there are absolutes in this world, Mr. Klein

So, Ezra Klein was on MSNBC this morning to comment on the new GOP House Majority’s desire to open the 112^th Congress with a reading of the Constitution.  His comments boiled down to the action being irrelevant because the document “was written more than 100 years ago.” 

He also put these words in print on his Washington Post blog: “…the Constitution is not a clear document. Written 100 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it.”

I guess the fact-checker at the WashPost was late getting in this morning because Klein’s entry was later edited to read: “My friends on the right don't like to hear this, but the Constitution is not a clear document. Written more than 200 years ago, when America had 13 states and very different problems, it rarely speaks directly to the questions we ask it.”

But let’s not get picky over semantics, at least not the kind of semantics that make a 26 year old know it all (whose most complete biography can be found on Wikipedia- "100 year old" comment included) look like someone more fit to co-star in the next Michael Cera movie than the actual, informed “policy wonk” he makes the claim to be.  After all, true wonks stand behind their opinions no matter how wacky they may be.  That’s how you go from being a guest star to getting a starring role on MSNBC, right? 

Poor Mr. Klein, he’ll have to wait a while longer, then, for his ship to sail.  By 5 pm he was already retracting his words: “Yes, the Constitution is binding. No, it’s not clear which interpretation of the Constitution the Supreme Court will declare binding at any given moment. And no, reading the document on the floor of the House will not make the country more like you want it to be…”

Mr. Klein should know full well the complete lack of value any public reading has when the words being read aloud fall on deaf ears; he was raised Jewish.  Presumably, whether only on high holidays or on a weekly basis, Mr. Klein attended services and heard the words of the Torah read aloud.  If the Constitution is invalid because it’s “over 100 years old” then the 3,313 year-old Torah must really be out of date, rendering Mr. Klein’s Jewishness about as valid as his Americanness.

Perhaps that is why he was so eager to defend Hitler:

Hitler probably had the Jews of Germany to thank for the boost in effectiveness felt by his social reforms; it was probably easier to get jobs once Jews were denied theirs, and I’m sure apartments were easier to come by once Jews were kicked out of theirs, and well, as far as doctors go, I hear that Mengele was a regular miracle worker.  As far as Volkswagen goes, well, who wouldn’t want to operate a car of the people—the Aryan German people, that is—and when it comes to vegetarianism well, my dead Aunt’s German parents fed off chicken bones because Germany's breadbasket was just so bountiful. 

“Not everything the Nazis touched was bad. Hitler was a vegetarian. Volkswagen is a perfectly good car company. Universal health care is a perfectly good idea. Indeed, the Nazis actually did a pretty good job increasing economic growth and improving standards of living…pushing Germany out of a depression and back into expansion.”

And speaking of bones, Klein throws us one at the end of his heil Hitler:  “Unfortunately, they also set out to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. People shouldn’t do that.”

Not only does he mention the Holocaust in passing, he insults his readers (and himself) by actually being sure to remind you that genocide is wrong.

A good conservative would snub their nose at his gross hypocrisy.  A Jew, especially one who happens to be good friends with a Holocaust survivor, would call Ezra Klein an ignorant ass.

A good conservative would combat his comments regarding the Constitution by explaining that without the Constitution Klein would have no America to argue about.  A good Jew would remind Klein that if a document that is 223 years old is irrelevant and up for debate, the 3,313 year-old Torah that made him a Jew must be something best left for the history books.

And a good Jewish American would tell Mr. Klein that if the Constitution is up for debate, and the Torah doesn’t matter, why should his own words even count?  Perhaps those, too, are up for interpretation.

In which case, it’s too bad the Washington Post blows all of its money on morons.

The horrifying thing about Ezra Klein’s comments is that they are

reflective of an entire generation’s thinking: Founding documents do not matter; everything is whatever you want it to be.  No wonder Klein can defend Hitler.  And if Klein—a Jewish American who is a mere 2 generations removed from those who fought in World War II and were murdered in concentration camps—can defend Hitler, and if the thought process that got him there is commonplace in his entire generation, what does that say for the future of America?

Religion, State & the Threat of Dictatorship

How can a State determine a citizen's relationship with God?

The American government was established on the idea that no government can define or interfere in a citizen’s relationship with the Divine.  For Israel, it is an entirely different matter; not only does the State interfere, the State defines this relationship for the individual as both a religious and a national concept. 

For Americans, religion is an act of choice that does not affect their status as citizens of the United States.  For Israelis, religion defines their status as citizens of the State.  In fact, for some Israeli politicians, religion is not only a matter of citizenship; it is a matter of national security.

Americans could never understand this concept because they have never had to live with it.  In fact, their government was created to avoid it.

But how do you avoid the religion-state relationship when you are Jewish?

Why did the colonialists seek to ensure that the government of America would “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?  Did they do this to escape the corrupt church-state governments of Europe where priests and monarchs played the role of God?  Did they do this in order to be able to express their faith in a public forum without fear of persecution?  These are both true reasons and, perhaps, there is another to be found in the wording of the Declaration of Independence itself: the recognition that God, not the Protestant god, nor the Catholic god, nor the Jewish god, nor any other god, but God was the Creator who endowed every individual with inalienable rights.

I don’t see God being given much consideration in Israeli politics today.  Zionism, yes.  Religion, yes.  God?  No.  Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu Party advocates a national pledge to a Jewish State for purposes of Zionism.  Shas and UTJ oppose the ratification of a Conversion Bill because it goes against the established Rabbinical authorities.  The majority of Israelis sit between a rock and a hard place, between left and right, between nations that wait for their demise and politicians who are digging the grave.  Meanwhile, the people of God know nothing of God because they are too busy being told what does and doesn’t make them a Jew—that is, acceptable in God’s presence—by a group of rather corrupt individuals with high personal stakes and extremely limited objectivity.

It is strange for an American Jew to try and comprehend the idea that the food you put in your mouth, where you set your foot on Shabbat, or who your father did or didn’t fall in love with could impact your status as a citizen of the land you’re supposed to be able to call home.  It is even harder to understand how any religious leadership could declare a person who is willing to study for their nation to be a better person than the one who is willing to risk their life for their nation.  It is hard for American Jews to understand these things because ours is a Jewishness of choice.  If we want to wear peyas and sheitels, we do; if we want to drive on Shabbat, we do; if we want to marry gentiles and still raise our kids Jewish, we do.  America has afforded us the opportunity no other nation ever has; to make the choice as to whether or not we want to live Jewish lives on our own terms.

I am of the opinion that Israel must be a Jewish state simply because that is the destiny of Israel.  What “Jewish” means and how “Jewish” is expressed, despite the wishes of certain political parties cannot be legislated through mandated pledges, a minyan’s agreement, or a forced dictatorship.  God Himself knows you cannot change a person’s heart.  You can, however, “instruct them in the way they should go so that when they grow old, they will not sway from it.”  You can encourage them with joy instead of force and love instead of judgment.  You can instill pride of nation and of self so that the decisions they make as citizens will be in the best interests of the nation.

There are solutions to the fears that Zionists like Avigdor Lieberman face regarding the future of the Jewish State.  Perhaps if he spent less time agitating the Arabs and more time praising his people, and perhaps if the religious parties like Shas and UTJ spent less time politicizing religion and more time promoting faith, they might find them. 

Can a Jew be a Marxist?

Part 1: How European Intellectuals & German Theologians Planted the Seeds of Communism

Author's Note: This article is also being published at OurLastStand.com as the first in a "History 101" Series, a column that will be devoted to exploring the historical and ideological roots of the crisis we now face as a nation.

"The political emancipation of the Jew, the Christian, and, in general, of religious man, is the emancipation of the state from Judaism, from Christianity, from religion in general." - Karl Marx, On The Jewish Question 1844

To understand today's progressive you have to understand yesterday's socialist. And, by "yesterday" I'm talking roughly 200 years ago when the seeds of socialism were first planted in the hotbed of post-Enlightenment Europe.

History is a lot like gravity; for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The reaction to the abuses of monarchy, aristocracy, and the State-Church complex of the late 1700s was revolution on both sides of the Atlantic. Both the American and the French Revolutions were fed by the thinkers of the Enlightenment, a period in history that directly preceeded this turning point in Western life. The Enlightenment was a period driven by intellectual investigation based on reason as the ultimate means of obtaining objective truth and establishing authoritative systems of government and religion. It could be argued that the Enlightenment was a sort of culmination to Europe's great religious upheaval that started with Martin Luther and expressed itself in radical religious wars. It was as if the growing educated class took a look around and decided that the world could be a better place if only people stopped to think before walking into battle over age-old superstitions and feuds.

In America, the Enlightenment thinkers would inspire Revolutionaries who believed that the ultimate authority over earth was God, and that God empowered individuals with inalienable rights, including the right to worship Him as he or she saw fit, without government interference. However, as David Aiken explains in his doctoral thesis, The Role of Atheism in the Marxist Tradition, European thinkers most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment would go on to declare that it was man who had the ultimate authority over man and, ultimately, God didn't even exist.

As the following outline of Aiken's research details, these European political and theological philosophers made their mark on Marx and subsequent socialist/progressive thinkers:

Political Origins

1793 - In his tome Political Justice, William Godwin argued that:

• rational choice, not Godly salvation, perfected man
• This would leave those who are deemed "rational thinkers" to "save" everyone else, for example, through extensive legislation regarding health care, diet, and exercise.
• man had no moral responsibility,
  
  • For instance, to give water to hospital patients in dire thirst
• man's actions were determined by his environment out of "necessity", that is, what took place before he arrived,
  
  • This totally negates the concept of free will and the ability to choose your own direction in life.
• government should be abolished and replaced with autonomous economic and political units

Godwin was also a strong advocate against property ownership and marriage. His work would influence the Romantic poets Shelley, Byron, Coleridge, and Wordsworth, as well as the political thinker Robert Owen.

1796 - Gracchus Babeuf constructs a plan to overthrow the French government via a "secretly organized insurrection of the Paris mob". This failed attempt would be known as The Conspiracy of Equals. Their social and economic goals included:

• abolition of right to inheritance
• Inspiring ideas like the Estate Tax
• elimination of distinctions between rich and poor
• equality between men and women
• The kind akin to the "equality" proposed in the defeated Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), perhaps?
• obligation of all people to work
• Regardless of their ability to do so? And what would happen if they could not produce more than they consumed?

These goals were printed in the Manifesto of Equals written by atheist journalist Sylvain Marechal, who was the "first socialist writer to label religion as a drug." Interestingly it was not Marx, but Babeuf, the organizer of the failed coup d'etat, who was the first revolutionary to use the phrase,"From each according to his ability to each according to his need."

1813 - Robert Owen, heavily influenced by the writings of William Godwin, publishes A New View of Society. Owen believed that:

• Man is made by his environment
• and has no free choice in the matter
• Man cannot be changed by punishment
  
  • rendering any kind of justice system useless
• Man can be changed by building a society based on "social justice"
• bad institutions cause misery and evil, which could be eliminated through rational education delivered in conditions of freedom and equality
• and no doubt micro-managed by the Army of New Teachers aka "rational thinkers"

Robert Owen came to believe that "all opposition to his social proposals stemmed from...religious attitudes." Owen's writings became a part of England's "Infidel Movement" that railed against the institutional powers of the Anglican church. The "Owenite Society", later known as the "Rational Society" was established in 1841 and sent atheist lecturers to organized meetings around England; one meeting in Manchester was attended by Marx's co-philosopher Engels. Influenced by the writings of Owen, Marx would write in his 1844 manuscripts, "Communism begins with atheism, but atheism is initially far from communism."

Theological Origins

While the suggestion that Christian belief was "erroneous", "irrelevant to the great issues of the day", and even a "fossilized cultural identity" sprang out of the Goethe-influenced German Romantic tradition of the early 1800s, the German Higher Criticism Theologians were the intellectuals behind the dismantling of faith in scripture. Aiken explains the 4 stages of the breakdown as follows:

1. "Destructive criticism applied to the reliability of the Bible as a source of Christian authority"
   
   • In other words, the Bible can't be trusted
2. "an assault upon the possiblity of any source of law and authority above the observed natural law, in short, on the supernatural"
   
   • You can't see, touch, or taste God, so He doesn't exist
3. "the relegation of the Diety to a human invention serving a utilitarian philosophical and psychological purpose"
   
   • People invented "God" in order to make themselves feel better
4. "the search for a way to eliminate this last barrier to the replacement of God's sovereignty...with man's."
   
   • Man not only replaces God, Man IS God

By the time of the Enlightenment, the Church had already been seen as a failure by Luther and the Reformation. The only supreme authority left was The Bible itself. The German Higher Critics separated "Historical" Truth versus "Religious" Truth, in other words, Reason versus Faith. To the Higher Critics, personal belief was "highly arbitrary" and "incapable of objective definition."

• Bahrdt and Venturini were the first to employ a "Rationalist Historiography" approach to the study of the Bible - eliminating anything from the Gospel accounts that could not be verified by reason.
• Schleiermacher would go on to define religion as "the consciousness of being absolutely dependent" and sin as "anything that curtailed this sense of dependence."
• Kant would declare that "man was to find moral self-perfection by his own unaided efforts," that man was to "accept no dogmas or creeds from previous generations as sacrosanct," and instead was to "exercise freely the capacity of understanding as a means for participation in human progress."
• Fitche would mysteriously declare that, quite apart from Christianity, "a spiritual and moral imperative [was] manifesting itself as a dynamic in the affairs of mankind."
• Strauss, in his 1836 work The Life of Jesus would declare the Gospels to be a "myth".

All of these critics had their impact on the reknown German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. It has been noted that, "without Hegel, Marxism would be unthinkable." To Hegel, the Church ignored reason and, therefore, ultimately despised man. Taking the civilized world backward about 18 centuries, Hegel sympathized with the pantheism of ancient Greece and Rome, calling it "a religion for free people". Subsequently, he hated Jews in particular, writing that, "men thus corrupt...were bound to create the doctrine of corruption of human nature and adopt it gladly." Hegel also "deeply resented the Christian notion that all human beings must submit to God." He preferred, instead, a "theology of a religion in which the self is...God," promoting the idea of "learning to know God as a our true and essential self."

Not only did Hegel despise God, he despised the people who brought God's Word to the world and represented it on a daily basis--Jews and Christians--because these people were a living witness to the truth of God's Word and, therefore, a hindrance to Hegel's own plan for a "Religion of Humanity".

Hegel influenced Marx through Marx's cohorts, "Young Hegelians" Bruno Bauer and Moses Hess:

It was Bauer who introduced Marx to Hegel at The Doctors' Club at Berlin University in 1837. According to famed critic Albert Schweitzer, Bruno Bauer had a "pathological hatred" of Christianity. He also went so far as to claim demonic possession in an 1841 letter to a colleague.

Moses Hess was the one to draw Marx's attention to the connection between atheism and communism. Hess was the first to equate Capitalism's economic alienation of the worker with Christianity's religious alienation of the worker. To Hess, Capitalism and Christianity were so intertwined that the destruction of one was inseparable from the destruction of the other. Hess's direct influence on Marx's work can be seen in Marx's On the Jewish Question in which he denounces the Rights of Man "...including freedom, as concepts which kept man isolated from his fellow man."

And yet, it is perhaps Ludwig Feuerbach who had the most direct influence on Marx. Feuerbach's goal was "...to rid the human race of all religious illusions and turn its attention completely away from God and back to men." For Feuerbach, "God" is nothing more than the archetype for the "Ideal Man", but because of religious misconception of "God", man is held back from having the freedom and autonomy to be the God he could truly be. "To enrich [this idea of] God, man must become poor, that [Man-]God may be all, man must become nothing." Does this sound like the beginnings of collective salvation?

Finally, Feuerbach wrote that the purpose of his work was to "...change man...from lovers of God into lovers of humanity, from candidates for the after-life into students of the here and now, from religious and political valets of the divine and worldly monarchy and aristocracy into free, self-confident citizens of the earth."

So, what is the impact of the growing atheist belief of the 1800s on today's progressive mindset? The answer is clear: These atheistic thinkers helped to shape a worldview in complete opposition to that which the Bible outlines:

• Sin becomes Freedom
• Biblical teaching becomes Imprisonment
• God does not exist
• Man is God
• God does not save
• Man is the source of salvation

Is it any wonder, then, that today's progressives seek to undermine a Constitution that was written to acknowledge the existence of God, the benevolence of God, the need for God, and the freedom God gives to all mankind? These men possessed an avowed outspoken hatred of Judaism and Christianity. Should it be any surprise, then, that their intellectual descendents, today's "progressives," make it a point to decry, condemn, and even legislate away every speck of evidence of the Judeo-Christian heritage of America?

Ironically, Marx's friend and fellow converted Jew, Heinreich Heine, was not too blinded by the atheistic milieu he was in to foresee the problematic, even fatal results of Germany's theological and intellectual denial of the God of the Bible when he wrote the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany in 1834:

"The natural philosopher will be terrible, for he has allied himself to the primal forces of nature. He can conjure up the demonic powers of ancient German pantheism...and if ever that restraining talisman, the Cross, is shattered, there shall arise once more...that mindless madman's rage of which the Nordic poets sang so much... I warn you, Frenchmen, keep then quiet still, and for God's sake do not applaud!!"

The thought process began with the idea that the lessons of the Bible were "irrelevant to the great issues of the day." How many Americans live a Twice-A-Year religion, no faith required? How many of us believe and are teaching our children to believe that the Bible is a dusty old book that sits on a shelf?

If we do not learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. What began with a loss of faith in God and scripture ended in Holocaust for Europe.

How will it end in America?

Only we have the free will to find out.

Laboring for Zion

As a political junkie, I find the identity crisis on the Jewish/Israeli Left absolutely fascinating.  As a Zionist and a history buff, I find it heartbreaking.

Earlier this year, my radar went up when I read Jo Ellen Green Kaiser's article "Charting Israel's Role in Progressive Jewish Identity" @ ZEEK: A Jewish Journal of Thought and Culture.  An off-shoot of the socialist Forward, I knew to expect a left-wing bias going into the relatively new venture, something I have no problem with as long as it is stated outright.  (Whereas delivering your own version of truth while claiming to be unbiased is, quite frankly, the bull of a media era gone by, IMHO.)  What shocked me about this article was not the fact that it was written from a leftist standpoint, but what the author actually articulated to be, in their own words, the proper "progressive" point of view, namely that Israel had no place in a "Progressive Jewish Identity."  

If anything should shake a Jew to the core, it is the idea that Israel has no place in their identity.  

Argued strictly semantically, the term "Jew" comes from the Hebrew Yehudah, referencing one of the 12 sons of Israel and one of the 12 territories in the nation of Israel, later known as the southern kingdom after the Israel-Judah split.  After Roman occupation, the territory became known as "Judea" and the inhabitants as "Jews".  The term has since taken on a series of negative connotations to the point where some Jewish people do not like even being called "Jews", instead preferring the term "Jewish". 

Bottom line: Israel is not only a family name, it is a national name, whereas "Jewish" and its associated term "Jew" are terms created out of division and diaspora.  Before there were Jews, there were Israelis.  You cannot be Jewish without having an ancestral tie to Israel.  Moreover, to try and distance yourself from such an identity is equivalent to giving yourself an identity grounded in oppression.

Green Kaiser argued that choosing a Jewish versus an Israeli identity was a choice that "disowned the concept of diaspora."  How?  Very simply put, the author argues that because aliyah is a viable option, "diaspora" doesn't exist.  Instead of living in exile, Jews choose not to move to Israel.  It is an argument as equally semantic as the one I reasoned above.  In the mind of the author, in order for the diaspora not to exist, Israel must exist.  Progressive Jews, then, intentionally choose not to become a part of Israel, but still need it as a safety blanket in order to make free choices about where to live in the world.

Somehow, I can't help but read into this argument a metaphor of a teenager who complains endlessly about their parents before asking them for 20 bucks and a ride to the movies.  Most parents blow off the heat they take from their kids because they remember what it was like to be a teenager and to live through that awkward period where you don't know who you are or where you belong in the world.  

That is the identity crisis I see going on in the Left.  It is an identity crisis echoed by the author in ZEEK who wrote, 

"Jewish Voice for Peace got it right when they yelled, 'Not in My Name.' They understood on a visceral level that U.S. Jewry and the values and actions of the Jewish State cannot be separated. When Israel acts, it acts in the name of the Jewish homeland. How can one be Jewish and not be named in that way? Israel defines the space against which U.S. Jews construct their own identity."

This argument illustrates the two primary problems with the Left's viewpoint.  Firstly, it assumes that all American Jews identify themselves in contrast to Israel, that is to say if we take the author's viewpoint, against Israel.  Secondly, and more importantly, the author assumes we must naturally be opposed to the entire government, and therefore the entire national identity, of Israel if we disagree with one or some of its actions.


Truth be told very few, even on the Left, are that radical as to take an "all or nothing" approach to Israeli politics.  Politics is a game of bargaining; no one should know that better than the party of Ben Gurion, who had his own struggles with the "radical periphery" of his Labor Zionist party.  Unfortunately for the Left, the radical voices have captured the attention of the politicians and the media, leaving Labor with an entire generation to re-shape if they even hope to maintain any Zionist identity into the future.


There are those on the Left who are waking up to the reality of their wing's identity crisis.  Last week Forward's Senior Columnist J.J. Goldberg wrote about rehabilitating Israel's "lost love" for Labor, a move that would require the abandonment of the grossly ineffective party chair Ehud Barak in favor of the pro-education, pro-integration MK Avishay Braverman.  It has been argued that this would be a move back to the roots of a Labor Zionism that managed to be proudly Zionistic while granting Arab Israelis equal rights as citizens of the Jewish state.  Oddly enough, the move would also require reliquishing the West Bank in the name of strategic defense; it is easier to defend a border militarily than try to run a police state with 3 million people who want to kill you.  Arguments, all of which, sound a lot more logical, reasoned, and centrist than the cries of "foul" coming from organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, flotilla activists, and "progressive" Rabbis who are turning synagogues into nothing more than minyanim for social justice.


A week later, the Forward published an article written by Ameinu President Kenneth Bob, in which he draws a line in the sand between his self-defined progressive organization and Jewish Voice for Peace's "agnostic" approach to the sovereign Jewish identity of Israel.  Bob writes,

"That is what separates progressive Zionists from JVP. We cannot be “agnostic” about the most central issue in the conflict, the importance of a solution that includes two states for two peoples, Israel and Palestine. It is ludicrous to suggest that one can be involved in the Jewish communal discourse about the future of the Middle East without having an opinion on whether Israel should exist. In addition, JVP’s stated support for a complete suspension of American military aid to Israel just emphasizes the organization’s cavalier attitude toward Israel’s survival."

Bob stands firm on his organization's two-state solution platform, encouraging the Jewish community to support "open and frank discussions around controversial issues related to Israel" but admits that, "unfortunately, our communal track record has not always been good in this regard."  Bob's admonishment to progressive Zionists to distance themselves from anti-Zionists like JVP is a positive one that is long overdue and will, no doubt, receive its fair amount of criticism from those who think his organization's stance isn't Left enough.  But it is an argument that needs to be made if Labor Zionism is going to survive on either side of the world.


Perhaps this long-overdue self-examination has been inspired by Peter Beinart who finally put voice to the Left's identity crisis when he published his "groundbreaking" essay "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment" last May.  My thoughts then are the same now: "What we need, on the whole, is a sense of communal self-actualization. ...[Jewish Americans] need to take purpose and meaning in their Jewishness as individuals by engaging with the community instead of running away from it."


Call them "progressive" or tag them by organizational names, there is a real segment of the Left wing that is running, fast and furious, from Israel.  And, whether the Left likes it or not, many young Jews in Israel and abroad are following suit.  If the Left wing cannot combat the dissention in their own ranks in this generation the next may know a Labor, but no Zionism will be attached.


In his well-written extensive critique titled "The Decline and Fall of Labor Zionism," former WJC leader Isi Leibler writes:

"The challenge for democratic socialists in Israel is to resurrect a party which has become a haven for defeatists, post-Zionists, former Marxists and other lost souls. ...There are strong grounds to believe that the majority of Labor supporters remain committed Zionists. Most would also probably agree that despite the noble intentions of the architects, the Oslo Accords were flawed because our designated peace partner, Arafat, sought our destruction rather than seeking a peace settlement. For this as well as other reasons, there are grounds for hope that in the wake of a massive electoral defeat the silent majority of Israeli social democrats will rally and try to revitalize Labor Zionism from within.


If not, a new Labor Zionist party must be created to cater for those on the Left who recognize the need to renew the Labor Zionist tradition which played such a noble role in nation building and leading the Jewish state during its formative years."

My husband is a third generation alum of the Labor Zionist camp movement Habonim Dror.  It is a movement his grandfather and great-grandfather helped to establish in America in the 1930's.  In the book Arise and Build: The Story of American Habonim, the introduction to the movement magazine Haboneh is quoted:

"We as Habonim are part and parcel of the great Socialist Zionist movement which has borne the brunt of the burden for laying the foundation of a revived homeland.  We, the Habonim, believe unshakingly that the homeland must be built, and we must build it.  We do our share while yet in America, materially and spiritually; and soon many of us will be personally transplanted to Eretz Israel to be part of the new Jewish society."

One of my husband's favorite things to do around the campfire with his fellow campers was call out various camp chants and slogans as the conversation deems appropriate. One of the more popular ones is, "Hypocritical!  Hypocritical!  Two-face!  Two-face!" 

The alarm has sounded for the Left.  Now it is their turn to look themselves in the face, lest the movement that once labored for Zion is only remembered for laboring against her.

Why I am, and am Not a Conservative

Recently I was asked to define my location in the political spectrum. 

"Well," I responded with carefully considered words, "I would have to say I'm a conservative.  That's probably the closest to any kind of definition I could get, inasmuch as I believe in a limited government and a strong national defense."

One of the gentlemen I was with gave me a wary look as I continued.

"I wouldn't call myself a Republican.  After all," I explained with a chuckle, "I wouldn't want to be confused with being like Lindsay Graham.  Besides," I added, "I dislike being affiliated with political parties."

"Oh," the wary-eyed gentleman replied, "I skip all of that and just say I'm more Right than Atilla the Hun."

I'm not quite sure if he, a card-carrying member of the Republican Party, was criticising me for being a cop-out or not.  And if he was, that's okay; my beliefs also include the idea that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, whether I agree with them or not.

But the exchange did inspire me to delve further into my own self-questioning (something we Jews do more often than not) as to why I dislike affiliating myself with any particular political party or generalized belief system.

Recently I picked up a copy of Fire from the Heartland, a Citizens United Productions documentary on conservative women.  It's basically a litany of "famous" conservative female talking heads intermixed with a lot of B-roll of the American flag and other Rockwell-esque imagery.  The majority of the statements these women make are along the same lines.  As they tell their own stories of personal struggle (one whose divorced mother raised them paycheck to paycheck, another who was given over to her father's girlfriend to be raised because her own mother was a drug addict) they all concluded in the same fashion: "Work hard and you'll succeed, that's what makes America great, and that is the conservative vision." 

I suppose if you started out living in poverty and managed to become a professional who was so successful they were asked to be interviewed for a film, you'd think America was pretty great.  And I don't deny the validity of their opinions; they are based on personal experiences, and nothing is more real than an opinion based on personal experience.

So, what have my own personal experiences taught me about the greatness of the conservative vision?  The most I could conclude after watching Fire from the Heartland is that, while this American vision may work for some people, it hasn't ever really worked for me.

Let's start with forced multicultural education in elementary school.  For some reason, my township decided that, in an effort to be "multicultural", they would bus the kids from the newer (a.k.a. "whiter" "yuppie-er") schools to the older, still-as-white schools within the district.  Then, as we all sat together, our white teachers would shake African rain sticks in front of us and tell us how cool the deserts and jungles of the Congo were.  Afterwards, we would break up into small groups for "community building" activities.

Invariably, they would take the ten kids who represented various shades of ethnicity and split them up, one to each group.  The kid assigned to my group was a fellow classmate I'd known since Kindergarten.  In fact, this kid had actually been my "Kindergarten Boyfriend" so to speak--because holding hands during reading time is the essence of married life to the mind of a five year old. 

The first thing we had to do as a group was come up with a team name.  My fellow classmate (the "tan" one) came up with an idea.  I said it was stupid.  He proceeded to tell our teacher that I called him stupid, and when I clarified that I thought his idea was stupid, I was told that was an unacceptable critique, and I shouldn't be picking on him because he was different.

Looking back on the situation later, I would realize that I should have been the last one to be accused of racism, given that I was his first interracial romance (before I even knew he was "different"!) but, as they say, hindsight is 20-20--even if the lens of affirmative action isn't.

Needless to say, the "tan" boy's idea was the one we were encouraged to pick.

Experiential Lesson #1: The darker you are, the more things go your way.

Now, let's jump ahead to my job-hunting experiences after graduate school.  I completed my Masters program with a solid 4.0 GPA.  I was a member of two international honor societies.  I had been awarded various academic scholarships and awards for academic achievement.  I possessed excellent letters of recommendation.

And I couldn't get my foot in the door anywhere.

In fact, I can say for certain that a good 97% of the interviews I've been on have happened because I knew someone who could get me in the door.  Out of the three "cold" interviews I walked into, two fizzled in the third round because of jealous female employees, and one turned into my first job at a bank-- because, I later found out, I was the only person who had no spelling mistakes on their application.

But Conservative organizations would be different.  They would not judge me based on who I knew-- right?  They would examine my credentials and be thoroughly impressed--they would want me to contribute my talents and skills to their team, right?

Well, one would, as long as I was willing to work in the DC Metro area for $25,000 a year. 

"I can't even pay rent on that," I told the interviewer.

"Well," she openly admitted, "a lot of our workers find roommates."

"I don't know anyone around here.  I'm completely new to the area," I explained.

"Well, a lot of people look on church bulletin boards."

"Uh, huh," I replied while playing casually with the Star of David around my neck.

After I interviewed for that position, I had a meeting with the head of another Conservative non-profit in downtown D.C.  He proceeded to invite me into his office where we kibitzed for 45 minutes about Pravda, Ann Coulter, and policy platforms, before he told me that I ought to just move to D.C. and intern somewhere for a year, and I was bound to get my foot in the door somewhere.

Intern?

You're telling someone with thousands in student loan debt to work for free?

For a year?

And then, maybe, someone would like me well enough to pay me?

What the hell kind of capitalist are you?

Later I would explain it this way to my grandmother: They expected me to be a trust-fund baby.  No one with my brains and my political views comes from a working class Jewish family.  If they expect you to work for free, they expect you to have the economic support from home to sit on while you build your career.

Experiential Lesson #2: The more people you know, and the more silver spoons you were born with, the more successful you will become.

Some people will argue that I just didn't "put my nose to the grindstone" and "make it work."  That I could have gone down to DC, found a room to rent off that church bulletin board, found a job bartending on nights and weekends, and worked that internship for all it was worth.  I could have lived at poverty level for a few years, even deferred my loan payments-- it would have been an investment in my career.

To which I could easily argue back that I would have been looked at cross-eyed by my church-going landlords, put myself in awkward, even dangerous situations trying to find part time employment, and put my future and my quickly growing debt in the hands of people who couldn't be bothered to throw a stipend my way.

The truth of it is, I don't know for sure what would've happened if I took the risk and followed through.  But I can say with certainty that it looked like a bad investment from the outset, and the actions of these two organizations did not match up to the great beliefs Conservatives tout.  If you believe so much in rewarding good effort, why wouldn't you pay a living wage to talented employees?  Do you want to solicit success or grunt work?

Which leads me to Experiential Lesson #3: Working hard does not result in being rewarded for what you are worth.

I have yet to get a good explanation for the simple fact that custodians and cleaners consistently rank at the bottom of the pay scale of any company or organization.  These are the people who clean toilets-- if they weren't there and didn't do a good job, you would literally be catching who-knows-what disease at work-- and yet they reside at the bottom of the pay scale hill.

I have a number of friends who are freelancers in the television world.  They live job-to-job, always hunting for work, and often scheduling themselves into 60-hour work weeks because they don't know where or if they'll get paid 6 months down the road.  They work all hours of the day and night, they commute to various locations in the tri-state area, and sometimes the shoot they are on requires them to be in some dangerous locations. 

They get paid hourly.

They have to set aside money to pay their own taxes at the end of the year.

They do not receive health benefits.

I am the last person to go around accusing "evil corporations" of all the crimes in the world.  I believe privately-owned businesses, no matter the size, are the backbone of our economy.  But when people talk about corporate greed, why is no one talking about the freelancers who work 40 hours a week for major networks like FOX and NBC, not even getting healthcare, let alone a guarantee of a steady paycheck?

What is the Conservative answer to that?  That these people should work harder?  They put in as many hours--often more--than most office-working Americans.  Yet, because of the nature of the industry, they have to bust their butts to accumulate enough hours in order to get into a Union so they can get some contribution toward their healthcare costs.  Where are the anti-Union, pro-Capitalist Conservatives who demand that all companies provide quality healthcare options to their employees?

What's more, where are the Conservatives demanding that these billion-dollar companies not abuse the term "freelance" or "part time" in their attempts to avoid putting employees on healthcare rolls?

I am no advocate of universal, government-run healthcare.  I am, however, an advocate of morality over greed.  Whether you're reading Hillel or Jesus, the Jewish thing to do is to treat your employees as you would like to be treated, and if you're treated to an employer-provided healthcare plan, so should the crew who keeps your network on the air.

So, AJW, how could you call yourself a Conservative if you see all of these gross injustices and flaws in the Conservative belief system?

Good question.  Every political belief system has its flaws for this simple reason: politics is nothing more than a human attempt to create order out of chaos-- and that is something only G-d Himself can do.  I identify myself as a Conservative because Conservatives recognize that G-d is the giver of liberty and, because of that fact, we have the right to live free lives, to make free choices, and to be respected as we respect others.

Sure, liberals (progressives, socialists, whatever they want to be called these days) may rail against the injustice of the privileged monied classes and the "evil" corporations ganging up on their version of the "little guy," (I don't know if I'd fit into that category or not; I am a woman, but I'm not very "tan") but their answer to the problem is a human one.  They embrace systems that enshrine men into godlike positions and history shows that once these men are empowered they become some of the worst dictators humankind has ever seen.  Simply put, leftists either deny that G-d exists, or that He even gives a damn, leaving us to do it all on our own.

What's more liberating:

Taking a job you didn't really want, paying your bills, getting yourself out of debt, and having a nice life filled with family, friends, and good times anyway--

OR

Taking a check from the government, waiting for the government to tell you when you need medical treatment, watching your parents get euthanized by death counselors when they are diagnosed as being a burden to the State, and living your life behind closed doors because your race/creed/sexuality/etc. don't mesh with the way the government says you should live?

If Lessons 1-3 have taught me anything, it is that there is no justice on this earth.  So, why believe that we can create it ourselves?  Ask any Russian you know; no one ever said, "With Stalin, all things are possible."

So, for lack of a better term, I identify myself politically as a Conservative.  It is a flawed system at best and, perhaps, it is because I've been afforded opportunities to see it face-to-face that I openly admit the only flag I will ever truly wave will be Israeli, and the only group I ever join will be the one I was born into by choice.  I am no starry-eyed political groupie and that will always result in my being an outsider in some regard.

But as long as that means I can see the truth, I am willing to pitch my tent outside the gate.

Raally to Restore Aapathy: Two Legs Good, Four Legs Better

Jointly published @ OurLastStand.com

There’s a reason I don’t dress up anymore for Halloween.  I’ve finally reached an age in which, if I want a candy bar, I can just go out and buy one for myself.  I don’t need to dress up in some silly costume and parade myself around for someone else’s amusement in order to get free candy that hopefully won’t stink because I wasn’t the one who got to pick it out.  The act of Halloween used to be the grand litmus test for adulthood in this country; maturity not only came with the financial liberty of a paycheck, it came with the liberty of character—you could be yourself instead of costuming up in that horrible pink bunny suit that Aunt Linda thought you’d just “look so cute in!”

And therein lays the perfect metaphor for this weekend’s Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.  There are Americans who want their government to back off so they can make the decisions and then there are Americans who want their government to back off and make the decisions for them.  Both are sets of characters with pretty interesting wardrobe choices.  For instance, some choose to wave the flag, while others choose to turn it into a pair of parachute pants.  As for the audience at the Rally, all I can say is, I hope Stewart & Colbert’s wranglers brought a lot of candy.
One of the proposed goals of the rally—held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.—was to be “non-political.”  Let’s just say that the organizers and commentators succeeded in being as “non-political” as the ladies on The View.

Critics love to claim that Glenn Beck’s 8/28 was a Tea Party rally.  Since they’ve felt the need to pit 10/30 against 8/28, it would then be logical to claim that 10/30 was a Progressive rally.  But, since 10/2 illustrated the powerful uselessness of the term “Progressive” when it comes to attracting people to rallies on the National Mall, the mainstream media instead decided to paint The Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear as the “rational” choice to Glenn Beck’s “radical teabaggers”.

Wait—let me get this straight: a rally of middle-class families waving American flags is extreme in comparison to a rally filled with middle class singles and DINKs (Double-Income-No-Kids) dressed in Halloween costumes waiving random signage ranging from punctuation critiques to the now age-old comparisons between Bush and Hitler.

Yeah.

I will say that the content of 8/28 was definitely more “Rally traditional” than that of “Stewart’s Sanity Tour 2010”, featuring performances by, among other artists, The Roots, Ozzy Osbourne, Kid Rock, the formerly-known-as Cat Stevens, Yusuf Islam, TV’s Mythbusters, and R2D2.  Then again, according to one Rally-goer, "'Some people were disappointed that Stewart didn't ask people to vote or that there wasn't more politics. But Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert recognize that they're entertainers,' said [self-proclaimed Socialist] Bill. 'And that's pretty cool.'"

Wait a minute.  Even the socialists are happy with a glorified free rock concert now?  What would Stalin think!  Apparently Huffington Post writer Raj Patel thought of the former socialist dictator/opera hater when he commented that Stewart and Colbert’s humor was “impotently polite” and that he “…suspect[ed] that it's through Bill’s…brand of political understanding, rather than Kid Rock's, that change will happen.”

Way to be non-political.

But, then again, Raj, like any true Marxist, can turn history on its ear to serve his own agenda when he has to:

“Reasonableness is, however, genuinely under threat. The Tea Party understands the US Constitution as a divine document. In so doing, they pine for a pre-Enlightenment politics where God -- not reason -- is the ultimate arbiter of political life.”

Apparently Arianna Huffington needs to spend a few more bus-dollars on some professional development courses for her staff, beginning with History 101.  If it weren’t for the Enlightenment—the intellectual move against the notion that a monarch is Divinely appointed—America would not exist:

Many of the most distinguished leaders of the American Revolution--Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French Enlightenment thought. The God who underwrites the concept of equality in the Declaration of Independence is the same deist God Rousseau worshipped, not that venerated in the traditional churches which still supported and defended monarchies all over Europe. Jefferson and Franklin both spent time in France--a natural ally because it was a traditional enemy of England--absorbing the influence of the French Enlightenment. The language of natural law, of inherent freedoms, of self-determination which seeped so deeply into the American grain was the language of the Enlightenment, though often coated with a light glaze of traditional religion, what has been called our "civil religion.”

Moron.

Oh, wait, I’m sorry.  I’m not supposed to be “demonizing” anyone during political discourse.  After all, according to Arianna, that is what the Rally to Restore Sanity was all about: “We can disagree with each other without demonizing each other.”
Is that why Rally attendees:

Dressed as the Grim Reaper carrying signs that read “Death Thanks to the GOP”

Carried signs referring to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin as the “Asses of Evil”

Referred to Glenn Beck as comparable to a “Nazi-Commie-Socialist-Fascist” and a “crazy ass”

Wore shirts that said “Glenn Beck is a Moron” and “Fox Keeps Fear Alive”

Claimed that “If there should’ve been a Hitler sign on anyone, it should’ve been him” referring to former President George W. Bush ? (So much for trying to enact Godwin’s Law, Stewart.)

Is that the kind of anti-demonization, community-loving, centrist attitude you’re talking about, Arianna?  Or are you talking about the attitude of the Rally organizers who invited Yusuf Islam to sing his infamous song Peace Train while carefully forgetting the fact that he, at one time, backed a fundamentalist Islamic fatwa against author Salman Rushdie?  After all, we wouldn’t want to call someone a “Marxist” or a “Terrorist” unless they really were Marxists or  Terrorists—and you can’t be a terrorist if you didn’t drop the bomb, just like you can’t be a Marxist if you only chose to hang out with Marxist professors.

Robert Reich, jumping on Arianna’s post-Rally community spirit bandwagon, proceeded to skewer anyone right of the HuffPost while opining, “We don't believe in winning political arguments through bullying, name-calling, lying, intimidating, or using violence.”  Yes, the Progressives are the saints of the political world; they may drop an unkind word here or there, they may show up at polling places to tell voters to keep their “husband’s agenda going," but they do let their lackeys do all the really dirty work.  As for lying, well, what was that George Costanza used to say?  “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”

A Communist professor once said to me, “Everything is political.”  It didn’t take much delving into Marx to realize that, to the “Nazi-Commie-Socialist-Facists” of this world, politics is the religion through which they live.  For a people who scream so loudly and so often for the “separation of church and state” they have absolutely no problem creating a State Church of their own.  (How very un-Enlightened of them.) 

Perhaps that is the point; perhaps that is how they can claim a lack of political affiliation.  After all, if a message is preached often enough, it simply becomes an unquestioned way of life.

The most patronizing aspect of the Rally is not the signs carried or the messages spoken by the attendees, but the fact that their ignorance is encouraged by those they look up to as leaders.  What could have been this generation’s “Ask What You Can Do For Your Country” moment was nothing more than “A gigantic-scale put-on laced with sincerity.” The sincerity—about their country, their government, and their future—was as palpable for the costume-garbed audience about whom one reporter wrote, “… it was easy to imagine those wearing American flag T-shirts were doing so ironically.” More than one writer commented on the pot-laden ambivalence among the throngs; the D.C.-based Blaze correspondent noted, “Attendees at this rally seemed to have a lot to say about absolutely nothing,” and “no one seemed particularly politically motivated.”

Religious leaders always did prefer their sheep to be blind.

Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri, described as a “Rally for Sanity cheerleader in the media” encouraged the apathy of her generation when she recently wrote, "Call us Generation I. I for irony, iPhones and the internet… Sum up our lives in a phrase? The Importance of Never Being Too Earnest."  According to the UK’s Guardian, “the atmosphere [of the Rally] was one of irony and humour; of mocking those in power, not seeking to replace them.  That fits the role that Stewart and Colbert play the best. They are the court jesters at the palace of the real power players in America. Their job is to point out the hypocrisies of the great and the good, not to oust them.”  Why?  Because if Stewart and Colbert “ousted them”—whether they be liberal politicians or the mainstream media, which Stewart vaguely blamed as the problem-causer—they’d be out of jobs?

The real message of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear was extremely political—in that “Two legs good, four legs better,” sort of way.  “We’ll keep telling you what to think, and we’ll even throw you a concert, get you a free bus ride, and let you smoke all the pot you want,” the message read.  “But here’s the deal: When we use your faces and voices, your talents and abilities to promote our political agenda, don’t talk back.”  Hence, unlike 8/28, Jon Stewart’s 10/30 may have entertained its audience, but it did not enable them to do much—except “take it down a notch.”

American politics was never meant to be this sedate.  Perhaps that is because, while examples do exist, there is nothing truly American about a political machine seeking to de-politicize an entire generation:

“For decades, the Soviet Union, under Stalin, put the brakes on world revolutions, subordinating all other struggles to the supreme goal of defending "socialism" in one country, and more specifically, the privileges of the Soviet bureaucracy. Under such conditions it was imperative to sedate the masses throughout the world and quell their revolutionary aspirations. By making dialectical, revolutionary transformations look as if they were something that happened to the masses rather than something they undertook, a subtle suggestion was being transmitted to the masses that they were to remain passive so that events could unfold according to their own logic, which, in fact, was aimed at maintaining the status quo.”

“Keep calm and carry on,” indeed.

Israelis are Drinking the Tea

As much as Jewish American liberals like to wince at their perception of racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic WASPy, and as Barack Obama would call them, "gun toting" Tea Partiers, it appears that the trend supercedes the love of Jesus, country music, and pulled pork.  Now, Israel's right wing is starting their own Tea Party.  And in case you're wondering whether or not Obama had anything to do with this one, the JPost, has described the Israeli Tea Party as one that "promises to be just as patriotic, provocative and antagonistic to Obama as [the]American version...".

Why are some Israelis in a rush to dump their leaders overboard? According to Michael Kleiner, former Likud legislator and "driving force" behind the Israeli Tea party,

"We believe President Obama is trying to force us to do things that most Israelis believe are very dangerous... We are being blackmailed to sacrifice our security and vital interests by another country, which is unprecedented."

Their discontent is far from off-base. As Caroline Glick recounted less than two weeks ago:

On Tuesday State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was asked, "Do you [i.e. the administration] recognize Israel as a Jewish state and will you try to convince the Palestinians to recognize it?

As Rick Richman at Commentary's blog noted, Crowley repeatedly tried to evade answering the question. Reporters were forced to repeat the question six times before Crowley managed to say, "We recognize that Israel is a - as it says itself, is a Jewish state, yes."

As for whether or not the administration will try to convince the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state, Crowley could not bring himself to give a simple affirmative answer.

Crowley's refusal to give straight answers to straight questions about US recognition of Israel as a Jewish state shows that Israel has never faced a more unfriendly US administration. After all, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state means recognizing that the Jewish people are a nation, and as a nation, the Jews have a right to self-determination in our national homeland. So recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is recognizing Israel's right to exist.

Glick goes on to do more than advocate that Netanyahu steer clear of Obama's Middle East policies; she cites poll numbers that overwhelmingly prove that Israeli and American Jews, along with American voters at large, are relatively on the same page when it comes to the Obama Administration versus Israel.
Citing A survey of American Jewish opinion published this week by the American Jewish Committee:

78% of American Jews voted for Obama in 2008
51% approve of his performance in office today

49% of American Jews support Obama's handling of US-Israel relations
45% disapprove

62% of American Jews approve of Netanyahu's handling of US-Israel relations
27% disapprove

Glick goes on to cite another poll "...carried out from October 3-5 by the non-partisan McLaughlin and Associates survey research group for the pro-Israel Emergency Committee for Israel. It is the most in-depth poll of US sentiment towards Israel in recent memory. The poll broke down respondents by political affiliation, geographical area, religion, race, age, education level, sex, income level and ideological outlook."
Check out these results:

93.5% of Americans believe that the US should be concerned about Israel's security

77% of Americans believe the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish State

50.9% of Americans are more likely to vote for a staunchly pro-Israel candidate
25.2% are less likely to do so.

53% of Americans say they could not vote for an anti- Israel candidate even if they agreed with the candidate's positions on most other issues.

42.7% of Americans believe that the president's Middle East policies harm Israel's security
29.6% believe that they are improving Israel's security situation.

51.6% of Americans believe that Obama is less friendly towards Israel than his predecessors have been.
35.4% believe that he is as friendly towards Israel as his predecessors were.

69% of Republicans are more likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate
40% of Democrats are.

15% of Republicans are less likely to vote for a pro-Israel candidate
33% of Democrats are less likely to vote for a candidate who strongly supports Israel.

5% of self-described liberals are pro-Israel.

This morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe a series of commentators and wonks were discussing the fact that America is at a political crossroads of sorts, where the traditional definitions of "left" and "right" are no longer the same things as they were 40 or 50 years ago. The observation is correct. We are entering into a period that no longer looks at Republican or Democrat, or even Likud or Labor-- this is the era of Capitalists versus Socialists, of Republics versus Communist states, and nowhere is this more clearly illustrated that the relationship between America and Israel.

Average voters, the non-politicians who are the most affected by policy and the most likely to pay for the politicians' mistakes, are tired of being pushed (again, to quote President Obama) "to the back of the bus".  Now, thanks in large part to that endless resource known as the Internet where nobody (and no agenda) can hide, the truth is out in the open for all the voters to see and hear in an environment where they are free to respond.  And freedom is contageous.  Goodbye, old-world political hierarchies; this is Politics 2.0.

Tea, anyone?

So, where do you stand politically, anyway?

I hate pigeonholes. 

I hesitate to title myself into any political category or party for the same reason I never took to goose-stepping in college; I don’t follow the crowd and never will.  But, to understand where I’m coming from, there are probably some basic principles you ought to know:

I am a Zionist.  This means that I believe that Israel is a Jewish State, and as such, the Jewish people have an inherent, G-d given right to the land.  How they decide to exercise and/or vocalise that right is their choice.  Whether I agree with them or not does not matter.  What does matter is that we have the right to exist and to be loud and proud about it.

I am Jewish.  I go to Temple for the High Holidays and try to make a Shabbat every now and then.  I was an active member of Hillel.  But Jewish, for me, goes beyond religious practice and effects every aspect of my life and being.  I don’t eat pork.  My husband separates milk and meat, so when I’m with him, cheese steaks are out the window.  I spent a weekend helping to wire up a Ram Kol at a Labor Zionist youth movement summer camp.  I also marched in the Israel Day Parade in New York.  My current reading list includes To Jerusalem and Back by Saul Bellow and Founders and Sons by Amos Elon.  I employ Yiddish frequently and try to study Hebrew fervently.  Most of all, I seek to honor G-d with all my heart and treat my neighbor as myself, because that’s the Jewish thing to do.

I will never BOO another Jew.  Recently a bunch of right-wingers boo’d at a group from my above-mentioned left-wing camp.  For some reason, these right-wingers (who, I’m fairly sure, were more religiously observant than a bunch of vegetarian Obama fans from New York City) decided that their own political positions superceded the Biblical call for Jewish unity.  Apparently, in their fervor to keep Israel and Jerusalem united, these politicos decided that sinat chinam [baseless hatred] was an acceptable weapon in their ideological battle.  You know–the same stuff that resulted in the destruction of the Temple and the …loss of Jerusalem. 

Hmm….

I don’t agree with every opinion vocalized by my fellow Jews.   But I’m not going to allow our differences to result in the destruction of our unity.  We’ve been a minyan of stiff-necks since Sinai.  After 5,000 years, I think we can learn to get along; don’t you?

G-d is the Supreme Authority over everything, including us.  I’m one of those wacky Joos who actually reads the contract before she signs it.  I own a Bible.  I reference it frequently.  I try to apply the principles therein to my daily life, without the intervening commentary or guidance of a Rabbi, Cantor, or religious official of any kind, for three reasons:

1.  I have a brain.  I like to use it.

2.  I dislike middle men and authoritarians.  Besides, as my grandfather always said, when I reach Heaven, the conversation is going to be one-on-one anyway.

3.  I can.  It really is as simple as that.

Human beings try and create power structures in and of themselves to control the chaos on this planet.  Some work better than others.  G-d works best.  And, usually, the political structures that recognize this simple fact in some form or fashion are the ones that function the most successfully.  Go figure.

I am an individual.  I believe in individual liberties.  I dislike bloated governments trying to legislate my life and the lives of others. 

I believe the most successful way to live your life is to know G-d, know yourself, and know the world around you–in that order.  This is done through education and education comes through many channels: family, school, individual study, friends, travel, experience, to name a few.  Embrace them all–wisely.

For a situation to be handled correctly in part, it must be viewed through the lens of the whole.  As my mother has said, we are all links in a chain.  You can’t address one broken link without looking at how that repair will help or harm the rest.