Who counts as a Jew?

On February 20th, Pew's report 'A Portrait of Jewish Americans' was discussed. Here (Who Counts as a Jew?) Rachel Gross discusses how Pew researcher dealt with the tricky question, who counts as a Jew. As Rachel argues there is a long history of cultural Jews. So the study not only counted 'Jews by religion' but also 'Jews of no religion', the former being 78% of the total Jews. 

Gross supports Pew's definition and argues,

'The concept of religion is a modern Protestant creation, and modern Judaism has never fit comfortably into the category, despite the best efforts of Jewish thinkers and communal leaders. In the United States, Jews have embraced American conceptions of religion as an individual matter of belief and choice rather than one mandated by ethnicity and community, giving rise to dynamic, changing community structures and rituals.'

'But beyond the door of the synagogue or Jewish communal center, American Jews’ spiritual lives are rich, complex, and hard to pin down. Divisions between Judaism (the religion) and Jewishness (the culture) are no longer useful, if they ever were. Simplistic “religious” and “secular” Jews no longer accurately describe the diversity of American Jewish practice, if they ever did. As the Pew researchers highlight at the beginning of their report, “Jews by religion” and “Jews of no religion” are both overwhelmingly proud to be Jewish and have a strong sense of belonging to the Jewish people.'

This reminds me of reading about Hinduism and the difficulty in answering the question, who counts as a Hindu.  Hinduism, according to many scholars, was more a culture than religion until atleast the eighteenth century. It was the British colonial administration that first united all Hindus (on paper and under law) as believers in a distinct religion when it decided to make Hinduism the residual religion of all Indians. Hindu nationalists have now the unenviable task of not rejecting any major groups from the definition of Hindu but also drawing more clear boundaries so that who is a Hindu is more distinguishable. 

Zionism, Judaism and Nationalism

Two very interesting articles that discuss the intersection of three philosophies. The New York Times article by Mark Oppenheimer (A Conflict of Faith: Devoted to Jewish Observance but at Odds With Israel) explains why six very learned and observant Jews oppose Israel's policies/Zionism.

Professor Manekin (Philosophy professor at the University of Maryland), Professor Stefan Krieger(Law professor at Hofstra University), Rabbi Alissa Wise (Works for Jewish Voice of Peace), Daniel Boyarin (Professor of Talmudic Culture at University of California-Berkeley), Noam Pianko (Associate Professor of Jewish History at University of Washington) and Corey Robin (Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College) are all observant Jews. Talmudic precepts are important to them and they are well-versed in Jewish history and culture. These qualities makes them a minority in the American Jewry but they are also part of an exceeding rare group of religiously-observant Jews not supporting Israel.

These six scholars give a number of reasons for not supporting Israel, including Israeli unjust policies toward Palestinians, Zionism’s incompatibility with Jewish beliefs and moral issues with the idea of worshiping a heavily militarized state and with the belief of one land/state for one specific people.   

Few quotes:

"I think nationalism and religion together are toxic," said Stefan Krieger

"The very concept of a state defined as being for one people was deeply problematic and inevitably going to lead to moral and political disaster. Which I think it has", said Professor Boyarin.

"People look at 'non-statist Zionism' as the type that lost. But I found a lot of what they were saying resonated today, and a lot of their predictions about endless war had come to pass, " said Professor Manekin. 

 "There are lots of ways to be Jewish," Professor Robin said, "but worshiping a heavily militarized state seems like a bit of a comedown from our past."

Liel Leibovitz puts forward the counter argument in his article Why Religious Judaism is tied to Nationalism: What subjects of a recent New York Times column get fundamentally wrong   

"The answer is a core tenet of Judaism, namely the realization that earthly power is indispensable. As Michael Walzer elegantly noted in his (book) Exodus and Revolution, nothing inherent sets Canaan apart from Egypt and its houses of bondage; the Promised Land’s promise lies not in some external bit of magic but in the ability of the Jews to apply their sovereignty and turn their nation state into a concrete example of a just and merciful kingdom. In other words, Judaism suggests that if you’re going to live up to your calling and set a moral example, you do it not by shuffling off this mortal coil and declaring yourself too pure for the imperfect and compromise-ridden business of government, but by jumping right in and serving as an example of how a real nation addresses real problems right here in the real world."

These two articles bring into focus the main issues of religious nationalism. Does religion need state power to show its relevance? Does religion want to establish a just and merciful society or a just and merciful kingdom or one is a mean to reach the other? A just and merciful kingdom governed by divine laws should attract more adherents but religious states have usually resulted in persecution of religious minorities, so potential adherents have been lost forever than gained. How do we reconcile it with the idea of religious state being a 'moral example'? 

US Jews less committed to Israel because of their religiosity or because of Israel's politics

Recently, Pew released report of the American Jewry A Portrait of Jewish Americans. The following infographic details some of the important stats in the report.

This report also surveyed Jewish Americans' support for Israel

Benjamin Barer (Jewish Intermarriage and Israel) discusses one claim made by eminent Jewish sociologist Steven Cohen on the basis of above stats showing support of Israel in various groups of Jewish Americans. Cohen claimed that if more Jewish children are raised in homes with two Jewish parents than the support of Israel would be more widespread.

Barer argues that the support of Israel may not be based on religiosity (i.e. more religious Jews are more supportive of Israel), linking it with homes with two Jewish parents. It may be linked to Israeli politics or how the Israeli state acts. As a committed Jew, planing to become s rabbi, he contends

In this case, we (younger, committed Jews) need to get the message across that there are other reasons why we -- not only 'cultural Jews' or 'Jews of no religion' -- are seen to have lessened (or abandoned) our attachment to Israel. Prime among them is that we do not define engagement with Israel purely as support for Israel. We know that critiquing Israel is a necessary, if sometimes difficult, part of forming and maintaining a robust relationship with a country that speaks in our name. Thus, when we see Israel acting -- politically and religiously -- in ways that we do not believe serve Israel's or Judaism's best interests, we feel inclined to speak out. Simply decreasing the rate of intermarriage among the next generation of Jews will not fix this problem. Talking about Israel, and the ideals that we hope it to embody, might.

Barer argument is valid but Cohen is also correct. Jewish Americans are less now less ready to support Israel no matter what it does, even when it ignores Jewish values. However, unconditional support is still more prevalent and likely to be more prevalent in religious Jews because probably they are more aware of Jewish history and feel more strongly about Israel's claim on the land. And so they are ready to ignore Israel's injustices in view of the centuries of injustice Jews have faced and do not think Palestinians have much right over the West Bank and Gaza.

Hence, there will be more people like Barer in future but they will still be a minority in the religious Jews group.