On Pilgrims, Jews, and Thanks
By Leonard Fein
According to Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel's Minister of Police (and one of three Ph.D.'s in the Barak cabinet), "Diaspora Jewishness" provides a valuable precedent for Israel. He cites the "Jewish wisdom" that results from the need to coexist with [non-Jewish] neighbors, the cosmopolitanism of the Diaspora that results from being one among many cultures.
Ben Ami's is a most unconventional analysis. The prevailing Israeli tradition is to lament the decline (demise?) of the myth of the "new Jew," that Zionist ideal which sought to turn its back on the attributes of the Diaspora. In the classic view, "cosmopolitanism" was a vice, not a virtue. In the classic view, the Diaspora Jew who perforce had to adjust to living as a minority in a majority culture became timorous, a very far cry from the proud Sabra of Zionist mythology.
The Sabra as an ideal type is no more. The prospect of an Israel with a consensual ideal type, be it Sabra or techie, is long gone. Old-timers lament Israel's dramatic heterogeneity, but Ben Ami celebrates it. He is enthusiastic about the benefits of Israel's inherent multiculturalism. Diversity, he says, is a blessing.
Israel Supreme Court agrees. In a stunning ruling earlier this month, in which the Court ordered the Ministry of Religions to establish new criteria for its allocations to the different Jewish "streams" - Orthodox, Conservative, Reform - the Court was deliciously explicit: "In a democratic society, various public groups must have the right to express themselves in the areas of culture, religion, and tradition - each group according to its outlookŠ Each person according to his beliefs Š In addition, it is beneficial to society that there be a spectrum of views, life styles, and institutions. Such a spectrum only enriches society. It gives practical meaning to freedom; freedom means choice. This is the principle of pluralism that is an essential and central element of a democratic society - not only in the political realm but in the realm of culture, including religion. There must be a variety of approaches from which to choose."
As to how a state can be both Jewish and pluralistic, the Court held that "the Jewish outlook of the State is actualized by support of Torah culture, but not necessarily Torah culture of a uniform style. Torah culture consists of shades and shades of shades. The State must allow for an expression of eilu va'eilu - these and these. Pluralism is an aspect of democracy. Israel is [both] a Jewish state and a democratic state."
The Court's decision doesn't resolve all the tensions between Judaism and democracy. Sooner or later, it will be called on to determine at what point "the shades of shades" lie outside any acceptable Jewish pale. Sooner or later, it will have to deal with who gets to determine, and with what restrictions, who is a Jew. But for the time being, the Court has spoken eloquently on behalf of diversity.
Alas, the diversity the Court endorses and Minister Ben Ami praises as a positive aspect of Diaspora Judaism is less healthy in the Diaspora than one might wish. The leading example of the moment is, of course, the fiasco - scandal, more accurately - that the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York bumbled its way into earlier in the month.
At issue was a JCRC conference entitled "Changing Realities: The New York Jewish Community in the 21st Century." The original line-up of conference presenters included 12 men and not one woman. (So much for "changing realities.") To their credit, a number of women - most notably, Barbara Dopkin and Letty Cottin Pogrebin, spoke out. At first, the Council sought to appease them by citing the fact that two women were among the co-chairs of the conference. The laughable alibi having done nothing to still the criticism, the Council hastily added four women to the conference panels - and then had the poor grace to claim that the four had been invited earlier, but had confirmed their participation only after the original invitation was disseminated. Instead of apologizing for their obtuseness, the Council issued a statement expressing its regrets for "any misunderstanding or distress that may have occurred."
Misunderstanding? It is, plainly, the JCRC that misunderstood - and, from the nature of its response, continues to misunderstand. While the role and status of women in Jewish organizations across the board remains problematic, at best, it is especially troubling that a Jewish Community Relations Council is so very far off the mark. The JCRC is charged with coalition-building, with outreach to other ethnic and faith communities. One is entitled to suppose that it engages in discourse across traditional boundaries not to make a good impression but out of genuine conviction. But if it is so inept as to fail to understand diversity even within its own precincts, how seriously can it be taken when it dabbles in diversity outside those precincts?
Here's a thought: Assign the staff and members of the JCRC of New York the 57 page verdict of the Israeli Supreme Court. Or require that they read Shlomo Ben Ami's book, A Place for All. Maybe then they'll get it. Maybe the Diaspora, in this instance, can learn from the State.
|
|