Sinning Against Each Other

Rabbi, I’m sorry for the hatred you experienced. You may at least dimiss Meotti outright – he is a serial and unapologetic plagiarist. A journalist engaging in that kind of behavior really does dismiss himself from respectable discourse.

I completely agree with you about the nature of our Israel discussion; I am only sorry it seems to have taken you this long to see it. Too often we are blind to hatred until it touches us personally. If you want to know why so many Jews thoughtlessly tear each other apart over the smallest political differences, I think you have the answer right in front of you: most of them have not yet been torn apart, and therefore do not know how it feels.

Now that you know, I hope you won’t forget. I truly don’t mean to dismiss your story, but it would have been nice to see a little more self-reflection in this piece. You yourself have at times been guilty of savaging writers with whom you disagree, even over relatively minor points. What you have written was never as bad as the worst offenders you highlight here. But in particular, your attacks on Peter Beinart’s faith were nasty, and broadly fall into the same pattern you are now decrying. You also went after a personal friend of mine for having a birthday celebration in Ramallah. That piece was less personally demeaning towards him, but still came from the same hateful capacity that we all have inside of us, in my opinion.

I watched you debate Mr. Beinart in person and you were far more civil, which is why I am taking the time to write this comment. I hope that, in light of this lousy experience you’ve had, you’ll work harder to bring your written work into line with how you treat people when you meet them face to face. When it comes to writing online, especially about Israel, that is probably the golden rule.

I understand the harsh language and infighting among fellow Jews. The battle among typically well educated/intelligent Jews pits the idealistic social justice tenet of the faith (if anyone’s being trod upon, the Jews are next) against realistic pragmatism (G_D isn’t protecting us so we’d better do so, ourselves).

How are Jews supposed to balance idealism with pragmatism when a Jewish state’s existence is at stake with civility? It’s tantamount to a group of Jews attempting to negotiate with people looking to physically beat and evict you from your home wanting it for themselves, and those about to be beaten should respectfully discuss it with them?

It’s a parallel thought universe which no common point to begin a civil discussion exists. There’s no middle ground or compromise position. We, at least many of us, understand the only way for peace is granting ‘right of return’ ending Israel as a Jewish state. It’s why Arafat didn’t take the deal with Clinton in the late 1990′s being given everything else he wanted.

Intelligent people can disagree. They can disagree with civility. But when you have a choice to try to negotiate or fight for your life, it tends to become somewhat of an emotional “discussion,” IMO.

Of course the settlements in Judea and Samaria are an occupation. The arabs regarded the 1948 cease fire lines as temporary and with exception of Jordan, who every other nation agreed illegally annexed Judea and Samaria, viewed the old Palestine mandate as a single entity. It was only after the cease fire lines no longer existed that the arabs claimed they were somehow permanent. As for J Street, any organaztion financed by former Nazi stooge, George Soros, should not be taken seriously. He merely wants to finish the work of old masters.

It’s sad, if not exactly unexpected, to read this kind of defamation posted to an article pleading for a little more civility. Too bad…

Thank you Danny, for having the wisdom and courage to say that we mustn’t paint ourselves into a moral and strategic corner. A peaceful, two-state future may in fact be something that our foes simply won’t even accept. There are things not in our control. But what is in our control is to leave the possibility open, so that if the future has a pleasant surprise in store, if one day true negotiation is possible, we will have not pre-emptively rejected its outcome.

Unfortunately, your statement is both unfair and untrue. Soros was a 13 year old child when he was forced at threat of violence by Nazi occupiers to hand out deportation notices. To expect a child under those circumstances to behave in any other way is deeply inhumane, and illustrates the crudity of both your understanding of the man’s history and your moral sensibility.

Uh, exactly what article are you commenting on? Certainly not Gordis’s.

J Street is nothing but Israel sell outs. I’ll oppose them till my, or their, death.

More pretentious and pompous moralizing by the notorious, self righteous, self hating. and hatefilled Left wing faux religious Jewish loudmouth, Daniel “smear Israel at all costs and in every possible venue” Gordis. It is a shame that any self respecting Jewish publication would give Gordis a platform for his hypocritical and empty headed criticism of Jews, Judaism, and Israel. Gordis, like his JStreet and BDS buddies hold Jews and Israel to a standard of perfection, all the time and in all ways, and are absolutely savage in his criticism of Jews and Israel, while at the same time aligning himself with some of the worst anti Semites and Israel haters imaginable. Worse, Gordis has the chutzpah to justify any and all attacks on Jews and Israel by enemies of Israel and with this silly, unfair, and badly thought out commentary manages to bad mouth the Jewish People and provide further ammunition for those who already hate us. If anything, Gordis has by this ridiculous rant engaged in “lashon hara”, and committed a grievous sin against the Jewish People and defiled the Holy Name of G-d. He should be ashamed of himself, but blinded by his arrogance he won’t be, but at the very least, no decent and moral Jewish group should tolerate his writing or his presence.

Thanks, C. Nuke Hinam.

I don’t recall Soros as ever being a “friend” of Israel. Can anyone share anything he’s ever done assisting Israel in any way?

I’m willing to be open minded if anyone has anything

Before I comment here, I want to make it quite clear that I consider Daniel Gordis a friend and colleague, despite our differences and that nothing we argue about can affect that. Nevertheless, allow me a relatively short response:-

Rabbi Dr. Gordis (from now on, Daniel) wrote “Medad’s piece
didn’t cross any red lines—he didn’t call me a traitor, for example—but
his derisive tone, I think, invited some of the viciousness that has
come to characterize too much of Jewish discourse about Israel.”

If I can textually deconstruct this comment of Daniel, I could say:

a) I didn’t cross any red lines (although I am not sure what those red lines are).

b) I didn’t call him a ‘traitor’ (I understand now that that is a red line).

c) I wrote in a derisive tone.

d) I did invite vicious discourse.

So, I am innocent twice but semi-guilty twice. I write “semi-guilty” as
regards my ‘derisive tone’ since I don’t think I was derisive.

I reviewed my piece. I entitled it “The Gordis Not”, a play on words,
and immediately explained: “Daniel Gordis said “no” to the Levy
Report”. Was that derisive?

I wrote he decided “to run with this group of Israeli critics”,
referring to the IPF which last hosted Ehud Olmert when he whined in 2006 about Israel “being tired”. Was that derisive?

As to aligning himself with IPF, and let’s recall the process in his words: “One of the letter’s authors had sent me a draft,
asking if I’d sign it. I turned him down, explaining that I had some
issues with the language. A day later, he sent me a revised version. It
wasn’t perfect, but it was better. Would I sign, he wanted to know? I
agreed…”, I trust that being a Rabbi, Daniel will recall this
Rabbinic framework from Sanhedrin 23A: “Rab Judah said in Rab’s name:
…It has been taught likewise: The fair minded of the people in
Jerusalem used to act thus: They would not sign a deed without knowing
who would sign with them; they would not sit in judgment unless they
knew who was to sit with them; and they would not sit at table without
knowing their fellow diners.”

I am aware that the IPF is attempting to re-brand itself but it has a
long way still to go to achieve “pro-Israel advocacy” status. I still
recall that it was Jonathan Jacoby who was the leader of the Israel
Policy Forum for many years, and before being hired to run the IPF was
associated with the New Jewish Agenda, the New Israel Fund, and
Americans for Peace Now, and had been identified by Douglas Bloomfield in
1997 as one of a group of “Jewish leaders [who] have been privately
urging Clinton to put more pressure on Netanyahu.” The Israel Policy
Forum was created in 1992 by Israel’s Labor Party in order to push
American Jewry to the left.

To continue and return to my response, I asked did the criticism of Netanyahu need “have been such a public shaming?” Did it? I asked if he agreed with Yitzhak Rabin’s October 1995 formula? Does he?

And I concluded, writing “you erred in your own aspirational exuberance. You erred in the ‘friends’ you chose.” I still think so.

As for the specific “inviting viciousness” charge, I reject that but will not characterize that as derisive. Maybe having lived in Israel for 42 years, I am used to the discourse.

Daniel,

We have exchanged opinions on this matter, and while I continue to disagree with you, I fully respect your right to your point of view, more so than many others BECAUSE you have taken the step that they haven’t, and live your life in Israel. There is no place for anger or vitriol, especially not between friends who may agree on the goal, but disagree on the best way to reach it. On the plus side, the vehemence of the objections to your having signed your name speaks of the influence and respect that those for, and against you, believe that you wield.

Two points:
1) A letter signed by one or more Jews taking a stand on any issue addressed to the government of Israel is entirely the correct way to go about expressing dissent. (I don’t know that it needed to be made public, or even if that could have been avoided.) However, the letter did not make a clear enough distinction between advising against ADOPTING and putting the Levy Commission report into action, as opposed to outright REJECTING it. The Report is simply a well-based expression of legal opinion, which has as much validity as any opposing opinion, pending adjudication by a universally accepted juridical system (which does not exist today.) It is important that there be such a Report in the armamentarium of the Government of Israel and its supporters, to counter the widespread legal opinions to the contrary, being falsely dressed up as accepted “international law”.

2) Regarding posters on various talkbacks. It takes a lot of time (which many of don’t have.) But the other option is to leave the field to the prevaricators, haters, and anti-Semites who will gladly spread their venom, unopposed. If only one mind is opened to counter-arguments, it is worth doing.

Finally, I thought you might find this article interesting:

Beyond Tears: Thoughts for Tisha B’Av

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

(This article by Rabbi Marc D. Angel appears in the Israeli newspaper,
Haaretz, July 26, 2012)

To Daniel Gordis: While we differ about the Levy report, I follow your writing with deep interest and respect. Every time I see your name in print I recall your father z”l, a piece of whose work I had the honor to edit for a long-ago book. We all try to credit our fathers’ memories and you do that well. As to how some people respond to what you say, unfortunately I find they are equally abusive to other writers whom they might envy and/or reject. The uphill battle for us all, and uphill it is, will be to find a way to achieve some Jewish unity. We don’t have to agree but we do have to work together for our common survival. To accomplish that, we all first need to lower the temperature of our debate. Keep on doing that!

Inculcating anti-Israel feeling among young and vulnerable American Jews cannot, in my opinion, be the work of web-posters “with too much time on their hands”. It is too methodical, and has the institutional support of the websites and blogs on which the most vicious comments appear, every day, regardless of the topic being discussed. For instance, yesterday on commondreams.org, in response to an article discussing the shocking ice melt in Greenland, someone wrote, “and you know which religion forbids usury and interest which always fu*9s over poor? islam. which is why our zionist right wing fascist denialist camp hates islam. ‘the more you know’.”

This is typical. Such comments are not flagged or removed. Nor does anyone typically object, perhaps because those who do are viciously attacked in turn. This has happened to me repeatedly. I hate to see these types of comments go unanswered, and I wish I had enough time on my hands to answer every one with irrefutable facts about the history of the Zionist movement and the Arab-Israeli conflict. There have to be a lot of well-meaning, confused, self-censoring readers on these websites who would be open to hearing pro-Israel arguments but are unfortunately not seeking out websites like Tablet.

I apologize. I forgot to post link. (this belongs to comments below)

http://www.economist.com/node/21559677?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/old_and_nasty

You may want to take a step back and ask yourself whether 24-hour cable news, on the one hand, and our own ancient history, on the other, are the best metrics by which to judge the current state of our communal discourse, or our aspirations. I think you are suffering from artificially diminished expectations.

I used to intern at JPost, and one of my jobs was to moderate its Talkbacks (a peculiarly Israeli nomenclature that pretty much captures the balance between talking and listening on their news sites.) If you think what you read is bad, you should see what gets deleted before it ever reaches the site. It would…give you pause.

Years later, I published an article in the left-wing 972 Magazine explaining why I support J Street. The article focused in specifically on the group’s tactics as a lobbying organization. It was not polemical, and if anything placed me to the right of the average J Streeter, and quite a bit to the right of most of 972′s contributors.

The next day, my entire place of work (I worked in a Jewish institution at the time) was spammed by an individual accusing me of being the modern incarnation of a capo, the inmates who were placed in charge of prisoner units in Nazi concentration camps. I was not surprised by the content of this comment (though a bit by the writer’s ingenuity in emailing so many people…), having heard it and worse many times before. But I was a little sad to see how taken aback my older colleagues were. Those over the age of 40 hadn’t realized that this was the level to which our community has sunk.

For my part, I’ve carried that knowledge since my salad days deleting sinat chinam-byte after sinat chinam-byte on the night-shift at the Israeli newspaper.

Perhaps G-d destroyed the Beit Ha’Mikdash because people used it to fuel their hatred for each other .Each party argued they posessed the truth emanating from the Temple and insisted that only their position honors and preserves that Holy Place. But G-d wanted peace and caring not a building that leads to ugly arguments.
Sometimes we have to forgo what is rightfully ours to preserve life. The real mother cried out to Solomon- give the other woman the living child. Today the real “mother” of the Land crys out “Cut the Land and let no blood be spilled”.
But we must be strong and vigilant to preserve life.

You don’t think saying that you’re “…saddened and worried by the growing numbers of even Orthodox students on college campuses making their way to the J-Street bloc” may be approaching, if not crossing, the line? Either spell out your principled objections to the policies J Street espouses and its pracitices — and thus your concerns — or skip the snide phrase and generalized insult and find a way to make your point without reference to that honorable organization.

Danny Gordis is both right and wrong. Yes the discourse has dropped to an unfortunate level in the Jewish world. Look at the level of conversation about observant Jews. Why does the segment of the Jewish community that follows the dictates of Shulchan Aruch-the Code of Jewish Law warrant the title “Ultra” Are there any “ultra reform”, is J Street “Ultra Leftist”. Nor in truth is many of the comments form the religious sector filled with much dignity. We all could use a dose of Ahavat Yisroel,

Second I think Danny Gordis has stepped into dangerous ground with this letter. If you are on the left or right, It you are anti settlements or believe that Judea and Samaria are essential for Israeli security or a biblical homeland. Why handicap yourselves before the conversation begins. Why do the Jewish people have to relinquish their connection to their historical homeland as a precondition. Its simply a bad approach to negotiations.

We can learn something from the Arabs. They claim with great passion their so called rights to Jerusalem, and all of Israel. We act with insecurity, afraid we might offend someone. Be it the resident of the White House or a some representative of the European Union. Jews need to have a great sense of self respect and confidence in their own historical bond to Eretz Yisroel. It reaches back over three thousand years. We don’t need validation from the nations of the world.

This does not mean we do not have to operate as a nation in the real world of diplomacy. However we must approach the issues with self respect and knowledge of what is really ours, not with weakness and doubt. If the Jewish people make a decision that relinquishing territory (something that has not proven successful in Southern Lebanon, Gaza or the West Bank) would usher in an era peace, it should be from our position of strength.

By signing the letter Danny Gordis and others have emboldened the other side. If they would have shared their feelings in private with the political leadership in Israel then I would “nu they are expressing their viewpoint”. Instead they rush to publish sending a message to the world “look even the Jews don’t support Israel’s position” weakening the diplomatic hand of the government. While I think that Danny Gordis intent was as he views “Israels good”. Still one must ask what are the motivations of the organization standing behind this effort. Were their motives only noble, or did they want to seize the limelight and seek relevance and communal support.

In my view this letter is a profound “Chillul Hashem”:

There is a saying in Pirkie Avot, “that wise men should be careful with their words since others may come and drink from them and die”. Its a harsh statement. But we need to think of what we say and how we say it. And we need to ask ourselves that if by saying in public is there a chance that these words may be used by others in a negative way.

Are you familiar with Kasim Hafeez? He is a British-Pakistani Muslim who grew up as one of the most vile anti-semites/anti-zionists you could imagine. Sometime later in life, he turned around and became a forceful advocate ON BEHALF OF Israel, as you can read about here http://www.theisraelcampaign.org/default.html .

What led to this change of heart? Following your logic, one would think that following an encounter with self-secure Zionist who would not yield any claim on the right of Jews to any piece of their biblical birthright, he came away convinced that the Jews were actually correct and that he had been wrong all his life. The reality could not be further from that. His transformation started when he picked up Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel expecting to refute its arguments one-by-one. Instead he found that he had no response to any of Dershowitz’s arguments.

It should be noted that Dershowitz opposes the settlements, with the exception of the ones which were part of Yishuv settlement blocs. So what was it about Dershowitz that convinced Hafeez? It’s the fact the Dershowitz built his case on universal principles and those principles in such a way that one would have to recognize the right of the Jews to reconstitute their homeland.

The thing is, that basing your own rights on universal principles means that you have to accept what those principles apply, in this case that the Palestinian people, as opposed to the Palestinian National Movement, deserve something. Therefore, if you want to advocate the right of Jews to develop their national character and that all obstacles should be swept aside, no matter how great an inequality is created in Jews’ favor by doing so, you need some other principles. Do you seriously think that such alternate principles would have convinced someone like Hafeez.

I think his comment speak clearly and I too object strongly to the policies of J Street. I think, though many intelligent and thoughtful people have bought into the J Street, that it’s founder is self-serving, egotistical and searching the spotlight. I am a dyed in the wool Liberal, one might even say, an activitst, but I love Israel and I believe J Street does not help to correct Israel’s faults. It’s publicity seeking head compounds the dangers Israel faces.

This is exactly what Dr. Gordis was talking about!

This is an incredibly wise/sage post. Thank you, David, for taking the time to make a strong sensible reasoned point regarding Jews and an optimal approach to defend Israel’s existence.

I appreciate your words.

Words are indeed powerful tools. The Jews have a proud tradition of the highest opinion prevailing, e.g. the Talmudic debates. However constructive criticism is quite different to verbal abuse, slander, libel or defamation. Regarding Tisha B’av…

Jews Read Lamentations Outside Temple Mount in Defiance of Ban (Arutz Sheva)

“…and going up to the Temple Mount in purity according to halacha (Jewish law) is the beginning of the process of rebuilding.” – Rabbi Chaim Richman

This is an incorrect interpretation of the prophecies. There is a timeline to the Redemption. I repeat…Pushing one of the messianic imperatives before its time could prove dangerously counter-productive. The recognition and acceptance of Moshiach’s sovereignty precedes any building of the Third Temple on the Mount.

You can’t see into a person’s heart only G-d knows a person’s deepest thoughts.Why would they even bother talking and dreaming about Israel if they are self- hating. Argue about the plan for Israel, those you disagree with have. Show them why they are mistaken, how your ideas are more workable than theirs.What is obvious to you may not be to someone else. The Torah is more concerned about hating others than hating ourselves. Because each person has an innate bias in favor of themselves .
Whoever says what is yours is yours and what is mine is yours is considered pious. But of course you don’t have to donate to someone who
wants to harm you.

Rabbi Gordis, I start out not really knowing you though I have heard of you, read a few things from you and listened to you debate Peter Beinart. But when you try to paint people who oppose your action as participating in the same fashion as those whose bickering destroyed the Second Temple, well, you lose me already. But the grievance here should be about what you have implicitly called the settlements, that is, not worthy of respect. Between Jewish kids having a problem with Israel if it is accepting of settlements and the rights of the settlements, I simply choose the rights of settlements. You, however, implicit in your signature have decided that deception of Jewish children is preferable to the truth. Is this a tell about you, that you want to throw away principle in favor of lying to the kids? It is worse that you place both feet squarely in quicksand and then wish to extract yourself by attacking those who seek to stop your fool-hearty behavior.

Rabbi Gordis, I start out not really knowing you though I have heard of you, read a few things from you and listened to you debate Peter Beinart. But when you try to paint people who oppose your action as participating in the same fashion as those whose bickering destroyed the Second Temple, well, you lose me already. But the grievance here should be about what you have implicitly called the settlements, that is, not worthy of respect. Between Jewish kids having a problem with Israel if it is accepting of settlements and the rights of the settlements, I simply choose the rights of settlements. You, however, implicit in your signature have decided that deception of Jewish children is preferable to the truth. Is this a tell about you, that you want to throw away principle in favor of lying to the kids? It is worse that you place both feet squarely in quicksand and then wish to extract yourself by attacking those who seek to stop your fool-hearty behavior.

I don’t have any magic answers but do believe that many new conversations need to happen to help Israelis and Palestinians to come together as two peoples enough to begin to understand each other as human beings and to then determine how to live as neighbors in peace. To get there Jews in Israel and across the globe need to engage in a more inclusive and positive conversation.