Advertisement
Jewcy Book Club
Welcome Authors
Martin Samuel Cohen
& Frances Dinkelspiel
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
- 12/01: Benyamin Cohen
- 12/01: Matthew Rothschild
- 12/08: Seth Greenland
Blogroll
FAITHHACKER
Mitzvah of the Week: Love Your Neighbor Like Yourself |
|
 by Tamar Fox, November 9, 2007 |
|
TAGS:
People like to apply this mitzvah to just about any situation, and it makes me crazy that we often end up overlooking the most literal interpretation. You have to be nice to your neighbors. In my case this means keeping the music and partying down after midnight, and remembering to wheel the garbage can to the front of the driveway. I was thinking about it today because I was reading the news today and noticed a story about Rabbis for Human Rights helping out Palestinian olive farmers who routinely have to deal with harassment and theft from Israeli settlers. I have a cousin who used to be one of those settlers, and while I have a variety of unpleasantly themed feeling about his politics, what I really can’t get over in this scenario is how incredibly rude he was to someone who essentially lived in his backyard.
Olive Farmers: probably don't play techno at 1 in the morning
It’s comforting to see that there are still groups of people dedicated to making nice with the neighbors, and even helping them out they’re in need. If you’re in Israel now and would like to help pick olives with Palestinian farmers, Rabbis for Human Rights is still looking for volunteers, through December 15th. You can call 02-6482757 to sign up, or visit their website. You can read articles about the olive harvest here (English) and here (Hebrew).
And before people rip me a new one in the comments, I want to mention that I absolutely think that the Palestinians have done a generally crappy job of being good neighbors, but that doesn’t exempt us from the mitzvah.
 |
Tamar Fox has an MFA from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, but she still doesn't like sweet tea. Born and raised in Chicago, she's also lived in Iowa City, Dublin, Oxford, and Jerusalem. When she's not rocking out at honky tonks she teaches More... |
Did mom or dad destroy marital sex?
One novelist's erotic adventures with the hot governor of a cold...
Six months of Jewcy's Iran coverage
Rabbis want to ban unmarried women from the ritual bath.
An ancient virtue hampers the fight against extreme poverty
| Dev Blog | Privacy | FAQ | Contact | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Anonymous
Imagine that. Dispossessed from their land, prevented from moving freely, going to school, getting to hospitals, subject to arbitrary military "justice", liable to have their homes demolished with little notice, forced to endure continuous harrassment at the hands of armed psychos from Brooklyn who believe a blazing shrub told them they own Palestine-and those pesky Palestinians haven't been good neighbors.
Must be genetic. Ismail.zbird
That a comment Tamar made in good faith to avoid getting ripped in the comments actually attracted hostility. More than any other issue, Israel/Palestine has a way of attracting people who insist on showing complete hostility to one side or the other and refuse to acknowledge any blame may lie with "their" side.
--Z
Anonymous
Judging from the context of her remark, Tamar was proactively insulating herself from the imagined ire of partisans of Israeli policy who may have thought she was going too easy on the Palestinians. Nothing ironic at all in pointing out the political myopia behind such a fear.
And please, don't confuse principled objection to a political delusion with hostility, and lay off the namby-pamby "everyone's a little right, everyone's a little wrong" banalities, would you? Please advise if there is any other significant political disagreement in which this spineless trope occurs with such frequency. It may be true that all perspectives have some particle of reason supporting them, but so what? Should that require that we put the brakes on our deeply held beliefs? I'm sure there are lovely Israelis who desire peace, just as I'm sure there are reprehensible Palestinians. So what? Taken as a whole, the historical evidence suggests to me that Israel has, since its inception and under many different regimes, made the dispossession of the Palestinians a conscious element of its statecraft. You may disagree (or, like Benny Morris, you may agree but cheer these disgusting actions anyway), but please come up with (what you imagine are) substantive reasons for your misapprehensions, rather than this silly incantation about there being enough blame to go around. IsmailAnonymous
You’re right Ismail, Israel has dispossessed Palestinians since it’s statehood. And Palestinians have mercilessly cold bloodedly walked into buses, cafe's, schools, etc. and blown innocent people to bits and maimed countless others. They are sick bloodthirsty evil people with nothing but hatred and murder in their hearts, and all Israel has done in response is disposes them and give them land and try to make peace. That makes Israel nice neighbors in my book, and the Palestinians, evil horrible disgusting bad neighbors.
Anonymous
Anon. 2:37-
So I take it that you too disagree with zbird's notions about both sides sharing a measure of blame in the Mideast. Other than that, though, I'm afraid there isn't a particle of lucidity in your post. To begin with, Israel's deliberate dispossession of the Palestinians began before its declaration of statehood. Also, the awful suicide bombings to which you refer are a relatively recent expression of resistance, and cannot therefore explain away Israel's long history of aggression in the manner you seem to intend. Your assertion that all Israel has done is try to make peace demonstrates a lack of acquaintance with reality to beggar the ravings of the average subway mumbler. And your smug assurances about the contents of the average Palestinian heart are simple racism, ugly and unadorned. Your post didn't really merit a response, but I'm waiting for my toast to come up so I thought I'd perform a charity to the planet while I had a free moment. Oh, one more thing; proofreading is your friend. Get to know him. IsmailAdam Shprintzen
Ismail,
I'm offended by your sexist assertion that proofreading (an inherently positive venture) would be anthropomorphized as a male. Clearly such language illustrates a significant gender bias on your part. Ha! Sorry, could't resist. Besides, really what could be added to the thread of comments here. Oy. Blood thirsty? Really anon?zbird
You state that Tamar was "proactively insulating herself from the imagined ire of partisans of Israeli policy." All she said was that Palestinians have not been "good neighbors" a rather bland euphemism for waging a decades-long, vicious terror campaign aimed primarily at civilians. The fact that you consider anyone who would acknowledge Palestinian terrorism to be a "partisan of Israeli policy" just reinforces my point that you have no objectivity and will call the day night if it means the Israelis are guilty and the Palestinians are right.
But you are obviously smart and well-informed enough to have seen evidence on both sides, which causes you to hedge, even as you criticize me for hedging. You state: "Taken as a whole, the historical evidence suggests to me that Israel
has, since its inception and under many different regimes, made the
dispossession of the Palestinians a conscious element of its statecraft." Taken as whole it suggests to you? That doesn't sound like a "deeply held belief." It sounds like a prejudice, most likely supported by your ethnic/religious identity, that you will interpret the historical record to support.
As for my position: I think there can be no doubt the dispossession of the Palestinians has been Israeli policy at different times, and that Israel's settlement policy (particularly after Oslo) has been reprehensible. But I also believe that Israeli policy on multiple occasions was open to either Palestinian statehood or to allowing another arab country to take over Palestinian land held by Israel, and that every time the Palestinians responded by refusing any solution that allowed Israel to continue to exist as a viable state. I believe the Palestinians have created a religious and educational establishment devoted to fomenting hatred and antisemitism. That's why I said there's plenty of blame to go around. You may call it "namby-pamby," but I still think it's the truth.
Finally, you ask me to name another significant political disagreement in which "everyone's a little right," and "everyone's a little wrong." Can you really not think of any? Sure, there are issues so closely lined up with good/evil, right/wrong, that no compromise is permitted. But if you are not foaming at the mouth with ideology, you will find almost every political disagreement is based on both sides being partly right. (to paraphrase Ken Wilber, nobody is smart enough to be wrong all the time). There are so many examples I don't even know where to begin, but just because you asked for examples I'll arbitrarilty bring up a few:
1. Trade: Free-traders are right that lowering barriers to trade will increase overall prosperity. Anti-globalists are right that not everyone benefits.
2. Immigration: Pro-immigration people are right that we shouldn't be prejudiced against immigrants and that immigrants have contributed to the USA's prosperity and greatness. Anti-immigration people are right that the US can't accept every poor and dispossessed person on earth and that immigration lowers wages of the poorest and lowest-skilled American workers.
3. Death penalty: Opponents are correct that there are way too many false convictions for us to feel comfortable executing anyone. Proponents may have a point that each execution could deter multiple murderers.
4. Affirmative action: Proponents are correct that we have a history of racism that affects the present which needs to be dealt with. Opponents are correct that racial preferences of any kind are problematic and that affirmative action has had very limited results.
5. WWI: I bring up this dusty historical example because it happened too long ago for most people to have an emotional/ideological prejudice about it. With the objectivity that comes from nearly a century of history, can anyone really blame this global cluster-fuck on any side in particular?
--Z
Anonymous
Adam-
Are you saying that proofreading isn't an inherently broad-shouldered, stiff-dicked, beer-swilling, loudly-burping endeavor? What kind of pantywaist bullshit are you trying to peddle over here? Zbird- Where to begin? Let me first quote you: "But you are obviously smart and well-informed enough to have seen evidence on both sides, which causes you to hedge, even as you criticize me for hedging. You state: "Taken as a whole, the historical evidence suggests to me that Israelhas, since its inception and under many different regimes, made the
dispossession of the Palestinians a conscious element of its statecraft." Taken as whole it suggests to you? That doesn't sound like a "deeply held belief." It sounds like a prejudice, most likely supported by your ethnic/religious identity, that you will interpret the historical record to support." Apart from the "smart and well-informed" part, you've got everything absolutely wrong here. The point I was making is that all historical quarrels have some elements of ambiguity, but that this in no way makes a difference to holding a strong belief supporting one position or the other. How could this not be so, unless one avows fundamentalist and Manichean notions of truth. How else does one come to a "deeply held belief" except by looking at the evidence "taken as a whole"? Do I think that some Southern blacks at the beginning of the 19th century engaged in criminal practices? Sure. Should this in any way vitiate my opposition to slavery? Not a bit. The overarching concern in this case is that white people behaved badly to Africans. I'm happy to acknowledge that not all Africans were saints, but in this context, I don't care, and efforts towards what superficially looks like equity in blameworthiness are perverse. Put another way, I don't need to endorse the idea that one party is entirely irredeemable and the other unblemished in order to take a robust stance for one or the other. "...Israeli policy on multiple occasions was open to either Palestinian statehood or to allowing another arab country to take over Palestinian land held by Israel, and that every time the Palestinians responded by refusing any solution that allowed Israel to continue to exist as a viable state."
This assertion is simply false. Arafat offered peace on condition that Israel withdraw to the Green Line and share Jerusalem, and similar proposals have been offered since. These were stupid concessions for Arafat to make, of course, but I didn't write his lines-I'm just reporting them. Anyway, perhaps you can instruct me on how these proposals fail to permit Israel's continuance as a viable state.
As for your casual suggestion that "another Arab state" could take over the IOT.....well, I guess you got me there. We all know that one Arab's the same as another, they're all just one undifferentiated mass of swarth and venom, culturally and religiously and politically fungible. How obstinate and ungrateful are these Levantines! A good faith offer from their occupiers to be turned over to one of their numberless brethren, and they hold out! Blackguards!
I said that in no other significant dispute does the debating gambit of pointing out the rights and wrongs on both sides occur as frequently as it does when talking I/P. Your litany of what you imagine to be counterexamples misses the point. Reciting each side's positions doesn't illuminate anything. Could it be a surprise to anyone that, e.g., anti-immigration folks have reasons for what they believe, as do their opponents? The point is that few folks allow that homely triviality to prevent them from making a judgement about what they themselves believe.
So of course I didn't mean that partisans of one political position or another are unaware of the other side's argument. I simply mean that, taken as a whole, they believe their own arguments are more persuasive. This is as it should be, else we would all stand around with our thumbs up our respective asses. Only when it comes to I/P is this simple truth forgotten, replaced by cries of equal claims to the land, tragically complex reality and similar nonsense.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Naw, dont worry about it, you dont need to register. Thanks though.
tarfon
Yishar kohech.
Anonymous
I don't know if I agree to that.....
Zeevico
Tamar makes an excellent point--those settlers that participate in this sort of behaviour are reprehensible and criminal.
Ismail: Arafat's offer was meaningless because he insisted on retaining the 'Right of Return' for Palestinian refugees and their descendants. I don't presume to enter into a debate into whether those refugees were dispossessed or chose to leave. Frankly the distinction, moral or otherwise, is meaningless. But permitting those refugees and their descendants to return is something Israeli Jews refuse to do. Until Palestinians resign themselves to the reality of a 'Jewish-Zionist State' there simply will not be a 'peace' agreement in the region between Israeli Jews* and Palestinians. Should they do so, large sectors of the Israeli public would be quite willing to accommodate their desire for an independent Palestinian state. Recognition of a Palestinian state 'in theory' is no longer an issue for the majority of the Israeli public.
* Many members of the Druze religious minority living in Israel are also Zionists.