Have you ever thought about your multiple identities and how each one ties into a specific and intricate representation of self? Have you thought about your inability to control that representation, which resides in the generalizations formed by others and imposed upon you? Coming from a multi-everything background, how I am perceived has come not only to define me but also to control the spheres in which I am contained. For example, being a black American places me in a world of generalizations some of which apply to me and others that do not. Because there is a framework in which to understand “blackness” or “black” people, especially in the states, I find myself trapped in that framework-- escape or complete freedom being- perhaps -only an illusion of the mind. I have struggled to understand “blackness” and to define myself by myself and for myself. While this is a never-ending journey, I can confidently say that I have made significant strides towards self-representation. I am comfortable with defining myself outside of how society may wish to define me. Now, changing the way in which society defines me- that’s a topic for another post!
Coming to Israel has moved me one step closer to comfortably defining another, equally important identity, Judaism. On this struggle bus –if I may- I have begun to define my Jewish identity and I seek to deepen and enliven it. I came to Israel not really understanding how and if Israel related to my Judaism. Thus, I did not know what to expect. I had weak and superficial opinions about important issues such as Zionism, differences between religious and secular, Israeli history and current politics. In these three months, I have acquired an unimaginable amount of information; and while my ignorance is still vast, I continue my quest for knowledge acquisition.
Within my three month journey, I have been repeatedly confronted with very opinionated, and brass questions and judgments. They say: How can you support Israel? How can YOU guys do/support this? Jews are Nazis, look at the way Israelis/Jews treats Palestinians. How could you live in Israel and support racism and apartheid? These are the comments that have either been retold to me from my friends here in Israel or told directly from my own friends and acquaintances. And what do I say to them? Well, there is no real argument here (except to the Nazi comment which sent me on a personal and intellectual tirade in which I did not manage to change his mind but did put him into his place!) Anyway, to the comments I answer: I TOO disagree with the way the Palestinians are treated. I TOO believe that the exportation of 400 children of migrant workers, mostly from Asia and Africa, in order to “preserve the Jewish character,” is immoral. I TOO believe that an obliged loyalty Oath for non-Jewish citizens to the “Jewish Democratic State of Israel” has inherent discriminatory implications. So then what separates you from me, other than the fact that I am indeed Jewish and in Israel. The polite answer to this question is-- our understanding of representation. The not so polite answer, which some deserve to hear but which I have refrained from saying is... perhaps its best l keep this to myself. :)
Many countries are based in an inherent religious ideology that not only guides and sets the norms and mores of society but also influences policy, people’s decisions and state’s actions. Take the United States for example, a Christian/ Protestant country founded and guided by religious principles. Or, many of the Latin American countries, in which Catholicism is a dominant and highly influential religion, intertwined in the makeup of the state. What about Islam? There are several countries such as Egypt, Turkey or Saudi Arabia in which Islam is the dominant religion, influencing both politics and society. My point is, most countries have a covert or overt influential, religious, presence.
Now let me create a scenario. Let’s take the American state, Arizona, which recently passed immigration legislation that blatantly allows for racial profiling and discrimination. Or what about former president Bush’s proposed policy to “round up the illegal’s aliens” and ship them back to their respective countries. Is it fair to judge all US citizens, all Christian nations, and all Christian people around the world based off of the policies of one state or the government’s position? No, instead we would look at other states in the US, other Christian influenced nations, and the actions of citizens and quickly recognize that this is not inherent to all people within the state, the country or the religion. We can logically assume that these controversial and unjust policies do not fully or accurately represent all people that share similar backgrounds or geographic locations.
Let’s create another scenario, this time formed around the influence of Islam. Let’s take Iran and a recent decision in which an Iranian woman accused of committing adultery was sentenced to death by stoning. Can we now assume that all Iranians support her death sentence, all Muslims agree to this type of death penalty and all nations with a predominately Muslim character think this way? (In the case of the US and Iran- under purely logical reasoning it could be true that many or some people, or nations, do indeed think like the subset identified in the examples but we cannot logically draw the conclusion that they ALL do). So, perhaps you are thinking, the use of Iran is very extreme example. Also Iran’s democracy is controversial and an irrational leader is representing the Iranian people without their consent. Thus, invalidating the use of Iran as an example. Point taken. I use Iran simply to show how absurd it is to draw generalizations based on one country or governmental institution. However, I do realize its extremity and I also deeply question its democracy. So, I will draw on another example to illustrate a similar point.
Let’s take a different Muslim country, Turkey, a country that is 99.8% Muslim but does not invoke Sharia law as the basis of policy (US Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html). (One can argue that there is no basis for comparison since Iran uses Sharia law and Turkey is a Secular republic and is not based in Sharia Law. To that I would say, as in the cases in the US, UK and other countries, having a predominate religion influences the representative leaders and norms of the country, and subsequently, government policies regardless of whether religion is formerly institutionalized. Professor Ann Elizabeth Mayer an Associate Professor of Legal Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, expounds upon this idea in her piece, Islamic Law and Human Rights: Conundrums and Equivocations a chapter in the book Religion and human rights: competing claim? by Carrie Gustafson and Peter Juviler. In her piece, she explains that many Islamic states no longer follow strict Sharia law and have adopted laws along European lines. However, she further explains that states with a predominantly Muslim population are still highly influenced by Islamic rules and precepts of Sharia regardless of their adoption of laws influenced by the European system. *(chpt 14 -see link at end) Using this train of thought, I am going to continue using Turkey as an example.) Okay, so Turkey passed a law banning headscarfs in universities and official buildings in order to maintain secularism and equality. Wonderful, so can I assume that all Turkish citizens agree or support the ban or all Muslims support this ban? Is it logical to assume that in visiting another predominately Muslim country the belief that banning the headscarf serves the purpose of equality and secularism exists? Perhaps, but perhaps not, it depends on the state. In Egypt, I probably could get by not wearing a headscarf but in Saudi Arabia probably not. Without understanding the cultural implications of headscarves and the way in which both culture and religion influence law and policy I would be completely lost in this headscarf debate. So my point again is that I cannot take the policy of one country, people within the same religion, or citizens of a nation and make a large, over-sweeping, generalization of ALL people.
Moving on!
Now, lets look at the Jewish states. Let’s take Israel for example. The current administration under Netanyahu has allowed for the continuation of settlements, directly affecting peace negotiations and despite an international plea to desist. Furthermore, the current administration supports the deportation of 400 children of migrant workers in order to “preserve the Jewish Character” (with Jewish character never being defined—Also I might add that this is somewhat similar to the deportation of illegal’s in the US). Can we say that all Jewish people, and all Jewish states discriminate against foreigners, and are anti-peace? Well let’s look and compare these policies with other Jewish states…oh wait… there are no other Jewish States. Oh well, due to the lack of contrasting evidence it seems plausible to assume that the actions of the Israeli government reflect all Jews and Israelis... right? Does anyone else see a flaw in this reasoning? Again, using a subset to represent the composite…anybody? (Special thanks to the logical reasoning bible study book for my LSAT hahaha).
To my friends, acquaintances, friends of friends and the random instigators… Why can you apply logic correctly when referencing other countries but seem to base your “facts” in flawed reasoning when it comes to Israel? This is exactly what people are doing and they fail to realize it. How can you tell me that Jews do this, and believe that and that all Israelis are bad and immoral basing it off of one particular party/coalition within a governmental institution? When did Israel become the only basis of comparison for Jews or Israelis? When did a GOVERNMENT become the voice of the Jewish people and which Jewish people? The belief that there is one, cohesive, Jewish, community, with one goal or mindset is absolutely ludicrous and naive. (The joke- take 2 Jews and you will get 3 opinions and 4 political parties… can be asserted here).
If Israel wishes to be defined as a Jewish state and seeks to even pass an oath recognizing itself as a Jewish and Democratic state then does the state now absorb the responsibilities of upholding Jewish morals and “jewishness”? Perhaps, one could argue this- then the question becomes who’s “Jewishness” and which Jewish morals, and which interpretation do we use… Reform, Reconstructionist, Orthodox, Conservative, Modern Orthodox etc. However, last time I checked Prime Minister Netanyahu is not a Rabbi or the chosen spokesperson for the Jewish people; nor does he pretend to be. Rather, he is the chosen spokesperson for an institution, which (similar to Turkey) is NOT based in religious, Halachic (Jewish) Law but as I explained above is influenced by it.
So why is there a belief that the government has become the religious leader of the people? Being a Jewish state could perhaps simply mean that Israel is a “nation under g-d” oh now that sounds familiar—yes, it’s in pledge of allegiance of the United States. Or perhaps it simply means it is the state of the ethnically Jewish people. This is a really important point because Israel’s Declaration of Independence references Israel as a Jewish State BUT NOT Jewish religiously, rather, ethnically Jewish! This is an important distinction that many, myself included at one point, fail to realize.
To bring us back to the main point I must say that there seems to me to be an unfair double standard when it comes to Israel and the Jews. Perhaps its because there is no other Jewish State to reference and compare, or perhaps it’s a flaw in logic or perhaps its strong bias against Israel- or all three!! Whatever the reason may be, its a deeply troubling phenomenon. Next time someone asks me how/why I support Israel and how the Jewish people allow this and that I will say to them… who represents me as a Jew? Let me make this clear- It’s not the Israeli government, so stop grouping me and my beliefs to an institution.
I admit, the lines of religion and state in this country are somewhat blurry and arbitrary; it is easy to be confused. Clearly, there is real danger in having a religion so closely tied to a governmental institution because, fundamentally, both exist for different reasons and must be separated. Israel like all governments acts in its self-interest and like any other government is not without its flaws. To come to the conclusion that Israeli politics under the current administration reflect the views of all Israelis, and of all Jews is pure ignorance. If people in others countries that are based in a religious background have the freedom to be represented as individuals, separate from the politics of their state or from politics enacted within their religious framework, then don’t I, as a Jew, and don’t we as the Jewish people, deserve that same freedom of self-defined representation?
xx
C
Link to Pr Ann Elizabeth Mayer piece (shttp://books.google.com/books?id=Y6DDuoS9wtoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=religion+and+human+rights:+competing+claims&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=FGXWTN6LDMjssgbssfiICA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false).
