From an early age, I was aware that not all was as it
seemed. According to my family, I was Jewish but in accordance with most
authorities on the subject, I was not. The problem was my mother – a
southern shiksa who married a Jewish Yankee from Baltimore. Because my
mother is not Jewish, rabbinic authorities declare that I’m not either.
For me personally, it is not an issue and I can dismiss the controversy with a
Talmudic shrug. For Israel, it is a larger issue with much wide-ranging
implications.
There are two sides of the much debated topic. On the
Orthodox side of the equation, there are the rabbis of Israel. When
Israel was created, the government bestowed upon the religious authorities the
responsibility of all religious matters which included marriage and questions
of Jewishness. The only time the government infringed on this duty was in
the parameters for the Right of Return and Israeli citizenship, requiring only
one Jewish grandparent of an immigrant (or their spouse). However,
according to the religious authorities, only one of a Jewish mother or one who
has passed through traditional conversion can claim to be a “Jew.”
On the other side of the argument are the liberals who see
the question mired in the difficulty of answering, “What is a Jew?”
Outside of Israel, so many Jews (particularly young Jews) are marrying outside
the Tribe, lines are blurring at a dizzying rate. There is even a growing
number of Jews who feel a belief in God is not necessary to be a Jew. Additionally,
there are the problems that arise from such a narrow view of “Jewishness” as
seen in the Jewish Ethiopian immigrant controversy in Israel in the 1980s and
their Hebraic bona fides. Compounded with the omnipresent uncertainty of
Eastern European/Russian Jews who grew up with no religious knowledge under an
atheistic regime and the question grows more convoluted.
Both sides raise troubling consequences to the other’s
position. The Jewish race, not to mention the faith, has survived largely
through a measure of self-preservation and agreed-upon identity. In the
face of historic animosity, they have persevered through a measure of
isolationism. The more vague the traditional concepts of identity become,
the greater the threat of the word “Jew” not meaning anything.
Particularly offensive to Israeli rabbis is the concept of a secular Jew
without religious conviction. However, a growing number are in that
category or have switched religious affiliation altogether. For a
people who have endured immeasurable oppression, the loss of this identity is
traumatic.
From a modernist point of view, the narrower the term “Jew”
is defined, the more likely the faith will die out as prospective converts
consider other options. Ethiopian and Russian Jews do not consider
themselves any less so but, in Israel, endure constant suspicions to the
contrary. It is tough enough to convert to a faith in a world that
increasingly disrespects such standards. One can accept such criticism
but to have it come from within? Israeli rabbis have frequently blamed
American and other western rabbis for watering down the standards but the
reality for these leaders is quite different. The level of pluralism in
western societies make adherence to Israeli standards suicidal.
There is a story of an atheist who tells a rabbi he does
not believe in God. The rabbi responds, “What makes you think God
cares?” I don’t think the question of
“Jewishness” can be settled on the basis of religion. It is an ethnicity and, like God, the belief
in the Almighty should not be of primary concern. However, the rabbis have a great deal vested
in maintaining the power to determine this and though liberals in the Knesset
are trying to push their agenda, it will take some time. The Diaspora has broadened the concept of who
is and who is not a Jew and there is little point in re-arguing the issue. One thing is for sure – a protracted argument
does no one any good and certainly, is not advantageous for Israel. I would think it has enough on its
plate.
No comments:
Post a Comment