The Desire to Belong (Orthodox Academic Journal, Part II)

We want to be loved by our peers. It's a basic psychological need. Usually, we find some area in which we excel - sports, intellect, socializing or otherwise and "show it off" so people can "ooh" and "aah". Eventually, we find "our" crowd, that group of people with whom we feel "at home".

I thought that home was academia. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't realize just how much I am represent an insignificant minority. I am a Modern Orthodox Jew. I disagree emphatically with the idea that "sociological" (i.e. without kabalat ol mitzvot) conversion is enough. I also disagree with the notion that whatever is "liberal", "pluralistic" or "universal" is always good or that whatever is "conservative" or "particularistic" is always bad. I also think that the Haredi stranglehold on the Rabbinate and halakhic thinking is a disaster for the Jewish people in Israel and has caused nothing but hillul hashem and hatred towards Orthodoxy as a whole. Consequently, I don't follow the "dogma" of either camp and am forced to feel defensive and uncomfortable in either setting.

It's not just that, though. I never realized, or maybe I didn't want to know, how much non-religious Jews lump all Orthodox Jews in the same group. There I am, a university student with years of experience in secular self-education, and I may as well just walk around with Haredi garb for all the difference it makes. My (big) kippa is just so much window-dressing. There's no-one that I know to talk to here. There's no support system for religious students dealing with issues like this - everyone, including people on the teaching staff, seem to all deal with this on their own with varying degrees of success. Suffice to say that I am afraid many of us are "burned" religiously even if we still have a kipa over our heads.

After years of searching, I still often feel very alone. To be sure, I have my family, who are all very supportive and helpful. Maybe I should give up looking for "my crowd". Maybe such a thing doesn't exist, at least for me. Which brings me back to the original problem - what the hell am I doing here?

Good Revisionism, Bad Revisionism

"It's Time for Another Good Idea, Bad Idea" - Animaniacs

Revisionism. The word itself makes many an historian salivate. The thought of being able to up-end established scholarship and popular perceptions of what happened in the past is a great temptation for those of us wanting to quickly establish ourselves in the scholarly community. Unfortunately, the desire to do so contains many pitfalls, so I have written up a list comparing what I consider to be "good" revisionism - i.e. revisionism that contributes to academic debate and thought, and "bad" revisionism - the type that's good for juicy newspaper interviews, but not much else. Enjoy.

The "Official" Version: A simplistic black-and-white morality tale where the "establishment" is always the "good guy" and right, and its enemies are always the "bad guys" and wrong.

Good Revisionism: A careful, objective analysis of all sides, taking into account context, contingency, zeitgeist and other factors before arriving at a reasoned judgment.

Bad Revisionism: A simplistic black-and-white morality tale where the "establishment" is always the "bad guy" and wrong, and its enemies are always the "good guys" and right.

Good Revisionism: History ("what happened") is the primary concern. Historiography (how it was written) and collective memory (what people think happened) is a secondary concern that must not affect the historical analysis.

Bad Revisionism: Historiography/collective memory are the primary concern. History is thus dependent on what people think happened, regardless of what actually happened.

Corollary: Good revisionism considers "mythbusting" to be incidental (even if it's a nice added bonus) to the primary task of the research. Bad revisionism is obsessed with rebutting popular conceptions of history, and not so much with what actually happened.

Good revisionism: Causes most reasonable people to think and consider your arguments, even if they disagree.

Bad revisionism: Convinces those who were already convinced, usually because of previous political convictions and prejudices. Happy "revising". AIWAC

On Dealing With Depression

Winston Churchill called it the "black dog". Roughly one out of ten people will experience clinical depression before the age of 40. Many of the most brilliant minds have suffered from it. Even whacky comedians like Jim Carrey and Robin Williams have it.

I was diagnosed with it as a tennager. It was a nightmare, both for myself and for my family, who did not know how to help me. The "worst years" when I did not function at all are a time in my life I would much rather forget. Life was an empty abyss of despair. I couldn't physically smile or enjoy anything. I hated myself in every sense of the word.

I mention all this because contrary to popular myth, things like to depression do not miraculously disappear. The idea that someone can just "snap out of it" is complete bullshit - the statement of someone who has clearly never dealt with depression himself. It takes years of hard work and trial and error to be able to get back on track and develop a healthy sense of self-worth.

Even then, it never completely goes away. Like the yetzer hara, it is always looking for an opening - day in, day out. Every time problems occur or crises happen, it beckons. Like a drug, it beckons us to give up, to withdraw from life, either figuratively or, in more extreme cases, literally. I would be lying if I said I wasn't tempted on many an ocassion to do just that.

So what keeps me from sinking back into the hole? A recognition that my problems won't go away by ignoring them. The knowledge that however bad things are now, they are exponentially better than they were then. A promise I made to myself that I would never hurt my family that way again.

Still, I have to wonder - what girl would ever want to have anything to do with someone who has to fight a daily twin struggle against depression and OCD? How can I build a family with the "black dog" just around the corner? I admit I don't really have an answer to these questions.

So if you're out there dealing with this, know that you are not alone. There are many who are dealing with it as well.

Justice Lost, but Sanity Prevailed (on Katzav)

A-way back when the Supreme Court Appeal against the Moshe Katzav plea bargain was heating up, I explained why I think that even though Katzav is a shmuck, overturning the plea bargain would have resulted in injustices on a far greater scale. Today, I am relieved that the Supreme Court voted narrowly to uphold the plea bargain. It is true that Aleph and Katzav's other victims did not get justice, and that Katzav is practically getting away scott free. Unfortunately, an overturning of the plea bargain would have likely resulted in scores more injustices, including the Alephs of the world. More often than not, the "right" choice is not between "good" and "bad", but rather the lesser of the two evils. Let us hope and pray that there will come a time when we no longer have to make such repugnant compromises.

Tip for Those Visiting Israel During the Winter

Don't bother bringing, or buying, an umbrella. The wind here will break it in short order and leave you helpless against the elements. Invest in a hat or hooded jacket instead.

I learned this valuable lesson only after living here for 15 years and buying two umbrellas. This message is meant to prevent further grief.

The Man Who Laughs

[I had been throwing around the idea of writing an post defending the new Joker before I heard of Heath Ledger's premature death. This article is dedicated to his memory. Warning: Any offensive or insulting remarks will be deleted without warning]

When I showed the latest trailer for The Dark Knight to my siblings, the reaction was lukewarm at best. "I don't like the make-up", "He's not Jack Nicholson" and "He's not funny" were the main complaints. A few years ago, I probably would have agreed. I fondly remember watching Nicholson's Joker as a kid – a depraved but strangely funny character who chewed the scenery and delivered many a memorable quote (Our favorite was "Bob, gun" – after which he proceeds to shoot Bob).

I now realize that that is precisely the problem – many of us think of the Joker primarily as a funny, insane criminal – a cartoon character, really. Ask your average non-intensive Batman fan to think of a word they associate with the Joker and terms such as funny, entertaining, depraved and insane probably come to mind. Scary? Horrifying? They're probably not even in the top five.

This is a shame – because there is another side to the Joker, a side that elicits not laughs but rather sheer terror. Behind the jokes and the wackiness lie a psychopathic, terrifying monster who kills and maims just for the fun of it. For the Joker of the comics, everything's a joke – society, law, morality and even human life itself. His crimes are utterly devoid of any logic; as Batman once put it – they "make sense to him alone".

Neither are his methods or actions reason for laughter. One example can be found in The Killing Joke, considered one of the ultimate Joker stories. In the story, the Joker shot and paralyzed Barbara Gordon (Batgirl, though he didn't know it), stripped her and took pictures. Then he kidnapped Commissioner Gordon and showed him the pictures with the express intent of driving him insane, thus proving that anyone can become like him after a "bad day".

Another demonstration of the Joker's "humor" can be found in the unedited version of Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. [Spoiler Alert] In a critical flashback scene, we learn that the Joker kidnapped Robin and brainwashed him into becoming a Joker sidekick named "JJ". When Batman finally tracks him down, the Joker shows him a movie graphically depicting Robin being electrocuted. Enraged, Batman attacks the Joker and pins him to the wall. The Joker simply tells him: "If you don't like the movie, I've got slides". Still think he's funny?

So I say: bring us the Joker of the Dark Knight. Bring us the Joker in his full, uncensored version – a "sick, demented monster" (World's Finest) whose high-pitched laughs send chills down your spine and whose "jokes" only demonstrate his complete lack of morality. If nothing else, we will perhaps finally begin to realize this lesson: there is nothing funny or "cool" about evil.

The Jewish Bystander Phenomenon

How often have you seen the following situation:

It's time for Minha/Maariv shel hol. There's more than a minyan present. All that's needed is a chazan. After a few minutes of complete silence, a few "nu"s penetrate the fog, daring someone (else) to get up and be the Shatz. Soon a particularly brave soul gets up and starts asking people if they want to be chazan. Most will decline the honor, until someone eventually gives in.

Or how's about the following:

Three guys have just finished dining together. A mezuman is needed. Now a game of "pass the buck" begins. Each member of the trio will say "bechavod" to his neighbor, running round and round till someone caves and is mezamen. (The cohanim have already happily gievn up their first dibs to play the "bechavod" game).

Maybe I missed something - isn't being a mezamen or a shatz an honor? When did it become a burden to borne only when absolutely necessary? Perhaps someone can explain this to me?

Well, I'm no farmer...

I was going to write a post about how it's impossible for an active grad student to find any sort of work, but this comic demonstrates this better than I ever could (no, I'm not married).

When in Israel, Speak in Hebrew

The latest YU Commentator has a very illuminating set of articles (see Hirhurim link, requires free subscription) on the tensions between Torah study and academia. As I've mentioned before, there is nothing similiar for those of us that learn in Israel. Zilch. Gornisht. We have nowhere to turn for any kind of advice, or even informed debate and opinion, regarding academia and religion.

Note to Richard Joel: You want to make inroads here? Start by translating the Commentator into Hebrew (I also think that the Orthodox Forum needs to do the same with their books), or better yet - by establishing a journal that would include both Israeli and American students' perspectives on the conflict between religion and the university. The mutual translation of views from English to Hebrew and vice versa can make a real difference and lead to genuine cultural interaction. Otherwise, the YU presence here will amount to little more than just another American Jewish bubble in Israel, one of many.

Finally, Some Sanity

ADDeRabbi, whose blog I always enjoy, makes one of the most sensible comments on the shemitah ta-ra-ram I've seen yet. I wish there were more like him.

On Frumkeit and Hypocrisy

As a practicing MO Jew, I have nothing against frumkeit per se. On the contrary, I consider the present flourishing of the Jewish religion to be a highly positive phenomenon. After being told by non-Jews and 'enlightened' Jews for the past two centuries that we are doomed to extinction, it is heart-warming to see the exact opposite happening. Even academia, that bastion of secular liberal humanism, is starting to recognize the power and importance of religion in Jewish and non-Jewish society.

Nevertheless, this revival is not without its uglier aspects. One of these is the phenomenon of self-appointed 'defenders of the faith' who disparage and disgrace talmidei chachamim, gedolim and rabbis who are not 'frum' enough in their mind. The most extreme expression of such fanaticism is of course the small group of Me'ah She'arim kana'im (obviously I refer to a group within Meah She'arim, not all of its residents) who viciously attack all but the most stringent authorities. At times, this even leads to physical violence, as when some kana'im physically assaulted Rabbi Yitzhak Halevi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Israel, when he attended and spoke at Rabbi Isser Zalaman Melzer's funeral in 1954.

Most of the expressions of this disparagement do not reach this level, although they are no less digusting and disgraceful. One such phenomenon is the use of the term 'JB' for Rav Soloveitchik or referring to Rabbis without their proper title, like a recent comment on My Obiter Dicta's post about authorities on heter mechira referred to Rav Shlomo Goren.

It goes without saying that such people would go apoplectic if one referred to the Brisker Rav or the Hazon Ish in like form. That this is utterly hypocritical and disgusting also goes without saying. It is also contrary to halacha, which did not make kavod talmidei chachamim and the issur of bizui talmidei chachamim contingent on agreement with their halachic opinions, though I'm sure many have tried to be metaher that sheretz. Worse still, by allowing the use of ad hominem and insults against Rabbis one doesn't like, the more stringent sections of the Orthodox community are burning whatever bridges of common dialogue remain between them and the 'insufficiently frum' crowd. Nay, it undercuts the very fabric of halachic dialogue and 'friendly disagreement' on which I believe normative Orthdox Judaism rests. Otherwise we are no different than the various murderous sects of tzadikim the Netziv lamented in his intro to Sefer Bereishit. It pains me immensely that it has come to this.

I don't care what your opinion is on heter mechira, kashrut, or whatever halachic issue gets your goat. You have an unequivocal halachic obligation to respect the authority and person of Rabbis who hold differently. Otherwise, you're not much different from the thugs who attacked Rav Herzog - in other words, you're just a common self-important bully.

Checkmate

The reviewer of Foreign Affairs wipes the floor with Mearsheimer and Walt. Well worth the read. (Hat Tip: Martin Kramer)

The Silent Demon: OCD and Orthodoxy

We walk among you. Most of us are normal people, many are quite intelligent. You may know us as very hard workers. Perhaps you think that we are "perfectionists" when it comes to cleaning or doing work, or that we worry excessively over what appear to be insignificant issues. What binds us all is an overwhelming, often emotionally paralyzing fear of having done something wrong by omission or commission (leaving a place dirty, not knowing whether we locked the house) as well as a ritualistic need to repeat actions over and over again until we're "sure" the problem has gone away. But the fear and the need always come back, often the second we finish our ritual.

What we all share is a biological-psychological disorder known as obsessive-compulsive disorder or OCD. I'm sure you've heard of this illness in the past. You may have thought it a funny or strange quirk, one of those quaint neuroses we suffer from in the modern world. Nothing could be further from the truth. OCD is hell repeating itself over and over again on a daily, nay hourly, nay sometimes even minute-to-minute basis. Whatever our "quirk" is, it paralyzes us, takes up an increasing amount of our time, and if not checked, can consume our entire life. What's worse is that many of us are ashamed of it or don't even realize that we have a sickness, since we mistake our problem (cleanliness, order) for the cause of our anxiety rather than just the disease's "excuse" for torturing us. We're very good at hiding it too, making a compulsion seem just like slightly excessive diligence.

All of which brings me to the issue of the relationship between OCD and the 'humra' mentality of many yeshivot and Orthodox communities. What I say here is based primarily on my own experience and knowledge, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true elsewhere.

Imagine the following scenario: A new yeshiva student comes at Zman Elul and is immediately immersed in rabbinic speeches about the need to do teshuva, to change. His natural zeal to change now becomes an overwhelming fear when he realizes just how many things he's doing wrong, certainly by the ridiculously high standards he set himself and which are encouraged in the strict yeshiva world. All of a sudden he doubts himself with every action he takes - always not sure whether he said the right words at davening, always thinking that he did a sin with every move he made, or that he wasn't makpid enough or mahmir enough. Every clearly minority opinion in halakha in the mahmir direction forces him to go even further, shema that opinion is right. Eventually he simply breaks down in davening after imagining himself committing the worst sin he could think of at the time. Or perhaps, instead of just thinking and worrying excessively, he moves to compulsive activities, such as repeated fasts, mikve bathing or tefilot and acts of crying and self-flagellation.

I myself was fortunate to have a RM who was aware of dangers such as these, and helped to calm me down and take things slowly. Whenever I had a ridiculous question on halakha, he knew to answer me patiently and allay my fears. Eventually I learned of my condition and have adapted myself accordingly. I deliberately avoid the study of halakhas that would encourage crazy thoughts (such as hilkhot hanhagat haboker, nedarim etc), at least not without the oversight of someone knowledgeable enough to put things in perspective for me. Thanks to a lot of hard work, I have started to actually enjoy mitzvot and mo'adim, instead of spending every waking second thinking about what I might have done wrong.

I highly doubt there is such awareness of this problem in many of the orthodox communities and yeshivot, especially, but not exclusively, the more "right-wing" ones, where religious stringency is the norm. I have no doubt that Hanokh Daum's book on the subject, regardless of his motivations, contains a great deal more than a grain of truth when it comes to the sufferings of OCD Orthodox Jews in the "total" atmosphere that is yeshivah. For us, religion becomes a hell of emotional torture, instead of the multifaceted experience, which should include happiness and contentment alongside periods of fasting and sorrow, which I believe Judaism to be.

We walk among you. We could be your fellow hevruta or student, a neighbour or a relative. For years we have suffered terribly without you noticing. Now it is time that you look for, and listen to, our desperate cry for help.

Ahh, sweet schadenfreude!

There are few things more entertaining than watching the radical secular looney-left folks at "the newspaper for thinking people", Haaretz, tear each other apart. It seems all the hard-core secularists (scroll down for the vituperative stuff) are up in arms over a critique of a five-volume encyclopedia of post-emancipation Jewry which focuses almost exclusively on secular Judaism and Jews, by a radical post-Zionist, no less. This post-zionist critiques the book for not having Mizrahi Jews or women on the writing staff, and is a bit miffed at the lack of mention of religion in this massive encyclopedia.

Now, I have not seen the encyclopedia myself, but if this very perceptive critique by an author I read and respect has any truth to it, then not only is the encyclopedia essentially a WASP-ish (White Ashkenazi Secular Protectionist) endeavor meant for other WASPs, but much of it sounds like a souped-up version of those who-is-a Jew books that include people who were Jewish by accident of birth and no more. More importantly, the encyclopedia apparently has removed anyone who was not a die-hard secular atheist liberal - this would remove almost all of the great "Jewish" thinkers of the age, regardless of how they defined their religiosity.

After years of us religious folk having to defend ourselves against the attacks of these ideological die-hards, it's nice to see them suffer the same fate, and on the pages of their "in-house" newspaper yet. Ken Yirbu.

Attention, up-and-coming Israeli Graduate Students: WE ARE SCREWED!

One of the most common questions I get asked when I mention my field of study (Contemporary Jewry), aside from "what is that?" is "what are you going to do with that"? To tell the truth I haven't given it much thought. I entered the subject of history because I like it and because I'm good at it. I always figured I could lnd a job at a think tank, teach, do research, or if those don't work, then try translating or editing. Still, I've always wanted to be Prof. Higgins' definition of a happy person - making a living from my "hobby".

Recently I received the equivalent of a sudden dunk in a bucket of ice water. A recent study found that the amount of Israelis with higher education finding work in their chosen fields is quite low. Not only that, but the amount of tenured faculty in Israel has essentially been frozen even though thousands of students graduate with higher degrees every year. This is not even mentioning the tenure process in Israel, an over-beauracratized, top-secret and convoluted matter which can lead to decisions based on, among other things, "academic politics". Needless to say, I am not optimistic about my future, and I am seriously considering a career change if things don't start looking up.

If anyone has any suggestions to improve the situation, I'm all ears.

Internet Dating for Dummy Jews like Myself

1. It's not personal. Really - when I make contact with someone else or vice versa, we are just two cards on a screen at first. Rejection simply means I or my opposite number decided that two random cards out of thousands don't match.
2. Corollary to the above: We all have a sense of humour and a love of life (or some other generic meaningless trait). You need to stand out to get noticed. For instance, you can tell a joke to prove your humour, or perhaps tell something quirky or interesting about yourself that isn't on the "traits" list.
3. Pictures are not a negotiable item. They increase exponentially the chance of you getting noticed. Conversely, items with no pictures will be skipped over quite often. Few of us like "blind dates", so don't expect people to take that chance on the net.
4. Corollary to the above (3): In your picture, you should smile friendly-like. Nothing is more off-putting than a bland serial-killer style stare at the camera. Also, choose your picture wisely - not too artificial looking, but still nice.
5. When you address someone, do so directly - in the second person ("you"). Don't write some general statement about how nice marriage is or send holiday greetings. We simple folk prefer direct communication over oblique hints.
6. If you don't like someone, have the decency to say so. There are few things more agonizing than sending a message to someone and never receiving even a formal response.

If anyone has anything to add to this list, I'm all ears.

Torn, Part II: On Being a Failure

Last year, I started a journal to express my anxieties and dillemas as a religious Jew learning in a university. Now that the new academic year is coming around, I have decided to try and renew this journal with the hope of expanding on the points I made in the introductory post.

I made mention in the introduction of my conversation with my RM (teacher) in yeshiva. There I complained of adjustment difficulties and keeping myself busy all the time. Finding hevrutas was very difficult, and I just did not succeed in filling up every seder with activity. Even more frustrating was what I felt to be a lag in my learning abilities. Try though I might, I rarely succeeded in finishing all the sources in the mar'e mekomot, and I always felt that everyone else understood everything and could keep up, while I was forever behind. My RM wisely suggested that I start studying some courses at University, a path that I would begin to take a year later.

Still, my failure to be able to last more than a year really smarted. My attempts to study in the BIU kollel were similiarly doomed to failure. In the easy class I was bored; in the challenging classes I couldn't make any headway. In the end, I just gave up, a veritable reject. It turns out I'm not the only one. From what I have heard, yeshiva students who decide to go to university rather than stay on were seen for many years, and saw themselves, as failures. Even though this perception is beginning to change, the amount of prepapration of yeshiva students for university is still lacking. Nothing resembling the corpus of the 'Torah U-Madda' ethos in America exists here.

So here I am, a guy who couldn't cut it in yeshiva now plowing his way through the dangerous minefield of Academic Judaism (more on that in the next post). The real question is, am I a failure, a grade-B Jew? Am I doomed to be considered inferior in two worlds - the yehsivish for not being able to learn, and in the academic for being frum?

If anyone has any answers, I'm all ears.

To Rectify an Historic Injustice (on Rav Goren)

As we approach the Day of Judgement, I would like to take this opportunity to adress a major injustice done to one of the major Rabbinic thinkers and activists in the State of Israel - Rabbi Shlomo Goronchik (Goren) (1918-1994), Chief Rabbi of the IDF from 1948-1967; of Tel Aviv from 1968-1972; and of the State of Israel from 1972-1983. Rav Goren was a highly prolific and original thinker, both in terms of halakha and general thought. He almost singlehandedly established the IDF Chief Rabbinate and helped turn it into an institution that positively affected not just religious Jews but all Jews in the army (indeed, the IDF Rabbinate's authority declined when he left).

His contribution to the subject of halakha and war, in all its aspects, is so large that it is simply impossible to mention the subject of war and religious Jewish thought without mentioning him. A highly public figure, he aroused considerable controversy (such as when he suggested blowing up the Muslim buildings on the Temple Mount) and demonstrated halakhic backbone - for instance, when he was matir the agunot of the Israeli sailors who died at sea, such as the members of the submarine Dakar. He left behind an impressive literary corpus (link includes only some his post-humously published writings) on virtually every subject regarding Jewish law and thought.

Yet, a review of the scholarly literature published in Israel on religious-Zionist thought finds almost no reference to Rav Goren. Thinkers and authorities from all ends of the religious spectrum - from the Rav Kook school to the Kibbutz Hadati and beyond, has been given due scholarly treatment. Relatively marginal figures (for their time) such as Rav Hayim Hirschenzon, as well as oppositional thinkers such as Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Eliezer Goldman have entire books and collections of essays analyzing their work and thought.

And Rav Goren? A footnote here, a short mention there, if we're lucky enough. True, he has been the subject of a popular biography and a few, very recent, articles by Dr. Aryeh Edrei of Tel Aviv University. A PhD Thesis is presently being written in Bar Ilan on the IDF Chief Rabbinate that will undoubtably discuss his contribution to the same. Still, even if we were to dig deep for scholarship and study of Rav Goren, we would still come up with a mere fraction of the attention given to others. A man who dedicated his life to the Jewish people, who was publicly involved in so many fields of thought and halakha, now seems doomed to endure the ultimate insult - that of being ignored and ultimately forgotten. I believe that those of us in the field of Jewish Studies have a moral responsibility to ensure that this does not happen. At the very least, we owe him the courtesy of acknowledgement.

On the Matter of Bagatz VS. Katzav

I'm sure you've all heard of Bagatz's decision to suspend the plea bargain with Moshe Katzav. In all likelihood, given the temprament of the court and the media circus, the arrangement will be overturned. While many are exulting at this reversal, I belive that Bagatz's present policy is nothing short of a disaster. This has nothing to do with the specific case of Katzav himself. If he really is guilty of the charges, then I would like nothing more than to see him put in a jail cell alongside a very lonely 300-pound prisoner named Bubba, or the Israeli equivalent, for the rest of his natural life.

So what's the problem, you may ask? There are many, actually, but I will focus in this post on one immediate issue - plea bargains. The overwhelming majority of criminal convictions in this country are based on plea bargains of one kind or another. Only a small percentage of cases actually see the inside of a courtroom. Even so, the judicial system suffers from backlog and there is a lack of judges.

Now imagine that Katzav's plea bargain is overturned. The judges can claim that it was an exceptional ruling from now till Doomsday - once the precedent has been set, there will be no turning back. Every bereaved family member or two-bit politico with a grudge can apply to have cases re-opened or the thousands of pleas arrived at each year examined. As a result, there will be fewer pleas, fewer "deals" to get at least partial justice or catch criminal fish higher up the ladder. Thousands of cases will result not in pleas, since the defendants aren't going to sign agreements that could easily be overturned. Many cases which could have had some good results will be thrown out, many other will reach the courtroom. Trials will take years longer to be resolved, if ever.

In its effort to achieve absolute "justicity" over every facet of administration in this country, Bagatz will end up paralyzing the justice system. Bagatz would have done well to take a cue from Moses, who realized that even he could not handle every single complaint. As for the "lynch-mob" public enthusiastically endorsing a Bagatz reversal, I would advise: "Be careful what you wish for...you just might get it".

Man Bites Dog

Tom Segev, hardly a Zionist, gives Avrum Burg's screed a good thrashing (in Hebrew). Well worth the read.

Saladin's Jordanian Castle

A few years ago I did a paper on Qal'at Ar-Rabad, otherwise known as Castle 'Ajlun. It was built by a deputy of Saladin on the eastern bank of the Jordan River directly opposite the famous crusader castle Belvoir (Cochav Ha-Yarden).

I have seen two reasons for the establishment of this castle. One, in the wikipedia link above, is the traditional one. According to the traditional explanation, the castle was primarily meant to protect against the external threat of Crusader expansion. Another reason, given by a Muslim contemporary historian, is that it was also meant to bring the Ajlun area under central control (before it had been controlled by the local bedouin) - i.e. to matain internal order in a crucial border region.

Does anyone know which explanation is correct? Perhaps both are true?

The War Against Brit Milah

The new Azure is out, with plenty of excellent articles to choose from. In this post, however, I would like to adress a very serious matter brought up in the correspondence section. There, no less than three letters to the editor responding to Dr. Ido Hevroni's article on circumcision as rebellion in the context of Roman domination. These letters, which include a "Rabbi" who endorses "alternative" britot milah that do not involve surgery, are all united in their utter disgust and repulsion at brit milah, describing it in the grossest and bluntest terms. Obviuosly, all are "enlightened" Jews, the type which have tried to "redefine" Judaism to make it indistinguishable from Western fads ever since the coming of modernity. A recent post by Gabriel Schoenfeld on the subject generated no less than 45 responses, much larger than any other post on the Commentary blog by an order of magnitude. There, too, the comments are filled with a disgusting venom.

My main concern here is not the existence of such opinions but their apparent legitimacy within the Jewish world - not just the fringes. I consider it nothing short of horrifying that the editors of Azure saw fit to publish only the anti-Brit Milah letters and not one in support. I can not stress the ramifications of this campaign enough. Brit Milah is not some transitory miderabanan that can be "intellectualized" out of existence, it is one of the core identifying marks - yes, marks - of Jews since the beginning. It is an issur karet, one which the Jews often risked their lives to perform.

The past couple of decades has seen quite a wave of Jewish religious thinkers "intellectualizing" various mitzvot and obligations out of existence for the sake of pleasing individualistic whims and secular humanist Western dogma. I live in dread of the day that the move to abolish this last red line becomes a real intellectual movement, backed up by distorting "Jewish Sources" of course (no doubt with a helthy dose of how kevod ha'adam supersedes every issur in Judaism).

I really don't know how to react to this ?%$@ anymore. When I see and hear of stuff like this, all I want to do is break down and cry. I feel so helpless.

The Massacre That Almost Was

Last year the news services reported a horrifying scholarly discovery. Though everyone knew that if Rommel reached Palestine, the Yishuv would share the same fate, we did not know that an eizentzgruppe had already been formed and plans made for the annihilation of the Jewish community in Palestine, in advance of Rommel's expected victory.

Now this study has been published in a detailed, point-by-point discussion in Yad Vashem's journal. We learn there of the planned Final Solution for the Yishuv, in which Palestinian Arabs were meant to take a large part, similiar to that of the Eastern European collaborators such as those in Latvia and the Ukraine. The Grand Mufti, Haj Amin Al-Husseini apparently worked feverishly to ensure a "clean sweep" of the Jews in the Holy Land, providing statistics and maps for the SS.

Next time you hear about how the Palestinians would never dream of annihilating the Jews, mention this article.

Nice Try (On the Van Leer Institute)

The Van Leer Institute is known throughout Israeli academia as the most influential bastion of the hard-core anti-Zionist left. Boasting a large budget and an impressive array of academics from various fields, this institute is the one-stop shop for all your anti-Zionist needs. For years, left-wing as well as right-wing Zionists have lambasted the institute for its one-sided, radical agenda, embodied in its flagship journal Theory and Criticism. Assaf Sagiv did a wonderful deconstruction of their alternative history of the 50 years of Israel, the conclusion of which I have re-posted from an earlier comment at the bottom of this critique.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I saw the following extensive puff-piece on Van Leer. Even more surprising was the fact that the article appeared not in Haaretz, but in the Jerusalem Post, which I had thought was at least Zionist in orientation. The article is symptomatic of the intellectual attitudes of the hard-left as a whole - only members of the institute are quoted extensively to praise Van Leer to the sky, critics and detractors are anonymous and lumped under "many [critics]". Needless to say, the fawning reporter does not ask any hard questions about the radical agendas of the academic team such as in the aforementioned journal or in the many books it supports which bash Israel incessantly. We do not learn of the blatant abuse of the Holocaust by Messrs Ophir and friends as documented by Prof. Elhanan Yakira. We learn nothing of the "Palestinians are innocent victims and Jews are evil aggresors" school constantly pumped the people in question.

I don't think it would be an exagerration to say that Van Leer bears a substantial part of the responsibility for the present demonic image that Zionism and the State of Israel "enjoy" abroad in critical academic, cultural and political elites. As mentioned below, their negative attitude pervades many humanities and social sciences departments here in Israel, to the point where finding pro-Zionist comment in academic articles is equivalent to finding buried treasure. All the "we love everyone" rhetoric is, in my opinion, a mask that covers a very poisonous hatred of everything the State of Israel stands for. To say that they represent the Israeli left is no less pretentious and false as the Bolsheviks' claim to represent the whole of the "people". The Jerusalem Post would do well to encourage moderate alternatives to Van Leer rather than serving as their unofficial spokespeople.

Post-modern academics cannot come to terms with the “existing order,” but they do not know how to change it without turning today’s “oppressed” into tomorrow’s “oppressors.” They do not know how to wage an effective fight against the evil, which, in their view, is inevitably rooted in political reality. Lacking the possibility of engaging in practical action, all they have left is negation for its own sake. Despite the impression conveyed by some of its articles, Theory and Criticism is not the ephemeral publication of a fringe group. Unfortunately, it presents us with a reliable picture of a mode of thinking now accepted as the norm in important circles in Israel’s academia, especially in the humanities and social sciences. In light of this fact, it is impossible to avoid certain depressing conclusions about the role played by the academic elite in Israeli society.

Most Israelis expect that their institutes of higher learning will contribute to the advancement of the public discourse in Israel; that the tens of thousands of young people who enter the universities each year will benefit from their education by becoming better citizens, and learning to make intelligent political decisions within a democratic framework. Yet Israel’s campuses are gradually becoming hothouses for political anarchism, as the Israeli intelligentsia busily educates towards resentment of the Jewish state and the values that permit it to exist. Academic “post-Zionism” does not even play the important positive role that intellectual opposition sometimes does in a pluralistic society; it does not bother to advance realistic alternatives or formulate a creative, inspiring vision which offers a kernel of hope. In its cultivation of chronic and sterile resentment, bereft of both responsibility and imagination, the trend represented so powerfully by Theory and Criticism in the end offers nothing more than “theory” and “criticism.”

It's going to get worse, much worse.

Sorry for the blogging hiatus. I had a lot to write, and still do, but I could not bring myself to actually sit down and get it out of my system. I hope that this post will help "break the ice".

A while back, I made mention of Norman Finkelstein's false claim that there is a scholarly "consensus" that Israel had expelled the Palestinians in 1948. Unfortunately, this falsehood is part of a much bigger pehnomenon - the creation and solidification of a new, anti-Israel orthodoxy, according to which Israel and Zionism were always in the wrong during its existence. According to this narrative, Israel was the guilty party in 1948 and launched an unjustified quasi-colonial war in 1956. Everything that happenned to Israel after the victory of the Six Day War was also mostly if not solely Israel's fault due to the occupation and Israel's militaristic nature. It goes without saying that only Israel's faults - which do indeed exist - are stressed while positive qualities are ignored. The Arabs and especially the Palestinians are of course perfectly innocent victims - the 'New Jews' if you will.

The only task remaining for the new orthodoxy is to connect the two halves of this portrait, by 'proving' that Israel was not justified in launching a pre-emptive strike in 1967. This task was somewhat stymied by the fact that Dr. Michael Oren's careful historical account demonstrated that Israel had very good cause to strike first. Rest assured, anti-Israel scholars are hard at work trying to undermine Oren. No less than two articles have been published in the mildly pro-Arab Middle East Journal doing just that. This is merely the opening salvo of the historiographic debate Oren predicted would happen even before he came out with his book. I don't doubt that Tom Segev's tome will help things along.

I check new books and articles on a regular basis, and I am not comforted by what I see. The new orthodoxy, a rather extreme mirror-image of yesteryear's heroic image of Israel and Zionism, is all-encompassing. The "concensus", especially that of 1948 but soon to include 1967, is present in virtually every "objective" or critical work coming out - and there are many. No-one is willing to cut Israel any slack, or at least take the historical zeitgeist of various periods into account. Israel apparently must act perfectly or not at all. Its wars are either completely "no choice" or "choice". It is either stands up to every unrealistic demand of purist liberal democracy or it is not a democracy at all.

There are few real protesters to this orthodoxy. Many of the legal scholars, historians and sociologists that study Israel, including those who are native Israelis, either adopt the "critical" narrative wholesale, or at least in part. Indeed, some of the worst bile has come from native Israelis.

I'm not sure what to recommend at this point. The few attempts to fight the "new orthodoxy" feel like too little too late. Perhaps a new approach is needed, one where the new orthodoxy is shown for what it is - an "establishment" and "hegemonic" position, and no longer the rebellious challenge it once was. Then the tables can be turned, since now it is those who support Zionism and Israel who are the true contrarians in worldwide academe.

If anyone has any better ideas, I'm all ears. AIWAC

On The Self-Delusion of Anti-Zionist Jews

The anti-Zionist Jews are up in arms. For years they have had the intellectual playing field almost entirely to themselves - in the media, in academia and in literary circles throughout Europe and the States. The "post" and anti-Zionist terminology and rhetoric has achieved near hegemonic status in all these fields. Whenever someone called their hatred and negationism for what it was - they balked. "We're just critics of Israel", they say, or "We just criticize Israel's policy in the territories/policy towards its Arab citizens/its Zionist nature".

Recently, Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld has called a spade a spade. In a thoroughly documented study, he demonstrates the virulent, hateful and annihilationist rhetoric spewed by "progressive Jews" on a regular basis. Their response is exactly the same as before. They hide behind the grain of truth in their accusations to justify the fabric of pointless and stupid venom.

At this point, this argument is not just annoying, it is an insult to the intelligence of anyone above the age of three. If you support the "Right of Return", the creation of a bi-national state between the Jordan and the Sea, or deny the Jews any moral agency or national rights in the land of Israel, then you can no more call yourself a "critic" of Israel than a rabid atheist can call himself a "critic" of religion. They are calling for the state's dissolution, and it would be better if they stood up and were counted as opponents and negationists, not "critics" of one type or another.

A similiar thing can be said for those who do nothing but condemn Israel as the worst thing ever created by humankind, who call it "Nazi", "an apartheid state", but say "but I defend Israel's right to exist" in whatever form. This too is an insult to the intelligence of thinking human beings. It is like saying that Voltaire's disgusting, hate-filled and wholly negative essay on Jews is "not anti-Semitic" because he said at the end of it "Still, we ought not to burn them".

"Criticism" that does nothing but villify in the worst possible terms, leaves the other side utterly blameless and refuses to posit any useful advice or attach positive traits to the object of its "criticism", is hatred, pure and simple. Anti-Zionist Jews would do well to keep that in mind.

Website Recommendation

There are a lot of current events sites in Israel, but only a few are worth taking seriously. One such site, which discusses issues in Israel in depth is Omedia. Here's a link to one of their English-language articles, discussing the nature of popular political culture in Israel.

More Carter Commentary

Enjoy the following review of Carter's screed by a Shalom Achshavnik (Peace Now), of all people. Carter would seem to be really out of his depth.

A Partial Fisking of the 'Carter Letter'

The magalomanaical Jimmy Carter has come out with a letter justifying his recent screed blaming Israel and exonerating Palestinians everywhere (Check out the following analysis of Carter's misrepresentation of Camp David and the Clinton Proposals. Hat Tip to both links: Martin Kramer, who has been covering this from day one). I thought I might give a try at a (partial) fisking:

There are no significant countervailing voices (emphasis added) (to pro-Israel outfits such as AIPAC)

Has Carter been living on Mars over the past few years (then again, that would explain a lot...)??? What about the constant attacks in the New York Review of Books, the "evenhandedness" of the New York Times and NPR, not to mention the bile coming out of British outlets such as the BBC, the Guardian, the London Review of Books? Heck, what about the English version of Ha'Aretz? What about the "expert" analysis of MESA members such as Juan Cole and Charles Smith, which is very pro-Palestinian?

I am familiar with the extreme acts of violence that have been perpetrated against innocent civilians, and understand the fear among many Israelis that threats against their safety and even their existence as a nation still exist. I reiterated my strong condemnation of any such acts of terrorism.

WTF?? Who were these extreme acts of violence commited by - Eskimos? Aliens? Is it so hard to admit that acts of terrorism and political violence have been commited by Palestinians (and supported by many Palestinians) against Jews? Is it that hard to admit that Palestinians sin, or that they are largely responsible for their own predicament, by rejecting, time and again, partition plans - in 1937, in 1948 etc?

When asked my proposals for peace in the Middle East, I summarized by calling for Hamas members and all other Palestinians to renounce violence and adopt the same commitment made by the Arab nations in 2002: the full recognition of Israel's right to exist in peace within its legally recognized 1967 borders (to be modified by mutual agreement by land swaps). This would comply with U.N. Resolutions, the official policy of the United States, commitments made at Camp David in 1978 and in Oslo in 1993, and the premises of the International Quartet's "Roadmap for Peace."

I see...what about the demand for the 'right of return', also enshrined in UNresolutions according to Palestinian pressure groups??

In addition, I pointed out that the Palestinian people were being deprived of the necessities of life by economic restrictions imposed on them by Israel and the United States because 42% had voted for Hamas candidates in the most recent election. Teachers, nurses, policemen, firemen, and other employees are not being paid, and the U.N. has reported that food supplies in Gaza are equivalent to those among the poorest families in sub-Sahara Africa with half the families surviving on one meal a day. My other request was that American Jewish citizens help to alleviate their plight.

Why, may I ask, is this solely the fault of Israel? What about Hamas, committed to Israel's destruction and spending oodles on arms and weapons procurement? Also, what about Israelis right to life, that most basic right, which, if we removed all restrictions now without a renouncement of violence from Hamas and others, would be constantly denied by suicide bombers and the like? Why, also, is there no mention of the Qassam rockets and munitions constantly rained on Sderot and Ashkelon?

that I acknowledge the deep concern of Israelis about the threat of terrorism and other acts of violence from some Palestinians (emphasis mine)

Now we acknowledge that some Palestinians engage in violence. Hows about the fact that one such organization now runs the parliament?

Jimmy Carter declared that he won't debate Alan Dershowitz. Maybe Norman Finkelstein would be a better choice.

Tidbits - Book Reviews

• Mitchell Bard rips Jimmy Carter a new one for his putrid piece of pro-Palestinian propaganda. The book has clearly demonstrated that Carter is a complete pro-Arab tool. If the links provided by Martin Kramer are any indication, it is also a very poorly written tract.
• Efraim Karsh takes Rashid Khalidi to the cleaners.

That's all for now, folks.

Throw the Jews Down the Well!

Well, it's official. If anyone ever doubted it, comes the Iraq Study Report and makes clear that we are to be sold down the river. This report is the culmination of years of anti-Israel propaganda which deligitamized Israel and Zionism from every angle, and in which, frustratingly, Jews played a major role.

Myself and my family are beginning to feel what the Jews in Israel felt right after the invasion of Israel in '48 and during the hamtana in '67 - palpable existential dread, the fear that we are going to be wiped off the face of the earth. Even during the worst times of the past intifada the main fear was that any of us would be killed individually. Now it look like we will all go together when we go, only it's not funny.

Don't give me BS about how the world's sympathy will prevent it from happenning. The world's sympathy did not stop Auschwitz. It did not stop Rwanda, the boat people of Vietnam or the killing fields of Cambodia. I don't believe that Olmert, the most venal, corrupt (morally and legally) and unprincipled bum we have ever had the displeasure of representing us has the guts to order a strike or push the red button when the time comes.

God help us all.

Kudos to Prof. Kenneth Stein...

for resigning his position at the Carter Center in protest of Jimmy Carter's recent screed which, a la Prof. Stein, is a parody of academic standards (Hat Tip: Martin Kramer). Prof. Stein is known to be on the left wing of the political spectrum, which makes his stand even more admirable. Thank God there are still people of principle in this world...

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Israeli scholars are highly critical and engage in debate, Palestinian and pro-Palestinian scholars don't. This last is confirmed by Shalom Lappin's response to Jacqueline Rose's response to his excellent review of her book. Money quote (emphases are mine):

In response to my statement that no significant element of Palestinian society has challenged the official myths of the Palestinian narrative in a way comparable to that in which the official Israeli version of history has been subject to fierce debate among Israelis, Rose ‘is left wondering whether he reads any Palestinian writing’. She cites the work of several Palestinian (and Israeli Arab) writers and poets as evidence of such a challenge. Given this list it seems that Rose has seriously misunderstood the question at issue here. While the writers whom she mentions have certainly expressed empathy for Israeli Jews and, on occasion, criticised Palestinian terrorism, none of them, to the best of my knowledge, has questioned the view that Jews came to Palestine as European colonialists with a program for dispossessing its Arab inhabitants and establishing a western enclave of imperialist power. Quite the contrary, Mahmoud Darwish is a nationalist poet who promotes this idea. In fact, he resigned from the executive of the PLO in 1993 in protest when Arafat signed the Oslo Accords with Rabin. Similarly, Ghassan Kanafani was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and a close associate of George Habash. [8] Anton Shamas, although he writes in Hebrew, is a militant advocate of this approach to Israel and Zionism. Elias Khoury (who is actually Lebanese, born in Beirut in 1948 to a Christian family) does indeed seek to overturn stereotypes of Israelis dominant in the Arab world. Moreover, to his credit, (together with Darwish and Edward Said) he publicly opposed the convening of a Holocaust denial conference, planned in Beirut for 2001. However, like Darwish he does not question the official Palestinian understanding of the history of the conflict.

Palestinian intellectual life is vibrant, and it has produced political theorists and historians of considerable distinction. But when one reads the work of some of its most notable representatives, such as Edward Said, Ahmed Khalidi, and Rashid Khalidi, one generally finds that moderation consists in the grudging acknowledgement of Israel’s non-eliminability. In historical terms Palestinians are portrayed as passive victims who have been the blameless targets of relentless Zionist aggression. The decisions, political programs, and military initiatives of the Palestinian leadership throughout the period leading up to 1948 (and, often, well beyond) are rarely if ever subjected to serious critical evaluation, even from the narrowest perspective of national self-interest. The fact that, in many cases, the solutions that these thinkers now suggest were previously proposed by the leadership of the Yishuv (or by the international community), and rejected by the Palestinians themselves, is rarely, if ever, acknowledged. Bi-nationalism, partition, and a federated state were all originally Zionist ideas that the Palestinians turned down in their time as incompatible with their political aspirations. The intense controversies over the facts of the 1948 war are being conducted entirely by Israeli historians, on the basis of recently opened Israeli public archives. Palestinian and Arab archives remain closed, and historical debate and revision is not part of the Palestinian public discussion. One can see this state of affairs as, at least in part, due to the fact that the Palestinians remain under a deeply repressive occupation within the territories beyond the Green Line. Unfortunately, the absence of critical debate is itself a factor that prevents the emergence of viable political strategies for ending this occupation.

QED. The last point bears repeating. When, and only when Palestinians acknowledge that Jews have right and justice on their side as well, can we have true peace and co-existence. As long as they keep viewing "justice" solely in Palestinian terms or adding "rights" of refugees, or "peace with (their) justice" as a price tag, peace will remain an impossiblity. It takes two to tango.

Job Application

Seen in the Bar-Ilan copy shop (HaMaf'il) (rough translation):

Needed for a state in the Middle East:

• A Prime Minister
• A Defense Minister
• A Chief of Staff
• A Minister of Justice
• A Chief of Police

Experience not necessary. Good conditions.

Torn: The Cry for Help of a Religious University Student

I have recently finished, besha'ah tovah, my requirements for a BA in Land of Israel Studies. I am now continuing my studies in an interdisciplinary graduate program at Bar-Ilan. Although I am still quite busy and sometimes feel overwhelmed with work, I will continue to blog as much as possible anyway.

When I started this blog two years ago, I had two main reasons - hasbara (defending Israel) and personal catharsis. While my need to debunk libels against Israel has waxed and waned over the years, my need for some outlet to pour out my thoughts and musings on life, especially university life, has only increased. The dillemas and questions I've faced have not gone away - they have only increased in intensity, and I feel that if I do not "spill my guts" somewhere, I will explode. Although I will not give up other aspects of this blog (such as the "Research Suggestions" section), I will be spending more time wrestling with questions rather than debunking certain falsehood.

Perhaps the most fundamental tension that I feel is that of a religious Jew, commanded to believe and follow the Law of God, studying in a University, an institution where nothing is sacred save the right to question and criticise. True, I study at Bar-Ilan University, where ostensibly the tension should not be as great as avowedly secular or even anti-religious universities elsewhere. Judaism, although not preached as dogma, is certainly treated with respect and deferrence at Bar-Ilan - historical analysis, and critique, of Jews and Judaism throughout the ages is done more often with a surgeon's knife rather than a machete.

Even when it comes to politics we are something of an anomoly. Although there are certainly plenty of left-wingers at Bar-Ilan, we have no Ilan Pappes or Zeev Sternhalls. Dr. Menahem Klein is the exception that proves the general rule, a curiosity if you will. You will notice that on many of the various moonbat petitions supporting refusal to serve in "the territories" or in favour of the Palestinians, people from Bar-Ilan are either not represented at all or only a handful of people are signatories.

All this is true, and yet Bar-Ilan University is still just that - a University, a part of the scholarly world. We still have to read articles and discuss views of Judaism and faith-involved issues (such as the accuracy of the Rabinnic sources in the Second Temple period; analysis of archaeology that is not in line with the accepted biblical historiography and so on). It is impossible to be an honest student or scholar without hearing and having to seriously argue with scholarly opinions and analysis that are simply anathema for a believing Jew.

It often feels that even when our beliefs and lifestyle are not challenged, they are ridiculed. How many times have the loaded, negative terms - "fundamentalism", "conservativism" (in the sense of "not liberal", not the religious meaning) and other such verbal daggers been bandied about, with the reckless abandon of a street demagogue, in "respectable" scholarly forums? I often feel that a religious Jewish scholar feels a need to have to apologize for not being a secular liberal humanist, has to apologize for his/her existence. How can I live, function, grow in such a world as a Jew?

One answer would be that it is impossible. The Gordian Knot must be cut - it is either the university or the kollel/yeshiva. I remember an exchange between a student and a teacher, whom I respect tremendously, over the issue of scholalrly opinion on the Chumash, which of course does not hold that it was written by God through Moses. The teacher ended the argument that, if you don't want to deal with these questions, then don't go to university.

I wish I had that option, but I don't. Ever since I was a child, I was fascinated with learning new things, gaining new knowledge. At first I tended towards "hard science", later I caught the "history bug". People who know me can tell you that I read an enourmous amount of non-fictional books on every subject in history, at a speed that has earned me the monicker of bola'at sefarim (literally, swallower of books, a play-on words for the hebrew term for bookworm - tola'at sefarim). I check academic publishers' websites on a daily basis to see if there's anything new and exciting to read.

Even when I was at yeshiva, my Ram suggested to me that I spend at least some time studying university courses. Although he didn't intend it, I felt and still feel this to have been a rejection. In the end, he was right, though - I wasn't capable of studying at yeshiva 24/7, and I gravitated towards university and academic study. For me, learning, researching and especially writing are for me no less critical than food and sleep. To read a particularly well-written piece; to write a well-written article or blog-post, these things are my psychological oxygen. To deny myself that would be equivalent to forbidding a pianist to touch a piano or a basketball player from shooting hoops.

I'm not sure who to turn to for help, either. Plenty has been said and written about how Judaism deals with "hard sciences" such as physics or biology. I am not aware of anything even remotely comparable dealing with Judaism's attitude towards the "soft sciences" of the humanities and the social sciences. I am sure that each religious scholar now in the field has developed his/her individual approach to the problem, but this is of no help to newcomers such as myself. Also of no help is the suspicious and often negative attitude of those who might render assistance - the yeshiva world - to the world of scholarship, known derisively as 'mehkar'.

I feel alone, exposed to the elements with no guide and no-one to hold my hand. I have tried to duck this feeling, to ignore it or deny it. Now it stares me in the face, filling me with terror and dread.

God give me strength to get through this. גם כי אלך בגיא צלמוות לא אירא רע כי אתה עמדי

The Palestinian (Historical) Malaise (on Walid Khalidi)

Recently I came across the following loving endorsement of Rashid Khalidi's book:

Rashid Khalidi, American-born, comes from one of Jerusalem's most distinguished families, which has also provided another distinguished historian, Walid Khalidi. Together they have done much to provide a Palestinian narrative rooted in their personal histories but disciplined by the standards of Western scholarship. (my emphasis)

I have said it before and I'll say it again, if you want a side of history in which all of its members agree with one another that their side is completely right - look no further than the Palestinians. Anyone familiar with the often virulent debates in Israeli academia know just how much debate there is over every facet of Jewish and Israeli history. Barely a year goes by without at least a few "provocative", "critical" or "controversial" books coming out about Jews or Israel.

Not so with Palestinian historians. Uniformly they see history as a tool to be twisted for thier pre-conceived conclusions (For a great example of this see Maissy-Noy, Rachel, "Palestinian Historiography in Relation to the Territory of Palestine", Middle Eastern Studies 42, 6, p. 889-905). It is a 'given' in this school that Palestinians are descended from Canaanites, that Zionists were evil colonialists apartheid interlopers in league with the evil British, that the Palestinians are utterly blameless for their predicament.

No-one exemplifies, nay - personifies this sad state of affairs more than Walid Khalidi. Anyone familiar with the works of Prof. Walid Khalidi will know that his analysis of Zionist actions and motives is badly flawed and one sided (See, for instance, his "The Arab Perspective" in Stookey and Louis, eds, The End of the Palestine Mandate, University of Texas Press, 1988). His argument that Plan Dalet was a master plan for expelling the Palestinians has not been accepted by students of the subject, such as Benny Morris and Yoav Gelber, excepting of course those who are willing to swallow Palestinian propaganda wholesale like Ilan Pappe and Norman G. Finkelstein. His book, All That Remains, was blasted by Israeli geographer Moshe Brawer for numerous errors of fact and interpretation.

Avraham Sela, in a fascinating article, (Sela, Avraham, "Arab Historiography of the 1948 War - The Quest for Legitimacy", in: Silberstein, Lawrence, New Perspectives on Israeli History, New York 1991) demonstrated that it was Khalidi, among others, who established and enshrined the "Zionist conspiracy" to expel the Arabs from the start - before that Arab historiography had beeen at least somewhat more self critical. The totality of Khalidi's works (such as From Haven to Conquest) are nothing less than the canon of the Palestinian outlook, the foundation for a view of Zionism, Jews and Palestinian-Arab history so distorted, it makes "official" Zionist history look downright timid. This view now is almost hegemonic (yes, I use the term intentionally) among the various scholars of the Middle East in the USA. If Said was the salesman of the Palestinian Propaganda Narrative, Walid Khalidi can be said to be its primary author. More than anyone except perhaps Said, W. Khalidi has helped to prevent any real historical study of Palestinians that is not sycophantic and 100% anti-Zionist in its outlook.

Far from being "disciplined" by the standards of Western scholarship, W. Khalidi bent it for his own nationalistic ends. He is not an example to be emulated, but an abberation to be shunned by all those who care for the proper study of history.

Research Suggestions

(For previous suggestions see here, here, here, here and here)

This post's subject: The Syrian Army in the 1948 War

This post was prompted not so much by the lack of research into the conduct of the Syrian Army before and during the 1948 War, though that certainly was part of it. Rather, I have posted this with the hope that a reader will study this selfsame subject, incorporating the Official History of the Syrian Army published in 2000, and which should be available via Lebanese or London Arabic booksellers (Thanks to Dr. Josh Landis for the heads up, as well as Dr. Eyal Zisser for his help). The source in question is the first volume of the Official History edited by Mustafa Tlas and it is entitled Tarikh al-Jaysh al-Arabi al-Suri (Damascus, 2000), according to the British Library.

As an ardent "1948 war" buff, I am personally very curious if the volume contains any new information (documents, stats, war objectives). Obviously the book must be read with a critical eye, but here's hoping it's not all fabricated propaganda.

May the force be with you, enterprising researcher!

Historians' Fallacies - Prof. Rashid Khalidi

The following quote of a footnote in Rashid Khalidi's new book (Hat Tip: Martin Kramer) reveals some basic errors in scholarship:

The exact number of Palestinian refugees in 1948 is difficult to ascertain, and has long been highly disputed. Contemporary UN estimates put the figure at over 750,000, while Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1, writes of "some 600,000-760,000" refugees. The first figure given by Morris is low; the latter is probably closer to the truth. Morris's book, which drew on the newly opened Israeli archives to dispel some of the most tenacious myths regarding the Palestinian refugees, has become the standard work on this topic. See also Morris's 1948 and After, rev. ed. (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1994. Norman G. Finkelstein argues convincingly that Morris fails to draw the requisite conclusions from the damning evidence he assembles: see Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (London: Verso, 1995, 51-87. Among the first to publish results of research in the Israeli archives regarding the Palestinian refugees that reached conclusions similar to those of Morris were Segev, 1949, and Flapan, The Birth of Israel, published in 1986 and 1987, respectively. [emphasis mine]

OK, problem no. 1 is the highlighted sentence - Khalidi does not make any attempt to actually prove that the 'latter figure' is closer to the truth. Even if we were to consider the 'UN document' estimate as proof, one would expect Khalidi to at least adress the problem of the reliability of UN estimates due to widespread fraud; the UN documents themselves discuss this problem (See Gelber, Yoav, Komemiyut VeNakba, Dvir 2004, in the Chapter "Pelitei HaPelishah"). Heck, Walter Pinner adressed this issue a-way back in 1960 (Pinner, Walter, How Many Arab Refugees? A Critical Study of UNRWA's Statistics and Reports, London, 1960.) Obviously Khalidi doesn't have to agree with this, but surely he must adress the issue - one can not simply ignore opinions contrary to one's own because it's inconvenient like Norman Finkelstein.

There's another problem that is just as fundamental. The quoter of the book, Rick Richman from Jewish Current Issues, has pointed out that Khalidi is horribly outdated, in not mentioning Morris' revised work of 2004 [BTW, if you ignore the 'transfer-mania', the book is pretty good].

I think this is being much too kind, if only due to the fact that Benny Morris is no longer the sole major authority or student of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. The past 6 years has seen a virtual explosion in scholarly books, as well as MA and PhD theses written on the 1948 War, including works on various aspects of the refugee problem (for instance, Yaacov Tubi's Phd thesis, Haifa, 2002). For instance, a book by Prof. Alon Kadish, Prof Avraham Sela and Dr. Arnon Golan came out in 2000 directly challenging Morris' description of events in Lydda in July 1948.

Even when it comes to books on the Problem as a whole, Prof. Yoav Gelber's book, which does not agree with Morris in interpretation of many events, is comparable both in scope and use of source material. In the coming years, it is likely that this area of 'expertise' will become even more crowded. That's not to mention the many scholarly articles on the subject.

If Khalidi doesn't at least refer to some of these sources, then one wonders where he has been hiding in the last 15 years?

Take off your hats...

Another brave soul has gone off the deep end...

[This feature will be posted whenever a scholar of Middle Eastern Studies/Israel/Zionism joins the looney left or the looney right. Today we have Mark LeVine with an article in HNN favorable towards the "one-state solution", or "bi-nationalism" (see link above), traditional code word for "No More Israel!"]

Rotten to the Core

Anyone who thinks Scandinavia is a beautiful, moral group of countries ought to look at this disgusting display of base hatred in Norway.

Know Before Whom You Stand

My Obiter Dicta has a recent post that laments the lack of spirituality and connection to God in Modern Orthodox prayer. The irony in this is that the self-same "dry" halakhic texts contain within them a great deal of spiritual advice - if you look for it, that is. Having recently gone through much of Hilkhot Tefilah (Tur/Shulkhan Aruch) with a friend of mine, I can attest that many of the simanim are chock full of practical advice for one who wants to know how to properly daven. In this post I would like to address one such recommendation: preparation.

There was a tradition among pious Jews in the Talmudic period known as "Hasidim Rishonim" to prepare for an hour before actually engaging in prayer. The Tur advises that everyone should wait a few moments before starting prayer - advice that he repeats a number of times. Instead of rushing in from work or sleep and immediately getting to praying, one should step back and mentally prepare oneself to stand before God Almighty. I can not stress enough how much this exceedingly simple tip helps. Instead of seeing davening as just another task to get out of the way, the "prepping period" helps get one in the necessary frame of mind.

Indeed, those who are capable of doing this during everyday davening have an immediate advantage over those who only work on kavanah during the High Holidays. It's like comparing two contestants in a race - one does jogging on a regular basis, the other went through a quick crash course a week, or even a month, prior to the race. Who do you think will have the easier time of it?

Indeed, we could all improve our yiddishkeit if we took more preparation for mitzvot more seriously. If we treated Erev Shabbat with more awe, if we realised that the pre-pesach period is time for more than just spring cleaning, if we understood that mental preparation is an integral part of doing mitzvot with the proper kavanah, we would all be the better for it.

Shanah Tovah to you all and Ketivah VeHatimah Tovah.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

A commenter on this blog asked whether anyone can rebut our good friend Norman Finkelstein's claims against Israel, which were based almost entirely on reports of various human rights NGOs. Well, here's one of the main reasons that Finkelstein's book should be considered, at most, a tendentious prosecutor's brief - that's how the NGOs work. This according to a an informed critique of Human Rights Watch (there is an even more scathing critique here). Money Quote:

More broadly than that, however, my primary problem with Human Rights Watch's reporting is its lawyerly tendency toward tendentiousness. I mean that Human Rights Watch's reports are not neutral, scrupulously acknowledging the evidence or law or legal views that run against its reporting and legal conclusions. On the contrary, it rather proudly offers what can only be called briefs - shaping the law and evidence towards whatever conclusions it has decided to offer. In occasional conversations I've had with its senior staff and lawyers over the years, they defend this practice on the grounds that it is a legal organization, writing conclusions based on law applied to facts.

In my view, it is, however, a tendentiousness and frankly noxious practice because this 'brief-writing' is aimed not a court, which will at least have the benefit of an opposing counsel's briefs, with a different point of view, but instead a credulous, not well educated, and alas not-so-bright media. The media tend already to share HRW's point of view, and hence tend to ask few questions - if they could even think of any - and mostly wind up quoting the press release. (I don't think anyone - except in the most extraordinary instances, such as the Lebanon war - ever reads the actual reports, least of all the press, and it became something of a joke in the organization, with senior executives pleading with staff not to write so many pages that simpl;y won't get read. I'm sure that during the years I worked with and for HRW, and wrote many reports from the field, no one ever read the actual texts.)

In my view, an organization genuinely scrupulous about its neutrality and objectivity would make a concerted point, in its reports and analyses, of noting the objections that might be raised to its views, on both factual issues as well as legal points of view. It should adopt, that is, a scholarly or historical point of view, rather than that of a lawyer presenting one side to a court. This is not to say that it should not adopt whatever conclusion it thinks is right - but that it should make a genuine point, always, of presenting what a knowledgeable opponent might reasonably say on the other side, rather than relying on the ignorance and credulity and pre-existing sympathy of its media audience to not ask it any hard questions.

Finkelstein, in his zealousness to libel Israel, fell into this trap.

QED (Quod Erat Demonstrandum), or in plain English, I rest my case.

Index Blues

Recently I finished preparing an index for a scholarly volume scheduled to come out in a few months. Along the way I ran into some difficulties with some of the references. In order to prevent this happening in the future, I have prepared some indexer's recommendations for article writers:

1. When referring to an article or book, please write the name of the author/editor in full - both the first and last name - no initials. This includes when you refer to your own work. Doing otherwise forces the indexer to spend a great deal of time playing 'guess the author', or hunting down your self-references.
2. Pick one form of notation or referencing and stick with it. For instance, if you're referring to a passuk, don't change mid-article from 7:13 to 7.13. If you're referring to the Israel State Archives, don't change (if you're writing in Hebrew) from AMI [Archiyon Medinat Yisra'el] to GM [Ginzach hamedinah]. Be consistent.
3. There is such a thing as overkill. There is no need to bring 10 different references or page numbers to make a simple point or mention an uncontested fact - 2 or 3 will do. These additional references only mean more (unnecessary) work for the indexer.

Remember, the faster the indexer's work is finished, the faster your work gets published.

Guess who's up for tenure?

Having learned that a good friend of ours is up for tenure at a "midwestern university", I thought I might write a quiz for those who would like to discover who he is (answer at bottom of post).

1. Who compares Jews and Israelis to Nazis at every given opportunity, to the point where it becomes simply tiresome?
2. Who's "academic record" consists mostly of footnoted op-eds and review essays in journals like the Journal of Palestine Studies?
3. Who attacks others for abusing the Holocaust, yet hides behind his status as a son of survivors?
4. Who has spent most of his free time and energy conducting personal character assassination of Israel supporters?
5. Who denies being an anti-semite, yet wholeheartedly embraces Israel Shahak, known crank and Jewish anti-semite?
6. Who wholeheartedly supports Hizbollah?
7. Who claims "historical concensus" by only mentioning people who agree with him?
8. Who complains that Jews try to hold a monopoly on human suffering, yet does not spend even a fraction of the time he dedicates to Israel-bashing to helping those suffering from genocide (i.e. Darfur)?
9. Who's "academic" works on Israel have received plaudits almost entirely from the looney-left end of the scholarly spectrum? Who is getting references from Noam Chomsky and Avi Shlaim?
10. Who is, contrary to common sense, being given the opportunity to get tenure at a university, when his actual contibutions (journal articles) to Political Science (he's not an historian) approach zero?

Answer: Norman G. Finkelstein

Historical Travesty

In her (justified) attack on the incompetence of Ehud Olmert during the current war (see My Obiter Dicta's latest posts), Dr. Judith Klinghoffer compares him to Levi Eshkol, Prime Minister of Israel from 1963 to 1969, including the Six-Day War. Here Klinghoffer relies on the popular, selective, memory, which remembers Eshkol as a stammering, hesitant, leader, the wrong person at the wrong time, only to be saved by the dashing Dayan who went on to win the war.

Like most popular recollections based on fear and innuendo, it is an inaccuracy filled with half-truths. Dayan certainly got all the glory for the victory, but he did not deserve all the credit. Even Rabin later admitted that Eshkol had been done a disservice by the character assassination done to him before, during and after the war, a tradition which Klinghoffer unfortunately continues.

Recent research has demonstrated that Eshkol was far wiser and more resilient than he is given credit for. I highly recommend reading Dr. Michael Oren's article on Eshkol (free reg' reqd.), which puts Eshkol's performance in its proper place. We can only hope that more such articles will help rehabilitate Eshkol's reputation based on historical facts rather than skewed popular images.