There is a room 8 diarist of the name "Chaim Yankel" who has a beef with a city council candidate named Brad Lander. Yankel (actually a name that runs through my family as a first or middle name, though I used the more modern form "Jacob" for my son) wrote an article on room 8 about an anti-Israel statement made by Mr. Lander in a book which compiled the views of anti-Israel Jews. Yankel was pretty harshly criticizing Brad Lander, and I came, mildly, to Brad's defense. I made the following comment to Yankel's original article:

I agree...regarding Lander as anti-Israel while still within the mainstream of Judaism. I haven't talked to any of the candidates regarding Israel since it isn't usually an issue that comes up when discussing city council. I could speculate based on other conversations I have had with several candidates regarding national issues (I know some four of the candidates through involvement in Brooklyn reform Democratic clubs) and I am willing to bet they are all pro-Israel except for Lander. And I suspect that they all fall into the range of politics Israel's Labor or Kadima parties, but not within the range of Likud. But again, here I am extrapolating based on conversations I have had regarding wider national issues, not Israel per se.

Later Brad expressed to me some disappointment that I hadn't been more aggressive about blogging in his defense on this issue. He seemed to feel I should have expressed my opinion that his anti-Israel statement was perfectly within the range of mainstream Judaism to a wider audience.

Now Chaim Yankel has written another attack piece against Brad's views on Israel. So, I feel honor bound to express my opinion on this more widely than I did before since Brad felt that would have been the fairer thing for me to do. So Brad: this one's for you.

Chaim Yankel, in his latest article, says this:

By contrast, those who reject the right of Jews to have a Jewish State, the same way the French have a French state, are doing something quite different. They oppose not Israeli actions, but Israeli existence. Given the harshness of Lander's published words about Jewish nationalism, the only logical conclusion from reading Lander’s article is that Lander is an anti-Israel extremist.

I will again note that, although I am and always have been solidly pro-Israel, I do not think that a Jew, like Brad, who is anti-Israel is not necessarily some kind of extremist. The diversity of Jewish opinion throughout the centuries has included the view that Judaism is not and should not be connected to any one place or nation, that it essentially transcends nationalism. This was my interpretation of Brad's views which he expressed his wish that I broadcast more. I do not consider this extremist even if it is not my own view. In fact, I have considered, in my writing about Judaism, using Brad's view that Judaism should be disconnected from the land of Israel with the very persistent fight of various Jewish groups, like the Abayudaya of Uganda (who converted to Judaism in isolation from mainstream Judaism), to be included in Israel's right of return and who interpret Judaism as being centered on Israel the way Islam is centered on Mecca. I view these two contrasting views as defining the rich diversity of Jewish thinking, thinking which, unlike more fundamentalist religions, accepts such ideas as doubt in the existance of God, and even a post-Holocaust school of thought that views God as equivalent to a loving but abusive father. So in this sense I do not agree with Chaim Yankel's far more narrow view of what is mainstream Judaism. I LIKE the diversity of opinion that Judaism accepts and I don't think Brad should be attacked so harshly by Chaim Yankel for his view. Yankel CAN of course disagree and criticize, but not necessarily call Brad's view extremist.

Chaim Yankel goes into great detail in his two attacks on Brad about whether or not Israel should be an issue in a City Council race. I won't discuss that aspect of Yankel's views because I fall into the camp that thinks it really isn't such an important issue in a city council race. That is why I didn't blog about it when Yankel's first article came out and I am only blogging this version because of Brad's request that I should defend his anti-Israel view more.

The one thing that Yankel claims that I find hard to believe, given Brad's request to me last time, is that now Brad has backpeddled on his anti-Israel statements. Yankel again:

But since publication of my articles, Mr. Lander’s position has moved into a whole different plane.

Interviewed about his article by Jewish Week, Lander now says he “regrets the language.”

Moreover, Lander explained that he supports the right of return, and his article stemmed from a mistaken impression that his child’s mixed parentage rendered him ineligible to be an Israeli. “I want my son to be part of the Jewish community, but it was a mistake to allow my feelings to go public like that.”

This is purely and simply a baldfaced opportunistic lie.

I don't know if Brad has really rethought his view (and Yankel might not realize this, but people DO rethink their positions), is being an opportunistic liar as Yankel suggests (I personally give Brad the benefit of the doubt on this), or maybe Yankel is misunderstanding or misrepresenting Brad's views. Brad's original statement seemed unequivocal. To quote (as it is quoted in Yankel's article):

“Marek, we inscribe you today into the Jewish covenant. We are imposing upon you a set of overlapping identities, inscribing you with a name of our choosing and with the ritual violence of circumcision

…We hope that you will learn to embrace this gift without thinking that you are better than others, or that your identity ought to endow you with special privileges. In particular, we are thrilled to pronounce you a Jew without the Right of Return. Your name contains our deep hope that you will explore and celebrate your Jewish identity without confusing it with nationalism.

Your last name is your mother’s -- a non-Jewish one -- by the fact of which you are ineligible for the nationalist privilege of automatic Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. We believe that law confuses the wonderful and painful inheritance of identity with unearned advantages -- legal, political, and financial -- granted by a militarized state over other people, including so many it oppresses daily….

…We pray fervently that by the time you read this, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, the settlements, the house demolitions, the violence will be history. But even then, we hope you will appreciate this absence of nationalist privilege in your inscribed identity. We hope you will work for a world where identity is explored, nurtured, critiqued, celebrated, and protected -- but not the basis for privilege, for discrimination, for money, for power.”

And Brad specifically expressed his desire for me to express my defense of his anti-Israel views as being within mainstream Jewish thought and that I don't have to agree with someone's views to respect them.

So perhaps Chaim Yankel needs to clarify with Brad himself about his views before calling him an "opportunistic liar."

Hope Brad finds this diary fairer than my previous lower-key statements regarding Yankel's attacks.