Trading conflicts over lulavs

palmI have long been an admirer of Chris Lee’s work in The Washington Post. As a reporter who deals primarily with the complex issues surrounding government agencies, Lee has a way of explaining intricate issues and spotting an unusual story that highlights key issues that others would overlook.

The story by Lee in today’s paper is no exception. As an extra bonus for GetReligion readers, he begins his story on trade negations with Egypt regarding the shortage of palm fonds, also known as “lulavs,” with a verse from the Old Testament: Leviticus 23:40. Here is the heart of the story:

Jews have had complaints about the Egyptian government since they were enslaved by pharaohs. But now Congress and the State Department are getting involved.

A shortage of palm fronds, or “lulavs,” has threatened to interfere with the celebration of Sukkot, a week-long Jewish festival that starts at sundown today and is also known as the Feast of Tabernacles.

Egypt has been the chief provider of lulavs. But several weeks ago Agriculture Ministry officials there announced that they were limiting the cutting of palm fronds this year because the practice hurts the trees’ ability to produce dates, a culturally and economically important crop in Egypt. The news upset many Jewish groups in Israel and the United States, and in turn set off a diplomatic scramble to persuade the Egyptians to relent, with the promise that more environmentally friendly ways would be sought to obtain the lulavs next year.

As expected, members of Congress are getting involved and the U.S. government is attempting to avoid an international incident over what are to most people a bunch of plants. I think Lee played up the ancient Egypt vs. the Jewish slaves a bit too much, but the connection was probably too irresistible to avoid.

The holiday is a harvest celebration and also commemorates the biblical 40-year period during which the Israelites — who escaped from slavery in Egypt more than 3,000 years ago — were wandering in the desert, dwelling in temporary huts.

According to the Bible, Jews are called upon to bind together a lulav and branches from myrtle and willow trees. Together with an “etrog,” a bumpy, yellow-skinned citrus fruit similar to a lemon, the items make up the “four species” used in blessings during the holiday ritual.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Chanan Tigay has a much more thorough report that is undated on Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent website that could have been the impetus for Lee’s story.

Date palms typically have 15 to 20 healthy green leaves at any one time. The removal of leaves should be limited to the dead and dying brown leaves located at the trees’ base, he said.

The Encyclopedia Judaica translates the Hebrew word lulav as “a young branch of a tree” or “a shoot.” The lulav is one of the arba’ah minim — or four plant species — that are joined together and shaken on Sukkot. The others are willows and myrtle, which are bound to the lulav with strips of palm; and the etrog, or citron, which is held beside the lulav as it is waved.

As to be expected, niche publications will give an issue much more thorough coverage and lack the strict space limitations existing at larger more mainstream publications like the Post. No harm done — the Internet is a wonderful thing and resolves those problems for those who are interested.

Print Friendly

Katha Pollitt to the rescue

pollitKatha Pollitt shows an occasional capacity for self-mocking humor — I remember her offer, several years ago, to rename her Subject to Debate column to Subject to Everett if two philanthropists by that name would send some jack over to The Nation. (Ideological bonus: Mother Jones reported in 1996 that Edith Everett is “staunchly anti-school prayer.” Blessed be!)

Her column for the Oct. 31 issue lives up to the smile-inducing premise of its headline: “If Not Miers, Who?” The column is noteworthy for two other reasons — her tortured reference to Valley View Christian Church in Dallas as “an antichoice church” (so congregations are now pigeonholed by their beliefs about abortion rather than, say, about God?) and the most candid description I’ve ever seen Pollitt offer of her worldview:

I am not a Christian. This may not strike you as an advantage, given the nature of your base, but think about it. Right now, the Christian right is split: James Dobson says you told him something on the phone about Miers that reassured him greatly, but Gary Bauer doubts she is “a vote for our values.” At Miers’s own evangelical church, the congregation stood up and applauded; but at other churches the pews are in revolt. Honestly, who can figure these people out? They only stopped burning each other at the stake a few centuries ago. Nominating me will unify them instantly: I’m a half-Jewish half-Episcopalian atheist. When they make a fuss, just tell them God told the President to pick me. Given the other advice God’s been giving him — to invade Iraq, for example — it could even be true.

So she’s half-Episcopalian, eh? Based on my onetime coverage of the Center for Progressive Christianity, I’m confident that at least a few [PDF] Episcopal churches would offer Pollitt not just a place at the table but perhaps even put her on track to becoming a priest or — hey, aim high — a bishop. After all, shouldn’t the church’s heinous discrimination against Brights (stake-burnings included) finally be rectified?

Print Friendly

Washington Nats say no God in baseball?

God and baseballI guess the management of the Washington Nationals didn’t share my sentiments regarding Sunday’s Washington Post feature on the Bible in baseball. Team management particularly didn’t like a section of the story in which team chapel leader Jon Moeller nodded when asked if Jewish people are doomed to hell because they don’t believe in Jesus Christ.

Our own commenter “Michael” first noted this story on the website of the Washington radio network WTOP that Jewish leaders were not pleased with this part of the Post story:

The players not only pray, but they also discuss personal matters — marital tension, addiction issues, family illnesses, financial stress — drawing sometimes surprising lessons. Church was concerned because his former girlfriend was Jewish. He turned to Moeller, “I said, like, Jewish people, they don’t believe in Jesus. Does that mean they’re doomed? Jon nodded, like, that’s what it meant. My ex-girlfriend! I was like, man, if they only knew. Other religions don’t know any better. It’s up to us to spread the word.”

A friend and fellow blogger gave me the heads up that Jon Moeller had since been suspended for his comments in the Post (the AP covers Moeller’s suspension in this story). Blogger Tim Ellsworth has notified us that he has blogged on the controversy and is promising more tomorrow.

To sum things up, Moeller has been suspended for a nod regarding a controversial subject that has been raging for centuries, the player involved has made an apology in a statement and now the team will receive a dose of negative publicity as it makes a desperate attempt for the playoffs.

But in all seriousness, the comments in the Post do have theological significance, and I wonder if the reporter realized that when he included them in his story. It’s also clear why the significance of these comments sailed right over my head. As a Protestant, I am not all that sensitive toward things that would be seen as “bringing hate into the locker room,” as one Jewish leader put it.

Whoever said religion didn’t matter in sports? The irony of this story is that the original article was based on the premise that bigtime athletes were more open about religion and teams were readily embracing it, some with the hopes that God would somehow favor their team. Now the team chapel leader has been placed on the DL and has angered Jewish leaders in Washington.

Print Friendly

Burning questions

burning questionIt’s not every day that religious buildings are burned, which is why the razing of synagogues in the Gaza Strip made headlines today in the world’s major newspapers.

The Los Angeles Times’ piece today summarizes the situation:

GAZA CITY — Palestinians surged triumphantly into demolished Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip early today, torching empty synagogues and firing shots into the air, as the last Israeli soldiers withdrew after 38 years of occupation.

Just a few questions for the reporters behind this story: Why did the Palestinians feel the need to burn synagogues? Why didn’t the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority stop this from happening this way? And why, after bulldozing the homes of 8,500 Israelis, did the government not simply remove the synagogues themselves?

Flaming synagogues seems only to encite further violence on both sides. These are just some of the questions that come up in reading the lead to this piece, so let’s dig in and see if we can find some answers.

Several paragraphs into the story, the Times reporters start to explain the politics behind this complex issue:

In a last-minute reversal, the Cabinet voted to leave intact more than two dozen synagogues in the former settlements, despite warnings from Palestinian Authority officials that they could not ensure their protection. Palestinian officials announced late Sunday that they would demolish the buildings.

Palestinian leaders’ displeasure with the Israeli Cabinet’s decision on the synagogues prompted them to boycott a hand-over ceremony with Israeli commanders at the Erez crossing between Israel and the northern Gaza Strip.

But why did the Cabinet vote to leave the buildings of worship? The political information is nice, but what about the religious significance? Nothing in this piece delves into the religious implications, rather focusing on the political situation.

What we have here is a failure common in — well, ironically — the realm of political journalism. The reporters are assuming that readers know which political/religious blocs Mofaz and Sharon represent. They assume readers understands the history and the importance (or lack there of) of a synagogue to the Israeli people.

The Sydney Morning Herald report also leads with the synagogue-burning and I find out early on a specific reason the Palestinians want to see them burned:

“When I got here it was 12:30 and already there was no one, so we went straight to the synagogue and set it on fire,” Talalka said. “It was an illegal building on our land. The Israeli Jews don’t respect anyone’s religion but their own. I am very happy. The Israelis are out of here. We have more land and we got rid of the roadblocks.”

Not only is that a great quote, but it’s also quite informative. Nowhere in the Times story is there any mention of the Palestinian belief that the synagogues are illegal.

Here is a good explainer piece in Haaretz, a fairly liberal newspaper based in Jerusalem best known for its opinion pieces:

All our oppressors desecrated and destroyed synagogues and all massacred Jews.

And yet, despite that knowledge, our ancestors never once descended to the level of their oppressors. They never pre-empted the destruction of their synagogues by lending their own hands to that destruction.

If you’re curious, read the rest of the piece (it’s quite interesting), because I am going to quickly move onto a related issue. While I understand that space is limited in a newspaper (it’s certainly not on a blog!), the Times Online found room for this bit of detail that I haven’t found anywhere else:

In Neve Dekalim the green flag of Hamas group hung from the roof of the ransacked synagogue and the black flag of Islamic Jihad was raised from a wall in the compound. A Nazi swastika was spray-painted on the wall. Police stood helplessly nearby.

Maybe I shouldn’t be so shocked.

Print Friendly

The Russians are voting (for the GOP)

TwoLubavitchThe Wall Street Journal editorial page, which often covers news stories that the news desk does not want, had an interesting feature this week about a quiet little political trend in American Judaism.

If the “pew gap” is the term used to describe the trend in Protestant and Catholic voting booths, we may end up having to call this one the “synagogue gap.” The problem with that, of course, is that this trend only affects certain sanctuaries.

And what is that story? Here it is in a nutshell:

On November 11, 2004[,] Haaretz News reported, “approximately a quarter of American Jewish voters cast their vote for Bush this time, as opposed to 18.5 percent four years ago. Experts calculate that about 85 percent of Orthodox Jews and about 95 percent of Haredi Jews voted for him. The high birthrate in these two communities helps to explain the significant rise in Jewish votes that went to the Republicans. . . . One thing that can be said for certain: The main issues that divide Israeli society — the moral foundation of life in Israel, and how to bring peace — are also the issues at the core of the disagreement in the U.S. between the Jews who voted for Bush and the majority among them who voted for Kerry.”

Gosh. Family life. Moral issues. And then you add on Israel. This sounds very familiar.

Anyway, the WSJ piece by Tony Carnes of Christianity Today zoomed in to look at a more specific issue: the tensions between the mainstream Jewish establishment — represented by Boston’s Larry Lowenthal of the American Jewish Committee — and Jewish immigrants from Russia.

To judge by his public statements and writings, Mr. Lowenthal’s idea of a faithful Jew is someone who opposes the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, supports gay rights, abortion and euthanasia, and demands a strong separation of church and state. After all, as Mr. Lowenthal concluded approvingly in a July op-ed for the Jewish Advocate, Jews are “the most liberal” and “the least religious people in America.”

Imagine his consternation when an avalanche of emails from Russian Jews began to pour in to the Web site of the Jewish Russian Telegraph, a daily blog, in response to his article. About 100 people wrote to say that Mr. Lowenthal needed to stop making “outrageous statements” on behalf of people whom he doesn’t represent. Alex Koifman, who arrived in the U.S. from Belarus in 1978, and whom Mr. Lowenthal trained for his position as a board member at the Boston AJC, criticized his old teacher for overstepping his bounds, saying: “Since when are these concerns [abortion, gay rights, and church-state separation] concerns that are specific to the Jewish community? These are the Left’s concerns.”

Whoa. There’s more to this story, and it all points to the crucial role that religious tradition and practice play in American politics right now. The Democratic Party knows all about this. Its problem is simple, in the terms of James Davison Hunter: How do you appeal to the orthodox without offending the progressives? How do you tolerate the believers you believe are intolerant?

Has the, oh, New York Times had this story? If I missed it, let me know.

Print Friendly

So a rabbi walks into a megachurch . . .

RabbiEcksteinNew York Daily News columnist Zev Chafets has published “The Rabbi Who Loved Evangelicals (and Vice Versa),” in the cross-town competition’s New York Times Magazine.

Chafets’ report of nearly 4,500 words is a deft and wry portrait of Yechiel Eckstein (left), an Orthodox rabbi and founder of the Chicago-based International Fellowship of Christians and Jews.

Chafets describes the cultural challenges Eckstein faces in his work. At the Family Christian Center, a megachurch in Munster, Ind., pastor Steve Munson wrongly describes Eckstein as a rabbi who has become a born-again Christian, introduces Eckstein to Munson’s father as “Rabbi Einstein” and pronounces his name as “Yek-eel.”

Chafets captures an even more awkward moment during a regular IFCJ staff meeting. It involves one of Eckstein’s short-lived employees, broadcaster Sandy Rios, formerly of Concerned Women for America:

Throughout this conversation, Rios was clearly eager to join in. And as soon as there was a pause in the discussion, she did. “You know,” she said, “the truth is, Christians do want to convert Jews.”

. . . “Not by some bait-and-switch trick,” she said. “But we believe it’s part of God’s plan.” Eckstein winced the way he had when Pastor Munsey called him a born-again Christian.

“Anyway,” Rios said, “we love Jews, notwithstanding their rudeness and hatred for us.”

Three days later, Eckstein called me in New York. Rios had been fired, but her gaffe, and the impression it made, was still on his mind. “It’s really my fault,” he said. “Hiring staff is a problem. Truthfully, it’s extremely hard to find people who understand exactly what we’re doing here.”

Chafets explores the tensions that arise from his work, including feelings among some of his fellow rabbis that he’s harming Orthodox Judaism by associating with evangelical Protestants, and questions of why evangelicals are generally pro-Israel.

Chafets’ portrait strikes a good balance of witty critique and allowing Eckstein to speak for himself. Here’s another passage that describes how Eckstein, who was working for the Anti-Defamation League during one of the great dramas of the 1970s, came to found his organization:

In 1977, American Nazis threatened to stage a march in Skokie, Ill., a Chicago suburb with a large population of Holocaust survivors. The A.D.L. sent Eckstein from New York to help the local community round up Christian support. What he found surprised him. In his next year in Chicago, he discovered that the evangelicals, more than any other group, were prepared to stand with the Jews.

Eckstein reported back to New York like Marco Polo recalling his adventures in China. There were Christians in the heartland, he said, who took the Bible literally and believed that the Jews were God’s chosen people. They were, he said, a vast untapped reservoir of support for Israel, Soviet Jewry and other Jewish causes. This report was greeted hesitantly. Few A.D.L. people had ever met an evangelical Christian face to face, but they had seen “Elmer Gantry” and “Inherit the Wind,” and they associated Bible Belt Christians with snake charmers, K.K.K. nightriders, toothless fiddlers and flat-earth troglodytes.

In 1980, the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Rev. Bailey Smith, seemed to confirm this stereotype when he publicly declared that “God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.” The grandees of the Jewish establishment were outraged, but Eckstein saw an opportunity. He contacted Smith and offered to accompany him on a trip to Israel.

In Jerusalem, Smith and Eckstein were given the royal treatment. Prime Minister Menachem Begin, having previously lost seven straight national elections, had few illusions about the efficacy of Jewish prayer. He did, however, have a keen appreciation for Christians like Smith, who believed that the Bible conferred title to the land of Israel on the Jews. Smith enjoyed being appreciated, and he returned home loudly proclaiming Genesis 12:3: God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.

“That was the turning point,” Eckstein says. “From that moment on, I had an open door to the biggest Baptist churches in the country.”

The following year, Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. An editorial in The New York Times called the strike “an act of inexcusable and shortsighted aggression.” Even the normally pro-Israel Reagan administration criticized it. But the evangelicals saw the hand of God and cheered. When Eckstein called this kind of support to the attention of the A.D.L. home office, he was treated like a nudnik. If Menachem Begin wanted to cozy up to Bailey Smith and Jerry Falwell and other such undesirables, well, that was Begin’s problem. Eckstein was told to commune with some respectable Episcopalians.

Print Friendly

Bizarre Newsweek labor ghost

So you are rolling through the Newsweek story on tensions in American labor and how they may hurt the Democratic Party and then you hit this ghost — which is left unexplained by Howard Fineman, of all people. Boooo! There is, you see, a showdown looming between “Change to Win” coalition leader Andy Stern and AFL president John Sweeney. It’s complicated, so check out the story. But here is the part that spooked me:

Some say [Stern] has another agenda, which is to take over the AFL-CIO from his former SEIU colleague Sweeney, who is half a generation older and cut from a different cloth: a Dorothy Day social activist from the working-class Bronx, N.Y., versus Stern, whose grandparents were members of an exclusive German-Jewish country club and who is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania.

OK, so it’s a class reference. But you can’t help but note the Catholic Worker tag on one side and the “German-Jewish” label on the other. Say what precisely is being said here?

Print Friendly

Abramoff Agonistes

Here’s how David Klinghoffer ends his latest column in the Jewish weekly The Forward:

If [Jack] Abramoff were a secular Jew who directed streams of money to left-wing candidates, to liberal think tanks, to charitable causes like Planned Parenthood and PETA, do you think we ever would have heard his name? I don’t.

The whole piece is about as good a defense as one can mount of the super-lobbyist who now finds himself in heap of big trouble over a scandal that involves Indian gambling, paid junkets for congressmen, an anti-gambling campaign that Abramoff also had a hand in, and a host of other misadventures.

Klinghoffer admits that Abramoff probably breached Congress’ ethics rules by funding some activities out of his own pocket and seeking reimbursement from organizations that he represented (verboten) rather than having the organizations fund the junkets and such directly (allowed), but he doesn’t concede that this is anything more than a very technical violation of statute designed to have no teeth.

He also admits that Abramoff said some remarkably stupid and bigoted things in private e-mails, but he asks, “Yet who among us would not be humiliated if a decade’s worth of our email were leaked by Senate investigators to be dissected by journalists eager to carve us up like a Thanksgiving roast?”

Klinghoffer quotes a “close friend and ally” of Abramoff as saying, “Jack is not a choir boy. It’s funny, though, that there are no Ferraris, women, yachts or mansions in this story, and yet it keeps going.” He expounds on the friend’s commentary: “Why it keeps going is a question worth pondering.”

The charge that the Forward columnist levels isn’t anti-Semitism so much as anti-Republicanism and a general distaste by the usual suspects for people who take religion seriously. Frank Rich, for instance, described him as an “Orthodox Jew who in his salad days wore a yarmulke to press interviews.” A columnist identified only as a “Washington Post writer with a Jewish name” (Nexis says . . . Ruth Marcus) called Abramoff “an Orthodox Jew who seemed to flaunt his piety (the Christian right loved it) the way other lobbyists flash their Rolexes.”

One of the problems with “if the situation were slightly different, do you think people would still be going nuts” criticism is that it is often hard to predict exactly what will catch people’s fancy. The criteria for what makes a story a hot issue are not completely random, but I think I’d lose my shirt if I had to predict what the pack of American journalists will decide to obsess on next week. Still, Klinghoffer raises some important questions that are worth chewing on for a bit.

Print Friendly