I'd like to discuss the recent US executive order regarding refugees but before I do, I want to reference two events I participated in recently within a span of several days. The events reinforced for me the ideological diversity that exists in the Jewish community and the relative lack of fruitful exchange that occurs among people of diverse viewpoints.
I attended an informative briefing sponsored for NY rabbis by AIPAC to review the UN resolution and its implications.
And I attended an impressive conference on Jewish-Muslim relations organized by the Hartman Institute.
Both programs allowed for questions and conversation. And yet to me they felt at times like echo-chambers.
The presenters at the AIPAC meeting gave a helpful, informative overview of the dynamics behind the recent UN resolution. When they expressed criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to Israel they were not significantly challenged in that assessment. I would argue that more challenge than what I witnessed will be helpful in yielding a deeper understanding of US-Israel relations past, present and future.
Those attending the Hartman conference were largely supportive of Jewish-Muslim dialogue and reinforced one another in their opposition to anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy. I was glad to see considerable efforts toward Jewish-Muslim dialogue continuing to bear fruit. However, it will be helpful for the Jews and Muslims involved in dialogue to articulate challenges and disagreements more vociferously than what I witnessed. (I did not see every session).
The AIPAC briefing and the Hartman conference both felt comfortable in their respective, relative homogeneities. However, moving forward in these two crucial realms (the Israel-US relationship and Jewish-Muslim relations) and others, it will be most effective, I believe, to deliberately create settings where diverse ideological perspectives and even profound disagreements can more comfortably be voiced and thoughtfully considered.
The children of Israel were enslaved and God sent Moses, who initially was a most hesitant change agent, to urge Pharaoh to let them go. As part of the process he had to speak to the Israelites themselves.
So Moses spoke of God’s plan for deliverance and the people couldn’t hear him – מקוצר רוח mikotzer ruah. They must, literally, have been short of breath. And they lacked the spirit, the largesse, the imaginative energy, that would have allowed them to listen to a vision that must surely have contradicted their own experience of reality.
Folks – we are tired, we are beaten down by the challenges in our lives, we may well be exhausted by current events. And when we are tired and beaten down we tend to be especially unwilling to listen to anyone who sees things differently than we do. We tend to retreat into our comfortable chambers where people nod their heads or at most offer a minor correction or qualification.
The challenges that we are facing today will require people of good will to engage one another within ideological groupings and across the ideological divide.
Why? Because we need to ensure – whether we are right or left of center – that those who do not have good will, those who wish to turn their bigotry into national and international policy, will not be successful.
There’s a lot of controversy this week in the wake of the executive order declaring that refugees from certain countries will not be allowed into the US either indefinitely (Syria) or for a certain period of time. I believe the executive order is deeply problematic and ought to be opposed. I participated in a recent rally opposing the order and I'm heartened by those in our community who have offered their expertise to help those whose lives have been upended by the order.
However, vilifying people of good will who see things differently doesn’t help in the short or long run.
On the right we’ve heard people say, it’s entirely appropriate for us to deny entry to people from dangerous countries that produce terrorists killing in the name of Islam; on the left, we’ve heard people speak about the American and Jewish values of welcoming the stranger – we ourselves were strangers, how dare we shut the doors?
Does the first group understand the American, Jewish, humanitarian imperative of welcoming the stranger, thereby saving the lives of those who are vulnerable?
Can the second group accept that there can be people of good will who have apprehensions about immigrants from Middle Eastern countries where terrorism is committed and supported in the name of Islam?
Of course both groups are capable of understanding both dimensions – the imperative to welcome and the legitimate fear for our security – but I seldom hear them discussed in the same place. A cross-fertilization of ideas, a willingness to allow the vision and the apprehension to be expressed, might ultimately help build a broader, deeper consensus among people of good will.
Regarding the fears that have been expressed, there is empirical evidence that refugees, from the Middle East and elsewhere, undergo considerable scrutiny before being allowed in the US. There are studies that have shown that immigrants to the US commit far fewer violent crimes than those born here.
There are some who will be unconvinced and will not change their opinions.
But a conversation which allows the fear to be expressed, which doesn't make those expressing the fear feel inhumane or un-Jewish, might help some who are apprehensive to see the benefit of a consistent and humane refugee policy, as would meeting people who have arrived in the US from the countries that were just recently listed as being off-limits.
When it comes to controversial issues it’s tempting to avoid them altogether or to seek comfort with those of similar mind.
But with this significant issue, as with others, such avoidance diminishes our capacity for effective response and leadership.
If we have kotzer ruah – shortness of spirit – then we won’t be able to listen and respond in ways that create the most impactful path forward. If we jump at the liberal for being naïve or unconcerned with safety, if we jump at the conservative for being indifferent to human suffering, then we will end conversations before they can be productive.
We need to think carefully about how to advocate so that the American Jewish human value of liberty and justice for all can be realized.
We need to find the antithesis of kotzer ruah. We need רוח חזקה ruah hazaka, the strong wind that helped our ancestors cross the sea. We need a strong spirit, a willingness to move beyond the comfort of the echo chamber to a place where ultimately a stronger consensus can emerge among people of good will.
There are times that I wish that Temple Israel were an echo chamber but I know that it isn't and I think that’s a good thing. As a congregation with members who have divergent viewpoints, we are in many ways typical of the diversity that exists within our nation.
The way I see it, this gives us communal context to speak with people whom we know, or sort of know, who see things differently than we do. Which gives us an opportunity to refine our views. Which helps all of us ultimately to advocate for our core American Jewish values in a deeper and more effective way.
We will need to think carefully about how best to preserve the value of liberty and justice for all human beings. Moreover, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks articulately said in his message for International Holocaust Memorial Day recently, we will need to find friends and supporters across religious, ethnic and racial lines.
Initially our ancestors couldn't listen because they were out of breath and short of spirit. But as they left Egypt they found the capacity to listen. To one another, as they entered the land. To Moses, as he urged them to commit to God’s teachings. To God, as God called them to apply past wounds toward creating a just society for the future.
Thoughts initially shared with the Temple Israel of Great Neck community on January 28, 2017, Parashat Va'era
I attended an informative briefing sponsored for NY rabbis by AIPAC to review the UN resolution and its implications.
And I attended an impressive conference on Jewish-Muslim relations organized by the Hartman Institute.
Both programs allowed for questions and conversation. And yet to me they felt at times like echo-chambers.
The presenters at the AIPAC meeting gave a helpful, informative overview of the dynamics behind the recent UN resolution. When they expressed criticism of the Obama administration’s approach to Israel they were not significantly challenged in that assessment. I would argue that more challenge than what I witnessed will be helpful in yielding a deeper understanding of US-Israel relations past, present and future.
Those attending the Hartman conference were largely supportive of Jewish-Muslim dialogue and reinforced one another in their opposition to anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy. I was glad to see considerable efforts toward Jewish-Muslim dialogue continuing to bear fruit. However, it will be helpful for the Jews and Muslims involved in dialogue to articulate challenges and disagreements more vociferously than what I witnessed. (I did not see every session).
The AIPAC briefing and the Hartman conference both felt comfortable in their respective, relative homogeneities. However, moving forward in these two crucial realms (the Israel-US relationship and Jewish-Muslim relations) and others, it will be most effective, I believe, to deliberately create settings where diverse ideological perspectives and even profound disagreements can more comfortably be voiced and thoughtfully considered.
The children of Israel were enslaved and God sent Moses, who initially was a most hesitant change agent, to urge Pharaoh to let them go. As part of the process he had to speak to the Israelites themselves.
So Moses spoke of God’s plan for deliverance and the people couldn’t hear him – מקוצר רוח mikotzer ruah. They must, literally, have been short of breath. And they lacked the spirit, the largesse, the imaginative energy, that would have allowed them to listen to a vision that must surely have contradicted their own experience of reality.
Folks – we are tired, we are beaten down by the challenges in our lives, we may well be exhausted by current events. And when we are tired and beaten down we tend to be especially unwilling to listen to anyone who sees things differently than we do. We tend to retreat into our comfortable chambers where people nod their heads or at most offer a minor correction or qualification.
The challenges that we are facing today will require people of good will to engage one another within ideological groupings and across the ideological divide.
Why? Because we need to ensure – whether we are right or left of center – that those who do not have good will, those who wish to turn their bigotry into national and international policy, will not be successful.
There’s a lot of controversy this week in the wake of the executive order declaring that refugees from certain countries will not be allowed into the US either indefinitely (Syria) or for a certain period of time. I believe the executive order is deeply problematic and ought to be opposed. I participated in a recent rally opposing the order and I'm heartened by those in our community who have offered their expertise to help those whose lives have been upended by the order.
However, vilifying people of good will who see things differently doesn’t help in the short or long run.
On the right we’ve heard people say, it’s entirely appropriate for us to deny entry to people from dangerous countries that produce terrorists killing in the name of Islam; on the left, we’ve heard people speak about the American and Jewish values of welcoming the stranger – we ourselves were strangers, how dare we shut the doors?
Does the first group understand the American, Jewish, humanitarian imperative of welcoming the stranger, thereby saving the lives of those who are vulnerable?
Can the second group accept that there can be people of good will who have apprehensions about immigrants from Middle Eastern countries where terrorism is committed and supported in the name of Islam?
Of course both groups are capable of understanding both dimensions – the imperative to welcome and the legitimate fear for our security – but I seldom hear them discussed in the same place. A cross-fertilization of ideas, a willingness to allow the vision and the apprehension to be expressed, might ultimately help build a broader, deeper consensus among people of good will.
Regarding the fears that have been expressed, there is empirical evidence that refugees, from the Middle East and elsewhere, undergo considerable scrutiny before being allowed in the US. There are studies that have shown that immigrants to the US commit far fewer violent crimes than those born here.
There are some who will be unconvinced and will not change their opinions.
But a conversation which allows the fear to be expressed, which doesn't make those expressing the fear feel inhumane or un-Jewish, might help some who are apprehensive to see the benefit of a consistent and humane refugee policy, as would meeting people who have arrived in the US from the countries that were just recently listed as being off-limits.
When it comes to controversial issues it’s tempting to avoid them altogether or to seek comfort with those of similar mind.
But with this significant issue, as with others, such avoidance diminishes our capacity for effective response and leadership.
If we have kotzer ruah – shortness of spirit – then we won’t be able to listen and respond in ways that create the most impactful path forward. If we jump at the liberal for being naïve or unconcerned with safety, if we jump at the conservative for being indifferent to human suffering, then we will end conversations before they can be productive.
We need to think carefully about how to advocate so that the American Jewish human value of liberty and justice for all can be realized.
We need to find the antithesis of kotzer ruah. We need רוח חזקה ruah hazaka, the strong wind that helped our ancestors cross the sea. We need a strong spirit, a willingness to move beyond the comfort of the echo chamber to a place where ultimately a stronger consensus can emerge among people of good will.
There are times that I wish that Temple Israel were an echo chamber but I know that it isn't and I think that’s a good thing. As a congregation with members who have divergent viewpoints, we are in many ways typical of the diversity that exists within our nation.
The way I see it, this gives us communal context to speak with people whom we know, or sort of know, who see things differently than we do. Which gives us an opportunity to refine our views. Which helps all of us ultimately to advocate for our core American Jewish values in a deeper and more effective way.
We will need to think carefully about how best to preserve the value of liberty and justice for all human beings. Moreover, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks articulately said in his message for International Holocaust Memorial Day recently, we will need to find friends and supporters across religious, ethnic and racial lines.
Initially our ancestors couldn't listen because they were out of breath and short of spirit. But as they left Egypt they found the capacity to listen. To one another, as they entered the land. To Moses, as he urged them to commit to God’s teachings. To God, as God called them to apply past wounds toward creating a just society for the future.
Thoughts initially shared with the Temple Israel of Great Neck community on January 28, 2017, Parashat Va'era
No comments:
Post a Comment