Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: due parole a Richard Falk

veramente ben dette
---
Despite his annoying habit of calling Israelis Nazis, I have never
accused Prof. Falk of being a self-hating Jew. While his animus toward
Israel is apparent, I have no way of determining if it stems from an
animus toward Judaism and the Jewish tradition, which is the defining
characteristic of a “self-hating Jew,” of from something else. But now
that he has revealed his thoughts about Jewish identity, I may have to
revise my assessment.
Prof. Falk’s problem is not only with Judaism. He disdains faith
communities per se, defaming them as “tribes,” whose doctrine
“unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of
warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of
persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions.” Had he been
born an Episcopalian, he might be beating up on the Archbishop of
Canterbury. But as his essay is entitled On Jewish Identity, we must
explore the evidence he brings in applying these sweeping
generalizations to Judaism.
Astonishingly for a scholar of Prof. Falk’s stature and reputation, he
cites precious little evidence. He mentions the “often bloody exploits
of the ancient Israelites.” But those atrocities occurred in the
ancient middle east, where “bloody exploits” was standard operating
procedure for almost everyone. This doesn’t excuse the atrocities
reported in Scripture, but it does make them unexceptionable. Some
balance is achieved through praise for the “moral clarity of Old
Testament prophets,” and Rabbi Hillel’s version of the Golden Rule—a
forerunner of Jesus’ more famous version. The historical screen then
goes dark until we are propelled into Prof. Falk’s familiar riff on
the evils of contemporary Israel.
In the process, he ignores a formative period of two millennia during
which Judaism evolved from a temple-based sacrificial cult to a prayer
and study-centered religion. If one wants to learn about Jewish
identity, that’s where one has to look. But Prof. Falk doesn’t.
Although I’m not an academician, I think that a student submitting a
paper entitled “On Jewish Identity” with so little supporting material
would, or should, receive a failing mark, even in this era of grade
inflation.
My hunch is the omission of Jewish references stems from the
inconvenient truth that Prof. Falk knows very little about his
subject. Perhaps he doesn’t want to know. Even a cursory study of
Jewish history discredits many of the sweeping generalizations he
employs to dismiss and defame Jewish identity.
Exhibit A: Prof. Falk maintains that being committed to one faith
precludes “being open and receptive to the insight and wisdom of other
traditions.” In fact, Jewish history demonstrates precisely the
opposite. Early biblical books, including Genesis, reflect the
theology and symbolism of the Akkadians and other peoples of the
ancient middle east. Later books, such as Ecclesiastes, are clearly
influenced by Greek philosophy. The Mishna, which was completed around
225 CE, organizes biblical legislation into categories, a format
learned from the Romans. Recent scholarship has discovered an on-going
dialogue between the rabbis and church fathers covering several
centuries. Both sides shared ideas which each adopted and built into
its separate theology. Maimonides, perhaps the greatest of all rabbis,
was an Aristotelian who sought to reconcile traditional Jewish
teaching with wisdom he learned from Muslim scholars during the era of
Convivencia in Medieval Spain. Reform Judaism is a product of the
Enlightenment. Zionism was nurtured in the intellectual soil of
Romanticism. Walk into many synagogues today and you’ll find classes
and spiritual exercises in yoga, meditation and other practices taken
from eastern religions. The list of things borrowed and things lent is
endless.
Exhibit B: Prof. Falk dismisses as “benevolent and temporary” the
Jewish self-understanding that being a Chosen People bestows no
privileged status, but is a mandate to pursue social justice. The
historical record refutes the “benevolent and temporary” caveat. Jews
have always pursued social justice, following a commandment
articulated in the Book of Deuteronomy. Here inAmerica, where Jews at
long last have the opportunity to participate in the larger society as
full citizens, we have been leaders and workers in the pursuit of
equal rights and freedom for all. And Israel, despite its flaws,
remains the one democracy in the Middle East, albeit an imperfect one.
To be sure, there are Jews in Israel, the United States and everywhere
who are guilty as charged. They are especially visible in certain West
Bank settlements where a desire to subjugate the Palestinians
prevails. But they constitute a small minority. To extrapolate a
community-wide character from their aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior
is polemic, not scholarship.
A word must be said about Prof. Falk’s self-aggrandizement as one who
has succeeded in putting his being human ahead of his being Jewish, so
that unfettered by xenophobia, he is able to savor the rites,
practices and wisdom of all religions. That’s gratifying, but during
my forty years as a rabbi, which should make me a Super Xenophobe, I
bet I’ve attended, witnessed and participated in more Christian,
Muslim, Buddhist, et al worship services than Prof. Falk, along with a
slew of interfaith worship experiences. I have marched, rallied and
demonstrated alongside interfaith colleagues for a long list of
causes. Several years ago, my partner and I joined with a group drawn
from our synagogue and a local Methodist church to rebuild an African
American church in rural Alabama that had been destroyed by arson.
Contrary to what Prof. Falk believes possible, being a Jew enables me
and many others to be better human beings. I can say the same thing
about friends who are strongly committed members of other faith
communities, but frequently enjoy one another’s rituals, practices and
teachings.
Most disturbing is the flagrant disconnect between Prof. Falk’s claim
to an “ecumenical and inclusive spiritual identity, and associated
ethical and political commitments,” and his work for the United
Nations. “Ecumenical” and “inclusive” strongly suggest a deep
commitment to even-handedness in addressing ethical and political
issues. But the mandate he accepted when becoming Special Rapporteur
of the of outrageously misnamed United Nations Human Rights Council is
to report only on perceived Israeli violations on the West Bank, while
turning a blind eye on Palestinian suicide bombers and the like.
That’s akin to refereeing a football game while calling penalties on
one side only, especially when there’s no counterpart Rapporteur to
monitor the Palestinians.
You read that correctly. In a conflict fraught with extraordinary
complexities, where right and wrong exists on both sides, Prof. Falk
choose to play an utterly one-sided, prejudicial and destructive role.
On the one hand, he tars Judaism with the accusation that its doctrine
“unconsciously and indirectly gives rise to the murderous mentality of
warfare.” And on the other, he is indifferent to radical Islam as it
drives Hamas and HIzbollah. I can’t believe that he’s unaware of this
cruel absurdity. Somehow, he manages to live with it, and also with
the knowledge that the UN’s interest in him is enhanced by his being
Jewish.
As one who has argued frequently and fervently that criticism of
Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism, I am appalled by the damage
Prof. Falk’s essay does to my case by alleging that perceived Israeli
injustices are a natural, even inevitable consequence of what he
condemns as an age-old Jewish religious tradition and identity. It’s a
straw man on both sides of the equation, but red meat for those who
delight in believing the worst about Jews. It’s no accident that the
piece has been reprinted by the Intifada-Voice of Palestine website,
as well by an e-screed called Foreign Policy Journal whose publisher,
Jeremy R. Hammond, recently wrote a piece entitled “The Myth of the
United Nations’ Creation of Israel. “
One final thought. Did anyone blanch at Prof. Falk’s proclamation that
he is a proud Jew? Huh? Proud of what? Proud of belonging to a “tribe
whose religious doctrine gives rise to the murderous mentality of
warfare and gives a moral and religious edge to many forms of
persecution, culminating in a variety of inquisitions?”
My question as a rabbi is not whether anybody else believes him, but
whether he, himself, does. A little soul searching might help him
appreciate the toxicity of the things he says about Jewish identity.
These insights, in turn, might help him to recognize and understand
the prejudice that fuels the toxicity of what he says about Israel.
Rabbi Ira Youdovin
Santa Barbara, CA
(per risalire alla fonte - e godervi le svicolate di Richard Falk,
seguire questo link:
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/02/reform-rabbi-dismantles-richard-falk.html

 Santa Barbara, CA
i giudici di Milano si sono mangiati il mio commento chilometrico,
cribbio!

 i giudici di Milano si sono mangiati il mio commento chilometrico,
si vede che non ti intendi di commenti. 


lo posso rifare in trenta secondi.
"rabbino di Santa Barbara".
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAH