| Pfeffer seems to be correct in a literal sense in arguing that the restoration of Jewish sovereignty, on the one hand, and the decision in 1967 not to rebuild the Temple, on the other hand, makes it time to declare the fast of Tisha b' Av suspended. It seems to me that the only reason for continuing to treat the day as one of mourning is either as a day for recalling past tragedies and sufferings which historical restitution alone can never truly rectify, or because the restoration of Jewish sovereignty aside, we still hunger for a redemption (human, socio-political, ecological, spiritual) that is scarcely any closer despite this restoration. If the latter is our rationale for mourning and fasting then we should acknowledge that we yearn for a perfection that never existed before, not in Temple times, and never since. Moreover, we modern Jews should be explicit in affirming that we have no desire to restore the Temple or any aspect of Jewish life that existed in that era. Indeed, Pfeffer's main worry might be that the fast day is so wedded to the idealization of the Temple period that participating in the rites associated with the 9th of Av cannot but send the wrong message to political friends and opponents alike, a message we ought not send. | |
| Anshel Pfeffer / It is wrong to fast on Tisha B'Av - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News Source: haaretz.com | |
| Michael Gottsegen sent this using ShareThis. | |
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Michael Gottsegen has shared: Anshel Pfeffer / It is wrong to fast on Tisha B'Av - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Levinas on Israel, 1968: Challenging Us Still Today
In a 1968 essay, "Space is not One-Dimensional," Emmanuel Levinas writes about the uniqueness of Israel as a state in words which today must strike us as so naive. And yet, if the citizens and leaders of the State of Israel, and those Jews of the Diaspora who still care enough to bother, were to take up the challenge which his words express -- for not even in 1968 could these words have been read as articulating a self-evident truth -- perhaps the hope and the project could still be rekindled.
Levinas writes:
“It is not because the Holy Land takes the form of a State that it brings the Reign of the Messiah any closer, but because the men who inhabit it try to resist the temptations of politics; because this State, proclaimed in the aftermath of Auschwitz, embraces the teaching of the prophets; because it produces abnegation and self-sacrifice…. [and because] it tear[s] us out of our conformism and material comforts, dispersion and alienation, and reawaken in us a demand for the [ethical] Absolute” (Difficult Freedom, pp. 263-264)
Levinas writes:
“It is not because the Holy Land takes the form of a State that it brings the Reign of the Messiah any closer, but because the men who inhabit it try to resist the temptations of politics; because this State, proclaimed in the aftermath of Auschwitz, embraces the teaching of the prophets; because it produces abnegation and self-sacrifice…. [and because] it tear[s] us out of our conformism and material comforts, dispersion and alienation, and reawaken in us a demand for the [ethical] Absolute” (Difficult Freedom, pp. 263-264)
Friday, June 4, 2010
Block arms to Hamas not Products needed by Gazan Civilians for a Life of Dignity
A letter to a friend who thought me naive to doubt the IDF's claim that aboard the Marmara were Al Qaeda operatives (See http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/)
If you look at Blumenthal's blog entry, you can see that the IDF pulled back from the initial claim re Al Qaeda, which is why I brought this to your attention. That being said, I am not so naive as to think that the blockade of weapons and war material into Gaza is unnecessary or should not be maintained. I think it is Israel's right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to do all it can to stanch the flow of weapons into Gaza. Hamas is a sworn enemy of Israel. To allow ships and trucks to pass into Gaza unimpeded or un-inspected would be reckless, and no government in the world would do so. It is thus extraordinary hypocrisy when the world criticizes Israel for what any nation would do to protect itself and its citizens.
But all of this being said, I would also say that Israel ought not to impose indiscriminate, collective economic punishment upon the people of Gaza, even if it is the case that the people of Gaza voted for Hamas in a previous election. If you look at the list of embargoed goods, you can see that Israel is as much concerned with making life in Gaza miserable as it is with keeping weapons out of Hamas's hands. The government's calculation has clearly been that if we make things bad enough for the people of Gaza, they will turn against Hamas. Conversely, Israel does not want the Palestinians in Gaza to enjoy such material prosperity that they might continue to support Hamas. Alas, the PA, its crocodile tears for their brethren in Gaza notwithstanding, are quite happy with the Israeli embargo since they are as loathe to see Hamas prosper.
But proceeding in this way, where the injury to the civilians of Gaza is not even collateral damage but intentional harm in the hope of turning the people against Hamas, is morally wrong and has already failed politically. Moreover, the policy is doing grave damage to Israel's standing abroad, even with those who are not its enemies and who are its sometime friends. For all of these reasons, there is a need to open the borders to civilian and even to some "dual-use" goods (such as building supplies), while creating a tough inspection regime to ensure that no weapons or weapon components are able to enter Gaza. This inspection regime alone will be enough to make certain that Gaza does not become an Iranian port on the Mediterranean.
In all of this, I may not be 100% correct -- since such certainty is not available with respect to worldly affairs -- but this is hardly a "naive" view.
If you look at Blumenthal's blog entry, you can see that the IDF pulled back from the initial claim re Al Qaeda, which is why I brought this to your attention. That being said, I am not so naive as to think that the blockade of weapons and war material into Gaza is unnecessary or should not be maintained. I think it is Israel's right and the responsibility of the Israeli government to do all it can to stanch the flow of weapons into Gaza. Hamas is a sworn enemy of Israel. To allow ships and trucks to pass into Gaza unimpeded or un-inspected would be reckless, and no government in the world would do so. It is thus extraordinary hypocrisy when the world criticizes Israel for what any nation would do to protect itself and its citizens.
But all of this being said, I would also say that Israel ought not to impose indiscriminate, collective economic punishment upon the people of Gaza, even if it is the case that the people of Gaza voted for Hamas in a previous election. If you look at the list of embargoed goods, you can see that Israel is as much concerned with making life in Gaza miserable as it is with keeping weapons out of Hamas's hands. The government's calculation has clearly been that if we make things bad enough for the people of Gaza, they will turn against Hamas. Conversely, Israel does not want the Palestinians in Gaza to enjoy such material prosperity that they might continue to support Hamas. Alas, the PA, its crocodile tears for their brethren in Gaza notwithstanding, are quite happy with the Israeli embargo since they are as loathe to see Hamas prosper.
But proceeding in this way, where the injury to the civilians of Gaza is not even collateral damage but intentional harm in the hope of turning the people against Hamas, is morally wrong and has already failed politically. Moreover, the policy is doing grave damage to Israel's standing abroad, even with those who are not its enemies and who are its sometime friends. For all of these reasons, there is a need to open the borders to civilian and even to some "dual-use" goods (such as building supplies), while creating a tough inspection regime to ensure that no weapons or weapon components are able to enter Gaza. This inspection regime alone will be enough to make certain that Gaza does not become an Iranian port on the Mediterranean.
In all of this, I may not be 100% correct -- since such certainty is not available with respect to worldly affairs -- but this is hardly a "naive" view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)