COVID Tensions Prejudice and Tisha B'Av

"Where is the Aussie spirit?" Aren't we all Aussies?! the man with the long orange beard asked a group of police officers. I was very moved when I watched this highly charged exchange that began over allegations about masks. It got me thinking about maintaining solidarity in general, and especially during COVID. 

I write from two perspectives: as the National Director of Together For Humanity, my work is focused on fostering interfaith and intercultural understanding. I also write as a Jewish person sharing my experiences with you, dear reader, as another way of fostering understanding.

The bearded man at the beginning of this article is Rami Ykmour, an Australian of Lebanese heritage and co-founder of popular restaurant chain Rashays. On the afternoon of 8 July 2021, police entered his Chester Hill office over allegations that some of his staff were breaching face mask orders.  

After some disagreement about how to proceed, the situation escalated. Rami made his appeal to the police, whose patience with him was quickly wearing thin. In the days since the incident, Rami has expressed regret for how things unfolded and support for the police for doing their jobs. He rightly observed that many people are very stressed and stretched at this time.

The exchange happened at a crucial moment during the intensifying current Sydney lockdown. There have been anguished assertions of unequal and harsh treatment of Western Sydney residents from non-English speaking backgrounds, compared with residents in other parts of Sydney. One Western Sydney man from an Arab background told me he was reluctant to leave his home to go to the shops for food he needed because he just was not up for “dealing with all this.” No doubt there are reasons for specific police decisions relating to facts about the virus – rather than ethnicity – that I do not fully understand, so I don’t feel equipped to comment on the actions of the police.

However, what is happening in Sydney now brings to mind long-standing experiences of prejudice experienced by many people from migrant backgrounds, and this worries me greatly.

Rami’s question about us all being Aussies reminds me of the plea of the Jewish character Shylock in the Merchant of Venice: “Doesn’t a Jew… warm up in summer and cool off in winter just like a Christian? If you prick us, don’t we bleed?”

We discussed this among the Together For Humanity team. One of our teachers, Kate Xavier, herself a South-Western Sydney resident of Croatian Catholic heritage shared the following sentiment: “the danger for us living out West is real. Not only a sense that we don’t belong or are inferior, but a sense of feeling that any minute we fall into that trap of believing the media narrative and forgetting the humanity of our neighbours and ourselves.”

As a Jewish person, I feel called to counter any form of prejudice. It is for this reason that I feel so strongly about everyone feeling that they belong. The most repeated commandment in the Hebrew Bible concerns the treatment of the “stranger”– the minority member – the less powerful, less established “stranger.” Jews are called to remember that the Jewish people were once “strangers” in Egypt.

I write these lines on the saddest day of the Jewish calendar, Tisha B’Av. This year, I joined other members of my community to recite Lamentations in the traditional mournful tune via Zoom under lockdown. On this day we mourn destruction, division and loss of dignity. One legend of this day involves a man, Bar Kamtza, who - like Rami - pleaded for dignity. Solidarity means that every Australian, regardless of background, never needs to question if they are as Aussie as anyone else. 

Acknowledging our shadow selves and prejudices - Lech Lcha

In striving to improve ourselves and transcend our prejudices, we invariably fall short. It is imperative to be aware of our own limitations. One can aim too high, with destructive results. My colleague Donna Jacobs Sife taught me to acknowledge any prejudicial thoughts that may arise in my mind and to deal with these rather than remain unaware of them. Let us explore the case of Sarah, the partner (1) and wife of Abraham, in how she related to Hagar, who happened to be an Egyptian woman, after her own terrible experience with Egyptians. 

 

Sarah was a prophet (2). Alongside her husband, she converted non-believers to ethical monotheism (3). Yet, she afflicted her maidservant, Hagar (4), physically - throwing shoes at her face (5) - emotionally and verbally (6), to such an extent that Hagar fled their home. Her harsh behaviour is criticized as sinful (7) and as a failure of ethics (8). Here is some more of her story.   

 

Sarah and her husband were promised children and blessings by God (9). However, instead of blessing, they faced a famine (10). To escape the famine they travelled to Egypt. On arrival there, Abaraham asked Sarah to lie about their relationship, instead she should say that she was his sister rather than his wife because he was afraid that he would be killed by the Egyptians, who would be attracted to his beautiful wife. Indeed, Abraham was left alone while Sarah was taken to the Pharaoh to become his wife. She narrowly escaped this fate (11).  

 

After this ordeal, Sarah remained childless. Yet, unlike other biblical women who appeared very distraught about this (12), Sarah seemed quite matter of fact about it. She requested that Abaham have a child with her maidservant Hagar and gave her to him to become his second wife (13). Sarah appeared to reflect a “deep sense of security and personal connection to her husband, [to such an extent that] she was willing for Abraham to have children by another woman because she felt certain that the ties between them (14)” were far deeper and spiritual.     

 

It did not quite work out so well. Hagar lost respect for Sarah when Hagar fell pregnant while Sarah remained barren (15). The tensions (16) for Sarah at this point reached boiling point. Sarah cried out bitterly to her husband. “I left the house of my birth and my father, and came with you ...I have gone in with you before ...Pharaoh King of Egypt... and I said of you, he is my brother, so that they might not kill you. ...I took Hagar the Egyptian, my handmaid, and gave her to you as a wife, ...But now my honour is cheapened and despised in her eyes. May the Lord judge between me and you, ...that we may not need the son of Hagar the Egyptian handmaid” (17).

 

Perhaps Sarah was too ambitious in taxing her “moral and spiritual powers” when she set aside her inevitable feelings of displacement as Abraham’s wife (18) and chose not to acknowledge her past trauma with other Egyptians and resultant generalised animosity she felt toward them. Sarah might have thought that she doesn’t need to bother with ‘petty little feelings’. Yet regardless of one’s greatness, “every living heart, feels” (19). On another occasion Sarah experienced a lack of faith, yet she denied this was the case because she was afraid (20). She believed that it was improper to acknowledge or “own” her doubts (21). 

 

I am writing in the shadow of the US presidential election and terrorist attacks in Europe. There is an ocean of pain, injustice and anger that needs to be acknowledged and dealt with. As always, part of the job to look inward inside ourselves. As we strive to be our best selves, let us never lose sight of our own feelings, and be alert to our unconscious biases, so that we may care for ourselves and do right by others. 

 

Notes

Image by Jo Power https://www.flickr.com/people/23623021@N02 used under Creative Commons License

1.      Steinsaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Men and Women of the book. Basic Books. 

2.      Talmud, Megillah 14a

3.      Bereshit Rabba, 39:24

4.      Genesis 16:6 

5.      Bereshit Rabba, 45

6.      Radak

7.      Ramban

8.      Radak

9.      Genesis 12:2, and 12:7

10.   Genesis 12:10

11.   Genesis 12:11-19

12.   Rachel in Genesis 30:1 says give me children and if not I will die, see also Hannah in Samuel I, 1. Contrast is highlighted by Steinsaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Men and Women of the book. Basic Books, p. 25

13.   Genesis 16:1-3

14.   Steinsaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Men and Women of the book. Basic Books, p. 25

15.   Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant & Conversation, Genesis, p. 91

16.   Genesis 16:3-4

17.   Genesis 16:6 as translated in Targum Yonatan & Targum Yerushalmi

18.   Lebovitz, N. (Undated) New Studies Bereshit, p. 156,

19.   Ohr Hachayim, to Leviticus 9:1 

20.   Genesis 18:12-15

21.   Ohr Hachayim, to Genesis 18:15

 

Essentializing (Yitro)

I’ve recently had a few experiences related to the practice of essentializing, which have touched me. Essentializing a racial or religious group, in the context of this discussion, involves two main aspects: firstly, seeing a group as being defined by certain characteristics and, second, thinking of cultures or religious communities in either/or terms (1). 

Last Monday I felt enraged by the petulant, defiant expression on the face of the young man who gave a gun to a fifteen year old boy to murder the Sydney police accountant, Curtis Cheng. The accused man refused to stand before the judge hearing his case. The young man in the photo is holding up one finger. I understood this to symbolize his view that he is on the team of the one God while the rest of humankind is the evil undeserving “them”. I was furious.

One of the spiritual masters of my faith taught people to look within when feeling outraged. He argued that anger about others’ faults is actually a reaction to seeing something ugly reflected in the other, that we are trying to deny in ourselves (2). This explanation is not accurate in this case as I have very little in common with this young man.  However, I still reflected on my reaction to this incident. I think that it stirred me up because it forced me to confront residual essentialising tendencies I was not aware of.

Of course, I understand that the evil behaviour of an individual does not represent the nature of 1.6 billion Muslim people. I also know that even the complimentary phrase that “Muslims or Jews are good people” is a generalisation. Research found that even complimentary comments (based on being part of a group) can be experienced as being expected to conform to a stereotype rather than being seen as an individual (Czopp 2008) (3). Despite this knowledge, this image rankled me. I realise that, although I reject the essentialist stance, it still has some residual place in my thoughts. This made me feel ashamed, which then probably triggered my anger. 

The themes of essentialism and shame also came up for me in a movie parable, Zootopia, that I watched this week. The hero is a liberal, little rabbit named Judy Hopps, who becomes a police officer. The setting is a world in which a lion works in the same office as a lamb. Yet, all is not well in la-la land. The minority of animals that used to be predators, face discrimination and suspicion from the “prey” majority. When a few predatorial animals revert to being aggressive animals, Judy explains it based on biology. Judy's friend, the fox, is hurt and feels betrayed by Judy, who, herself, feels ashamed.

As a viewer, the premise of the Zootopia message can be inferred to be ‘that, like animals, humans of certain groups, eg Arabs or blacks, might have a different and savage DNA, but we can all be whatever we want to be, so let's get along’. I feel offended in solidarity with my fellow humans who are not like wild animals and should not be essentialized by implication (4). On the other hand, I think it invites the viewer to examine whether we too have a bit of Juddy Hopps’ fear lingering in our psyche.

The third confronting moment was reading commentaries on the Torah reading of the week. First, let me give the context. A convert to Judaism (5), named Jethro, was told about the punishments that God inflicted on the wicked Egyptian slave-masters of the Israelites, and the salvation of the Israelites (6). While Jethro gave thanks for the relief enjoyed by the Israelites, he didn’t show much enthusiasm about the punishments (7). The Talmud suggests that Jethro was pained by the suffering of the Egyptians because he felt empathy with them, despite his strong identification with the Israelites and their triumph. It advises people not to denigrate an Aramean (or non-Jewish people in general) in front of a convert up to 10 generations (8).

Jethro’s complex set of sympathies and the advice of the Talmud about sensitivity are interpreted darkly as evidence of his ‘non-Jewish nature’. It is linked to the assassination of Gedlia Ben Achikam, a Jewish governor of the holy land, in ancient times, by a descendant of a convert, and a caution against trusting the descendants of converts even after 10 or 24 generations! (9).

The essentialising of people of non-Jewish ancestry by attributing violent tendencies to their genealogy, is deeply troubling. Fortunately, there is an alternative more positive interpretation of the Talmud’s statement about 10 generations. Instead of a message of mistrust, it is taken as a lesson in compassion. With this approach, the 10 generations is not about the ancestry of the convert, who might be the audience of a derogatory remark, but about the target of the remark (the Arameans). It provides guidance about a situation like that of the Egyptians, where a nation has engaged in evil acts such as enslaving people, but it has not lasted 10 generations. In that case, we must not rejoice in their punishments as “their measure of evil is not full”. God, Himself, is also saddened by the punishment of people not entrenched in multi-generational evil. We should be, too (10).

The tendency to essentialise people as this or that, is a strong and harmful one. We need to be alert to it and seek alternative ways of thinking about people when these kinds of thoughts arise. No matter what our background is, we all have positive and negative qualities, and we should each be judged on our individual merit.      

1)     Armstrong, J, (2003)  Power and prejudice: Some definitions for discussion and analysis Jan Armstrong, University of New Mexico (3/24/03) https://www.unm.edu/~jka/courses/archive/power.html  “Essentializing means attributing natural, essential characteristics to members of specific culturally defined (gender, age, ethnic, "racial", socioeconomic, linguistic...) groups. When we essentialize others, we assume that individual differences can be explained by inherent, biological, "natural" characteristics shared by members of a group. Essentializing results in thinking, speaking and acting in ways that promote stereotypical and inaccurate interpretations of individual differences. For example, feminists note that people essentialize women when they assume that girls and women are naturally emotional (versus rational), nurturant, docile, weak, vain, dependent (and so on). Essentialist thinking is often anchored in dualistic (two-category, either this - or that) modes of thought. Classic and contemporary social theorists identify and challenge essentialist and dualistic ways of thinking about the social world (...civilized/barbaric; masculine/feminine; intelligent/not intelligent; rich/poor; white/non-white...psychological/cultural...)”.

2)     Toldos Yaakov Yosef, in an interpretation of the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov.

3)       Czopp A.M. (2008) When is a compliment not a compliment? Evaluating expressions of positive stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 (2008) 413-420.

4)     Matt Zoller Seitz, gives a fuller expression of my concern at  https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/zootopia-2016

5)     Talmud, Sanhedrin 94a

6)     Exodus 18:8-9

7)     Alshich, and Torah Temima on Exodus

8)     Sanhedrin 94a

9)     Jeremiah 41:1-2

10)  Radak on Jeremiah 41:1, Rabbenu Tam, cited in Torah Shlaima on Exodus

11)  Maskil Ldovid, R. David Pardo, on Exodus 18:8-9  in Otzar Meforshei Rashi

Process, Personality and Positions combine against Violent Extremism and Prejudice - Tzetzaveh

On the 14th floor of an office building this week, I confronted the fact that I will fail to achieve my purpose if my approach is more of the same. My work has been significantly personality driven. Muslim, Jewish and Christian people, often with charisma and great personal qualities have talked to 100,000 students and some others about how we can respect our differences and be friends. Despite the merit and value of this work to date, to changes things to a further extent requires a holistic approach and the collective impact of many factors.

I rode into the city on a crowded bus on Tuesday morning to attend a two day planning process about resilience and violent extremism. One could be cynical about the whole thing. During the second day it was clear that there wasn’t even a agreement about how to talk about the issue or issues; how on earth could we achieve anything?

For many people the words violent extremism equals Muslims, or even Muslim young men. Even some of the people who think that they should not speak this out loud, still think it is true, but are constrained by “political correctness”. Never mind violent white supremacists. Other people are furious about what they see as a soft approach to what they perceive as a massive threat. These people are become increasingly hostile to everything Muslim.

Those of us who work in “the field” know the vast number of young Muslims who have shown no sign of violent extremism. The real risk posed by violent extremism is not denied and is taken seriously because even a small amount of terrorism is too much. Still, we have concerns about the way that innocent people are being demonized, and we are concerned about feelings of alienation and other problems youth struggle with. There are valid questions about what is an ethical, truthful and practical way to articulate these issues.

However one defines the challenges we face relating to prejudice and violent extremism, there are plenty of quality people doing their bit. Yet, lacking a shared understanding or time  to even understand what others are doing, our efforts are often fragmented rather than coordinated or building on each other's work.

In the two days a group representing community, government, academic and business sectors followed a very effective process for thinking through the issues. We identified processes we will need for collaborating and communicating more effectively and being accountable for the degree to which we are contributing to a collective impact. We also considered the personal qualities of people being involved as well as the ways that roles and positions of leadership can be harnessed. I cannot divulge more because of confidentiality requirements but I am confident that something more holistic will emerge and contribute to better outcomes.  

The journey this week resonated for me in light of the Torah reading this week. It is the only reading relating to the time that Moses was alive in which his name is not mentioned. It would appear to be setting up the people for a time after the passing of the charismatic leader (1).

Three different methods appear to be provided for setting up a group of people, called Cohanim or priests, to function in a holy temple to create an institution to foster Moses’ message. The first is providing them with distinctive clothing (2), offering sacrifices and associated induction processes (3) and God himself making them into Cohanim (4).  

The text implies that the special clothing can transform ordinary men into priests or Cohanim (5).  However, many of the traditional explanations find ways around this interpretation. They suggest the clothing would just bring them into the role, rather than being transformative (6). Alternatively, they focus on how the clothing might symbolise the inner personal and spiritual transformation the ordinary men would be expected to work on as they took on the roles (7). Of course “clothings” and positions or formal roles is not enough. Personal qualities and integrity are vital in the people filling roles if they are to have some impact. Similarly, the induction procedures in the Torah for the Cohanim were extensive and highly symbolic (8). To me this reflects the importance of rituals and process in the quest for transformation.

There is no quick fix to any problem. Yet, I am confident that our efforts, following on from the two days this week, will yield even greater fruit as we start to see a new approach to facilitating and brokering collaboration. What will be different is a better mix of the three P’s, personal leadership by people with relevant positive qualities; some of these people will be strategically placed in positions of leadership and following wise, evidence based processes that will be tried, and invariably fail only to be replaced by others. In this, we will see a more cohesive nation with somewhat fewer angry people of any background.

1. http://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5768-tetzaveh-do-clothes-make-the-man/
2. Exodus 28:3, & 29:29
3. Exodus 29:1
4. Exodus 29:44
5. The Hebrew word is  לכהנו which literally means to make him into a Cohen. See Rabbi Avraham Mizrahi (1450 – 1526) who concedes that this is the clear implication of the text before opting for a non-literal meaning, also translation by Kaplan in Living Torah. Our sages (Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima Exdodus, Tetzave, p.157, note 24) state that “for all the time that their garments are upon them, their priesthood is upon them and their holiness endures in them, (but if) their garments are not on them, their priesthood is not upon them (either). R. Yona Ibn Janach (995 – 1050- Andalusia, Spain- In Torah Shlaima p154, note 11) entertains two meanings to the word, either to minister or to made to minister eg. to put the work upon him...like to sanctify.
6. Rashi as interpreted by Sifsei Chachomim, Chizkuni and other suggest we read the word as if it was written without a Vav and means to serve rather than to make into a Cohen.
7. Malbim  (1809-1879, cited in Lebovitz, p 532), Sefer Hachinuch, the Lubavitcher Rebbe
8. Midrash Habiur, cited in Torash Shlaima vol 20, p. 215, 68 explain the ritual of putting blood from a sacrifice on the their ears, thumbs and big toes. The ear that heard, on Mt. Sinai, I am...and you should have no other gods, after 40 days (the same ear) heard/was responsive to the voice of the people who demanded “arise and make for us a god” needs atonement. The legs that up to Mt. Sinai and then ran to make the golden calf need atonement. More specifically, the soft part of the ear is the part to use to block out ‘bad sounds’, the thumb & big toes played key roles…(note 68)

Religious Texts divide us? & sky-high and deep conversations with Sheiks - Chayeh Sarah

Sitting on a plane to Perth with an Aboriginal elder on my right, and a Muslim Sheikh on my left, it was only natural that my thoughts turned to coexistence. One of the oft repeated comments about Muslim-Jewish relations (and the relationship between Muslims and others in general), is that although Muslims and Jews got along well in the past, this was only the case when the Muslims had higher status and the Jews were subservient, or “Dimhi”. This argument dismisses the golden age of Spain as being irrelevant to coexistence in the West today.

Good intercultural understanding practice requires finding out what Muslims think about these assertions. Ideally, by talking to an actual Muslim person directly, rather than by performing a Google search. My own community, in St Ives, was recently maligned based on some of my neighbours’ findings on the internet in the recent Eruv controversy (1).

Fortunately, I was sitting next to a learned Sheikh on this flight to Perth. He explained to me that the word “Dimhi” means “under protection”. He told me that: “one statement of the prophet Muhammad (in the Hadith) declared that a person who harms a Dimhi will not smell the fragrance of paradise” and that protection of religion/s was a core purpose of Sharia. The Sheikh acknowledged that he is not surprised by the alternative interpretation of “Dimhi” by people like ISIS, but such groups don't just have a problem in their attitude to non-Muslims but with anyone, including Muslims, who thinks differently to them. They regard everyone unlike them as not being ‘rightly guided’.  

Another useful approach is to explore this notion of acceptance as being conditional on subservience in my own Faith. Abraham's son Ishmael is said to have become a good man later in life. We know this because in the report about Abraham's burial, Ishmael is mentioned after Isaac (2). This sequence is taken as proof that Ishmael, father of the Arabs, honoured Isaac by allowing him to go first (3). Hmm. Something about people in glass houses comes to mind.

My first inclination was to look for alternative interpretations. I found one that highlights the fact that the Torah mentioned the obvious fact that Isaac and Ishmael were Abraham's sons, in this context, in order to hint that they were both equal in their honoring him [Abraham] (4). I was happy to find this interpretation that emphasises equality rather than superiority.

This second interpretation does not cancel out the first. I slept on this matter and my discussion with the Sheikh. It occurred to me, lying in bed after midnight, that perhaps it didn't make sense to impose secular literary political analysis on a religious text. The text is working from the assumption that it is a matter of absolute fact that Isaac was profoundly righteous. Ishmael honoring him is evidence of him humbly disregarding his status as an older brother, which serves as a lesson in humility for us. In fact it is written that Ishmael’s humble gesture earned Ishmael the merit to enjoy a place in heaven (5).

It was something the Sheikh said on the plane the previous day that inspired me to step back and question my critical approach. We were discussing portrayals of the Jews in Islamic stories. I asked if he could tell me the ratio between positive and negative portrayals. He told me that this kind of analysis had not been done. Instead he shared one story with me about a very pious Jew who met an outcast Jew. The outcast noticed that the pious man was enjoying the shade cast by a cloud hovering just above him. The outcast sat down near the pious man but was arrogantly sent away. God then forgave the outcast and canceled the pious Jew’s merit so both were at square one (6). On reflection this Muslim story is primarily a lesson for Muslims about humility rather than a commentary on Jews. It was more useful to understand what the story means to those who are guided by it than to impose an external lens to view it through.

On my return to Sydney, I had a chat with another Sheikh to plan an activity to foster interfaith understanding. Our conversations followed media articles sparked by references to another Muslim story also involving Jews, which were made during a lecture presented by this Sheikh. In this story, a murdered wealthy man was temporarily miraculously brought back to life by Moses  to identify his killer: a greedy nephew. Jewish villagers who were relieved of suspicion by this miracle still failed to believe in Moses despite his performance of this amazing miracle. The punishment meted out to the Jewish villagers 3000 years ago for their lack of belief was that God hardened their hearts (7). None of the context of the 3000 year old story was clear to those who viewed a YouTube video of the lecture. To them the Sheik appeared to be saying that “the Jewish [people- presumably in any time and place] have hard hearts] with no mercy, only envy and hatred”. There is no way to know for sure if even some of the members of the original audience also failed to understand the strictly contextual nature of the remarks. Sacred text is read by imperfect humans with various opinions and possibly, prejudices.

In conclusion. Curiosity and dialogue is crucial. There is value in resisting the temptation to rush to judgement. On the contrary, we are taught to be patient in judgement (8). Some traditional teachings might not appear compatible with modern principles of equality and embracing diversity. Let us continue to grapple with these.

1. See my blog post….
2. Genesis 25:9
3. Talmud Bava Basra 16a
4. Yalkut Ner Haschalim, manuscript, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol 2, p.998, note 34
5. Midrash Hagadol, cited in Torah Shlaima, vol 2, p.998, note 34
6. Imam Ghazali, in revival of the religious sciences
7. This kind of punishment is also found in the Torah, in Exodus, in the case of Pharaoh whose heart was hardened after he chose the path of defiance instead of letting the Hebrews go free.
8. Ethics of the Fathers

Ethnic cleansing is not legitimized by the Torah

“Spikes in your eyes and thorns in your side” (1) is what the Torah predicts the remaining original inhabitants of the land of Canaan will be to the Israelites if the Israelites do not drive them out as God instructed them to do when they conquer the land. One man recently interpreted this verse in the presence of a few Jewish people, as being instructive for our times. When we heard him say that, quite a few eyes turned to me for a response and I knew that I must examine this verse and find its meanings. I promised to share my thoughts at my Saturday afternoon ‘Shiur’- Torah learning discussion.

"Say No to Xenophobia", Creative Commons Licenses.
 Harold Cressy High School, Cape Town, South Africa

Let me be clear that this post is not about what people should or should not do practically. ‘This  (guidance about dealing with the Canaanite population) is an exceptional Divine decree in a particular time and context that no human ruler has the right to apply in any other situation’ (2). Although these actual words were not written by any major classical authority, it reflects a common contemporary attitude of religious Jews. As I explained in my Shiur, no Halachic authority of any standing has advocated for ethnic cleansing or mass expulsions of any population anywhere in over 1000 years and even longer. This post is actually about three things,

1) the attitudes Jews might see as reasonable when confronted with Trump type policies.

2) how people both Jewish or otherwise interpret and understand what I would regard as confronting Jewish texts; and

3) a contribution to general understandings about the various ways people interpret what seem to be simple and shocking sacred texts.   

One authoritative classical, 13th century, commentary sees significance in the specific reference to the eyes. “The intention of spikes in your eyes is the same as in the verse “bribery will blind the eyes of the wise”…that (the idol worshipping locals) will cause you to err and you will not see or understand, and they will teach you all of their loathsome  practices and to serve their gods… and as a result of their “being spikes in your eyes” and turning you away from Me [God and ethical monotheism, the Isrealites will be punished by God in that the people would] become thorns in your sides” (3).  While this teaching continues to worry me at a theoretical level, because of its contradiction of pluralism and tolerance, it makes it clear that the context of this verse does not in any way justify building a wall to keep Mexicans out of the US or other exclusionary practices.   

I passionately argued against adventurously and literally applying such teachings from another context to situations today.  I don’t know what happens in every Church and Mosque in Australia. This past Sunday, at an Interfaith event, one Christian speaker suggested some texts are just ignored. At a Mosque I recently heard a speaker deliver a lecture that examined teachings of certain Islamic scholars that many in that Muslim community wished to ignore because of the irrelevance of those teachings to their own lives.One thing I think is a safe bet. Making assumptions about sacred texts without understanding the variety of ways that a particular text is read by those who follow it is often misleading.  

1) Numbers 33:55

2) Comment in Artscroll Chumash commentary

3) Ramban, Nachmanides on Numbers 33:55