Why My Zionism Isn't Racism

A Smith student group publicized an event with a flier that includes a photo with graffiti that reads "Zionism is Racism." While students can argue about the group's name, its events, and its advertising, I want to examine the claim that "Zionism is Racism." It didn't say "Zionism may be racism" or "Zionists may be racists" but equated the two. Those espousing these views are stating that all Zionists are racists. It is no wonder that Jews and supporters of Israel on campus get upset at this claim--a student group just labeled them racists.

Zionism is a widely held belief in America which is not limited to Jews. I will not for a moment claim that there might not be Zionists who are racists--it is possible to find racists in any group. The claim of racism is often tied to resistance to Israeli settlement and occupation of Palestinian territory. I would like to examine the definition of Zionism to see if the claim of racism is appropriate. Since it is available to all readers, I suggest looking at the Wikipedia definition of Zionism. (I know that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source acceptable in academia, but it is a great start for a philosophical discussion). For accuracy, I will offer the sources for its basic definition of Zionism instead of quoting Wikipedia itself:
"An international movement originally for the establishment of a Jewish national or religious community in Palestine and later for the support of modern Israel." ("Zionism," Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary). See also "Zionism", Encyclopedia Britannica, which describes it as a "Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews," and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, which defines it as "A Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel."

All of these quotes contain the same basic definition of Zionism--a Jewish form of nationalism to create a country on the historic Jewish homeland. Since Israel was created in 1948, the political philosophy has taken new forms (which American Heritage Dictionary defines as "concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.") None of these definitions hint at racism. When most American Jews use the term Zionism it describes a belief that Jews should have their own land, that this land should be in the historic Jewish homeland, and that the continued existence of Israel is important sixty some years after the Holocaust wiped out half of Europe's Jews.

The idea that Jews deserve a homeland like any other nation is clearly different from racism--a belief that one race is inherently inferior than another. To adequately examine the racism part of the claim, it is necessary to look at the term's meaning. To be even-handed, I will quote the sources used by Wikipedia in its racism entry:
The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular racial group, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief. The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism as: "the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others."

Many American Jews read a claim that "Zionism is racism," and think "Bruce is racist" (i.e., that they read themselves into the statement). Here is the thing: Bruce isn't racist and neither are many American Jews (whether they view themselves as Zionists or not). Regardless of what those who created the flier (or others who use the slogan) may believe, many Jews read the flier as describing themselves. They know they are not racists. If I am not a racist yet am a Zionist and many other Zionists are not racists, than Zionism can't equal racism. To equate the two unequivocally is to engage in stereotyping--an act that when done in the negative form often leads to hatred and bias.

Reading one definition next to another should be enough to explain why "Zionism isn't racism." One is a political movement and one a belief. One is general and the other particular. When racism is applied to Israel, I assume it to mean that the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is defined by racism. Palestinians have their own form of nationalism. A claim of one nationalism against another is politics. Another reason why Zionism isn't racism is that Palestinians aren't a race (and neither are Zionists). I would have less of a problem with a claim that "Zionism is discriminatory" but it does not have the same appeal and shock value.

Many want to equate the political movement of Zionism (which the Wikipedia entry shows has a number of philosophical forms) with particular policies taken by the Israeli government. To do so is to take a logical leap based on politics. Some forms of Zionism may believe in occupation or even racism but most don't. For me, occupation is insidious and violent, so Israeli occupation of Palestinians is insidious and violent. It has only gotten more so over time and given the expansion of Jewish settlements in the disputed lands. Many Zionists and Zionisms do not favor occupation or settlements created to make a Palestinian homeland unworkable (however, most Zionists and Israelis believe that Jerusalem and its neighboring settlement blocs should remain Israel through a land exchange).

From my knowledge of our community, the vast majority of Smithies and Pioneer Valley residents who call themselves Zionists do not favor occupation or expansion of settlements. The local Rabbinate are overwhelmingly supporters of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America. On its website, RHR describes itself as follows: "Rabbis for Human Rights gives voice to a Jewish and Zionist tradition of concern for Human Rights. RHR sounds the shofar of alarm on issues of human rights in Israel and in territories for which Israel has taken responsibility." The group who will be presenting at the event on the flier which led to this essay (the Palestinesolidarityproject.org) has on top of its website a post about a joint effort to help a Palestinian family farm their lands. RHR is listed as a participant. Is RHR racist? It is self-described as Zionist. To call the form of Zionism practiced in this area racist is stereotyping based on misinformation.

While Israel is far from perfect, in terms of basic freedoms it is worlds apart from its neighbors. Israeli Arabs certainly face discrimination. Fighting this discrimination is part of the mission of Rabbis for Human Rights. Arab Israelis vote and form political parties which denounce Israeli policies or are avowedly anti-Israel (if you research the "Zionism is Racism" debate at the UN in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, you can read Israeli Ambassador Herzog's description of the inclusion of Arabs in Israeli society. If Israel were racist or practicing Apartheid (another claim that we often hear on campus), that wouldn't be the case.

Regardless of its intent, those who say "Zionism is Racism" place Zionism--and consequently Zionists, Israelis, and Israeli-supporters--into a corner of filled with hatred, fear, and violence. This is an attempt to stereotype Jews and supporters of Israel and stifle discussion. It is hard enough for students at Smith to have open, intellectual discussion about charged emotional issues without using this type of language. It antagonizes students who care about Israel and leads to a hardening of positions rather than dialogue.

I have been criticized on Facebook for encouraging students to protest the misleading name of the student organization who is advertising their event with the "Zionism is Racism" picture. An important part of dialogue is to leave labeling to an individual or group. If one wants to label oneself a Zionist, than that is fine but it is up to the individual to define Zionism. Most Zionists don't define Zionism with racism. Here is an idea: I will stop questioning the name of a student organization that professes Middle East peace but refused to sponsor an event last week about peace and coexistence if you stop trying to equate my people's age-old longing for Israel with Racism!

Notes: Thank you to the many readers who offered suggestions to the drafts. I have taken your advice but the work is my own. I am happy to talk about anything contained in this document with any member of the Smith community. I am hopeful that the response to a silent protest about the rhetoric on the poster (with signs reading "Don't post hate on campus" and a version of this map with "110 out of 136 countries agree Zionism Isn't Racism") will lead to dialogue about peace, coexistence, and/or creating a safe and respectful campus environment.

Dancing to Matisyahu's Jerusalem at Smith College

Slightly more than three weeks ago, my energetic and creative colleague Rabbi Shmuel Kravitsky of Chabad of the Four Colleges called me with a dream opportunity: his friend Matisyahu was coming up to spend Labor Day weekend with his family and would be able to perform for students Saturday night. Shmuel asked me if I wanted to sponsor a concert with him by finding a campus room. We started with Amherst College since they would be spending Shabbat there and due to its status as the mid-point among the Five Colleges. Amherst had a number of Orientation programs that night and didn't think an event of this magnitude could be worked out in three weeks.

The next phone call went to the head of Orientation at Smith College--Rae-Anne Buttera--who talked it over with her staff and agreed to let host the event if Public Events was fine with the program. After discussing it with Public Events and Public Safety we agreed to hold it in Sweeney Concert Hall (in Sage Hall) with advertising on campuses only. Community members would be allowed in but the emphasis would be on students. We created a Facebook event, posters, and went to work. It seemed quite possible to fill the 450 seats with just students.

The trouble happened when Matis Tweeted about performing at Smith College early last week. Then the local paper picked up the story and began publicizing the event (which led to concerned phone calls from the Events Staff and Public Safety). I still haven't figured out how they found out--neither Chabad nor my office submitted it. By the end of the week, I emailed everyone on my lists and the Facebook group to get in line early because we expected more people than the total.

I figured we would get 600 people and have to turn a few away. An additional complication: Shabbat ended around 8pm and the show was scheduled for 9pm. As soon as Shabbat ended, I was picked up at Look Park (where I was attending a Bar Mitzvah party) and rushed to Smith. The line in front of Sweeney snaked down College Lane as far as I could see. The students in front had been there since 5pm! I grabbed a few people who I promised seats to and brought them in the side door. After a quick sound-check, we decided to let in 400 people (Shmuel and Matis brought a number of people with them--counting those I let in, I figured we were already at 50 people). Student volunteers and Public Safety did a great job of counting and organizing the students and community members. I think we let in another 75-100 people after that to fill up empty seats, etc. Public Safety let us have an additional few dozen people for standing room. I figure at least 550 people made it in (probably more because there were a number of sitting on the side of the stage and on the floor up front). Still, it pained my heart to tell hundreds more that we didn't have space for them (it turns out that at least twenty-five listened through a window and that a few others--including Deborah who stayed at the Bar Mitzvah--made it in later).
The program started with an introduction by Shmuel, then Havdalah led by me, followed by a warm-up comedy set by Simcha Levenberg (who used to be a campus outreach person for Chabad before Shmuel). Finally, between 10:15 and 10:30, Matis took the stage with his two musicians for an hour-plus set of old and new music.
He concluded with his song Jerusalem and let audience members come on the stage to dance.
A video of this last song and an interview he gave in the Sage Hall Green Room are available here: http://vimeo.com/6462879 You can see me briefly dancing with Shmuel (and my daughter Hadas) towards the end of the video. At the end, Hadas' teacher Aaron Skogland takes over for Matis.
I wonder what people think about Matis' music? Some of the song lyrics are more Jewish than others. Jerusalem is Zionist, Messianic, and distinctively Jewish. Yet the audience--Jews and non-Jews alike--clearly gets into it. Most knew the words to the song (or at least the refrain).
It was a great event. A Smith faculty member called it a Kidush Ha-Shem (Sanctification of God's Name, ie. "Good for the Jews") since it was a feel-good, Jewish event for the broad campus community. I agree and think it is hands-down the best Orientation program I have participated in! What will we do next year? (If there is a next year!)

Welcome Students-Watch for a Big Announcement

New students, welcome to Smith & Amherst.
Returning students, welcome back.

The Smith Office of the Jewish Chaplain is cosponsoring "An Evening of Comedy and Music" event Saturday night 9/5 with Chabad of the Four Colleges. Sweeney Concert Hall, Sage Hall, Smith college. More information (including performer information to follow shortly).

More Thoughts on Divestment

Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of discussion about Divestment at the Five Colleges. An attempt at Hampshire College to get the school to divest from companies seen to aid the Israeli army failed (even though a student group tried to claim that it succeeded). At the other colleges, groups and individuals are trying to get the colleges endowments to divest as well (the farthest along is a vote next week at UMASS student government).

I posted a blog entry about Divestment before the Hampshire fiasco (featuring Alan Dershowitz in a public spat with the college until everyone understood what happened). A Smith student posted a comment which I only saw for the first time Tuesday evening.

Here is a quote from the comment: "You know that claiming that Divestment is anti-Semitic alienates yourself from dialogue and widens the rift between supporters of Israel and supporters of Palestine. I think you scare away those who disagree. It is an attempt to immediately delegitimize the actions of those who support divestment. No peace-loving individual enjoys being labeled as someone who hates Jewish people."

I reread my original post to see where I labeled proponents of Divestment Anti-Semitic. I still don't think I did, but will expand on my thoughts about Divestment to make it clearer. I am very concerned that something I write will be considered stifling of discussion or scare people away from interacting with me.

In order to examine these issues, it is necessary to define terms. To do so, I quote from a recent ADL publication (Fighting Back: A Handbook for Responding to Anti-Israel Campaigns on College and University Campuses):

Anti-Israel
Anti-Israel refers to extreme and/or illegitimate criticism of Israel that can take many forms, including the denial of Israel’s right to exist and/or holding Israel to different or higher standards than other countries. Anti-Israel sentiment should be distinguished from legitimate critiques or questioning of specific Israeli government policies, politicians, and so on.
Anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism is prejudice and/or discrimination against Jews. Anti-Semitism can be based on hatred against Jews because of their religious beliefs, their group membership (ethnicity) and sometimes the erroneous belief that Jews are a race.
Anti-Zionism
Anti-Zionism is criticism or rejection of the right of Jews to have their own homeland.

According to these definitions, Divestment from Israel (or companies that profit from the Israeli Army) is Anti-Israel because it holds Israel to a different or higher standard and extends beyond legitimate discussion of Israel government policies and actions. To give one example, China has occupied Tibet since 1959: any group that Divests from Israel without bringing the action against China (or the many similar cases) is Anti-Israel. If it were a part of a broader campaign to Divest from all similar cases, it would not be Anti-Israel. I wrote that Divestment often uses Anti-Semitic rhetoric or assumptions. Remember, I wrote this before the Hampshire incident and without reading anything written by Students for Justice in Palestine at any of the Five Colleges. All that I have read about Divestment--including the web pages of national organizations that promote it are Anti-Zionist and Anti-Israel. Many do not cross the complicated line to Anti-Semitism, but some of its proponents do so. Focus on Israel and its policies when other similar cases are ignored is heir to centuries of Anti-Semitism. That doesn't mean that it is Anti-Semitism but that Anti-Israel sentiment draws on historical Anti-Semitic rhetoric and concepts. Those who doubt this must study the history of Anti-Semitism.

In case I was not clear in my previous post or any oral communication: questioning and criticism of Israel is opinion and political thought that is appropriate, even encouraged, in an academic setting (this happens all of the time in Israel and the American Jewish community--especially in the Pioneer Valley). If the questioning denies Israel's right to exist or holds it to a higher standard than other countries, it is Anti-Israel. Not all Divestment activists are Anti-Semitic. Some may claim to be narrowly focused and not Anti-Israel. But the movement itself to question Israel alone for its existence, policies, and actions is a modern incarnation of age-old hatred of Jews. The technical term for that type of bigotry is Anti-Semitism. The actions may not be Anti-Semitic but the premise of deligitimizing Israel (no one will be able to convince me that any form of Divestment is anything but an attempt to deligitimize Israel) is heir to centuries of Anti-Semitism. (Whenever this comes up, I hear people arguing that since Arabs are Semites they can not be Anti-Semitic. The term was coined to refer to hatred of Jews and that is its only technical meaning. This has two implications: bigotry/hatred of Arabs or Muslims is not Anti-Semitsm, Arabs and Muslims can be Anti-Semites.)

When a recent Anti-Israel rally included a speaker who said: "The Jew infested US Congress. . .", that was Anti-Semitism in the plainest form. It had little to do with any political point, transcended any legitimate criticism of Israel or its policies, and should not be tolerated in the Five Colleges. It draws on historical Anti-Semitic imagery of the Jews as parasite or vermin. That no student or faculty member at the event stopped the speaker is troubling to me to say the least. If I were ever at a Pro-Israel event on my campus and a speaker spoke similar hate speech about any group, I would stop the speaker and/or issue a statement distancing myself and the Jewish communities I represent from the hate. This has still not occurred. I have a few theories for why this may be the case but I will leave these to further posts.

To summarize, I do not believe that all Divestment activists are Anti-Semites. They may not even all consider themselves Anti-Israel. I am not convinced that a credible claim can be made that Divestment (even if narrowly defined to refer to Occupation or the military) can be anything but Anti-Israel. The only exception would be if Divestment was applied equally and with the same fervor to all similar situations.

I believe that peace starts here with us. If we promote investment in peace and coexistence, if we work to build understanding and dialogue, we will help bring peace. Deligitimizing Israel, using hateful rhetoric, and standing quiet while students rant Anti-Semitic statements does none of this. Questioning and criticising Israel when done respectfully and with a critical stance is part of the academic process. Rallies where negation, deligitimization, and hatred are used creates an environment where students do not feel safe to voice their beliefs. This infringes on the academic process.

At a later time, I will write about the historical and theological importance of Israel for Jews and Judaism. Lack of understanding about this is fundamental in understanding moves for Divestment and deligitimization of Israel as well as the reaction Jewish leaders take when they arise. More on this to come.

I have been working hard on the campuses of Smith and Amherst to maintain a level of dialogue and respect. I encourage responses in person, on the phone, or by email. Learning from each other is the primary task of academia.

Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Bruce

Divestment & Boycott Means You Don't Think Israel Should Exist

The description to a vigil tonight at Smith contains language from the boycott and divestment movement. I want to state clearly that any discussion of Boycott and Divestment stems from denial of Israel's legitimacy. It is not possible to work towards a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict when using anti-Semitic rhetoric.
I am happy to provide more information about Boycott and Divestment movements and why they have failed in academia.

Those students and faculty at Smith that know me understand that I am deeply committed to peace and am greatly upset at the loss of all life. Still, I can't support any discussion of Boycott/Divestment or any vigils or events that raise these issues as a central element.
Rabbi Bruce

From the ADL:

• There is no comparison between Israeli policy and apartheid South Africa: While the anti-Israel activists point to the divestment campaign against South African apartheid as an example of how such a campaign can achieve dramatic results, most recognize that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is distinctly different. First and foremost, pro-Palestinian advocates of divestment cannot offer the same moral clarity as the 80's anti-apartheid campaigners did. The treatment of Arabs by the State of Israel can in no way be compared to the treatment of the Blacks of South Africa under apartheid.
  
  There is no Israeli ideology, policy or plan to segregate, persecute or mistreat its Israeli Arab citizens, nor Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank (Israel already unilaterally disengaged from the Gaza Strip in August 2005). Apartheid South Africa was extraordinarily repressive, regulating every detail of the lives of its subjects – 90 percent of whom were non-white – on the basis of their skin color. By contrast, Israel is a democracy which encourages vibrant debate, which has a flourishing free press and which shares with other liberal democracies a core value: the equality of all its citizens before the law. Nor does Israel want to indefinitely rule over the Palestinian population of the West Bank. Israel's measures in the territories, such as the building of a security barrier, checkpoints and curfews on the Palestinians are driven not by a racist ideology. Rather, they are due to legitimate security concerns on Israel's part and are the consequence of a campaign of terror by Palestinian groups such as Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, which, in deliberately targeting civilians, have claimed over 1,000 innocent Israeli lives.
  
  The South African divestment campaign targeted companies who were exploiting black labor. In contrast, Israeli and Palestinian workers have both suffered enormously from the economic downturn brought about by the four years of violence and conflict. Moreover, while South African apartheid had no popular support here in America, according to public opinion polls Israel enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans and of the U.S. political leadership.
  
  More: Israel and Apartheid: The Big Lie
  
• Divestment advocates ignore the complexity of the conflict: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict and peace process is complex. With their rigidly one-sided view of the conflict, divestment advocates see a solution only through punitive action against Israel. The harsh rhetoric of proponents blindly ignores Israeli policies and efforts to promote negotiations and improve the situation on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These advocates also ignore Palestinian intransigence, terrorism and violence, as well as the new situation that has arisen following Hamas' success in the 2006 Palestinian Authority election. Instead, divestment campaigns singularly demonize Israel and designate Israel for pariah status. Such initiatives do not to seek creative and constructive efforts to promote dialogue, peace and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
  
• Israel is being unfairly singled out for human rights violations: These campaigns single out Israel and condemn its record on human rights without any reference to the myriad of human rights outrages going on in the world today including Sudan, Zimbabwe and others. In fact, Israel remains the lone democracy in the Middle East, with all of the institutions – a free press, a multitude of political parties, an independent judiciary and religious freedom — that are at the heart of true liberal democracies. The Middle East and indeed the world has many states that do not come close to living up to Israel's standards. Thus, the singling out of Israel for such punitive treatment is disingenuous and disproportionate.
  
• How concerned individuals can help promote reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians: Individuals need to educate themselves on the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and promote positions that ensure peace and security for all. The well being of Israelis and Palestinians will best be advanced through policies that help to build a Palestinian society that rejects terror and is ready to accept Israel as the neighbor of a future Palestinian state. Peace will also require investment in programs that promote reconciliation and humanitarian assistance.

HP giveaway

There is currently a large giveaway of HP equipment through 50 blogs.
This is my attempt to participate in the contest at one of the blogs, Moosh in indy.

This is what I would do with the HP equipment. First of all, I could not use all of the material myself. We have a new HP desktop and I have a work-owned notebook. I would use our current desktop for my children (10, 7, 5, 1 1/2) and my wife and I would use the new desktop. We would probably donate one of the laptops and an older desktop that my oldest son uses to my children's school--LGA Schechter (which could use newer computers). The Jewish Day School has a great facility and talented and enthusiastic faculty but could use more cutting edge technology versus old cast-off donations.

I use the internet in a few ways for more work as a Campus Rabbi/Hillel Director at Smith and Amherst Colleges. I have this blog and use Facebook as a means to reach out to students. The HP Mini would allow me to post more frequently and from more places. Also, the equipment would help me update the websites at both colleges. I started to use this blog a number of years ago and Facebook three summers ago to reach out to students in a non-intrusive way (versus emailing all students on my list about everything on my mind). I know from direct feedback that prospective students and even current students use the blog/Facebook to find out about Jewish life and concerns.

Please help me to do my work better and help my children's school at the same time.
Also, we took my son's class to see Kung Fu Panda! Great movie.
You may see more

Muslim Community Leader Dies During Rammadan

Baruch Dayan Ha-Emet; Blessed is the Eternal Judge.

During the sacred month of Rammadan, the Muslim community in America lost a great spiritual leader.
At Duke, I was privileged to speak on a panel with Imam Mohammed and to meet him again when he later visited Smith.
For now, I am including an obituary by the Chicago Tribune, but will follow at a later time with personal reflections.
Rabbi Bruce

From the Chicago Tribune:
Imam W. Deen Mohammed, the rebellious son of the late Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad who broke from black nationalism and guided his followers toward mainstream Islam, died Tuesday, according to family members. He was 74.

As Muslims marked the holy month of Ramadan, Mohammed was scheduled to speak Tuesday in Chicago, but many grew concerned when he did not appear. His last speaking engagement was his regular monthly address delivered Sunday in Homewood, Ill., and aired to a live radio audience.

"He was a pioneer in the Muslim American community and was one of the first leaders to get Muslims to think about their faith in context of the larger society," said Rami Nashashibi, executive director of Inner-City Muslim Action Network in Chicago. "He was also a pioneer in getting Muslims to embrace their religious identity at a time when that wasn't very popular."

Mohammed succeeded his father in 1975 as leader of the Nation of Islam, a religious movement that melds black nationalism with the Islamic faith. He immediately tried to move its followers toward traditional Islam, eventually leading to a split between those who agreed with Mohammed's approach and those who joined a revived Nation of Islam under Minister Louis Farrakhan.

"He will be remembered as a person who brought the Nation of Islam carefully and consistently into mainline Islam," said Yvonne Haddad, a professor of the history of Islam and Christian-Muslim relations at Georgetown University. "Eventually, he'd start talking about American Muslims -- how we can be Muslim and American at the same time."

In the later years of his life, Mohammed's profile diminished somewhat. He focused more energy into his nonprofit ministry, the Mosque Cares. He also worked on building interfaith relations, meeting with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican in 1996.

Some saw his lessened visibility as the final steps in his efforts to restructure his organization into a loose group of organizations without a central charismatic figure.

Wallace D. Mohammed was born Oct. 30, 1933, in Detroit, the seventh of eight children of Elijah and Clara Muhammad. (He became known later as Imam Warithuddeen Mohammed.)

His father was a disciple of W.D. Fard, a door-to-door salesman who founded a small sect in that city known alternately as the Lost-Found Nation of Islam and the Allah Temple of Islam. Upon Fard's mysterious disappearance in 1934, Elijah Muhammad proclaimed Fard to be God, and he announced himself as his Messenger, a divinely inspired prophet.

W. Deen Mohammed was for many years an obedient son. He was the minister of the Nation of Islam's mosques in Chicago and Philadelphia in the 1950s. On his 28th birthday in 1961, Mohammed was sent to federal prison in Minnesota for refusing, on the basis of Nation of Islam teachings, induction into the U.S. military. While serving his prison sentence, Mohammed reevaluated his father's preaching.

Expelled from the Nation of Islam for criticizing his father's sometimes harsh doctrine, Mohammed supported his own family by driving a cab, doing welding, plucking chickens and working as a house painter and junkman.

Mohammed publicly begged his father's forgiveness. He was readmitted to the movement, only to be expelled several times again. He was finally restored to grace in 1974, only six months before his father's death.

Farrakhan was expected to succeed Elijah Muhammad. But a closed-door family council chose Mohammed to be the movement's chief imam. He began preaching a more universal religious message. He also cut back on the group's commercial empire, saying business ventures distracted the movement from its religious mission.

Mohammed's changes produced a backlash within the group, which he renamed the World Community of Al-Islam in the West. Subsequently, the name was changed several times again. Of all his innovations, the most costly in terms of lost followers was his rejection of black supremacy.

In 1978, Farrakhan broke with Mohammed and formed his own counter-movement. He revived the name Nation of Islam, saying he intended to follow the teaching of Elijah Muhammad.

Mohammed decentralized power within the movement, making each mosque autonomous. But he reacted impatiently when the other imams didn't more closely follow his path toward mainstream Islam.

"I have tried over the last 10 to 12 years to encourage them to get more religious education, but I have made no progress," Mohammed said upon resigning as head of the American Society of Muslims five years ago.

But most observers think the greater number of African American Muslims remained loyal to W. Deen Mohammed than to Farrakhan.

Despite their differences, Mohammed and Farrakhan reconciled in a series of joint appearances starting in 1999 and pledged to work together.

Mohammed also achieved several historic milestones for Muslim Americans. In 1992, he became the first Muslim to deliver an invocation to the U.S. Senate. In 1993 and 1997, he recited from the Koran at President Clinton's two inaugural interfaith Prayer Services.

Apathy, protests, Heschel, and more

Moadim L'simchah--I hope Passover has been (and will continue to be) a holiday of personal and communal liberation.

It has been a complicated few days. As part of the Beyond Genocide series, a Smith student led a play reading of Robert Skloot's, If the Whole Body Dies--Rafael Lemkin and the Treaty Against Genocide. In general, I have been disappointed in the student turnout to the BG events. No students attended the play reading who weren't involved in it or the BG program. I would have thought students would have been interested in these topics. The apathy was disappointing but was redeemed by what follows.

It was great to see a number of familiar Amherst faces at the Human Rights Coffee House held last night near Smith.

Here are the texts I taught:

Rabbi Hillel Said:

If I am not for myself, who will be for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, when?

-Pirke Avot (Ethics of the Ancestors)

I also taught a short quote from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that I had just read:
“Acts are a challenge to the soul … How else can one learn the joy of loving-kindness if not by enacting it? .... We do not have faith in deeds; we attain faith through deeds …”

Today, I joined anti-war demonstrations at Smith. At the demonstration and at the coffee house, there was discussion about not using violent language (ie., 'fight the war'). To this end, I just saw this passage from a speech Heschel gave in 1938 entitled "Meaning of this Hour:"

We have failed to fight for right, for justice, for goodness as a result we must fight against wrong, against injustice, against evil. WE have failed to offer sacrifices on the altar of peace; thus we offered sacrifices on the altar of war. A tale is told of a band of mountain climbers. Without guides, they struck recklessly into the wilderness. Suddenly a rocky ledge gave way beneath their feet and they tumbled headlong into a dismal pit. In the darkness of the pit they recovered from their shock only to find themselves set up by a nest of angry snakes. For each snake the desperate ones slew, ten more seemed to lash out in its place. Strangely enough, one man stood aside from the fight. When the indignant voices of his struggling companions reproached him for not fighting, he called back: "If we remain here, we shall be dead before the snakes. I am searching for a way of escape from this pit, for all of us."

You can read the entire essay/speech at http://www.bj.org/selected_readings/meaning_of_this_hour.html.

The source showed up on a blog on the Barack Obama website!

There was one difficulty for me at the demonstration. As I was playing drums and chanting on the Smith green, the chant switched to one that started: "From Iraq to Palestine. . ." With barely a hesitation, I quickly walked off the green and away from the protest. I am never in favor of human suffering but you can't compare our war in Iraq and movements for Palestinian nationalism/liberation. If any of the readers were there, I would love to talk about this.
With peace,
Rabbi Bruce

Check out this movie being developed about Heschel. I hope to bring it to our campuses next year as part of the Jewish Film Festival.

Smith Jewish Life Blog

I am trying out a centralized blog for Jewish life at Smith College.
Let me know what you think.
One for Amherst will be up soon.
RB

Oscar Winning Movie to Be Shown at Smith

Live Short Oscar-winner West Bank Story will be shown at Smith College as part of Hillel's Jewish Arts Month and the Pioneer Valley Jewish Film Festival.

More to follow

Rabbi Bruce