Almost a year ago, I wrote a post called “Jewish Supremacy“. This post is an attempt to update, and expand upon the initial theory.
In the midst of a tumultuous and difficult immigration to Israel, I was trying to understand why things were the way they were here. In Israel, as in every country, there is a hierarchy. And, as articulated by the nature of the state itself, here the concept is that this is the land of the Jews. Everyone else has some degree of rights (or in the case of African refugees, basically none at all), but ultimately this country was created for Jews. It is no different than how France is for the French or Germany for the Germans- which is why third generation Moroccans in Marseilles are still considered “Moroccan”. There are degrees of French-ness and if your ancestors are Moroccan, you can certainly become more French (to the extent you distance yourself from your exotic roots), but you can’t become fully French. Because, although this will irritate the hell out of French republicans, French civic identity cannot and has not ever entirely replaced French ethnic identity. Which is why the racist Front National continues to gain in popularity as the most manifest, but hardly the only, representation of this problem.
In the case of Israel, I got it wrong. Not entirely wrong, but I misunderstood who is actually at the top here. I hinted at it, but my understanding of the structure here needs a little updating. I wrote:
“In Israel, who’s on top? Jews. And specifically, the more ‘Israeli’ or ‘sabra’ a Jew is, the more privilege she has. European (but not too Jewish-looking), physically fit, masculine, a loyal soldier, blunt, and aggressive. Imitating Arabs but never being one. This doesn’t describe all Israelis, but it does describe many of their ideals. The darker you are, the more Diasporic you are, the more pacifist or effeminate you are- the more push back you’ll get.
In short, the Israeli ideal is not just different from the Judaism I grew up with in America- it’s the opposite. It despises my Judaism. My compassion for the other. My social justice. My love for diversity and all cultures, religions, and language. It despises my interest in Hasidim as much as it despises my empathy for Palestinian refugees.”
All of this is correct, but one part is off. Jews are not on top here. The sabra, or “native-born Israeli” is. And in fact, in order for him or her to be so, it requires colonizing and indeed disfiguring Jews themselves.
In other words, the rest of the social hierarchy stands- but the word “Jew” here is problematic.
What few people understand about Zionism, and I’ve only been able to articulate recently, is that it is as much a colonialism of Judaism itself as it is of the various non-Jewish minorities in our midst. Not just of Judaism, but of the Jewish human being. While some refer to this phenomenon as the “negation of the Diaspora”, I think it should be more properly termed “negation of the Jewish self”, or simply negation of self.
Every country on the planet is a product of some form of colonialism. By colonialism I mean the imposition of an elite which uses the pressure of the state to enact a certain conformity that allows it to rule.
Often this takes the shape of cultural hegemony- or homogenization. In most countries, this is reflected in the imposition of an official language, even though the very concept of a language is relative and every country consists of multiple tongues or at a minimum, dialects. In fact, in countries where people consider themselves as speaking the same language, a specific dialect is held up to be superior. It is often the dialect of the capital, or power center, like Parisian French. Or at times it is usually a composite dialect that nobody actually spoke as a native language, like Hochdeutsch, or as you know it, “German”. American Broadcast English, which many Midwesterners mistakenly think is their own, is the same concept. (A quick visit to your maaaam and dyeaaads in Chicoaaaago will disabuse you of this nonsense). Standard Yiddish follows the same concept. As developed by YIVO, is primarily based on the Lithuanian prestige dialect, but with features that nobody in Lithuania actually used, such as the “oy” in “broyt”, or bread. Which a Litvak would’ve pronounced “breyt”.
Yiddish is an instructive example here. What you might notice in the case of Parisian French, the composite “Hochdeutsch” German, or American Broadcast English, is the presence of the state. None of these dialects would have been able to take root as admired speech without the intervention of the state. If it weren’t for state control, students in Provence would still be learning in Provençal (as they had for centuries), Bavarian would the medium of education in southern Germany, and Americans wouldn’t giggle at Southern accents for sounding so different than the “educated” folks they hear on the news.
An American sits waiting for his brain surgeon to arrive and then hears him say: “well, we’re gonna get up in there and give it a lil twist and a bump and we’ll git r outta there, dontchu worry!” And the patient, if he is anything like me or most Americans, would smile and nervously ask for a new doctor. Prestige dialects have massive implications for social relations, and tend to privilege certain people over others. Namely, those who master the dialects over those who for a variety of reasons, don’t.
Which brings us back to Yiddish. In the case of France, Germany, and the U.S., the state had the power to impose its preferred dialect via the media, schooling, and the manifold ways in which it directs social interactions. In the case of Bavarian, a dialect I admittedly know little about, there is an interesting tidbit in the Wikipedia article:
“In contrast to many other varieties of German, Bavarian differs sufficiently from Standard German to make it difficult for native speakers to adopt standard pronunciation. All educated Bavarians and Austrians, however, can read, write and understand Standard German, but may have very little opportunity to speak it, especially in rural areas. In those regions, Standard German is restricted to use as the language of writing and the media.”
This paragraph is followed by the following sentence:
“Bavaria and Austria officially use Standard German as the primary medium of education.”
In other words, the only reason Bavarians speak Standard German is because of schools and the media. It was never a native language in Bavaria, a region that nobody today would doubt is thoroughly German. So German it is the land of lederhosen and beer and frankly most things you’d associate with being German. Yet the language spoken in official settings is not its own. It’s questionable whether, until the advance of the German state, its dialect (or as some would define it, language) would have even been called German. An interesting paradox that leads to more questions, especially as Bavaria is one of the most nationalistic regions of the country. It’s a common theme- people forced to distance themselves from their own identities often become un-rooted and aggressive. Which is why some of the angriest, most nativist Americans today are descendants of 19th century Irish immigrants who weren’t even considered white at the time.
Which brings us back to Yiddish. Unlike standard French, German, and English, Yiddish never had a state apparatus. So while the standard dialect is used for instruction in a variety of Yiddish programs (including the one I did), it never took hold like the other languages. It influenced Yiddish literature, but it never became a received pronunciation. Which is why Yiddish, somewhat akin to Arabic (which has no standard spoken dialect), has managed to retain impressive phonological linguistic diversity. Arabic has a standard literary form based on the Quran that every educated Arab has knowledge of, but because Arab political entities never constituted a single state in modern times, it has never caught on as a spoken language. There was no power strong enough in the Arab world to wield this prestige form as a uniform dialect. Which is why it is relegated to newspapers, formal speeches, and Al Jazeera. Nobody actually speaks it.
Even in states where there is official linguistic pluralism, such as the quadrilingual Swiss, still exert linguistic boundaries. Which is why Romansch, a native tongue, is an official language with 40,299 speakers, but Serbian with 161,882, is not.
Standardization in the case of minority tongues such as Yiddish and Catalan serves a slightly different function without a State to back it. In this case, it can help preserve the existence of the language itself under the onslaught of the various assimilating forces. Yet I have no doubt that if you were to put a YIVO Yiddishist or a Catalan linguistic planner in office in a theoretical Yiddishland or Catalan State, they would enthusiastically suppress alternate dialects.
Most national languages take the name of the state they inhabit. French in France, German in Germany, Italian in Italy, etc. The colonialist impulse is internal- to exterminate Provençal, Bavarian, and Venetian in the name of the new power. The homogenization is of cultures lying without the boundaries of the new polity. Such as Italy, a country only 150 years old, composed of regions so diverse that they literally used to war with each other. The notion of an Italian language would probably seem laughable to a 19th century Venetian. A language only about as old as the Italian state itself.
Yet in the case of nations established through external colonialism, such as the United States, Canada, Argentina, Venezuela, or Israel, the prestige language almost always takes a different name. Which is why English (or English and French) is the official language of the U.S. and Canada. Spanish, that of Argentina and Venezuela. And in Israel’s case, Hebrew. Although there are some heterodox scholars who have chosen to call it “Israeli”. This is because the new state’s elite arrived from elsewhere. After having tamed diversity in their backyard, the English set their sights on the “New World”. And the new elite there, who initially were considered part of England itself, consequently called their language English. Which leads to the daft situation in which American nativists shout at newly arrived refugees: “you’re in America, speak English!” An irony unfortunately not lost on far too many Americans.
The case of Israel is similar, but in a sense unique. Because Jews did not have a state of our own for 2,000 years, when coming to a new land, what would the new elite speak? If they brought their languages from the Diaspora, not only would you have a mishmash of tongues, you’d also be speaking languages “distorted” by the very Diaspora oppressors Zionists were escaping. In other words, for Zionists reaching for a new reality, to speak Yiddish or Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) would be to speak languages infiltrated by the vocabulary of non-Jewish oppressors. The languages, as I see it, are unique testaments to the ability of Jews to fuse (and re-fuse) the influence of other cultures while creating something uniquely ours. But to the Zionists seeking to create a Jewish state, they reeked of the influence of the oppressor. A very real oppression, as the history of anti-Semitism shows. Which is why, ultimately, their political plans have succeeded in part. Without the persistent past (and sadly, present) existence of anti-Semitism, a Jewish state would have been unlikely to succeed. Its political program is dependent on the need of Jews to escape, a need which anti-Semites have continued to provide in excess.
The problem is that in establishing a claim to the ancient Land of Israel, Zionists would have a tougher image to uphold if they continued speaking the natural languages of Jews in the Diaspora. Because to speak Yiddish is to acknowledge coming from somewhere else. That even if our ancestors indeed roamed this land ages ago, Yiddish itself is part and parcel of our life outside this land. It is hard to stake a claim to a place while speaking the language you’ve spoken in the intervening two millennia- outside of it.
Some early Zionists proposed Yiddish as the language of the infant national project. Indeed, you can find archival documents throughout Israel, though rarely on display, of early settlers writing in Yiddish through the 1920s. Like I found in Zichron Yaakov, one of the first modern Zionist cities. It’s the natural, native, and heritage language of Ashkenazi Jewry, so why wouldn’t you speak it? Yet the internal paradox was too strong. And perhaps the prospect of future migrations from non-Ashkenazi communities would make Yiddish more of a liability and cultural lightning rod than an asset to building a coherent state. If everyone had to give up their Jewish cultures, then perhaps it’d be easier to build a new national identity.
Hebrew, a language nobody had spoken for well over a thousand years, became the new national language of Israel. Its Semitic vocabulary a kind of verbal testament to its residents’ connection to the land. Yet its underlying Yiddish foundations, including entire phrases translated from Yiddish, show the underlying tension in Zionism. And of the early Zionists themselves- even of Israelis today.
Because Israeliness, like all national identities, is built on a series of illogical contradictions. What is different, though, is that Zionists colonized their own people as much as they colonized the existing non-Jewish residents of this land. “Their own people” at least as much as how it is portrayed today. In other words, most Israelis identify as Jewish. The target for their settlement enterprise was other Jews. So in the case of America, descendants of English settlers ridiculed the Irish as non-white foreigners. No American nativist of the 1800s saw the Irish as one of their own.
Eventually, however, as the Irish assimilated economically and adopted American English, they were granted access to whiteness. American integration has always been about sacrificing your existing culture in order to become closer to the mainstream prestige identity. As in every country. So the Irish had to give up their language or if they spoke English, their brogue. And gradually become part of the dominant white majority. At the expense of their distinctness.
In Israel, the only difference is that Israelis have always viewed “Diaspora” Jews as their own. Just lesser than them. In other words, the concept of Israel is built upon “aliyah”. The word is translated as “Jewish immigration”, but it literally means “rising up”. Because the concept is that Jews outside of Israel are inferior, and “below” those who live here. Especially the mythical sabra, who was born here. The word for Jews emigrating from here (which has always existed, even before the State), is “yerida”, or “going down”. Because to relegate yourself to a “Diasporic” existence is to live beneath the dignity and strength of the Sabra. Of the Jews who made this country their home.
Therefore, rather than an Irish immigrant being berated by an American of English descent, here you have sabras denigrating olim like me. The same concept, but the difference being that by necessity (since only Jews can freely immigrate here and build the nation), Jews are both object of hatred and desire. What do I mean by that? Because Israel needs Jewish immigrants to grow, it emphasizes its Jewishness and its leadership in the Jewish world. That it is the most Jewish place for a Jew to live. Come join us, brethren.
But the contradiction, the underlying paradox of Zionism, is that nation building here requires hating Jews too. Because if Hebrew-speaking, falafel-eating sabras aren’t *better* than their Diaspora counterparts, why should Jews move here? If we’re not better, why should we stay rather than enjoying an almost universally more comfortable life in America?
In other words, Israel has to love and hate other Jews to exist. If it only hates them, nobody will move here and the national project will collapse. If it only loves them, their own new identity is thrown into question (why fix something that isn’t broken?) and it raises the question of why to live here at all. There are Jewish communities elsewhere- as thousands of Israelis discover each year when they move abroad. Nobody would claim living here is easy.
Therefore, when a new oleh (“one who rises up”) moves here, like me, they have to be both welcomed and shunned. Welcomed as a new participant in the national project, but shunned and pressured into becoming like the sabra ideal. Aggressive, masculine, Hebrew-speaking, confident, proudly symbolically Jewish. Wearing a Jewish star and serving in the IDF, muscular. But not too bookish, not too interested in Yiddish or gefilte fish or the very Jewish identity they held dear outside this country.
Of course, it should be said that not all sabras vigorously hold to this ideal. There are sabras who question the national narrative, including the wonderful Yael Dekel who makes Yiddish YouTube videos and songs. Interestingly, where the Yiddish persona she has constructed is overtly religious to a fault- even though most 20th century Yiddishists were not religious at all. In other words, the persona itself is a representation of Israeli understandings of Diaspora Jews as pious, even though that doesn’t match up with reality. The early sabra was secular, rejecting this vision of Judaism. Which explains some of the intense conflict because the secular elite here and the rising religious minority that threatens its standing. Using the same nationalist language (to an extreme) that the early sabra used to establish himself here. Now having established himself, wishing its spawn would refocus on the national project’s stability. Rather than protruding into the West Bank, where 3.5 million Palestinians threaten Israel’s Jewish majority. But to what degree can you really fault a religious settler in a West Bank outpost for simply expounding upon the founding principles of the country? Isn’t hityashvut, or settlement, the very process that brought this state into being? Indeed, every state that today lines the map of the Americas?
So the point is not that all sabras hate Jews outside of Israel. Indeed, I hope that if more sabras follow Yael’s model and try to connect to their Jewish roots from outside this land, they might soften a bit and gain some authentic confidence. Something I noticed when I taught Yiddish in Tel Aviv. What I want to highlight is that the concept of push and pull (love and hatred of the “foreign” Jew) is the extant organizing concept for the society. You can choose to adhere to it or reject it to varying degrees, as Yael bravely does to an extent when she sings in the “Diasporic” Yiddish language. But it is the principle by which one measures your degree of Israeli-ness, and the ease with which you’ll integrate into society. And enjoy the benefits of having power within it.
One of the points that western leftists often miss in this debacle is that Arabs, even having been colonized by Zionists, are just as capable of colonialism. Indeed, the very concept of “the Arab world” is colonialist in its most simple sense. Throwing aside minorities such as Copts, Assyrians, Kurds, Berbers, and indeed Jews, Arab nationalism has shown itself to just as (sometimes more) violent than Zionist nationalism. Just the other day, at a baklava stand in Yaffo, I met a Palestinian from Ramallah working there. Who told me the “Jewish and Christian masons” of America were going to take over the U.S. in 2022. In Jerusalem, the WiFi password for a Palestinian cafe is “JerusalemIsOurs”. In a city that has been multicultural since time immemorial, with a Jewish, Armenian, Muslim, and Christian quarter. So what exactly makes this ancient city Arab or Palestinian or, for that matter, exclusively Jewish? Arabs are not infants nor are they demons. They are people capable of action like anyone else. And extremist claims to territory as the exclusive possession of one group is no less colonialist than the settlers planting Israeli flags on their village lands. We can debate the chicken and the egg until our faces turn blue, but Arab nationalism is not unique to Palestinians, nor is it entirely caused by Israeli actions. As Arab colonialism in other countries demonstrates. In the end, Palestinian national identity is just as fraught as any other. And individual Palestinians choose to what degree to accept or question it, just as Israelis do with their own. The western left makes a big mistake when it uncritically waves Palestinian flags, without realizing the irony in supporting one nationalism to supplant another. Has that ever worked in bringing true justice and peace to workers, to the masses?
If you study the history of colonialism as it relates to the Jewish world, there are two primary forces. One is the colonialism which targets Jews as settlers. Often conflated with Israel, but having taken other forms in other countries. Baron de Hirsch set up Jewish settlements in Canada and Argentina, the latter of which I’ve visited. There’s even a cute town in Entre Ríos named Moisesville whose streets are arranged in the pattern of a Jewish star. Built on the very real need of Jews to escape persecution and poverty in Eastern Europe, these agricultural communities were supposed to offer them a solution. In some sense, just like Israel, they did. Their descendants are alive, while their European cousins were not so lucky.
In another sense, though, these settlements were failures. The Baron, often held up as an example of Jewish philanthropy, set up banks to give these Jews loans to work the land. Yet oftentimes, the land wasn’t fertile and the banks came calling. At times, the Baron’s institutions demanded repayment of these loans from desperately poor Jews. There are even instances in which poor Jewish settlers in Argentina and elsewhere resented and resisted the Baron’s demands. To what extent his intentions were noble or purely economic, I don’t know. But there is something fishy beneath the surface when nearly every agricultural colony you establish fails. Just like most kibbutzim. And you receive payment from the desperate Jewish settlers, who eventually found actually profitable work in the cities. Who actually gained here? Clearly the Jews on some level, for having escaped persecution. But did the Baron, and his counterparts in the land of Israel, also benefit? It wouldn’t be the first instance of the wealthy preying on their own community- as Bernie Madoff showed. The extensive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict sometimes overshadows the ways in which wealthy Israelis and Palestinians prey on their own people. The “two sides” are perhaps a bit different than what we’re taught to see.
One can see traces of this conflict in the clashes between the Israeli government and American Jewry over the kotel, or Western Wall. American Jews, who are overwhelmingly Reform, Conservative, and Secular, were promised a mixed-gender prayer space at the holiest site in Judaism. Which has been turned into a synagogue, where men and women have to pray separately according to Orthodox tradition. Before it was called a synagogue, men and women can be seen in photos praying their side-by-side in the 1930s.
American Jewish advocacy has been centered on three things since the advent of the state of Israel. Combating anti-Semitism, Holocaust education, and Israel. Jewish education has also increasingly followed these norms. Including the education which I received. We learned a mainstream Israeli narrative of history, about persecution in the Holocaust, and the need to strengthen our identity to combat anti-Semitism and persist as a community today.
It’s not that all of this is bad, it’s just that it’s incomplete (and some of it is dangerously so, as in the case of under-learning the difficult experiences faced by Arabs during the creation of Israel). Jewish culture is of course partially about resisting anti-Semitism and bravely continuing our traditions in the face of adversity. But it is also about our culture itself. Yiddish, Ladino, Jewish art, Jewish music, our culinary innovations- these are all part of our heritage. Yet they barely appear on the agenda of mainstream Jewish communal organizations. Perhaps not coincidentally, they are also deeply ignored or outright opposed by much of the Israeli state apparatus. Despite them being integral parts of Jewish experience and, as I see it, pride.
There once was a time in which American Jews loved Yiddish. Yiddish schools dotted the land. Our press was mostly in Yiddish (and for Sephardic Jews, Judeo-Spanish remained prominent). I even once found a trilingual English-Yiddish-Ladino dictionary in New York. We kept our traditions as natural outgrowths of our civilizations.
But with the establishment of the State of Israel, often with American Jewish funds and support, something changed. Israeli teachers, sometimes shlichim or “emissaries”, were sent from the nascent state. To teach us, ironically, how to be Jewish. When their own state was sending policemen to break up Holocaust survivors gathering to watch Yiddish theater in Tel Aviv.
The historic accents that colored the Holy Tongue were expunged from our identity by these missionaries, and their followers. Whereas we once said “gut shabbos”, it became fashionable to say “shabbat shalom”, a completely invented phrase. Whereas we once talked about mitzvahs, today it’s “mitzvot”. And our communal identity, rooted in the natural evolution of Jewish experience, became submerged by an Israeliness determined to shape us. To shape us into potential “them”. Falafel is in, and kugel is out.
Jewish Federations and communal organizations tried to rally American support for the nascent Israeli state, and its culture. Not always out of malice- I think there’s reason for an American Jew to be proud of Israel in spite of all the balagan and cultural contortions here. It’s a state that for all its complicated feelings towards Judaism itself, has managed to save countless Jewish lives when other countries neglected or outright persecuted us. We are no less entitled to our pride than anyone else.
The problem is that because Israeli nationalism, or Zionism, is predicated on both love and hatred of Jews elsewhere, it ends in a lot of pain too. So American Jews, who waited patiently for years to simply have a place to pray at our holy site, ended up with a slap in the face when Prime Minister Netanyahu cancelled the deal. And all the careful attempts of Jewish organizations to educate American youth to love Israel seemed fruitless. How are we supposed to love a government that so demeans us? That so publicly humiliates us and our identity? Obviously many sabras feel likewise- not everyone adheres to the government line. But in the end, the organizing principle is evident, and a lot of people support it.
The organizing principle is American Jews are great for financial support for Israel. They are great for lobbying the American government to support Israel. They are great for coming and settling Israel (so long as they eventually give up speaking English in their irritating Jerusalem enclaves). They are great for paying for Israeli emissaries to come educate their Jewish youth to love Israel and to be like Israelis.
But they are not great for being American Jews. Because to be an American Jew is to be a challenge to the notion of Zionism itself. It is to be a paradox. Because a good Jew is supposed to move here, to shed his layers of toxic Diasporic self, and become like us. Which is why some Israelis would question whether you can even be a Zionist and not live here. Which is why the sabras I met on the beach 13 years ago in Ashkelon asked me over and over again when I was making aliyah. Something deeply confusing, if slightly flattering, at the time. And now makes a lot of sense. Israelis are educated about the Bible, the Holocaust, and the past 70 years of Israeli history and taught that their country is the most Jewish, best place in the world for a Jew to live. So why wouldn’t someone move here? Or if they do move here, maybe we should laugh at them for being suckers, for being naive Diaspora Jews *stupid* enough to buy into the Zionist narrative. Either way, we’re lesser, whether we end up as passionate Zionists or not.
The problem is sabras aren’t educated about Jewish life outside of this country. Not Jewish life today, nor Jewish life for the past 2,000 years. Leaving a gaping gape in their knowledge. About American Jews and frankly, about themselves. That leads to a frightened nationalism that does nothing but contribute to further conflict here. And ends up alienating the millions of American Jews who’ve been rooting for them all these years. Striving to find the good in their society, and to support it. Sometimes overzealously and sometimes with our own dose of American missionary attitudes, but earnestly.
So the next time a well-meaning Jewish Federation professional asks an American Jew for a donation to Israel, for a state which doesn’t permit them to worship freely at their own holy site, what is she supposed to say? It leads to angst for both the Federation and for the Jew. Because we feel that Israel should be a unifying, a motivating factor. But it has now become an anchor. And the very Federations which worked so hard to reshape American Jewish identity in the form of the sabra are now coming to realize that perhaps its a more fraught venture than they expected. Because if American Jews want to love Israel, we don’t hate ourselves enough to support a government that denies who we are. While sabras are taught to negate the Diaspora (and that all Jews must want the same), most American Jews are not about to give up our identity for the sake of pleasing the pushke holders in Jerusalem.
Perhaps it’s time for a new approach from Jewish communal organizations. Many of whose professionals are simply Jews passionate about their Judaism and looking for ways to strengthen our community. I see a new approach potentially taking shape as they become more assertive about their interests. I long for the day when they fund more Jewish cultural initiatives, maybe it’s coming soon. The whole enterprise is evolving now, as masks are slowly removed and reality takes a different form than many of us expected.
To go back to an earlier point, there are two forces of colonialism acting on the Jewish people. One is from those seeking to turn us into settlers- be it Zionism or the likes of Baron de Hirsch in Argentina and elsewhere. The other force is gentile anti-Semitism and forced assimilation.
In every country, including in the U.S., there is a strong push for Jews to abandon who they are for the sake of fitting in. Even in America, the friendliest country to Jews perhaps in the history of our people, we have always been outsiders. Which is why until a few decades ago, universities had Jewish quotas, fraternities didn’t let us in, and country clubs posted signs that said “no Jews, no blacks, no dogs”.
As American Jews, through sheer persistence, managed to grab hold of a bit of whiteness and become socially acceptable. We now find ourselves represented in every facet of society, from Congress to the media to Hollywood to higher education to Silicon Valley. We are one of the most successful Jewish communities in the history of the world.
And yet, our whiteness is contingent and incomplete. As the terror attack on the Jewish community of Pittsburgh shows. Not only that though. It is that our very acceptance in society, in whiteness itself, is contingent on maintaining a certain distance from our Jewishness. Which is why Clarkstown Councilman Peter Bradley referred to progressive Jews as “normal Jews” in contrast with the (presumably) backwards, “old world” Orthodox Jews he’s supposed to represent. Our integration into American society is contingent on not being “too Jewish”. Whether that’s visibly, in the case of peyos and yarmulkes, verbally in the case of our mocked “New York” accents, or politically in the case of our support for Israel itself. America First is not just a motto for the far right- it’s one that the American left is just as capable of demanding from Jews whose loyalty it questions through faux nuance. As Linda Sarsour recently commented that anti-Semitism is not “systemic”. A virulent bigotry whose false sense of “nuance” is probably lost on the millions of dead Jews whose bodies line the European continent. Sarsour claims “there are more important forms of prejudice and hate to combat” than anti-Semitism. A claim so bigoted that if you replaced “anti-Semitism” with the word “racism”, she would been banned from every progressive circle under the sun. It’s a claim so ironic and duplicitous that only an anti-Semite herself could say such a statement. But I have no doubt millions of progressives, even self-hating Jews, will march with her regardless of her hatred.
Therefore, you find some Jews who abandon their Judaism in search of acceptance from the gentile society that surrounds them. Not because acceptance is bad or that all non-Jews are bigots, but because systemically (are you listening Linda?) it is incentivized for them to do so. The organizing principle of Christian and Islamic societies, even if not everyone chooses to fully embrace it, is that everyone should ultimately adopt their faith. And so Jews, no matter how cultured or assimilated we become, always have to calculate just how far we need to distance ourselves from our selves to become accepted. It leads to contorted dialogue about Judaism and Israel, especially from Jews. Some of whom find themselves leveling criticism at Israel not for the sake of building a better future for Jews and Arabs (which is what I aspire to do), but rather to receive acceptance of anti-Semitic peers. It is a fine narrow to thread, as of course there are legitimate criticisms of Israel (most of this blog is that, I hope). But when it is done out of a desire to appease anti-Jewish sentiments, it becomes anti-Jewish in and of itself.
In other words, anti-Semitism seeks to colonize Jewish bodies. By forcing us to adopt their culture and norms, or suffer the consequences. In America, it’s usually some degree of social stigma. In many other countries, it has taken the form of violence and persecutions. Let’s hope American non-Jews will work hard enough to avoid that fate.
In the end, being a Jew is hard. We’re not the only ones who have it hard. When I find myself with a bit more time and a laptop whose battery isn’t slowly winding down, I’d like to address how these phenomena manifest themselves in the lives of Arab Israelis and Palestinians. Not to mention cultures all of the world that are neither Arab nor Jewish. It’s not as if we’re the only oppressed, nor the only oppressors.
I’ve written about some of these themes before, if you peruse my previous blog entries.
I’m also a person, at the end of the day, not just a blogger or a social commentator. I write and explore to try to understand myself and the world around me. Why I am where I am, and what might be next. I can look around me and ponder and raise questions. And I also have to make practical decisions. About work, about home, about friends, about life itself. I can observe and I also live within what I’m observing. Which is part of what makes it interesting- there’s a reason I write a lot about Judaism because it has personal relevance for my life. And yet it contains so many nuggets of truth that can be applied to a variety of other circumstances, from the polarization of American politics to linguistic minorities in Nepal.
I think that the countervailing forces of colonialism which the average Jew faces puts us in a tough position. We have to calculate, if we’re wise, which prejudice to face head on and with how much effort. Is gentile anti-Semitism or Zionist conformism a greater threat to our identity, to our sense of self, at any given moment? And which are we better prepared to resist in order to hopefully live a fulfilling life?
Hard questions. I suppose that in the end it’s best to embrace our Jewishness for ourselves first. And if that’s speaking Yiddish or praying with men and women together, that’s cool. If it’s wearing a black hat and peyos, it’s not my thing, but I like that you’re doing you. Because in the end, being true to yourself is the most human, and most Jewish thing in the world. At least the kind of world I’m striving to create.
As for me, I suppose I hedge my bets. As a dual American and Israeli citizen, I have the privilege and challenge of being able to live in either society. Or, to the great frustration of some who would make me “choose”, in both.
Because in neither do I have the full freedom to be me. But in both I find subcultures and countervailing ways in which I can express myself. In ways the other culture might not find acceptable.
So if you see me in Tel Aviv praying on a Friday night saying “gut shabbos” or in New York questioning a white hipster waving a Palestinian flag, you’ll know that I’m living out my truth. Wherever I find myself, doing my best to be who I am. And wading towards who I want to be.
Ken yehi ratzoin. May it be so.