There are moments, I confess, when reactions to this column leave me stunned. Responses to my column on Alice Walker’s refusal to permit a new translation of her book, The Color Purple, into Hebrew have afforded some of the juicier of those moments, and sadly, what they say about contemporary discourse on Israel isn’t at all pretty.
Alice Walker does not just criticize Israel. She once boarded a flotilla that had been scheduled to set sail from Greece (and we know what these flotillas are really about). She endorses the BDS movement (which calls for a return of all refugees to Israel, thus ending it as a Jewish state), and calls Israel an apartheid state and the “greatest terrorist” of the Middle East. Those are pretty harsh words.
Hebrew, alas, is the only language into which Walker has refused to permit translation. Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy exiled Gypsies who had nowhere to go, but would Walker refuse a French translation? She wouldn’t, and it’s clear why: This is not about politics – it’s about the Jews and about Walker’s problem with the Jewish state.
The real focus of my article, though, was about how Jews need to think differently about how to react when talented artists spew venom at the Jews. In passing, I mentioned Richard Wagner, alluding to the ongoing debate in Israel and elsewhere as to whether or not his music should be played. But all it took was a mention of Wagner (and a brief comment at the end of the column noting that prewar Germany had also begun its attacks on the Jews with boycotts), for the following to emerge on Open Zion, Peter Beinart’s Zionist blog.
Beinart’s assistant, an Ivy League university graduate, began her response with the sentence: “Daniel Gordis… has accused Alice Walker of Nazi-grade anti-Semitism….”
Well, no, not really. In fact, not at all. Nowhere in my column did I say anything remotely like “Nazi-grade anti-Semitism.” Almost as soon as the Open Zion response was posted, a friend and editor of a prestigious publication in New York wrote me to say her comment was “dangerously stupid.” Perhaps. Yet the real problem was not stupidity, but intellectual dishonesty. There is no way to read my column as having accused Walker of genocide, which is, of course, precisely what Nazi-grade anti-Semitism is.
It is commonly said that the Israeli Right too often invokes the Nazi metaphor (Thomas Friedman, in what was not his finest moment, has a passage in From Beirut to Jerusalem in which he accuses Menachem Begin of turning Israel into “Yad Vashem with an air force”).
But today, mention Alice Walker and anti-Semitism, and it’s Beinart’s blog and staff who raise the specter of Nazism, intentionally misreading an unambiguous column to suggest that any critique of a critic of Israel is, almost by definition, histrionic.
Is this what we want discourse about Israel to be? Must every mention of Germany or Wagner mean that we are accusing someone of “Nazigrade anti-Semitism”? Is that what discourse among the people who produced the Babylonian Talmud has now come to? It’s a sad thing, not only for what it says about the ability of Jews to think, but because it will, almost inevitably, turn off a younger generation that seeks nuance and the shades of grey it associates with its most exciting intellectual moments.
INTERESTINGLY, MY column also got the other end of the spectrum more than a bit exercised. My noting that Israel “could do better” deeply annoyed more than a handful of people. The editor of a blog called Truth Provider (the name itself speaks volumes), had this to say: “I have tremendous issue with your unnecessary apologetic attitude: ‘Yes, there is a lot to criticize about Israel, but….’ Jews must stand 100% proud, not even 99%…. It is high time you begin working on your pride of being Jewish.”
Really? I’d kind of thought that I had the Jewish pride thing down. But my blemished Jewish pride notwithstanding, the truly significant issue is our collective sense of what it means to defend Israel. Even on my own blog, the comments were fascinating. One reader wrote to say that my article “would be far better if you didn’t feel that you have to make certain you’ve shown moral equivalency whenever you write about Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians. … [w]e don’t have to apologize in our writing about how the Palestinians are treated by us.”
Another, in a similar vein, wrote, “I must take issue with your constantly saying, ‘Israel can do better.’ Israel is doing better than any other country in the entire Middle East. It is not an apartheid state…. Name one country that treats women as well as Israelis do.” Yet another (and there were many more) asked why I pointed out that Israel could do better: “Is this mantra recited to show how objective you are?”
Well, objectivity is not a badge of shame, but I had other reasons. I believe that there ought to be a dramatic difference between being a Zionist advocate and an apologist. Yes, of course Israel has a good record. But is that enough? On those occasions when Israeli border guards mistreat Palestinians, do we not think that a Jewish state could and should do better? Does wanting our moral tradition to color even more of what we do make us less Zionist or less proud of being Jewish? If Israeli Arabs move into Jewish neighborhoods near Nazareth and are essentially forced out by the Jewish residents, do certain parallels to white neighborhoods in the US not alarm us? Does being alarmed make us inadequate Zionists? When (a very few) young settlers torch mosques, does Zionist passion mean we should pretend we don’t know? Or does our choosing to live here matter precisely so we can make this country better? 
I wonder: Do those readers who wrote that I should cease all critique of Israel hesitate to criticize the US or Canada or whatever country they live in? I hope not. For what else is the purpose of democracy? In the 21st century, when Jews are more (secularly) educated than they have ever been in the past, are we really living up to our potential when Zionism becomes a bumper-sticker-like “My country, right or wrong”? “My country,” yes, without question. But because it’s my country, when it’s wrong, I want it to be right.
MENTION RICHARD Wagner, and you’re told you’ve accused someone of Nazi-grade anti-Semitism. Say that Israel could do better, and you’re told that you’re pandering, or guilty of moral equivalence. Or you’ve got blemished Jewish pride. These are sad days for Jewish intellectual discourse.
If we Jews and lovers of Israel want to win this battle over Israel’s legitimacy, we’re going to have to recall the very definite line between advocacy and apologetics. The latter will turn people off, but the former will win, so long as we tease out truth with great care and thought.
The publishing world these days is all atwitter with Fifty Shades of Grey. We may not need 50, but we sure need a few more than we’re currently mustering.
Email
Print
Tags:
Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center, where he is also a senior fellow. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel...
The Jewish State must end, say its enemies, from intellectuals like Tony Judt to hate-filled demagogues like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even average Israelis are wondering if they wouldn't be better off somewhere else. 
I agreed with you and I’m often perceived by some as being too right and others as too left. So it must mean you’re spot on! Thanks for the artile. You are right to stand up and call anti-semitism what it is, not accept being purposely and manipulatively misunderstood when you do, and make every endeavour to keep Israel great by speaking out against injustices within.
Good article. Lots of logic – we are decent people and the best in the area but we, as anyone else could do better.
Somehow things always come down to if you get IT or you do not get IT. IT being the situation, information, facts, or logical interpretation. Some of the comments sent to you did not get IT. Too narrow a world view – we are part of the world, we are good people, but many times have been pushed into a place we can not get out of without being bad.
Alice Walker, to my sorrow does not get IT, at all. If I were face to face with her I would just think of Andy Goodman and ask how many blacks have died for Jews lately? And who were the helpers behind a lot of the civil rights events in the US and S. Africa – the Jews, yet again. A little home truth before we start throwing around words like apartheid (apart hate). I think she really has no clue of what is going on. See things painted with a wide brush, imagines herself to be a spokesperson of ?????. She wrote some meaningful books about her people that we can all identify with. She has not been able to enlarge this to identify with others as much as one would want. You do not have to agree about anything with anyone but lets try, especially if you are deemed to be intelligent, try to see that there are two sides to every story. Find out a lot before saying you are going to go on ship and sail into Gaza with a bunch of people you do not know.Try not to be too gullible or fame seeking. This ship was not a freedom ship, these were not people who learned passive resistance, these were a mixture of innocent people who bought a story (remember Jews have never ever had good PR and the Palestinians are terrific at this) along with a bunch of troublemakers. She has lost a lot of respect of people who admired her. I hope she realizes this and also realizes that what she imagined she was putting her body on the line for was a big big mistake. There are many ways to protest and be respected by all sides. Sorry Alice, you lost me a while ago.
comes across as defensive – who cares what they say? let it go…
(and happy birthday!)
D
Once again Daniel Gordis has cut through the intellectual BS to the heart of the matter. His work should be required reading for all Jews and for those who love the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Dear Daniel,
I often enjoy the shades of grey we find in your columns. BUT just want to point out that some or maybe even much of the problem I think relates to the vehicle of communication. There are very often more shades of grey when speaking in person and having more ‘skin’ in the game. With blogs and online comments and call ins to radio shows and 24/7 newscycles with airtime to fill and selling books and promoting books etc with radio hosts holding their finger over the mute button, people go for ‘shock and awe.’ I don’t blame them. They are not comprehensive responses or meant to be. They are just 1 or 2 bullets shot into the open space. Pot shots if you will. Even the ‘journalists’.
And here’s my pot shot: the great free market where publicity is news, seems to pump out a lot of twiddle.
Marc
i would stop reading comments if i were you – you’re a great writer and the worst thing you can do is waste a column responding to all the nonsense people write in their responses – write what you think and you’ll be fine
Take some comfort in the observation that criticism from the left and right probably means that you’ve taken a sensible, thoughtful approach which, of course, you have.
I hope comments from the right and the left tell you
That you are striking just the right balance
Kol hakavod
Daniel
I have read you for a long time and usually agree with you. I am late come comer to Thomas Friedman and From Beirut to Jerusalem. His explanation for the Infatah that the younger Palestinians felt they had been co-opted by being Israeli but not really. The book is indeed dated with bare mention of Hezbollah and nothing about the Oslo accords nor Hamas.
It’s been 2 generations since I’ve been to Israel-1972. For me the Palestinians then loved the fact they had a more democratic gov’t to live under and certainly were better off financially.
If the reason for Israel is to be a Jewish state we need a 2 state solution for our soul and the Palestinian soul we must do it before their numbers absolutely require we do it.
As for Alice Walker I salute her going on the flotillia to try and get some sense of what is happening but I think a better solution is have her visit Israel -escort her nowhere and let her see reality and than judge. I think Israel has many flaws but considering what they’re living with they’re not doing a good job-they’re doing an excellent job but one that can still be improved.
I’m perfectly fine with your statements of “we’re good, but we can do better.” I appreciate the nuance.
Being better than our neighbors isn’t a very high bar these days. Being the best we can be is about embracing our “chosen-ness.”
Israel can do better – of course she can; that is obvious. And so can I and so can you. Here’s what I think pushed their buttons and mine too: doing better i.e. criticism is the mantra of the Israel bashers, the NIF, the media, the NGO’s, you name it – magnified of course. We hear the constant barrage of criticism from so many sources it makes us sick – so when you say a version of it – it pushes a button. I must admit I am tired of hearing over and over and over, ad naseum, of the few rabbis who are racist or the few Haredim in Beit Shemesh who spit on a girl, or the few settlers who torch a mosque (if it was settlers and not Palestinians setting us up) because every society has its % of deviants, but no other society apologizes publicly for them. Our enemies – and “friends” blow up these few incidents into a false characterization of Israeli society. That double standard is what set people off.
If I recall, your debate with Beinart was applauded as a model for civil discussion within our community. But Beinart’s demonization of Israel in the guise of love, requires the kind of brilliant, no holds barred, attack on you did against him on paper, but not the hail fellow well met pussyfooting which took place at Columbia. What a difference; what a disappointment. You received the greatest applause at the beginning – he got it at the end, when he stuck to his dirty ground and you let him get away. So why be surprised when his assistant stabs you in the back and lies about you even after you shook hands? That’s how our enemies behave, even – and especially Jews.
Nuance is immenesly important – and its loss is to be deeply mourned. The question is how to preserve it -and in what context. (I admit, that the target here is always moving, so i do’t have a pat answer…) There is a time for mercy, too (perhaps our highest value)- but that can also be misplaced -or must be tempered with steel will. For instance, a battlefield surgeon that cannot bear to cause a soldier pain might end up costing him his life. And- again in the context of battle- someone who can never pull a trigger on another man unless he is face to face with him in mortal danger of losing his own life will never order a remote strike -and so on.
While I have significant trouble with the black and white views of the world (sya, that often expressed by Truth Provider’s, for instance) there are times when we would do better expressing an unequivocal view. I believe,Daniel, that you once used the example of the famous Talmudic argument “Two people are grasping a Talit” and arguing over ownership. Unequivocal arguments must be employed if one is to arrive at nuance. On the other hand, in America people often view unequivocal and un-nuanced positions (and the expression of them, as such) as inherently unreasonable. This issue itself needs a lot more thought -It is key to managing the debate – and maintaining our soul. One thing is clear: It is vital to maintain the ability to consider the other side even if we cannot always express it. As a law professor of mine once noted in a different context: Someone smart alwas has the choice of pretending to be dumb. The opposite is not true.
I have been following the whole Alice Walker story with pained fascination. I set up a “Google Alert” with her name as the topic, and have been receiving every article and blog entry that has appeared on the internet about this strange story. I have especially enjoyed your two articles, because you offer such clear and rational thinking on this subject, when rational thinking seems to be in short supply.
One thing I am totally puzzled by:
I received a Google Alert saying that Alice Walker had decided to give an interview (the ONLY interview she is willing to give on this topic, according to her) to Yediot Aharonot — in Hebrew, because she wanted to “speak directly to the Israeli people; both Jewish and Arab.” When I clicked on the link, it took me directly to the website for PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel). On the website is a fuzzy (i.e. illegible) photo of the article in Hebrew, followed by a full English translation. The interviewer was Tzlil Avraham and it appears to have been published on July 6th.
While some of the questions the interviewer asked were good, challenging questions, other questions felt designed to simply give her a platform to elaborate further on her distorted ideas about Israel. Many of the things she says in the interview are so outrageous, that the issue of her refusing to allow a new Israeli publication of “The Color Purple” pales in comparison. Yet no one seems to know about this interview! I have seen no blog commentary, and no commentary on it in either the American or the Israeli press, including the American Jewish press. I was wondering if you are aware of this interview.
I tried to look up the actual Hebrew version from the July 6th issue of Yediot online. But searches for articles in Yediot Aharonot in English and in Hebrew (which come up as Ynet News) show no sign of this interview’s existence. I find it strange that the Google announcements about this interview provided no link to the actual article in the newspaper which supposedly published it. The only link is to the PACBI website — which makes me wonder whether this interview is for real. Something about it seems fishy.
I wanted to bring it to your attention, and ask you what your thoughts are, both about the legitimacy of the article — i.e. did it REALLY appear in the Hebrew edition of Yedioth Aharonot? — and about the content, if you can stand to read it. Here is the link:
http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=1942
I agree with you that the real issue is not Alice Walker, but us — and how we respond to cultural geniuses who also happen to be fierce anti-Semites. Perhaps I’m a little guilty of obsessing about this whole Alice Walker saga these past few weeks. But it’s only because I’ve found it so shocking and upsetting. As someone who studied Jewish Studies and African-American Studies some years ago in college, I felt that Alice Walker had somehow turned on me. Not me personally, but us. Us Jews. And, as a Jew, I do take that personally. I was never a follower of hers, nor was I terribly knowledgable about her writing, specifically. But because she was part of a milieu of writers — many of whom I found to be courageous and inspiring — I assumed that Alice Walker was a progressive feminist whose values were probably not that different from mine, as a progressive Jew who has always opposed any kind of discrimination, and who has been active in my community. I had not been aware of her anti-Israel activism until now. So, not only did her recent decision to forbid the Israeli publication of “The Color Purple” come as a surprise, but the rhetoric and ideology that fueled her decision strike me as disturbing — and actually quite delusional.
The BDS movement seems mean-spirited enough, in and of itself. But when celebrities and cultural icons like Alice Walker take up the BDS torch, it can lend an unfortunate stamp of credibility to an ideology which seems inherently anti-intellectual, anti-cultural — and a simmering cauldron of hate-filled, distorted thinking. The more I learn about the BDS Movement, it seems less like a movement and more like a cult. Alice Walker is to BDS as Tom Cruise is to Scientology. Great! Just what we need.
Though I’m not a psychologist, I can’t help wondering if Alice Walker suffers from some kind of thought disorder, cloaked in a sad veneer of narcissism and grandiosity. Except for the fact that she is a multi-millionaire who wields considerable influence due to her celebrity, I actually feel sorry for her. I imagine that someone who feels driven to make the kinds of extreme, divisive, twisted statements and accusations that she does, is probably not very happy. For her sake, I hope she gets some help. For our sake, I really wish she’d leave us alone and focus more on her own problems and fixing things that she actually knows something about.
While she claims to care so deeply about the problems faced by Palestinians, Alice Walker really does them a terrible disservice by advocating ideas which stifle all dialogue and efforts toward mutual understanding, ridicule any form of cooperation and compromise — and which lead them in the opposite direction from any realistic possibilities for peace and prosperity. The PACBI website contains a statement from The General Union of Palestinian Writers proclaiming that “the courageous message sent by the activist novelist Walker to one of the arms of Zionist propaganda … removes any uncertainty regarding the kinship between Palestinian, South African, and African American grievances.” Despite this type of flowery rhetoric, it’s hard to see how people like Alice Walker are actually doing or saying anything that will really help Palestinians.
While she is busy portraying Israel as the trigger-happy, colonialist, terrorist, genocidal monster of the Middle East — and at the same time describing herself as being deeply committed to non-violent forms of resistance — she actively articulates a vision which is essentially a sugarcoated version of the Hamas Charter. I never thought I’d say anything nice about Hamas, but I have to hand it to them for actually saying exactly what they mean. They don’t sugarcoat their goals. So, I’m less concerned with Alice Walker’s refusal to allow an Israeli publication of “The Color Purple” than I am with the idea that she may have blood on her hands.
I also never thought I’d borrow a quote from Sarah Palin, but it appears that Alice Walker actually IS “pal-ing around with terrorists.”
So many people have written that they find it sad and bewildering that Alice Walker wouldn’t want to share her book with Israelis, especially since it challenges racism and discrimination. You’d think she’d want them to read it and learn from it. “How unfortunate,” many people have said. I don’t think it’s so unfortunate. While Israel certainly has its share of complicated societal problems to work on, and we all have a lot to learn, Alice Walker is one of the last people in the world that I as a Jew would turn to for enlightenment. Why would I want to be instructed by someone who not only yearns for my demise, but actively works toward the eradication of the State of Israel? The only reason I can think of for an Israeli to read her books is the same reason that I, in America, frequently listen to right-wing talk radio: to know how my enemy’s mind works.
I would be very interested in your thoughts about the July 6th interview, and why no one in the press or in the Jewish community seems to have noticed it or commented on it.
Dr. Gordis,
You are a master story-teller – a genius of parables. Your Jewish pride is infectious.
You have many gifts and have achieved notoriety through brilliant speaking and writing, a little luck, and some could argue divine assistance. Each generation has only a handful of people who exemplify a package of passion, unwavering moral compass, checked and conscious pride, and ability to shape the future. You are one of those people.
You challenged me in lectures and discussions in Jerusalem to add just a little more Judaism to my life. You showed me a Jewish identity beyond the Holocaust, beyond ultra-nationalism, and beyond an American Jewish education that often ends at 13. In an AIPAC speech, you painted such a vivid picture of life in Sderot through your remarks about a children’s jungle gym that also happened to be a bomb shelter that I felt myself standing there as the sirens wailed and tiny feet scattered for cover. I have spent such a short amount of time with you, yet you impacted my life and my Jewish identity as much as any Rabbi, teacher, family member, left or right wing Jew, Arab, German, American, or flotilla activist.
Your debates with Peter Bienart are fascinating. The question of what J Street really means for the future of world Jewry and Israel is an important one to analyze. Defending and ensuring the future of the Jewish State is among the noblest professions one can ever undertake.
Please, Dr. Gordis, do not get bogged down with a future defined by argument with the left and the right. That is not what inspires people, and you have the gift of being able to inspire masses. Defend your deepest held beliefs. Feel secure in defending your words and actions. But, I respectfully ask you to please focus on your ability to stir the ever-changing Jewish identity pot for the next generation.
The future of Jews whose identity is based solely on Israel (from the left or right) or on fear of anti-Semitism or on one day in the life of a 13 year old is nowhere near as bright as one based on recognition of that which kept us together long before Nazi Germany or Alice Walker. We have a common history, an ever-evolving and questioning outlook, and hopefully a very bright future.
Thank you for enhancing my pride in being a Jew. Please continue to use your many talents to continue to ensure that others feel the same.
From a reply to the original article:
It is ironic that in a discussion devoted to the subjective, fact-free bigoted ranting of Alice Walker, we find the opposite side of the same coin here in our midst.
The issue is not how relatively better Israel is than most of the rest of the world. Jewish tradition is not based on comparative morality. The issue is how the constant striving for justice (“Zedek, zedek you must pursue”)which is at the core of our tradition, can also become a basic principle of the state.
Dear Daniel,
I loved Alice Walker’s book & the film made from it. I, along with many Jewish college students, went to Mississippi in the ’60s, risking our lives in the heat of the voter registration drive to help black citizens assert their basic right to vote. I had grown up in Yonkers, N.Y. with a strong sense of justice & it seemed natural to join the SDS & then CORE to right some of the wrongs practiced by many white people, not least among them many Jewish slumlords in Harlem. I always felt great discomfort whenever confronted by the fact that even us Jews, who’d suffered annihilation in Nazi Germany & Eastern Europe during the Second World War & who knew first hand what discrimination & racial bigotry & hatred could do, would discrimate in their own right when times for them improved. They seemed to forget what they’d gone through & this made me feel terribly uncomfortable.
So, I think it terribly sad that Alice Walker didn’t do her homework & deepen her knowledge about the State of Israel, why it came about & why it is necessary to preserve it.
And yes, there is room for improvement – the religious right get away with too much & the gross discrimination of Israeli Arabs needs to be addressed. In any case, keep up the good work, Daniel, your voice rings louod & clear even here in Rome, Italy! Criticism is an intellectual exercise when it is well placed & not exculpatory but rather designed to clarify & not excuse.
Best regards.
Marlene Deutsch
Dear Dr. Gorodis & your readers and responders,
I enjoy reading your pieces and their responses regularly, although -or maybe because- I find myself mostly disagreeing with you. In your original piece, which was not really about Alice Walker, but about anti-semitism, I see great logic and much truth.
But you did call Walker a Nazi.
When you say “…what is truly abhorrent is not a conflict that Israel does not know how to end (though again, Israel could certainly manage it better), but the tarring of all Israelis and all Jews with one brush, as boycotts such as Walker’s invariably do?” and then say: “Nazi Germany, we should recall, began with boycotts of Jewish businesses, with the boycotting of Jewish intellectuals and professionals.” you are basically saying that Walker’s call for a boycott is comparable to the beginnings of Nazi Germany.
I think you’re right. Our sages taught, and we recite the same every Passover: every generation there is an attempt to destroy us. There’s nothing wrong with being a Yad vaShem with an air force, in fact, it’s good. If we forget that we are yad vashem, we might as well not have an air force. So take Dave Rubin’s [comment #3] advice: don’t be defensive about calling Walker a nazi. She is.
Here is another shade, Dr Gordis, and I’m so very sorry about not having replied to the Alice Walker story. I read your article, agreed with every word in it, and then – as an ex-South African who immigrated to Australia in 1968 – just felt so sick at the entire “Russell Tribunal” phenomenon, at Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker and their ilk, that I gave up any thought of expressing the frustration and rage that they evoke in me.
The Russell Tribunal: It is held in Durban, South Africa, either every year or every second year, and is a Desmond Tutu version of a Kangaroo Court. No speaker is permitted to give an Israeli or Zionist or Jewish point of view. No-one speaks on behalf of Israel. The Russell Tribunal (and my words are mild compared to the reality) is an anti-Semitic hate-fest, attended by people slavering with joy at being able to freely vent their gross dislike of us in what they consider (or pretend to consider) a valid context.
South African Jews do not take it seriously, and are quietly encouraged NOT to be upset about it, because it cannot be viewed as valid by any sane and even halfway intelligent person.
Desmond Tutu: He does not know me, but I have known him since I was a child of 11 years. He has always been anti-Jewish. Even when the fight against Apartheid was assisted by countless Jews, he maintained his nasty (and I mean NASTY) attitude towards us. Desmond Tutu has one basic interest in life: Desmond Tutu. He will say and do whatever it takes to get him where he wants to be. That was the only reason he was prominent in the ANC. He needs fame and adoration. And now – now that Apartheid has gone – where else to gain that adoration other than amongst his fellow Jew-haters? In Australia there are numerous deluded people who are keen on the BDS campaign. One of these is is a Councillor in a Sydney suburb as well as a Senator. She appeared in a TV panel, delirious with joy at having “received a letter from Desmond Tutu” approving her stance against Israel. (Incidentally, no politician on that panel agreed with her.) I know that Tutu did not read her letter, that one of his secretaries did, that he did not reply to her letter, and one of his secretaries did. This is the way he functions. He makes me tired, angry and sad, but I cannot take anything about him seriously. So he hates us. So what? So does Mel Gibson. Anti-Semites come and go, as I think you said.
Alice Walker: There is only one thing to say, and you said it. Her attitude towards Israel (well, it isn’t really towards Israel as she knows nothing about it; it is towards Jews) says far more about Alice Walker than it does about Israel or us. Her fame is as nothing next to her capacity for venomous hatred. It is not wise to ignore anti-Semites, I know, but for us to make a fuss because she doesn’t want one of her books translated into Hebrew – well, that’s not wise either. We simply don’t need her. We care about each other; there are people all over the world who care about us (they may be difficult to find, but they ARE there); so we will keep on trying to be better and do better while we ignore the hate-filled bigots who will always exist.
A few of my cousins have just spent some time in Israel. One had his Bar mitzvah in a small, Sephardic Shul in Jerusalem. The other went with his school class for a fortnight. Both were radiant with delight at the end of their experiences. Their families were also filled with happiness, simply because of spending time in Israel. All this makes me want to quote my mother who spent her entire adult life working for Zionism. She would look up from a book, or turn to me after Shul, and say “I LOVE being Jewish!” And she did. Oh, she did. Let us all try to remember the delight being Jewish gives us. It helps lessen the anguish we feel on so many fronts.
And thank you, Daniel Gordis, for your wonderful letters which help us know how much YOU love being Jewish.
It is a shame to see the responses, Daniel. Often I’m very moved by what you write, and here and there I find myself in complete disagreement, but I’m constantly drawn to your sense of perspective – and intellectual honesty, for that matter. However, as someone who has been called an anti-Semite by a member of my own family (we’re all Jews, of course), I can also appreciate how people are getting so hotheaded about anything involving religion or Israel that it’s increasingly difficult to have meaningful conversations about such topics.
I think that it’s very hard to stay in the (passonite) middle. To stay focused on the facts and to see the complexity and many dimensions of an issue. Both left and right, predominately the left, often lose sense of reason and sense, and their language tends to be inflamatory rather than enlightening. It may make them “feel good”, but does not advance the discussion.