Vanessa, you are a rock star! Your thoughts and writing always lift my spirits as you speak from the heart with such truth and passion, as well as dedication to our people and how to fix the world. I always look forward to your writings. You are my inspiration! Thank you! 🙏🏻 תודה רבה!
When Rahm Emanuel declared that direct U.S. military support for Israel must end, a major shift crystallized. AIPAC may lag, but Americans have moved. As a retired Jewish state legislator, I feel this tension deeply. I’ve long opposed Netanyahu, yet I want Israel to survive as a healthy democracy—just as I want America to survive Trump. Criticizing a government isn’t abandoning a country. Pushing an "all-or-nothing" abandonment as a progressive litmus test only splinters the coalition we need right now.
I agree with everything Jill Grunewald writes below. No other comment needed. Thanks Vanessa!
"Vanessa, you are a rock star! Your thoughts and writing always lift my spirits as you speak from the heart with such truth and passion, as well as dedication to our people and how to fix the world. I always look forward to your writings. You are my inspiration! Thank you! 🙏🏻 תודה רבה!"
The problem you identify as judgment is, more specifically, a form of uncharitable judgmentalism, following this definition of judgmental: "Inclined to make moral judgements about the behavior of people; -- contrasted with an inclination not to judge the moral qualities of others. Opposite of nonjudgmental." However, the antidote to this form of judgment is not to move away from judgment, but to cultivate better judgment. Now, in some areas, such as forecasting, better judgments are ones that are more accurate and well-calibrated. In the moral sphere, we do not have the same benefit of quantitative scoring rules such as a Brier score, so we fall back on fuzzier principles that we hope increase the chances of good judgment being exercised. I think a large part of what you are getting at and attributing to judgment per se is the need for greater intellectual humility. The problem with that is sometimes we do need to exercise mental fortitude, intellectual backbone or whatever you prefer to call it. So we also need good meta-judgment: we need to judge wisely what type of judgment is called for in the situation. But unlike accuracy, which can be scored quantitively, "wisely" is a mushier concept.
One additional comment on compromise, which you mentioned. You suggested that people don't like it because it seems like surrender. However, I don't think that is quite accurate. Yes, compromise can involve concessions, which may feel like surrenders, but they are usually accompanied by concessions from the other side, which may feel like victories, so "surrender" does not seem to quite get at the unease. I think a more accurate characterization of reluctance to compromise is an unwillingness or unease with making taboo tradeoffs. Some tradeoffs involve concessions where what is given up is a non-fungible good; to sacrifice it isn't just to give up something of value in exchange for something else of value; it is to morally stain oneself in the very act of the transaction.
At any rate, thank you for another thought-provoking post. I think it's in like with my recent comment that we need less preachiness from all sectors of the Jewish community, especially during trying times, but that, of course, is precisely when the emotional tail is most likely to wag the dog. So here we are.
Judaism may always have had disagreements at its heart, but it also has always had boundaries. What's to be included in this big tent of being tolerant and nonjudgmental? Does Anti-zionism belong there? Does it include Any and all ideas of what will make Israel "safe"? How about dissolving it into a bi-national state, joined to countries that don't recognize its existence? May I join movements opposed to Israel's existence and still be part of the conversation? Is it OK if I tolerate institutions that tolerate antisemitism? How about if I actively support or participate in them? Still OK? What, if anything is beyond the pale? When does it move the person to being an apikoros?
It may be true that we need to listen more generously to the views of other Jews with differing ideas of what paths are available to Israel and where they may lead. But Vanessa Berg's attempt at broad minded tolerance is a feel good effort to avoid the harsh realities that some paths will push Israel over a cliff . And that there are some who would shed nary a tear should that come to pass.
When I'm in Israel I feel kinship. That's me. When I heard a mom speak to her young daughter in Hebrew, I said something in Hebrew to her.....it was a nice moment.
I strongly agree with everything in the article. Anecdotally, about fifteen years ago I came across a few Israelis selling items in the local mall. Feeling that recognition and unity Vanessa discussed, I walked up to one and said "Ani medaberet ivrit," a phrase I remembered from Hebrew school half a century ago (at that time). The man I spoke to became so warm and friendly that when I told him I could no longer carry on a conversation in Hebrew, he offered to teach it to me for free. Perhaps speaking Hebrew to someone is enough for us to realize that we share the same history and many of the same desires as the person who understands our words.
Sadly the Jewish nation was never united. Disagreement is a Jewish trait. That is the main reason for our continuous suffering since time immemorial. Politics sucks.
Excellent paper, what you recommend is what differentiate jewish identity from Islam or communism, which also makes it more interesting and challenging. This is the real meaning of diversity.
The word you need here is Empathy: Seeing and indeed feeling the other person-interlocutor’s view, whilst holding one’s own, that is to say without necessarily giving one’s own position up. This discussion may be at first through a conversation about ideas, then as closeness grows the bond becomes more felt and emotional. Empathy is not to be confused with sympathy which is simply ‘shared feeling’. If sympathy comes first without the critical faculties, such emotion can quickly be misinterpreted as betrayal and indeed anger, as positions diverge. Start with Empathy, to avoid disappointments.
Vanessa, you are a rock star! Your thoughts and writing always lift my spirits as you speak from the heart with such truth and passion, as well as dedication to our people and how to fix the world. I always look forward to your writings. You are my inspiration! Thank you! 🙏🏻 תודה רבה!
What is missing is leadership to create the unity you very clearly wrote about.
When Rahm Emanuel declared that direct U.S. military support for Israel must end, a major shift crystallized. AIPAC may lag, but Americans have moved. As a retired Jewish state legislator, I feel this tension deeply. I’ve long opposed Netanyahu, yet I want Israel to survive as a healthy democracy—just as I want America to survive Trump. Criticizing a government isn’t abandoning a country. Pushing an "all-or-nothing" abandonment as a progressive litmus test only splinters the coalition we need right now.
I agree with everything Jill Grunewald writes below. No other comment needed. Thanks Vanessa!
"Vanessa, you are a rock star! Your thoughts and writing always lift my spirits as you speak from the heart with such truth and passion, as well as dedication to our people and how to fix the world. I always look forward to your writings. You are my inspiration! Thank you! 🙏🏻 תודה רבה!"
The problem you identify as judgment is, more specifically, a form of uncharitable judgmentalism, following this definition of judgmental: "Inclined to make moral judgements about the behavior of people; -- contrasted with an inclination not to judge the moral qualities of others. Opposite of nonjudgmental." However, the antidote to this form of judgment is not to move away from judgment, but to cultivate better judgment. Now, in some areas, such as forecasting, better judgments are ones that are more accurate and well-calibrated. In the moral sphere, we do not have the same benefit of quantitative scoring rules such as a Brier score, so we fall back on fuzzier principles that we hope increase the chances of good judgment being exercised. I think a large part of what you are getting at and attributing to judgment per se is the need for greater intellectual humility. The problem with that is sometimes we do need to exercise mental fortitude, intellectual backbone or whatever you prefer to call it. So we also need good meta-judgment: we need to judge wisely what type of judgment is called for in the situation. But unlike accuracy, which can be scored quantitively, "wisely" is a mushier concept.
One additional comment on compromise, which you mentioned. You suggested that people don't like it because it seems like surrender. However, I don't think that is quite accurate. Yes, compromise can involve concessions, which may feel like surrenders, but they are usually accompanied by concessions from the other side, which may feel like victories, so "surrender" does not seem to quite get at the unease. I think a more accurate characterization of reluctance to compromise is an unwillingness or unease with making taboo tradeoffs. Some tradeoffs involve concessions where what is given up is a non-fungible good; to sacrifice it isn't just to give up something of value in exchange for something else of value; it is to morally stain oneself in the very act of the transaction.
At any rate, thank you for another thought-provoking post. I think it's in like with my recent comment that we need less preachiness from all sectors of the Jewish community, especially during trying times, but that, of course, is precisely when the emotional tail is most likely to wag the dog. So here we are.
Where do you draw the line?
Judaism may always have had disagreements at its heart, but it also has always had boundaries. What's to be included in this big tent of being tolerant and nonjudgmental? Does Anti-zionism belong there? Does it include Any and all ideas of what will make Israel "safe"? How about dissolving it into a bi-national state, joined to countries that don't recognize its existence? May I join movements opposed to Israel's existence and still be part of the conversation? Is it OK if I tolerate institutions that tolerate antisemitism? How about if I actively support or participate in them? Still OK? What, if anything is beyond the pale? When does it move the person to being an apikoros?
It may be true that we need to listen more generously to the views of other Jews with differing ideas of what paths are available to Israel and where they may lead. But Vanessa Berg's attempt at broad minded tolerance is a feel good effort to avoid the harsh realities that some paths will push Israel over a cliff . And that there are some who would shed nary a tear should that come to pass.
When I'm in Israel I feel kinship. That's me. When I heard a mom speak to her young daughter in Hebrew, I said something in Hebrew to her.....it was a nice moment.
I strongly agree with everything in the article. Anecdotally, about fifteen years ago I came across a few Israelis selling items in the local mall. Feeling that recognition and unity Vanessa discussed, I walked up to one and said "Ani medaberet ivrit," a phrase I remembered from Hebrew school half a century ago (at that time). The man I spoke to became so warm and friendly that when I told him I could no longer carry on a conversation in Hebrew, he offered to teach it to me for free. Perhaps speaking Hebrew to someone is enough for us to realize that we share the same history and many of the same desires as the person who understands our words.
Sadly the Jewish nation was never united. Disagreement is a Jewish trait. That is the main reason for our continuous suffering since time immemorial. Politics sucks.
Brilliant. The analogy to lovers only works so far however. In that case 2 people face to face can talk and compromise.
In the case of the Jewish people where is that forum of responsible discussion?
Positions become entrenched in an echo chamber of like thought.
We require a new representative gathering of the Jewish people convened specifically to discuss, debate, and identify that middle ground of unity.
Excellent paper, what you recommend is what differentiate jewish identity from Islam or communism, which also makes it more interesting and challenging. This is the real meaning of diversity.
The word you need here is Empathy: Seeing and indeed feeling the other person-interlocutor’s view, whilst holding one’s own, that is to say without necessarily giving one’s own position up. This discussion may be at first through a conversation about ideas, then as closeness grows the bond becomes more felt and emotional. Empathy is not to be confused with sympathy which is simply ‘shared feeling’. If sympathy comes first without the critical faculties, such emotion can quickly be misinterpreted as betrayal and indeed anger, as positions diverge. Start with Empathy, to avoid disappointments.