Who will Rest and who shall wander? Rosh Hashanah

Image was originally posted to Flickr
by james_gordon_losangeles at
http://flickr.com/photos/79139277@N08/7435923074
Image licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

At a time that terrible suffering afflicts millions in the Middle East and continues to traumatize those who have escaped, Jews prepare for our New Year and day of judgement: Rosh Hashanah.  In the synagogue the solemn words will ring out: “Who will live and who will die? Who will die in their time and who before their time? Who by fire? Who by the sword? Who by hunger? Who by thirst? Who will find rest and who shall wander?  Who shall be at peace and who shall be pursued? …who shall be tormented?” This prayer talks about these decisions as being made by God alone. Yet, you and I are also making choices as citizens that might have some influence on these terrible questions.

This week’s decision by the Australian Government to resettle 12,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in Syria and Iraq, with a focus “on those most in need – the women, children and families of persecuted minorities”, 1 followed pleas by citizens as well as politicians. Last year I heard a representative of the Assyrian community describe the killing and devastation inflicted on his community by Daesh/IS. I connected with their pain and deeply wished this evil would stop! Now, thankfully, at least Assyrians will likely get some relief and be shown some compassion. 

On the other hand, one Australian Muslim who I respect and trust had a different perspective on the government’s announcement. “Muslims will forever remember a time that Australia turned its back on them, or planned too, when they are at their most vulnerable.  This is what radicalises people. Do you see why I say that this government doesn't really care about true de-radicalisation? This is the beginning of the end. Remember this moment! It's when we sacrificed our security, humanity and self-worth for political manoeuvring”. This perspective must be taken into account.

The decisions about who should be resettled and who will continue to suffer and “find nowhere to rest their feet” should be, and should be seen to be, based on need rather than ethnicity or religion. The right to save this one and leave another to suffer could only be claimed by God. Human justice must be procedural and impartial. The NSW Jewish community 2013 policy statement asserts that government should “not adopt any policy that arbitrarily limits or excludes from refugee protection any category of people with a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland”. 2

The argument that a non-sectarian policy is necessary for social cohesion is consistent with an article written this week by former UK Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. It should be noted that Sacks is not on some kind of left-wing politically correct bandwagon. In fact in 2007, he wrote that “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation…societies more abrasive, fractured and intolerant…”.  3 This week he wrote that it “is hard is to love the stranger, one whose colour, culture or creed is different from yours. That is why the command, “Love the stranger because you were once strangers”, resonates so often throughout the Bible. It is summoning us now. A bold act of collective generosity will show that the world, particularly Europe, (or the west) has learned the lesson of its own dark past and is willing to take a global lead in building a more hopeful future. Wars that cannot be won by weapons can sometimes be won by the sheer power of acts of humanitarian generosity to inspire the young to choose the way of peace instead of holy war”. 4 As my respected Muslim correspondent quoted above points out, the opposite is also true.


We must be hard on the problems and refuse to accept the avoidable suffering of our fellow humans, regardless of ethnicity or religion.  On Rosh Hashanah, I will pray that ‘God reign over the world in a way that will be known to all’. To me, this means that principles of justice and mercy prevail rather than the interests of the rich and powerful or the short term political interests of politicians. At the same time, let us treat each other with understanding and grace. A beautiful Rosh Hashanah prayer asserts that humans are “like a fading flower, like a broken shard of earthenware, and a dream that flies away”. This is a challenging time for those who are suffering and for the preservation of the fragile fabric of our still largely cohesive society. I pray for wise, responsible and compassionate choices by all concerned. 

Notes:
1.    https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2015-09-09/syrian-and-iraqi-humanitarian-crisis
2.    http://www.nswjbd.org/Our-Policies-/default.aspx, policy last updated (according to the website at 11 am on  10.09.2015) on 17.9.2013
3.    Sacks, J, (2007), the Home We Build Together, p.3, Continuum, London.
4.    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/06/refugee-crisis-jonathan-sacks-humanitarian-generosity accessed 10.09.15

Political Correctness: Boat People, Balaam and Muslims

The objection to political correctness is often used to justify insensitive, divisive and destructive speech. A man approached me this week at the Synagogue to say he supports the relentless, harsh rhetoric in the media and by some of our politicians about Muslims and terrorism because he doesn’t believe in political correctness. I disagree. While political correctness should not be allowed to stifle purposeful debate or criticism of specific people who do wrong, speech that generalises or disproportionately emphasises the negative, is unjust and irresponsible.

Elizabeth Ban, a giant spirit who passed away last week, facilitated dialogue between Jews and Muslims. This helped people in both communities develop a more realistic as well as positive understanding of each other.

Elizabeth had one last task she wanted to accomplish before she died. She sought to change the conversation about asylum seekers in the Sydney Jewish community. She made a good start by initiating an event at which 60 members of the community connected with asylum seekers (1). The following joke might help continue her mission: Dark- skinned young comedian, Suren Jayemanne, gets asked if he is a “boat person”? No, he replies, I am a car person actually. I’m really into cars, I hate sailing. It reminds me of the 7 months it took me to get to Australia… A pause, a little shock, and then everyone laughed: the “othering” term, ‘boat person’, is made to sound ridiculous.

The danger of negative speech plays out in our Torah reading (2). A man named Balaam faced a dramatic and successful attempt, involving a talking ass (3), an angel and God himself, to silence him. 

The colourful story begins with the one-eyed (4) sorcerer, Balaam, being asked to curse the Jews. While Balaam is on his way to do this, an angel is sent to stop him, he is reprimanded by his donkey, and finally God, Himself, puts words in his mouth that force him to bless and praise the Jews instead of cursing them.

The story is puzzling. Why would it have mattered if Balaam cursed the Jews?! Surely, only God decides if curses can have any impact (5).

There are four ways to think about this, all useful.

a) The impact of the curses would have caused distress to the target of the curses. “People then and now are impressed by sorcerers. The Israelites in those times, particularly the women and children (6), would have been greatly affected by the maledictions of such a renowned sorcerer (7)”. The impact on the Muslim community, particularly the young people, of being continually demonised, is substantial, unjust and unhelpful.  

b) The impact of the curses, had they been allowed to be spoken, would have been to embolden the enemies of the Jews (8). Again, this has relevance. The relentless, harsh rhetoric by politicians and the media encourages citizens who harbour prejudice, to express it both verbally and physically. In the case of asylum seekers, it reinforces prejudice and antipathy to the “boat people”.

c) Words have a spiritual, self-fulfilling impact. Negative speech can elicit negative behaviour from the targeted person, while praise strengthens the positive elements and potential in the person being spoken about (9).

d) At the literal level, our tradition clearly sees the prevention of the curses as being a protective and loving act by God for the Jewish people. “But the Lord, your God, did not want to listen to Balaam. So the Lord, your God, transformed the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord, your God, loves you” (10).

Words matter. There are times when circumstances legitimately call for criticism of specific or even systemic problems and the people or groups responsible for these problems. Serious debate between philosophies, world views and even faiths can serve to tease out the truth, and this requires disregarding political correctness. However, often, negative speech serves no legitimate purpose while being quite destructive. If one has nothing nice to say, it might be time to “open both eyes” to see the full picture of both the admirable qualities alongside the faults, rather than seeking to verbally destroy like a “one- eyed” Balaam.


Notes

1)    http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2015/04/closing-empathy-gap-with-unlike.html
2)    Numbers 22-25
3)    Ralbag suggests that the whole encounter between Balaam and his donkey was a dream
4)    Talmud Sanhedrin 105a, states that Balaam was blind in one eye
5)    Ralbag
6)    The sexist implication in this explanation needs to be seen in the context of the time, centuries ago, when this was written.
7)    Ibn Kaspi, Joseph, Tirat Kesef, cited in Lebovitz, N, Studies in Bamidbar
8)    Abarbanel
9)    The Lubavitcher Rebbe
10)    Deuteronomy 23:6

Closing the Empathy Gap with the “unlike”

Last night I had a powerful experience that relates to the issues of discrimination and compassion for people who seem different to “us”.

At a skilfully facilitated session (1) led by Shoshana Faire and Chantelle Ogilvie-Eliss (and initiated by the recently departed social justice champion, Elizabeth Ban) we were asked to tell as personal story that relates to one of four values themes.

 I told a story about something that didn’t happen. I didn’t show up at a birthday party on a boat for my non-Jewish friend Ray. Ray had been a good friend, he helped me when I had car trouble, he was loving and generous in his attitudes and words about me personally and he also volunteered huge amounts of time for a project we did together. Yet, I didn’t attend his special celebration. Perhaps I didn’t forget. It might have never fully registered in the first place. I am ashamed to say it, but at that early stage of my cross-cultural interfaith journey, I think I had a deep mental block about personal friendship with a “goy”. 

The six men and women I sat with shared anecdotes about freedom and cross cultural acceptance. Then we heard from a Hazara boy who recently finished school and a Tamil schoolgirl of 17 about their values, like charity, compassion, caring for others, independent thinking, fun playing volley ball and education. We really connected! I certainly care more now about the plight of asylums seekers subjected to cruel policies in Australia, than I cared yesterday before this session.

I think the power of the experience last night relates to two ideas discussed in the academic literature. One is that “research indicates a strong inverse relationship between levels of prejudice and empathy (2) and suggests that “invoking empathy can reduce racism levels (3) ”. This research found that empathy is more significant than information in countering prejudice. Yet, another scholar argues “We have more empathy for those we see as (being) like us”. In one research experiment “when viewing pictures of faces, people showed more empathetic responses, as measured by physiology and self report, for members of the same ethnic group” and that”empathy leads to helping only in cases when the  person in need is a member of the in‐group (4)”. This sounds like a ‘catch 22’, empathy is key to countering prejudice, yet empathy is least likely in cross-cultural situations, unless of course one can come to see “them” as one of “us”. This was certainly achieved last night. 

It is appropriate that the Torah reading this week deals with the un-kosher bird, called the stork in English but “Hasida” in Hebrew. There is a belief in Judaism that non-Kosher animals have bad characteristics, yet the name of the stork, “Hasida” is related to the word “Hesed” which means kindness. Yet our traditions teaches us that the stork is only “kind to its friends”, or its “own kind” (5). My prayer is that more Australians can extend our tradition of mateship to our fellow humans seeking safety and a better life on our shores. Let us all realise that “they” are “us”.

Notes:
1)    The event was hosted by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies in collaboration with the Sydney Alliance
2)    Batterham, D. (2001). Modern racism, reconciliation and attributions for disadvantage: A role for empathy and false beliefs? cited Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). Talk Does Not Cook Rice: Beyond anti-racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. Australian Psychologist, 40, 20-30.
3)    Finlay & Stephan, 2000 Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes, cited in Pedersen
4)    Prinz, J, Is Empathy Necessary For Morality, http://subcortex.com/IsEmpathyNecessaryForMoralityPrinz.pdf accessed 14.04.2015
5)    This theme is further developed in my post http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/flawed-idealists-hasidim-prejudice.html

Curbing Compassion for Asylum Seekers?

Restraining Compassion

Australians are witnessing a dramatic shift in refugee policy. Only a few years back a new Labour Government emphatically rejected the previous government’s strategy of sending Asylum seekers to a third country, Nauru. In a matter of days Legislation is being enacted to allow this practice to resume. It has not been an easy decision, clearly some government MPs have reservations. Refugee advocates see this as a step away from a compassionate approach. Some have cried racism and prejudice, claiming that if those seeking entry to Australia were white farmers from Zimbabwe there would be a much more welcoming stance. Others vehemently reject any accusation of prejudice.

There has also been some discussion about an article by a member of the Jewish community about the need to curb our compassion (not the authors choice of title), or redirect it from those on the boats to other refugees waiting in queues. What contribution does my tradition bring to this debate?

The Stranger

Perhaps the most repeated commandment in the Torah is to love the stranger, often combined with a reminder of Jews’ experience of being an outsider in Egypt where we were made slaves. We must be concerned with the welfare of those who are vulnerable and are seen as outsiders/strangers.

To Curb and Not to Curb Compassion

In our Torah reading this week we have instructions both to curb our compassion and not to do so depending on the circumstances.  We are taught to curb our compassion in cases involving a person who leads others astray by promoting idol worship[i] and a Murder[ii]. Both cases involve extremely serious threats to the community, the latter to life itself and the former to spiritual life. In the case of a vulnerable person we are told “you shall not harden your heart, and you shall not close your hand from your needy brother[iii]”.

Deserving

Some have portrayed those arriving on our shores in boats as “queue jumpers”. Others have argued that because there are some Muslims who are extremists, this should influence attitudes to Muslim arrivals in general. Generalising from a tiny minority to a huge majority is neither reasonable nor just.

I don’t think it is racist to argue like my Darwin taxi driver did yesterday; that Australia’s charity should be prioritised to benefit people living in Australian, i.e. Aboriginal people living in dire poverty or that we should be equitable in our treatment of refugees whether they are in queues or boats. We are taught that in the administration of justice we must not be swept away by emotion[iv], instead we must be fair to all. Fairness includes being alert to unconscious prejudices that many of us still have in spite of our tolerant or accepting intentions.  

A teacher in Adelaide reflected last week on the fact that many Australians believed initial reports 10 years ago about asylum seekers that “those people” threw their children overboard. Some of us were prepared to believe that the people on these boats were so different from us that they lacked the fundamental human quality of parental love.

It is tempting when refusing to assist vulnerable people to portray them as undeserving. We are warned against this by our sages. The Torah states, “Beware, lest… your eyes will look in an evil way on your needy brother and not give him[v]”. At the simple level it means having an ungenerous perspective, but it is also interpreted to mean that in our reluctance to help a needy person we must not ascribe evil characteristics to the person seeking our help to justify our refusal[vi].

Changed Circumstances Justifies a change of policy

The home affairs minister, Jason Clare, argued on Radio this week that the Labour Government was justified in changing its position because the reality had changed. 600 people had died while trying to gain asylum in Australia by travelling here by boat. The principle is sound, when a law causes significant harm, it is quite reasonable to review the law. God made a law that had the potential to lead to a situation where “there would not be any poor person among you[vii]”. This would be the result of a system of Jubilee and Sabbatical years, in which poverty would not entrench itself[viii]. Every seven years all debts would be cancelled[ix] and poor people who sold themselves into slavery would go free, in the Jubilee they would regain ownership of any property they sold.

The Torah makes it clear that the blessed state of a poverty free society is conditional on obedience of the law[x]. This ambitious scheme was dependent on people transcending their natural self-interest. Some Twelve hundred years later, it became clear that the result of the law was to harm the very people it sought to help. The sage Hillel observed that in the lead up to the Sabbatical year people stop lending money to each other. He found a way around the law, essentially allowing lenders to transfer their loans to the court[xi].   

The application of the principle of changed circumstances to laws about Asylum seekers is less straight forward. In both cases well-intentioned laws are confronted with reality tests and found wanting. However, in the case of loans, the law was a direct and unavoidable cause of hardship. There was no other option but to give up the idealistic law. In the case of Asylum seekers, it could be argued that there is another option; we can choose to allow people to come here by plane which apparently is half the cost that they are charged by the operators of these boats. Others would argue that this is not viable as there are simply far more people seeking to come to Australia than it could accommodate.

Justice

More broadly we are meant to see our assistance to those in needs not as charity but as an act of justice[xii]. The Torah states that if a poor person will cry out to God because he cannot get a loan in the lead up to the seventh year[xiii], this will be considered a sin for the person refusing to lend him money[xiv]. This is because the person who has the ability to give is like a king’s bursar, entrusted by the king to distribute funds. When the poor person cries out it is like a citizen complaining to the king about the bursar withholding funds that the king had allocated for him[xv].  It has also been taught that the reason that one person is poor is order to create an opportunity for another to have the merit of providing for him/her[xvi]. Our decision to share our resources with an individual knocking on our door, either of our house, our embassy or in a leaky boat needs to be informed by the knowledge that ultimately all our wealth is not absolutely ours but has been given to us in trust, perhaps to share with that exact needy person.

Further Considerations

On one hand there is something beautiful about the way no expense is spared when someone is in trouble, such as some adventurer in a row boat on the high seas who lost her paddle. Yet, questions about equitable use of limited public funds sometimes need to be asked. Questions also need to be asked about the justice of treating some people harshly in order to deter other people from risking their lives. Australia will be bringing in plain packaging for cigarettes to discourage smoking, it could be argued that if we applied the same logic being used in the asylum seeker debate to smokers, we would be locking them up to help deter others from smoking. 

There is more that can be said about all this. We are taught, it is not for you to complete the work, but you are not free to desist from it. 

Closing with hope that fewer people have the need to flee their home countries, and that wise, compassionate and equitable response are found to respond to those who choose to flee or migrate for whatever reason. Until then, let us never lose sight of humanity, both our own and those of all our fellow humans. 

---

[i] Deuteronomy 13:9

[ii] Deuteronomy 19:13

[iii] Deuteronomy 15:7

[iv] Exodus 23:3, “and the poor, you should not be glorify in his (legal) fight”.

[v] Deuteronomy 15:9

[vi] R. Shmelkeh of Nikolsburg, a variation of this also appears in Yalkut Hagershuni that reinterprets the phase in genesis 18:20 about the city of Sodom, “their sin is very grievance” which literally is understood as the words of God about the inhabitants of Sodom, but could also be interpreted as the words of the Sodomites about poor visitors to their city which justified their inhospitable practices. Both cited in Nachshoni, Y., (1989) Studies in the Weekly Parshah, Mesorah Publications, Brooklyn New York,  p.1280

[vii] Deuteronomy 15:4

[viii] Chizkuni based on the Bchor Shor

[ix] Deuteronomy 15:2, this idealistic conception of the cancelation of debts is hard to reconcile with the restriction of this amnesty only to Jews. One more practical explanation of the law by Chizkuni ties it to the ability to pay in normal years by selling crops. Jewish farmers were forbidden to sell crops in the Sabbatical year and therefore did not have the ability to pay. Non-Jewish farmers were not obligated to leave their land fallow which meant that they could pay their debts. According to this explanation Jewish craftsmen should have to pay, while non-Jewish unemployed people, especially farm hands who might find work on Jewish farms that would now be directly impacted by the Sabbatical year should be freed from their debts. This is not the case. Perhaps the counter argument would be that the law is formulated according to the majority. What I like about this argument is that it implies a rejection of discrimination by seeking a technical justification. Of course it would suit me better if the law treated both Jews and non-Jews equally.

[x] Deuteronomy 15:5

[xi] Sifrei, the technical fix interprets the words “do not press your brother for payment” as applying only to a direct transaction between the lender and “his brother”, it does not explicitly restrict the court from collecting debts, so by transferring the loan to the court collection becomes permissible.

[xii] This point is discussed by the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Likutei Sichot, based on the Hebrew word for giving to the poor being Tzedakah which is related to the word Tzedek/justice.

[xiii] During the 7^th year all loans were cancelled in Biblical times. This led lenders to be reluctant to lend as the year approached.

[xiv] Deuteronomy 15:9

[xv] Michca Belulah

[xvi] Ohr Hachayim on 15:7

The SCREAM! Sodom, Australia & Gib'ah – degrees of similarity re: treatment of “Strangers”. Vayera

A wind of national assertiveness is blowing, Angela Merkel declares that Multiculturalism has failed in Germany, Marco  Rubio, a rising star in the US “Tea Party” asserts “American Exceptionalism” and in Australia there is resistance to ending the imprisonment of 738 children who are imprisoned for arriving here as part of “Irregular people movement”.

Australia has positives too regarding diversity. I declare an interest, the diversity education organization that I lead as National Director has recently received a grant of over one Million dollars from the Commonwealth Government to foster respect for diversity. But, regardless of my interests, the evidence is in for both sides of the argument, with a WA farmer named Mr. Cox speaking plainly and beautifully about his having no problem with refugees moving in next to his farm[1] and wandering on to his property, at the same time as the arguments for throwing our visitors in the slammer continue.    

How do 3 societies compare, ours, Sodom's and the macabre story of an ancient Israelite town called Givea.  The most striking parallel has been averted, at least for now,  with the fortunate failure to implement the proposed policy of the alternative government of Australia of Automatic jail terms for Australians harbouring Illegal immigrants [2].  In all three cases, there are failures of hospitality, what are parallels and the significant differences.

Case 1- Sodom.

Exhibit A. The SCREAM!

The people of Sodom were cruel to visitors as a deterrence policy to protect their wealth from the rabble of other nations. Instead of detention centres, they had other ways to scream em away.   Locals approached by a poor traveller for money would write their name on their coin before giving it to the visitor, a strict policy declared that no one was to sell or give food to the visitor. Eventually, the visitor would starve to death, the Sodomites would then collect their money. One girl felt compassion for a particular visitor and broke the law, she smuggled food to him in a water jug on the way to the well. When she was caught, she was covered in honey and tied up on a roof, bees stung her and she screamed in agony[3].

Her scream is offered as one meaning of God's statement. “I will go down and see if, like her scream, they have done”[4].

Exhibit B. The Mob and the bystanders.

One newcomer to Sodom, a very wealthy migrant named Lot dared to defy the inhospitable custom and invited 3 guest to his home. It was soon surrounded by a mob who demanded that the men be handed over to be “so that we will know them” in a biblical sense of the word “know”. Lot offers his two daughters to the mob but they reject the offer. While not all of Sodom could possibly fit around the house of Lot, the fact that no one protested against this behaviour is considered as if  they all personally surrounded the house[5]. 

Case 2 Gib'ah

Inhospitable city, a migrant, an accomplice, a mob and bystanders again.

A Levite, a beautiful woman who is sort of the wife of the Levite man (his Pilegesh- Concubine[6]”) and a servant arrive  in the ancient Israelite town of Gib'ah in the tribal land of Benjamin. He is not invited by any of the locals, and seems set to spend the night in the street. Again, a migrant  an old man from Mt. Efrayim (a different tribe to the local Banjaminites) returning from work invites the travellers into his home. They are enjoying themselves, when a mob surrounded the house, knocking on the door, seeking “knowledge” of the man visiting.

Gang Rape, the macabre reaction and catastrophic aftermath 

The old man offered his daughter and the visiting lady, instead of the male guest. The mob is not keen, but the Levite grabs his “concubine” and takes her out the door to the mob. They gang raped her and did other “humiliating” things to her all night and sent her off at day break. She dies soon after. The story ends with the Master/husband cutting the dead woman's body up into 12 parts, sends it to the 12 tribes of Israel, makes a stirring speech telling a selective account of the outrage of Gib'ah, the criminals and the silent majority of Benajminites and sparks a civil war where tens of   thousands die.

Comparing Sodom and Gib'ah.

One factor that is worse about Sodom in comparison to Gib'ah is that in Sodom it was a premeditated policy to “remove the feet (of travellers) from amongst them”, however in Gib'ah it was simply lust[7]. Another difference was that in Sodom the Government established anti-traveller policies as law, in Gib'ah it was lawless men[8].

Case 3 - Australia

I will not canvass all the arguments, the statistics and facts and I acknowledge that these are important and worthy of serious consideration.  My purpose here is to raise questions about how these traditions can inform our moral thinking on a terrible situation. In spite of our welcoming many refugees here, in the case of boat people it seems that the two redeeming factors of Gib'ah are not at play. On the other hand, some of the gruesome torture described in relation to Sodom and the savagery  of Gib'ah are not part of the Australian situation and there is all the other complicated stuff to think about.  

Close

It is indeed a sad day when Government whose primary function is to protect the innocent as well as its citizens, fails in that responsibility. To what extent are all Australians complicit in this?

---

[1]    730 Report 19-10-2010

[2]   http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/labor-and-libs-key-election-policies/story-e6frg12c-12259083510

[3]    Talmud, Sanhedrin.

[4]    Genesis 18:21.

[5]    Sifsei Chachamim 3 on Genesis 19:4.

[6]    The text refers to the Levite as both her husband and Master. It was an irregular form of marriage.

[7]    Ramban, on Genesis 19:8

[8]    Implied by Ramban, more explicit in another source, that is not handy at the moment.