In his “History of Western Philosophy,” the great British philosopher Bertrand Russell brilliantly summarized the challenge every culture, and the Jewish world today especially, faces:
“Every community is exposed to two opposite dangers: ossification through too much discipline and reverence for tradition, on the one hand; on the other hand, dissolution, or subjection to foreign conquest, through the growth of an individualism and personal independence that makes co-operation impossible.”
But when do we have too much discipline or individualism, excessive reverence for tradition or personal independence? It is not easy to tell.
What to one person or group is healthy discipline and regulation is overbearing and soul-crushing tyranny to others; what to some is treason is true loyalty to others; principle to some is prejudice to others; and the same road could lead to doom or to deliverance, to hear different people tell of it.
These thoughts have been in my mind as I conclude my first year as editor of The Wisconsin Jewish Chronicle. Both during that time and even further in my past at The Chronicle, I have heard much argument about who should and shouldn’t be included in its pages.
In the previous issue, for example, The Chronicle featured former Milwaukeean Daniel Kohl who is now the vice president for political affairs of J Street. This organization bills itself as a pro-Israel organization that favors a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, that promotes (in Kohl’s words) “active American leadership” toward that end, and that generally is “The Political Home for Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace Americans.”
Yet some American Jews seek to expel this organization from the Jewish community’s pro-Israel discussions. For example, the publisher of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger wrote an editorial posted on the publication’s website on June 9 advocating this position, titled, “Supporting J Street harms Israel.”
A Chronicle reader called my attention to this article via email. Because this person did not submit the accompanying comments as a “letter to the editor,” I will not mention his/her name; but the comments eloquently state the problem, so I will quote from them:
“Our Jewish community rightly values inclusiveness — giving everyone a voice — but I think it does so to a fault. That is, are we obliged to give everyone a platform, no matter what they espouse? There are even higher values than inclusivity, and one is the responsibility to support the good in the world vs. the evil. A question that the Jewish community does not but must grapple with is, ‘Is there anything a Jewish group can do that would render it beyond the pale with regard to acceptance within our community?’… Is there any position that a group could take that was so heinous that you would refuse to publish it, particularly in an op-ed?”
This incident was about J Street, but there have been other such controversies over the years. For example, same-sex marriage has been in the news lately, with the New York state government being the latest to accept it into law.
At the end of 2010, I heard from someone I know, a Jewish homosexual man, who asked me to print an opinion article by a Jewish homosexual rabbi that advocated acceptance of same-sex marriage as a matter of civil rights. I said I could only do so if I also printed an opposing view. He angrily replied that The Chronicle would not publish an opposing view making a case against equal rights for women or for members of racial minority groups, so “Why is homosexuality different?”
And that exchange brought to mind a time some years ago (see the issue of Oct. 27, 2000) when The Chronicle did run a sympathetic feature about Jewish homosexuals; and an Orthodox person in the community felt incensed by the article and wondered whether there were any limits on what we would cover.
I helped to craft a response then, and some of that response I want to reiterate now.
• On The Chronicle’s opinion pages, we allow expression by anybody that in good faith seeks to help the Jewish community and the state of Israel survive and flourish.
Our community is united about these goals; but it is divided, often bitterly, over how to achieve them. Some say we must follow halachah (traditional Jewish law) totally, others say we can and must pick and choose from it. Some say we must support all of Israel’s duly elected governments, others that we can and must criticize them when they do things we regard as dangerous or immoral. All these opinions and more are part of the Jewish world’s struggle between Russell’s “opposite dangers,” and they all belong on the opinion pages.
Voices that do not in good faith seek to help the Jewish community and Israel, but seek to undermine them, will not be allowed. We would not print an article by a member of Hamas advocating Israel’s destruction, nor one by a “Messianic Jew” claiming that Jews need to believe Jesus is the messiah.
However, some Jews honestly think that Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is bad for the long-term survival of the Jewish community. These people include not only Jewish secularists who dislike the principle of a religion-based nation-state, but also some Orthodox Jews who view Israel’s creation as a blasphemous disobedience of halachah. These Jews make statements that seem indistinguishable from what the community’s real enemies say, but these Jews truly believe they are good faith seekers of the community’s well-being. Absent powerful evidence to the contrary, the rest of the community should have the chance to hear and think about those viewpoints, also.
• In The Chronicle’s news and feature pages, the net has to be even wider. We want to pull in almost everything that Jews do as Jews, and even interesting things they may not do as Jews, but do in the arts, politics, sciences, professions, and other areas.
Moreover, it is part of The Chronicle’s job to inform the community about events, ideas, movements, and people that may affect us for good or ill. Even activities of anti-Israel Jews need to be covered so the community knows who they are, and what they are thinking and doing. This is less for the purpose of “inclusiveness” than in service to a principle best articulated by British philosopher John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty”: “He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”
But inclusivity is not only a value for a newspaper that seeks to report on the community and express the variety of the community’s members. It is a value apparently demanded by most members of the community themselves. For every individual who wants to throw somebody out, there may be more who believe the community is not inclusive enough.
I have no poll data to substantiate this. But even a glance through the “dream statements” about the desired future Jewish community crafted by the some 300 participants in the Jewish Community Summit on June 26-27 shows how much this group values inclusivity. (These statements may be viewed online at www.thejewishsummit.org.) The statements constantly use words and phrases like “no barriers to inclusion and participation,” “We embrace our diversity,” “less judgmental behavior, more respect,” “warm and welcoming and defined by no barriers,” “all inclusive,” “respect for our differences,” and so on.
Perhaps these principles cannot be applied perfectly, and judgments about who is and is not speaking “in good faith” are fallible. But given the sentiments expressed at the summit and the value great thinkers like Mill place on liberty of thought and discussion, we would rather err on the side of inclusion than exclusion.
Besides, thinking about our community’s diversity of opinions may be good for us all. As Mill wrote, “The mental and moral, like the muscular, powers are improved only by being used.”
What do you think? Is the Jewish community too inclusive or not inclusive enough? Please write your thoughts as letters to the editor of no more than 350 words; and if The Chronicle receives enough replies, they will be printed on a special page of the coming Rosh HaShanah edition.
Loading ...