A Picture is Worth One Word

It was reported today that the secretary general of Iran's National Olympic Committee sent a letter to Jacques Rogge–president of the International Olympic Committee– in which he asserted that the 2012 London Olympic logo is “racist” because it apparently resembles the word, “Zion” (logo below). The letter further warned the IOC that its “negligence of the issue . . . may affect the presence of some countries in the games, especially Iran which abides by commitment to the values and principles.” In response, the IOC stated that the logo merely represents the figure “2012” and “nothing else.”

The Iranian regime’s position is certainly not surprising. The state relishes its self-appointed role as the “World’s Defender Against the Not-So-Secret Infiltration of International Zionism.” Curious though, the logo was first publicized in 2007, and yet Iran chose to express its opposition recently. Hmm. What could possibly compel the regime's most recent effort to levy such creative allegations at its favorite scapegoat? Could it be . . . Sataaaaann!?!?!?! Nope, it’s region-wide revolution!

Ayatollah Lesson #1523: When your neighbors are rebelling against totalitarian repression and hypocrisy, and your own Green Movement is gaining momentum by exposing your regime’s habitual violations of civil and human rights, nothing wins the hearts and minds of the masses than a nation-wide administration of the Rorschach test.

Regime: “Masses, what do you see here?”

Masses: “It says, 2012”

Regime: “Wrong, it spells out, Zion”

Masses: “Be that as it may, can we have some rights now?”

Regime: “If you have a problem with the way things are run you can voice your objections at the next presidential election scheduled for August 15, Zion.”

Full article available at,

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/iran-racist-2012-olympics-logo-spells-out-zion-1.346297.

The Response

From an academic perspective, there is no single Jewish people. Even if we limit the definition of the Jewish people to only those relatively few observant, orthodox Jews. There is a common language of prayer and common beliefs, so we've got that. However, Sephardim and Ashkenazim can't even agree on the order of these common prayers let alone other customs or even philosophies. If we assume that religious praxis is the barometer of the Jewish people then progressing toward ultra-orthodoxy just brings more divisions, different customs, different languages.

Only on an emotional and somewhat religious level can we speak of the Jewish people. Theoretically we could define the Jewish people as those people whose souls attended the revelation at Sinai. It's not very academic, but it works. It ties us all back to the defining moment of the Jewish people (who at that point were unified).

In terms of our public persona, "the" Jewish people is similar to "the" Hispanic minority (or majority, depending on whether you're reading this in the not so distant future) in America. The term Hispanic covers a wide swath of vastly different peoples. Yet an ignorant, xenophobic American will probably think of them as Mexicans, pay them no mind and get on with his day. Argentinians can barely understand Nicaraguans and in general are far more European in culture, language and thought. Neither of them are Mexicans; each have their own customs, traditions, dialects. However, the one (P.C.) word that binds them together is derived from their distant, once common place of origin: Spain. (Or for Americans their presumed more recent common place of origin: Mexico.)

That said, we should do all of the things you suggested above (each in their own time), except for one: never assimilate!

Courtesy of D Lyscious

What’s Our “Public Face”?

One of the most interesting on-going debates among scholars has been the existence of–or lack of– a single Jewish ethos. Some scholars have questioned that there exists “a Jewish People.” While I agree that the composition of the Jewish people is extremely diverse, I would tend to disagree that we lack a “universal Jewishness.” There have to be some intrinsic Jewish values that glue together the Diaspora, right? Is it a common political identity? A common history? A common religious outlook? A connection to Eretz Israel? Perhaps it’s something that cannot be explained…a feeling that you get when you meet a fellow Jew in a distant part of the world- a feeling that he or she understands precisely who you are and what you have been through.

What if the concept of a Jewish ethos is not a product of anything that we do or feel, but rather a function of how others perceive us? That is, what if the one thing that unites all Jews–however diverse–is the perception of “outsiders” that we are in fact one people? If this is the case, perhaps we should (as a people) define what our “oneness” should look like. That is, if the outside world is going to group us together and view us as having a single Jewish identity, it may be useful to help those individuals along.

So, what should our “public face” look like?

Shall we be the Jon Stewarts and Woody Allans of the world? Neurotic, seemingly harmless, and Kvetchy?

Shall we be Rham-bo? Arrogant, fiery, uncompromising, “All up in your grill” about every issue of importance to our people?

Shall we work behind the scenes and deflect attention from ourselves?

Shall we take pride in and proactively emphasize our literary, political, economic, and social accomplishments?

Shall we take pride in and emphasize our military accomplishments?

Shall we downplay our accomplishments?

Shall we remind our enemies that we are still here and that future encroachments will be met with force?

Shall we apologize for our people’s misdeeds?

Shall we assimilate or try to remain “outside” the mainstream?

Getting Falked

This week, the Journal of Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems, a journal at the University of Iowa College of Law, is hosting a symposium entitled “Ten Years After 9/11: Rethinking Counterterrorism.” The Symposium stated purpose is to “to clarify U.S.-Western counter-terrorism policies, to assess their effectiveness, and to recommend alternatives where needed.” http://www.uiowa.edu/~tlcp/symposium.html. Professor Richard Falk delivered the keynote address and spoke on a panel entitled, “Rethinking Israel-Palestine Policy.” The panel discussion was intended to be an academic, non-partisan discussion of “current US-Western approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, give special attention to the extent to which these approaches encourage or retard Middle Eastern-Central/South Asian terrorism.” http://www.uiowa.edu/~tlcp/symposium.html. Sadly, however, the discussion did not address any of the substantive issues relevant to the discussion, but rather served as a pulpit for Professor Falk to attack Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians.

During his panel presentation, Professor Falk criticized Israeli settlement policy as counterproductive to the peace process, and went to great lengths to portray Israel as an occupying force that is wholly dismissive of the international legal regime. In fact, Professor Falk stated that Israel respects international law only when it suits its purposes. Furthermore, Professor Falk, in not so many words, questioned the legitimacy of the Jewish State, labeling it a “remnant of the colonial era” that continues to irk the consciousness of its Middle East neighbors. Ultimately, Professor Falk urged the necessity of supporting the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination by encouraging the type of “soft power” movements that are currently sweeping through Tunisia and Egypt.

Although I agree with Professor Falk that the U.S. and Israel should support and encourage peaceful transition from autocratic rule to more democratic regimes, I could not help but notice the absence of any discussion about the Palestinians’ role in this process. Doesn’t self-determination hinge on a people’s willingness to accept responsibility for their fate? Deosn’t self-determination–as witnessed in Tunisia and Egypt–involve a people’s demand from their leadership basic human, socio-political, and economic rights? These types of inquires were noticeably absent form today’s discussion, perhaps because it is easier to place blame on Israel than to honestly acknowledge: (1) the corruption and disorganization of the Palestinian political organ; and (2) the manipulation of that organ by neighboring states to suit their particular geopolitical needs. In fact, other than criticizing Israel’s policies and condemning the state for undermining Palestinian sovereignty and human rights, there was no mention of the PLO’s decades-long duplicity, corruption, and terrorist activity.

Furthermore, there was no criticism of Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza, or its effective disenfranchisement of the Palestinian people. In response to one student’s criticism of Hamas’s human rights violations, persistent missile barrage on Israeli cities, and kidnapping of Gilad Shalit, Professor Falk stated: (1) The missile barrage is perpetrated by individuals over whom Hamas cannot exert control (notwithstanding its domination of the Gaza Strip?); (2) the missile barrage has not killed or hurt very many people (as if this justifies the attacks); and (3) that Hamas’s human rights violations are not morally equivalent to Israel’s human rights violations. The absurdity of Professor Falk’s last response does not escape this author. For a man who has made his living documenting and criticizing human rights abuses to imply that there exists a “hierarchy” among human rights violations (that is, some abuses are worse than others) appears, well, childishly contradictory. Are not all human rights violations created equal? Apparently not.

Sadly, even serious, academic discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian quagmire tend to devolve into a “blame game.” With this in mind, I do not intend to argue which side is more at fault in this seemingly never-ending conflict. The truth is, more can be done on both sides. I do, however, want to express my disappointment with the lack of balance in today’s panel discussion, and the utterly one-sided presentation of the “facts.”

Several individuals thanked Professor Falk’s “bravery” for speaking the truth. I would like to thank him for reminding me of why it is more important than ever to stand by Israel. No nation is perfect or fully just, but the cause for which Israel stands is worth defending despite the state’s imperfections.

Opening Remarks

There dwells inside of me a growing sense of unease about the fate of the Jewish people. This is, of course, not a unique sensation. In fact, it is something of a cliché. Countless individuals have expressed similar sentiment in the past, and (unfortunately) countless more will do so in the future. The causes of such concerns are specific to the individuals inside whom they arise. Although a valid source of concern, my unease about our people's future does not stem from the rising level of anti-semitism around the world. The swastika-branded gravestones in France or the torched-synagogues in Tunisia are but modern manifestations of an age-old "tradition." The Jewish people can manage such cowardly acts, as they have done for more than five thousand years. Nor does my unease stem from the world-wide effort to delegitimize the State of Israel. The Jewish State is resilient, and I am optimistic that it will remain the bright light for the Jewish people notwithstanding its imperfections. Rather, I am uneasy about our people's future because I am afraid that many Jews (particularly young Jews) do not do enough to emphasize and defend their Jewish identity. For me, "Jewish identity" encompasses religious identity, social identity, political identity, economic identity, etc. To this end, I am convinced that all external threats to the Jewish people pale in comparison to the threat that our own silence poses.

I intend for this blog to start a dialogue. No topic about Jewish identity is off limits. Let's remind ourselves (and the world) of who we are!

---