I read an interesting book report in the Forward this week, written by Miriam Shaviv. The book in review, "Still Jewish: A History of Women and Intermarriage in America" by Keren R. McGinity, presents the following argument:
"Of the 15 women in McGinity’s sample who intermarried in this period, 13 described intensified Jewish identities, religious practices, or both - particularly after the birth of their children... McGinity describes women who deliberately kept their Jewish-sounding surnames, for example, or began to light Shabbat candles or attend synagogue. Increasing numbers wanted to give their children more Jewish education than they had received, and strikingly felt strongly that they wanted their children to marry other Jews".
Throughout the years, I have come across many articles in the internet in which there is an attempt to present intermarriage in a kind of positive light. I remember, in particular, a report from Boston in which it was claimed that a very high percentage of intermarried families are raising their children as Jews. Other times, we hear about very active converts who are now contributing to their Jewish communities. I'm sure that all these stories are presenting a certain aspect of success in the American Jewish experience, and they are worthy of note.
However, I feel that the real question is never discussed: Why is it that throughout Jewish history intermarriage was such a marginal aspect of Jewish life - and today it is so common? At times, one hears that intermarriage is an expression of acceptance into the wider (non-Jewish) society. The message, then, is that in the past Jews would have intermarried, but since they were rejected by the non-Jews, they would marry only among themselves. But, in my opinion, this is entirely untrue. Intermarriage is an expression of the collapse of a distinctive Jewish identity. The Jews in the past did not refrain from marrying others because they (the Jews) were socially unaccepted; rather, they married within the community as the natural result of being a unique community. Most people do not marry total foreigners. People generally marry others who are very similar to themselves. There are exceptions, of course, and so you will meet someone who found a spouse who comes from a totally foreign cultural background. It is quite unusual. Generally, your spouse shares with you a common language and a common cultural expressiveness. In America, the Jewish world in which Jews have their own society, speaking their own language, producing their own culture and social codes has disappeared. Yiddish is gone, the Jewish neighborhood is gone - and the sense of peoplehood is gone. The Jews are Americans. The American language is their language, American history is their history, and American society is their society. A non-Jewish American is not an "outsider" nor a "foreigner", and so intermarriage is no longer strange or uncommon. It is NOT that the Jews are accepted by American society (they are, of course); rather, the source of intermarriage is the disappearance of a Jewish society that stands in its own right.
As I have pointed out in other entries, it is very uncommon in American Jewry to come out and say: "the American Jewish experience is in the midst of crisis". Quite the contrary. American Jewry sees itself as a big success story. Crisis is always elsewhere in the Jewish world. This is the reason that I wished to call this blog "The Emperor's New Clothes". It is urgent to point out that things are going very badly. The first step towards improvement is the awareness that something is very wrong! The first step is to tell the emperor that he's not wearing beautiful clothing, despite his self-illusions.
One can present intermarriage in a positive light. There is always some aspect that can be seen as fine. So, we can talk about children of intermarriage who still have a Jewish identity, or about active non-Jews in the local synagogue, etc. But this is a deliberate attempt to avoid the central issue of the entire historic phenomenon of today's Diaspora: The disappearance of a Jewish society, the collapse of a distinctive peoplehood identity and the break with the Jewish past.
It's easy to focus on the success story of the here and now. But we are an ancient nation, and our outlook should be in historic terms. The widespread phenomenon of intermarriage is merely of the two last generations in America. It would be silly, after such a short period, to try and convince the American Jewish public that "it's not so bad". Indeed, Jewish identity persists, even among some of the children of the intermarried. But, let's look at Jewish life beyond the terms of here and now, beyond the observation of the last 40 years. Intermarriage is a fact of life in American Jewry. It hasn't come to an end; rather, it will continue unabated into the future. No one can know what the distant future may bring; yet, can anyone imagine after another 10-15 generations of intermarriage that some Jewish author will write a book in which he claims that "it's not so bad"?
This attempt to present intermarriage as "not so bad" - instead of presenting the phenomenon as an indication of a community in collapse - reminds me of a silly joke that I heard once upon a time. A man jumps off a very high building. As he passes the 20th floor, someone calls out to him from the window: "How's it going, Moishe?" The falling man answers: "So far, so good!"
The situation is urgent. A Jewish identity must be recreated in America in which being different is the very essence of Jewishness. The Jews must have their own language, their own history, their own society. This is how it has always been since ancient times. The abandonment of uniqueness by the adoption of the identity of another people means an end of participation in Jewish history. The loss of group identity is the crisis, and intermarriage is merely an expression of this loss of group identity. It is pointless to try and pretend that "so far, so good".
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Monday, August 17, 2009
The land of dreamers
Recently, I traveled to the USA after an absence of 38 years. I had a chance to meet relatives who remembered me only as a little boy. Now, I had a rare opportunity to speak with American Jews who have never visited Israel and do not participate in any form of Jewish community life. I don't know if there are accurate statistics about Jewish life in America, but I would imagine that my relatives are rather typical of American Jewry. Surely, if this type of Jew is in the minority, it is a substantial minority. I fear that the unaffiliated might actually be a small majority.
I was wondering what would be their attitude about Israel and about their long-lost cousin who decided to live in that land which they have never seen (preferring, sadly, to travel for a family vacation to other destinations in the world). I have read numerous articles that express real worry about the weakening sense of identification with Israel, particularly amongst the unaffiliated. Obviously, a brief visit to America and a chance meeting with just a limited number of relatives would not give me the tools of expertise to draw any conclusions. However, I do want to share my sense of satisfaction with my few readers - and to reveal to you that all whom I met had only the warmest of feelings about Israel. Jewish identity is in the midst of crisis, undoubtably. It is obviously not the core identity and the cultural expressiveness of my relatives. Yet, Jewish identity persists, even among the assimilated, intermarried and unaffiliated.
This entry is not meant to leave the impression that "all is well". The crisis is real. Although they (my relatives as a reasonable example of the typically unaffiliated Jews) instinctively identify with their own, they don't really know the Jewish story. Since the American identity is their primary identity, they tend to view Israel in American eyes, not in Jewish eyes. They see the purpose of the state to provide a haven for persecuted Jews, just as President Obama presented Israel to the Arab world in his Cairo speech. The fact that Israel was born out of the dreams of idealists who wished to redefine Jewish life and destiny was quite unknown to them. A haven, I had to explain to them, would not have been busy with the revival of the Hebrew language. The rebirth of Hebrew symbolizes the very renaissance of Jewish culture in modern times. It was an ideology that was meant to redefine the Jewish collective existence. Hebrew defined the point of reference of Jewish national life in the ancient world of the Hebrew Bible. The point of reference of the haven would have been modern antisemitism, and it would not have had a language ideology, obviously. A haven, as the central theme of Jewish collective life, would have been satisfied with "a homeland" (any homeland), as President Obama presented an outsider's viewpoint of the rise of modern Israel. The revival of Hebrew and the struggle for the Land of Israel reveal the true drama of modern Jewish history as the fulfillment of ancient aspirations. Israel is not the home of refugees; rather, it is the continuity of the historic Jewish identity of "exile and redemption". To understand this truth, one must be an "insider" - one whose education includes an intimate understanding of the Jewish narrative.
I was wondering what would be their attitude about Israel and about their long-lost cousin who decided to live in that land which they have never seen (preferring, sadly, to travel for a family vacation to other destinations in the world). I have read numerous articles that express real worry about the weakening sense of identification with Israel, particularly amongst the unaffiliated. Obviously, a brief visit to America and a chance meeting with just a limited number of relatives would not give me the tools of expertise to draw any conclusions. However, I do want to share my sense of satisfaction with my few readers - and to reveal to you that all whom I met had only the warmest of feelings about Israel. Jewish identity is in the midst of crisis, undoubtably. It is obviously not the core identity and the cultural expressiveness of my relatives. Yet, Jewish identity persists, even among the assimilated, intermarried and unaffiliated.
This entry is not meant to leave the impression that "all is well". The crisis is real. Although they (my relatives as a reasonable example of the typically unaffiliated Jews) instinctively identify with their own, they don't really know the Jewish story. Since the American identity is their primary identity, they tend to view Israel in American eyes, not in Jewish eyes. They see the purpose of the state to provide a haven for persecuted Jews, just as President Obama presented Israel to the Arab world in his Cairo speech. The fact that Israel was born out of the dreams of idealists who wished to redefine Jewish life and destiny was quite unknown to them. A haven, I had to explain to them, would not have been busy with the revival of the Hebrew language. The rebirth of Hebrew symbolizes the very renaissance of Jewish culture in modern times. It was an ideology that was meant to redefine the Jewish collective existence. Hebrew defined the point of reference of Jewish national life in the ancient world of the Hebrew Bible. The point of reference of the haven would have been modern antisemitism, and it would not have had a language ideology, obviously. A haven, as the central theme of Jewish collective life, would have been satisfied with "a homeland" (any homeland), as President Obama presented an outsider's viewpoint of the rise of modern Israel. The revival of Hebrew and the struggle for the Land of Israel reveal the true drama of modern Jewish history as the fulfillment of ancient aspirations. Israel is not the home of refugees; rather, it is the continuity of the historic Jewish identity of "exile and redemption". To understand this truth, one must be an "insider" - one whose education includes an intimate understanding of the Jewish narrative.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Misreading the Jewish Narrative
President Obama's speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009 was an important opportunity to advance the cause of peace. The entire world was in suspense, expecting to hear the wisdom of a very popular president dedicated to the principle of dialogue and mutual understanding. The American president was keenly aware of the historic outlook of the Arabic-speaking and Islamic world, and he gave credence to its narrative. He stated as a fact that between the West and Islam "tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims". Moreover, he mentioned the fear that "the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam".
There was another narrative that Mr. Obama wished to present to his audience - the Jewish narrative. Obviously, in an attempt to bridge the gap of hostility, it is essential to clarify all points of view, and hopefully some understanding may be reached. However, while the president was eager to demonstrate his knowledge of the narrative of the Islamic world - trying to present it as Muslims themselves understand it - he did not present the Jewish narrative as we ourselves perceive it. The actual point of reference of the Jewish historic drama, "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem", was undeserving of mention. Instead, we learned that the focus of Jewish history is the Holocaust, only reinforcing the oft-repeated anti-Israel perception that the Arabs are paying the price of European anti-Semitic hatred. Of course, Mr. Obama only had the best of intentions. He felt the need to explain America's strong connection with Israel, one of the assumed sources of animosity between the United States and the Islamic world: "It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied". Although the president felt that it would be proper to present some aspects of the Arab narrative in their words, he did not feel it proper to do so with our narrative.
We also deserve to have our story told as we tell it. We are not a persecuted nation in search of some haven and in need of compassion. In our narrative, we are an exiled people aspiring to return to its native soil. "Zion" is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. "Zionism", therefore, is a political movement the name of which is meant to evoke the strongest of ancient Jewish memories and collective aspirations. The revival of the Hebrew language is the very symbol of the drama of modern Jewish history. The renaissance of the language that the Jews spoke in their ancient country took place in that very same country. It was a renaissance of a national and cultural identity. It was not the story of refugees fleeing persecutions in search of "a homeland". It was the return to "the homeland" of dreamers of dreams who wished to continue the future Hebrew creativity in this land of ancient Hebrew creativity.
President Obama condemned the phenomenon of Holocaust-denial: "Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful". It is good that this simple and important fact was expressed clearly to an attentive Islamic audience. However, the real question is: Why is Holocaust-denial even an issue in the Arab world? The answer is very simple: the Holocaust is perceived as the justification for the founding of the State of Israel; hence, challenging Holocaust historicity is a tool in challenging the very legitimacy of Israel. Ironically, the president has only strengthened this incorrect perception of history. By stating that our legitimacy is founded "in a tragic history that cannot be denied", he has done an injustice to the age-old aspirations of the collective Jewish identity – and he has adopted the Arab position that the Jews are mere foreigners who have fled to someone else's country. Instead of calling upon the Arabs to recognize our roots and history in the Land of Israel – to make peace with returning brothers – he called upon them to have sympathy with the plight of outsiders.
The State of Israel was not founded because of the Holocaust; rather, it was founded despite the Holocaust. The very population that had always been seen as the future citizenry of the Jewish state, the masses of Eastern European Jewry, was decimated. The youth movements, the Hebrew schools, the summer training camps for pioneers - together with a whole Jewish world living in its own language and culture – all was utterly lost. Only remnants made their way to the Land of Israel. Israel was born out of an historic vision of return and redemption. The dedication and self-sacrifice of those who built the yishuv and its Hebrew culture enabled this renewal of Jewish national life. The Holocaust could have brought the whole dream to its end.
President Obama has called upon the Islamic world to accept the legitimacy of Israel. However, just as he has demonstrated awareness of their narrative, so too should he have expressed an awareness of ours. We are an ancient nation that has very deep roots in this land, and here we have claimed the universal right to self-determination. This is the source of legitimacy.
There was another narrative that Mr. Obama wished to present to his audience - the Jewish narrative. Obviously, in an attempt to bridge the gap of hostility, it is essential to clarify all points of view, and hopefully some understanding may be reached. However, while the president was eager to demonstrate his knowledge of the narrative of the Islamic world - trying to present it as Muslims themselves understand it - he did not present the Jewish narrative as we ourselves perceive it. The actual point of reference of the Jewish historic drama, "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem", was undeserving of mention. Instead, we learned that the focus of Jewish history is the Holocaust, only reinforcing the oft-repeated anti-Israel perception that the Arabs are paying the price of European anti-Semitic hatred. Of course, Mr. Obama only had the best of intentions. He felt the need to explain America's strong connection with Israel, one of the assumed sources of animosity between the United States and the Islamic world: "It is based upon cultural and historical ties and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied". Although the president felt that it would be proper to present some aspects of the Arab narrative in their words, he did not feel it proper to do so with our narrative.
We also deserve to have our story told as we tell it. We are not a persecuted nation in search of some haven and in need of compassion. In our narrative, we are an exiled people aspiring to return to its native soil. "Zion" is the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. "Zionism", therefore, is a political movement the name of which is meant to evoke the strongest of ancient Jewish memories and collective aspirations. The revival of the Hebrew language is the very symbol of the drama of modern Jewish history. The renaissance of the language that the Jews spoke in their ancient country took place in that very same country. It was a renaissance of a national and cultural identity. It was not the story of refugees fleeing persecutions in search of "a homeland". It was the return to "the homeland" of dreamers of dreams who wished to continue the future Hebrew creativity in this land of ancient Hebrew creativity.
President Obama condemned the phenomenon of Holocaust-denial: "Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful". It is good that this simple and important fact was expressed clearly to an attentive Islamic audience. However, the real question is: Why is Holocaust-denial even an issue in the Arab world? The answer is very simple: the Holocaust is perceived as the justification for the founding of the State of Israel; hence, challenging Holocaust historicity is a tool in challenging the very legitimacy of Israel. Ironically, the president has only strengthened this incorrect perception of history. By stating that our legitimacy is founded "in a tragic history that cannot be denied", he has done an injustice to the age-old aspirations of the collective Jewish identity – and he has adopted the Arab position that the Jews are mere foreigners who have fled to someone else's country. Instead of calling upon the Arabs to recognize our roots and history in the Land of Israel – to make peace with returning brothers – he called upon them to have sympathy with the plight of outsiders.
The State of Israel was not founded because of the Holocaust; rather, it was founded despite the Holocaust. The very population that had always been seen as the future citizenry of the Jewish state, the masses of Eastern European Jewry, was decimated. The youth movements, the Hebrew schools, the summer training camps for pioneers - together with a whole Jewish world living in its own language and culture – all was utterly lost. Only remnants made their way to the Land of Israel. Israel was born out of an historic vision of return and redemption. The dedication and self-sacrifice of those who built the yishuv and its Hebrew culture enabled this renewal of Jewish national life. The Holocaust could have brought the whole dream to its end.
President Obama has called upon the Islamic world to accept the legitimacy of Israel. However, just as he has demonstrated awareness of their narrative, so too should he have expressed an awareness of ours. We are an ancient nation that has very deep roots in this land, and here we have claimed the universal right to self-determination. This is the source of legitimacy.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
U-mah ho'ilu hakhamim be-taqqanatam?
The new Obama administration seems to be keen on renewing the efforts to achieve an agreed settlement of the conflict in the Land of Israel. It's nice that someone is still optimistic that peace could be achieved, and indeed we can only hope that there is any possibility to end the conflict. I am very pessimistic, and I have an old story that can clarify my source of pessimism:
Once upon a time, a poor wretched man was given a choice of punishments to be meted out to him. He could eat rotting fish, OR he could be whipped, OR he could be chased out of town. It seemed to him that being chased out of town was "out of the question", so he decided to eat the rotting fish. As soon as he bit into the fish, he was absolutely overwhelmed by the horrible taste. He changed his mind in a moment, and asked to be whipped instead. But the pain of the whipping was just torture. It was simply unbearable. "I agree to being chased out of town..." So, in the end, he ate some rotting fish, AND he received some blows of the whip AND he was chased out of town.
There is a possibility that this little story will be translated into a very tragic political-military reality:
Israel will face three possible scenarios: She could negotiate with the Palestinians, knowing that the talks might end unsuccessfully (and Israel will probably be held accountable for this failure, the price of her being the stronger party). OR another scenario could be that the Palestinians shall renew the terrible suicide bombings. OR, of course, the third possibility could be a continuation of the present status quo. Well, everyone seems to think that the status quo is "out of the question". So, Israel will negotiate, obviously, particularly under the pressure of the Obama administration. The talks will indeed end up in failure, but the Islamic Jihad and/or the Hamas will be eager to renew the suicide bombings to be certain that there will be no atmosphere of peace-making. In the end, Israel will find the military solution to bring the new wave of suicide bombings to its end, and to re-establish the former status quo. So, we will have failed negotiations, AND we probably will have to go through another round of suicide bombings, AND we will end up continuing the present status quo. U-mah ho'ilu hakhamim be-taqqanatam?
Once upon a time, a poor wretched man was given a choice of punishments to be meted out to him. He could eat rotting fish, OR he could be whipped, OR he could be chased out of town. It seemed to him that being chased out of town was "out of the question", so he decided to eat the rotting fish. As soon as he bit into the fish, he was absolutely overwhelmed by the horrible taste. He changed his mind in a moment, and asked to be whipped instead. But the pain of the whipping was just torture. It was simply unbearable. "I agree to being chased out of town..." So, in the end, he ate some rotting fish, AND he received some blows of the whip AND he was chased out of town.
There is a possibility that this little story will be translated into a very tragic political-military reality:
Israel will face three possible scenarios: She could negotiate with the Palestinians, knowing that the talks might end unsuccessfully (and Israel will probably be held accountable for this failure, the price of her being the stronger party). OR another scenario could be that the Palestinians shall renew the terrible suicide bombings. OR, of course, the third possibility could be a continuation of the present status quo. Well, everyone seems to think that the status quo is "out of the question". So, Israel will negotiate, obviously, particularly under the pressure of the Obama administration. The talks will indeed end up in failure, but the Islamic Jihad and/or the Hamas will be eager to renew the suicide bombings to be certain that there will be no atmosphere of peace-making. In the end, Israel will find the military solution to bring the new wave of suicide bombings to its end, and to re-establish the former status quo. So, we will have failed negotiations, AND we probably will have to go through another round of suicide bombings, AND we will end up continuing the present status quo. U-mah ho'ilu hakhamim be-taqqanatam?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Defining Jewish Peoplehood
According to our ancient texts, the existence of a common Jewish peoplehood is a self-evident fact. We recite in synagogue: "…Who has chosen us from all peoples, and has given us His Torah". In this prayer (that we all learned preparing for bar-mitzva), we declare ourselves to be one of the peoples of the world – an ancient people that has its own religious tradition. The prophet Jeremiah (31:34-35) promises the continued survival of our peoplehood which he defines as "the seed of Israel", clearly presenting the Biblical perception of common descent. Similarly, the rabbinic tradition defines the Jews as an "umma" (a people or nation) and a "lashon" (a language), one of seventy peoples and languages into which humanity is traditionally divided. It is of importance to note that the term "umma" is derived from the very same root as the word "imma" (mother), indicating yet again that the Jews defined themselves as a people sharing a common descent.
A visit to the local university library will demonstrate that our ancient self-perception is also an obvious fact in the modern world of academics. Next to many books entitled "The History of the Jewish People", we will not find any books entitled "The History of the Catholic People" or "The History of the Lutheran People"; rather, we will find books such as "The History of the Polish People" or "The History of the Armenian People" or "The History of the American People".
The Yiddish-speaking world of Eastern Europe before the Holocaust was a reality in which Jewish peoplehood was a clear fact of life and the substance of one's core identity. The Jews spoke their own language which was a clear reflection of their living in their own society. They were one of the peoples of Europe, defined as a national minority group in Poland, in the Soviet Union and elsewhere – not merely a religious community. The Jewish society in Israel today is the direct continuity of this destroyed Yiddish world. Modern Hebrew has replaced Yiddish, national majority status has replaced minority status – but the essence remains the same. The Jews speak their own language, live in their own society, create their own cultural life and understand their place in the scope of Jewish history.
Is the American Jewish world another way of expressing a Jewish peoplehood continuity? Well, bar-mitzvah boys continue to declare that we are a people, chosen from among the peoples. The smashing of a glass at every Jewish wedding together with the cry "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem…" would seem to indicate that our central historic memories remain relevant in our lives. Yet, sadly, the social reality of American Jewry broadcasts a very different message, negating the very content of an ancient civilization. American peoplehood has replaced the historic Jewish peoplehood, limiting the Jewish experience to religious ceremonies for a mostly irreligious community. The drama of American history is alive and very familiar, whereas our own story is simply foreign and mostly unknown. It's such a well-to-do community that knows no persecution, and yet Jewish education is so unimpressive. There is no Hebrew creativity; most don't even know the alef-bet.
The American Jewish public at large seems to be unaware that something has gone very wrong, and that there has been a dramatic break in Jewish continuity. Crisis, so it seems, is elsewhere in the Jewish world where a seemingly unsolvable historic conflict fills our agenda. Yet, that dramatic crisis should not overshadow the urgency of the crisis in Diaspora Jewry: the collapse of an ancient identity. Some might argue that this crisis of identity is unsolvable, and the unseen sociological forces of the dynamic and impressive American world are simply too overwhelming. Yet, with just a bit of old-fashion Jewish self-criticism, and with a renewed willingness to be comfortable in our own distinctiveness, perhaps we could try to take a first step back from more than a century of assimilation – returning to a primary Jewish identity based on our peoplehood.
In addition to a tradition of common descent, peoplehood always includes a narrative that the community cherishes. Jewish education must include a serious encounter with the central chapters of our history. The circumstances that brought about the creation of Biblical literature, the impact of the destruction of the Temple on the shaping of Jewish civilization, the medieval Jewish community, the crisis of modernity, Exile and Return – all these memories and more should be the self-evident basics of every educated Jew.
There is no Jewish peoplehood without our own language. The aim of Jewish education must be the renewal of Jewish creativity in Hebrew. The Hebrew language and the culture that it carries distinguish us as a civilization, connect us to our past - and with all other Jews.
Finally, peoplehood includes a homeland. All peoples in the world feel a connection to a particular territory which they see as theirs. Therefore, the American Jewish community must renew the concept of exile. It is self-evident that our homeland is the Land of Israel, the memory of which has shaped the Jewish world. Some of us live in the homeland, and some of us live in exile from it. Homeland and exile are two sides of the very same essence, enabling all Jewish communities to share a common awareness and a common heritage.
And the most urgent issue of all is worthy of repetition: American Jewry must be self-critical. There has to be a general recognition of the multi-generational failure to provide quality Jewish education. This self-criticism is the vital tool for returning to ourselves.
A visit to the local university library will demonstrate that our ancient self-perception is also an obvious fact in the modern world of academics. Next to many books entitled "The History of the Jewish People", we will not find any books entitled "The History of the Catholic People" or "The History of the Lutheran People"; rather, we will find books such as "The History of the Polish People" or "The History of the Armenian People" or "The History of the American People".
The Yiddish-speaking world of Eastern Europe before the Holocaust was a reality in which Jewish peoplehood was a clear fact of life and the substance of one's core identity. The Jews spoke their own language which was a clear reflection of their living in their own society. They were one of the peoples of Europe, defined as a national minority group in Poland, in the Soviet Union and elsewhere – not merely a religious community. The Jewish society in Israel today is the direct continuity of this destroyed Yiddish world. Modern Hebrew has replaced Yiddish, national majority status has replaced minority status – but the essence remains the same. The Jews speak their own language, live in their own society, create their own cultural life and understand their place in the scope of Jewish history.
Is the American Jewish world another way of expressing a Jewish peoplehood continuity? Well, bar-mitzvah boys continue to declare that we are a people, chosen from among the peoples. The smashing of a glass at every Jewish wedding together with the cry "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem…" would seem to indicate that our central historic memories remain relevant in our lives. Yet, sadly, the social reality of American Jewry broadcasts a very different message, negating the very content of an ancient civilization. American peoplehood has replaced the historic Jewish peoplehood, limiting the Jewish experience to religious ceremonies for a mostly irreligious community. The drama of American history is alive and very familiar, whereas our own story is simply foreign and mostly unknown. It's such a well-to-do community that knows no persecution, and yet Jewish education is so unimpressive. There is no Hebrew creativity; most don't even know the alef-bet.
The American Jewish public at large seems to be unaware that something has gone very wrong, and that there has been a dramatic break in Jewish continuity. Crisis, so it seems, is elsewhere in the Jewish world where a seemingly unsolvable historic conflict fills our agenda. Yet, that dramatic crisis should not overshadow the urgency of the crisis in Diaspora Jewry: the collapse of an ancient identity. Some might argue that this crisis of identity is unsolvable, and the unseen sociological forces of the dynamic and impressive American world are simply too overwhelming. Yet, with just a bit of old-fashion Jewish self-criticism, and with a renewed willingness to be comfortable in our own distinctiveness, perhaps we could try to take a first step back from more than a century of assimilation – returning to a primary Jewish identity based on our peoplehood.
In addition to a tradition of common descent, peoplehood always includes a narrative that the community cherishes. Jewish education must include a serious encounter with the central chapters of our history. The circumstances that brought about the creation of Biblical literature, the impact of the destruction of the Temple on the shaping of Jewish civilization, the medieval Jewish community, the crisis of modernity, Exile and Return – all these memories and more should be the self-evident basics of every educated Jew.
There is no Jewish peoplehood without our own language. The aim of Jewish education must be the renewal of Jewish creativity in Hebrew. The Hebrew language and the culture that it carries distinguish us as a civilization, connect us to our past - and with all other Jews.
Finally, peoplehood includes a homeland. All peoples in the world feel a connection to a particular territory which they see as theirs. Therefore, the American Jewish community must renew the concept of exile. It is self-evident that our homeland is the Land of Israel, the memory of which has shaped the Jewish world. Some of us live in the homeland, and some of us live in exile from it. Homeland and exile are two sides of the very same essence, enabling all Jewish communities to share a common awareness and a common heritage.
And the most urgent issue of all is worthy of repetition: American Jewry must be self-critical. There has to be a general recognition of the multi-generational failure to provide quality Jewish education. This self-criticism is the vital tool for returning to ourselves.
Friday, April 10, 2009
"Making Hebrew a Priority"
The Forward newspaper accepted an article of mine for publication ("Making Hebrew a Priority"). Generally, there is very little criticism of the American Jewish experience in the Forward, so I am pleased that it was possible to analyze one particular failure (Hebrew language achievements) and to propose a possible solution (Hebrew immersion schools). Here's the main argument:
"In the not-too-distant past, Jews typically lived in a bilingual environment. Within the family and the community, Yiddish was the spoken language of Ashkenazic Jewry during the course of the last thousand years. For contact with the non-Jewish society, one would communicate in the local non-Jewish language. By and large, the immigration to America brought an end to this historical reality: Instead of replacing Russian or Polish (one’s second language), English replaced Yiddish (one’s primary language), and Jewish bilingualism came to an end.
"The loss of our own language was not without precedent. In the quest for full integration in Western and Central Europe throughout the 19th century, the Jewish public chose to adopt the territorial languages as their vernacular. In the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, for example, many Jews vacillated between the German language of the crown and the Czech or Hungarian languages of the local nationalism. Often there were those who protested the abandonment of Yiddish, claiming that the Jewish people would lose its unique content, its very soul, with the loss of its own language - but it was all to no avail. The eagerness to take on the American identity overwhelmed even the Yiddish-language Forward, which urged its readers to adopt English, an editorial position that would seem to negate its own best business interests.
"Many would argue that the Americanization of the Jews has been a tremendous success, while perhaps a few still express pain and mourning over the loss of an irreplaceable cultural uniqueness. It is obvious that both these perspectives are true. Indeed, together with its sense of pride in many realms of endeavor, American Jewry seems to have given up on the possibility of any Jewish creativity in a Jewish language. In so doing, it has turned its back on the legacy of an ancient civilization that had almost always expressed itself in Hebrew characters.
"In many places around the world, school systems produce high school graduates who are comfortable in two or even three languages, including the ability to read good literature in these languages. In Israel, for example, we often hear harsh criticism about the achievements of the school system — and justifiably so — and, yet, it has always been self-evident that an educated Hebrew speaker is also literate in English. If a society attaches importance to language skills, there will always be results.
"That is the historic failure of American Jewry: So very few understand that language is the central carrier of culture, and so very few are aware of the power of a Jewish language in establishing individual and collective identity.
If there were a Jewish public in North America interested in the re-establishment of a Jewish identity that would include a living Jewish language as a mark of distinction and definition, it could be done. It is a matter of motivation.
"Surely, a Jewish day school or charter school system in which Hebrew is the language of instruction for all subjects and activities from the very first day of kindergarten until the completion of school would bring about the desired result: bilingual graduates whose cultural point of reference would be the natural familiarity with the Jewish text. The Tarbut Hebrew school system of pre-Holocaust Poland and Lithuania is an outstanding example of such an immersion education. Similarly, a movement that would encourage substantial numbers of American Jewish students to do their academic studies at the Hebrew language universities of Israel could also create a significant public in the American Diaspora that would be culturally expressive in a historically Jewish language.
"American Jews are a well-to-do group that claims to value education, and yet Jewish identity remains an uphill - and too often a failing - battle. The return to a situation in which a spoken Jewish language is a self-evident fact of life would re-create a reality in which Jewish self-awareness is likewise self-evident. The challenge of Jewish educators is to aspire for the very best, and not to be resigned to a Jewish cultural reality as it is. The Hebrew language, the very key to the world of Jewish sources past and present, is the very best. It is both the symbol and the tool of Jewish continuity".
"The loss of our own language was not without precedent. In the quest for full integration in Western and Central Europe throughout the 19th century, the Jewish public chose to adopt the territorial languages as their vernacular. In the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, for example, many Jews vacillated between the German language of the crown and the Czech or Hungarian languages of the local nationalism. Often there were those who protested the abandonment of Yiddish, claiming that the Jewish people would lose its unique content, its very soul, with the loss of its own language - but it was all to no avail. The eagerness to take on the American identity overwhelmed even the Yiddish-language Forward, which urged its readers to adopt English, an editorial position that would seem to negate its own best business interests.
"Many would argue that the Americanization of the Jews has been a tremendous success, while perhaps a few still express pain and mourning over the loss of an irreplaceable cultural uniqueness. It is obvious that both these perspectives are true. Indeed, together with its sense of pride in many realms of endeavor, American Jewry seems to have given up on the possibility of any Jewish creativity in a Jewish language. In so doing, it has turned its back on the legacy of an ancient civilization that had almost always expressed itself in Hebrew characters.
"In many places around the world, school systems produce high school graduates who are comfortable in two or even three languages, including the ability to read good literature in these languages. In Israel, for example, we often hear harsh criticism about the achievements of the school system — and justifiably so — and, yet, it has always been self-evident that an educated Hebrew speaker is also literate in English. If a society attaches importance to language skills, there will always be results.
"That is the historic failure of American Jewry: So very few understand that language is the central carrier of culture, and so very few are aware of the power of a Jewish language in establishing individual and collective identity.
If there were a Jewish public in North America interested in the re-establishment of a Jewish identity that would include a living Jewish language as a mark of distinction and definition, it could be done. It is a matter of motivation.
"Surely, a Jewish day school or charter school system in which Hebrew is the language of instruction for all subjects and activities from the very first day of kindergarten until the completion of school would bring about the desired result: bilingual graduates whose cultural point of reference would be the natural familiarity with the Jewish text. The Tarbut Hebrew school system of pre-Holocaust Poland and Lithuania is an outstanding example of such an immersion education. Similarly, a movement that would encourage substantial numbers of American Jewish students to do their academic studies at the Hebrew language universities of Israel could also create a significant public in the American Diaspora that would be culturally expressive in a historically Jewish language.
"American Jews are a well-to-do group that claims to value education, and yet Jewish identity remains an uphill - and too often a failing - battle. The return to a situation in which a spoken Jewish language is a self-evident fact of life would re-create a reality in which Jewish self-awareness is likewise self-evident. The challenge of Jewish educators is to aspire for the very best, and not to be resigned to a Jewish cultural reality as it is. The Hebrew language, the very key to the world of Jewish sources past and present, is the very best. It is both the symbol and the tool of Jewish continuity".
Friday, March 20, 2009
Breaking with the Past
I often try to explain to American Jews my general observation of the Jewish experience in North America: their American identity is a primary identity, and their Jewish identity is a secondary identity. This truth is obvious to me, but many reject this observation. This week, I had an interesting debate which gave me a rare opportunity to win one "battle" in what appears to be a lost "war".
An American Jewish guest in my home countered my observation by noting that his identity is a "synthesis". It is composed of many elements, and there is no component of this identity that is first or second, major or minor. He's an American, and he's a Jew - in addition to other aspects of awareness. Well, as always, I argued that one's American education is always very substantial, whereas the time spent in a Jewish educational framework is generally so brief. It simply can't be that the two cultural worlds are equal. Although no one would know the answer, still I asked him: "What percentage of American Jews would know the names of the Five Books of Moses?" On the spot, he admitted that he himself doesn't know the names, just as he doesn't even know the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In short, so I argued, he doesn't have any Jewish educational background, so surely Jewish culture is quite foreign to him. His reaction was that it shouldn't be dictated what one has to study in order to be culturally Jewish. People have a right to choose for themselves the content of their cultural world (and no one would be entitled to define such a cultural world as having mere secondary importance in life).
It occurred to me to ask my guest if he felt that studying the US Constitution should be obligatory in the American school system. His immediate answer was "yes" - it is very central". So it turns out that there are aspects of education that are so very important that they should even be dictated to the public. But why would he have such standards for his American society, but there is no need for any standards in his Jewish life? The answer is that American life is important, and hence it justifies educational standards. Jewish life is not really important, and hence one doesn't have any real intellectual expectations from the Jewish public. "Important", so I claimed, "can be translated to 'primary', whereas unimportant can be translated to 'secondary'". Much to my surprise, this line of logic was convincing - he accepted the fact that his American identity is primary, and his Jewish identity is only secondary.
It's very rare to have an ideological debate that ends with an admission that the one side is right. Seemingly, I should be pleased - but I'm not pleased at all! My central claim in this whole blog has been that the American Jewish community lacks a tradition of self-criticism. Everything is just fine, and there is no sense of failure or crisis that must immediately be addressed. This above debate is no different. My logic was that a Jew who recognizes that Jewish identity is merely secondary would be very interested to examine ways to change such a sad and disappointing reality. After all, it is a break with the entire history of the Jewish people. However, this was not the conclusion that was drawn from the above new understanding of identity. There was no sense of emergency, no pondering what could be done to remedy this problem. On the contrary. The fact was simply accepted as a reality, about which there is absolutely no value judgment. I can only wonder what would be the Jewish crisis in America that a "simple Jew" would understand as unusual and deserving of some serious soul-searching. So far I haven't found it.
An American Jewish guest in my home countered my observation by noting that his identity is a "synthesis". It is composed of many elements, and there is no component of this identity that is first or second, major or minor. He's an American, and he's a Jew - in addition to other aspects of awareness. Well, as always, I argued that one's American education is always very substantial, whereas the time spent in a Jewish educational framework is generally so brief. It simply can't be that the two cultural worlds are equal. Although no one would know the answer, still I asked him: "What percentage of American Jews would know the names of the Five Books of Moses?" On the spot, he admitted that he himself doesn't know the names, just as he doesn't even know the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In short, so I argued, he doesn't have any Jewish educational background, so surely Jewish culture is quite foreign to him. His reaction was that it shouldn't be dictated what one has to study in order to be culturally Jewish. People have a right to choose for themselves the content of their cultural world (and no one would be entitled to define such a cultural world as having mere secondary importance in life).
It occurred to me to ask my guest if he felt that studying the US Constitution should be obligatory in the American school system. His immediate answer was "yes" - it is very central". So it turns out that there are aspects of education that are so very important that they should even be dictated to the public. But why would he have such standards for his American society, but there is no need for any standards in his Jewish life? The answer is that American life is important, and hence it justifies educational standards. Jewish life is not really important, and hence one doesn't have any real intellectual expectations from the Jewish public. "Important", so I claimed, "can be translated to 'primary', whereas unimportant can be translated to 'secondary'". Much to my surprise, this line of logic was convincing - he accepted the fact that his American identity is primary, and his Jewish identity is only secondary.
It's very rare to have an ideological debate that ends with an admission that the one side is right. Seemingly, I should be pleased - but I'm not pleased at all! My central claim in this whole blog has been that the American Jewish community lacks a tradition of self-criticism. Everything is just fine, and there is no sense of failure or crisis that must immediately be addressed. This above debate is no different. My logic was that a Jew who recognizes that Jewish identity is merely secondary would be very interested to examine ways to change such a sad and disappointing reality. After all, it is a break with the entire history of the Jewish people. However, this was not the conclusion that was drawn from the above new understanding of identity. There was no sense of emergency, no pondering what could be done to remedy this problem. On the contrary. The fact was simply accepted as a reality, about which there is absolutely no value judgment. I can only wonder what would be the Jewish crisis in America that a "simple Jew" would understand as unusual and deserving of some serious soul-searching. So far I haven't found it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)