Secular, but Jewish | The Telegraph | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

I have argued for some time that there is a fundamental difference between how a Jew sees him or herself in the Diaspora from self-identity in Israel.

Anshel Pfeffer in Ha'aretz writes:

"Israel, the Zionist project, was founded... to serve as a secular Jewish alternative to life in the Diaspora. And while it's far from perfect, for most Israelis, it is still a credible option. They are not blind to its shortcomings, but they are still content with living their Jewish lives here."

Pfeffer is right, but mostly he is wrong. That many early Zionists were secular and envisioned a secularization of Judaism is undeniable. However, many early Zionists were also deeply religious. To say that Zionism is an exclusively secular pursuit is simply wrong. To say that secular Israelis are living "Jewish lives" is equally wrong.

Jews in the Diaspora have no real way to define themselves as Jews except in relation to a religious context. Whether they are themselves religious and define their Judaism through their religious sensitivities or in opposition to religion, the Diaspora Jewish identity is essentially one of religion or its rejection.

Jews in Israel have a national identity that they can substitute for or which can sublimate religious identity. Israeli religious involvement suffers from the same forces that have driven religion largely out of the public space in Europe: an exclusivist and rigid view of religion leads most people to opt out of religious engagement altogether. Israelis may be very much interested in the questions that religion can address, but the right-wing's hold on all religious expression provides them with no outlet. Therefore, they are driven towards a nationalist view of Jewish identity that denies space to a religious outlook.

That Judaism means nothing more than Israeli citizenship for a majority of Israeli Jews is not a circumstance for celebration but one that should raise profound concern for all who cherish what it means to be Jewish.

Bigotry? I don't think so.

Yaakov Menken writes in Cross-Currents:

"[...] racism is but one variety of bigotry. One Orthodox Rabbi silenced a supposedly “liberal” student by asking her: “ok, so you know your parents would be happy, tolerant and loving if you chose a black man to be your spouse. What if he were black-hatted?"

This is not bigotry - as if there is no difference between a black-hat Jew and a liberal, even modern Orthodox, Jew. The problem is not some uninformed mistrust of the "Other" whose only real difference is skin color. It is the very real knowledge that the very black-hatted Jew rejects and decries the very religious truths that we hold dear. Instead of "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner," we would have "Guess Who Won't Eat With Us"

I'm sorry but the schism that exists between black-hats and the rest of the Jewish world is very real and very defensible.

Poor Michael Lerner: Rahm Emanuel No Reason for Celebration

Poor Michael Lerner. He is saddened that Barack Obama, once the darling of the left wing, has inexplicably moved towards the center. He writes: "So no wonder [after the Obama's win] many of us were shocked and deeply disappointed when we learned on Thursday that Congressman Rahm Emanuel was to be the Chief of Staff in the Obama White House."

No matter that perhaps Obama wants to be President for the entire country, not just the progressive wing of the Democratic party (of which I am a proud member). No matter than Emmanuel is known not as an ideologue but as someone who knows how to get things done. No matter that Emmanuel's selection calms the worst fears of the vast majority of Jews who support Israel.

I too think that the Bush administration was too soft on Israel and too disengaged. I agree that territorial compromise is necessary and that many of the settlements need to be either removed or handed over to a Palestinan state. But I don't harbor the illusions that Lerner apparently still clings to that the Palestinians are ready to assume the mantle of responsible leadership. There is no indication that any positive moves by Israel would be met with appropriate positive responses by the Palestinians.

It is possible, like Nixon and China, that the selection of an Israeli hawk like Emmanuel (if he really is one), provides the cover for Obama to take serious, considered and positive action to broker a deal that will lead to a two-state solution. Many have suggested that Emmanuel will provide the "bad-cop" cover for Obama in various political situations, why not with Israel and the Palestinians?

My goodness, Michael - you can't even call him President yet and the honeymoon is already over?