Last week I created a facebook event for the upcoming celebration of Israel's 60th birthday, Israelpalooza. Over the weekend I received a facebook message from a student criticizing our event, calling it "delusional and disrespectful." I encourage anyone reading my blog to review her comments and then my response. I further invite you to continue this discussion and comment on my blog.
"I know this is random, but it said you were creator of the Israelpalooza event so I thought you'd be the right person to message. If not, I'd appreciate it if you could forward the message to whoever is in charge of advertising for the event.
I just wanted to say that I think it is delusional, disrespectful, not very tactful, and bordering on cruel to say that Henna, Bellydance, Falafel, Hookah, etc. is "Israeli Culture."
It's common knowledge that these things are Arab culture, to which people from eastern Europe, etc. have no connection or claim. (No I'm not Arab but the absurdity of it struck me pretty hard.)
I was in Israel last weekend and made a plain point of telling it to a man who tried to sell me Shwarma as Israeli food. He didn't have a retort and actually apologized in the end.
I mean, can you imagine being a displaced Palestinian and then hearing those who displaced you claim your cultural heritage as you own?
Eastern Europe (and the other places that Israeli citizens have migrated from, but a lot are from Eastern Europe) has it's own cultural traditions.
Tell me why it is necessary to do this? Because from an outsider's perspective, it looks like either deliberate agitation, delusion, or a combination of both."
MY REPLY:
"I appreciate you voicing your concern and bringing into question such important issues as multiculturalism in the modern democratic country we both know as Israel.
When you stated “it’s common knowledge that [henna, bellydance, falafel, hookah, etc.] are Arab culture” you failed to take into consideration other countries and non-Arab people who too claim these cultural practices as their own. Henna, for one, has been used not only by Arab Muslims but also finds deep historical roots in non-Arab countries like India.
As we have both set foot in Israel, we both have seen with our own eyes the multicultural practices that weave throughout the nation. It is also evident that Israel is not the only multicultural country who has adopted foods and various practices into its make-up. When we go to an American style restaurant, for example, we expect to see hamburgers and pizza on the menu. By your logic, America too is “absurd” for “claiming [another’s] cultural heritage as [their] own.”
Israelpalooza is an opportunity to invite students to celebrate 60 years of Israel’s history by learning about this Middle Eastern country by showcasing its multicultural livelihood. If you were to look at Israel’s population you would see that it is made up primarily of Ashkenazi Jews (from Western Europe) and Mizrahi Jews (originating from the Middle East and North Africa). Similar to America, Israel’s population draws from several cultures, not just Eastern Europe as you claimed.
As I wrote in my guest column that printed in the IDS last week, as university students, we have an obligation to become aware and educated of the world around us. Just as the last Friday’s event “A Taste of Asia” showcased dances and foods of various Asian countries and peoples, Israelpalooza too shows several facets of Israeli culture.
I encourage you further this conversation and advance your own knowledge of Israel and its culture. Check out websites like http://loolwa.com/archive/jmcp/index.html that educates about Jewish heritage in Africa and the Middle East. Before making claims about “displaced people” implying Jews have never before been displaced from their homes, know your history, and know the facts."
Sunday, March 30, 2008
The ethical imperative of "Who are You"
The article “Home is Where You Make It” by Kyla Wazana Tompkins may be my favorite reading we have completed in this class thus far. As Tompkins takes her readers through her search to understand herself as a Moroccan Jew, she touches on several aspects that become critical to analyze when dissecting one’s own identity in relation to the Jewish people at-large. In the beginning of this excerpt, she identifies an experience I became fairly familiar with last summer when I volunteered in a Mizrahi community in Israel (something I will write on in a later entry). She remarks, “race in the West is arranged along paradigms of white and not-white, while the race paradigm in Israel has been forcibly recognized along lines of Jew and Arab. The Mizrahi and Sephardi experiences to not fit easily into either of these stories” (133). The Jewish people embody the stereotype of maintaining a close-knit community, for we are (collectively) the “children of Israel.” This race division was best explained to me through the example of how different communities regard intermarriage. In the US, intermarriage can occur between Christians and non-Christians or between black and white people. In Israel, intermarriage takes place when an Ashkenazi Jew marries a Mizrahi Jew (one who descended from the Middle East or North Africa), or when a Jew marries an Arab. (Now I must pose the question, as Israel is a Jewish state and as it functions as an ethnic democracy where Jews are the superior people, can a legally Jew marry a Muslim?) How did it happen that a group Jews from of this “united community” come to feel isolated and at times ostracized by their fellow Jewish brothers and sisters?
About half way through this excerpt Tompkins shines a dim light into her identity crisis. She’s caught between her own identities…those being a Moroccan and a Jew. When others look at her, they wonder if she is African, and if so is she Muslim? When she identifies as a Moroccan Jew, people wonder which parent is Jewish and which is Moroccan? And then she throws her surname “Tompkins” into the mix. What exactly does a name like that imply about one’s race, heritage, religion, and the list goes on.
I was most able to relate with her personal narrative when she declared, “My first concern is to preserve my heritage. It has become important to me not only to learn to speak Arabic but to study and understand my people’s history as well” (139). I too have values that have been instilled in me by my family and by institutions with which I have come to associate as I have aged and strengthened my sense of identity. The way I view and question my heritage, however, never would have led me to inquire about her next thought. She continues, “At the same time, I am ambivalent about the ways in which Jews seem to separate themselves from the rest of the world…the ways in which middle-class Jewish-ness has come to align itself so closely with whiteness is disturbing…” (139). Initially I read this as relating to the question of why the Torah describes the Jewish people as the chosen people but at second though I do not believe this is what she was implying. By looking to a (not the) Jewish history, one would see reoccurring episodes of isolation and persecution. But what comes first? Did the Jews isolate themselves or did their neighbors notice a difference with them and thus separated from them? Tompkin is accurate in that in order to understand today we must look to our past. We have to understand who initiated the separation, who was the first to act upon the notion that “we are the chosen people?”
Lastly I will touch upon the connection she draws between white-ness and Jewish-ness. Tompkin is “ambivalent” about this connection, or more so a lack of separation between the two. And this last point brings me back into the realm of the Jewish American community. It’s amazing but not surprising that Ashkenazi Jews have taken the lead in the Jewish American anecdote. We know that the first Jewish immigrants to arrive in America were not from Western Europe, but rather from Sephardi or Ashkenazi descent, but how then did this power struggle between the same people come into existence? Was it in America where the Ashkenazi style synagogue is clearly more dominant than the Sephardi architecture? If not here, I wonder where else this struggle between one people began.
About half way through this excerpt Tompkins shines a dim light into her identity crisis. She’s caught between her own identities…those being a Moroccan and a Jew. When others look at her, they wonder if she is African, and if so is she Muslim? When she identifies as a Moroccan Jew, people wonder which parent is Jewish and which is Moroccan? And then she throws her surname “Tompkins” into the mix. What exactly does a name like that imply about one’s race, heritage, religion, and the list goes on.
I was most able to relate with her personal narrative when she declared, “My first concern is to preserve my heritage. It has become important to me not only to learn to speak Arabic but to study and understand my people’s history as well” (139). I too have values that have been instilled in me by my family and by institutions with which I have come to associate as I have aged and strengthened my sense of identity. The way I view and question my heritage, however, never would have led me to inquire about her next thought. She continues, “At the same time, I am ambivalent about the ways in which Jews seem to separate themselves from the rest of the world…the ways in which middle-class Jewish-ness has come to align itself so closely with whiteness is disturbing…” (139). Initially I read this as relating to the question of why the Torah describes the Jewish people as the chosen people but at second though I do not believe this is what she was implying. By looking to a (not the) Jewish history, one would see reoccurring episodes of isolation and persecution. But what comes first? Did the Jews isolate themselves or did their neighbors notice a difference with them and thus separated from them? Tompkin is accurate in that in order to understand today we must look to our past. We have to understand who initiated the separation, who was the first to act upon the notion that “we are the chosen people?”
Lastly I will touch upon the connection she draws between white-ness and Jewish-ness. Tompkin is “ambivalent” about this connection, or more so a lack of separation between the two. And this last point brings me back into the realm of the Jewish American community. It’s amazing but not surprising that Ashkenazi Jews have taken the lead in the Jewish American anecdote. We know that the first Jewish immigrants to arrive in America were not from Western Europe, but rather from Sephardi or Ashkenazi descent, but how then did this power struggle between the same people come into existence? Was it in America where the Ashkenazi style synagogue is clearly more dominant than the Sephardi architecture? If not here, I wonder where else this struggle between one people began.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Queer Orthodox Judaism
During our last class, we attempted to tear apart the implications behind queer Jewish identities and cultures. We spoke about the Stonewall riots of ’69 and how they led to the creation of LGBTQ synagogues like Congregation Beth Simchat Torah. We also discussed the shocking revelations many of us had after watching the film “Trembling Before God” as our minds were opened to the contradicting concept of liberal conservatism. I left this class pondering several questions about how this contradictory identity pervades our western society, and more specifically Judaism. The Hassidic, ultra-orthodox Jews in the film are forced to develop a split identity – one of queerness and one of orthodoxy, two terms not often associated with one another. The behind-the-scenes clip we viewed in class where several members of the closeted Hassidic LGBTQ community performed sha behind a screen so that only their shadows appeared to their audience points directly to this contradiction. No art form could have done it in a more powerful manner. The way I understand it, open homosexuality is equated with liberalism whereas Hassidic Judaism is associated with orthodoxy. Furthermore, in our conservative American culture, the only place these two extremes can come together is behind a screen like the one used in the film to allow the actors to remain “in the closet,” so to speak.
But this notion is overwhelmingly confusing. It became evident from this film that when put in the situation of identifying oneself in the most private and personal way as gay, it becomes impossible to ignore that truth to such an extent that the individuals in the film were put in a position to chose between hiding their queerness and living the Jewish life they desired, or coming out and leaving a tradition (and their family and friends) with which they are most familiar behind.
Now I recall Jody’s comment as she posed the question: Why can’t queer Jews (like those featured in the film) disconnect from their immediate community which rejects them, and instead join a separate sect within Judaism that accepts them where they can continue to fulfill the lifestyle they desire? I believe that within Jody’s argument is an inherent fallacy. These queer, ultra-orthodox Jews are not choosing between finding a comfortable place in a community or within their own self. Rather, they are internalizing an inner debate which I will call an identity crisis. If they reject their community and become “less orthodox” like the director of the film Rabbi Greenberg, this does not imply that they chose one community over another, but rather they placed one part of their identity as more important than another.
This inner-conflict subsists not only in this narrow realm of queer Hassidic Judaism but I would argue that it is sustaining and even revitalizing much of Judaism today. As we are living in this post-modern era we are instructed to debate with ourselves and question those things deemed “unquestionable.” Queer orthodox Judaism as illustrated through “Trembling Before God” is an excellent example that shows the innovative elements of Judaism that have evolved from Jews who have chosen to leave a community because they reasoned that one element of their identity was more important than another.Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Thank you Alex
Thank you Alex for commenting on my previous post! I'm really sorry to hear that you never received a response from the IDS regarding their slanted reporting in their nation world section. I actually work at the IDS and brought the issue up to the editor in chief. She informed me that 1) this was most likely the editors selecting the first AP stories that they see to publish in their press, 2) she would pass the message on to the staff, and 3) that the most effective way to make my opinion known is through writing a letter to the editor. I've copied and pasted the letter I wrote the IDS but I also know that they seldom print these letters unless they receive several on the same issue. As you still clearly feel passionate about the subject, I'd like to ask you to send in another letter. In fact, I'd like to ask ANYONE who feels comfortable reading this to do the same. Feel free to paraphrase my thoughts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Editors of the IDS:
I am disappointed by the choice of articles the IDS chose to publish on the situation in the Gaza Strip early this week. The Associated Press articles clearly took a biased approach in reporting Israel’s entrance into the Palestinian-governed region, and by choosing to print these articles, along with the similarly biased photographs that accompanied them, readers were put in the position of forming a ill-informed bias
The lead to Monday’s article “Palestinians suspend peace talks with Israel as Gaza death toll mounts” began, “Israel sent missiles slamming into the office of Gaza’s Hamas prime minister Sunday, pressing on with an offensive that has killed nearly 70 Palestinians in two days.” This text is not falsely reporting on the situation. Rather, it is shining light onto a single side of a long, drawn out story. By reading this passage a reader cannot grasp a fair, unbiased image of the events taking place. Even by reading the remainder of the article, it is impossible to visualize both the Israeli and Palestinian side of this situation. In addition to reading the IDS’ coverage of world news, I also turned to The New York Times and read the article, “As Israelis Pull Out of Gaza, Hamas Celebrates Its Rocketry,” which presented two sides of this event. This newspaper stated the cold, hard facts of the difficult conditions in the Gaza Strip, and allowed the reader to contemplate whether or not he or she would side with the Israeli or the Palestinian cause. The IDS articles did not do this. Rather, they direct the readers sympathy towards the Palestinian strife and only in the final line of the article is the reader informed of another side of the story. (The article ended by stating “About 50 rockets and mortars were fired Saturday, injuring six Israelis.”)
I am NOT arguing for or against the rights of the Palestinians or Israelis. I am however criticizing the IDS for pushing a single view onto its readers, which in this scenario happened to take the side of Palestinians living in Gaza.
This week the IDS dictated an anti-Israel bias as it chose to report on a complex issue while presenting a narrow viewpoint. I am not here to say that the Israel Defense Force made the right decision when they entered Gaza, but rather to point out that the Israeli border towns of Sderot and Ashkelon have been plummeted by missiles shot by Palestinian terrorists living in the Gaza region for over a year now. When I pick up the IDS, I want to know that I am absorbing stories in their entirety, not as half-truths. I believe that our campus newspaper strives to uphold neutral and democratic values in reporting on issues, and I hope that the editors take this into consideration in the future when selecting stories and photographs from the Associated Press.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To The Editors of the IDS:
I am disappointed by the choice of articles the IDS chose to publish on the situation in the Gaza Strip early this week. The Associated Press articles clearly took a biased approach in reporting Israel’s entrance into the Palestinian-governed region, and by choosing to print these articles, along with the similarly biased photographs that accompanied them, readers were put in the position of forming a ill-informed bias
The lead to Monday’s article “Palestinians suspend peace talks with Israel as Gaza death toll mounts” began, “Israel sent missiles slamming into the office of Gaza’s Hamas prime minister Sunday, pressing on with an offensive that has killed nearly 70 Palestinians in two days.” This text is not falsely reporting on the situation. Rather, it is shining light onto a single side of a long, drawn out story. By reading this passage a reader cannot grasp a fair, unbiased image of the events taking place. Even by reading the remainder of the article, it is impossible to visualize both the Israeli and Palestinian side of this situation. In addition to reading the IDS’ coverage of world news, I also turned to The New York Times and read the article, “As Israelis Pull Out of Gaza, Hamas Celebrates Its Rocketry,” which presented two sides of this event. This newspaper stated the cold, hard facts of the difficult conditions in the Gaza Strip, and allowed the reader to contemplate whether or not he or she would side with the Israeli or the Palestinian cause. The IDS articles did not do this. Rather, they direct the readers sympathy towards the Palestinian strife and only in the final line of the article is the reader informed of another side of the story. (The article ended by stating “About 50 rockets and mortars were fired Saturday, injuring six Israelis.”)
I am NOT arguing for or against the rights of the Palestinians or Israelis. I am however criticizing the IDS for pushing a single view onto its readers, which in this scenario happened to take the side of Palestinians living in Gaza.
This week the IDS dictated an anti-Israel bias as it chose to report on a complex issue while presenting a narrow viewpoint. I am not here to say that the Israel Defense Force made the right decision when they entered Gaza, but rather to point out that the Israeli border towns of Sderot and Ashkelon have been plummeted by missiles shot by Palestinian terrorists living in the Gaza region for over a year now. When I pick up the IDS, I want to know that I am absorbing stories in their entirety, not as half-truths. I believe that our campus newspaper strives to uphold neutral and democratic values in reporting on issues, and I hope that the editors take this into consideration in the future when selecting stories and photographs from the Associated Press.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Defining the IDS' Anti-Israel Bias
In this entry I will respond to a comment Professor Cohen posted in response to my last blog entry. Professor Cohen wrote,
“Instead of just stating that there's an anti-Israel bias in the American press, prove it. Do the research and see if you can back up what you're saying. (And then, of course, you'll need to explain what an "anti-Israel bias" is to you.)”
When I stated that I saw an anti-Israel bias in the Indiana Daily Student in my previous blog entry, I was referencing the way which the newspaper is choosing to report on the current situation in the Gaza strip. The stories they were printing (which came from the Associated Press) did not falsely accuse or commit libel. Rather, they were shining light only onto one side of a long, ongoing story. The IDS in the last couple days has been reporting on a major event occurring in the Gaza strip, in which Israeli armed forces have entered the region and struck fire on Palestinian terrorists (and as it happened some civilians too). The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has entered the region as a direct response to Qasam missiles which have incessantly been fired into the Israeli border towns of Sderot and Ashkelon for over a year now. The IDS has taken this event and painted a one-sided picture of the situation. The photograph which appeared in today’s paper was accompanied by a caption that read “Palestinians hold up flags and march during the funeral of Mohamad Salef Shreiteh, 17, Monday in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Shreiteh was shot and killed west of Ramallah by an Israeli settler during a protest of Palestinian youths against Israel’s Gaza operations, according to Israeli police and Palestinian officials.” I ask in response to this image, why have you chosen to illustrate only the side of the Palestinian strife? The photograph in Monday’s paper painted the same image. Why then can't the IDS take a stance that shows both the Israeli and the Palestinian struggle? In times of war, there is always two or more sides to the instigating argument. Why not focus on both?
When I characterize an article as dictating an anti-Israel bias, I imply that the reporter and newspaper are choosing to report on a complex issue with a single stance. At the very least I skim through The New York Times online articles every day. As this newspaper is also reporting on the same story, I find that they project a more neutral stance. I believe that journalism in the 21st century strives for objectivity and The New York Times is our nation’s leading paper because it often achieves this goal. In reading through their reports of the situation in Gaza, I learned that Israeli civilians have been targeted by short and most recently long-range missiles (reportedly provided by Iran) ignited by Palestinian terrorists in the region. I too learn that Israel is taking forceful action against these attacks and have entered the region with armed forces. The IDF has since then murdered major Hamas leaders and in doing so, has also killed a number of Palestinian civilians. When I read the article on NYT.com, I see two paralleling stories and am forced to make my own opinion as to whether I side with the Israeli or the Palestinian cause. When I read the article in the IDS (also the one in Reuters) a bias is forced upon me so that I (as a pro-Israel American) am forced into a defensive position. I am put in this position to defend my beliefs because of a bias, and in this particular instance, an anti-Israel bias.
The articles I reference in this entry can be found at:
1. www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=49439&comview=1
2. www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=49475&comview=1
3. www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04mideast.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
“Instead of just stating that there's an anti-Israel bias in the American press, prove it. Do the research and see if you can back up what you're saying. (And then, of course, you'll need to explain what an "anti-Israel bias" is to you.)”
When I stated that I saw an anti-Israel bias in the Indiana Daily Student in my previous blog entry, I was referencing the way which the newspaper is choosing to report on the current situation in the Gaza strip. The stories they were printing (which came from the Associated Press) did not falsely accuse or commit libel. Rather, they were shining light only onto one side of a long, ongoing story. The IDS in the last couple days has been reporting on a major event occurring in the Gaza strip, in which Israeli armed forces have entered the region and struck fire on Palestinian terrorists (and as it happened some civilians too). The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has entered the region as a direct response to Qasam missiles which have incessantly been fired into the Israeli border towns of Sderot and Ashkelon for over a year now. The IDS has taken this event and painted a one-sided picture of the situation. The photograph which appeared in today’s paper was accompanied by a caption that read “Palestinians hold up flags and march during the funeral of Mohamad Salef Shreiteh, 17, Monday in the West Bank city of Ramallah. Shreiteh was shot and killed west of Ramallah by an Israeli settler during a protest of Palestinian youths against Israel’s Gaza operations, according to Israeli police and Palestinian officials.” I ask in response to this image, why have you chosen to illustrate only the side of the Palestinian strife? The photograph in Monday’s paper painted the same image. Why then can't the IDS take a stance that shows both the Israeli and the Palestinian struggle? In times of war, there is always two or more sides to the instigating argument. Why not focus on both?
When I characterize an article as dictating an anti-Israel bias, I imply that the reporter and newspaper are choosing to report on a complex issue with a single stance. At the very least I skim through The New York Times online articles every day. As this newspaper is also reporting on the same story, I find that they project a more neutral stance. I believe that journalism in the 21st century strives for objectivity and The New York Times is our nation’s leading paper because it often achieves this goal. In reading through their reports of the situation in Gaza, I learned that Israeli civilians have been targeted by short and most recently long-range missiles (reportedly provided by Iran) ignited by Palestinian terrorists in the region. I too learn that Israel is taking forceful action against these attacks and have entered the region with armed forces. The IDF has since then murdered major Hamas leaders and in doing so, has also killed a number of Palestinian civilians. When I read the article on NYT.com, I see two paralleling stories and am forced to make my own opinion as to whether I side with the Israeli or the Palestinian cause. When I read the article in the IDS (also the one in Reuters) a bias is forced upon me so that I (as a pro-Israel American) am forced into a defensive position. I am put in this position to defend my beliefs because of a bias, and in this particular instance, an anti-Israel bias.
The articles I reference in this entry can be found at:
1. www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=49439&comview=1
2. www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=49475&comview=1
3. www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/world/middleeast/04mideast.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
Monday, March 3, 2008
To the IDS: Tzeva Adom!!!
Recently a facebook group was created to unify people all over the [facebook] world to sympathize for the constituency of Sderot, a border town of the Palestinian occupied region of Gaza. To offer a quick news update to anyone unaware, Sderot, a town of nearly 20,000 has been the recipient of Kassam missiles from their Hamas driven neighbors in the Gaza strip. This facebook group called “Empathy with Sderot Day, 2/20/08 maintains a membership of 6,950. Outstanding.
I was invited to this group from an Israeli friend of mine and old co-counselor Udi, who while attending Hebrew University in Jerusalem is also working on various campaigns to bring relief to the civilians of Sderot and his hometown of Ashkelon (which too has recently been the recipient of attacks from Gaza). I bring up this facebook group because it was the first thing that came to mind after reading an article in the IDS this morning entitled “Palestinians suspend peace talks with Israel as Gaza death toll mounts.” This article (and the article that will appear in tomorrow’s IDS) declares a clear anti-Israel bias, and this is entirely upsetting. In creating this facebook group, Udi encouraged all members to change their facebook photo to feature the graphic above on Feb. 20, so to spread the news about the constant state of alert these Israelis are living in. Tzevah adom translates to “Color Red” or “Red Alert.” Constituents of these two Israeli border cities continuously hear this alarm on a frequent basis as it sounds before missiles land in their neighborhoods.
After reading this article, I am forced to wonder why the editors at this student press (who most likely are less concerned with Israel’s representation in the media than I) selected this Associated Press (AP) story to print in their publication today, and whether or not they realize that they are making a solid statement by printing this article, and giving it this particular title. Everyone who follows the current events of the nation and world knows that an anti-Israel bias often prevails in CNN, Fox and well, now, the Indiana Daily Student, and I question these motives. Are the journalists at our campus newspaper sitting in the Ernie Pyle building with a stated agenda, or are they nonetheless finding the first AP story and photo that pops up on their screen and placing it on their Nation & World page. Is the anti-Israel bias that abounds American media more so the result of motive or ignorance? If I were to ask the editors of any daily press that strives in its mission towards objectivity why they chose to feature a photograph illustrating Palestinians mourning the death of a Palestinian teenager shot by an Israeli settler, how would they answer me?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)