Bishara Act: Racist or Precautious?

Ynet reports on the controversial bill that the Knesset passed yesterday:

The Knesset passed a bill on Monday determining that any Israeli citizen who visits enemy territory without a proper permit will not be able to serve in the Knesset for seven years.
The bill was initiated by MKs Zevulun Orlev (National Union-NRP) and Esterina Tartman (Yisrael Beiteinu), following the affair of MK Azmi Bishara (National Democratic Assembly). The bill was approved by a majority of 52 to 24 MKs. Among those opposed were Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz and Education Minister Yuli Tamir.

This was put into action after the situation with Azmi Bishara who was a Knesset member who frequently visited Syria and openly supported Hizbollah. After a police investigation, he was charged with high treason and forced to resign from the government. This gave the Arab Israeli party he represented, Balad, a bad name, and many people on the right started blacklisting them and saying that they couldn't be trusted.
I don't think that just because one man was trying to play both hands it means that the whole party is corrupt. The right is being reactionary, as they always are, and when it comes to making life harder for Israeli Arabs they jump on the ball.
So now we come to this very fishy bill. Why is it that the two MKs that initiated this bill about Israeli Arabs both come from the far right of Israeli politics? The NRP openly supports forced transfer of Palestinians into Jordan and Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael Beitenu, was quoted advocating for the execution of any Arab MKs who meet with Hamas leaders. I have my doubts trusting the legitimacy of a bill affecting Israeli Arabs by right wingers who have extremely negative attitudes towards them. Yet I'm sure they used their scare tactics to convince the rest of the Knesset (who isn't that far from the views of the right) that without this bill the evil enemy will take over the Israeli government and push all the Jews to the sea. As Tartman exemplifies in the standard right wing language of us versus them:

The Bishara affair and the defiance carried out by many of the Arab MKs, such as their visits to Syria and their meetings with Hamas leaders, are not within the scope of freedom of speech, but rather a blatant encouragement of the armed struggle in Israel and the encouragement of terror against its civilians.
From now on the citizens of Israel can relax – enemies will no longer sit in the house of legislation.

If she considers "enemies" as "Arabs and peacemakers" then I'm sure she's right. I believe this bill is going to make it much harder for there to be negotiations with Hamas and other terrorist organizations (note that these right wingers consider any form of negotiations an act of treason) and if they get their way by making a couple more similar bills, it will rid the Knesset of anyone who shows dissent from their worldview. Luckily, the Arab Knesset members are protesting this bill and urging for reconsideration because of its infringement on minority rights and it's disregard for normal people who have family in the "enemy" countries. Let's hope that the right wing's scare tactics don't overrule the Arab parties' appeals as well.

Rabbi Gabe's New Book

I just picked this book up off the "To Be Reviewed" shelf at Tikkun and it made me really happy. This is the book that Gabe Greenberg, my old counselor and close friend, co-wrote when he was a senior at Wesleyan. Not only is this an amazing achievement for Gabe, but it's also a really important topic at the moment, and it's getting a good amount of press. It was reviewed in the most recent issue of New Voices with an awesome interview with Gabe, and the Amazon site is getting a lot of hits (although, one of the "suggested reading" on that page is The Israel Lobby).
I started reading it so that I can write the review for the next issue of Tikkun, and I'm really enjoying it so far. It's partly a historical analysis of the Western world's relation to Islam, and it's partly a book about how Arabs are conceived in the media, (similar to my last post) focusing on political cartoons and how they represent American society and its anxiety towards Islam.

I can't wait to talk to Gabe about this book, he's a really great guy. He worked at Adamah (which I hope to do someday), then he went to Israel and studied at Hamivtar for a little while, now he's at camp doing an organic farming elective for the kids, and soon he'll be going to rabbinical school.
Kol hakavod, Gabe! Hope that your book becomes standard reading material for classes in Arabs in the Media and Middle East Studies.

Why, Adam Sandler, Why?

Last night I was intending to see this really cool documentary at the Pacific Film Archive called The Decline of Western Civilization (with the director present) about Punk in the early 80's, but it was sold out. So after some discussion, we headed over to pay 10 bucks for Adam Sandler's new movie about an Israeli hair dresser.
I'll admit, it was exactly what I expected it to be. It was incredibly stupid with some funny slapstick and we were the only ones in the theater laughing at the Israeli jokes. But one thing that I didn't expect to see (although I guess I should have) was all the horrendous stereotyping that went on throughout the film. I didn't like constant use of the word feygele to make fun of hair dressers (yet a fair criticism of the macho attitude of Israeli society), and the terrible way that Palestinians were portrayed. Jack Shaheen is having a field day with this movie.
At the beginning there was a funny bit of dialogue that showed that the makers of the movie weren't total Islamophobic idiots. As Zohan, the superhuman Israeli counter-terrorism commando, has a fight scene with Hamas terrorists, in between punches in kicks they begin to argue about the conflict saying, "you know, its not so cut and dry, we've been here for a long time" "Right, and there were never any Jews in the Middle East." After hearing that exchange I had false hopes that the movie would continue with witty, intelligent humor instead of Sandler's usual poo poo jokes, but I was wrong. I should have remembered that movies like this are funny for the first ten minutes in order to hook you, and then they just get stupid.
They started blurring the lines between Arab and Palestinian, at some points given them Saudi head coverings, confusing the Lebanese flag with the Palestinian flag, and persisting the Arab stereotypes that have been going on since the beginning of Hollywood. The writers must have done their homework. I can just see them watching Lawrence of Arabia, taking notes, and saying, "Yeah, thats offensive and inaccurate, let's add that to the storyboard." Having the evil Palestinian leader surrounded by a harem of belly dancers and making the Arabs so incompetent that they couldn't figure out how to make a bomb, forcing them to call the Hizbollah hotline, must have been taken straight out of Arabs in American Media 101.
I understand that stereotypes are funny and that they are an easy way to introduce a character in a short period of time, but we shouldn't be trying to persist those stereotypes. It is movies like these that lead to the experience that I had in the airport in Detroit. Producers should start focusing less on "how can we make the most money with the least amount of thought" and more on "how can we make a great movie that will be funny for a mainstream audience."
Even comedic movies that focus on stereotypes can be made intelligent. Take Borat, for example. It was a smart film because they used stereotypes to poke fun at the kind of people who use and believe these stereotypes. So although there were parts of the movie that seemed anti-semitic, in reality they were making fun of anti-semites and may have even opened peoples consciousness to antisemitism. We need more Sacha Baron Cohen films.

Some PR for graphics art and the NSP

By the way, I made the last two images for Rabbi Lerner as postcards/buttons to that promote the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

JetBlue Cargo Cults

Coming back from the Brit Tzedek V'Shalom conference yesterday, I made a stop at the airport chapel at Dulles International to daven mincha.
I've always found those things intriguing because it's a space for everyone of any faith to pray; in fact it's a beautiful symbol of interfaith acceptance. It's true that not everyone would pray in an interfaith chapel (most notably, ultra-orthodox Jews because you can't daven in a place of avodah zara, and they consider Christianity idolatry), but for the majority of people who would want a space for prayer at an airport, they are placed into a room where all faiths interact, whether they want to or not.
I had prayed in an airport chapel before, but this time I truly had a soulgasm of religious pluralism. I never pray mincha, but I decided to do it that day, so I followed the qiblah arrow in order to find East (I always jitter with interfath excitement when I do that) and I prayed with unbelievable kavana (which happens next to never outside of kabbalat shabbat). When I finished and turned around, there were three other people in the room: a muslim TSA employee doing salah, a Catholic woman kneeling, and a man meditating. It was truly a beautiful sight.
It makes me wonder, what is unique about an airport that such a space can exist? I mean really, an airport? When I think interfaith activity and multiculturalism, certainly that is not the first thing that comes to my head. But it makes sense - everyone has to fly somewhere, sometime. You always see people of all different backgrounds in airports wearing a hijab, or a kippah, or a sari, or a Buddhist robe, so everyone needs to pray too, isn't that why the interfaith chapel exists?
I wouldn't want my davening experience to always be in an interfaith setting because I usually love the exclusivity of my own community synagogue (although there is probably some significance to the fact that I had amazing kavana at that chapel, which is so rare. But then again, maybe it was superficial kavana because I subconsciously wanted to give religious Judaism a good name by giving my audience a show of religious devotion), but it's a great opportunity to experience that, especially in such a random location.

A Utopian Rant. Thanks for that Rabbi Lerner!

Sometimes I feel like the Rabbis kinda hijacked Torah.
Every mitzvah was commanded in order to be suitable for the times. The sacrafices were only done because that was the way people connected to G-d at that time, now we connect through prayer because we have progressed with time. Similarly, we were given loads of laws on kashrut because that's how people ate back then, but now we can be progessive about dietary laws by keeping vegetarian (with a hechsher tzedek of course). So too, we were polygamous at a time and now we stay devoted to one person. It's too bad there is no sanhedrin to be able to further progress in halacha. Hehe, I guess the further West I go, the more liberal I get, and the more I reconnect with my Conservative roots.
But as we can see with the recent ridiculousness of the High Rabbinical Court in Israel, a sanhedrin wouldn't be the best idea at the moment.
The only way that we can progress in halacha is if all Jews can agree on certain changes. And that can only happen if all Jews unilaterally support something (which, at the moment, seems impossible). That's why when every Jew in the world will get together and support something (or at least keep two shabbases) the moshiach will arrive. Only then can we move foreward in halacha towards a place that is objectively progessive towards a utopian society.
Now I understand better why groups like Chabad and Aish are trying to get all Jews to become more religious. I disagree with their method though, I think it is something that can only happen organically and I sure hope that in the times of moshiach everyone will not be either Chabad or Aish. I think pluralism is a more feasible option.
It definitely works, and the more I travel, the more I see it working successfully. I saw it at the Mission Minyan and I saw it on Shavuot. On Shavuot, the entire Jewish community of Berkeley got together and had a unified Tikkun Leil Shavuot where rabbis and scholars of every denomination were giving lectures or programs throughout the night. It was a beautiful thing and someone said it's the only place in the world where that happens. Obviously, not everyone in that room would agree on a utopian vision of society, but I think that working together and having dialogue with each other is better than trying to convince everyone else that your way is right. I don't think that there's one type of Judaism that right. I don't even think my way is right (whatever that way is). Just as Judaism was meant to grow with the times, so will we continue to do so in the future, and the eventual Zion will consist of a society that is greater than any that exist today.
Amen Selah!

Thank G-d it's only Dershowitz we're up against

I just started started working at Tikkun magazine today. Woo!
I had a nice day talking to Rabbi Lerner and meeting the staff. My job for the day was to read his book, Healing Israel/Palestine, all day. It was awesome. It would be even awesomer if I was getting paid to read, but hey, I'm happy where I am.
To be honest, I'm kinda star-struck around Rabbi Lerner. Just look at the size of his wikipedia article!
Anyways, Jen sent me an interesting debate between him and Alan Dershowitz about whether or not people who are critical of Israel are labeled as antisemitic. Dershowitz is a veteran debater and an asshole. He doesn't let Rabbi Lerner speak! And he says, "Find me one leader who labels criticizers of Israel as antisemitic and I will give them a reward." Ok, I agree with you that it would be hard to find a Jewish leader who is so outspoken about being an asshole (although I'm sure we could pin Abe Foxman for something) but its not the leaders who inhibit the possibility of a safe-space for critique, its the communities, the synagogues, the schools, etc. It is not one entity, it is a culture of repression.

But after I watched this debate, I happened upon another debate involving Alan Dershowitz that led me to see him in somewhat of a different light. It is a debate the happened in 1985 between Dershowitz and Rabbi Meir Kahana at Boston University.

It's suprising to see Dershowitz as the lefty. This is definitely a rare sight. It's possible that Dershowitz's views have changed in the past 23 years and that is why he seems like such a good guy, but its also possible that anyone would seem liberal standing next to such a scary figure. Dershowitz himself compares him (to his face) to Louis Farrakhan for the African-Americans or Yasser Arafat for the Palestinians. If I didn't know his stance on terrorism and his staunch support for AIPAC, I would think that Dershowitz is a hero. Certainly in this debate he was.
I feel privileged to have Dershowitz on the Jewish far right, and not a maniac like Kahane. Although I disagree with his views, Dershowitz doesn't scare me. I get angry when I even see pictures of Kahana let alone hear him speak about forced transfer of Palestinians.
Unfortunately, there are still guys who talk like him, but luckily they don't have the charisma or the public support to pose as much of a threat as Kahana did.

Add One to the List!

At some point I'm going to actually compile a list of my favorite rabbis that, in my opinion, are bringing Judaism into the new millennium in a progressive way that is in line with halachic Judaism.
Today's new addition is Rabbi Steven Greenberg AKA the first gay Orthodox rabbi.
When I came home from school, I found his book, Wrestling With G-d and Men, on my kitchen countertop. My sister had been writing a paper for school on homosexuality in the Jewish tradition. She got it from the Gann Academy library, her high school and my alma mater, which is the type of library that would likely carry that book. It's a pluralistic, liberal Jewish high school, that tries to teach the students every aspect of Judaism so that they can decide for themselves how they want to practice. It's partially responsible for my apostasy from Conservative Judaism into whatever I am now (Orthodox?). I'm not really sure what I consider myself. Labels are for jars.
In the first 15 pages of the book he's mentioned almost every organization that I love and that are on my "links" tab (on the left). He started off by talking about how he became Orthodox (which sounded somewhat similar to my experiences) and how he became interested in the liberal, more modern aspects of it which include egalitarianism (which literally means equal leadership), ahavat olam and ahavat yisrael: respect and dignity for all people no matter what they do, and what it means to change halacha. I recommend this book to anyone reading this blog, because if you find me interesting, you'll find him interesting.

links 5/11

Medinat Weimar - The movement for a Jewish state in Thuringia, Deutschland

Think Tank Aims To Infuse Jewish Mainstream With Dashes of Color - Be’Chol Lashon Conference in San Francisco

Boogie Down: Movement and Music in the Middle of Jerusalem - My favorite pluralistic/post-denominational dance party

Large Knit Kippas and Flowy Skirts Not Required: Neo-Soul Hippie Culture in Israel - Me in a nutshell. I'm facebook friends with multiple people interviewed in this article

Anarchists and Jewish Nationalists - I'm not done reading this yet but it's fascinating so far

Smoking Is Bad (with the exception of hookah, cloves, and pot)

Smoking is Bad