Jewish: February 2004 Archives

Trying to finally get out of school for a change, I attended Sunday's conference of The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as AIPAC. Unlike AIPAC's national conference in Washington, this conference was held in a Chicago Hyatt, and was geared specifically toward the Midwest region. Based on the numbers given, there were anywhere from 1500-1600+ people, 600+ of whom were college students. I cannot confirm if any of these numbers are accurate, but the turnout was certainly impressive.

There were no shortage of dynamic speakers; Daniel Gordis delivered the keynote address (as well as a "breakout" session) and Alan Dershowitz concluded the conference. Furthermore, several prominent government officials were in attendance and spoke briefly.

Despite the erudition and eloquence of the speakers, most people I spoke to regretted the limited range of opinions at the conference - assuming content was actually presented. Although some minor disagreements were heard, debates were downplayed. The clear overriding theme was simply, "we support Israel."

While this upset some participants, my perspective is that AIPAC simply accomplished what it set out to do. Most of the attendees support Israel in one way or another, and are either active or would like to be active in promoting Israel in college campuses or other forums. To adequately advocate for Israel, one needs three things. First is simply factual knowledge of the conflict and its history. This includes dates, events, quotes, or statistics. AIPAC assumes that the attendees either have this information, or could easily obtain this information on their own.

However, once you have this information, what are you supposed to do? The second requirement is personal passion. If you're not enthusiastic, or you don't believe in your cause, you're not going to be an effective spokesperson. Finally, assuming you have the knowledge and the desire, you need to know what to do with them. This is where the AIPAC conference succeeded. Not only did speakers energize and revitalize the participants, but the breakout session provided practical advice for how to channel one's enthusiasm for Israel.

For example, many students on campus are faced with vocal and inflammatory anti-Israel rhetoric. While many of these students might be tempted to debate the issues in a loud public forum, speaker at AIPAC encouraged calmer personal interactions. Instead of shouting conflicting numbers, tell people real stories about Israel. Make it real to people. The purpose isn't merely to defend against attacks, call "reactionary theatrics," but to actively build positive connections with Israel.

To me, this attitude parallels the conflict on the ground in Israel in the sense that instead of "stooping to their level," AIPAC encourages a higher civil discourse. Furthermore, the opposition is interested in destruction - of bringing down Israel. If one constantly fights against these challenges, one might prevent destruction, but one doesn't do much to build up themselves in the process either.

I think they're right from a pragmatic level as well. Although mass demonstrations get media attention, how much do they really accomplish, especially compared with actual lobbying? As AIPAC noted, there were at least eight political figures in attendance from both political parties. Did they attend because of flashy sound bytes or though intelligent discourses? AIPAC believes that although some rebuttals are necessary, people have to pick their battles, fight them appropriately, and fight them to the end. However, in general, more will be accomplished by calmly promoting Israel, rather than responding to each and every wild accusation.

Or to quote the wisest of them all:

"The words of the wise spoken in quiet are more acceptable than the cry of a ruler among fools."(Kohelet 9:17)

My affinity for theology rarely leads me to places like Grand Forks North Dakota, but Fark linked to an interesting and well written article in the Grand Forks Herald.

The article discusses some modern approaches to an ancient dilemma in Christianity: Which commandments of the Bible are authoritative.

Leviticus not only condemns a man "who lies with a male as with a woman" and the eating of pork. It also prohibits seafood without fins. And tattoos.

So what makes one law still in force and another seemingly obsolete? Particularly when Jesus himself said "not one jot or one tittle" of the law would change?

Or to reverse the argument, if charging interest does not apply anymore because "times have changed," then why can't times change for homosexuality? Some Christians distinguish between moral, ceremonial, and civil laws, but these arbitrary categories merely shift the debate. Not only will people argue why some laws immutable and others not, but also why certain commandments are purely "civil" and not "moral?"

Not being a Christian theologian, I won't attempt to answer this problem, and thankfully, I don't have to. However, you might notice a similar dichotomy in the development of practical Jewish law. Despite claims of authority and oral tradition, Jews don't always follow the laws of the Talmud. The popular myth is that Sepharadim follow the Rambam or Shulhan Arukh and Ashkenazim follow Ramo or the Mishna Berurah. Neither assumption is that simple and this formula doesn't always hold true. R. Tendler summarized it best in one of my discussions with him: "we pasken like the Ramo, except when we don't."

Many people lack the education or patience (sometimes both) to appreciate and comprehend the intricacies of Jewish law. It's much easier to give a congregation a one line sound-byte and say this is the law because X says so. Furthermore, I doubt that many Rabbis follow a coherent system of Jewish law (assuming they have one) beyond the simple, "this is what we do because this is what we do." Thus, it's not only easier for the congregation to digest the one liner, but it saves the Rabbis from actually thinking.

When Rabbis appeal to the authority of a text, they provide the simplest explanation for the law. Pragmatically this works for most congregations, especially in the short term. However, as congregants and laity get better educated, rabbis will have to provide better answers. People have already recognized inconsistencies in halakha, and need something better than "he said so."

Of course, this would also mean training rabbis to give better answers, and that could take some time.