Sari Nusseibeh's Jewish State

Prof. Sari Nusseibeh, probably my favorite Palestinian, has written an article on Al-Jazeera's website in support of a Jewish state. Sure, its title is "Why Israel can't be a 'Jewish State'", and most of it is dedicated to explaining why this phrase gives Palestinians the hives. But then comes the final paragraph:

"So, rather than demand that Palestinians recognise Israel as a "Jewish State" as such - adding "beyond chutzpah" to insult and injury - we offer the suggestion that Israeli leaders ask instead that Palestinians recognise Israel (proper) as a civil, democratic, and pluralistic state whose official religion is Judaism, and whose majority is Jewish. Many states (including Israel's neighbours Jordan and Egypt, and countries such as Greece) have their official religion as Christianity or Islam (but grant equal civil rights to all citizens) and there is no reason why Israeli Jews should not want the religion of their state to be officially Jewish. This is a reasonable demand, and it may allay the fears of Jewish Israelis about becoming a minority in Israel, and at the same time not arouse fears among Palestinians and Arabs about being ethnically cleansed in Palestine. Demanding the recognition of Israel's official religion as Judaism, rather than the recognition of Israel as a "Jewish State", would also mean Israel continuing to be a democracy."

If it looks like a Jewish State, walks like a Jewish state, and quacks like a Jewish State, it's probably a Jewish state.

What's the difference between recognizing Judaism as the official religion of Israel and recognizing its Jewish character? What Nusseibeh describes here is what most Jewish Israelis mean and want when they say that Israel is the Jewish State - a democracy with a Jewish majority and Judaism as the official state religion.

I'm fine with Palestinians recognizing Israel's Jewishness without actually saying the words "Jewish State". I'd even settle for less, with Palestinians just agreeing that their new state would not work against this internal Israeli matter militarily, diplomatically or otherwise.

Update (October 7): More on Nusseibeh's article here.

Maccabees and Gibson Right For Each Other

I love Hanukkah. It's one of Judaism's most fun holidays, perhaps second only to Purim. Kids spin dreidels and eat chocolate coins, and though not all people get vacation during Hanukkah, for those who do, it is the only extended time off between the High Holidays in the fall and the holidays of late winter and early spring. However, to really enjoy the Festival of Lights, liberal secular Jews must ignore the true origins of the holiday.

We were taught in school that Hanukkah was born out of Judah Maccabee's war against the Greeks and their imposition of their religion on the Jews. It was a war for national sovereignty and religious freedom - that's what the teachers said.

In truth, religious intolerance is more of a monotheistic trait than a polytheistic one. There is no evidence that the Greek rulers of Judea made any decrees forcing Jews to worship Zeus and the other Greek gods. Jews who decided to assimilate into Greek culture did so of their own will. They probably liked the less restrictive culture, and were the closest thing to secular people to exist at the time.

Judah Maccabee's war wasn't just against the Greeks, it was just as much against those assimilated Jews. He did not fight for religious freedom. He wanted to force the Jews to follow strict Jewish laws.

That is exactly why I wasn't upset to hear that Mel Gibson is going to make a movie based on the Books of Maccabees. Mel Gibson shares a lot in common with Judah: they're both violent, intolerant religious fanatics who are sure of the power of the Jews (of course, that last part meant very different things for each). There are also differences, like the fact that Gibson never went to war and killed anyone to impose his beliefs, which is a point in his favor.

Fire the Racist Municipal Rabbis

Fifty Israeli rabbis, most of them chief rabbis of different municipalities, have signed a letter in which they say Jews should not sell or rent houses to non-Jews, and that those who dare to sell or rent to Goyim should be ostracised. President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Minister of Minority Affairs Avishai Braverman have all condemned this declaration. However, this is not enough. At the very least, the municipal rabbis - state employees - should be fired immediatly. They should also be investigated for incitement of violence and racial hatred.

One of the most perverse aspects of this declaration is the use of economic reasoning: selling to non-Jews (meaning, of course, Arabs) devalues the price of houses in the neighborhood, and so, it hurts the (Jewish) neighbors when they try to rent or sell their own houses. It's sad that Arab neighbors probably really do devalue houses, since many Jews don't want to live near them. There's something infuriating about how these rabbis present the devaluation itself as the main problem, and not the anti-Arab bias that causes it. Also, they're using the language of the free market to justify racism. Jews' economic rights are more important to them than the Arabs' human rights.

If God really existed, He wouldn't tolerate rabbis like these.

Take This, Shlomo Sand!

Two new studies published in Nature and in the American Journal of Human Genetics prove that Jews worldwide are related to each other and are of Middle Eastern origins. Except for Jews from Ethiopia, Georgia, and certain communities in India, both Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews are much more similar to each other and to Middle Eastern populations than to local non-Jewish populations.

Read about it in the New York Times, or read the abstracts and articles themselves:

"The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people" in Nature:

Contemporary Jews comprise an aggregate of ethno-religious communities whose worldwide members identify with each other through various shared religious, historical and cultural traditions. Historical evidence suggests common origins in the Middle East, followed by migrations leading to the establishment of communities of Jews in Europe, Africa and Asia, in what is termed the Jewish Diaspora. This complex demographic history imposes special challenges in attempting to address the genetic structure of the Jewish people. Although many genetic studies have shed light on Jewish origins and on diseases prevalent among Jewish communities, including studies focusing on uniparentally and biparentally inherited markers, genome-wide patterns of variation across the vast geographic span of Jewish Diaspora communities and their respective neighbours have yet to be addressed. Here we use high-density bead arrays to genotype individuals from 14 Jewish Diaspora communities and compare these patterns of genome-wide diversity with those from 69 Old World non-Jewish populations, of which 25 have not previously been reported. These samples were carefully chosen to provide comprehensive comparisons between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in the Diaspora, as well as with non-Jewish populations from the Middle East and north Africa. Principal component and structure-like analyses identify previously unrecognized genetic substructure within the Middle East. Most Jewish samples form a remarkably tight subcluster that overlies Druze and Cypriot samples but not samples from other Levantine populations or paired Diaspora host populations. In contrast, Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel) and Indian Jews (Bene Israel and Cochini) cluster with neighbouring autochthonous populations in Ethiopia and western India, respectively, despite a clear paternal link between the Bene Israel and the Levant. These results cast light on the variegated genetic architecture of the Middle East, and trace the origins of most Jewish Diaspora communities to the Levant.

"Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry" in the American Journal of Human Genetics:

For more than a century, Jews and non-Jews alike have tried to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people. Previous genetic studies of blood group and serum markers suggested that Jewish groups had Middle Eastern origin with greater genetic similarity between paired Jewish populations. However, these and successor studies of monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial genetic markers did not resolve the issues of within and between-group Jewish genetic identity. Here, genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews represent a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared IBD genetic threads.

I wonder what Shlomo Sand thinks about this. His main argument in "The Invention of the Jewish People" is that modern Jews aren't related to the ancient Jews of the Kingdoms of Israel & Judea, but rather are made up of unrelated groups of peoples who converted to Judaism over the centuries, and that most Ashkenazi Jews descend from the Turkic Khazars. Sand's theory, often used by anti-Zionists to delegitimize the state of Israel, has just been proven false once again.

A Light Unto the Nations?

Avraham (Avrum) Burg, the former chairman of the Knesset and the Jewish Agency, has a new idea. The Jews need to be a bridge between the Christians and Muslims of Europe. As the former "other" of Christian Europe, we can work to bridge the gaps between Christians and Europe's new "other", the Muslim population.

Huh? Who the hell wants us to be a bridge? Muslims generally aren't crazy about us Jews, many Christians aren't either. Besides, we can't claim neutrality. Despite all that Christianity has done to the Jewish people since the 4th century, most Jews would probably side with Christians in disputes between them and the Muslims. That's doubly true about Israeli Jews, who would rather see themselves as a European country rather than a Middle Eastern one.

Burg has become quite a theorist, as in theories that have nothing to do with reality. The problems of integrating Europe's Muslims is none of our business as the Jewish people. It's only the business of European Jews - not as Jews, but as Europeans. We need to take care of our own problems before we start meddling in others, and before lecturing Europe about how it treats its Muslims we should take a good look at how we treat our own.

God's War Machine

Christiane Amanpour's special documentary mini-series, "God's Warriors", which aired on CNN this week, was an interesting series. Each episode focused on the fanatics of a different religion - Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Here's my take on the series, episode by episode.

God's Jewish Warriors
To Israelis who have watched Chaim Yavin's documentary series "The Land of the Settlers", most of the information in this episode was not new. Yavin's series exposed the settler's violent and expansionist tactics.

Amanpour seemed to be giving a history lesson on the Middle Eastern conflict which at first I thought was too much. But now that I think of it, Israel is the only place where this form of militaristic Jewish fanaticism exists. Unlike Christian and Muslim fundamentalists who would like to create theocracies world-wide, Jewish fundies only want to establish one here in the Holy Land, so I guess it is natural for a show about the modern day's God's Jewish Warriors to focus on Israel.

I found the most interesting part of the episode to be the fundraisers in the United States. I know about the Evangelical support Israel gets, but I never realized how much money from American Jews and Christians is going into the settlements. It is scary.

The main problem with this episode was that Amanpour implied that Zionism equals support for settlements. It is also too bad she didn't show more of the opposition to the settlers, like she showed protesters against Christian fundies in the US.

God's Muslim Warriors
This was the least informative episode. Though the interviews were interesting, most of it has already been said before, including in Amanpour's previous special report about Muslim extremists in the UK. The most interesting part was when I finally understood who the hell the hidden Imam is and what he means to Shiites.

I was surprised Amanpour didn't report about the state of affairs in Saudi Arabia. The reports from Iran were interesting, but hearing about the even more repressive Saudi Arabia would be interesting. Maybe as a woman the Saudis would not allow Amanpour to come in and report.

God's Christian Warriors
Amanpour did the right thing when she avoided "Jesus Camp"-style mega churches as much as possible, since that aspect of the rise of Evangelicals has been told many times. The interview with Jerry Falwell and the tour of his Liberty University were interesting, but they pale in comparison with the most interesting segments. These were the reports about varying degrees of resistance to the mainstream fundies.

First of all, there was the Rev. Greg Boyd, who opposes using Jesus to bolster conservative politicians and political goals. Then there was Richard Cizik, a man who agrees with the Evangelicals on basically everything except for environmental issues, which is enough for other fundies to call for his resignation.

One of the most interesting segments was when the leader of Battlecry, Ron Luce, faces a protest against him in San Francisco. Luce claims he was surprised by the anger. Is he just pretending? I don't think he is. He really doesn't understand what's wrong with his fundamentalist values.

One part I didn't like about this episode was the return to an issue already covered in the first episode - the Evangelical support of Israel. But as long as Amanpour was already interviewing Pastor John Hagee, she should have asked him whether he would continue to support Israel if it made a peace deal with the Palestinians which created a Palestinian state. He probably would not, since that would delay the Second Coming in his warped mind. Instead she said that in Hagee's mind, Israel could do no wrong.

All in all, it was an interesting series, though far from perfect. Christiane Amanpour said in an interview for Israel's Channel 2 that she feels connected to all three religions she investigated, since she has a Christian mother, Muslim father and Jewish husband. I'd like to see a fourth installment, one about the extremists of other religions. Sure, they don't affect our lives as much as the monotheistic fundamentalists, but it is still interesting.

All Wrong in Jerusalem

The whole fiasco over the construction of a bridge near the Mughrabim gate in the Old City of Jerusalem is one of those rare cases where everybody is wrong and nobody is right. The government should have never started the project, because it should have predicted it would be used by extremist Muslims as an excuse for anti-Israel protests. They could have put a different kind of bridge, which can be constructed quickly and without need for any digging in sensitive places.

The extremist Muslims, and others who have played along, are now saying Israel is digging beneath Al-Aqsa with the intention to topple it and construct the third Jewish temple. That's bullshit and they probably know it. Now Sheikh Raad Salakh, an Israeli citizen who is the head of the Northern wing of the Islamic Movement in Israel, has called for an Intifada against Israel. The man should be put in jail for the rest of his life for treason and incitement of violence against the state.

Now Jewish religious leaders, including the ultra-Orthodox mayor of Jerusalem, are trying to stop the construction of the bridge. Their main concern isn't safety or Muslim sensitivities. Their problem with the bridge is the fact that it will be used by Jews to enter the Temple Mount, an area where Jews are not allowed to enter according to Halacha (Jewish religious law).

I think the construction should never have started, but now it is too late. We should not give in to religious extremists. The only acceptable way out would be to declare that we accept the requests of Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, and therefore have decided to stop all construction at the Mughrabim Gate. But I don't see Olmert doing that any time soon.

A Religion of the Non-Religious?

From Haaretz:

On Sunday, Haaretz reported on Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin's initiative for the establishment of a secular Judaism lobby, to be comprised of MKs and representatives of secular Jewish organizations. Among the objectives Beilin set forth were civil marriage, secular conversion, separation of religion and state, funding for secular Jewish education and, in the long run, the establishment of a secular Judaism movement alongside the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Movements.

Beilin told Tuesday's conference that the secular should also be able to determine who is a Jew  for instance, deciding that someone with a Jewish father should be considered Jewish. But he admitted that the chances of passing such legislation are minimal.

Therefore, perhaps "what is needed is an institution, a building with pillars in which someone will sit and say that the candidate has learned enough Judaism and give him a [conversion] certificate."

But others said that the lobby should focus on secular Jewish education.

Read the complete article.

I think a secular lobby is a good idea, but it should focus on separation of church (or synagogue) and state and protecting the rights of the secular majority in Israel. But the idea of turning secularism into another Jewish religious movement is absurd. If you want liberal conversion, accept reform and reconstructionist conversions, and not just the Orthodox type. If you want to teach Jewish texts in a non-religious context you don't need to call it a movement.

The greatest thing about secular Judaism is that it isn't institutionalized. There's no hierarchy. We don't need ordained "secular rabbis". We choose who we listen to and respect by their personal merit, not because someone declared them to be luminaries.

So Beilin, lead a political lobby to protect our rights, but don't anoint yourself the Chief Rabbi of the Religion of the Non-Religious.