Today is the last day of Hanukkah. The menorah was filled up last night and now it’s burned down and done. Just in time to mention the candles.
Once buying Hanukkah candles was simple: a box of white or a box of assorted colors. Now everything is different. Now there are choices. Lots of choices.
Here are some of the choices. For next year.
Dripless Multicolored Striped Tapered Metallic Silver Blue Frost Colorful Beeswax Handmade Sunburst Hand Decorated 3-Tone Pastel Diamond Etched Crayon Spiral Honeycomb Beeswax Blue Hued Natural Organic Vegetable Wax Multi Splash Sweet Scented Tall Wave Etched Twisted Thin Blaze of Fire Purple Paraffin Wax Tri Color Handcrafted
Young people generally supporting Democrats have a problem. The president is supporting a war that they vehemently oppose, and nothing they say is being heard. Republicans see an opportunity. They don’t need those young people and are happy for the opposition. If those young people stay home and those who support the war vote Republican, they will win.
In 1968.
The analogy is imperfect but still helpful. Young people oppose U.S. unconditional support for Israel’s Gaza strategy, not because they are antisemitic, but because then and now, they have a sense that something is very wrong and that an American president—not for the first time—is doing little or nothing about it.
Republicans are giddy. Let the Democrats try to have an earnest and open discussion about the values implicated in the war. It will devolve into political chaos. We Republicans won’t waver. When asked about the limits of Israel’s war, we can say there is no limit to Palestinian civilians killed (Senator Lindsey Graham) or asked about how many Palestinians should be killed, we can say “all of them” (Florida legislator Michelle Salzman).
The Democratic National Convention will be held in Chicago in August 2024. The Gaza war and its horrific aftermath will still be ongoing. Some, maybe many, young people will be moved to show up to protest. Instead of being labelled radicals and communists, they will be labelled antisemitic. Maybe they won’t show up at the convention, and instead just won’t vote in November, or will vote for a third-party presidential candidate.
Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. That rhyme is loud and clear.
When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. — Matthew 2:16
Coventry Carol is a favorite Christmas carol. A complicated one. It is beautiful and haunting, performed by great singers and choirs. But unlike other carols of joy and hope, it memorializes a tragic part of the nativity story.
The Book of Matthew narrates what is known as the Massacre of the Innocents. This is the only place this story appears in the Gospels.
Herod is a historical figure, but consensus is that this event never happened. Instead, it echoes a similar story about Pharaoh and the Hebrews.
The carol was originally performed in Coventry, England as part of a sixteenth century mystery play called The Pageant of the Shearmen and Tailors. The play is based on chapter two in the Gospel of Matthew. The song is the testimony of the mothers:
Lully, lullah, thou little tiny child, Bye bye, lully, lullay. Thou little tiny child, Bye bye, lully, lullay.
O sisters too, how may we do For to preserve this day This poor youngling for whom we sing, “Bye bye, lully, lullay”?
Herod the king, in his raging, Chargèd he hath this day His men of might in his own sight All young children to slay.
That woe is me, poor child, for thee And ever mourn and may For thy parting neither say nor sing, “Bye bye, lully, lullay.”
Why add this incident to a gospel? Why sing about it, listen to it, and love it for five hundred years? The theme of the gospels, of this season of the year, of this particular year, is darkness and ugliness to light and beauty.
Weeping may last for a night, but joy comes in the morning. Psalm 30:5
News of the world Finger near screen Bad things better or worse Good things worse or better Interesting things the same Open hand Closed hand Fingers resting Fingers arrayed Wait and imagine the best
We are experiencing the most public and powerful discussion of antisemitism in generations. Claims that particular speech and actions are antisemitic are having substantial consequences—including the loss of opportunities, business and jobs.
What exactly is antisemitism? Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives weighed in. And like everything else in the current environment, the result was divisive and controversial.
Fourteen House lawmakers voted against a GOP-led resolution Tuesday “denouncing the drastic rise of antisemitism” in the U.S. and around the world after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, with many of the detractors accusing the legislation of conflating criticisms of the Israeli government with antisemitism.
The resolution stated that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The chamber cleared the resolution in a 311-14-92 vote, with 13 Democrats and one Republican voting “no.”
Ninety-two Democrats voted “present” after three prominent Jewish Democrats urged members of the conference to do so. They called the legislation “the latest unserious attempt by Republicans to weaponize Jewish pain and the serious problem of antisemitism to score cheap political points.”
The resolution, which spans four pages, “strongly condemns” all forms of antisemitism; reaffirms the House’s strong support for the Jewish community in the U.S. and around the globe; calls on elected officials and world leaders to condemn and fight all forms of antisemitism; rejects all forms of terror, hate, discrimination and harassment against individuals in the Jewish community; and “clearly and firmly states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.”
Little reported is that Republicans sponsoring the resolution relied upon and included the definition provided by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). In the absence of a consensus working definition, in 2016 IHRA drafted a definition, including examples:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Members of Jewish communities, including leading rabbis and scholars, found this definition too broad, particularly in absolutely equating criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism is a tool to identify, confront and raise awareness about antisemitism as it manifests in countries around the world today. It includes a preamble, definition, and a set of 15 guidelines that provide detailed guidance for those seeking to recognize antisemitism in order to craft responses. It was developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle East studies to meet what has become a growing challenge: providing clear guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression. Initially signed by 210 scholars, it has now around 350 signatories.
Preamble
We, the undersigned, present the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, the product of an initiative that originated in Jerusalem. We include in our number international scholars working in Antisemitism Studies and related fields, including Jewish, Holocaust, Israel, Palestine, and Middle East Studies. The text of the Declaration has benefited from consultation with legal scholars and members of civil society.
Inspired by the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the 1969 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, and the 2005 United Nations Resolution on Holocaust Remembrance, we hold that while antisemitism has certain distinctive features, the fight against it is inseparable from the overall fight against all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discrimination.
Conscious of the historical persecution of Jews throughout history and of the universal lessons of the Holocaust, and viewing with alarm the reassertion of antisemitism by groups that mobilize hatred and violence in politics, society, and on the internet, we seek to provide a usable, concise, and historically-informed core definition of antisemitism with a set of guidelines.
The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism responds to “the IHRA Definition,” the document that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism. Noting that it calls itself “a working definition,” we have sought to improve on it by offering (a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines. We hope this will be helpful for monitoring and combating antisemitism, as well as for educational purposes. We propose our non-legally binding Declaration as an alternative to the IHRA Definition. Institutions that have already adopted the IHRA Definition can use our text as a tool for interpreting it.
The IHRA Definition includes 11 “examples” of antisemitism, 7 of which focus on the State of Israel. While this puts undue emphasis on one arena, there is a widely-felt need for clarity on the limits of legitimate political speech and action concerning Zionism, Israel, and Palestine. Our aim is twofold: (1) to strengthen the fight against antisemitism by clarifying what it is and how it is manifested, (2) to protect a space for an open debate about the vexed question of the future of Israel/Palestine. We do not all share the same political views and we are not seeking to promote a partisan political agenda. Determining that a controversial view or action is not antisemitic implies neither that we endorse it nor that we do not.
The guidelines that focus on Israel-Palestine (numbers 6 to 15) should be taken together. In general, when applying the guidelines each should be read in the light of the others and always with a view to context. Context can include the intention behind an utterance, or a pattern of speech over time, or even the identity of the speaker, especially when the subject is Israel or Zionism. So, for example, hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the State. In short, judgement and sensitivity are needed in applying these guidelines to concrete situations.
Definition
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).
Guidelines
A. General
It is racist to essentialize (treat a character trait as inherent) or to make sweeping negative generalizations about a given population. What is true of racism in general is true of antisemitism in particular.
What is particular in classic antisemitism is the idea that Jews are linked to the forces of evil. This stands at the core of many anti-Jewish fantasies, such as the idea of a Jewish conspiracy in which “the Jews” possess hidden power that they use to promote their own collective agenda at the expense of other people. This linkage between Jews and evil continues in the present: in the fantasy that “the Jews” control governments with a “hidden hand,” that they own the banks, control the media, act as “a state within a state,” and are responsible for spreading disease (such as Covid-19). All these features can be instrumentalized by different (and even antagonistic) political causes.
Antisemitism can be manifested in words, visual images, and deeds. Examples of antisemitic words include utterances that all Jews are wealthy, inherently stingy, or unpatriotic. In antisemitic caricatures, Jews are often depicted as grotesque, with big noses and associated with wealth. Examples of antisemitic deeds are: assaulting someone because she or he is Jewish, attacking a synagogue, daubing swastikas on Jewish graves, or refusing to hire or promote people because they are Jewish.
Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example, “The Rothschilds control the world” is a coded statement about the alleged power of “the Jews” over banks and international finance. Similarly, portraying Israel as the ultimate evil or grossly exaggerating its actual influence can be a coded way of racializing and stigmatizing Jews. In many cases, identifying coded speech is a matter of context and judgement, taking account of these guidelines.
Denying or minimizing the Holocaust by claiming that the deliberate Nazi genocide of the Jews did not take place, or that there were no extermination camps or gas chambers, or that the number of victims was a fraction of the actual total, is antisemitic.
B. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are antisemitic
Applying the symbols, images and negative stereotypes of classical antisemitism (see guidelines 2 and 3) to the State of Israel.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
Requiring people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for example, at a political meeting).
Assuming that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal to Israel than to their own countries.
Denying the right of Jews in the State of Israel to exist and flourish, collectively and individually, as Jews, in accordance with the principle of equality.
C. Israel and Palestine: examples that, on the face of it, are not antisemitic (whether or not one approves of the view or action)
Supporting the Palestinian demand for justice and the full grant of their political, national, civil and human rights, as encapsulated in international law.
Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state. This includes its institutions and founding principles. It also includes its policies and practices, domestic and abroad, such as the conduct of Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the role Israel plays in the region, or any other way in which, as a state, it influences events in the world. It is not antisemitic to point out systematic racial discrimination. In general, the same norms of debate that apply to other states and to other conflicts over national self-determination apply in the case of Israel and Palestine. Thus, even if contentious, it is not antisemitic, in and of itself, to compare Israel with other historical cases, including settler-colonialism or apartheid.
Boycott, divestment and sanctions are commonplace, non-violent forms of political protest against states. In the Israeli case they are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic.
Political speech does not have to be measured, proportional, tempered, or reasonable to be protected under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. Criticism that some may see as excessive or contentious, or as reflecting a “double standard,” is not, in and of itself, antisemitic. In general, the line between antisemitic and non-antisemitic speech is different from the line between unreasonable and reasonable speech.
I don’t celebrate Christmas, not theologically. But I have always enjoyed the season culturally, socially and emotionally. It is fun and uplifting. Setting aside whether or not a messiah was born, who wouldn’t like to believe we have an opportunity for a better life and a better world? A new possibility. Besides, this concept is a Jewish one, though today the Jewish views range from it hasn’t happened yet to we aren’t waiting for it and it doesn’t matter anyway.
Hanukkah coincides on the calendar but has nothing to do with Christmas. This hasn’t stopped it from in some ways becoming Jewish Christmas, whether as a gift-giving holiday or in balancing big Christmas trees with big menorahs. For more on this, see Hanukkah in America: A History (the Kindle edition is on sale for $3.99—a steal!). The topline of the Hanukkah story is also inspirational: a family of Jewish warriors reclaimed their territory from an occupying power and restored and sanctified the Temple. The oil lamp that should have burned for one day lasted for eight. A miracle.
The story of the oil lamp may be legend, but the history of the family is very real. They began the Hasmonean dynasty which ruled Judea for generations. The history of the dynasty is filled with infighting, intrigue and occasional despotism. (The story is not included in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, it is only found in some versions of Christian Bibles, as the Books of Maccabees.)
News of current war in that very region is with us every day—for some of us, every hour or minute. It is important to pay attention and learn. It is also heartbreaking, agonizing and exhausting.
Which brings me back to Christmas.
Most years I think Christmas music appears too early. Most years I don’t watch the Hallmark-style Christmas TV rom-coms until later in December (Hallmark-style because there are now about a dozen channels or streaming services showing these). Why is this year different from other years?
This year I have begun listening to Christmas music already. This year I have begun watching Christmas rom-coms already. I will be doing that for weeks, maybe into the New Year.
It doesn’t mean I won’t be watching the war too—every day, multiple times a day. Speaking only for myself, only as this one Jew, I need a break once in a while. If centuries of Christmas inspired different music, some fun, some silly, some sublime, I’m listening. If people want to find themselves in ridiculous situations at Christmas and end up falling in love, I’m watching.
If a baby was supposedly born who supposedly would enable a kinder and more peaceful world—a still distant but worthwhile dream—there is no reason not to hope.
Ben Zoma wise renegade Among the Talmudists Contemplated the space between Creation’s waters gathered above and below And went crazy. Contemplate the space between The demands of Israel and Gaza You will go crazy too except Long before Ben Zoma On the second day God called that space sky.
Ben Zoma sat at the Temple Mount, lost in thought. His rebbe Yehoshua ben Chananya came by, but Ben Zoma did not notice or rise in respect. R. Yehoshua roused him from his reverie and asked what he was doing. Gazing at the space between the upper and lower waters, he replied. R. Yehoshua explained to his disciples: Ben Zoma is still outside.
In Part 1 of this post, I transcribed a conversation with me, Coyote and AI about mountaintops disappearing. AI had a long explanation of this phenomenon.
Reviewing the conversation, I read that AI had said this:
“So in summary – distance, weather, sunlight and pollution can all contribute to an optical illusion where mountain peaks seem to blend into their surroundings and temporarily “disappear” under certain viewing conditions. Their disappearance is usually not literal.”
At first, I was shocked. AI seemed to be saying that sometimes, unusually, mountaintops actually do disappear. Then I realized that, of course, there are circumstances where this does happen. Volcanoes do blow off the tops of mountains. So do coal companies. I asked AI about this.
AI:
“Yes, coal companies do sometimes remove or “blast off” the tops of mountains as part of mountaintop removal mining operations. Here are a few key points about this practice: • Mountaintop removal mining involves removing vegetation on a mountain ridge and then explosively removing the top of the mountain to expose underlying coal seams. This is done with heavy machinery and explosives. • Blasting off mountaintops allows mining companies to access multiple coal seams that were previously buried deep within the mountain. It’s more economically efficient than underground mining. • However, it has significant environmental impacts like destroying habitats, increasing erosion and sedimentation in streams, and reducing biodiversity. Entire ecosystems on mountaintops are removed. • The blasted debris and rock is typically dumped into nearby valleys and waterways, further damaging the landscape and water quality. Reclamation of mined sites is difficult. • Mountaintop removal mining is controversial and has faced legal challenges from environmental groups concerned about its widespread damage. Some areas have imposed restrictions on it. • As of 2010, an estimated 500 mountains had been leveled in Appalachia by this practice to extract coal over several decades. The technique remains in use today at some surface mining sites. So in summary – yes, removing or “blasting off” the tops of mountains is a real mining technique some coal companies employ as part of mountaintop removal operations to access coal deposits. It has significant environmental consequences.”
In the case of my waking up to see the mountaintops gone, which turned out to be low-hanging clouds, those instances don’t apply. These mountains are not volcanic and there are no coal companies operating here. If a volcano had erupted or a coal company had blasted the tops off, it would have been obvious and have woken me up even earlier. Clouds are much better.
Bob: The mountaintops have disappeared this morning.
Coyote: No. The clouds are hanging low.
AI:
There are a few reasons why mountaintops may appear to disappear: • Distance and perspective – As you get farther away from a mountain, the tops will seem to shrink and fade into the sky/horizon. What was once a distinct peak may blend in from a distance. • Weather conditions – Low-hanging clouds, fog, haze or heavy precipitation can obscure mountain peaks from view by blocking line of sight. This is a temporary effect that depends on the weather. • Time of day – As the sun’s angle changes throughout the day, shadows are cast differently on mountainsides. Late in the day with a low sun, peaks may be silhouetted or washed out compared to midday when shadows are shorter. • Seasons – Winter snowcaps or foliage changes can alter how distinct mountain tops appear from season to season when viewed from afar. Bare trees in winter may make peaks more prominent. • Air pollution – On hazy or smoggy days, atmospheric particles can scatter light in a way that washes out color and detail over long view distances. This can make mountains seem less sharp or well-defined. So in summary – distance, weather, sunlight and pollution can all contribute to an optical illusion where mountain peaks seem to blend into their surroundings and temporarily “disappear” under certain viewing conditions. Their disappearance is usually not literal.
Bob: I trust you Coyote because of your reputation for wisdom and because of your singing voice. I trust AI as far as I can throw them (preferred pronoun). They make things up, you know. And “appear to disappear” seems a failed attempt at poetry.
Coyote: Why don’t you climb the mountains and check it out for yourself?
Bob: It’s too early, I haven’t had coffee, and I don’t climb mountains.
Coyote: Just wait.
Bob: Oh, there are the mountaintops after all!
AI: Low-hanging clouds, fog, haze or heavy precipitation can obscure mountain peaks from view by blocking line of sight. This is a temporary effect. I told you so.
Bob Schwartz 