Hind Rajab, age six, senior kindergarten graduation, killed by tank fire in Gaza
The rapper Macklemore just released the new track Hind’s Hall, about the war in Gaza and the protests.
Macklemore is a hugely popular artist. On Spotify, he has 32 million monthly listeners, making him 128th in the world. His tracks have been streamed 13 billion times.
Eleven years ago, his track Same Love celebrated the right of relationships between all people, at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet fully allowed or protected in America. It was a hit and has become an anthem.
His new track about the Gaza war is another powerful statement.
Hamilton Hall/Hind’s Hall, Columbia University
Artists in various media have taken on the war in Gaza. Slowly, tentatively, because many are concerned about being dropped or rejected. Musical artists have been the slowest. Macklemore, who has built a career independent of record labels, laments:
Yet the music industry’s quiet, complicit in their platform of silence What happened to the artist? What do you got to say? If I was on a label, you could drop me today I’d be fine with it ’cause the heart fed my page
Macklemore isn’t a hater, except of thoughtless war and repression. The millions who will stream this track (all streaming proceeds going to UNRWA) are not haters, except of thoughtless war and repression. It is notable that Spotify, in today’s New Music Friday playlist, doesn’t include Hind’s Hall.
Thank you Macklemore. Thank you all artists—writers, filmmakers, musicians—who have stood up and those who haven’t yet but will.
“You see these bums, you know, blowing up the campuses. Listen, the boys that are on the college campuses today are the luckiest people in the world, going to the greatest universities, and here they are burning up the books, storming around about this issue. You name it. Get rid of the war there will be another one.”
Three days later, on May 4, 1970, the National Guard shot and killed four and wounded nine at Kent State University in Ohio.
Nixon won election in 1968 on a platform of law and order. He had no use for student protests. But even those Americans who still supported the Vietnam War and agreed that student protestors were “bums” were troubled. So Nixon ordered a Commission on Campus Unrest. The Commission, under the leadership of former Pennsylvania governor William Scranton, investigated and issued a 537-page report. It included a special section on Kent State, containing a detailed day-by-day, minute-by-minute description, leading up to this moment:
Major Jones said he first heard an explosion which he thought was a firecracker. As he turned to his left, he heard another explosion which he knew to be an M-1 rifle shot. As he turned to his right, toward Taylor Hall, he said he saw guardsmen kneeling (photographs show some crouching) and bringing their rifles to their shoulders. He heard another M-1 shot, and then a volley of them. He yelled, “Cease fire!” several times, and rushed down the line shoving rifle barrels up and away from the crowd. He hit several guardsmen on their helmets with his swagger stick to stop them from firing.
General Canterbury stated that he first heard a single shot, which he thought was fired from some distance away on his left and which in his opinion did not come from a military weapon. Immediately afterward, he heard a volley of M-1 fire · from his right, the Taylor Hall end of the line. The Guard’s fie was directed away from the direction from which Canterbury thought the initial, nonmilitary shot came. His first reaction, like that of Fassinger and Jones, was to stop the firing.
Canterbury, Fassinger, and Jones–the three ranking officers on the hill–all said no order to fire was given. Twenty-eight guardsmen have acknowledged firing from Blanket Hill. Of these, 25 fired 55 shots from rifles, two fired five shots from .45 caliber pistols, and one fired a single blast from a shotgun. Sound tracks indicate that the firing of these 61 shots lasted approximately 13 seconds. The time of the shooting was approximately 12:25 p.m.
Four persons were killed and nine were wounded.
A map from the report:
Any lessons for today and beyond?
Whenever a university or a government decides to enforce its standard of order against gatherings and protests, that enforcement should be pursued carefully and judiciously, if at all. Things can and will happen when those forces are let loose. The choice of enforcement should be pursued only if there are no other options, which there almost always are. Emotions run high on all sides. Whenever weapons are officially introduced—from batons to rubber bullets to tear gas to guns and rifles—they can easily be used indiscriminately. And fatally.
Few things are more tragically ironic than anti-war protestors being injured or killed. It doesn’t have to be.
Above is a photo of Martin Luther King Jr. being arrested in Atlanta for taking part in a sit-in. Below is an excerpt from Dr. King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he was being imprisoned for taking part in nonviolent demonstrations against segregation.
You will not hear much mention of Dr. King from those cracking down on campus protests these days. It is inconvenient, because they would then have to make some fine distinctions between demonstrating for civil rights and demonstrating for human rights. Silence combined with force is easier.
It should not be necessary to explain the role of nonviolent protest and civil disobedience in American and world history. But apparently, the current thinking is that protesting this way proves that your cause is unworthy and wrongheaded. It is implied that if protestors don’t remove their campus encampments by a deadline, they are obviously illegitimate. Just as the civil rights movement was unworthy, wrongheaded and illegitimate to some.
From Letter from a Birmingham Jail
In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers.
One line from the Book of Exodus crystallizes our moment.
As with all biblical Hebrew, the translation is challenging and varied.
Exodus 23:9
You shall not oppress a stranger, for you know the feelings of the stranger, having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt. (NJPS)
You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. (NRSV)
No sojourner shall you oppress, for you know the sojourner’s heart, since you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. (Robert Alter)
Alter addresses one of the translation challenges, the Hebrew word nefesh/נֶ֣פֶשׁ:
“The Hebrew is nefesh, “heart”, “life,” “inner nature,” “essential being,” “breath.””
Another word needing expansion is the Hebrew ger/גֵּ֔ר. Scholars Mark Allen Powell and Dennis R. Bratcher explain in the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary:
alien (ger): In the Bible, one who is not a member of a particular social group. Accordingly, Abraham was an alien (NRSV: “stranger”) among the Hittites at Hebron (Gen. 23:4), as were Moses in Midian (Exod. 2:22) and the Israelites in Egypt (Deut. 23:7; cf. Ruth 1:1). The Hebrew word is ger, and it has often been translated “sojourner” in English Bibles. The NRSV is inconsistent, translating it “alien” in some instances and “stranger” in others. After the settlement in Canaan, the term not only designated a temporary guest but also acquired the more specialized meaning of “resident alien,” one who lived permanently within Israel (Exod. 22:21; 23:9). No doubt because the Israelites were keenly aware of their own heritage as aliens without rights in a foreign land, they developed specific laws governing the treatment of aliens. Strangers or aliens were to be treated with kindness and generosity (Lev. 19:10, 33–34; 23:22; Deut. 14:29). The basic principle was, “You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Deut. 10:19). And, again, “You shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt” (Lev. 19:34)….
“Alien” or “stranger” also appears in a figurative sense, usually in appealing to the generosity and mercy of God in dealing with undeserving people (Pss. 39:12; 119:19; 1 Chron. 29:15). The idea of dwelling in a land owned by someone else is also applied theologically to the relationship of the Israelites to the land; it belonged to God and they were the strangers in it (Lev. 25:23). (emphasis added)
This Passover, we give a thought to the nefesh—heart, life, inner nature, essential being, breath—of the ger—stranger, sojourner, resident alien. As the Bible reminds us, we were strangers too.
Some people, Jews and others, believe that the Israeli strategy in Gaza is justified and that the deaths and suffering of innocent people are unfortunate collateral damage of an important goal. Some people, Jews and others, disagree.
One thing we all can agree on is that when people, especially children, suffer, justifiably or not, it is our duty to help relieve that suffering in any way we can. People of all religious traditions or none can agree on this.
The International Rescue Committee is one of the most respectable and responsible organizations in the world working on this:
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) helps people affected by humanitarian crises—including the climate crisis—to survive, recover and rebuild their lives.
Founded at the call of Albert Einstein in 1933, the IRC is now at work in over 50 crisis-affected countries as well as communities throughout Europe and the Americas.
As Jews, on Passover we recall how our storied ancestors suffered—under the hand of a wicked ruler, wandering in a desolate desert. As we have suffered and suffer still, how can we deny the suffering of others and fail to relieve it?
When the Israelites were starving in the desert, we are told that God provided manna:
In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, “If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death.” Then the Lord said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. (Exodus 16:2-4)
You say this is what God wants God told you Or told someone who heard And told you Told someone Who wrote it down Figured out That this is what God wants. I am no more than Moses or others But no less. Here is what I read and heard And write. “Bereshit bara elohim et hashamayim v’et ha’aretz. V’ha’aretz hatah tohu v’bohu.”* In the beginning was tohu and bohu, a formless wasteland. All the rest is commentary For us not God to write create destroy. Write we did Create we did Destroy we did And do. This is what we want.
Rhetoric doesn’t end war and save lives. Whatever the rhetoric he and his administration announce, Biden continues to arm a nation pursuing a questionable war strategy that is killing thousands. Reported just yesterday:
US reportedly approves transfer to Israel of bombs and jets worth billions Sources say weapons package authorized even as Washington expresses public concern over anticipated offensive in Rafah Friday, March 29, 2024
The US in recent days authorized the transfer of billions of dollars worth of bombs and fighter jets to Israel, two sources familiar with the effort said on Friday, even as Washington publicly expresses concerns about an anticipated Israeli military offensive in Rafah.
The new arms packages include more than 1,800 MK-84 2,000lb bombs and 500 MK-82 500lb bombs, said the sources, who confirmed a report in the Washington Post.
Whether you lived through the Vietnam War or know it only as history, this is seeming oppressively and depressingly familiar, not just as an unnecessary tragedy, but as a political nightmare.
LBJ accomplished a lot of important things for America, but his stubborn support of the war in Vietnam doomed his reelection in 1968, leading him to drop out of the race, and leading to the horrors of the Nixon White House.
Biden has also accomplished a lot of important things for America. But he already goes into the 2024 election with widespread questions about his age. Now added to that is his stubborn support, despite his rhetoric, for a war that is already tragic and a situation that will not look better by the time of the election.
The analogy isn’t perfect. But as the saying goes, history may not repeat itself, but it rhymes. This is looking a lot like Biden’s Vietnam. And as terrible as the Nixon presidency was, the Trump regime would be more evil and dangerous. Is there still time for Biden to do more than talk, to stand up and use American military support as leverage? Even if he does, is it too late to make a difference in what is almost certainly a toss-up election, with Biden in the eyes of some voters—especially some Democratic voters—a villain?
“There is a certain people. They do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them. Let a decree be issued for their destruction.” Esther 3:8
And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the origin of God’s creation: I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. Book of Revelation 3:14-16 (NRSV)
There are two kinds of equivocation. One is the careless “oh well” or “whatever”. The other is a concerned and studied “on the one hand, on the other hand”.
There can be value in a subtle and nuanced analysis that leads to an equivocal conclusion and solution. It can be a corrective to a stubborn, thoughtless or selfish attachment to one argument or one side.
But circumstances and situations don’t stand still. If and when one side goes from inconvenient and troubling outcomes to dangerous and tragic ones, what then for an equivocal position? It is possible to claim that changed circumstances now change the equivalence. But we can’t pretend that the delayed rebalancing, the belated abandonment of equivalence, has not had a cost and irretrievable loss.
It may be late to choose non-equivocation. Late to choose cold or hot. Late for those who would otherwise be alive and thriving. But never too late.
What is mysticism? One of many words that can mean many things. As Humpty Dumpty said, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
In The Encyclopedia of Jewish Myth, Magic and Mysticism, Rabbi Geoffrey Dennis tries to define it:
The term “mysticism” is one commonly applied, but imperfectly defined….
Scholars have struggled to give a precise definition to what constitutes mysticism within the Western religious traditions. Most regard it to be the impulse, ideology, and discipline to experience the unmediated presence of God or, more radically, union with divinity or a more broadly defined “Absolute.” Evelyn Underhill calls it, “… the expression of the innate tendency of the human spirit towards complete harmony with the transcendental order; whatever be the theological formula under which that order is understood.” Others see mysticism as a project of human transformation, the radical revision of human nature in relationship to the divine.
There is a substantial body of mysticism in Judaism, as there is in its younger siblings Christianity and Islam. The place of mysticism in these religions is complex and varied over time and circumstances. While mysticism might lead to fierce conflicts (“my enlightened vision is better than your enlightened vision”), the “radical revision of human nature” can also lead to followers experiencing other people and things in a more humane, open and divine way.
I don’t know of research measuring the study and adoption of mysticism among contemporary Jews. My anecdotal observation is that it might be small.
To a certain extent, materialism is the opposite of mysticism. Things are things but also transcendentally more than things. Land is land but transcendentally more than land. As religionists say, the phenomenal and the noumenal. We need and can’t avoid having and using the things, but that leads to attaching to the things, which inevitably leads to trouble, within ourselves and in the world. Mysticism, easily lost in the everyday of religions, including Judaism, and certainly lost in the turmoil, could be helpful right now.
Bob Schwartz 