James Kirchick writes for The Tablet about how Congregation Beit Simchat Torah in NYC, the prestigious LGBT synagogue, is now run by a virulently anti-Israel faction that has brought a large number of straight anti-Zionists (mainly left-feminists) into the congregation. This has occurred under the leadership of Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum who, along with her partner, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten, make up a formidable leftwing power couple. As one departing member put it, Kleinbaum is “essentially delivering Hamas propaganda” from the pulpit. That’s deeply depressing but the answer is for those of good will to form their own gay congregation that does not preach the left’s dogma of Israel hatred. And the sooner the better.
Back in the ’80s, in the pre-Kleinbaum era, I attended a service at Beit Simchat Torah. It was deeply moving and spiritually uplifting. How sad that this is no longer true.
More. “Alvie” comments:
Bringing in a large number of straight anti-Zionists from NYC’s leftwing feminist community falls under the typical pattern of subverting institutions in order to take them over and redirect them to serve the “progressive” cause. The Presbyterian church is experiencing something very similar — a majority of Presbyterians are not anti-Israel, but its leadership council is now run by anti-Zionists who support a boycott of the Jewish state (but not of the anti-gay Islamic dictatorships that target Israel, natch).
Furthermore. Via Michael Gerson’s Aug. 28 column in the Washington Post:
In a recent essay, Matti Friedman, a reporter for the Associated Press in Jerusalem between 2006 and 2011, recalls being forced to weave a different story: of Israeli oppression and Palestinian victimhood. He says his editors consistently spiked reporting inconsistent with this narrative, even when it included major news (such as details of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s peace offer). …
Friedman blames this “severe malfunction” of journalism on the resurgence of an old pattern. Historically, Jews have been a stateless entity on which people have projected their anger and resentments. With the advent of a Jewish state, those projections are focused on Israel, which gets disproportionate (and disproportionately hostile) attention as the embodiment of colonialism and nationalism — things that European and American liberals find offensive.
“You don’t need to be a history professor, or a psychiatrist, to understand what’s going on,” says Friedman. “The descendants of powerless people who were pushed out of Europe and the Islamic Middle East have become what their grandparents were — the pool into which the world spits. The Jews of Israel are the screen onto which it has become socially acceptable to project the things you hate about yourself and your own country.
28 Comments for “Politics Replaces Spirituality in the Left’s Playbook”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Beit Simchat Torah appears to be experiencing division within its ranks over an issue of importance to members of the congregation.
That’s nothing unusual in congregations. Usually the divisions are about internal matters, but the congregation is not unique in experiencing division about the Israeli policies. I know of a number of congregations in Wisconsin that have gone through similar things, on a smaller scale, and the Jewish population in the United States, although deeply committed to Israel’s continuation as a Jewish state and refuge (for obvious reasons), is by no means united about Israeli government policies and/or actions with respect to the Palestinian population.
Israel is of deep religious as well as temporal significance to most Jews. The divisions within the Jewish community about Israel reflect much deeper concerns than “politics”. I recognize that it is probably impossible for an outsider to fully appreciate the depth of significance of Jerusalem and Israel to Jews, or the religious/temporal nature of the divisions within the Jewish community about Israel’s policies.
Jews don’t expect outsiders to understand that, and you clearly do not, given your naive and simplistic characterization of the congregation’s division as a matter of left-right “politics”.
I am glad that you visited Beit Simchat Torah and found the experience uplifting. Jewish commitment to the Holy One shines through most Shabbat services, and is moving to many visitors. I am sorry that “politics” (as you view the division in the congregation) has tainted that experience for you.
I have no doubt that Beit Shimchat Torah will survive. The Jewish press describes the number of members departing the congregation as “small” and gives a much more nuanced view of the division than the cartoon you draw.
I don’t know what motivates you to stir the pot within the Jewish community right now — it seems to me that your time might be better spent thinking about the twisted “bring on the apocalypse” thinking within the conservative Christian community, a line of thinking that influences right-wing policies toward Israel — but I’ll stand down and stay out of it, having said my piece.
posted by Don on
Really? One lesbian rabbi at one LGB synagogue in NYC and the ENTIRE LEFT has replaced its spiritual compass with politics? That’s a drive-by smear. Why not troll comments sections for wholly unacceptable one-liners to paint the entire left? What? Were there no crazy people shouting on street corners that the End is Nigh?
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, really. This is the M.O. from rightists like Stephen. Take one statement by a liberal without understanding the incredibly complex issues being discussed and paint it as the norm for an entire political movement. It’s strawman ad absurdium and it’s the bread and butter of Fox News and conservative talk radio. I follow my old rabbi (okay, I’m not Jewish but I sang in temple for years and really loved one of the rabbis a great deal and yes he got very political but no he is not anti-Israel by any stretch of the imagination). I am appalled that Stephen would tread into these waters. The Israel-Palestinian situation is complex and giving carte blanche to either side is simplistic to the point of being infantile.
posted by Jorge on
The Israel-Palestinian situation is complex and giving carte blanche to either side is simplistic to the point of being infantile.
Well, that’s why I’m not president.
I see nothing wrong with giving any side a blank check–as long as you keep your guard up, because there’s nothing sacred about it, either.
posted by Houndentenor on
No person, organization or country is incorruptible. I am not in favor of giving anyone a blank check.
posted by Francis on
Well said, Houndentenor.
posted by Alvie on
Bringing in a large number of straight anti-Zionists from NYC’s leftwing feminist community falls under the typical pattern of subverting institutions in order to take them over and redirect them to serve the “progressive” cause. The Presbyterian church is experiencing something very similar — a majority of Presbyterians are not anti-Israel, but its leadership council is now run by anti-Zionists who support a boycott of the Jewish state (but not of the anti-gay Islamic dictatorships that target Israel, natch).
posted by Houndentenor on
There is more than one Presbyterian denomination. You need to be more specific.
posted by Alvie on
The Presbyterian Church (USA), by far the dominant Presbyterian church. http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/some-good-news-about-the-presbyterian-churchs-anti-israel-vote/2014/06/23/
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, larger but there is a large enough offshoot that is very right wing. Also, (and this is anecdotal and probably an outlier) but the only church that ever brought up a social conservative agenda in the audition/interview for a section leader position was Presbyterian (USA). (I have sung at other Presbyterian churches with no problems.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think, Alvie, that it might be helpful if you learned more about Zionism — the history of Zionism, both ancient and modern, for example, and the wide varieties of Zionist thought within the Jewish community — before you start describing opposition to current and particular Israeli government policies as “anti-Zionist”.
posted by MR Bill on
Ok, I’ll bite…I got rated “ultra Liberal” in my college poly sci class (for support of stuff like gay rights, abortion rights, drug decriminalization, and ending the Vietnam war) and very little has changed..
I can’t speak for Jews (although my Jewish friends and colleagues are all over the map on Israel/the Palestinians/and particularly Gaza), but I do know that here in Reddest Redneckistan, Israel has blanket support, because they are God’s Chosen (and have to rebuild the Temple or something for the Parousia to occur…) There are a lot of folks and, sir, you seem to be among them, who just can’t make the distinction between the Children of Israel (and their symbolic value) and the particular actions of any given Israeli Government. I can support the existence of Israel and deplore the actions of the Likhudnics, who, IMHO, are setting themselves up for even worse trouble in the future: the Liberal Jews of my acquaintance feel shame at abusive treatment of Palestinians, and think that abuse delegitimizes Israel, makes antisemitism more virulent, and is against their conception of the Law…Hell, I’m a lapsed Evangelical and former president of my Unitarian congregation, and I get that. The passions of one congregation don’t mean much globally, unless, it seems, you got them nasty libruls to smear.
posted by Houndentenor on
This is my experience as well. My Jewish friends, acquaintances and friends of friends (the ones I mostly know from facebook and twitter) are also all over the map. It’s a complex issue. That should be expected. I tend to avoid commenting on that particular issue. I have too much to learn to be spouting off. Instead I’ve been reading, following links and trying to stay informed. The American media is somewhat biased but so are the media in other countries.
The most bizarre part of this however is the fact that all the pro-Israel Evangelicals I know (and that’s in the dozens) are to a one personally antisemitic when it comes to Jews that live in America. The cognitive dissonance in that is one of the more bizarre elements of modern American politics.
posted by MR Bill on
Houndentenor, this is true in my experience too. I think it’s equal parts good ol’ fashion antisemitism/”Jew hatin'” and seeing Israel as a player in their apocalyptic fantasies. That and the almost total self identification of the Evangelicals as “the Chosen”, and their appropriation of what they think that status means…
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
From what I can gather — the hardcore, right-wing Christian Evangelical movement is “pro Israeli” largely to fend off charges of domestic anti-Semitism and because of some “end of days” theory that requires Israel to exist as a Jewish state before the second coming of Jesus Christ or something.
Of coarse, since most of these type of Christians would believe that non-Christians — i.e. Jewish people — would be among those “left behind”, I am not entirely sure why their particular brand of “pro Israel” campaigning does not raise more eye brows.
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
WOW! a religious group has disagreements among its membership regarding a hot button issue. STOP THE PRESS….Really?
I would have to know more about the specifics to determine if I thought that one side or the other was anti-Israeli or pro-Hamas.
I fully support the right of Israel to exist and, like any nation defend itself. Does that make me pro Israeli?
I also believe that the Palestinian people should have their own nation and don’t always believe that every thing the Israeli government does is terribly smart, ethical or moral. Does this mean that I must be anti-Semitic and pro Palestinian?
Yes, Israel has a pretty good human rights record in terms of gay rights, although much of it came from the liberal and left-wing parties.
The nation also has free elections, and other “niceties” that largely came from the progressive and social democratic roots of Israeli politics.
posted by Jorge on
Beit Simchat Torah appears to be experiencing division within its ranks over an issue of importance to members of the congregation.
That’s nothing unusual in congregations.
Not an unusual gay news topic to cover such divisions, either, but this is the first time I’ve read a gay site craft a partisan political explanation for such a division.
The one gay church I’ve gone to clearly has a pastor who is more politically liberal than I am. But, well, she apologizes for it or explains it enough–it’s her priestly pacifism.
The divisions within the Jewish community about Israel reflect much deeper concerns than “politics”.
Rarely are such things made public.
There was a story a couple of months about a college Jewish organization that left this coalition of such groups over the coalition’s policy prohibiting something like saying anything defamatory against Israel. It was a first of its kind event. The campus group said they felt they needed the breathing space to criticize Israel’s policies should they choose to do so. How utterly predictable and unremarkable, despite the hyperventilating from some of the usual rightist suspects.
It’s when you get to the history lessons that you find that there is very little public knowledge, and information depends strongly on cultural context. For example, I have only encountered two descriptions in my entire life of the pre-Israel Zionist movement–one in literature, and one from a link provided by an Iranian sympathizer (I was quite shocked at the absence of anti-Semitism in it).
Now, if I were to talk about why I think the division between W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington can be seen in the black community today, people might understand what I’m talking about, especially if I explained it. And even then I always confuse the two, there’s small but important details about where they are unified, under what circumstances, how much contempt the two sides do (or don’t) have for each other, and how that has changed over time, that I haven’t memorized. But black history gets talked about and taught more often than Jewish history. I don’t even know if this analogy applies to the Jewish community or not.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s worth your time to read how we got into this mess. Most of it has to do with British arrogance in the age of colonialism. (The British Empire promised the same land to two groups as if it were there’s to give anybody and here we are over a century later still in this mess with no end in sight.) Also of significance is the history of relations between Christians, Jews and Muslims going back into the Middle Ages. (Relations were not that bad before the Crusades and have been terrible ever since.) Anyway, it’s worth you time and it will show that things are not as black and white as either side wants to make them out to be. I tend to be more pro-Israel, mostly because I don’t see anything from the Palestinian side that shows me that they want a peaceful resolution with Israel. Others may disagree (plenty do) but that’s how I see it, but I’m open to reading more. Definitely I’m not pro-Hamas.
posted by Jorge on
It’s worth your time to read how we got into this mess. Most of it has to do with British arrogance in the age of colonialism.
I have little curiosity about the subject. It does, however, make me more sympathetic to the pre-peace accord Yassir Arafat.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not an unusual gay news topic to cover such divisions, either, but this is the first time I’ve read a gay site craft a partisan political explanation for such a division.
In Stephenworld™ gays and lesbians are often used as pawns in the political game.
I’m used to that, and it didn’t surprise me to see Stephen treat the members of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah as pawns as well to push his political agenda. I can’t fathom what led him to do so, but I suspect that the lure of a “progressive lesbian rabbi” married to a union President was just too much temptation for him to ignore.
I can’t say, as was no doubt obvious from my initial response, happy about it, though. Stephen’s cartoon reminded me too much of the way in which conservative fundamentalists use Jews as pawns in the end time theology and politics of that part of the conservative movement. It disgusts me.
With respect to the particulars of the matter, I would point you to this part of Nathan Goldstein’s response:
Keep in mind the facts of this dispute. The names of Palestinian children — children, repeat children — killed in the conflict were read along with the names of Israeli soldiers killed in the conflict, during the part of the service devoted to Kaddish. That was controversial, to be sure, but that was the seed that gave rise to the dispute within the congregation.
posted by Jorge on
*Reads the Kirchick article.
I didn’t know Randi Weingarten was gay. That’s a well-kept secret. And frankly, that’s enough information to tell me this rabbi probably isn’t a nut except in a “it’s not personal, it’s professional” sense. Weingarten has no blind spots that I know of (and she doesn’t even lie all that much).
“Reading aloud the names of Palestinian children who were killed, along with the names of fallen IDF soldiers, can in no way reasonably be viewed as ‘delivering Hamas propaganda.'”
I think it is quite a reasonable misinterpretation, and that this line reveals the author to either be out of touch with or deliberately oblivious to how the conflict is being portrayed by at least a large minority of the media and political commentators in the United States.
Keep in mind the facts of this dispute. The names of Palestinian children — children, repeat children — killed in the conflict were read along with the names of Israeli soldiers killed in the conflict, during the part of the service devoted to Kaddish. That was controversial, to be sure, but that was the seed that gave rise to the dispute within the congregation.
*Sigh.* I am a little dissatisfied with the pessimism I think the situation requires. It is not unreasonable to try to extend an olive branch, especially in New York City, which has a considerable population of almost everything, Palestinians included.
I think there is more to this story than the merits. I keep reading distrubing stories about that this particular round of violence has incited the most hostility both internationally and in the United States. I believe this to have been a gradual event. The tone of several stories and opinion columns suggests that we are near a tipping point that would threaten very harmful consequences for Israel. It is not difficult for me to imagine that a pro-Israel leader would feel unbearable stress from even a slight change or action in his or her environment.
(I think it’s unclear what would actually happen if, say, the United States adopted an ambivalent or even hostile policy tone toward Israel. There are people who have espoused a doctrine of Israel’s precarious position for years. They are either missing or discounting recent events in the Arab world–the very violent divisions between Muslims in the Middle East, various Middle Eastern countries’ silence on Israel, persistent stories of unofficial, low-level communication between Israel and anonymous countries hostile to it. For all that Prime Minister Netanyahu acts contemptuous of US pressure, there is another force that is holding him back. People say it is Israel’s superior morality. But perhaps it is pressure from its neighbors’ near-tolerance, an attitude that could worsen in an instant.)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I think there is more to this story than the merits.
I agree. The story itself is about divisions within a congregation, a story not all that unusual. Congregations are voluntary associations; members pick and chose congregations and come and go. Internal disputes within congregations happen all the time. That’s not much of a story, in and of itself.
I think that the story has been amplified, in part, because the congregation is prominent (in the sense that it is a symbol of the LGBT movement within Judaism) and is in New York, both the “center” (in the sense of the largest concentration of Jews in the United States) and a media center (where a good sneeze by the right people gets media attention).
I suspect that the story has become amplified, in part, because Israel has deep religious, emotional and practical significance for Jews, and the congregation’s internal difficulties resonate with the internal divisions within the larger Jewish community at large about Israel, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the policies of the Israeli government.
That’s part of it. But not all.
I think that the congregation’s difficulties are being used by outsiders to push unrelated agendas. This post is an example of what I mean. It is a “perfect storm” for Stephen’s “evil progressive gays” agenda — an outspoken progressive lesbian rabbi, a spouse who is the president of a teacher’s union, a congregation with members like Frank Rich, “left-feminist” infiltrators, a chance to reduce the complexities of Jewish attitudes towards Israel and its policies as left/right “politics”, and all the rest — and Stephen makes good use of it.
In 1,483 words, Stephen pulls out every agenda arrow in his quiver, creating a cartoon version of the dispute that ignores the complexities of the situation and displays a complete lack of concern for the congregation or its members, the people affected by the dispute within the congregation. The congregation and its members are pawns in his progressive-bashing game.
If and when the conservative Christian ignorati hop into the fray to bash gays and push the End Times agenda, I’m done. I’m tired to death of Jews being used as pawns to advance other people’s agendas, as conservative Christians and other outsiders use Jews and Israel all the time. Their agendas are “not my circus, not my monkeys”, as it is said, except that the outsiders are using my circus and my monkeys as pawns. At that point, I wish a pox on their houses.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
IMHO. Poor leadership — both Hamas and Prime Minister Netanyahu — are a BIG part of the problem.
Prime Minister Netanyahu is a very conservative politician in Israel, where the electorate largely prefers centrist, liberal and progressive parties. Call my cynical, but peace would probably be hurt the electoral strength of the Israel right-wing.
Likewise I suspect — cynical or not — that Hamas probably enjoys being the “populist” party at war with Israel, then being a responsible party at peace.
From what I read about Hamas, they sound a bit like Patrick Buchanan’s style of populism.
posted by Alvie on
Some AFT facts: “Since 2009 Randi Weingarten has been head of the American Federation of Teachers, where she has continued her crusade to stymie school reforms and protect the job of incompetent teachers.”
https://www.aftfacts.com/randi-weingarten/
posted by Houndentenor on
Given that most of the school “reforms” have made schools worse not better and only benefited the companies that have contracts for testing and charter schools, I would applaud anyone against those “reforms”.
posted by Jorge on
That’s. Her. Job.
Does she cross any ethical boundaries? Does she misrepresent people on the other side? Does she use her political power for self-gain? In her time as president of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers she at most skirted the line which almost every other union crosses. Her first priority was the labor rights of teachers, no question about that. Second, third, fourth, and fifth were priorities held in common with the school community, the government and the general public. Education reform in New York City and State happened on her watch. The UFT was a coalition member of a campaign to pass legislation addressing school bullying on her watch (it passed after she left). Unlike many other union leaders, she was able to reach the ability to move change and reform forward while doing justice to her job.
To reduce a description of her as merely a stumbling block does a great injustice to the important duty of those who stand against the tides of reform.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Nathan Goldstein, writing for and on behalf of Congregation Beit Simchat Torah, has written a response to the Kirchick article.
I realize that the orthodoxy of StephenWorld™ allows no room for differences among Jews on the Israeli/Palestinian question — the “evil progressive lesbian” cartoon must be drawn — but I thought that Kirchick’s article (which was intelligent and nuanced in many respects, unlike the cartoon) and the Congregation’s response (equally nuanced and civil), read together, might shed light on the complexity of the situation within the congregation.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. I would say — based on my own estimate — that 60 – 70% of American Jewish people are strong or leaning-Democrats and that this is based on their spiritual values, when it comes to things like fairness, justice, and the proverbial Golden Rule. Also the American political right tends to affiliate itself with the CHRISTIAN right, which might make Jewish voters a bit leery.
2. To some extent I suspect that a great many Jewish people have been raised to support everything that Israel does, just as many Arab and Muslim people have probably been raised to support everything that Palestine does. Much — not all — of the loudest saber rattling for being ‘pro Israeli’ or ‘pro Palestinian’ seems to be rooted in this “how I was raised.”
If you travel to the Arab-Muslim world, negative attitudes about Israel and Jewish people in generally is pretty high. I seen something similar among ‘pro Israelis’. Least we forget all of the ‘President Obama is a Muslim’ BS that was being circulated. The religious-ethnic-national hatred and fear is certainly real.
Israel has an educated middle class and a progressive peace movement (Meretz is one such group).
Most of the successful and well-educated Palestinians I have met, had relocated to the U.S., Canada or the U.K. It is possible that the political-economic-social situation on the ground in Palestine, influences which Palestinians stay and which become prosperous, educated exiles elsewhere.
In the end;
Israel will have to give up land. Probably going back to what they had in the late 1960s, in order to create a two-state solution.
Palestine and the Arab neighbors will have to accept the fact that Israel exists and crackdown hard on suicide bombers and other violent extremists. This is — basically — the solution I see proposed by the Israeli progressive peace groups.