Opinions

Zionism 3.0: reimagining diaspora-Israel relations

ZACK BODNER | GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

Think about the Jews you know — both in the diaspora and relations. It’s time for Jewish peoplehood to grow up. It’s 3. Diversity of voices. in Israel. time for Zionism to evolve to its next phase: Zionism 3.0. We convene Zionists of Now, among them, do you know a diaspora Jew whose relationship with Israel has become tainted by Israel’s politics or policy decisions — specifically Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians or non-Orthodox Jews? What about an Israeli who couldn’t care less about what Why 3.0? Because Zionism 1.0 was the pre-1948 Zionism of theory, of the pioneers, of Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha’am and Rav Kook. It was the Zionism of creating a sovereign Jewish state where Jews could be safe and live without fear of pogroms differing backgrounds and perspectives across the political and religious spectrums. For the last five years, Zack Bodner is chief executive officer of the Oshman Family JCC in Palo Alto. diaspora Jews think, since they are certain diaspora Jews or Nazis. we’ve hosted a full-day will be gone in a generation Then in 1948, Zionism evolved to its next phase. Zion- conference at the Oshman Family JCC in Palo Alto that’s For the first time ever in Jewish due to intermarriage and assimilation? I’m going to go out on a ism 2.0 was the Zionism of reality, of the builders like David Ben-Gurion, and A. D. Gordon. Israel’s existence was threatened by its neighbors and a vital piece of its survival attracted more than 1,000 people at a time to engage in this conversation. This year, we are making the experience available to history, we have two strong, limb and assume you know someone who fits each description. was diaspora support. Zionism 2.0 was defined by the “rich American uncle” — the notion that those in the diaspora who didn’t make aliyah were obligated to support those who people all over the world by moving to a 100 percent virtual experience over the week of Hanukkah, from Dec. 10 to 17, and inviting JCCs around the globe to participate. thriving centers of Jewish life: in And that’s the problem. Today, Jews in Israel and the diaspora are speaking did. It was the Zionism of diaspora negation; the thinking that the Jewish future lies only in Israel, and those in the diaspora were somehow lesser Jews. This innovative online experiment is so much more than just a web conference. Thanks to the partnership of JCCA and JCC Global, more than 30 JCCs will bring Z3 to their Israel and in North past each other. We are focused on the areas of But now, for the first time ever in Jewish history, we have two strong, independent, thriving centers of Jewish own communities. Each day during Hanukkah, we will have a couple America. disagreement, misalignment life: in Israel and in the West, primarily in North America. hours of programming that starts with a marquee speaker and frustration. Each of us We have different characteristics, but we are both flourish- followed by a panel of experts. Throughout the program, is unwilling to accept the other if they don’t share our opin- ing. And now we depend on each other in new ways, and can we will stream articles and videos full of rich information ions on politics or identity. We are willing to disassociate enrich each other in new ways. So the model must evolve to about the panel topic and ask participants to delve into their ourselves from the entire body politic of the other simply Zionism 3.0, the next phase of Zionist ideology. thoughts. Then each community will break out and host because we don’t see eye-to-eye. We must recognize that Jews in both places add to the its own localized discussion. Most exciting of all, the week

But when have the Jews ever agreed with each other? other — not just for security, but with each other’s spiritual will culminate with every attendee casting a vote on which

Did Joseph and his brothers get along? Did the Saddu- and cultural contributions, as well. We can’t let political deserving nonprofits will receive support from the pool cees and Pharisees agree? Did the Maccabees embrace the frameworks dictate the nature of our relationship, but fund created by registration fees. It will be the world’s largHellenized Jews? Did the students of Hillel and Shammai must use our shared sense of peoplehood and our common est Jewish giving circle! light Hanukkah candles together? Did the soldiers of the destiny to frame our relationship. This is an exercise in active participation. We are done with Haganah lay down their guns when facing Irgun soldiers? The Z3 Project strives to do just that by embracing three passive teleconference calls where we just watch interesting

In case you were wondering, the answer is “NO!” Jews central principles: speakers. Help us reimagine diaspora-Israel relations together have always had deep disagreements, yet we have not only 1. Unity not uniformity. We aim to honor our differences by taking the first step and joining us at Z3Project.org. managed to survive as a people, but woven those divergent while working for the oneness of the Jewish people. The Z3 Project and all who participate this year are strands deep into our shared identity. 2. Engaging as equal partners. We bring together Israelis putting our money where our mouths are, working collec-

That’s why it’s time to reimagine diaspora-Israel and diaspora Jews to build our common future. tively to move Zionism and peoplehood to the next level. n

Last word on Prop. 15

My letter last month (“Looking closer at three props,” Oct. 15) did not state, as Ms. Ochs’ responding letter (“Wrong claims about Prop. 15,” Oct. 30) implied, that Proposition 15 would “raise property taxes” on residences and small businesses.

Instead, I said it would “destroy Prop. 13’s property tax protections” for homeowners, small businesses and farms, raise costs of living, and has no accountability — all accurate.

Proposition 15 would have done this indirectly by passing the increased taxes gained from large corporations onto smaller businesses, thereby increasing rents and the costs of everything from food to products and services. This would affect everyone’s property tax, and in effect, bypass Prop. 13’s protections.

Speaking of “opulent corporations,” a Nov. 6 article in Forbes stated that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, through their Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, “spent $10.8 million to advance Prop. 15,” and that (Facebook) would have owed “additional taxes as a result.” The Zuckerbergs might easily afford such extra taxes, but almost all of the rest of us can’t. I’m thankful that more Californians saw through the ruse and voted it down.

DAVE HARRIS | RICHMOND

JCRC was wrong on Prop. 16

A recent edition of J. featured a recordation of Jewish Community Relations Council support of the late, but unlamented, Proposition 16 (“Jewish orgs back Prop. 16 despite complicated history with affirmative action,” Oct. 26), which would have reinstated discrimination on account of race, sex or national origin in California. That’s been prohibited by a California constitutional amendment adapted by voters in 1996. California voters banned preferential treatment of any individual or group on the basis of race, sex or national origin in public education, public contracting and public employment. That ended quotas at UC campuses, in the California State University system, and in civil service positions, construction contracts and the like. Jews, of all people, should remember quotas in higher education through the first half of the 20th century.

JCRC lent itself to a misleading campaign urging Prop. 16 adoption purportedly to combat systemic racism and sexism by levelling the “playing field for every Californian.”

Instead of ignoring history by bolstering historic discrimination adversely affecting Jews and others, JCRC suppressed the ability and right of Jews to succeed intellectually, economically and socially. JCRC does not represent this Jew or voters who protected equal opportunity by even a higher percentage than 24 years ago.

JUDGE QUENTIN L. KOPP (RET.) SAN FRANCISCO

A great ‘Chicago 8’ movie

Frances Dinkelspiel wrote a good piece on Aaron Sorkin’s “The Trial of the Chicago 7” (“Abbie Hoffman’s Bay Area son, activists recall real ’Chicago 7’ trial,” Oct. 30), but she should have mentioned the movie about what really happened: “Conspiracy: the Trial of the Chicago 8.” Jeremy Kagan made that one in 1987. That movie is not “awfully quiet,” as Andrew Hoffman described the new one. And it doesn’t make the eight defendants (yes, it can count to eight) Oedipal cases.

I hope Andrew Hoffman does write his own book or make his own movie. Meanwhile, I think Kagan’s made-for-HBO movie is a good history lesson and a wonderful drama. I love Sorkin’s dialogue when he’s writing fiction, but Kagan used the real words of the real people.

DIANE MOORE | DAVIS

No in-person Turkey Day

While Daniel Treiman’s opinion piece on Thanksgiving (“We need Thanksgiving more than ever this year,” Nov. 16) was very continued on page 30

Yes, some Jews of color are Trump voters, and other truths about political ‘diversity’

MIJAL BITTON | GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

After Joe Biden won the presidency, my liberal friends — mostly Ashkenazi Jews with deep roots in America — were aghast that more than 70 million Americans voted for Trump.

My Syrian, Persian, Bukharian and Hispanic friends and family members — Jews with immigrant identities — were shocked, too. But most mourned the president’s defeat.

Being a scholar in liberal settings and a traditional Jew with deep ties to conservative immigrant Jewish communities have afforded me a dual vantage point to a political division that is not understood nor acknowledged by the liberal Jewish establishment: that entire populations of diverse Jews (or Jews of color, depending on one’s definition) lean Republican, and many of them voted for Donald Trump.

Demographic data is scarce about the voting patterns of these Jewish communities. But as an Argentine immigrant Jew of Middle Eastern background and a scholar of Sephardic Jews, I see that much of the American Jewish political fracture stems from precisely these divergent identities. Our current Jewish communal efforts toward understanding our diverse community overlook conservative-leaning Jews from minority groups.

These challenges are not unique to Jews, as Trump’s share of ethnic and racial minority votes increased in 2020 compared with 2016. It is clear that there is no monolithic category of American “people of color” who universally vote for Democrats.

The now-obvious gap — between how minorities identify and how “mainstream” institutional leaders speak of them — is also present in the Jewish community. This gap interferes with our understanding of diversity and ability to perform critical political work in our own communities.

In my work, I have found three prevalent fallacies that impair Jewish diversity projects: the idea that all diverse Jews are the same, that nonwhite or diverse Jews are all progressive, and rampant tokenism.

Many have a well-meaning but mistaken impulse to flatten the differences within and between diverse Jewish populations. They assume that all Syrian Jews, for instance, have the same political orientations or that all Black Jews would feel uncomfortable with security details at synagogues.

Others commit this flattening between groups, lumping together Black, Asian and nonwhite Middle Eastern Jews as if they all see themselves as parts of the same communities with shared goals and interests. One example is the way some use “Jews of color” as a catchall phrase for Black Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, sometimes even all Sephardic Jews and Hispanic Jews. Yet we have no indication that these diverse populations identify as part of the same group. In fact, the data suggest otherwise. For example, most Hispanic Jews in the U.S. (mainly from Mexico, Venezuela and Argentina) are likely to identify both as Hispanic and white, despite being labeled as “Jews of color.”

A consequence of between-groups flattening is that it obscures needed anti-racist work. When we group together all diverse/nonwhite Jews, it undermines what we are trying to achieve. Black Jews, for instance, face different challenges than, say, white-identifying Hispanic Jews.

In several recent roundtables, diverse Jews were described as fully aligned with progressive ideologies. This is demonstrably untrue.

While liberals in my newsfeed argued that the best way to honor Jews of color would be to march with Black Lives Matter, many of my Hispanic friends were anxious about BLM’s anti-capitalist discourse, and my Middle Eastern Jewish friends were more likely to be dropping off cookies at police precincts than supporting anti-racist demonstrations.

As Laura Limonic says in “Kugel and Frijoles,” “Latino Jews are not, on the whole, politically conservative,” but there are electorally significant populations of Hispanic Jews who defy this mold. According to the 2019 American Jewish Yearbook,

Florida contains the third Mijal Bitton is a scholar-inlargest population of Jews residence at the Shalom in the U.S. Since Jews tend Hartman Institute of North to vote at higher rates than America and the communal other Americans, and Jews in leader and co-founder of Florida at higher rates than the Downtown Minyan other Jews, the Jewish vote is at NYU. This piece was particularly important there. distributed by JTA.

While we don’t have data on how Jewish Hispanics voted in Florida, my own anecdotal interactions with Latino Jews there indicate that many have immigrant identities that contribute to their support of Republicans. In particular, Cuban Jews oppose what they perceive as the Democrats’ affinity toward communism or socialism.

Among Middle Eastern Sephardic Jews in the U.S., many share family histories of having escaped Arab nationalism and antisemitism in the Middle East. Their experiences of Jewish displacement have led many to identify with a realpolitik approach in which a “strongman” politician can best compete in the international arena to protect both Israel and U.S. interests. Moreover, many are socially conservative and identify with Trump’s economic policies.

When underrepresented populations are mainly portrayed through monolithic single stories, one danger is that we only “hear from” minorities when they fit the majority culture’s narrative. n

ADD YOUR VOICE J. welcomes your local voice on timely Jewish issues and events of the day. If accepted, submissions are subject to editing. Approximate length: 750 words. Email to editors@jweekly.com. The views and opinions expressed in these essays do not necessarily reflect the views of J. or its board of directors.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

continued from page 29

educational, I am appalled that it was only at the very end that he mentioned anything about the need for not gathering in person for Thanksgiving this year. This information was too little and too late.

Our Covid numbers are increasing exponentially, and the last thing we need is for in-person gatherings for this holiday. I hope J. will take on responsible journalism in this regard.

TISH LEVEE | SANTA ROSA

Hooray for originalists

A letter writer in J. argued we should not read the Constitution looking for the original meaning (“Originalists want the impossible,” Nov. 12), nor should we read the Torah to understand its original meaning.

I disagree. That is exactly what we should do when reading any teaching, old or new. How can we learn from Plato, Shakespeare or Lincoln unless we understand what they intended to say? Same for the Torah.

Sure, meanings become obscured over time as language evolves. But if we simply read old works and give them the meaning we want them to have, we are not learning from them and not being honest. Rather, we are just using them and their authority to justify our own opinions.

It is a cop-out to say that finding the original meaning is impossible. We can go a long way down the road to discover original meaning.

The same principles apply to reading the Constitution. Judges need to understand it as it was intended. If the old law is no longer satisfactory, amend it. When judges simply read into it what they want it to say, that usurps the role of Congress and the people and is not honest.

Does America owe anyone?

California’s Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum stands in stark contrast to the famous John F. Kennedy quote: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Since the first ESMC draft was presented to the public in August 2019, it has garnered criticism for its divisiveness and its pro-Marxist ideological leanings, including the notion of “systems of power,” rooted in critical race theory.

The latest edits recommended by the state Department of Education do nothing to move away from this detrimental model of ethnic studies. Although the new Appendix E attempts to mitigate the dogmatic, bellicose (and antisemitic) nature of the ESMC, even this section, right after briefly describing the horrors of Holocaust, refers to the “universe of obligation.” According to this construct, there is a group of individuals within a society “toward whom obligations are owed.”

This is in direct contrast to JFK’s “Ask not what your country can do for you.”

I have witnessed the effects of the Holocaust. My wife’s grandparents, aunt and cousins were murdered in the Minsk ghetto, in Belarus. In 1978, we immigrated to the United States from the downtrodden socialist “paradise,” the Soviet Union. We never expected that America owes us any obligation or special favors. We were in debt to America for the freedoms and opportunities granted to us and all citizens by her unique “systems of power” outlined in the Constitution.

“What we can do for our country” is to share our experience of living through the hell of hate and racism in the past, in order to avoid repeating it in the future.

A GREAT MIRACLE HAPPENED HERE

It didn’t seem possible. Last March, the coronavirus pandemic forced J. into lockdown, along with everyone else. Overnight, our staff had to find a way to publish a newspaper while sheltering at home. At the same time, the pandemic forced many of J.’s advertisers to stop buying ads, depriving the newspaper of vital income. And yet, we remained dutybound to cover the impact of the virus on the Northern California Jewish community. Then, a great miracle happened. Readers and supporters of J. decided this newspaper was worth going all in for. Donors gave generously, subscribers renewed, and advertisers returned so that J. could help them get their message out. This remarkable support sustained J., allowing us to continue our in-depth local coverage. In July, we were honored with the largest number of American Jewish Press Association awards in our 125-year history.

This ever-increasing grassroots support demonstrates that our readers understand and appreciate J. as a vital community asset, now more than ever. Please donate to J. today to keep us thriving.

In an era of great challenge for news organizations, J. is committed to maintaining its vision and values—to unite our Jewish community in more inclusive ways, to report the news while grappling with questions of Jewish identity, values, and community-building. As we celebrate the eight nights of Hanukkah this year, we look back on eight months (and counting) of unwavering support you showed this community newspaper, at a time when we really needed it. We could not be more grateful, especially as we brace for the uncertainties of 2021.

Help us reach our end-of-year goal. Donate to J. by December 31!

Online donations are preferred and appreciated at this time. Make your tax-deductible gift securely online at jweekly.com/donate or phone 415.796.0227. Thank you for your support.