Well, darn. I’d been hoping for a lively conversation about each episode, but this seems to be the only post on The Jewish Angle so far.
Just finished the Eric Alterman episode, and the first half reminded me why I stopped reading him (Antisemitism increased because of Israel’s actions in the war? What about the outpouring of celebration on 10/7, before any Israeli response? There’s more, such as Gabriel Winant in Dissent calling the victims of 10/7 “pre-grieved”, but you get the idea), but the second half got more interesting.
I’ve never understood the impulse for Aliyah, and always thought of myself as an American Jew, so I’m surprised that Alterman felt that way only recently. It also, I’d argue, disproves his idea that American Jewry subcontracted to Israel what it means to be Jewish. I think there were two philosophies: Humanist and Religious. Humanist viewed Judaism as a philosophy; Religious as a set of rules. For whatever reason (maybe a similar one to the extreme Zionist supporters: They’re the ones who show up) the Religious got their ideas into more and more of the liturgy and weekly rituals. For me it was seeing the Union Prayerbook replaced with Gates Of Prayer, even if neither book had much Humanism in it, Gates Of Prayer had more Hebrew, with fewer translations into English. It was a statement of what was important, Hebrew over understanding (and questioning!). So maybe it’s a timing issue, not 1967 but 1997 (or so). Nonetheless, I agree that during my lifetime our history of persecution has been foregrounded as a means to ward off future persecution, rather than part of a larger question of what Judaism has to say about it, and questions about being a good person in general. As Eric said, it’s overstated, but that emptiness has been there for a while.
I also appreciated him saying that he doesn’t have to uphold everything Israel does, and at the same time doesn’t have to proclaim that Israel should cease to exist. I would go further and say that the U.S. doesn’t have to support Israel financially, but Jacob Siegel also wants that, and it feels like a “don’t throw me in the briar patch” situation, so I’m wary.
Generally, I’ve found the show slightly maddening: I appreciate having guests on with a different view than my own, more sympathetic to younger Jews who feel torn between what they’ve been taught is “moral” and how little the people who declare those same “morals” care about Jews. I am painting with an overly broad brush, and The Jewish Angle has found those painted over spots that need examination, but the guests also veer into apologetics that I would love to have called out. However, it’s not my show, and who has time to even make one, much less one a week? Oh, right.
P.S.: I am always here for a good dig at Naomi Klein’s self-satisfaction. Thanks, Prof. Alterman!
Well, darn. I’d been hoping for a lively conversation about each episode, but this seems to be the only post on The Jewish Angle so far.
Just finished the Eric Alterman episode, and the first half reminded me why I stopped reading him (Antisemitism increased because of Israel’s actions in the war? What about the outpouring of celebration on 10/7, before any Israeli response? There’s more, such as Gabriel Winant in Dissent calling the victims of 10/7 “pre-grieved”, but you get the idea), but the second half got more interesting.
I’ve never understood the impulse for Aliyah, and always thought of myself as an American Jew, so I’m surprised that Alterman felt that way only recently. It also, I’d argue, disproves his idea that American Jewry subcontracted to Israel what it means to be Jewish. I think there were two philosophies: Humanist and Religious. Humanist viewed Judaism as a philosophy; Religious as a set of rules. For whatever reason (maybe a similar one to the extreme Zionist supporters: They’re the ones who show up) the Religious got their ideas into more and more of the liturgy and weekly rituals. For me it was seeing the Union Prayerbook replaced with Gates Of Prayer, even if neither book had much Humanism in it, Gates Of Prayer had more Hebrew, with fewer translations into English. It was a statement of what was important, Hebrew over understanding (and questioning!). So maybe it’s a timing issue, not 1967 but 1997 (or so). Nonetheless, I agree that during my lifetime our history of persecution has been foregrounded as a means to ward off future persecution, rather than part of a larger question of what Judaism has to say about it, and questions about being a good person in general. As Eric said, it’s overstated, but that emptiness has been there for a while.
I also appreciated him saying that he doesn’t have to uphold everything Israel does, and at the same time doesn’t have to proclaim that Israel should cease to exist. I would go further and say that the U.S. doesn’t have to support Israel financially, but Jacob Siegel also wants that, and it feels like a “don’t throw me in the briar patch” situation, so I’m wary.
Generally, I’ve found the show slightly maddening: I appreciate having guests on with a different view than my own, more sympathetic to younger Jews who feel torn between what they’ve been taught is “moral” and how little the people who declare those same “morals” care about Jews. I am painting with an overly broad brush, and The Jewish Angle has found those painted over spots that need examination, but the guests also veer into apologetics that I would love to have called out. However, it’s not my show, and who has time to even make one, much less one a week? Oh, right.
P.S.: I am always here for a good dig at Naomi Klein’s self-satisfaction. Thanks, Prof. Alterman!