The Purpose of Memory is to Remember, Not Relive

With Tattoos, Young Israelis Bear Holocaust Scars of Relatives

I strongly support the right of people to get whatever tattoo they desire, even if said tattoo would shock or offend others.

That said, I feel this practice is taking the "cult of remembrance" regarding the Holocaust yet another step too far. As Jonathan Ornstein said to me before I left Krakow, "Judaism as a religion has always encouraged people to move on, to not wallow in our grief. By constantly memorializing the Holocaust in this way, we risk constantly reliving it, not just remembering it." He was referring to the March of the Living, but I feel that this practice follows in the same category. It's one thing to want to signify or remember your family member's sacrifice and memory, it's quite another to say this:

“All my generation knows nothing about the Holocaust,” said Ms. Sagir, 21, who has had the tattoo for four years. “You talk with people and they think it’s like the Exodus from Egypt, ancient history. I decided to do it to remind my generation: I want to tell them my grandfather’s story and the Holocaust story.”

Our generation, whether in the States or Israel, knowing nothing about the Holocaust? Where did this kid go to school?  While in Israel, I saw nothing but reminders about the Holocaust - after all, it is the primary reason why Israel was founded, and why many Jews say we need a Jewish state, in order to ensure that the Holocaust doesn't happen again. I'd say that the odds of us forgetting about the Holocaust anytime soon is quite simply an over-reaction.

Should we forget about the Holocaust? Fuck no. But do we, as a people, need to move on? I'd say so.

Article written by Jodi Rudoren, and published by the New York Times.

Israeli’s Act of Despair Disheartens a Movement

Really?

I didn't like the NYT coverage on this story - it looks like the author is purposefully misrepresenting a genuine sense of shock and moral responsibility as being "disheartened" by Moshe Silman immolating himself. The statements the respondents in the article sounds, to me, merely that they are aware of the gravity of the situation, and how Mr. Silman's act ups the ante for the movement as a whole - I'd hardly say they are disheartened. If anything, they seem more determined.

What is far more intriguing about this article is the description of how the movement is receiving far less support from the Israeli press - in fact, many newspapers who were once their supporters are now fighting against them. The author gives a good deal of sympathy to the newspapers, and much less to the movement that once had the former's support. So much for unbiased reporting.

Article written by Isabel Kershner, and published by the New York Times.

Can Hybrid Identities Work in Israel?

Service to Israel Tugs at Identity of Arab Citizens

The concept of a hybrid identity is a great idea, in my mind; why shouldn't we create new identities to simultaneously fit into the greater society while preserving our sense of self? One of the main reasons why I like living in the US or Canada; two countries where this is most possible. I've been curious regarding the possibility of similar hybrid identities existing in Israel; given that it is first and foremost a Jewish state, how do Arab Israelis exist there, except as second-class citizens?

While visiting Israel last month, and reading this NYT article today, I remember a great paper presented on the concept of hybridity and hybrid identities in Israel at the Hybridity Conference I helped organize 2 years ago, entitled "A State Without Identity: How and Why Israel Represses the Emergence of an Israeli identity". The paper's author, Dubi Kanengisser, a Ph.D. Candidate over at Political Science, gave a compelling thesis about why the Israeli government will never allow the genesis of an "Israeli" identity which exists in a hybrid state - even though doing so would be truly advantageous for the state of Israel. Mr. Kanengisser used the public service and military service programs as examples of means by which Israel could integrate Arab Israelis, but at the price of making these programs more acceptable to these citizens by dropping a lot of the references to a Jewish state.

The question regards a problem of identity, for both many Israeli Jews and the Israeli state; do they want a Jewish state, or do they want a modern state designed to protect Jews? I don't think these two concepts are incompatible, but it certainly is now, as the culture has been designed by the state thus far. "Israeli Culture" is very much a Jewish culture, with Judaism an inexorable part of that identity; it is similar, in many ways to how American culture was strongly identified with Protestant (and White) Christianity before WWII. While that aspect is still a part of American culture (Christmas trees are a great example), its significance has much less meaning today as American culture continues to become secularized and allowed for hybrid identities. I think Israel would be a much safer and longer-lasting haven for Jews if the state was allowed to truly modernize and secularize in a similar fashion - but doing so would mean downplaying the significance of Judaism, and allowing for a culture war similar to the one happening in the U.S. now.

Given the siege mentality of Israel, I don't see this happening anytime soon; cultural problems like this will be shunted aside quite easily in the name of military expediency. It is much easier to maintain cultural cohesion for the majority by appealing to the idea of resisting a war against a Jewish state. Integrating Arab Israelis could conceivably damage this notion quite severely, and I think it should; I strongly approved of the comparison made in the article between Blacks serving in the American military contributing to the Civil Rights movement, and Arab Israelis serving in the Israeli military. I think Arab Israelis are going to have to fight for their desire to have a hybrid identity, and prove it, through military service.

If the Israeli government allows for that service at all, of course.

Article written by Jodi Rudoren and published in the New York Times.

Thoughts About Moment, and Accusations of Racism

Everyone is still talking about what happened at Moment Sunday night, and likely will be talking about the incident for a while. At this point I support Moment, and am willing to cut the place a bit of slack. Talking about the issue in recent days, though, has brought up some considerations about incidents like this, and how I'm affected by the mere accusation of racism.

Personally, I was annoyed at myself at how quickly I initially rushed to judgment about Moment. I read von Steltmann's statement on the matter Monday morning, and I was ready to accept not only his word on the incident, but also ready to accept that an establishment I have patronized for a year was anti-Semitic. I was ready to never go to Moment again, and it wasn't for a few hours until I started really thinking about why I had made that judgment.

Let's think about that for a second - I was ready to jump ship and abandon Moment after only reading the word of some guy I never met, which was seconded by someone who I don't know particularly well. The mere accusation of anti-Semitism was enough to set me off - I didn't care about details, nor the other side of the story. For me, this is a problem - and I know I wasn't alone in jumping to this conclusion. In the end, I only opened my mind to other possibilities because I was prompted by friends, and thinking about the prospect of never going to Moment again.

This really got me thinking about how damaging a mere accusation can be - if the charge of anti-Semitism sticks to Moment, it could end as a business. At the very least, this would be greatly unfair. It also happens all the time. How many times has a business or a location been accused of anti-Semitism, and how often did I simply accept the charge? Many, many times - especially if it was seconded by the New York Times. Doing so was easy for me, because I didn't know the business in question. Now that it's hit so close to home, however, I thinking more about the ramifications of doing so, and I hope that, in the future, I engage in a bit more critical thinking before rushing to judgment.

It also got me to thinking about what constitutes anti-Semitism. Specifically, what makes an establishment anti-Semitic? I think we need to be far more careful with how we use that word, especially as Jews. One of the amazing things that has happened to Jews since WWII is that the societies in which we live fight along with us against discrimination and anti-Semitism, especially in the U.S. and Canada. This has not happened often in history, and I fear we might be taking this for granted. We also have to recognize the power this label has, and not to use it lightly - especially since in many places, when it comes to this issue our word is accepted so readily, by non-Jews and Jews.

So no, one incident does not make an establishment anti-Semitic. In the case of Moment, it's continuous support of minorities needs to be taken into account. For others without such a reputation, I think we need to think twice before throwing around such a label. We have power in this field, and I think we're in danger of abusing it - if we haven't done so already. Lord knows way too many Jews play the "Jew Card". But that's a whole other post entirely.