The Rightness of a Right?

In recent weeks, a great row has exploded over an opera being performed at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York.  The play, The Death of Klinghoffer, loosely portrays the events surrounding the 1985 Palestinian terrorist takeover the Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean.  The event led to the execution of a disabled American Jew who was subsequently dumped into the waters in his wheelchair.  The children of the late Mr. Klinghoffer, and many others, are outraged while First Amendment advocates say that it is an acceptable form of protected speech.

The question with a situation like this opera, which I have not seen and my memory of the actual event only cursory, is a little different for me than it might be for others.  In a country where we have free speech the legality of such an opera is not in question.  Of course, the makers of this opera and the Met are certainly within their rights to put it on.  The real question with things like this is often, is it right to do it?  When one questions the correctness of doing something, and not the legality of it, such arguments are often the target of general mocking as an example of provincial values.  There is also decency and awareness that seems to be lacking. 

I should say that, from time to time, a society should be shocked and outraged.  It serves as a reboot to our obligations to our fellow man and a renewed sensitivity toward how others perceive things.  When American artist Robert Mapplethorpe produced an image of a crucifixion within a jar of urine, it ignited a conversation that was ultimately, one could say, good for our society.  Yet, advocates for such actions miss the point when they bring up freedom, artistic or otherwise.  Freedom is not some exercise of one’s id – free of judgment and consequences.  This is what makes the opera’s advocates’ objection to the criticism a bit strange. 

I recall the fiasco of the Dixie Chicks and their criticism of the president of the United States during the onset of the Iraqi War.  Similar to the recent opera incident, Natalie Maines flew off the handle at the president in a foreign country and bemoaned those who fired back.  The incident effectively ended a great career of talented musicians.  Once more, there is a disconnect between the right to do something and its correctness.  The other point missed was the argument about the values that surround our rights.  With each of our rights is an underlying principle of a humane society.  Because Ms. Maines chose to take a rather one-dimensional look to the reaction of her pablum, she failed to understand the issue.  What will become of this new manifestation of the same problem? 

At the risk of being melodramatic, I think our society is in trouble because of our unwillingness to stand up to certain things.  Again, I’m not speaking to the legality of the Met (who cancelled the televised broadcast of the opera for fear of it coming across offensive) to put on such an opera but whether it is a good idea.  So much of the typical offenses committed throughout a typical day are not a question of the law but one of taste and decorum.  This can range from profane music being played loudly to questionable outfits worn by high school students to a parent yelling and screaming at their child in public.  None of these actions would get someone arrested but it goes to our understanding of our situation and respect for others. 

As for the opera, I get that art is designed by its very nature to be controversial and thought-provoking.  However, offensive art is no different from offensive voices or actions in the political arena.  Mr. Klinghoffer’s children rail against, in their opinion, the minimization of their father to a simple tool for terrorists.  Others, like lawyer Alan Dershowitz and First Amendment expert Floyd Adams are horrified at the moral equivalency drawn by the opera between the Palestinian diaspora and the Holocaust.  No matter the arguments, there are some obvious issues with the production that should have led people to ask some obvious questions.  It is a pity that never happened.

What Is In a Name?

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.