On Schism - 8/25/2024

Hello everyone, thank you for joining me for our community kaddish as we mourn the thousands and thousands of Palestinians who have been murdered over the past 322 days. 

While much of the nation has spent the week passing around coconut memes and celebrating the Democratic party, I find myself more and more frustrated that people I respected are devoting themselves to a political cause that is immoral and genocidal. A political party that uses better vibes and appearances to try to cover up ideology that is violent. Violence for the working people in this country who have to cow to the whims of a corporate political class, in addition to the violence that they are directly responsible for in Palestine and elsewhere. I am also angry about the ways that the media has let news of the DNC completely overshadow what is happening in Palestine.

As usual, I’ve looked backwards to understand how Jewish scholarship can guide us as we navigate conflict with people who supposedly share our values. During the days of Talmud, so about 2,000 years ago, it was said that there were these two great rabbis, Hillel and Shamai, and they were in constant disagreement. In Talmud Eruvin, page 13 b, we read about their fight. It said that they had a three year separation, with each group saying that they were the ones who were interpreting and enacting Jewish law, or halacha, correctly and that the other was wrong. 

One day, the Bat Kol, which literally means the daughter of the voice, or an echo, but is understood to mean a feminine divine presence, comes down from the heavens to try to settle the fight. She says that while both rabbis are technically correct, the true halacha is of Hillel and his disciples. And why should we do this? Because, it was said, that Hillel teaches both his school of thought and when Hillel teaches, he teaches Shamai’s school of thought before his own. Hillel shows humility and deference to others’ ways of thought and for that reason, we should follow his teachings. 

I have been thinking a lot about this sugya, or story, especially as I am watching and experiencing some very large schisms in our world. Of course, there is a very large schism in Jewish life as a result of mainstream Judaism’s refusal to teach about and tolerate anti-Zionism. Since the creation of Zionism, this ideology has been used to systematically dehumanize Palestinians and justify their mass exodus and murder. Israeli soldiers and citizens gleefully celebrate Palestine’s destruction, whether this takes the form of destroying schools, burning Quarans, bulldozing or stealing homes, scattering flocks and poisoning the land. Their goal, as Prime Minister Golda Meir stated: is that we live in a world where there is no such thing as Palestians.

Despite mainstream Judaism so-called embrace of multiplicity and welcoming diverse schools of thought, we are often told that we have to comply. We have to harbor a mentality that denies Palestinians their personhood and their nationhood. We are not allowed to ask questions or try and explain how Jewish values are inherently anti-Colonial, anti-War, anti-genocide and lead many of us to question why Israel exists in the form that it does, why we use our money to fund apartheid and mass murder and why we are supposed to support this tacitly.

In addition to what is happening in mainstream Judaism, there is a broader schism that is happening in the secular world. Millions of people around the world are taking it to the streets and demanding an end to genocide. Often these protests are led by diverse organizers who see what is happening in Palestine as a magnifying glass for all of the ways that our world is unjust. Whether that is due to white supremacy and violent policing, global militarism, colonialism, or some combination of all of these and others. Protesters are being vilified by the media and politicians. There is a large rift between those who are standing up for justice and those who choose complacency or active violence.  

Though this schism feels somewhat inevitable at this moment - I for one have no interest in sharing significant space with people who are not on the side of justice - part of me really does want to figure out how we as a society can bridge this in a way that leads to a safer and more just world for all. 

Which brings me back to Talmud. I wonder how things would be improved if we embraced Hillel’s principles in day-to-day life. How would mainstream Judaism change if synagogues and community centers let their members hear from Palestinians, and learn the truth of Zionism? Would the general population change their view and actions if they were introduced to a media and political landscape that taught us about intersectionality, what facism looks like, and how we can work to stop it? Do we think that this would change the ways that those in power see themselves as victims and make them realize the horrors that they are inflicting on everyone else?

When asking myself these questions, I also have to stop and think about all of those who are aware that there is information out there, but refuse to acknowledge it. In the case of Zionists in my life, I am thinking about someone at frisbee who said that they stopped following Israeli politics years ago because they were, as he said, “a bummer.” I think about my dad who did not watch or let us watch the Daily Show because my dad considered John Stewart to be a self-hating Jew because he dared to question the morality of Zionism and Occupation. I think about trying to explain the meaning of “from the river to the sea” to a former college friend, where her only response was from the ADL’s website. 

The idea that dialogue can reach parties on either side of a schism is in many ways both naive and dangerous. It does not feel like there is any kind of outreach or teaching that can happen when people are so staunch in their desire to only see a singular, false truth, though I am also sure that that is what these people would say about me. I also recognize that there could be a lot of danger in these conversations. No one should have be in the position of defending their humanity and their right to agency to someone who would rather them be dead. It feels impossible and naive to ask an oppressor to be humble enough to allow their victims to make a plea for their humanity.

And so, I have to ask myself, why am I thinking about this text as a solution or at least a hope of bridging this very real schism across many of our institutions?  Failing to imagine a way to come back from this is fundamentally scary and unacceptable to me. I do not want to live in a world where people refuse to listen to the truth either out of convenience, arrogance, or their own righteousness. I do not want people and are comfortable in their ways their complacency and/or ethos enables genocide. 

Week after week, I have struggled to understand how we as a society come back from the political moment that we are in. I am a polyana in that I do believe that most people are capable of better, that they can learn and change. I also do not think that waiting for people to have a lightbulb moment is a viable strategy when people are being murdered as we speak. The liberal concept of incremental change is not sufficient and never has been sufficient to address the many roots of violence in our world.

We do not have a Bat Kol that will descend from the heavens and tell us who is right and who is wrong, and even if we did, I do not think that people will change their course so easily. Going back to the Talmud, Shamai did not change his teaching because of the Bat Kol. He did not suddenly become humble and differential to others. Throughout Talmud, the Bat Kol would chime in in arguments only for the rabbis to contort what she said to meet their world view. If even the most learned people in their days, whos future depended on unity refused to get it right, I worry for the rest of us. The divine may tell is what is morally right, but the oppressor can and will always subvert. This does not absolve us of the duty to argue, and fight back.