Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration was in fact not a declaration at all. It was a letter written from Arthur Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, and sent to Lord Rothschild. The letter states that the British Empire supports the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. This declaration was not a tremendous help to the Jews, though, since at the end of the day, Britain promised a sliver of the Middle East to the Jews and everything else to the Arabs.

Arab violence scared the British, who capitulated to them more often than not. Jewish frustration grew and the Jewish resistance groups were formed. The Jews no longer believed that patience would win out, and realized that military action was the only way to win a state.

Balfour's declaration was both politically expedient at the time and motivated by the desire to do good. Politically, the British were seeking allies in World War I who would help them capture the Holy Land and other territories from the Ottoman Empire. Zionist tendencies in the Jewish and international community could be exploited for that purpose. In fact, when General Allenby entered the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem for the first time, he was hailed as a hero by the Jewish community. On the other hand, Balfour was also moved by real Zionist feeling. He was ashamed of Christian anti-Semitism, and felt that the Jews deserved a land to make up for centuries of oppression.

The process which Lord Balfour started didn't go exactly as planned, but it did set up a mandate which ultimately led to the establishment of the State of Israel. For that reason, the anniversary of the declaration is celebrated by diplomats who support Israel. For the same reason, Hamas feels the need to denounce the document as illegal. Luckily, the State of Israel no longer depends on the generosity of the British (or anyone else) for its existence.

Diversity in Judaism

Ancient Judaism appears to have been much more diverse than Orthodox Judaism of today. This can be seen from archaeological sources, which show what daily life was like in antiquity. For example, the synagogue of Dura-Europos in what is today Syria, contains symbols not native to Judaism.

According to Alex Joffe:

Before the discovery of Dura-Europos, it was never imagined that the Jews of antiquity could have painted in this way; and to see these fragments is to be transported to an age and a Judaism that are at once familiar and deeply alien. The scenes use the conventions of the Roman East. Baby Moses is rescued by Pharaoh's naked daughter; the grown Moses is depicted in severe Roman fashion. Solomon's Temple has Greco-Roman columns. The battle of Eben-Ezer is fought on horseback.

Joffe uses these facts to ask some questions about ancient Judaism and its relationship to other religions:

The diversity raises underlying questions: What was Judaism and who were the Jews in late antiquity? Were Jews—and Christians and pagans—isolated and opposing groups or related points along a spectrum of beliefs? These questions raise other interpretive issues. Do the pagan motifs and styles indicate non-rabbinic, effectively mystical varieties of Judaism? Could biblical characters and stories actually have shared characteristics of pagan deities and beliefs? Were Jews competing with Christian churches in their decorative biblical depictions—and, if so, for what audiences? Or did synagogues and churches simply share the same artisans?

It definitely seems possible that the Judaism of the ancient period was much more diverse and more influenced by outside cultures than we generally think. They apparently didn't compartmentalize their lives, separating religion from culture. To them it was all one, and all of it belonged in the synagogue.

Mel Gibson's Movie about the Maccabees

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction...
Despite Mel Gibson's antisemitic remarks in the past, he has announced that he is creating a film about the story of Judah the Maccabee. Although Jews view this as a uniquely Jewish story - after all, we have a whole holiday called Hanukkah to celebrate it - some Christians consider the Book of Maccabees to be part of the biblical canon. Jews do not; for us it is part of the apocrypha - books to be studied but not revered.

An article about Mel Gibson and the Maccabees appearing on Jewish Ideas Daily maintains that contrary to expectations, Gibson might be the right person to make this movie. The premise of the article appears to be that as long as we are not seeking theology or historical accuracy in the film, it will probably be quite enjoyable. Gibson is know for his epic films, with complex heroes and big bloody battles (Braveheart, anyone?). If all you're looking for in a movie is entertainment, this one promises to live up to expectations.

In contrast to this article, the ADL is protesting the making of this movie. The president of the organization complained that a person with no respect for the Jewish heritage and the Jewish people should not be making a film which portrays them. However, it is unlikely that movie-goers will think they are getting a real history lesson, so the ADL and other Jewish organizations should probably focus their efforts on issues that matter more.

The Anti-Semitism Controversy at Yale

The blogosphere has been abuzz about Yale's decision to close its Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of Antisemitism. A general outcry has succeeded the announcement, as if Yale has announced that it no longer believes anti-Semitism exists in the United States. But is this really accurate?

Judaism's history has of course been replete with anti-Semitism, including Crusades, pogroms and the ultimate anti-Semitic incident: the Holocaust. In today's world, anti-Semitism is often more subtle. It hides behind terms like anti-Zionism and human rights (when discussing Israeli Palestinian relations or anti-circumcision laws). Occasionally, there are outbursts of anti-Jewish violence, but these are generally dealt with by government authorities (the Arab world notwithstanding).

Is it possible that the administration of Yale thinks these expressions of anti-Semitism are not worth researching?

Some have suggested that the reason that Yale closed down the institute is Arab protests against a conference held there last year which discussed the dangers of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Yale's official reason was that YIISA had failed to "serve the research and teaching interests of some significant Yale faculty and . . . [to] be sustained by the creative energy of a critical mass of Yale faculty." One of the reasons to doubt that this is the real reason is that Yale publicly courts Arab donors. The Washington representative of the PLO publicly condemned the institute and asked for disassociation from the university because of its existence.

Chances are that Judaism's history will not be majorly affected by the closing down of the institute. Clearly the university does not believe that anti-Semitism has disappeared from the world. Either it was seriously concerned with the quality of work being done there or it bowed to pressure from potential donors. In either case, the decision hardly seems worthy of all the attention it has been getting.

Hayim Nahman Bialik

One of the great poets of Israeli and Jewish culture was Hayim Nahman Bialik. Born in 1873, he was the poet of Jewish national rebirth and a leading light of cultural Zionism.

Bialik received a traditional Jewish education, including a stint at the Volozhin Yeshiva, but later left it to immerse himself in a broader cultural milieu. In 1909 he published his first collection of poetry, which was extremely well-received. While living in Warsaw, all of his poems were written in Yiddish. Bialik moved to Berlin and then, in 1924, to Tel Aviv. He began to write in Hebrew and contributed greatly to the revival of the Hebrew language. His poems and songs based on them have become an essential part of Israeli education.

Jewish Virtual Library described his influence:

The work of Hayyim Nahman Bialik takes on many genres and modes of expression. His national poetry laments the degeneration of the Jewish nation in exile and strives to stimulate latent forces to create a new destiny. Expressing a wide range of emotion, his personal verse reflects the inner conflicts of modern man. His nature poetry is rich in imagery, and his love poems show both tenderness and violent passion. Bialik's stories deal realistically with subjects drawn from contemporary events, and his legends and folktales evince a fertile imagination and gentle sense of humor. In his career called "a watershed in modern Hebrew literature," Hayyim Nahman Bialik answered the silent cry of a people in need of articulation in a new era.

Bialik represents a segment of Jewish culture which is not strictly religious but nonetheless contains many religious overtones. In this way, his works are similar to those of Shmuel Hanagid and Shai Agnon.

Modern Legal Thought and Jewish Law

The Jewish religion contains a large and complex legal system. Norms such as democracy and gender equality make it difficult to enact Jewish laws in modern society. However, some of the concepts in Jewish law can be useful for modern legal thinkers. In a video interview, Suzanne Last Stone, professor at Cardozo Law, talks about how Jewish law can be integrated into today's legal thought. For instance, the Jewish legal system is a system of obligations, rather than of rights. Individuals must adhere to a list of obligations and may incur penalties if they violate them. Nowhere in Jewish law are people guaranteed what we call "human rights." Freedom of speech is not mentioned, nor is their a right to not be enslaved. Rather, a person is allowed to speak as long as he doesn't violate one of the rules of speech (such as slander). A person is free until he commits a crime and is unable to pay restitution, at which point he is sold into slavery.

In a democratic world, we are of course not advocating taking away civil rights. However, it is possible that some of the world's legal systems focus too much on individual's rights and not enough on their obligations. This may make it easier to harm others or hurt the collective.

An example of a concept in Jewish law has been incorporated into today's legal systems is the idea that there is a core legal document that can't be changed. In Jewish religion, that core is the Torah. Since it is the Divine word, the Torah can't be changed. It can be interpreted and reinterpreted, but the core remains. So too, the Constitution of the United States. The core of the American legal system is the Constitution. It has a built in system for amendments (similar to Judaism's Oral Law) and is also open to interpretation. Since the 1970s, legal scholars in America have debated whether the Constitution should be interpreted broadly or narrowly. The broad interpretation camp has been winning that argument, as ever-increasingly liberal courts give individuals more and more rights under the Constitution. But even those interpreters recognize that the core is unchangeable.

Many countries which do not have a Constitution are considering implementing one, because of this desire to have their core values set in stone, similar to the Divine law.

Children's homes in Kibbutzim

A unique experience in the history of the Jewish people, and indeed, in the history of humanity, was the kibbutz method of child rearing. Children were raised in a children's home, whether they ate, slept and played. This arrangement freed up their parent to work for the good of the kibbutz. Also, it was believed that the women who worked in the children's homes were better qualified to care for children than their untrained parents.

The kibbutzim themselves collapsed under the weight of capitalism about 15 years ago. In order to survive, they became private enterprises, where employees receive compensation commensurate with their skills. The classic institutions of the kibbutz disappeared or were modified. One of the first institutions to go was the children's home. Today, children in kibbutzim live at home with their parents.

Yael Ne'eman wrote a memoir about her experiences growing up in a kibbutz in the 1960s. Her book is called We Are the Future. She expressed her frustration with the way she was raised:

We felt that we were unworthy of the doctrine. The output had no end, for initiative could always find more and more things to do. . . . We failed to satisfy the doctrine, mute and gentle as it seemed, asking nothing for itself, seeking only considerateness, with no demands: "to each according to his need." But who knows what need truly is, it has no bound or limit. Our doctrine was never satisfied. We felt guilty.

In the entire history of the Jewish people there has never been an idea so ambitious. At the same time, there has never been an idea so doomed to failure. Nature has provided for children by giving them parents and has provided adults with the nurturing instincts to care for their children. No progressive idea can change that, and this is what led to the demise of the children's homes in the kibbutzim.