Newhouse’s essay is a peon to fascism, including racial purity, racial supremacy, authoritarianism, militarism, suppression of dissent, … the whole damn thing. Her goal is two fold: to turn Jews whose instincts are to defend Israel into neofascists, on the one hand, and on the other hand to draw the MAGA crowd and the new right intellectuals to a full throated support of Israel and Zionism and undercut the anti Israel (and antisemitic) voices now rising in the American right.
She, of course, is not the first to make Israel an avatar of neo-fascism and the illiberal ethnic-state. Netanyahu has been doing this for years. And this POV has also been accepted by large swaths of the left around the world. Which is precisely why arguments about Israel and Zionism have become so fraught through the West. It’s not solely about Jews or Palestinians or Israel, it’s a proxy fight about the whole future of the liberal vs authoritarian state, and an open multi-racial, multicultural democracy vs a conservative/ religious ethnocracy. Seen as such, the stakes cannot be higher.
I should add the obvious: that it’s never good for the Jews when we become an avatar for wider societal issues.
R. Kula stands out for his ability to name the unspoken tensions, anxieties, and yearnings we all feel but struggle to put into words—especially in an era of constant news bombardment and emotional overwhelm. In his fearless honesty, he echoes the spirit of Arundhati Roy, with both giving voice to truths we sense deeply but seldom articulate. At heart, it’s a drasha—yet its power lies in being written as an essay that speaks from a universal human perspective.
Simply put, Kula’s critique is that Alana Newhouse’s essay is a defense of Israel with no acknowledgement of how Israel is experienced by those whom it has disenfranchised AND that any such acknowledgment is a symptom of pathology.
For whom is her essay written? For one thing it provides intellectual safety to those already totally convinced of the value of and necessity for Israel’s actions.
But it is also for those who are wavering. It is a response to ethical dissonance. By treating critique as pathology, it is unintentionally acknowledging that doubt actually exists among the committed. This essay is a guide to the perplexed—to those who find themselves doubting—that their dissonance must be disregarded at any cost.
Her essay is an acknowledgement that defections are happening; that support for Israel is hemorrhaging and must be blanched.
It may be Tikvah’s true raison d’etre for which it has received a 10.4 million dollar grant from the Trump-dominated National Endowment for the Humanities — the largest grant ever given by the endowment as so many other grants have been dropped for being “woke.”
One major flaw in Newhouse's argument that Kula did not specifically point out is her claim that Jews for the last 2000 years have longed for their "national" aspirations to be fulfilled by a return to the land and the creation of Jewsh political entity of some sort--an expression of our "nationhood". This projection of a thoroughly modern framing onto spiritual modes of thought is anachronistic. This age-old longing she describes was not for a Jewish polity, or even a homeland, but was entirely messianic--the yearning for the world-to-come in which the exile would be ended by God, the chosen People returned to the Promised Land, and having finally made themselves worthy, to become a light among the nations. Her claim that modern political Zionism actually is that light among the degenerate nations of today demonstrates how deep rooted spiritual tropes can manifest themselves unconsciously in seemingly secular and modernist terms. The Bible tells stories of the slaughters committed by the ancient Israelites when they took the land, but the God mandated spiritual imperatives behind these acts papers over them with justifications which push these crimes into the background. In a similar way, these same culturally embedded spiritual imperatives, unacknowledged by Newhouse herself, because buried so deeply, make it possible for her to glide so smoothly over Israel's crimes in Gaza. With God (a concept Newhouse may or may not believe in, but which profoundly conditions her thinking) on our side--what, me worry?
The primal crime here is 10/7. Wipeout from the river to the sea. Elimination. That would include children. Think the Bibas family. Then think of Israel warning the population before strikes. Then think of Hamas using their population as shields. Hamas wills murder and rape; Israel wills live and let live.
The primal crime here is 1948, and before--the taking of the land from the Arabs of Palestine. Play the "blame the Arabs" game all you want, use it to paper over a fundamental fact--human beings do not like having their homes, their native land taken away from them, especially by force--and where does that get you? It gets you 10/7. Does this mean Israel should not exist? No, but it does mean that there is no hope of a desirable future for the Jewish homeland if we--both Israeli Jews and Jews in the diaspora--refuse to acknowledge these foundational crimes. And crimes they were. Ben-Gurion himself said it--The Arabs will never forgive us for what we've done to them.
I don't have any way to substantiate the quote, it was something I read a while ago. I did look up Ben Gurion quotes just now and found this, which says more or less the same thing with more detail --"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
This is from the website of an organization called Partners for Progressive Israel, to be taken, like anything on-line, with a grain of salt. But whoever strung these words together in that order, they are a fairly concise description of what I called Zionism's primal crime.
This material interpretation of what was intended to be a spiritual understanding was characteristic of the ancient Israelites. What is happening in the modern state is not a departure but a continuation...After all, the story of the Israelites is the story of mankind. Alternating cycles of redemption, sin, repentance, chastisement, and regression...In effect, we are witnessing the Israelite occupation of the Holy Land exactly as it was played out thousands of years ago. Indeed, that is exactly how religious settlers view it. But they forget that such an understanding of G-d's will was proven wrong, and only catastrophe, not glory, inevitably followed. Selective memory indeed. Everything old is new again.
If the Rabbi’s goal was to impress the reader with his dexterous command of the written word he’s succeeded admirably. What he didn’t do is address Newhouse’s central thesis, that we abandon our
nationalist instincts at our peril and that the world has much to learn from the Zionist model, however admittedly imperfect. I would add that if Newhouse failed to mention Palestinian national ambitions, perhaps it’s because those ambitions are largely if not entirely focused on erasing an existing state rather than creating a new one.
Israel basically “erased” Gaza, much of Beirut and is about to occupy southern Lebanon. Talking about erasure. That’s the New World Order you envision. And I think she doesn’t mention Palestinians because she doesn’t see them as a people. But the rest of the world does.
How dare you put those words in Newhouse’s mouth? Because you don’t agree with her piece she “doesn’t see Palestinians as a people.” ???
The rest of the world but may have decided see the Palestinians as a people (as do most Israelis and non-progresive Jews) but the rest of the world have also dehumanized Israelis and Jews in an alarming way. Which is odd considering these are the people of “inclusion.” Just look at the way you use the word “Zionist” to describe people. The progressive Jewish left and the general progressive left has tunnel vision and lack any sort of complex thinking skills. It’s sad.
That's an unfair and unproven assumption. In general the intellectual arguments against nationalism in the post Soviet era ignores the unrelenting and physical facts that people food not like they're heritage erased in the name of worker m/internationalist) communist solidarity. The number of countries in the UN that are new tells the story of real people seeking real things, despite the limitations and healing greed and corruption of their leaders. The majority of UN members are younger than Israel. Certainly, real desires were being suppressed in the 20th century. That the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction is sadly inevitable. Using Israel as the oppressive avatar for all ethnonationalism is unmistakably antisemitism.
Does Kula really believe that there is a genocide happening in Gaza? Is the military activity taking place in a vacuum - motivated by expansionist ambitions? It seems Kula has deliberately ignored Israel's withdrawal in 2005 and Hamas' activities ever since, including launching rockets into civilian areas.
As to the West Bank, he ignores the FACT that Arafat's response to being offered 97% of Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem, was to launch the Second Intifada, resulting in the death of more that one thousand Israelis. How many dead Jews will it take to make Irwin Kula happy?
Predictable rejection of peace offers on the Arab side is what will keep Israel in control of the disputed territories for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Kula, if being a bleeding heart radical is what makes you happy, keep on writing your articles. The rest of us actually have to deal with the real world.
Rabbi Kula's response is worthy reading, but despite some fair urging that a Jewish lack of "lamenting" undermines much, Kula quite unfairly assumes those of us that mostly in Alana's "intended audience" are quire capable of holding two truths at once, of feeling the moral gravity of Palestinian dead (though Kula seems content to take Hamas' totals at face value, something more astute observers may not) while also understanding their is, always, a price to pay for just peace. But Kula misses something bigger: yes, Lana's intellect, brilliant writing and velocity are impressive, and dwarf the poster-nonsense or JVP social media posts that too often lay false-flag claim to being the voice of the "moral Jewish Left". That has left many of us, especially those with kids on campus or that live in progressive Jewish communities that have wobbly records articulating Israel's successes, both suspect of the anti-Zionist Left, and even those who are so quick to criticize steadfast Zionists, but offer little substance to counter it. There is a reason the serious progressive Jewish world is shrinking, and losing its youth to Modern Orthodoxy, Chabad or full-out animus: the credible voices and leaders like Rabbi Kula have failed the next generation's search for something that is a particularism worth fighting for.
Thanks for this. I think many of us have been writing substantive essays on this moment from the Left. You just have to know where to look. I live on a university campus and teach these students daily. Actually the "progressive Jewish world" is growing exponentially. That is simply a fact.
Chabad’s silence in the face of moral crises directly contradicts the highest principle of Judaism — Pikuach Nefesh. Remaining quiet may preserve cohesion, but it also risks turning strategic silence into a profound moral failure with real-world consequences.
The popularity of orthodox or piety based community stems from the need to escape one's own individualism and to be told exactly what to do and think, at every moment of every day, for the rest of one's life. The conditions of modern living often result in such conversions because being an individual, thinking for oneself, and finding a path of fruitfulness and meaning in a wilderness outside of community founded upon rigid piety, is difficult. Today we see the history of WW2 repeating, except the USA and Israel are playing the roles of Axis powers and not Allied. For anyone truly loving the democratic ideal, or for that matter, loving the Jewish people, nothing could be more demoralizing. Escaping modern atrocity into piety is admission not of the supremacy of piety or a moral order that has obviously failed in the West, but only of the need to seek refuge and escape. We are re-living the atrocities of the 1930's and 1940's. But this time we are the "bad guys", we are the perpetrators. It takes a profound connection with G-d, a profound humanity, and a clear moral sense to stand against these atrocities, especially when they are being committed by one's own society, especially when they are being committed in the name of G-d. I don't think anything in a life of trauma, exposure, and disillusionment has affected me more than the spectacle of Jews, especially Haredim, choosing fascism as their "strength". (What is worse than making this choice is their denial that they are making it. When you know your sin, you have a chance to repent. When you deny your sin you are in big trouble.)This includes the spectacle of my own country descending into madness and self-destruction. If from all these events, all you see is that people of great need and not much imagination flee into safe enclaves where they are told what to do and think, I think you have missed the point. The Apocalypse is now.
Notably, Israel itself affirms Hamas's totals; I'm not sure who these ostensibly more astute observers are or what they believe the death toll of the destruction of Gaza actually is.
This resonates with me so much. I was an unobservant progressive-ish Jew (years ago had an orthodox bar mitzvah) who was utterly indifferent to Israel, effectively a nonzionst. But after Oct 7, seeing how the left reacted… it radicalized me into firm Zionism and back into much more observant practice.
Shaul, Kula’s essay is nonsense. It’s a word salad of invective bullshit. Alana doesn’t spend time talking about Gaza because her essay is about Zionism. Gaza is a separate matter. I am pretty certain that deaths (due to a just war) in Gaza are upsetting to Alana as they are to all Jews. Again, her essay isn’t about that. BTW, how many Gazan’s are mourning Israeli deaths in war? You can count them on the fingers of one hand, a hand that has had 4 of its fingers amputated.
Irwin, thank you so much for giving voice to these Jewish and American ideas. Thanks Shaul for making it more widely available. The "argument" seems to contrast an Israeli understanding of Zionism and Israeli Judaism with the values and teachings of Judaism, America and American Judaism for the future. Both can and do exist. But Israel, Zionism and Israeli Judaism do not and should not define Judaism and American Judaism. That is the battle and challenge I see and hear from Irwin Kula, Shaul Magid, millions of American Jews.
Have you seen Temples Shattered by Joshua Leifer? He gives quite a cogent explanation for the rise of American Zionism and how it represented a rejection of authentic Judaism and Jewish identity.
Yes, assume you mean Tablets Shattered. He does explain 20th century American Judaism pretty well. If by "authentic Judaism" you mean the haredi Orthodoxy he decided to pursue, then it's not a solution for most American Jews. ps: I believe he moved to Israel, at least part time.
"The popularity of orthodox or piety based community stems from the need to escape one's own individualism and to be told exactly what to do and think, at every moment of every day, for the rest of one's life. The conditions of modern living often result in such conversions because being an individual, thinking for oneself, and finding a path of fruitfulness and meaning in a wilderness outside of community founded upon rigid piety, is difficult. Today we see the history of WW2 repeating, except the USA and Israel are playing the roles of Axis powers and not Allied. For anyone truly loving the democratic ideal, or for that matter, loving the Jewish people, nothing could be more demoralizing. Escaping modern atrocity into piety is admission not of the supremacy of piety or a moral order that has obviously failed in the West, but only of the need to seek refuge and escape. We are re-living the atrocities of the 1930's and 1940's. But this time we are the 'bad guys', we are the perpetrators. It takes a profound connection with G-d, a profound humanity, and a clear moral sense to stand against these atrocities, especially when they are being committed by one's own society, and especially when they are being committed in the name of G-d. I don't think anything in a life of trauma, exposure, and disillusionment has affected me more than the spectacle of Jews, especially Haredim, choosing fascism as their "strength". (What is worse than making this choice is their denial that they are making it. When you know your sin, you have a chance to repent. When you deny your sin you are in big trouble.)This includes the spectacle of my own country descending into madness and self-destruction. If from all these events, all you see is that people of great need and not much imagination flee into safe enclaves where they are told what to do and think, I think you have missed the point. The Apocalypse is now."
Oh I'm sorry, Tablets Shattered (brain lapse). Actually what I mean by authentic Jewish values is exactly the same as what I mean by the authentic religious values of any faith: all this is not manipulated into use for the abuse of power against vulnerable people and communities. I agree with you, retreat into piety cult is not a solution. I talked about this in a reply, below.
The irony of this critique is that everything that Newhouse is being accused of is exactly what Kula and Magid do in response to Israel, its existence and Zionism
Newhouse's essay, among all that has been mentioned in these comments, is so completely dismissive and self righteous. In terms of her discussion of ethno nationalism, it is no surprise that she relies on the romanticism of Herder, without any of the type of critique and analysis of such nation states by Benedict Anderson/Imagined Communities. Her worldview, as noted in these comments, and by Irwin Kula (thank you) lacks any kind of empathy for the other, whoever they are. Her comments about Western responses to immigrants was deeply offensive. This is not merely a conversation about Israel/Zionism/Judaism but about how we live with each other in the world and how we perceive the future. As Jews, we must call this out, where it impacts all of those who are vulnerable.
What is bring described here sounds like moral grandiosity (and not the moral grandeur of Heschel), toxic charm, lack of empathy for the Other, and DARVO.
Would Kula have asked what the Jews of Europe had done to deserve the Shoah? This is in response to his argument about the need for Israeli Teshuvah in response to the current conflict. He parrots the Gazan Health Ministry's casualty figures and castigates Israel 's response to an existential threat. He states without evidence that Newhouse feels nothing for the innocents who were lost in the war. I struggled to make sense out of some of his psychobabble scattered throughout this piece. I am saying this as someone who doesn't agree with everything that Newhouse has written in her essay. I disagree more with the moral preening, virtue signaling, and self-righteous stance of Kula.
What especially resonates with me is what Kula calls "tragic consciousness" – and especially the lack of it in ("mainstream") Jewish spaces and discourse.
Last Friday, a friend and I went to a Shabbat service. It was disappointing in the ways I've always found institutionalized Judaism disappointing. But since 10/7, we seem to lack more than we usually lack. There is something we aren't quite talking about, and we have the sense that we ought to be talking about it.
Toward the end of the service the Rabbi made announcements about various goings-on at the temple. The last one was about an upcoming trip to Israel, and the best word I can think of for describing the tone of the announcement is "sheepish"; a half-joke that "everything will have calmed down by then. What is "everything"? What will it mean for it to have "calmed down"? Why can't we say its name?
I struggle to understand Jews who do not recognize – or worse, who ignore – the reality that we are in a spiritual and identity crisis which hinges on Israel/Palestine. How can we not be talking about it? But as Kula points out, the separation of Palestinian suffering from Jewish identity is the point of Newhouse's essay, the construction of an "elaborate permission structure for avoiding the one thing the current moment most demands — honest moral reckoning with what Israel is actually doing, right now, to actual human beings."
Mercifully, I've never been in a Jewish space in which people are actively celebrating the devastation of Gaza or the annexation of the West Bank. But I've also never been in one where this separation does not occur. I remember a service at another synagogue, perhaps 6 months after 10/7, in which the Rabbi included the hostages in the Mi Shebeirach – which is fine, but it felt impossible for me to see anything but the vacuum where the name of thousands of murdered Palestinians should have been. But, as Kula says, "To grieve even one dead Gazan child(...)is to begin to feel the full weight of what is happening, and that weight cannot be felt while the defense is simultaneously maintained." Maintaining the defense seems to be the whole point of these institutions.
So much of Palestinian suffering is self-inflicted because of their (leaders?) absolutist ideology.
What is unacceptable to them is the idea is that it is okay to talk to the Israelis instead of being obsessed with trying to destroy them. But look at the Hamas charter - "Our path is jihad and our FONDEST WISH is to die as martyrs for Allah (emphasis mine).
People in the West are incapable of understanding the import of that deeply held sentiment.
Newhouse’s essay is a peon to fascism, including racial purity, racial supremacy, authoritarianism, militarism, suppression of dissent, … the whole damn thing. Her goal is two fold: to turn Jews whose instincts are to defend Israel into neofascists, on the one hand, and on the other hand to draw the MAGA crowd and the new right intellectuals to a full throated support of Israel and Zionism and undercut the anti Israel (and antisemitic) voices now rising in the American right.
She, of course, is not the first to make Israel an avatar of neo-fascism and the illiberal ethnic-state. Netanyahu has been doing this for years. And this POV has also been accepted by large swaths of the left around the world. Which is precisely why arguments about Israel and Zionism have become so fraught through the West. It’s not solely about Jews or Palestinians or Israel, it’s a proxy fight about the whole future of the liberal vs authoritarian state, and an open multi-racial, multicultural democracy vs a conservative/ religious ethnocracy. Seen as such, the stakes cannot be higher.
I should add the obvious: that it’s never good for the Jews when we become an avatar for wider societal issues.
Like your poor thinking, Mrs Malaprop speaks peon for paean: that’s a Freudian slip worthy of Archie Bunker. Poor spelling, poor thinking.
R. Magid,
R. Kula stands out for his ability to name the unspoken tensions, anxieties, and yearnings we all feel but struggle to put into words—especially in an era of constant news bombardment and emotional overwhelm. In his fearless honesty, he echoes the spirit of Arundhati Roy, with both giving voice to truths we sense deeply but seldom articulate. At heart, it’s a drasha—yet its power lies in being written as an essay that speaks from a universal human perspective.
Thank you
Simply put, Kula’s critique is that Alana Newhouse’s essay is a defense of Israel with no acknowledgement of how Israel is experienced by those whom it has disenfranchised AND that any such acknowledgment is a symptom of pathology.
For whom is her essay written? For one thing it provides intellectual safety to those already totally convinced of the value of and necessity for Israel’s actions.
But it is also for those who are wavering. It is a response to ethical dissonance. By treating critique as pathology, it is unintentionally acknowledging that doubt actually exists among the committed. This essay is a guide to the perplexed—to those who find themselves doubting—that their dissonance must be disregarded at any cost.
Her essay is an acknowledgement that defections are happening; that support for Israel is hemorrhaging and must be blanched.
It may be Tikvah’s true raison d’etre for which it has received a 10.4 million dollar grant from the Trump-dominated National Endowment for the Humanities — the largest grant ever given by the endowment as so many other grants have been dropped for being “woke.”
One major flaw in Newhouse's argument that Kula did not specifically point out is her claim that Jews for the last 2000 years have longed for their "national" aspirations to be fulfilled by a return to the land and the creation of Jewsh political entity of some sort--an expression of our "nationhood". This projection of a thoroughly modern framing onto spiritual modes of thought is anachronistic. This age-old longing she describes was not for a Jewish polity, or even a homeland, but was entirely messianic--the yearning for the world-to-come in which the exile would be ended by God, the chosen People returned to the Promised Land, and having finally made themselves worthy, to become a light among the nations. Her claim that modern political Zionism actually is that light among the degenerate nations of today demonstrates how deep rooted spiritual tropes can manifest themselves unconsciously in seemingly secular and modernist terms. The Bible tells stories of the slaughters committed by the ancient Israelites when they took the land, but the God mandated spiritual imperatives behind these acts papers over them with justifications which push these crimes into the background. In a similar way, these same culturally embedded spiritual imperatives, unacknowledged by Newhouse herself, because buried so deeply, make it possible for her to glide so smoothly over Israel's crimes in Gaza. With God (a concept Newhouse may or may not believe in, but which profoundly conditions her thinking) on our side--what, me worry?
Yes. Agreed. But some Zionism erased messianism and re wrote Jewish history long ago.
The primal crime here is 10/7. Wipeout from the river to the sea. Elimination. That would include children. Think the Bibas family. Then think of Israel warning the population before strikes. Then think of Hamas using their population as shields. Hamas wills murder and rape; Israel wills live and let live.
The primal crime here is 1948, and before--the taking of the land from the Arabs of Palestine. Play the "blame the Arabs" game all you want, use it to paper over a fundamental fact--human beings do not like having their homes, their native land taken away from them, especially by force--and where does that get you? It gets you 10/7. Does this mean Israel should not exist? No, but it does mean that there is no hope of a desirable future for the Jewish homeland if we--both Israeli Jews and Jews in the diaspora--refuse to acknowledge these foundational crimes. And crimes they were. Ben-Gurion himself said it--The Arabs will never forgive us for what we've done to them.
I don’t think Ben Gurion said that. I think it was Yosef Weitz, founder of the JNF
I don't have any way to substantiate the quote, it was something I read a while ago. I did look up Ben Gurion quotes just now and found this, which says more or less the same thing with more detail --"If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
David Ben-Gurion (the first Israeli Prime Minister): Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
This is from the website of an organization called Partners for Progressive Israel, to be taken, like anything on-line, with a grain of salt. But whoever strung these words together in that order, they are a fairly concise description of what I called Zionism's primal crime.
Yes that quote of BG is well known
This material interpretation of what was intended to be a spiritual understanding was characteristic of the ancient Israelites. What is happening in the modern state is not a departure but a continuation...After all, the story of the Israelites is the story of mankind. Alternating cycles of redemption, sin, repentance, chastisement, and regression...In effect, we are witnessing the Israelite occupation of the Holy Land exactly as it was played out thousands of years ago. Indeed, that is exactly how religious settlers view it. But they forget that such an understanding of G-d's will was proven wrong, and only catastrophe, not glory, inevitably followed. Selective memory indeed. Everything old is new again.
If the Rabbi’s goal was to impress the reader with his dexterous command of the written word he’s succeeded admirably. What he didn’t do is address Newhouse’s central thesis, that we abandon our
nationalist instincts at our peril and that the world has much to learn from the Zionist model, however admittedly imperfect. I would add that if Newhouse failed to mention Palestinian national ambitions, perhaps it’s because those ambitions are largely if not entirely focused on erasing an existing state rather than creating a new one.
Israel basically “erased” Gaza, much of Beirut and is about to occupy southern Lebanon. Talking about erasure. That’s the New World Order you envision. And I think she doesn’t mention Palestinians because she doesn’t see them as a people. But the rest of the world does.
That is quite an assumption there “professor”
How dare you put those words in Newhouse’s mouth? Because you don’t agree with her piece she “doesn’t see Palestinians as a people.” ???
The rest of the world but may have decided see the Palestinians as a people (as do most Israelis and non-progresive Jews) but the rest of the world have also dehumanized Israelis and Jews in an alarming way. Which is odd considering these are the people of “inclusion.” Just look at the way you use the word “Zionist” to describe people. The progressive Jewish left and the general progressive left has tunnel vision and lack any sort of complex thinking skills. It’s sad.
You don’t know what I envision. I don’t agree with Alana about everything, I just wish the Rabbi has actually addressed her thesis.
Others have done so differently. There have been numerous responses to her essay. Zach Truboff for example.
That's an unfair and unproven assumption. In general the intellectual arguments against nationalism in the post Soviet era ignores the unrelenting and physical facts that people food not like they're heritage erased in the name of worker m/internationalist) communist solidarity. The number of countries in the UN that are new tells the story of real people seeking real things, despite the limitations and healing greed and corruption of their leaders. The majority of UN members are younger than Israel. Certainly, real desires were being suppressed in the 20th century. That the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction is sadly inevitable. Using Israel as the oppressive avatar for all ethnonationalism is unmistakably antisemitism.
The majority of new UN members are not self defined ethnostates. Some may be.
Does Kula really believe that there is a genocide happening in Gaza? Is the military activity taking place in a vacuum - motivated by expansionist ambitions? It seems Kula has deliberately ignored Israel's withdrawal in 2005 and Hamas' activities ever since, including launching rockets into civilian areas.
As to the West Bank, he ignores the FACT that Arafat's response to being offered 97% of Judea and Samaria, including East Jerusalem, was to launch the Second Intifada, resulting in the death of more that one thousand Israelis. How many dead Jews will it take to make Irwin Kula happy?
Predictable rejection of peace offers on the Arab side is what will keep Israel in control of the disputed territories for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Kula, if being a bleeding heart radical is what makes you happy, keep on writing your articles. The rest of us actually have to deal with the real world.
Rabbi Kula's response is worthy reading, but despite some fair urging that a Jewish lack of "lamenting" undermines much, Kula quite unfairly assumes those of us that mostly in Alana's "intended audience" are quire capable of holding two truths at once, of feeling the moral gravity of Palestinian dead (though Kula seems content to take Hamas' totals at face value, something more astute observers may not) while also understanding their is, always, a price to pay for just peace. But Kula misses something bigger: yes, Lana's intellect, brilliant writing and velocity are impressive, and dwarf the poster-nonsense or JVP social media posts that too often lay false-flag claim to being the voice of the "moral Jewish Left". That has left many of us, especially those with kids on campus or that live in progressive Jewish communities that have wobbly records articulating Israel's successes, both suspect of the anti-Zionist Left, and even those who are so quick to criticize steadfast Zionists, but offer little substance to counter it. There is a reason the serious progressive Jewish world is shrinking, and losing its youth to Modern Orthodoxy, Chabad or full-out animus: the credible voices and leaders like Rabbi Kula have failed the next generation's search for something that is a particularism worth fighting for.
Thanks for this. I think many of us have been writing substantive essays on this moment from the Left. You just have to know where to look. I live on a university campus and teach these students daily. Actually the "progressive Jewish world" is growing exponentially. That is simply a fact.
Chabad’s silence in the face of moral crises directly contradicts the highest principle of Judaism — Pikuach Nefesh. Remaining quiet may preserve cohesion, but it also risks turning strategic silence into a profound moral failure with real-world consequences.
The popularity of orthodox or piety based community stems from the need to escape one's own individualism and to be told exactly what to do and think, at every moment of every day, for the rest of one's life. The conditions of modern living often result in such conversions because being an individual, thinking for oneself, and finding a path of fruitfulness and meaning in a wilderness outside of community founded upon rigid piety, is difficult. Today we see the history of WW2 repeating, except the USA and Israel are playing the roles of Axis powers and not Allied. For anyone truly loving the democratic ideal, or for that matter, loving the Jewish people, nothing could be more demoralizing. Escaping modern atrocity into piety is admission not of the supremacy of piety or a moral order that has obviously failed in the West, but only of the need to seek refuge and escape. We are re-living the atrocities of the 1930's and 1940's. But this time we are the "bad guys", we are the perpetrators. It takes a profound connection with G-d, a profound humanity, and a clear moral sense to stand against these atrocities, especially when they are being committed by one's own society, especially when they are being committed in the name of G-d. I don't think anything in a life of trauma, exposure, and disillusionment has affected me more than the spectacle of Jews, especially Haredim, choosing fascism as their "strength". (What is worse than making this choice is their denial that they are making it. When you know your sin, you have a chance to repent. When you deny your sin you are in big trouble.)This includes the spectacle of my own country descending into madness and self-destruction. If from all these events, all you see is that people of great need and not much imagination flee into safe enclaves where they are told what to do and think, I think you have missed the point. The Apocalypse is now.
Notably, Israel itself affirms Hamas's totals; I'm not sure who these ostensibly more astute observers are or what they believe the death toll of the destruction of Gaza actually is.
The Hamas death tolls lump combatants and civilians together as well as including natural deaths. Israel does not affirm these totals.
This resonates with me so much. I was an unobservant progressive-ish Jew (years ago had an orthodox bar mitzvah) who was utterly indifferent to Israel, effectively a nonzionst. But after Oct 7, seeing how the left reacted… it radicalized me into firm Zionism and back into much more observant practice.
Shaul, Kula’s essay is nonsense. It’s a word salad of invective bullshit. Alana doesn’t spend time talking about Gaza because her essay is about Zionism. Gaza is a separate matter. I am pretty certain that deaths (due to a just war) in Gaza are upsetting to Alana as they are to all Jews. Again, her essay isn’t about that. BTW, how many Gazan’s are mourning Israeli deaths in war? You can count them on the fingers of one hand, a hand that has had 4 of its fingers amputated.
Irwin, thank you so much for giving voice to these Jewish and American ideas. Thanks Shaul for making it more widely available. The "argument" seems to contrast an Israeli understanding of Zionism and Israeli Judaism with the values and teachings of Judaism, America and American Judaism for the future. Both can and do exist. But Israel, Zionism and Israeli Judaism do not and should not define Judaism and American Judaism. That is the battle and challenge I see and hear from Irwin Kula, Shaul Magid, millions of American Jews.
Have you seen Temples Shattered by Joshua Leifer? He gives quite a cogent explanation for the rise of American Zionism and how it represented a rejection of authentic Judaism and Jewish identity.
Yes, assume you mean Tablets Shattered. He does explain 20th century American Judaism pretty well. If by "authentic Judaism" you mean the haredi Orthodoxy he decided to pursue, then it's not a solution for most American Jews. ps: I believe he moved to Israel, at least part time.
"The popularity of orthodox or piety based community stems from the need to escape one's own individualism and to be told exactly what to do and think, at every moment of every day, for the rest of one's life. The conditions of modern living often result in such conversions because being an individual, thinking for oneself, and finding a path of fruitfulness and meaning in a wilderness outside of community founded upon rigid piety, is difficult. Today we see the history of WW2 repeating, except the USA and Israel are playing the roles of Axis powers and not Allied. For anyone truly loving the democratic ideal, or for that matter, loving the Jewish people, nothing could be more demoralizing. Escaping modern atrocity into piety is admission not of the supremacy of piety or a moral order that has obviously failed in the West, but only of the need to seek refuge and escape. We are re-living the atrocities of the 1930's and 1940's. But this time we are the 'bad guys', we are the perpetrators. It takes a profound connection with G-d, a profound humanity, and a clear moral sense to stand against these atrocities, especially when they are being committed by one's own society, and especially when they are being committed in the name of G-d. I don't think anything in a life of trauma, exposure, and disillusionment has affected me more than the spectacle of Jews, especially Haredim, choosing fascism as their "strength". (What is worse than making this choice is their denial that they are making it. When you know your sin, you have a chance to repent. When you deny your sin you are in big trouble.)This includes the spectacle of my own country descending into madness and self-destruction. If from all these events, all you see is that people of great need and not much imagination flee into safe enclaves where they are told what to do and think, I think you have missed the point. The Apocalypse is now."
Oh I'm sorry, Tablets Shattered (brain lapse). Actually what I mean by authentic Jewish values is exactly the same as what I mean by the authentic religious values of any faith: all this is not manipulated into use for the abuse of power against vulnerable people and communities. I agree with you, retreat into piety cult is not a solution. I talked about this in a reply, below.
The irony of this critique is that everything that Newhouse is being accused of is exactly what Kula and Magid do in response to Israel, its existence and Zionism
Hilarious. Some jews apparently still long for the days of trembling knees.
Newhouse's essay, among all that has been mentioned in these comments, is so completely dismissive and self righteous. In terms of her discussion of ethno nationalism, it is no surprise that she relies on the romanticism of Herder, without any of the type of critique and analysis of such nation states by Benedict Anderson/Imagined Communities. Her worldview, as noted in these comments, and by Irwin Kula (thank you) lacks any kind of empathy for the other, whoever they are. Her comments about Western responses to immigrants was deeply offensive. This is not merely a conversation about Israel/Zionism/Judaism but about how we live with each other in the world and how we perceive the future. As Jews, we must call this out, where it impacts all of those who are vulnerable.
What is bring described here sounds like moral grandiosity (and not the moral grandeur of Heschel), toxic charm, lack of empathy for the Other, and DARVO.
Would Kula have asked what the Jews of Europe had done to deserve the Shoah? This is in response to his argument about the need for Israeli Teshuvah in response to the current conflict. He parrots the Gazan Health Ministry's casualty figures and castigates Israel 's response to an existential threat. He states without evidence that Newhouse feels nothing for the innocents who were lost in the war. I struggled to make sense out of some of his psychobabble scattered throughout this piece. I am saying this as someone who doesn't agree with everything that Newhouse has written in her essay. I disagree more with the moral preening, virtue signaling, and self-righteous stance of Kula.
Thank you Rabbi Kula for writing what lies within my heart as I read your critique and was so glad a "still small voice" rang loudly in your response.
Adonai Eloheychem Emet.
What especially resonates with me is what Kula calls "tragic consciousness" – and especially the lack of it in ("mainstream") Jewish spaces and discourse.
Last Friday, a friend and I went to a Shabbat service. It was disappointing in the ways I've always found institutionalized Judaism disappointing. But since 10/7, we seem to lack more than we usually lack. There is something we aren't quite talking about, and we have the sense that we ought to be talking about it.
Toward the end of the service the Rabbi made announcements about various goings-on at the temple. The last one was about an upcoming trip to Israel, and the best word I can think of for describing the tone of the announcement is "sheepish"; a half-joke that "everything will have calmed down by then. What is "everything"? What will it mean for it to have "calmed down"? Why can't we say its name?
I struggle to understand Jews who do not recognize – or worse, who ignore – the reality that we are in a spiritual and identity crisis which hinges on Israel/Palestine. How can we not be talking about it? But as Kula points out, the separation of Palestinian suffering from Jewish identity is the point of Newhouse's essay, the construction of an "elaborate permission structure for avoiding the one thing the current moment most demands — honest moral reckoning with what Israel is actually doing, right now, to actual human beings."
Mercifully, I've never been in a Jewish space in which people are actively celebrating the devastation of Gaza or the annexation of the West Bank. But I've also never been in one where this separation does not occur. I remember a service at another synagogue, perhaps 6 months after 10/7, in which the Rabbi included the hostages in the Mi Shebeirach – which is fine, but it felt impossible for me to see anything but the vacuum where the name of thousands of murdered Palestinians should have been. But, as Kula says, "To grieve even one dead Gazan child(...)is to begin to feel the full weight of what is happening, and that weight cannot be felt while the defense is simultaneously maintained." Maintaining the defense seems to be the whole point of these institutions.
So much of Palestinian suffering is self-inflicted because of their (leaders?) absolutist ideology.
What is unacceptable to them is the idea is that it is okay to talk to the Israelis instead of being obsessed with trying to destroy them. But look at the Hamas charter - "Our path is jihad and our FONDEST WISH is to die as martyrs for Allah (emphasis mine).
People in the West are incapable of understanding the import of that deeply held sentiment.