they could never be. Oz has one of the older leaders of the kibbutz write, “...what troubles me is perhaps a vague sense of not belonging. Of homesickness. Of a sorrow that has no address. In this odd place without rivers, without forests, without church bells. Without all those things I loved. Nevertheless, I’m perfectly capable of drawing up the most coldly objective historical, ideological and personal balance sheets, all three of which tell me that the same thing- that there is no mistake. Everyone of us here can take a modest measure of pride in what’s we’ve done, in our long, dogged struggle to create out of nothing this attractive village even if it looks as if it has been built out of blocks by an intelligent child... Detached as I am, I approve of this achievement. We haven’t done a bad job. And to some extend we have truly made better people of ourselves.”(Oz, 221) They’ve created a reality that they can’t necessarily 100% experience. Therefore it is no surprise that even the new generation doesn’t live up to their standards- much of this also has to do with the attitude that the younger generation has to the ideals. The younger generation is stuffed full of ideology they can never fully understand- mostly because they never faced antisemitism and persecution. Not only that but, because of the actions of the older generation they are born in a new conflict, and have the responsibility to protect the land. They therefore ask; : “what more O what more do you want our land that we haven’t given you yet”?? (from a popular patriotic song) I somewhat see this generation as a science experiment- now created to protect the dream of another generation, and told that this too is what they want, and what they need.

Before we continue, I think it is defiantly worth it to look a little closer at the concept of a new Jew or a Sabra, in case anyone is lost thus far. The founding Zionists intended to recreate Jews- basically they wanted to breed a new generation of Jews, a re-definition of the concept of the exilic Jew, in order to create a new type of Hebrew man that would live in Palestine. This redefinition described the Jew as a very manly identity; he was strong, proactive, healthy in body, and ready to labour the land. This new identity clashed with popular perceptions of Jews in Europe; the Jew had come to be seen as weak, pale, cowardly and diseased. Therefore, Zionists had internalized these accusations, and sought to reclaim Jewish masculinity as a reaction to antisemitism. However, the Zionists also rejected their own traditions as Jews, which blurred traditional gender roles. Jews within Ashkenazi culture were either Torah scholars, or smart enlightened men; either way, they were hunched over their books, and passive to the world that surrounded them. Zionism rejected this, and sought to masculinise the new Jew, in order to reject this weak perception and thus create something new in a new land. This reinvention fit into the large context of collective Jewish national revitalization, and came to define a new generation of Jews that would grow up in Palestine.

While there are many interesting themes in Oz's books, I really think that the most interesting theme is this one in particular. While this theme, embedded in Oz’s book, can be seen historically, the theme is definitely still present today in Israeli society. The newest generation of Israelis, although with added years of history, are also the inheritors and the embodiment of the Zionist dream. This thus explains the phenomenon of many Israelis no longer finding any connection to this land. They have no connection to the perils and the threat of exile; it is only something they learn about in class. They face no discrimination within Israel as Jews, obviously because they are the majority of the population. The hardship of Israeli life is reflected not through antisemitism or genocide, but instead through army service, terrorism and the constant threat (and practice) of war. While the older generations were able to justify the later because they valued the eventual goal of statehood, self-determination and acceptance; newer generations have always had this. Without the existential threat that the original Zionists had, the later only become meaningless, and therefore empty tasks. Perhaps the only meaning that has recently been infused in it, is the emergence of nationalism, which is different from Zionism. By this I mean that younger generations value this land because this is where their families for generations have grown, this is where they grew up and this is where a new Israeli (not Jewish) culture is burgeoning. The idea of it being exclusively Jewish, is connected to this new Israeli culture, but it may not always be essential. By this, I mean to say that someone not Jewish can partake in the Israeli culture. (Although the two now are connected, it is growing, so as to not include the Jewish aspect) Therefore, how strong is this nationalism??(Especially in comparison to Zionism) Is it stopping younger generations from the lure of immigration to America—which has its own brand of acceptance, and inclusiveness, that Jews always covet? For some, nationalism is enough to keep them here, but not for others. This would explain the growing number of people who move away to America or Canada. There they can live better economic lives, which are both safer; in all regards (since in many places of Canada and the US, antisemitism is nearly impossible to find) Perhaps, without the deep belief in original Zionism, younger generations are living in an empty shell. A country that they can’t fully connect to the way that original Zionists did. A country they are expected to bleed for, every day of their lives. What for me is especially interesting is the appearance of Oz’s weird character, Azariah, in modern day Israel. To me, he is every Jew that ideologically makes Aliyah- pledging their allegiance to Zionism. They know how it feels to live in Galut, amongst a Christian world, on a Christian calendar, with a Christian focus. They now want to live in the Jewish spotlight, on an exclusively Jewish land. They have no nationalism- only Zionism. This reminds me of a conversation I once had with a native Israeli. He argued that he wanted to live in Canada, away from the craziness, and the burden of Israel- an easy and simple life. I couldn’t understand it; all I see in Thornhill is some boring land, with houses in suburbia that all look the exact same. (some kind of wrinkle in time description) A land with no meaning, and where I have no connection to it’s history. Yet- this is exactly it, this is the lure. Here- the land demands so much from you- and each Israeli has to decide if it's enough in return. And what about all the Azariahs?? Born in the wrong generation, smelling of Zionist propaganda- giving up their families, economic easiness, and simple lives, just to live in Israel. Are we crazy?? Or are we are willing to adopt all this crazy in return for the satisfaction of living the Zionist dream- just as our Zionist elders who came from Europe did. Maybe born in the wrong generation, but re-defining this one too.

The riddle of the century: 'A Jewish Democracy'

A few nights ago in Jerusalem, there were about two thousand secular Israelis demonstrating against police weakness in the face of what they branded ultra-Orthodox religious coercion and violence. (Nir Hasson, Haaretz) Holding signs labeled "Israel is also ours" they reinforce the ever present divide between religious and secular in Israel.. They were protesting against the overwhelming amount of ultra-Orthodox demonstrations that have been happening in Jerusalem, especially since this summer. I'd like to repeat what has been happening in Jerusalem, in case any readers are unfamiliar. This summer, there were many riots held by ultra-orthodox Jews, protesting the opening of a parking lot in a Haradi area. They opposed the building claiming it "violated Shabbas, and interrupted the staus-quo". Violent interactions between police and Haradi Jews erupted in Jerusalem. There were more riots after the arrest of a Haradi mother, accused of starving her baby , and more recently, the opening of a Intel plant in a religious area (Intel is open on Shabba) The secular protest was not only against police inaction, but also a general stand against, what they believe, the statement or the idea that Israel is exclusively for the religious, and that Israel is a land of Judaism. In simpler terms- there is a clear friction between a Jewish state and a democratic state. (Interesting side note though: the ways in which the Haredi express their opinion is through a democratic means)

I think it's really interesting to talk to Jewish tourists about this balance. While Jewish visitors love the Jewish character of Israel, most secular Israelis don't. There is a certain novelty of restaurants and stores being closed, buses not running on Shabbat and other such things. For them, coming from countries that run on the Christian calender, the excitement of seeing how a country can be run in a "religious" manor makes them proud to be Jewish- regardless of how "Jewish" they are or not. Why wouldn't it be exciting to have a country of Jews who follow the rules. But how would these tourists feel if they had to practically live here?? This is the problem that secular Israelis face. They are told they are living in a democratic country, but yet they face injustices because of religion. The friction between "church and state" is never so clearly seen than here in Israel. If an Israeli Jew falls in love with a non-Jew- they don't have the right to get married in Israel. Democracy? Yet, what happens when we strip away these Jewish practices, how Jewish does our state become? What are we willing to sacrifice between the two in order to reach some sort of balance? This question of reconciliation between the two is incredibly tricky.

I think it's useful to think of the "Jewish-democracy scale", where we want to get as most democracy and Judaism into the state as possible. All Judaism and no democracy would be a religious autocratic state, similar to what the Taliban set up in Afghanistan.(with Islam) How would this look in Israel? A team of rabbis running the country. No Judaism, and all democracy would be similar to US, where there is a separation of church and state. In Israel, this would grant full national, (and all other rights) to Palestinian Arabs but also to Israeli Arabs. There would no long longer be any 'Jewish' state- although all the Jews in Israel could continue living here, with the same rights they hold today. With no Judaism and no democracy, we get something like Stalinst Communist Russia. I couldn't even begin to think how that would affect Israel though. Therefore, the goal is to get the most democracy and the most Judaism into this state. But I suppose this is also easier to say than to do or put into place. The status-quo of Jewish laws has been kept since the creation of the state of Israel itself. While Ben-Guirion's Zionism preached a secular re-invention of the Jew- he still made a coalition, and a deal, with the religious Zionists, who envisioned Israel to be eventually run in a purely religious manor. From this stemmed many religious laws in Israel. (one of the most popular, disputed and therefore controversial is the exemption of religious Jews from the army in order to study in Yeshiva, a status-quo that was created right at the beginning) I think that this idea is particularly interesting in the puzzle of a Jewish-democracy, because it was the secular that invited the religious into this state, in some ways. It is well known that the secular movement itself, although deeply secular in practice, had undertones of religious Judaism in their ideas. For example, the use of the Hebrew language- the ancient religious and sacred language of the Jewish people was chosen. (and don't think that this was obvious, because a bitter battle ensured between Yiddish and Hebrew- and German was even took a place in this fight) Further, the insistence of the land of Israel, rather than another type of land- say territorialism in Russian, or a piece of land in Uganda, was insisted by the WZO. The land of Israel is strongly connected to the Jewish religion. Therefore, I would like to argue that, despite the split of religious-secular in the beginning of the creation of the state of Israel, there was also some sort of unison: if at least as some sort of spiritual understanding. Unfortunately, I think that this split has not stayed in unison, but has only continued to part.

The friction that exists between the Jewish part of the state, and the democratic part of the state, runs deep. There are no right answers here. The balance between a Jewish democracy is continually tipping, and each question needs to be individualized. I personally believe that without the Jewish character of the state, we destroy the seams of which this country was sewn from, and destroy Zionism- despite it's deeply secular character. How much am I willing to concede and how much democracy am I willing to sacrifice? This is an unfortunate question that each Jew must struggle with. This struggle is represented in the two types of people in this country- the religious and the secular. Each has to live with the concessions that the other has forced the state to make. It is therefore no surprise that there is an incredible bitterness between them. The secular perceive the religious as non-nationalistic bums, who don't work, don't give anything to the country (a lot of this is related to the fact that the ultra-orthodox don't go to the army)- yet they take and take from the country- namely through welfare. The secular are perceived as hedonistic sinners,many of whom they don't even consider Jewish, who don't care at all about Judaism or Jews. Obviously many of these are hyperboles or based on mythology. So, is there any hope?? Or are we simply looking into a dark abyss?? Let's also remember that much of this divide is also fueled by ignorance and stereotypes. While talking to a religious teacher in a secular high school, she confided in me the ignorance she faces surrounded by secular students. She expressed that people right away assume that she didn't go to the army, or that she doesn't believe in the state of Israel, and that she too agrees with all the actions that many ultra-religious profess to. She feels as though they perceive her as a democracy-hating Jew, who wants to let only rabbis run this country. Astounded, she says she is happy she has the opportunity to educate these kids, and explain to them the differences in religious opinions; she too struggles with a Jewish democracy. Just as secular Jews may find themselves not in the same opinion about many things, so do religious Jews- they are far from a united front. She tells them that many religious people go to the army, including women- although many also choose to participate in the "national service" program, where they get the opportunity to service their country in different ways through volunteer work. I think it is through people like her, that we are hopefully beginning to bridge gaps and old bitterness. There is no right answer but to know that despite our beliefs we are all Jews; this land belongs to all of us- and therefore it is all of our struggle.

The Strength of Ideology

The stories in the news are becoming worse and worse when it comes to Israel. Iran is launching war games after threatening to "hit the heart of Tel Aviv" with bombs, meanwhile, in the Palestinian territories, there are threats of a third intifada. People are buzzing with the inevitability of a third Lebanon war and another Gaza war, not to mention Syria, threatening to become more hostile if peace talks don't start. So what does it all mean? Well in simplest terms it means that Israel isn't the safest place in the entire world. It seems as though it's enemies are always growing sharper claws, and that the light at the end of the tunnel for the coveted "peace in the middle east" is merely an optimist's dream. It really begs the question of why do people live here, why do people make aliyah? True there are arguments that say that no where is safe- no one predicted 9/11- and people would have sworn that U.S is one of the safest places to live. People also claim that Israel is relatively safe when it comes to terrorism, most incidents happen in "danger zones"; West Bank and Gaza. A common saying is that you are in more danger crossing a street than from a terrorist. However, when you face the facts, you can't hide that Israel is a scary place. It is constantly in conversation for peace, and therefore teetering at the edge of constant war. There are army bases everywhere, compulsory service, bomb shelters in each apartement, security guards stationed in front of supermarkets, restaurants and malls. So what is it that draws people to this land? In my last blog I spoke about the question of Zionism and it's ever changing structure and definition, this time I want to talk about Zionism in terms of it's ideology; the power of an idea.

Why is Israel so important to people that they are willing to "risk their lives" for it. Fine- let me clear about things before I start- living in Israel doesn't mean you are doomed or something, but it does mean an understanding that you are living under some kind of risk. (Whether this risk be a dangerous one, or you could even say by living without your family or something) I'd like to compare this to the life of the BILU.
The Bilu were a group of young Russians who lived for the Zionist dream. They wanted to establish a homeland for the Jews in the land of Israel in light of recent pograms in Russia, and the growing danger of being a Jew in Europe. So what did they do?- they moved to the land of Israel, before the land of Israel looked anything like it does today. Life was difficult and there were MANY dangers. (in 1882) These young pioneers were escaping the antisemitism of Russia but they didn't have to move to Palestine. They could have moved to America (or Canada :)) and had it easier. They could have lived the American dream; pulled themselves up from their bootstraps and had a much easier life. However, their ideology was stronger than this. They weren't just running away from antisemitic Russia, they were fulfilling their dream, for themselves and generations after them. Your life only has worth with meaning. So why live an easy meaningless life? Their efforts not only helped establish both Rishon Letzion but also Zikron Yakov. They not only inspired themselves but also others.

I think that this answer is the same for many Jews today flocking to Israel. Many Jews have to serve in the army, put their lives at risk, worry more about terrorism and crazy countries like Iran. The question is yes, they take this on, and in some way, give up a sense of security, but what do they get in return? A sense of fulfillment and meaning in their lives, something worth living for. I think that for me, the question I'm still struggling is, how much of a meaning am I putting in my life? What is this meaning? What is this ideology- we know it's Zionism, but how strong is it, to give up our lives in America, our lives of comfort, family and easiness. While speaking to one of my roommates, she told me that as much as she loves Israel, it's not worth it to live here. She doesn't feel anything really for Judaism. Feeling of culturally being Jewish can be felt anywhere, not necessarily in Israel, and therefore ideological needs are met specifically in Israel, but wherever there is a cultural Jewish center. This meaning and fulfillment is anywhere you make it. Even for religious people, the same can be said. Is the center of Thornhill not concentrated with religious Jews, making life really easy, culturally and religiously for Jews? What is it specifically about Israel that fuels our passion for a Jewish state and Zionism? Is it simply the knowledge that Israel is a haven for Jews- but in that case, it can be anywhere- Uganda? So many Jews argue nowadays, that "Israel" is where you make it, and that all Jews can just get a land somewhere in America and make that the new Jewish home. Why here? For religious Jews, the answer is easier, this is our promised land. This is our spiritual center and prophesied state. But this answer is too simple- the BILU were secular as secular can be. They were not only secular but made a conscious decision to reject religion. (This was part of a greater trend of the Jews making aliyah from Europe- they rejected the religious character of their brethren in Europe in a bid to recreate the Jew- as the "new Jew": a secular, strong man.) Also, it's not just religious Jews making aliyah, it is secular Jews too. Why is it when you look at these trends you feel caught up in some historical narrative that is without explanation. An inexplicable phenomenon, that is impossible to describe. I'd like to explain to myself the lure of living in Israel, but I think that it is simply something that must be felt. I'm living here now because I'm enamored with the land of Israel. I think that historically Jews need a land, but this land runs deeper than this. This land speaks to me, in a way that Canada never could. I feel like I'm in a living miracle, something my ancestors only prayed for. The rush of living among Jews and in a Jewish state is inexplicable and putting myself into a historical context excites me more than anything. Even though I'm not a member of the BILU, I'm contributing something; I know because I can feel I'm getting something back.