Pluralism and Realism |
Wednesday, January 24, 2007 |
Pluralism has been an urgent topic in the Jewish world lately.
The Conservative movement struggles with digesting two opposing positions on whether to accept gays and lesbians into their seminaries and whether to include same-sex unions as a Jewish option. Some predict doom and schism as a result. Others celebrate the pluralism of the movement. More about that another time.
A little over a week ago more than 800 Jews of every stripe converged at Limmud New York for its third gathering. In formal and in informal ways the happening, spanning Thursday through Monday of the Martin Luther King weekend, was a living specimen of pluralism in action. Some have written critically about it. More about that another time, too.
Pluralism was affirmed in another context when the ICC (Israel Campus Coalition - an umbrella group for organizations that advocate for Israel on campuses around the US) rejected a call by the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America - on the right of the spectrum) to expel the UPZ (Union of Progressive Zionists - on the left of the spectrum)from the coalition.
The objection was based on the UPZ's sponsorship of a tour of the group Combatants for Peace, a partnership of Israeli and Palestinian soldiers who have decided to work together to try to stop the fighting in and around Israel. The ZOA sees this group as anti-Israel. Since the Combatants include Israelis who have put their lives on the line for Israel, one could only accept the ZOA position if one were to consider these soldiers (some still doing reserve duty) as traitors to Israel - a pretty serious charge.
The ICC did not make an explicit statement defending the UPZ or the Combatants for Peace, although its refusal to kick the UPZ out of the Coalition could certainly be seen that way. Rather, the ICC stated that "the Steering Committee -- on behalf of the ICC -- recommits itself to working collaboratively to promote a proactive, pro-Israel agenda on college campuses across North America, and to encouraging all member organizations to work with and respect all members of the coalition in the spirit of pluralism and cooperation that unites us."
So what does that commitment to pluralism mean? The minimum message is not an endorsement of the UPZ but a claim that, even if one disagrees with the UPZ - as does the ZOA -it must still accept it into the coalition. But, while the ZOA may be forced to abide by this decision, it cannot embrace this idea because it has decided that the UPZ is anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Of course the UPZ, as its name proclaims, sees itself as Zionist through-and-through.
What is the basis of this divergence of views? I think that this is, itself, a question of whether one sees the world in a pluralistic fashion or not. A pluralist is willing to accept divergent positions as a given, as reality. People who hold such divergent positions are not, by definition, to be rejected as enemies. Pluralism means that one is prepared to listen to those views, though one may not agree with them. That means listening to criticism, even harsh criticism. But the ZOA position tends to view criticism as out-of-bounds.
Here we reach an apparent paradox: As right-wing pundits are happy to point out, thinking that they are somehow exposing a fatal flaw, pluralism does have its limits. Pluralism refuses to allow its tolerance of critical, opposing views to be labeled as treachery. The ZOA believes that Israeli military heroes are traitors to Israel because they criticize her. The ZOA, as with all true ideologues, rejects reality for the sake of its ideology. Pluralism rejects such rejectionism.
The Conservative movement struggles with digesting two opposing positions on whether to accept gays and lesbians into their seminaries and whether to include same-sex unions as a Jewish option. Some predict doom and schism as a result. Others celebrate the pluralism of the movement. More about that another time.
A little over a week ago more than 800 Jews of every stripe converged at Limmud New York for its third gathering. In formal and in informal ways the happening, spanning Thursday through Monday of the Martin Luther King weekend, was a living specimen of pluralism in action. Some have written critically about it. More about that another time, too.
Pluralism was affirmed in another context when the ICC (Israel Campus Coalition - an umbrella group for organizations that advocate for Israel on campuses around the US) rejected a call by the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America - on the right of the spectrum) to expel the UPZ (Union of Progressive Zionists - on the left of the spectrum)from the coalition.
The objection was based on the UPZ's sponsorship of a tour of the group Combatants for Peace, a partnership of Israeli and Palestinian soldiers who have decided to work together to try to stop the fighting in and around Israel. The ZOA sees this group as anti-Israel. Since the Combatants include Israelis who have put their lives on the line for Israel, one could only accept the ZOA position if one were to consider these soldiers (some still doing reserve duty) as traitors to Israel - a pretty serious charge.
The ICC did not make an explicit statement defending the UPZ or the Combatants for Peace, although its refusal to kick the UPZ out of the Coalition could certainly be seen that way. Rather, the ICC stated that "the Steering Committee -- on behalf of the ICC -- recommits itself to working collaboratively to promote a proactive, pro-Israel agenda on college campuses across North America, and to encouraging all member organizations to work with and respect all members of the coalition in the spirit of pluralism and cooperation that unites us."
So what does that commitment to pluralism mean? The minimum message is not an endorsement of the UPZ but a claim that, even if one disagrees with the UPZ - as does the ZOA -it must still accept it into the coalition. But, while the ZOA may be forced to abide by this decision, it cannot embrace this idea because it has decided that the UPZ is anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. Of course the UPZ, as its name proclaims, sees itself as Zionist through-and-through.
What is the basis of this divergence of views? I think that this is, itself, a question of whether one sees the world in a pluralistic fashion or not. A pluralist is willing to accept divergent positions as a given, as reality. People who hold such divergent positions are not, by definition, to be rejected as enemies. Pluralism means that one is prepared to listen to those views, though one may not agree with them. That means listening to criticism, even harsh criticism. But the ZOA position tends to view criticism as out-of-bounds.
Here we reach an apparent paradox: As right-wing pundits are happy to point out, thinking that they are somehow exposing a fatal flaw, pluralism does have its limits. Pluralism refuses to allow its tolerance of critical, opposing views to be labeled as treachery. The ZOA believes that Israeli military heroes are traitors to Israel because they criticize her. The ZOA, as with all true ideologues, rejects reality for the sake of its ideology. Pluralism rejects such rejectionism.
posted by ravgoni 0 comments