Rhetorical Regeneration and the Politics of Identity
Conclusion: Vital Identity + Politics
| 129 →
Vital Identity + Politics
Following the November 1995 assassination of Israeli leader and peace broker Yitzhak Rabin, progressive American rabbi Michael Lerner referred to the tragedy as a “symbolic opening” for what would likely be a new “civil war” in the Jewish community (“The Civil” 33). Lerner used that cataclysm to tangibly position a divide that already had influenced American Jewish discourse, the growing political tension between what Israeli sociologist Uri Ram calls neo-conservative “neo-Zionists” and more progressive, liberal-leaning “post-Zionists” (525–529).1 Likewise, this project’s introduction invokes the determinism of Hillel Day School Headmaster Mark Smiley, whose expressed priority for instruction shifted from the viability of dialogue and discussion to the call for defense and division. Smiley’s message is not unique, particularly in a context characterized by ongoing tensions in the Middle East and worldwide fears of terrorist activity. In particular, the fallout from the events of 9/11, the rise of the second intifada in Israel, and worries of a third intifada have engendered a cynical hopelessness regarding prospects for peace and stability.
Influential American Jewish organizations often validate this politics of separation. The American Jewish Committee (AJC), one of the oldest, largest, and perhaps the most prominent of the major Jewish “defense” agencies, echoed Smiley’s sentiment in mid-2004 with several versions of full-page newspaper advertisements asking, “How can there be peace in the Middle ← 129 | 130 → East …?”2 The question implies the premise that the AJC’s conditions for...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.