Our Sect, Our Choice

                At the beginning of the final book of the Torah, God deems the Israelites worthy in their fortieth year of wandering in the desert. Although God's words are somewhat belligerent, this portion speaks of the Israelites growing in unity and righteousness. After many years b’midbar, in the wilderness, the Israelites gain the necessary strength and the appropriate discipline to earn God's support in crossing the Jordan River. Finally bestowing this blessing, God provokes a spiritual change in a people that emerged from slavery, providing the protection and resources for lifelong fulfillment. Likewise, while Reform Jews experience varying levels of comfort in North American society, the majority under the URJ’s umbrella enjoys a comfortable lifestyle very much like the one guaranteed by God for the Israelites in parashat D’varim. More than any other Jewish organization in North America, the URJ possesses significant monetary, political and spiritual influence, yet the potential misuse of this wealth brings Reform Jews to a perilous void of having reached the Promised Land and having yet attained nothing but a desert within themselves.

                In an age of modernization, Reform Judaism was a rebellion against non-compliant traditionalism. For the first time, Judaism spoke to certain non-Hebrew speakers via a growing musical character and supplementary text written in the mother tongue. Like a large tent, Reform Judaism allows all who seek a role among the Jewish people to enter, and in welcoming modernity, Reform Judaism stakes its tent in the realm of public life. Allowing secularism to permeate the walls of synagogues, Reform Jews can have an open-minded debate about how to work religion into a world where it seems increasingly negligible. Rather than parse religion and the ever-changing state of daily life, we incorporate what it means to be essentially Jewish into our humanity, transcending laws and sustaining an individualized Jewish experience.

                In doing so, however, Reform Judaism confronts a history of appropriation and assimilation that all immigrant-groups and their descendants have faced in North America. At the most classical Reform synagogues, services seem to mimic those at cathedrals only a few blocks south.  Where is the line between the temple choir and Christian rock or the commemoration of the birth of Jesus and that of the Maccabee victory against the Greek and Assyrian armies?  We risk adapting Judaism to the point that it becomes a religion of empty buzzwords, and we face the threat of equivocating what it means to be a good Jew versus a simply decent human being. The tent of Reform Judaism may embrace anyone who comes into its midst, but when the tent is so inclusive, does standing for everything really mean that Reform Judaism stands for nothing?

The temple experience and contextual Jewish surrounding can not be about manufacturing thirteen year olds who have undergone the process of Bar and Bat Mitzvah. Rather, it should simultaneously distinguish itself from and entangle itself in the daily, fast-paced rhythm of the present in a way that reflects this week’s Torah portion. In Parashat D’varim, God grants the Israelites permission to accept the covenant of their ancestor and be a chosen people. Instead of rising above all nations as God's shining jewel, we should avoid pretension and entitlement, embracing our unique character while living among the other nations.  Even in D’varim, God speaks of the nations that will be unassailable, such as the descendants of Esau, affirming that they are as entitled to a subset of land as the Israelites.  Thus, in North America and around the world, Reform Jews must recognize their seat of power not as a people selected to rule above or blend with other nations but to call for action upon them.

                Foremost, Reform Judaism requires individual effort. In order to achieve outer peace on Earth, we must learn to be introspective, sorting through difficult emotions. Unlike members of other sects, Reform Jews sift through the Torah’s practices and laws in order to determine which ones are still relevant or useful for the present day. Torah requires intention so that challenging Biblical text forms a practical, individualized ideology. Reform Judaism is a process of evaluation, planning, and self-actualization. Refusing to be Kosher, for instance, is an acceptable practice in Reform Judaism, but the individual who chooses to do so must first and come to understand how the history of dietary laws and how they may be useful to someone else. The greatest enemy of Reform Judaism (and possibly Judaism in general) is laziness. If we do not actively agree or disagree with the Torah’s teachings, then indeed, we are appropriating Judaism for the modern world, but skepticism may be one of progressive Judaism’s most powerful tools. To wield it properly, we must first divulge ourselves in the rich history of the past. We cannot call upon the experience of centuries-ago rabbis for worship but rather personalize every part of the prayer service in whatever language as a source of peace or conflict that leads to the ultimate goal of holy self-actualization.

Reaching God, then, is not grasping for an omnipresent authority but searching for the innermost idealism within each of us, and Reform Judaism, thereby, requires a collectivist mindset. Our monotheism, in this sense, exists in multitudes as every Reform Jew interprets tzedek  (justice) and chesed (kindness) in a personalized context. The amalgamation of these reflections allows for understanding what it means to be a chosen people. The oneness that is at the core of Judaism may not manifest itself as the mighty God on high for many Reform Jews, but we can work together as a movement toward the reclamation of Jewish values and revelation for one another. Across the spectrum and around the world, both religious and non-practicing individuals emphasize peace, love, and friendship. On the contrary, by pairing these values with tangible mechanisms of action or intention, Reform Judaism can disprove the notion that it is as ideological as a children’s program on PBS. Returning to the tent analogy, we welcome any individual who wishes to come into our midst but in doing so, we should warn them that Reform Judaism is contentious and strives for more questions before it reaches conclusive answers. We should challenge our more conservative partners to evaluate a particular stance on Israel and Palestine or income inequality, determining where our dominantly individualized economy and society diverge from our core Jewishness. As I noted earlier, the so-called tent is beautifully staked in public life, and with this position, we can not wallow in the privilege that surrounds so many of us. When reduced to its most fundamental tenets, each individual within a Reform Jewish community is seeking to lessen the gap between the realized and holy selves, and the richness of synagogue life in North America allows Reform Jews to support one another’s endeavors and project this introspection into making a more wholesome society.

                No one said defining or reaching God was easy living. The word “reform” means to take meaningful steps to create change. We are not “Radical Judaism” or “Revolutionary Judaism”, but day by day, we can participate in the work of creation, that is creation of a better self through study and personalized prayer and then a better world via community action and comprehension of one another. The choice is ours as we stand on the brink of promise like the Israelites in parashat D’varim. Perhaps, we can emerge as a reviving, liberal voice for Judaism, proving that people that can still help one another in a world that sinks into nauseating selfishness and diminishing connection.

The Worst Decision for All Involved

            Recently, I watched the season three opener of The West Wing in which President Jed Bartlett delivers a speech to launch his reelection campaign.  White House staffer, Josh Lyman, is preoccupied throughout the episode with FDA approval of a new birth control drug that he does not want to “dominate the news cycle.” More than any other topic of debate, more than taxes and the size of the federal government, abortion and reproductive rights politically and emotionally divide the United States, and this debate encourages a range of futile attacks on both sides from boisterous, talk-show squabbling to violent protests around Planned Parenthood clinics. Currently, abortion is still the most sensitive, contentious issue facing the United States. However, without the vigilance of American and Israeli Jewry, House Republicans may very well drive a wedge through a fundamental, bi-partisan issue, for House Speaker John Boehner’s unprecedented invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu indicates danger for all parties involved.

            America’s equivocated aid for Israel, diplomatic, economic, and military, though, is not designated as a free grant for Israel to obliterate hopes of a peace process and eventual agreement for the sake of security. Rather, the US funds Israel so that we, as developed democracies who both face grey area over human rights and pressing concerns for self-protection, can learn from and improve one another, and a formative relationship with Israel provides strength for democracy in the Middle East. For Jews, American support of Israel protects our freedom to pursue self-determination, and after centuries of exiled from one anti-Semitic country to the next, we finally feel as though we have two established safe havens, one physical and one symbolic. Dismantling this relationship, then, pits liberal and conservative-minded Jews in direct conflict with one another. Just as what happens with any issue that results in partisanship, debate on Israel would stagnate as the majority offers its view and the minority stalls in protest. If the Camp David Accords faced the same divisiveness as Roe v. Wade, for instance, Carter would be waging a peace process on two fronts. When one focuses on the domestic qualms over a foreign issue, all prospects for resolution dissipate. Even for Jews who agree with Netanyahu and Boehner then, this decision will only weaken the degree to which America and its allies can help Israel.  Politicians tackle the abortion issue by doing one of the following: stroking their party’s base by taking on an extreme view or tip-toeing their way through the ambiguous “middle ground”. Either way, campaigns spend countless funds and hours over a topic in which they only sustain polarization. Birthright trips to Israel and summer camps would also have to tackle the issue in a new, exhausting age of political correctness.  In a neighborhood that seems to sustain itself on crises, such a decision would leave the American people and Jews all over the world helpless to establish a stable, meaningful connection to their homeland.

            Still, the Palestinians suffer as well. Granted, the factitious bodies of Hezbollah and Hamas will most likely benefit from the Netanyahu speech, using it as propaganda for the ignorance of the Israeli state. The majority of Palestinians, however, who face subjugation will either a.) be drawn to extremism and ultimately endure the continued hardship of war or b.) experience societal pain at the fault of the larger political forces on both sides that manipulate their daily lives. Partisanship in the United States creates a void for a mediator, one that comprehends the interests and obstacles of both sides as well as the promise of democracy. This vacuum not only spurs the conflict that inevitably wastes so many valuable lives but also reinforces systematic oppression that goes against American and Israeli ideals. In this invitation, Boehner and Netanyahu simultaneously withdraw their voice from the peace process, issuing a blank check for Hamas to wreak havoc on Israelis and Palestinians alike.

            Evidently then, Israelis lose most in this deal. In a contentious election, America’s vagueness over its relationship with the state boosts Netanyahu’s numbers. When the country focuses on securing itself, though, it ignores the root cause of the conflict itself, its own policy over the West Bank and Gaza particularly regarding the status of East Jerusalem and the construction of settlements. Moreover, Israelis will elect a vocal, religious right, projecting to the rest of the world its disregard for the fundamental rights of its founding. Israel will cede its biggest ally in the US and all of the nations that fall under American influence. Israel was once the most stable, promising democracy in the Middle East, but in its means of achieving a false version of that and in shielding its eyes to its own atrocities, Israel has betrayed itself and the world that brought it into being. By purposefully antagonizing Iran at a time when it is most willing to negotiate its nuclear program, Netanyahu merely provokes extremists throughout the region to support nuclear arms over energy. Instead of coordinating with the rest of the world to promote safety for Israel, Iran, and the region, Netanyahu has decided to sidestep diplomacy and place his countries needs over that of a country of 77.45 million. Granted, Netanyahu has a right to raise concerns about Israel’s security with a nuclear Iran, but he could do so while working in conjunction with all of Israel’s traditional allies.

            Without a change in course then, Israel would gravely suffer as a result of this speech. I can only imagine that West Wing episode with Lyman begging the State Department to avoid announcing its Israel policy so as not to plague a democratic president’s reelection campaign or provoke too much debate. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Speaker John Boehner, if you care about international stability, the condition of American Jewry, or your own legacies as politicians, please revisit your decision to replace an opportunity for bilateral compromise with partisan bickering

Expanding the Box

            Over the past week, the news media erupted with reports from France and Belgium, citing incidents of terror against free speech and the Jewish people. Foremost, I express my condolences for anyone who has suffered as a result of these incidents. Still, the unified response against this affront, even as it is symbolic today, will only serve to divide Jews and Muslims and the East and West.  Media attention, or rather sensationalism, and widespread reaction towards this event detrimentally affect prospects of world peace, global security, and the basic principles of democracy. 

            Right now, the world appears aligned with the victims of the attack. What happens, though, as both politicians and radicals capitalize on the world’s attentions for their own ideological gain? Already gaining strength in recent weeks from anti-immigration sentiment, the reactionary, neo-Nazi National Front party surged in French polls this week. The party whose leader previously described the Nazi invasion of France as “not particularly inhumane” is favored by about 30% of the electorate. Likewise, the attack allows Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to emphasize the need for greater security and occupation as we approach Israeli elections in March.

Acts of terrorism, in their current fashion, require policy change in the eyes of the public and politicians alike, but by reacting in such a way, we engage in irrational thinking. Even though an enhancement of airport security might protect the American public against a potential threat, terrorists constantly work outside of established barriers to accomplish their goals. Security and intelligence, for the most part then, are more elusive constructs than logical measures to protect the American people.  

Perhaps most ironically, this type of response actually empowers terrorists to accomplish their goals throughout the world. New policy measures (i.e. greater Internet surveillance, more TSA full-body searches) can not only elicit widespread “Islamaphobia”, which extremists use as propaganda for new recruits, but also attack the same freedoms targeted at the offices of Charlie Hebdo. Terrorists win not by destroying buildings or killing civilians. Rather, they force us into an ideological box, parameters for which ideas are to be accepted in a democratic society and which are to be considered a “threat.”      

            After these attacks, however, the expansion of this “box” serves the long-term interests of the West. Today, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron jointly spoke to the press. They challenged the European continent to confront nativism, adapting to an integrated, pluralistic future. In this sense, the leaders responded to grievance and destruction with creative reconciliation. Rather than positively reinforce the accomplishments of terrorists with additional policy, Obama and Cameron laid the foundation to work within the balance of security and liberty, shaping European society into one that is unprecedentedly inclusive to Muslims, Jews, and the like.

On the contrary, the Prime Minister and President adjoined this sentiment with plans to embattle extremism that has become typical in the post 9/11 era. As Cameron expresses his intention to fight against “poisonous ideology”, I would warn him to reconsider the criminalization of ideas. All ideas, from the benign frustration of The Lego Movie’s Oscar snub to hate-inciting approval of a neo-Nazi agenda deserve a place in a democratic society. Although Nazism and terrorism prove to be extreme, the presence of these ideas enables active discourse and a societal progression of belief that is truly the will of the people. To truly protect the American and British people then, these governments must pursue threats and actions rather than subvert belief.

            Admittedly, this system may allow for terrorism to persist well into the twenty-first century, but in the larger course of history, humanity will have protected itself against preemptive intimidation to preserve or pursue a particular idea, also known as terrorism.

Liberal Zionism Just Needs Some CPR

I strongly recommend commenting on this one! Disagree with me! Let's start a really awesome discourse about Israel.

A response to Anthony Lerman's "The End of Liberal Zionism" August 22, 2014 The New York Times

            In the words of Anthony Lerman, “The romanticist Zionist ideal, to which liberals…subscribed many decades, has been tarnished by the reality of modern Israel.” Wherever Lerman crafted that sentence, I wonder if he knew that a counselor returning from a liberal Zionist summer camp with over 100 children would read his article on Sunday morning. Spotting the token Israel article in the Sunday Times, I was surprised to learn that my ideals, according to him, were dead. Although Lerman eloquently explained his opinion in the August 22 edition of The New York Times, liberal Zionism survives post-Rabin. Considering that Diaspora Jews no longer cling to the literal philosophy of Theodore Herzl and criticize present close-mindedness, we must revise (in a manner different from Jabotinsky) what it means to think and act like a Zionist in the twenty-first century.

            In spite of Lerman’s best efforts, he overestimated the degree to which liberal Zionists are on “the brink.” Foremost, he equivocates criticism of Israel and that of Israeli policy. As much as a beet-red, Obama-scoffing Republican simultaneously detests their president and lauds American democracy, the liberal Zionist squirms in discomfort as Netanyahu and his cohorts escalate a Gaza mission while feeling ownership over the Sea of Galilee and its cathartic charm. Hating Israel’s post-Begin, individualistic, hawkish political culture by no means perpetuates anti-Semitism. The truly “self-hating Jew” allows one’s brethren to set aside Jewish values in the face of security or sometimes hysteria. In bringing this article to some of my colleagues, they quickly attacked Lerman for his standard definition of Israel as a “Jewish state”. Judaism distinguishes itself from other religions as both a system of prayer and a rich culture with food, languages, and customs, which by no means are universal. Sure, to some of the world, Judaism means long sideburns, tefilin, Kosher dining, and the whole lot, but for others, Judaism extends well beyond halacha (Jewish law). The identity and pride remains, as do many of the shared values- family, education, diligence, and tradition. Therefore, as long as shootings happen at Jewish centers in Kansas or rioters shout “Juif, la France n'est pas à toi!” (Jews, France is not for you!) in the streets of Paris, a sovereignty that opens its doors to Jews of all backgrounds deserves to exist. Lerman claims that perpetuating the Jewish state, “implies policies of exclusion and discrimination”, but the reconciliation of religion, culture, and democracy is what makes being a liberal Zionist so exhilarating. In this sense, the left truly controls the future of Zionism, fostering an empowered, dignified nation for the years to come. Straying from criticism’s frequently negative connotation, the alternatives, joining the hawks or remaining apathetic, only fuel the current occupation and conflict. To conclude his argument, Lerman regards the two-state solution as forgone. Since Netanyahu declined the notion of a just partition between two people engaged in peaceful dialogue and commerce, the whole world might as well abandon their convictions too. Refusing to challenge such disregard for Palestinians’ right to a homeland as much as much as the oppressed Jews’ from Hungary to Argentina right defies basic Jewish principles. From an early age, we are raised to believe in a higher purpose in this world, that we are among a privileged people to repair the world of its evils. Lerman notes that liberal Zionists, “ should know that Israel is not Judaism”, but only Jews who engage with such Zionism can be the ones who bring justice to the Holy Land.

            This summer, with the nearly 2,000 Palestinians killed in the name of Israeli defense, pushed many Zionists to the supposed brink. With all eyes on Israel, we often find ourselves caught in the corner. Do we criticize our homeland while the whole world awaits us to be adversaries? Benyamin Netanyahu, in my opinion, holds the majority of responsibility for this aggression. Only Netanyahu announced settlement construction as Kerry departed from the January round of peace talks, and only Netanyahu ignored Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, when he proposed steps toward a unified Palestinian government, as the Israelis desired. While the United States allows Israel to appease by means of pseudo-shuttle diplomacy, the Israeli right continues to obliterate the progress of the last sixty years. The true fate of Israelis, whether they dream of flying doves or rockets, lies in the hands of solely Israelis. As much as the diaspora supports Israel’s steps toward democracy, only citizens of Haifa, Hertzliya, and Halon decide who occupies the coveted Knesset seats. The most the world can do is persuade an Israeli to vote in their favor, or as I would regard it, tackle a bear.

            Admittedly, the task of a liberal Zionist requires courage and perseverance. For the majority outside the state of Israel, the ways in which we influence Israeli policy seem limited. On the contrary, Lerman’s prognosis of death only indicates that we are not trying enough. To start, we educate the future generations and hope to pass along a zeal for justice in the way they (and not we) see fit. From distinguishing the Palestinian Authority between Hamas to simulating the headaches of Israel’s coalition system to reminding them of how Israel arose in the wake of genocide, we establish a defense system mightier than any iron dome. When the future turns against us, the battle is already lost. If we provide the tools for youth to synthesize their own opinions about Israel’s past, present, and future, we allow for the world to grow and not stifle in clutches of stereotypes and bigotry. The most daunting task for me, however, is this weird role we play as PR rep for the Israeli government. The key to talking to Jews and non-Jews alike is to criticize Israel while explaining that from this disapproval comes love and hope to repair the Holy Land, the region, and the world. As much as I disdain the settlements over the green line and the xenophobia run amuck in the current political climate, I work with Israel out of care for friends affected by the conflict and Jews all over the world who suffer from persecution. When Israel strikes with a punch too heavy, we must be on the frontlines, calling attention to the difference between a secure nation and an Orwellian one. To the disappointment of much of my readership, I must say that posting “Peace Now” or that interesting CNN article is not true advocacy for the state of Israel. In 2012, I lobbied then Representative Edward Markey to urge State Department officials and Foreign Policy Committee members to engage in diplomacy in place of funding unchecked militarism. Joining a campaign or leading a community project establishes the bridge connecting Tel Aviv and Tallahassee. Finally, to be a Zionist is to understand Zion itself. Though a photograph is worth a thousand words and a conversation with an Israeli ten thousand words, a visit to the Holy Land and conversations with dozens of Israelis opens the mind and allows for the mutual steps necessary for peace.

            Although Anthony Lerman largely neglects the zeal for justice and peace of most liberal Zionists, he finishes his opinion piece with an interesting point. As much as JStreet, Hashomer Hatzair, and the Union for Reform Judaism engage with Israel in meaningful ways, the Palestinian voice is only a whisper in the current conversation. Liberal Zionists must not only reach for the hands of Israelis but also the many Palestinians who dislike the political climate. So yes, Lerman, we may be approaching the brink, but hand in hand, we can bridge the gap.

Comments on THIS Year in Jerusalem

            When I put together this evening’s seder, I tried to experiment a little with the repetitive tale of Moses, the Red Sea, and Pharaoh. Throughout the night, I placed anecdotal poems that exemplify the Passover themes of freedom and redemption. These poems, however, share a common author with a unique heritage. Mahmoud Darwish, who many consider to be Palestine’s national poet, wrote “Come From There”, “On Man”, and “The Dice Player”, but Darwish’s words, which speak to the plight of Moses, Miriam and Aaron in ancient Egypt, actually reflect the current-day struggle between the Palestinians and their Israelis occupiers. Interestingly enough, I expected to find plenty of poetry like that of Darwish, involving individual rights and the character of a nation. When I initially searched for Palestinian poetry about freedom though, I found much of it disappointedly militant. Darwish was one of few poets whose attitude toward Israel was not a frontal attack on the Jewish state. When asked about it, he said “I am not a lover of Israel, of course. I have no reason to be. But I don't hate Jews”, and for my purposes, that level of tolerance sufficed. Searching so extensively as to research former head of the Israeli state, Yassir Arafat, I found that even he, the man who worked with Bill Clinton and Yitzack Rabin in the Middle East’s most profound steps toward peace and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, spoke distastefully about the Jewish state. Very distraught, I found my seder in ruins, with so few poems that spoke about peace between these two blessed nations who desire the same piece of land that is the size to New Jersey.

            The Internet is by no means the definitive voice of the Palestinian people. To characterize an entire nation based on a few hurtful quotations would be shameful and unjust.  In fact, a visit to the Human Rights Campaign’s page on the Israeli Occupation paints the same cruel picture, maybe even worse when those words reflect action and the ransacking of homes, the deaths of innocent civilians. The reality I endured in my grand experiment was that neither side in this conflict was completely justified. No one in this story of exile or self-determination was Pharaoh, and no one was Moses. Palestinians have used force against the Israelis, and the Israelis have taken advantage of their better public image and relations with the West to maintain an unfair occupation of a separate sovereign state. Ironically, both groups are so entrenched in their own beliefs that they fail to comprehend that they vie for the same result. Darwish’s words represent the larger goal of these two peoples juxtaposed in a tight-knit but volatile neighborhood, the right of religious and national expression, the blessing of freedom.

            With this dynamic in mind, a two-state solution, regardless of the minute details, makes the most realistic sense within the context of the conflict itself. Separating these nations would finally bring an end to the Jim Crow system by which Israel has paternalistically ruled Palestine for sixty-six years. Meanwhile, the Jews would retain their safe haven while maintaining a majority that allows for self-rule. Additionally, when a friend and I discussed Israel’s right to exist, he quickly dismissed the question. Brilliantly, he told me that Israel has a right to exist because it does exist. Whether one agrees with its reasoning for being a country or not, the institutions and generations of people who have lived and prospered there since 1948 are not merely a cluster of religious pilgrims anymore; it means something to be an Israeli. Destroying Israel is akin to dissolving France, Japan, or Australia. One could remove its flag and parliament, but the people and nation would remain in tact. Still, this argument pertains to the West Bank and Gaza. Palestine maintains the right to exist because it did at one time. Before the war in 1948, Palestine lived under the British mandate. Creating two states would lead to two autonomous governments, both of which, logistically rather than ideologically have a right to exist. With a two state solution, all peoples, Israeli and Palestinian would rule their respective nations, and once more the people of the Middle East could unite to altogether enjoy a nice smorgasbord of hummus and pita.

            On the contrary, like Moses, this story of mutual freedom is flawed. Within the context of the conflict, a two-state solution appears to be most efficacious way to please the majority on each side. Except there is a wall. Essentially, Israeli and Palestinians have agreed, with the whole world watching, that the only way to solve a 21^st century conflict is to erect a 14^th century-style wall. For all the solution’s great intentions, it also means that the only way that the world has decided these peoples can coexist is by not doing exactly that. We have concluded that the sole way to make peace between these people, apparently so narrow-minded and opposite of one another, is to divide them.  Darwish’s words, though, and the story of Passover do not prove this assumption to be true. I find the same hope buried within “I learnt all the words and broke them up/To make a single word: Homeland” as I see within “May all the Jewish people reunite in freedom next year in Jerusalem. Next year in Jerusalem rebuilt.” To settle this peace process through such brutal separation and to leave it with such a legacy of hate renders it incomplete. Children will grow into old age without ever knowing someone from the “other” side. Perhaps, most startlingly these children’s entire perception of the “other” will be based on stereotypes, and although these nations could live in peace, the overarching goal of tolerance would dissipate. The two-state solution, for all of its perks, fails to function on its own as a comprehensive foundation for peace in the 21^st century.

            So what is an American Jew supposed to do? K’vell about it all? Returning back to the Passover story, it is important to notice the grand Israeli irony. As we sit around the seder table, here and in Israel, we continue to stand by as we suppress another people. If anyone should empathize with the plight of the Palestinians, it should be the people who were once slaves in Pharaoh’s Egypt. We need to acknowledge that neither side in this conflict is perfect. As flawed as the two-state solution may be, within the context of the issue itself, it is the most viable, temporary solution. Seeing its flaws, however, can lead to improvements in its implementation. To first achieve, the two-state solution would be a victory for the coalition for peace, but then, that same group must acknowledge the imperfections in this plan. We must educate each side, and treat them as the “equal” not the “other”, and we must advocate not for strict social and political integration but cultural tolerance. In the spirit of the Passover story, in the spirit of God, and for the goodness of humanity, both the Palestinians and the Israelis deserve autonomy and the freedom to rule a sovereign, democratic state, but by separating them, peace is as hidden to us as the afikoman to the seder children.

Links to Darwish's Poems:

"I Come From There" - http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/i-come-from-there/

"On Man"- http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/on-man/

"Dice Player"-http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/mahmoud-darwish/the-dice-player-2/

The Jewish Feminist....Me?

About half the Jewish population and half of the 7 billion humans on this planet are females. This week, the country celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, and although Rev. King fought for the rights of a different portion of Americans, women all over the world still face a schism between the equality they posses and that which they deserve. Recently, Israel passed a controversial abortion law, requiring the government to pay for such procedures. Buzz Feed contributor Kate Nocera noted the paradox between Republicans’ non-negotiable support for the Jewish state and the party’s platform on abortions. Throughout the US, Jewish and non-Jewish women experience varying circumstances when they desire certain kinds of medical attention as well as a troublesome professional disadvantage. Jon Stewart recently joked about Mary T. Barra, new General Motors chief executive officer, being referred to as the company’s “car gal” by her coworkers. Stewart suggested she tell her fellow board members to simply address her as “CEO”.  Of all the medical and physical struggles for women, media bombards women with ideal values and images on a daily basis. This issue pervades the walls of every synagogue, every Hillel, and every Jewish and non-Jewish household in the country and around the world. 

            Judaism, however, offers insight and opportunity to women that some other faiths lack. People often criticize religion as an obstacle for women’s rights, but Judaism can be extraordinarily progressive when interpreted properly.  The Torah, of all places, recounts a continual recognition of women as participatory members in society society. The stories of the Bible feature Moses, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, yet they also retell the significant lives of Miriam, Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah. Although one could view the Bible as a primary source of Judaism-some Jews still require women to light Shabbos candles to compensate Eve’s turning against God in Eden, the women of the Bible perform equally magnificent tasks to their male counterparts. As Moses guides the people out of Egypt, Miriam sings praise to God, embodying the spirit of a nation. Sometimes, the women of the Bible act more righteous than the men. While Isaac’s stories feature subterfuge against his father to gain Esau’s inheritance, Rebecca welcomes Isaac into her home in a key Jewish moment about hospitality. The Jewish tradition is not anti-woman when read with a careful, if not occasionally squinting, eye. Some Reform Jews might call this talent, “crafty interpretation” but others simply designate it as adaptation of the ancient text for the 21^st century. Feminism and Judaism do not necessarily antagonize each other, but just as with women and men, coexistence between the two ideologies requires a collective effort and widespread open-mindedness.

As with all other aspects of Judaism, the right-wing Orthodox, the middle-grounded Conservative, and the liberal Reform Movements do not agree on the issues facing Jewish women around the world. From a progressive standpoint, the Reform movement believes in the complete equality and freedom of women, but Reform Jews believe in an open discourse between the sects of Judaism. This conservation only exceeds its bounds as it obstructs a Reform woman’s capability to worship as she pleases. The Western Wall, for instance, is divided by gender in an area ratio of about 4 square units for men to 1 for women. Rather than attack Israel’s predominantly right-wing government, progressive advocates hope to partition the wall into even thirds with each of the following designations: men only, women only, and mixed. Seeking coexistence, the Jews of left wish not to demonize or disrespect the right. Furthermore, a politician is not irredeemable for being pro-life, but when he or she uses that political power to close clinics and to inhibit another’s capability to complete this procedure, he or she crosses the boundary between personal value and invasive policy. Conversely, the new Israeli law enables those seeking an abortion without forcing anyone to visit the clinic. Equality is reached when all belief systems are aloud to execute their respect values while not intruding on one another. The chances of convincing one another to switch sides are slim, but the opportunity to peacefully agree to disagree is ever present. From one Torah stems varying value systems, but these separated moralities can not split the cultural roots that connect the Jewish people.

            With abortion, the media, the professional world, birth control, and equal rights at the Western Wall, the role of feminism in our lives often becomes overwhelming or indiscernible.  I work with the following definition: feminism is the belief in the equality of women, be it social, political, economic, or cultural. On the contrary, I view the modern context of feminism to occasionally exceed its bounds. The above definition should neither morph into a demonization of men nor make anyone feel as though he or she walks on path of eggshells toward political correctness. I detest the women who call me misunderstanding for writing this blog because of the gender I possess. Like racism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism for that matter, a difference exists between advocacy and nuisance. Antagonizing supporters, like myself, or embattling the other side makes a feminist weak and equally obtrusive as his or her political enemies. I view myself as a feminist, for I uphold the equality among human beings and believe in its guarantee and the promise of freedom regardless of any circumstances. I also see myself as a Jew who is proud to be part of a religion that has the full potential to welcome women and provide an egalitarian spiritual experience.

            Perhaps my blog covered too much subject matter in too few words because I so rarely engage in women’s issues. Maybe, I should have spent a week on the women on the wall, another on abortion around the globe, another on the effect of Lucille Ball and Miley Cyrus (a reality facing woman not even mentioned), and another on how any number of blogs could not cover the complexity of this issue. All I know is tonight was a start, and it began by putting on shoes and crushing those eggshells.