Zionism

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Plug-In: More Moore on values voters and what appears to be a permanent Trump effect

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Plug-In: More Moore on values voters and what appears to be a permanent Trump effect

Among the week’s intriguing headlines: Pope Francis is hurrying to bolster his progressive legacy as his health problems increase, the Wall Street Journal’s Francis X. Rocca reports.

In Israel, the political rise of ultra-Orthodox Jews is shaking the nation’s sense of identity, the WSJ’s Dov Lieber and Shayndi Raice note. A related major vote is expected as soon as Sunday.

In the U.S., a crowded field of GOP presidential candidates is vying for the Christian Zionist vote as Israel’s rightward shift spurs protests, according to The Associated Press’ Tiffany Stanley.

Also, “the Robert F. Kennedy boomlet is over,” Semafor’s Benjy Sarlin opines. Before it ended (or not, since he isn’t that interested in mainstream press views), the Democratic presidential candidate gave an exclusive, nearly 40-minute interview to Jewish News Syndicate’s Menachem Wecker.

The King’s College in New York is canceling fall classes and laying off faculty but insists it’s not closing, as Emily Belz at Christianity Today and Meagan Saliashvili at Religion News Service explain.

This is our weekly roundup of the top headlines and best reads in the world of faith. We start with former President Donald Trump’s lingering hold on right-wing voters.

What To Know: The Big Story

More of the same: “One of former President Donald Trump’s most steadfast evangelical critics said he expects Trump to be the Republican nominee in 2024, and that the years since Trump’s election in 2016 have been an ‘apocalypse.’”

“There’s a wide-open choice, and still you have a majority in the Republican primary behind Trump,” Christianity Today editor-in-chief Russell Moore tells Yahoo News’ Jon Ward. “I would be shocked if he’s not the Republican nominee.” Moore has a new book, ”Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America,” which releases July 25.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Growing Haredi numbers poised to alter global Judaism. Maybe press should cover this?

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Growing Haredi numbers poised to alter global Judaism. Maybe press should cover this?

The Holocaust devastated European Jewry. The most strictly religious among them — the mystical-oriented Hasidic followers of historic rabbinic lineages and the mitnagdim, Hasidism’s more intellectually focused religious critics — suffered some of the worst losses.

Their insularity and suspicion of the larger world served them poorly at a time when maneuverability and adaptability might have helped them flee Nazi Europe for safety. Instead, they turned their noses up at non-Orthodox Jews and avoided dealing with non-Jews as much as possible.

This was true for both Hasidic and mitnagdim Jews, who are often lumped together by outsiders under the rubric “ultra-Orthodox.”

It’s a label many of them reject; they argue there’s nothing “ultra” about them and that they’re only adhering closely to what they think of as “normative” rabbinic Judaism.

In Hebrew, they’re called Haredi or Haredim, the plural. That’s how I’ll refer to them in this post.

Samuel Heilman, an American academic expert on Haredi life, wrote the following on the subject for a PBS show on Hasidic Jews.

The three things the rebbes told their Hasidim to do led to their being blown away. The rebbes said: "Don't go to America, the treyfe medina (the unclean country), and don't go to the Zionist state, Palestine. Don't change your clothes or learn the surrounding language." So they couldn't disguise themselves or pass as gentiles. And, the rebbes said, "Stay close to me." They did stay close to the rebbes, but many of the rebbes [the Belzer, the Satmar, the Gerer] ran off and left all their people to die.

David Ben-Gurion, the secular Jewish Zionist leader who was Israel’s first prime minister, was convinced that circumstances following World War II would further depress Haredi numbers. Back then, the Haredim comprised just 5 percent of Mandatory Palestine’s pre-state Jewish population.

However to gain United Nations backing for an independent Jewish state, Ben-Gurion believed he had to show full Jewish unity for such a move. That included Haredi support.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Covering the Goyim Defense League: Does news about anti-Semitism inspire copycats?

, , , , , , , ,
Covering the Goyim Defense League: Does news about anti-Semitism inspire copycats?

Ahad Ha’am, considered the father of “cultural Zionism,” is quoted as saying: “More than Jews have kept Shabbat (Hebrew for “sabbath”), Shabbat has kept the Jews.”

Ha’am’s comment is a recognition of the cohesive power inherent in widely shared group traditions and tribal memories. Call it positive re-enforcement.

But similar sentiments have been expressed about anti-Semitism’s influence on Jews. In short, do communal fears over anti-Semitism also keep Jews connected to this day? After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend — even if I utterly reject my newfound ally’s particular expression of Jewish religion, politics or lifestyle. Call it negative re-enforcement, if you will, but fear of persecution, and certainly death, is a powerful motivator of group cooperation.

Switching lanes now, here’s a journalistic question about anti-Semitism. Does giving anti-Semitism extensive coverage — warranted though it may be — prompt more anti-Semites to act out publicly? Does publicity embolden and thus spark potential copycat anti-Semitism?

I have no doubt that the current global upswing in reported anti-Semitic incidents — some deadly, some just irritating — requires heavy coverage.

Journalists have a responsibility to alert authorities to anti-Semitism’s illegal expression, to warn Jews about the dangers they face, and to try to educate those media consumers who know little about anti-Semitism’s impact and incubators.

This responsibility, of course, extends beyond Jews to cover all groups suffering discrimination or persecution. Hatred of Jews may be, as has been said, the oldest hatred, but all hatred is equally wrong and personally and communally destructive.

As journalists, we don’t just report the news. We help shape it, and civilization, by what we report.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Many pieces in this news puzzle: New Israeli coalition reflects land's complex religiosity

, , , , , , , , , , ,
Many pieces in this news puzzle: New Israeli coalition reflects land's complex religiosity

What does it say about Israel that its founding prime minister was someone who today might be labeled a “BuJew,” a Jew strongly attracted to Buddhist philosophy? Or that it took Israel more than 70 years to produce a prime minister who identifies with Orthodox Judaism?

The BuJew prime minister was, of course, the otherwise secular David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s George Washington equivalent. Ben-Gurion actually took several days during a 1961 two-week state visit to Burma (today’s Myanmar) to attend a Buddhist retreat. I can’t imagine an Israeli prime minister doing that today given the Jewish state’s current political turmoil and Orthodoxy’s influence.

The first Orthodox prime minister is set to be Naftali Bennett, who as of this writing is scheduled to command the top spot in Israel’s nascent anti-Netanyahu governing coalition, itself tentatively set to formally assume office within days.

Again, what does all of this say? A lot, I’d argue, about Israel’s religious complexity and the degree to which religion and politics are tightly intertwined, perhaps inseparably so, in Israel (and the Middle East in general, but that’s a larger topic for another day).

I’d also argue it underscores the importance for journalists opining on Israel to be well versed on its religious politics — from its varied and often antagonistic Jewish factions, to its distinctive Arab Muslim, Christian and Druse communities — if they are to adequately explain the thinking that goes into Israeli decision making.

Consider the following. Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, the longtime right-wing prime minister, is a secular Jew, as are most Israeli Jews. Yet he nonetheless enjoyed the support of his nation’s ultra-Orthodox parties. Netanyahu gained their support by including the parties in his ruling coalitions, giving them great access and sometimes control over public funds needed for their community institutions and economic safety nets.

Bennett, meanwhile, has gained the condemnation of several leading Orthodox Jews, even though identifies with this religious descriptor.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , ,

Press coverage of Mount Meron tragedy offers window into Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jews

, , , , , ,
Press coverage of Mount Meron tragedy offers window into Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jews

By now most GetReligion readers are likely aware of the fatal crushing of 45 Jewish pilgrims during a religious festival at Mount Meron in Israel’s north at the end of April. It’s been called one of the worst, if not the worst, civilian tragedy in Israel’s history.

(Sadly, the Meron tragedy has been superseded in the news by the serious explosion of Israeli-Palestinian violence this week. But as sad as this is — and as a Jew and a Zionist I find it almost debilitatingly sad —that’s not the subject of this post, so let’s return to Meron.)

For those in need of a refresher, here’s an early Times of Israel news story on the Meron catastrophe.

The sudden and dramatic loss of more than four dozen lives is, of course, a national trauma for a relatively small country such as Israel, which is not much larger than New Jersey. As has been noted elsewhere, “numbers numb.”

Among the dead were six Americans. Other victims came from Canada and Argentina. The youngest of the dead was a boy of nine. Some 150 others were injured.

Beyond the deaths themselves, the Meron incident surfaced major — and intricately interwoven — political and religious implications for Israel. That’s not an unusual mashup in Israel, where the divide between religion and state is near impossible to discern.

For journalists, the tragedy also underscores a Journalism 101 reality of the craft. Which is that the most interesting public commentators are often those closest to the story, such as varied eyewitnesses and longstanding, articulate members or observers of whatever groups are germane to the story.

I’ll say more about this below. First, some pertinent background.

The Meron tragedy took place on the Jewish holiday of Lag B’Omer. Because this is generally considered a minor holiday by most Jews, it’s largely ignored by the theologically liberal in Israel and elsewhere.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , ,

What's a hot take on Israel worth? Depends on one's media celebrity status (Hello Seth Rogen)

, , , , , , , , ,

How do you tell the difference between a Jewish pessimist and a Jewish optimist?

Easy. The pessimist says, “Things just can’t get any worse. The optimist says, “Sure they can.”

Well, they certainly have — as far as the fraught connection between Israel and liberal American Jews goes.

The latest stressor is a predictably nasty media exchange over high-profile liberal commentator Peter Beinart’s recent declaration that he no longer backs a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

A single bi-national, or perhaps a confederated, state, said Beinart, is the best remaining equitable option. This, he concluded, is because of Israel’s deeply entrenched West Bank settlement project. Further undermining the two-state option, he said, is Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s threat to annex much of the occupied West Bank that Palestinians want to include in their own independent state.

Beinart detailed his thoughts in this New York Times oped and, in much greater detail, in this Jewish Currents essay.

For liberal Jews — who have long argued that two independent states coexisting side by side, one Jewish-run and one Palestinian, is the best and only realistic option — Beinart’s abandonment of full Jewish nationhood was nothing less than Zionist heresy.

Naturally, given today’s insatiable 24/7 media universe — in which all who dare venture are but a tweet away from “woke” fame or “cancel culture” renunciation — the verbal warfare started immediately.

Beinart’s, you may be wondering, is but one voice in a cacophony of voices claiming to know what’s best for Israel-Palestine, so why the fuss? Moreover, he lives in the United States, not Israel, so to what degree does his opinion even matter?

The answer, of course, is his American media prominence. His frequent talking-head appearances, (he’s a CNN regular) and voluminous writings have won him a place in the liberal Zionist media firmament, where he’s long been a harsh critic of Netanyahu and Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. That’s not Hollywood famous, but it’s a start.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

Christian Zionism: Theology shmology. We're talking about another culture war punching bag

, , , , , , , ,
Christian Zionism: Theology shmology. We're talking about another culture war punching bag

I’m back — for which I apologize to those readers who hoped to be rid of me. What I will not apologize for is my good fortune to have, so far, outwitted the health-care industry. This despite what I consider some lamebrain screw ups by a few of its practitioners.

Not that I’m totally ungrateful. Medical surgeons possess extraordinary mechanical skills. Just like the best computer technicians and car mechanics. The problem is that health care has become way too specialized, leaving some practitioners unable to consider the patient as a unified field. Drug “A” may be great for gout, but how does it interact with statins? Can beta blockers negatively impact kidney function? You get the idea. Think holistically because your doctor may not. Ask questions. Do your own research.

But enough. Last I checked Get Religion was still about the business of journalism about religion. So consider this our segue.

The occasion for my return is a review of a new book on Christian Zionism that ran in the liberal American Jewish publication The Forward. For reasons beyond all sound judgement, some of the more anarchistic voices at GR thought I might want to offer an opinion. Clearly a setup, but how could I refuse?

The review in question ran under a challenging headline: “Why Everything You Think You Know About Christian Zionism Is Wrong,” and was penned by Rafael Magarik, an English professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

The book was produced by religion and foreign policy maven Daniel G. Hummel, who is associated with Upper House, which for lack of a better term I’ll call a sort of a Christian think tank at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Hummel titled his book, “Covenant Brothers: Evangelicals, Jews, And U.S.-Israeli Relations.”

I have not read Hummel’s book, and I probably won’t (over the years I’ve read my fill on the subject, both pro and con). Nor, I’d wager, will most of those who already have a firm opinion about the intent, value or theological underpinnings of contemporary Christian Zionism.

Which is entirely the point of Magarik’s review — a verbal dart aimed at the vast majority of liberal Jews (in Israel and elsewhere), and equally liberal Christians, not to mention Muslims of all ideological stratums, who look upon Christian Zionists with utter political disdain.


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , , , ,

Another strong EU anti-Semitism warning. And yes, journalists should keep covering this story

, , , , , , , , , ,
Another strong EU anti-Semitism warning. And yes, journalists should keep covering this story

My wife was born in Israel and most of her extended family still lives there. We have several close friends living there, plus I also have journalist friends and acquaintances in Israel.

It’s wonderful to have so many people I care about in a nation to which I’m deeply connected. However, this means that when we visit, which is often, we generally have a packed schedule. This leaves us little down time for rest and seeking out new experiences, even when we’re there for a couple of weeks or more.

So for that we schedule stopovers in Europe, either going or coming. Just the two of us and a rented car, exploring and hanging out where our interests take us, including  beautiful and nourishing environments. We're also drawn to Jewish historical sites, old synagogues and the like.

We’re now thinking about another trip to Israel this spring or summer. But this time, we’re considering skipping our usual European respite. Why? Because of the increasingly overt anti-Semitism.

We have no desire to either experience it anew or spend our money in societies where the dislike of Jews and Israel are menacingly on the rise.

A disturbing survey, released just last week, by the European Union on the growing insecurity of the continent's Jews — and their increased desire to emigrate — prompted our reevaluation. Here’s part of how Bloomberg reported the survey's chief findings.

Insecurity fueled by anti-Semitism prompted a growing number of British, German and Swedish Jews to consider leaving their countries, according to a landmark survey conducted by the European Union.

Nine out of every 10 Jews sense anti-Semitism is getting worse with some of the most acute concern registered in northern Europe, according to the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The survey is the largest of its kind worldwide and polled more than 16,000 Jews in 12 countries.

“Mounting levels of anti-Semitism continue to plague the EU,” said Michael O’Flaherty, the Irish human rights lawyer who runs the Vienna-based agency. “Across 12 EU member states where Jews have been living for centuries, more than 1/3 say that they consider emigrating because they no longer feel safe as Jews.”

Concerns over safety are prompting Jewish communities in some of the EU’s biggest economies to question whether they should remain, according to the data. In Germany, their share soared to 44 percent from 25 percent six years ago.


The BBC ran its online story on the survey under the headline, “Anti-Semitism pervades European life, says EU report.”

Let that sink in for a moment. “Pervades.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy
, , , , , , , ,

PBS story on Iran's Jews hurt by failure to fully explain what captive minorities must do to survive

, , , , , , , ,
PBS story on Iran's Jews hurt by failure to fully explain what captive minorities must do to survive

Captive minorities in nations ruled by all-controlling despots play by the rules — or else. Iran’s estimated 9,000-15,000 Jews, one of the world’s most ancient Jewish communities, are a case in point.

Why? Because playing by the rules is just what happened recently when a visiting PBS journalist came calling on Iran’s Jews — with Teheran’s explicit permission, of course.

You’ll recall that Iran’s leaders constantly call for Israel’s physical destruction and that Teheran funds Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas. Both proxies are also sworn to destroy Israel.

This means that Iranian Jews are between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Many of them have relatives in Israel, and the Jewish homeland is where their biblical-era ancestors fled from some 2,700 years ago, when forced into exile.

In late November, one of PBS’s premiere news platforms, “PBS NewsHour,” broadcast a piece that, like other attempts to explain the Iranian Jewish community, came up frustratingly short.

Once again, those Iranian Jews interviewed on camera said what they always say, which is that life for them in Iran is, on balance, secure — though not always perfectly so — and that Israel is their enemy simply because it's their government's enemy.

What else could they say in a nation where just one politically suspect utterance by a Jewish community member, particularly if made to a foreign media outlet, could mean devastating consequences for them and their co-religionists?

(“Special correspondent” Reza Sayah did note some of the tightly controlled circumstances in which Iran’s Jewish minority survives as second-class citizens. But PBS could have added the comments of an outside expert or two to more fully explain the Iranian context. I can’t help wonder why that didn't happen.)

Here’s the lede-in to the NewsHour story, lifted from the segment’s transcript:

Jewish people have called Iran home for nearly 3,000 years. The Trump administration and U.S. ally Israel often depict the Iranian government as composed of anti-Semitic radical Islamists bent on destroying Israel. But within Iran, many of the estimated 15,000 Jews say they're safe and happy living in the Islamic Republic. Reza Sayah takes a rare inside look at life for Iran's Jewish minority.

“Safe and happy”? Perhaps in a Potemkin village sort of way.


Please respect our Commenting Policy