Migrated fb note part 3: On equal marriage.

An Open Letter to Baron Sacks of Aldgate in the City of London

31 May 2013 at 01:42

PublicFriendsFriends except acquaintancesOnly MeCustomIsrael Work Contactshuc yii 10 1See all lists...israel mates 2Israel MatesHUC YII 09 list 1Anglo Jeru friendshuc yii 10 3HUC YII 09 list 2huc yii 10 2Israel Work contacts 2Israel Mates 3Work contacts abroadPeople in IsraelThe gangUK Reform JewsManchester, United Kingdom AreaHebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of ReligionJerusalem, Israel AreaHebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion‎התנועה הרפורמית‎AcquaintancesGo Back

Calling all those who believe in either religious freedom (+ freedom from religion) or LGBTQ rights, or both. Today, one of my heroines, Rabbi Laura Janner Klausner shared a letter from a leading Quaker which he had sent to a member of the house of Lords, urging them to support the passing of law which would allow same sex marriage in "religious" venues by "religious" leaders. This is the letter I sent to Lord Sacks. Why don't you write one too?

כ"א סיון תשע"ג

30th of May 2013 according to the counting of the Christian Kingdom of Great Britain

Dear Lord Sacks,

I write to you, not in your esteemed position as Chief Rabbi of the Jews of Great Britain and the Commonwealth, but as Baron Sacks of Aldgate of the City of London, a Lord of her majesty’s government, and a protector of the rights of Britons in that government. I write to you about an issue dear to your heart, and to the heart of all Jews – namely religious freedom. You have written so eloquently in your book, “The Dignity of Difference” and elsewhere about the need for societies to recognise the search for truth within all religious traditions. You have been a constant voice for the promotion of a society in which each individual will be able to simultaneously draw inspiration and energy from their own tradition while being able to see the value and importance of others’ religious beliefs and join together with others to create a more just and equal society. Your criticism of the “I” culture resonated beyond sectarian boundaries as a clarion call for a more collective view of societal responsibility. You have been a leader in showing this country that all humans are created בצלם אלקים as equals, and that we all have a responsibility to defend the religious rights of others.

As such I beseech you to defend my religious rights. As a Progressive Jew, and a Reform Rabbi, I am moved by my belief in Torah, which for me is an עץ חיים – a tree oflife – a source of never ending, continuous revelation, to see, as you do, that all of us are created, בדמות אלקים. It is clear to me that the divine image in all of us demands from each of us that we be treated equally before the law. As such, I am divinely obligated  (מצווה) to respect the needs and wishes of my members – whether they be straight or gay, lesbian or bisexual. As you well know, our tradition teaches that humans are createdwith the need to seek עזר כנגדו – a help-mate in life. While my human cynicism may question the romanticism of this single-partnership vision, and while the Jewish tradition has historically allowed for multiple partners, in the society in which we live, monogamy and monoandry have become part of our societal and religious fabric.

As such, though I speak for myself, and not my community, as a religious leader, I understand myself to be morally, ethically and religiously bound  (מצווה) to perform ceremonies which celebrate the love and commitment of two people to each other. I view these ceremonies as a ברית אהבה – a sacred covenant of love. Moreover, given the nature of the establishment of religion in this country and the failure of the country to divorce religion from the state, as a religious leader, my role is also a legal one. And as such, if I am disbarred from marrying two people of the same gender, the state is actively squashing my religious freedom. I urge you, in your position as a member of the House of Lords to support my religious rights and freedoms and to join with other defenders of Jewish rights, such as Baroness Neuberger, in seeking a change in the law which will allow these religious marriages between two partners of the same gender to take place in my synagogue. As you know – this will in no way affect your own religious rights, nor those of anyone who does not wish to have them affected, but you will be a champion for those of us, whose religious beliefs are currently unrepresented in law.

Yours sincerely,




Rabbi Haim Shalom

Migrated Notes part 2: On Shechita

Another little rant...

23 June 2011 at 21:53

PublicFriendsFriends except acquaintancesOnly MeCustomIsrael Work Contactshuc yii 10 1See all lists...israel mates 2Israel MatesHUC YII 09 list 1Anglo Jeru friendshuc yii 10 3HUC YII 09 list 2huc yii 10 2Israel Work contacts 2Israel Mates 3Work contacts abroadPeople in IsraelThe gangUK Reform JewsManchester, United Kingdom AreaHebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of ReligionJerusalem, Israel AreaHebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion‎התנועה הרפורמית‎AcquaintancesGo Back

I feel that in recent years I have become much better in the self-righteous lecturing stakes when it comes to vegetarianism. This rant isn't really about vegetarianism, it is actually about the stupidity of a public Jewish figure not knowing what Jewishness is all about, so meat-eaters - I am not attacking you. Unless the Chief Rabbit reads this, in which case - yes I am attacking what you said (but not you personally, you seem very nice in person)...

So, I'm skimming through Ha'aretz online, as one does at the end of the day, when the little one has gone to bed, and I find this rather interesting article:

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/dutch-lawmakers-work-out-kosher-slaughter-ban-compromise-1.369137

all about Holland banning kosher and Halal slaughtering. As always, I am torn between the fact that I don't really support Kosher slaughtering (or any slaughter for that matter), and the fact that I know that it isn't really about animal cruelty, but more about ignorance and probably a little bit of anti-Muslim prejudice. Anyway - I am reading along laughing at how we think we are so important (there are twenty times as many muslims in Holland as Jews, but somehow we still think it is about us). And then I get to this quote from Lord-on-High Sacks,

"If pre-stunning were made compulsory under Dutch law, Jews would be unable to practice a central element of Jewish life which has been continuously practiced for over 3,000 years"

Excuse me? What? What are you talking about? Slaughter is a central part of Jewish life? Methinks not, sir. No - in fact you are completely wrong. Ritual slaughter is part of a framework in Jewish law that allows us to eat meat. Eating meat is not in any way central to Jewish life**. We are not commanded to eat meat. There is no special bracha for meat (unlike Bread, wine, fruit, vegetables, etc). Eating meat is not central to being Jewish, and anyone who thinks so is the kind of idiot who says that whatever they like to do is central to being Jewish. If I were to suggest that as a Jewish Man Utd fan, I think that supporting Liverpool is idolatry, I would be perfectly correct from a Man Utd point of view, but from a Jewish point of view, I am just talking rubbish. So well done Lord Sacks - you get the 5771 David Taylor prize for talking absolute rubbish on behalf of the Jewish people.

So Lord Sacks - please read the TaNaKh, or failing that a little bit of RaMBaM or Rav Kook, who you claim to be a fan of, or just any book of actual Jewish law, and you will discover that you are obviously deluded - that the Jewish tradition does not consider the eating of meat to be central to its practice, or at least it certainly hasn't done since our temple was destroyed 2000 years ago. On the other hand, we do pray to be returned to Zion three times a day. And yet that central plank of the Jewish tradition, you seem quite happy to ignore.

** anyone mentions the irrelevant piece of aggadata that states that there is no simha without meat gets a prize for accessory for stupidity. Not everything ever written in the Talmud makes any particular practice of central importance to Judaism. The talmud also says that Persians have sex with their clothes on. My guess is, that doesn't make it true.

Migrating Notes from facebook to here: part 1 - On faulty logic

This was a note from my facebook page over 3 years ago. It might have been what made me start the blog. I don't remember. Anyway... 

A little rant about faulty logic.....

30 May 2011 at 15:51

PublicFriendsFriends except acquaintancesOnly MeCustomIsrael Work Contactshuc yii 10 1See all lists...israel mates 2Israel MatesHUC YII 09 list 1Anglo Jeru friendshuc yii 10 3HUC YII 09 list 2huc yii 10 2Israel Work contacts 2Israel Mates 3Work contacts abroadPeople in IsraelThe gangUK Reform JewsManchester, United Kingdom AreaHebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of ReligionJerusalem, Israel AreaHebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion‎התנועה הרפורמית‎AcquaintancesGo Back

It may be time for a little rant. I hate faulty logic. Just hate it - in particular this nugget of half-truth/ pure bullshit that I was told again today. Someone told me that it was "scientifically proven" that women are better drivers, and brought as proof the fact that in civilised countries, there are special deals by insurance companies that give women better insurance. This is not true. Don't get me wrong - women might well be better drivers,  but I am sure it can't be proven that they are, and certainly hasn't been yet. But I don't care about that - I care about the faulty logic. Women get better insurance because they are less likely to get sued by someone else for damage done. This has a number of causes, most of which it is hard to say lead to the claim that women are better drivers.
As a rule men drive a lot more than women (Far greater number of men commute long distances for work) - hence when an insurance company insures a man for a year, it is possible that they are insuring him for twice or three times as many hours on the road. Moreover - even when involved in an accident, and even when they may have caused one, women are less likely to get sued - either because of chivalry/chauvinism/sexism or because they are less likely to get into an argument -whatever! But it doesn't prove they are any better drivers! That is faulty logic! Now if someone argued that on average they believed that women were better drivers because among men there is a sub-culture of machismo which encourages young male drivers to act like boy-racer idiots, then I would buy it. Or if someone were to claim that society equates fast-driving with manliness and hence women are less apt to drive irresponsibly, i would agree - but the ridiculous insurance thing just does my nut. A definite case of (Alexandra - this is for you) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Rant done.

Home

To be at home
is not a geographical reality.

To go home
is not a physical journey.

To leave home
is not an easy decision.

Home
is not just where the heart is.

Home
is where the kishkes are.

Where I grow.
Where I see the future.
Where that future is mine to build.

Home.

Thoughts on returning to a land at War....

My heart is in the east
And my suitcase is packed.

Leaving home
To go Home.

Looking to a promised land
with so little promise.
Aching to be there
Waiting to be there.

But praying that peace will come
Knowing that it will not come ...
... soon enough.

Written after the murders of Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Frankel, Gilad Sha'ar and Muhammed Abu Khdeir

A parent should never have to bury a son.
God, don't bury your sons and daughters in violence.
Don't drown us in blood.
May we live to praise your name.
May we live to see your image in each other.
May we live.
In peace.

My 2 shekels' worth on the Rabbi Kimche Letter

I was originally going to write this as a response on the facebook wall of Andrew Gilbert, but obviously it got a bit long for a response...

I am referencing Rabbi Alan Kimche's Open Letter about Limmud which you can find here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-gilbert/rabbi-kimches-infamous-innaccurate-and-in-some-cases-offensive-article-on-attend/10152061054651392 and also Dr Harris Bor's response which you can find here: http://jacquelinenicholls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/lets-be-honest.html

.

I thought Harris Bor's response on Jacqueline Nicholls blog was exceptional, spot on, humourous and incredibly insightful. But I was not in any way offended by the original letter from Rabbi Kimche. I may have found it to be inaccurate (nothing new when talking about Orthodox rabbis characterisations of non-Orthodox Judaism - have we forgotten that the former Chief Rabbi of the US called Reform Jews, "those who destroy the faith" and a "false grouping"). I thought that what he said about LGBTQ Jews was offensive, but I was not offended, since I would expect nothing else - mainstream Orthodox Judaism is homophobic. So I think that Rabbi Kimche's main point needs to be understood - let's be honest.

Rabbi Kimche, from what I know of his reputation (and I might be wrong), is a good representation of mainstream orthodoxy's rabbinate. What we need to be honest about is the fact that the vast majority of UK Jewry doesn't believe in the type of Judaism these people espouse, and yet for the past couple of centuries, they have been propping up this necrotic institution of the United Synagogues and their affiliates.

I think that we should have an open honest conversation, and we don't need to take offence too easily when people disagree with our viewpoints, our understanding of the world or our values. I disagree with Rabbi Kimche, but we can disagree and respect each other's right to do as we wish, and he has every right to use his office to convince people why they should reject the wonderful beit midrash which is Limmud. He has every right to reject my understanding of Jewish history and Jewish identity.

If there is one place where Dr Bor's characterisation of narrow-minded Orthodoxy fell down, I believe, it is in the idea that he believed that somehow this type of Orthodoxy will cease to be vibrant. Dr Bor recognises that in fact, intolerance breeds itself very well and that the anti-modern forms of Jewish community are the only ones genuinely thriving numerically in the UK and around the world. We, on the liberal side of this debate also need to be honest - and admit that Rabbi Kimche has some good points to make (isn't that the point of the Limmud ethos - that we can learn from those people with whom we fundamentally disagree). When he accuses non-Orthodoxy of encouraging assimilation, he is obviously talking from ignorance, but nevertheless, it encourages us to ask genuine questions about what assimilation does mean to us today and where we stand on such an issue. How do we anticipate and react to the growing numbers of Jews who find non-Jewish partners and how do we help them to create meaningful lives within these partnerships?

Most of all, I think that the Progressive reaction to Rabbi Kimche's letter misses the main point - which is that it is not talking about us at all (though of course we are pawns used by him to make his point). But Rabbi Kimche is not talking about us and he is not talking to us, but rather to those members and leaders of "modern" or "open" orthodoxy, and he is asking them to be honest. He is asking people who use the moniker of Orthodoxy to be honest about that usage. In what way are "Orthodox" leaders who reject his fundamentalism, reject his obscurantism, reject his intolerance, reject his homophobia, reject his xenophobia really Orthodox? That is the question he is asking, and the honesty he is seeking. In the end it has nothing to do with Progressive Judaism - we just look on from the sidelines, wondering whether the leaders of "Modern" or "Open" Orthodoxy still want to share a camp with Rabbi Kimche and the other Orthodox rabbis who oppose dialogue and debate, or whether they want to share a camp with those who support it.

I am not trying to deny the leaders of Open or Modern Orthodoxy the right to define themselves as they wish, or to re-define Orthodoxy, but I would ask, together with Rabbi Kimche, for some honesty. I think that the leaders who Rabbi Kimche wants to reach, people like the incredible (Hopefully chief-rabbi-to-be), Rabbi Rafi Zarum, could probably give a fascinating response to Rabbi Kimche and to me, about the radical honesty which underpins Open Orthodoxy. I would love to hear it.

Monarchists - You can't have it both ways

I am a republican.

No don't worry - not a Republican, a republican. I believe the UK (and all other monarchies) should be a democracy - they should get rid of the Monarchy and become a republic.

Most of the time when I enter debate about this, the Monarchist side will usually come up with the following points:

1. They're great for tourism - the UK would lose so much money if they got rid of the Royals.
2. They do no harm.
3. They don't impede democracy, they have no actual role in government.
4. They're great for tourism
5. The UK is a constitutional monarchy - it is simply an effective way of having a head of state who has no executive functions.
6. They're great for tourism.

Now - anyone who can read and add up will realise that there are actually only 2 arguments here, one repeated so many times that people think its true, without any actual proof is that they are great for tourism. The other three supposed reasons are in fact also just one - they actually don't do anything - so they're doing no harm.

Ignoring the fact that they are a really really expensive redundancy - the interesting thing is that this point actually undermines the only other point monarchists have - and particularly Jewish monarchists.

I was recently accused of being unpatriotic because I did not want to say a prayer for the queen. I was told - how could I not want to honour the monarch of this country which gave so many of our grandparents refuge. Ignoring the fact that the Royals were probably very sympathetic to many of the people organising the pogroms and mass murder which forced us to flee - this often heard canard should theoretically completely undermine the main point of monarchists - IF the monarchy has nothing to do with actual government, then the monarchy had nothing to do with our receiving refuge! So - Monarchists can't have it both ways. Either the Monarchy are not involved in government, and therefore had nothing to do with the country giving Jews refuge, or the Monarchy does involve itself in government - in which case there is no democratic process.

Really - i despair!

Why are Israeli and English commentators so stupid?

After the bitching and moaning of the first paragraph, I get to the real point: Education, Education, Education...

So, it's Euro 2012 time, and if you think that this is some form of monetary currency convention between Europe's great economic powers, then clearly we don't inhabit the same planet. It is a football (soccer) competition, and is what gets people through the four long years between World Cups, for those who worship at the altar of the one true religion, namely: the Beautiful Game. Anyway, as I currently live in footaballing exile (i.e. outside of a country that knows how to appreciate the game), I am sentenced to death by idiocy - that is to say, I have to put up with Israeli commentary on football matches. This is truly painful. It seems that the broadcasters actually cast around to find the most non-sensical idiotic morons available to comment upon and give analysis of these games. I often watch the games on mute - my wife thinks it is because I am being considerate and making sure I don't wake our gorgeous son sleeping next door - this is a fantastic win-win situation. Occasionally I put the sound on to be able to hear the crowd but make sure it is too low to hear the idiocy coming through. So I was slightly in shock recently when I actually watched some English commentary and analysis, and found to my horror that they are just as bad, if not worse. The inane chatter and supposed joking around seems to cover the fact that these people know nothing about anything and do not have the ability to talk intelligently about the one thing they are meant to know something about. It is hard to believe they are getting paid for this.

So - it is one thing to complain - but one has to ask - why is this the case? Why are football commentators almost universally stupid in the two places where I watch football. Well, first of all, I was forced to ask the question whether it is universal. After a tiny amount of anecdotal research, I find out that, while other countries do have some idiots behind the mic, as a general rule, it is not true of most European countries. Not only this, but it seems to be particularly true of football, as opposed to other sports. And moreover - it is not just commentators - everyone involved in English football, barring a small minority seem to have difficulty expressing themselves in a reasoned and intelligent manner. What's going on? Now of course this is a ridiculously unfair generalisation - and I really do apologise. It isn't true - there are plenty of intelligent footballers, coaches, managers and commentators, in England, Israel and around the world, but, still, there is a sense that those involved in football in England lack the ability to analyse the game and speak eloquently about it. Now - I can see good reason for that to be the case with regard to footballers themselves. When someone says of a footballer, his brains are in his feet, it is meant as a compliment, but it also comes across as a back-handed insult. If his brains are in his feet - they aren't in his head. And I also am happy to admit there are lots of different types of intelligence and it is narrow thinking to concentrate on eloquence as a defining characteristic of intelligence - and of course there are many ways on the pitch that footballers show how aware of the world they can be and how quick they can think. Nevertheless - there still remains a sense that elevated intellectual thinking is not a necessary requirement for success in the footballing field. But coaches? Commentators? What's going on? And is it really fair to believe that somehow footballers are not as smart as others? Wasn't the last pope a semi-professional standard goalkeeper? Albert Camus? Didn't he play a bit? So once again - I ask - what is going on?

So here are some of my observations, and then some conclusions, primarily relevant to the English case, but I am sure also to the Israeli case:
Observations:
1) Most commentators and most coaches are ex-footballers themselves. So essentially the question is about the footballers themselves.

2) There is a culture that surrounds football (all good religions develop cultural elements to them).

3) The culture of football has become anti-elitist, anti-intellectual and to some extent - anti-learning.

4) To become a top-flight footballer these days, one has to basically commit the majority of one's energy to achieving such a goal from the age of about 8, meaning that one's priority is to develop one's footballing skills, rather than to develop one's overall mind.

5) As noted - non-British, European players, coaches and commentators seem to come across as more cultured, more educated and more intelligent than British players, coaches and commentators.

6) Football is a working class sport in the UK, and the vast majority of players have a working class education.

7) The vast majority of people who try and make it as a footballer do not end up earning their salary for the majority of their life from the sport.

8) MOST IMPORTANTLY - these people are actually just as intelligent as anyone else. This is not about intelligence. This is about sounding eloquent. This is about sounding informed and engaged.

So - some conclusions:

1) British footballers are uneducated, because they have been encouraged to believe they do not need an education to be a footballer. This is short term thinking. Even if they are good enough to make it as a footballer (the tiny minority who start on the journey), they remain uneducated after finishing their relatively short career as a footballer. It seems that in other countries, people who end up being footballers, also have a general, rounded education.

2) This is about class and power - there is a reason why footballers are encouraged to be well paid but poorly educated. They are more manipulable as such.

3) It is self-defeating. England has enough resources to be better than Italy, Spain, France and Holland at football, and yet it has never reached the success at major tournaments that those countries have. I believe this is because of poor coaching and poor attitudes of players. This is an educational issue.

In short, the UK seems to be happy to allow its footballers to lack an education. This may be all well and good if really the issue were footballers (or coaches, or commentators, or winning trophies by developing smart coaches), but actually what is important about the UK football education dearth is what it says about the UK's educational system - that if you come from the working class in the UK - no-one has an interested in making sure you will receive a good education.

Is there a limit to loving criticism?

There is a common (one might say tired, overdone)  motif in all sit-coms where a wife often asks her poor husband how she looks in a particular outfit. Usually, the husband will try and find some way to avoid answering the dreaded question: Do I look good in this? You see, in this situation, the truth will not help him...He loves his wife. He loves her with every sinew of his being and he may well think that she is incomparably beautiful and it doesn't matter what she wears. So of course, he is always going to say yes, right? Well not exactly - you see his wife sometimes wants just to hear, "yes you look beautiful" and sometimes she wants to hear, "Well no, you can't really wear those boots with that skirt, they don't go". Now the problem is he doesn't always catch the right situation... And if he answers, "Of course you look beautiful" when she wants a more specific answer, then he's in the doghouse, because, in his unfeeling, stereotypically male, neanderthal manner, he has managed to show that he doesn't really care what she wears. If you haven't guessed - I am feeling a certain amount of empathy for the husband figure in this sit-com sketch - in fact, minus some of the stereotyping, I can completely identify. I admit it. So you see - I hate that question. Because let's face it - what's important to me is that I love my wife and she's beautiful, and I don't care so much about the shoes matching or not. My guess is there are few people in relationships who are hearing my pain. But in the end, it doesn't really matter - because my wife may know that I don't know anything about clothes, and that I think she looks beautiful in anything, but she also knows that I love her. So after she tells me to pay attention and actually look, I can give her an honest critique, and we are hunky-dory, safe in the knowledge that we love each other, and she is now wearing the correct boots for her outfit.

But I don't write about relationships - so what's this about? Well, I recently had an interesting conversation with a facebook friend about this article. And the conversation led us to ask the question - what is loving criticism of Israel from "the Diaspora"? Is there acceptable criticism and unacceptable criticism of a government?

You see, I am as critical as can be about Israeli government policy. I have protested it, I have petitioned against it, and I am willing to shout and wail about it in the streets. But it's my government! The question arose in my conversation with my fb friend - how much criticism can a partner take before they begin to doubt the sincerity of the "love" out of which the critic speaks.

So - I ask myself? Have I turned into that narrow minded Israeli who refuses to hear criticism - no, I don't believe I have. I am happy to hear criticism from many pro-Palestinian organisations (including Jewish Pro-palestinian organisations). You know what, I myself consider myself a Jewish pro-Palestinian. I support Palestinian nationhood, I support Palestinian business. I do my best not to support the economy of the settlements. I vote for and am a member of a party which will uproot the settlements and work towards a Palestinian state. I am a pro-Palestinian critic of Israeli governmental policy. And I believe that my critique of the state's actions comes from within. From a place of love.

When I critique Likud policy or Bibi Netanyahu personally, though, it is not out of love. I do not love Bibi (more than I love any other human in that they are human). Infact I dislike Bibi and resent him for what he has done to my country. So I would be dishonest if I said that I criticise him from a place of love. Maybe if I was part of his family but disagreed with him politically, I could say that - that I love him, but because I love him, I must tell him that he is wrong. And that's the key - criticism will always be criticism. Love needs to be shown and felt. It cannot be declarative. Next time my wife asks me about the sweater, or the boots, or the skirt - I know that she knows that I love her, because we live together, day in, day out. We support each other and face the world together.

So now I understand another level of the complicated "critique from Love position" of Diaspora Jewry. You see it's not about the criticism - it's about the love..... The real issue is not whether Israel can take criticism or not. We take it plenty. We've learnt to live with it. It is that essentially we don't see ourselves as being in a loving relationship (or pretty much any relationship) with Diaspora Jewry. What Diaspora Jewry needs to understand is that we don't see your criticism as loving - not because it's criticism, but simply because we essentially view you as any other foreigners. That's sad, and I get that it's hurtful, and I wish it wasn't so, but you know what - you chose that. Israel has made it super-easy to come and be a citizen here (I'm not saying it's easy to make aliyah, but it isn't hard to become an Israeli citizen). You chose not to. You chose to stay living in America, Argentina, France, wherever.... We asked you to move in. You said no. And now you think there's still a loving relationship? When you say to Israel, those shoes (the settlements) don't really go with that skirt (being a democracy), you're right. And you know what - if you were a fashion guru, we'd listen to you. And also, if you were our husband or mom or a close friend, we would listen too. But you aren't. And think about it for a second. If someone stops you in the street and tells you that your shoes don't go with your outfit, you're not going to stop, rationally and think about it and say - oh yeah, you're right. You're going to think they are rude and should mind their own business. Especially considering that at the time, the back of their skirt was accidentally tucked into their knickers. So - criticism from Love - it works as a concept, but there has to be real love. And unfortunately - there just isn't. Sorry guys....

עין תחת עין

An old drasha I meant to post but didn't - this one was for Limmud on one Leg

עין תחת עין

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

(Questionably attributed to Mohatma Ghandi)

It is hard not to see the logic of Ghandi's thought, and from our (post-)modern perspective, it is hard to see the logic behind the original biblical principle. In fact it does not take the perspective of modernity to see the problematic nature of the eye-for-an-eye concept. The rabbis themselves reworked the understanding of the biblical verse - "assuming" that it could never have been meant in its literal sense. In a passage of the Talmud discussing compensation (Bava Kama 83b), the rabbis ask, "Why pay compensation - does not the bible say, "An eye for an eye"?". The rabbis respond to their own question, saying, "סלקא דעתך" - "Cast out that thought of yours!" It is obvious to them, that the meaning of the verse never meant that one whose eye has been gouged out should be allowed to do the same to his attacker - but rather we must pay compensation.

We have convinced ourselves that the very concept of retributive justice is old-fashioned, antiquated, even barbaric - a symbol of a more ignorant, less civilized world. And yet, I am not sure that this conclusion is always correct. It would be tempting to suggest that the spiritual path, the Jewish path, is to reject vengeance, but our tradition is never that simple. Our tradition, as always, has at least two authentic opinions on the question of revenge. In 1945, on his release from a concentration camp, Dr Zalman Grinberg gave the following testimony:

“We do not want revenge. If we took revenge it would mean that we would fall to those moral and spiritual depths in which the German people have been lost for the last ten years. We are not able to murder women and children! We are not able to burn millions of people! We are not able to starve hundreds of thousands!”

It is hard not to agree with his words, and see the morality etched into them. On the other hand, no less of a Jewish view is represented by the last letter of Mordechai Anilewitz,

“The dream of my life has risen to become fact. Self-defence in the ghetto will have been a reality. Jewish armed resistance and revenge are facts. I have been witness to the magnificent heroic fighting of Jewish men of battle.”

Could Anilewitz' desire for revenge be considered immoral?

If we return to Ghandi and his famous quote, it is undeniably true that if we are willing to take an eye for an eye we may all end up blind. But it must be remembered that Ghandi also refused to fight the evil of Nazism - a refusal to engage with evil can lead to a greater evil. Sometimes, intervention is necessary. If we started with a quote questionably attributed to Ghandi, it is reasonable to finish with one of the most common misattributions ever. Edmond Burke never said: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” But if he had, he may be adequately reflecting the initial intention of “An eye for an eye”. Vengeance is not Jewish, but Justice, Justice shall you pursue…

Liberal Judaism in the UK asking the big questions....

I wrote this post a few weeks ago, I don't know why it didn't get published on the blog. Here it is....

Just read two excellent pieces by UK Liberal Jews, both of which, from different directions touch on what it means to be Jewish. I know neither author, but agree with most of what both say. The first article I found on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/lj-student-worker/chinuch-article-22-are-jews-a-religion-a-race-or-something-else/314334608621110

It seems to be written by an extremely articulate "Boger" (graduate member) of LJY Netzer, who unfortunately, I don't believe I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, but I hope to one day. He just needs to go on and say what Jewishness is, as well as what it isn't. Maybe he could take some inspiration from the words of another Liberal UK Jew, Rabbi David Goldberg, who writes this article in the Groinyard. (Those who have read my previous posts will note my failure in steering clear of the Guardian's CIF pages).

Goldberg's article is very sensible and very well written. He essentially argues that Jewishness and Christianity still have something to teach when denuded of their religious accouterments.

I do believe, however, that his article may be misunderstood by the average non-Jew, since it falls into the trap pointed out by Mr Walmsley's article above (the Boger of LJY Netzer). It is occasionally misleading, as it seems to suggest that Jewishness and Christianity are co-terminous, parallel entities. As if Judaism is a religion in the same way Christianity is. Jewishness is the culture of an ethnic group called the Jews (I am clearly more happy defining what we ARE than David). Christianity is a faith-based religion of many peoples, invented by a group of Jews and Europeans, but practiced today primarily by victims of European colonialism. Christianity is based on faith, and always has been. To be a Jew has never been based in faith - but rather as an ancient primitive culture, Jewishness assumed an understanding of the world in which the unknown was explained through a mythical Godhead. But the basis of Jewish culture, like all cultures has always been an organic connection to the cultural center through ties of land, language, kinship or shared heritage. Atheist Jewishness is not Oxymoronic - most Jewish heroes have engaged, in one point in their lives, in a rebellion against the mainstream understanding of the divine within their society - in fact - some of our foundational myths rests on the idea of revolting against mainstream understanding of the divine (both the Abrahamic and the Mosaic myths). Christianity, on the other hand, is a faith based cultural narrative. As the now infamous Dawkins' poll, referred to in the article, showed, it is hard to still consider it a faith. And as the author here suggests - after faith, values can remain, and continue to be meaningful. Yishar Koah to UK Liberal Judaism for stoking the fires of interesting debate.

Racism - not the real issue? A paranoid delusion, or something to be scared about?

I wrote this a few weeks ago, and chose not to post it, because if anyone does ever read this blog, I was scared that they would think I had completely lost it, but that isn't a good enough reason, so here is a little piece of class consciousness writing from a non-reconstructed commie....

WARNING! I may have ingested some paranoia juice before writing this. Feel free to ignore, and don't think any worse of me for it. (Please).

Seriously - I don't believe what I am about to write is true, but a little part of my brain thinks it might be, and that scares me. Even if this particular issue is my own fantasy, I worry that the wider message is true...

The recent racism storm that seems to have blown through English football has taken many by surprise. It shouldn't have. Those of us who have an interest in the Barclays premier league would like to think that this barbaric and ignorant prejudice was a thing of the past. That only stupid ignoramuses still took part in racist behaviour and that surely we had done enough to "clean" the game of this sort of thing.

We were the stupid ones.

Anti-Racism is a wonderful cause, but unfortunately, many of us who espouse it, are ignorant of the other prejudices which can creep into our thinking. When we say that racism is a thing of the past, we pretend that racism is about insults on a playing field. Racism is about a lot more than that. It is about who has power and who doesn't and what they do to keep those without power in a position of submission. Racism cannot be torn apart from the class conflict which has been the primary source of injustice in the UK since the feudal system was first brought into question. Racism is a tool of the ruling elite. Those who are currently rich and powerful would like all the poor of the country to fight as much as possible between themselves, so that they will not be able to unify against the ruling elites who would desire to entrench power in their hands.

Don't worry I do realise this is beginning to sound like one of the more paranoid parts of a communist manifesto, but bear with me...

It's not very pc to mention it, but racism tends to be a curse of the working class (and the highest reaches of the aristocracy). This has a number of reasons - one, is that racism can be cured through education, so the more a person has been deprived of an education, the more they are likely to fall under the spell of this disease of ignorance. But the more powerful reason that racism is part of the fabric of the British working class is because the ruling aristocracy desires it to be so. The more the "chavs" (white working class) and the "coloureds" (non-white, mostly working class) are at each other's throats, the less time they may have to realise that most of the issues that they feel aggrieved about actually have nothing to do with each other, but with the economic situation. Why do I mention this - because obviously the vast majority of footballers are working class. The offer of riches is the carrot used to help them make huge amounts of money for the ruling elite. Is it conceivable that all these working class heroes are also AntiRacism warriors? Not sure.

And here comes the dark truth that everyone is beginning to be aware of. Poverty in the UK is a decision of the government. If they wanted a more equitable system, it could be delivered. The government has the power to take from the rich what they have plundered and give it back to the poor. They choose not to. If anyone is wondering where did this storm of racism come from, then look no further than Wall St/the city of London. It is any coincidence that these incidents have been brought to public attention when the people have started to wake up to the fact that 99% of the country is being ripped off by 1%. When that 99% look like they are on the verge of unifying, the 1% got scared. It is unthinkable that these two incidents suddenly happened, when similar incidents have not been happening before. I assume they have been happening in the past. But the media has never been asked to make an issue of them as they were in this case. Usually, it would the opposite of corporate interest to highlight racism in football - doesn't look good for Sky trying to sell their product to the prawn sandwich brigade. But in this case the special interests in the media were bought out - asked to highlight the problem instead of brush it under the carpet - assured that they will be able to make enough short term gain off the issue, and that it would not harm the long term cash-cow too much.

So yeah - all this may be super-paranoia, but...

Isn't it too co-incidental that racism invades the country's richest sport just when class consciousness has raised its head for the first time since Tony Blair killed Labour back in the early nineties?

כאיש אחד בלב אחד - As one people with one heart....

So every now and again, I get asked to write a drasha for someone. Here is one I did for the World Union for Progressive Judaism (WUPJ), that can be seen on there site here: http://www.wupj.org/Publications/Newsletter.asp?ContentID=522

“As one person with one heart” on Parashat Yitro

Parashat Yitro contains one of the most dramatic scenes of the entire Torah, and possibly the pivotal moment of all of Jewish History – it is the Torah portion which relates our primary encounter with the divine. The paradigmatic moment of revelation retold in this parasha serves as the classic example of what it means to have God’s will revealed to us on the collective level. Whatever Reform theology or modern scholarship might tell us about the authorship of the Torah, the tradition views the gathering at Sinai as the defining moment of Divine Revelation. This is it! This is the moment that we become God’s chosen (for those who still believe in that)! This is the moment that Moses stands face to face with the Eternal, and we in turn share in that heavenly intimacy. This is THE moment of truth. This is the moment when the Jewish people are brought together – our national character is defined through this gathering – this meeting with each other and the divine. This is the beginning of our covenant. Our covenant with the divine and with each other. Or is it?

A minute detail of questionable Hebrew grammar may point to a different rendering of this dramatic moment.

At the beginning of Chapter 19 in the book of Exodus, before the children of Israel arrive at Mt Sinai – before this miraculous gathering – we read:

א בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לְצֵאת בְּנֵי-יִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם בַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה בָּאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינָי. ב וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן-שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר.

“In the third month, after the children of Israel had left Egypt, on that day they came to the Desert of Sinai. And they travelled from Refidim, and they came to the Desert of Sinai and they encamped in the desert; and Israel encamped opposite the mountain.”

If one was reading the English, or did not understand the Hebrew, the significance of this line would be entirely lost. It would seem a list of geographic details - part of an endless litany of the journeying of the children of Israel with which the Torah is littered. But in the original Hebrew, a deviation is obvious in the subject of the verbs used throughout these two verses. In the first verse, the subject is “the children of Israel.” In the second verse, it seems the verbs that describe the action – “they travelled”, “they came”, “they encamped” – are all in the third person plural, and then at the end of the verse, the subject changes from being “the children of Israel” to “Israel”, and the verb changes from plural to singular.

Now, I cannot pretend to be an ancient grammarian or understand the significance of each minor detail of the Torah’s use of language. But luckily I do not have to – for that, we have Rabbi Shimon Itzhaki, better known as Rashi (France, late 11th century) – the foremost medieval commentator on the Torah. Drawing on ancient midrashim, Rashi attempts to answer all the questions and queries that are brought up by the text of the torah. And what does Rashi have to say about this verse?

Commenting on the change to the singular, “ויחן שם ישראל”, Rashi says:
“כאיש אחד בלב אחד, As one person with one heart.”
He goes on to point out that the previous journeys and encampments of Israel (referred to in the plural) had not been “as one person with one heart” but with murmurings and disagreements.

What does Rashi mean by this expression, “as one person with one heart”? The term has come to be used in modern day Israel as a slogan of national unity. What it expresses in its most simply understood form, is that the people were united when they encamped opposite Mt Sinai – they were already “as one person with one heart” BEFORE they received Torah. When we understand the significance of this, it becomes clear that the giving of Torah did not unite us – we were already united. Something about our shared journey – our shared experience of the ordeal of journeying, the shared fears and hopes of leaving Egypt – had brought us together. If the giving of the Torah is symbolic of our shared belief, while the exodus from Egypt is symbolic of our shared experience, this simple midrash brought by Rashi shows us that it is our shared experience – our history together as a community that unites us, before we come to have a shared view of the world. In fact, even without any basis for shared belief, we have the ability to stand together as one. This unity, which is not reliant on the shared belief brought about by the giving of Torah is called in our tradition, “Brit Goral” – the covenant of fate. While the covenant we enter into at Sinai, that of shared belief, is called “Brit Yiud” – the covenant of faith. These are not reliant on each other. We shared Brit Goral before we joined in Brit Yiud. Yiud literally means “objective” – something to strive for. And indeed we may strive to find common belief. But as members of the people of Israel, we need not strive to find common experience – that is part of who we are.

This basic truth – of our shared experience – of our common past – of our unity of fraternity, if not of purpose, has been forgotten within Israeli society and the Jewish world today. We do not stand “as one person, with one heart”. We stand divided. History has taught us the danger of such a stance. As we approach Parashat Yitro, we are called to remember the possibility of unity despite our murmurings and disagreements – despite the fact we may not share belief, we are called to remember our shared heritage. May we realise the potential of this unity before we fall divided.

It's not about homophobia .... It's about JFS. My reaction to the JFS/JONAH/Homophobia scandal....

I tend to write a lot about the British Jewish community, as I grew up there, and because I think it is a fascinating example of what Jewish life might mean outside of one of the major centers (Eretz Yisrael and modern day Bavel - North America). The latest storm in the British tea cup has been caused by a Jewish Chronicle article about an allegedly homophobic class taught at the school, and raises some fascinating questions about what it means to be Jewish in a country which is neither Jewish by definition (Israel) nor has a democratic separation of Religion and State (the US). In the class in question, the students were shown a presentation which gave information about an organisation called JONAH which seeks to "cure" gay men and women from their homosexual tendencies.

Obviously, most of the people I know, including many former JFS students have reacted to the article with disgust, fury, protest and a desire to put right this obvious wrong (just proving that all the people I know are pinko-commies or wet liberals, like me). But I have to ask, why?

Before this liberal-crusader took to the pages of the JC, did anyone think that JFS was a gay-loving pink idyll? Were people walking around with the understanding that JFS, an Orthodox Jewish day school would actively support all students in their choices about how to deal with their developing sexuality? As far as I was concerned, the shock in the article was that anyone might consider this newsworthy.

Whether it pretends to be something else or not, JFS is an Orthodox institution, and whether it pretends otherwise or not, Orthodox Judaism is institutionally homophobic. While there are many minority opinions within the Orthodox Jewish world who actively support gay rights and welcome LGBTQ members and who attempt to find a way to embrace gay Jews while rejecting male homosexual sex, this is still a tiny minority and in no way represents mainstream Orthodoxy. I sometimes frequent one such minyan which challenges my own shul for the title of pinkest in Jerusalem, but as mentioned - this is the minority voice. It is unreasonable to expect an Orthodox institution to accept homosexuality.

So what is my point?

As long as you believe in the idea of faith-schools, you must allow JFS to continue preaching bigotry and hate. I realise that that may sound harsh, but only an actual democratic separation of religion and state and the end of the bizarre idea of publicly funded private community schools will actually be able to stop these private communities continuing to use the education system to promote their values which are inconsistent with a free, fair and democratic society. I say this fully aware of the complete hypocrisy inherent in my words (if I were to live in the UK, I would probably send my own child(ren) to a Jewish day school), but my own hypocrisy and use of the system for my own selfish gain should not mean that we don't recognise the inherent injustice in the current model of schooling. Jewish day schools (as well as Muslim and Christian ones) are a way that a particular community manages to use the universal societal resources for their own gain. They at once, give a good rounded education, and at the same time inculcate the values of the particular community into the next generation. It is fine for a community to demand that their children be educated on the public dime as long as members of that community pay taxes. It is not acceptable that a particular community expect that the society as a whole should Jewishly educate their children. Particularly if that Jewish education is actually at odds with the value system of wider society.

So - am I appalled by JFS's homophobia? Yes, of course I am. Am I surprised? No, of course I am not. Do JFS have the right to teach homophobia? According to the current non-constitution of the UK - absolutely. As long as faith schools are an encouraged practice, the aggrieved parents and students cannot complain that their children have been exposed to an allegedly homophobic viewpoint as part of their child's education.

It is worthy and admirable to attack each small injustice as we encounter it, as the former head-girl of JFS did in her letter to the school (linked above), but each one of these small fights is meaningless without a more holistic approach to building a just, fair and equitable school system which helps educate our youth towards building a free and democratic society.

Storm in a Turkish Coffee cup? The Returning Israelis video advert controversy.

So, it seems a lot of people have been offended by an offensive set of adverts - no news there, I guess. Except people seem to be getting offended for all the wrong reasons. A lot of my friends on facebook have been posting this article from the Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/netanyahu-government-suggests-israelis-avoid-marrying-american-jews/249166/

Which was actually originally report on "The Jewish Channel":

http://newsdesk.tjctv.com/2011/11/week-in-review-november-25-2011/

The videos themselves can be viewed in their original context at the Israeli Absorption ministry's website: http://www.moia.gov.il/Moia_he/ReturningHomeProject/

If one goes straight to the ads, without the misleading commentary of the Atlantic article, one will see a set of clumsy (in idea terms, but visually polished) adverts which are blunt, crass, uncouth, and border on racist. The ads suggest that Israelis should encourage their children who have emigrated to return to Israel. What is offensive about these adverts? That the Israeli government would believe we, Israeli citizens, would share their narrow-minded view of identity politics and believe that "preserving Israeli identity" is worth more than doing whatever is best for our children's health and happiness. That is offensive. The idea that Israeliness is something to be defended, that Americanness is such a bad thing - that we would not want our kids growing up as Americans instead of Israelis - that is offensive.

What's not offensive about these ads? Any suggestion that they may say anything about American Jews - because actually they don't say anything at all about American Jews. This campaign is not talking about the difference between Israelis and American Jews - it's talking about the difference between being Israeli and not being Israeli. Or rather being an Israeli living in Israel and one living abroad.

Are the adverts wrong? Obviously it depends what you mean by wrong - if you are talking morally wrong - well yes - as I mentioned before, I think they play on an essentially racist understanding of identity politics which is harmful to the fabric of society and for international peace and wellbeing between people of different cultures. Are they factually wrong? Well no - of course not. It is simple fact that someone who grows up in a country other than their parents' country of birth will feel less attached to that country's culture. And that is all these adverts are saying. Christmas is a national holiday in the USA - so yes - an American kid will understand that is the winter holiday that people celebrate. An American kid will call their dad, Daddy. And a non-Israeli partner won't feel the same about Yom Hazikaron as an Israeli. My son has British citzenship - but, if he continues to be raised in Israel, he will not be as British, in identity terms, as I am. He will not understand Shakespeare in the same way, he will not appreciate a sunny day in May in the same way, he will genuinely truly bless the rain, he won't know that you put milk in tea, he won't know that Turkey leftovers are the traditional food for the weeks following the 25th of December. He may even think (heaven forfend) that the Israeli Premier league represents top class football. He will not be very British. I am fine with that. If the British government wanted to lure me back to Britain and they chose to tell my parents that Aviv (my son) won't be able to quote Shakespeare, won't know what Christmas is, or will call me Abba - I'd be fine with that. I would not be offended in any way.

Any reading of an anti-Diasporic message in these ads is as much part of the neurotic paranoia of the American Jewish community as it is part of the Zionist message of the ads.

These ads are a cheap crude way of playing on all people's emotional desire to see themselves in their descendants. When I want to encourage my mum in her Hebrew homework, I tell her that she needs to do it so that she will be able to talk to her grandkids (of course they will speak English - they are the children of Brits, but will their kids?). But they are not making any attack on the Jews of the Diaspora.

In short - "Diaspora Jewry" - get over it. If you want to put your head in the sand and pretend you don't have an issue to deal with regarding assimilation - that's fine, but don't pretend that we are attacking you when we try and tell the truth to Israeli citizens living among you. And Israeli Government - once again, thanks for making me ashamed to be in any way related to your idiotic policies of stupidity, narrow-mindedness and suicidal short-sightedness - oh, and way to go pissing off "Diaspora Jewry" - we really need to alienate some of the few supporters we have left! You may just have encouraged me to leave!

My (not very) public apology to Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks

First off, let me be clear - I know that Rabbi Sacks does not need my apology. He doesn't know who I am. We have actually met (a few times), but he has met probably a million people. There is no reason for him to know who I am, and certainly none for him to care about what I think of him. My apology therefore is only half for him - it is more for me. It is a good exercise in humility to admit when one is wrong and to say sorry. This may not be the season, I might have missed Elul and the days of repentance - but you know what - Teshuva's a journey, one we are always on (ok, I am stopping with that Drasha now, I promise, I really have done it to death).

So yes - I want to apologise to Rabbi Dr Sacks. I just read a very little booklet he put out for Yom Kippur (Letters to the Next Generation 2). Not one of his epic tomes, no masterpiece of theology - a simple booklet, which you could probably polish off in your average Yom Kippur Mussaf service if you got bored and lost track of the service. I imagine that's the point. The beauty of this little book is that Sacks manages to avoid intra-Jewish politics, and is talking solely to a Jewish audience so isn't trying to suck up to any pc liberals. And yet in his own innately sensitive way, he is defending the Jewish tradition from the critiques of post-modernity, and he does it immensely well. He shows his true genius. He is in fact a great darshan, a skilled writer, a teacher, a rabbi. Chief among British rabbis, by this evidence. So I am sorry for the harsh criticism I have doled out your way in the past. I now realise that you really are a good yid. You are simply a lousy politician. And unfortunately for you - while you wanted to lead Jewishly as a politician, you have been forced to lead the Jews politically. One of the great einstein quotes flowing around the net recently is his classic, about everyone being a genius: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
So Rabbi Sacks - as a rabbi, it turns out you are a genius. And you deserve to be recognised as such, of course, if you keep trying to climb trees, you won't get enough air to your gills....
So, while I may still have no/little respect for the concept of a chief rabbinate, I would love to say thanks to the chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth for teaching me a valuable lesson.

A thought about Bereishit.

A little late admittedly, but I thought I would give a tiny word about Bereishit. Simply because for years I have been carrying around this little mini-drash and I have never written it down (though I have taught it constantly). I am certain that I am not the first to think of this, but I never heard it from anyone else - I just came up with it one day when arguing the merits of what I call positive agnosticism (that's for a different blog to explain what that is..). Anyway here it is.

בראשית ברא אלהים

As we all know - that is how parashat Bereishit and the whole of Torah begins. We all also know that it is traditionally read with two kamatzim under the word ברא - bara. But we all also know that the nikud of the masoretic text is a later addition - it is in itself a version of interpretation. There is another way of pointing the text - instead of with two kamatzim - bara - it could be pointed with a sheva and a kamatz - b'ra - the imperative form. As such the line would no longer read, "In the beginning God created", but rather, "In the beginning, create God". This reading makes much more sense. Even before Darwin, my guess is that most people did not believe the creation myth was intended as natural history - it is intended to teach us something, to impart values and help us shape an identity as moral beings. As such, it starts with a simple formula - create for yourself a deity - a sense of the divine - live as if there is an absolute right and wrong, a morality that you are bound to. This sense of the divine, this אלהים will help you understand the rest of the world as you perceive it and guide you towards being an upright human being.

That's my little drash for Bereishit.

Why my fasting will include laying off the Guardian or Lies, Damn Lies and Guardian Reporting

Each year as we approach Rosh Hashannah, I make myself some Shana Tova resolutions. No doubt in years to come I will be using 10q for this, but for now, I tend to just write them down on a scrap of paper which floats around my office. I then attempt not to lose the piece of paper for as long as I can keep to the resolutions - I believe that one year, I even managed to have the scrap of paper by next Rosh Hashannah (which is definitely more than I can say for the resolutions).

This year one of my resolutions will be to refrain from using the Guardian website.

Why is this bizarre move part of my New Year's Resolutions, I hear you ask (who am I hearing - no-one knows this blog is here!)?

There are in fact two reasons - one - I simply spend too much time wasted on reading pointless articles on the net, when I should be going to bed early and having enough energy to devote to my gorgeous son and wife. But - two - and more importantly - the camel's back has broken.

Growing up in Manchester, home of the Guardian, and as the son of a Labour Lord Mayor, and the grandson of a Labour chairman of the Greater Manchester Council, the Guardian newspaper was the natural choice for our socialist (admittedly of the champagne variety) leaning household. It was the paper on the breakfast table as I grew up. Over the years, as the Labour Party went more extreme (mid-80s) and my parents went more moderate, somehow the Guardian was replaced by the Times, but I stayed true to the GroinYard, for both sentimental and ideological reasons. I pride myself on my (champagne) socialist views, my liberal outlook, my left-wing agenda. I am unashamedly a pinko-commie-Palestinian loving, wet as a fish, floppy as Hugh Grant's hair LEFTY. So obviously the Guardian had to be my natural ideological home.

Even when my Zionist leanings pushed me to make Aliyah - I kept faith with my old friend. I understood that the paper was broadly aligned against Israeli policy -but then again - so was I. I realised that the editorial policy was broad enough to include radical anti-Zionists and Palestinian, anti-Israeli, extremists, but they also had articles representing support for the original Zionist vision of a safe and secure homeland living in peace with its neighbours. So - I carried on reading avidly - mostly comment pieces on the Middle East and Israel, and football pieces on Manchester United.

But the paper is losing my support. It has gone too far. In recent months, the paper has ceased to function as a source of journalism and has become a form of propagandizing. Not only is the Guardian now a campaign outlet rather than a newspaper, but the campaign has taken worrying steps towards not only the championing of the Palestinian cause but the complete delegitimization of Israel. In an article urging the left to remain cautious of blurring anti-Israel sentiment with antiSemitism, one writer describes Israel's founding thus: "The actually existing Israel is founded upon displacement of another people .." One comment piece immediately after the recent UN stand-off between Abbas and Netanyahu was from a Palestinian academic who accused Abbas of selling out the people and urged all sensible people to continue the struggle for a one-state solution (i.e. the dissolution of Israel). But worst of all is the fact that the Comment is Free website (whose by-line is, “But facts are sacred”) is willing to sacrifice all pretence of being part of a news organisation when it presents its “background” to the statehood appeal with a completely one-sided, biased, demonization of Israel. I can deal with the attacks of campaigners invited onto the site to air their views, but this was something else – this was, in my eyes, the final betrayal – not of me, nor or the original idea of Zionism, but of the mission of the newspaper – of all newspaper – to present the complex reality of the world. Instead, a simplistic whitewash of Israeli-Palestinian history was painted, a purimshpiel mockery of a morality play, with all Israelis cast as blood-lustful settlers praying on innocent Palestinians. This was the final straw.

I am giving up the Guardian, not because I am an Israeli, and I recognise that the Guardian has become part of an organised effort to delegitimize the country I live in, not because I am a Jew, and I fear that the paper has crossed the line between anti-Zionism and antiSemitism, but because, as the paper’s website tells us, “Comment is Free”, but facts really are sacred. I believe that somewhere out there, there might be a truth – a real objective definable truth. While none of us can ever guarantee we have found it or a part of it, a newspaper is not at liberty to remove itself from the search for such a thing.