Readers respond to recent d’var Torah
Rabbi James Bennett’s recent commentary (“Can we change history by thinking before we speak or act,” Dec. 18 edition) is an important conversation-starter about the limits of Jewish communal discourse. I only wish he had been more specific in his critiques. Unfortunately, his vague comments make understanding the analysis nearly impossible.
Bennett’s central thesis is that there is a small portion of the community that has embraced “Jewish identity politics and the nationalist fervor” and are “intent on casting those who hold other well-thought-out points of view into a proverbial ‘pit.’”
The vagueness of these terms leaves the reader unable to understand what these groups support. Do “those in power, and those who hold the levers of Jewish communal decision-making” support an Israeli re-settlement of Gaza, akin to what is being demanded by Itamar Ben Gvir, Israel’s Minister of National Security?
On the other hand, are those “holding other points of view” urging members of Congress to limit weapons sales to Israel, akin to what is being demanded by J Street? Is it their mission to defend Palestinian organizations from charges of antisemitism like Jewish Voice for Peace?
Bennett should be more specific about what policies are being forced on the community and what policies are being repressed. Otherwise, we can’t have the important conversation about what a representative St. Louis Jewish community looks like.
Galit Lev-Harir
Wildwood
In response to Rabbi Jim Bennett’s recent commentary:
While most pulpit rabbis tend to shy away from identity politics, Bennett is of course entitled to his political opinions. However, I was disappointed that the Jewish Light would publish his political op-ed and label it a “D’var Torah.”
A.J. Moll
Chesterfield
Recently, a D’var Torah appeared, in which Rabbi James Bennett condemned Joseph for arrogantly sharing his dreams with his brothers, and condemned the brothers for their impulsive anger. From there, he went on to condemn Jewish “nationalist” thinking by “those in power,” “who hold the levers of Jewish communal decision-making” and who have cast those who hold alternative “well-thought-out points of view” into the “pit,” labeling them as “traitors, anti-Zionists, or worse.”
I found the essay disturbing. Joseph is one of Judaism’s most prominent progenitors. Personally, I would feel too small to irreverently rush to judge his behavior. And since Joseph is family, I would start by thinking he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Many of our traditional commentators apparently feel the same way. Pages have been written explaining the reasons for Joseph’s behavior and the important place it plays in our people’s history and faith.
If someone we just met spoke to us in a negative and judgmental way about our father, would we rush to agree? Or would we publicly, vigorously, defend our father’s reputation? Later, wouldn’t we investigate to learn the truth, discounting obviously biased sources and always looking for ways to give Dad the benefit of the doubt, assuming the best about our loved one? Of course, we would. We would do that out of love and out of loyalty to family.
I don’t know who “those in power” are, but I can say that I have never heard any Jew call another a “traitor.” Never. “Anti-Zionist?” Well, if a Jewish person tells me counterfactually, that he/she believes that Israel is a “settler-colonialist” state and an “apartheid, genocidal oppressor” that needs to be “decolonized,” (and America, too), then of course that is the literal meaning of “anti-Zionist.” And although that person is a fellow Jew, deserving of courtesy as all people are, I don’t believe there is room in my “big tent” if he/she insists on proclaiming those political beliefs once welcomed inside.
This is a person who is rushing to judgment and taking sides against our family. And I literally mean family. Seven million fellow Jews live in Israel. My sister, nieces and nephews, and many cousins are some of them. Some serve in the military. One was wounded in Gaza. I don’t like it when someone calls my nephew a “baby killer,” or accuses my family of genocide. When Jews are burned in ovens, tortured in front of their parents, raped, mutilated and kidnapped, I don’t like it when someone I have invited into my “big tent” publicly “as a Jew,” sides with those who sympathize with the murder-rapist hostage takers, instead of the innocent victims, and lobbies our government to deny them the weapons they need to defend themselves. Perhaps their feelings will be hurt. They may feel excluded, but that’s what happens when someone spews repulsive ideas in polite company.
Bennett’s essay purports to be a call to unity, but in reality, it is a divisive essay, intending to advance the interests of a tiny minority of misinformed armchair intellectuals, at the expense of tens of thousands in our local mainstream community who support our Jewish homeland and our family living there who are now, at this very minute, fighting for their lives, sometimes in bomb shelters, sometimes in combat, and always, under intense physical, emotional and financial duress. Our family deserves the benefit of the doubt and all the support we can give. If someone is not capable of doing that, our community should not be welcoming them. It should be telling them they are wrong.
David A. Rubin
University City
