Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!zehntel!ihnp4!drutx!houxe!hogpc!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxl!mhuxt!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!mit-athena!martillo
From: martillo@mit-athena.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Who is a Jew (Shame on [detractors of] Mr. Martillo!)
Message-ID: <16@mit-athena.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Oct-84 01:02:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-athe.16
Posted: Thu Oct 11 01:02:05 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Oct-84 05:18:19 EDT
References: <1438@ittvax.UUCP>, <223@fisher.UUCP> <225@mit-athena.ARPA>, <253@fisher.UUCP> <255@mit-athena.ARPA>Re: Who is a Je
Lines: 158

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxm.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA
Message-ID: <16@mit-athena.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 01:02:05 EDT
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Oct-84 22:39:44 EDT

w (Shame on [detractors of] Mr. Martillo!)
Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 149

> = David Rubin

>> = Yirmiyahu ben David

Anything Else = Yehoyaqim Martillo

>The following is in response to an article by Yirmiyahu Ben-David. 

>>Exception must be taken to some overly simplistic views.  To imagine
>>that loyalties to the various stated entities are always in harmony is
>>indeed most superficial and simplistic. Are the interests in American
>>culture and Jewish culture always in harmony?

>Nations have interests. Neighborhoods have interests. Communities have
>interests. However, I don't see how a CULTURE can have an interest. 

I  think  Yirmiyahu  ben  David  was simply careless in translating klal
Yisrael which means the  Jewish  World.   The  Jewish  Community  has  a
culture.   It is not merely a culture.  In fact, as I understand some of
the recent Teshubot from  `Obadyah  Yosef,  a  non-Jew  who  held  David
Rubin's view and claimed to wish to convert to Judaism could not validly
convert to Judaism.

>								     I
>also do not see why any culture should be unavailable to anyone.  If
>you can only participate in one culture, then millions of liberal arts
>majors have wasted their lives...

There  is  a  world of difference between participating in a culture and
appreciating a culture.  I appreciate Japanese culture and find it  very
attractive   but   as  a  Gaijin  (non-Japanese)  I  could  never  truly
participate in Japanese culture even if I went  to  live  in  Japan  and
succeeded in getting Japanese citizenship -- which is very hard.

Historically,  Jews  have  been  excluded from tenured professorships in
English literature because the current  wisdom  held  that  as  oriental
aliens  Jews  could  neither  truly  participate  or  appreciate English
literature.   In  fact,  European  Jews  achieved  incredible  feats  of
assimilation  in order to participate, but even had they not, they could
have brought an  especially  new  understanding  of  English  literature
because such Jewish scholars would have had a different perspective.

>>Are the interests in
>>American traditions always in harmony with Jewish traditions?

>"Tradition" is a catch-all phrase, which just about covers everything.
>It is also extremely imprecise, especially when discussing American
>"tradition". If the Census asked each American to list the ten most
>important aspects of American tradition, they'd probably get 180
>million different lists.

Actually, from a European perspective there  are  some  readily  obvious
American  traditions  which  are  inherently  in  conflict  with  Jewish
traditions.

Neither Yirmiyahu ben David nor David Rubin understand  the  distinction
between  official  and  civic  religion  but  the  USA  has  always  had
particluarly strong tradition of a civic  religion  which  is  a  benign
expression  of  Northern European Protestantism.  This civic religion is
in conflict with Jewish tradition.

>>Are
>>American interests always in harmony with Israel?

>The implication here is that one cannot be a good Jew without
>consistently supporting Israeli interests. 

I do not  understand the logical transition. 

>					    However, as has been made
>clear over the last few years, a majority of the Israeli political
>body wishes to exercise national interests as every other state does
>(something like wishing to have a King placed over them, like other
>nations), and consequently Israel, like the U.S., often takes actions
>which I consider to be misguided or immoral. I can be a good citizen in
>the U.S. and still condemn my government's actions, and I can be a
>good Jew and condemn some of Israel's actions. 

I  am  curious  which  actions  of Israel David Rubin considers immoral.
Most American Jewish critics of Israel consider Israeli actions  immoral
when   the   actions   disturb  Jewish  assimilation.   In  such  cases,
condemnation of Israel is an expression of not being much of  a  Jew  at
all.   This  is the case for Noam Chomsky, Nat Hentoff, Philip Klutznik,
Arnold J. Wolf, Leonard Fein, Arthur Hertzberg and many others.

>A counter question, then:

>Can I be a good Jew and accept Israel's policies unconditionally?

>One final point: Jewish interests and Israeli interests may not
>coincide all the time, either. Example: in this election, it may very
>well be in Israeli interests to have friendly administration
>reelected, and to increase the influence of the New Right (who are
>strong supporters of Israel). However, Jewish interests may be that
>the New Right be weakened (to prevent public action based on
>peculiarly Christian principle), and thus to defeat Reagan.

Jewish assimilationist are disturbed when the importance of religion  is
stressed.   Actually, while I have a low opinion of Christianity in many
of its aspects, some aspects of Christianity  like  some  of  Islam  are
praiseworthy.   And  making  assimilating  American  Jews  aware  of the
importance of religion may encourage them  to  alleviate  their  massive
ignorance of their own religion.

>>Certainly not. Like it
>>or not, this country is becoming increasingly a Christian nation. Those
>>who blend in and adapt just don't have such a keen awareness of the
>>seriousness or scope of these problems. (I believe the other term for
>>blending in and adapting is called assimilation.)

>I have a keen awareness of being different. However, it does not
>bother me in and of itself. In this country, one is free to be
>different (that, by the way, would lead my list of things I consider
>to be part of the American "tradition"). 

>The increasing "Christianity" of this nation is an illusion.
>Fundamentalist Christians have become more vocal, not more numerous.

>>Lest the reader try a simplistic reply again, please note that the
>>questions listed are merely representative examples, and are in no way 
>>intended as an exhaustive listing of the myriad permutations of potential 
>>conflicts among the various interests vis-a-vis Israel, Jews and Judaism. 
>>In the event such a conflict arises, where will you stand?

>As I have said before, I will stand with whoever is right. If both
>parties positions are equally legitimate, then I support compromise.
>My opinion is that it is those who cry "My ___ right or wrong!", who
>equate loyalty with servitude, are the ones who are guilty of the
>heinous crime (:-)) of oversimplification.

Given  the  tendency  of  leftist  assimilated  American Jews to slobber
sympathy over the suppression of Arab Muslim nationalism in the Land  of
Israel  shows  that  many  American Jews do not support Israel even when
Israel  is  almost  correct  (the  Israeli   government   dominated   by
non-Orientals  probably errs in leniency).  I increasingly admire Greeks
who stand 100% behind Greece  even  when  Greece  is  wrong  as  in  the
conflict over Cyprus.

>>Unfortunately, I didn't see Mr. Martillo's original article - so I'm not
>>defending it. I am taking issue with some of the criticisms raised. And
>>I also suggest that he must have said something good - and described a
>>shoe which fit and made some wearers mighty uncomfortable? Wherever the
>>reader stands, at least give it some serious thought in formulating your
>>stand. The issue of where you stand in these matters certainly merits
>>that much. 

>Shoes which do not fit are the ones which are most uncomfortable. Best
>not to assume.