Thursday, January 21, 2010

A Libertarian Kahanist





Rabbi Shalom Carmy once told me a story about a student who signed up for numerous courses with both him and Rabbi Moshe Tendler. It turns out that this student was interested in Rabbi Carmy because he wanted to start a "true" Zionist club at Yeshiva University and by this he meant a Kahanist club. He wanted Rabbi Tendler because he was looking for support for his vegetarianism. So we had a vegetarian Kahanist. Who knew that right wing nationalist politics could mix with liberal culinary tastes? Rabbi Carmy ended by noting that if only the student had switched and come to him for vegetarianism and Rabbi Tendler for Kahane. Rabbi Tendler actually spoke at Rabbi Meir Kahane's funeral.

Despite the fact that I am, at least in principle, sympathetic to many of Kahane's political policies, I view myself as a strong opponent of Kahanist ideology, particularly in its modern manifestations such as Moshe Feiglin. As a classical liberal/Libertarian, I have little patience with national identity politics, particularly if religion gets thrown into the mix, and if I might not join the modern left in point blank condemning it as racism and bigotry, I still see it as a well trod path to such a downfall. I am not against nation states nor am I opposed to political Zionism. As a minority group, Jews are unlikely to ever be on equal footing with the majority culture. Therefore it is a reasonable solution to suggest that Jews immigrate to one place where they can be the majority and set up their own Jewish society and State. I will take a Jewish State in Israel over one in Uganda. This is not really any different from the Free State movement amongst Libertarians, which argues that Libertarians should move to one small State, like New Hampshire. This would allow us to get the votes to enact libertarian policies and thus demonstrate that they work. This Jewish State, while giving equal rights to all, is allowed to wrap itself in Jewish religious and cultural symbols and take an active interest in protecting Jews around the world. It is free to offer a law of return to all Jews, allowing them to come to Israel at a moment's notice if they so choose. I have yet to take advantage of this offer, but I am certainly glad of having it. This is no different then Ireland being an Irish State and the Irish government deciding to take an interest in protecting Irish people, even those who live in Boston.

That being said, the moment you come out and declare the state to be primarily about the promotion of a religious nationalist ideology then you have crossed a line. You may claim to support liberal democracy and tolerate all beliefs and cultures, but what that can that mean if such principles become secondary to national identity? To be a supporter of the free society means that you are willing to support it at the expense of nationalist sentiment.

I just found an interesting blog by Michael Makovi, who coincidently, while now living in Petah Tiqwa in Israel, comes from Silver Spring MD where I live. Michael is a Libertarian, with some wonderful stuff on John Locke. He is a defender of Kahane and offers an eloquent defense of the compatibility of Kahanist ideology and democracy. A Libertarian Kahanist; who knew.

13 comments:

Vox Populi said...

Personally, I don't see how you can support Kahanism in any form.

It's by no means certain that ethnic nationalism and democracy can coexist. Looking at Israel, for example, there are many substantive differences even between the rights of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs, much less between the rights of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

Izgad said...

I live here in the United States and I have no objections to it being a Christian state, complete with Christmas trees and crosses in every public school classroom. As long as I am not subject to any direct physical coercion.

(http://izgad.blogspot.com/2007/12/some-good-christmas-tolerance.html)

If I can sit and smile through the Lord's Prayer and still be a patriotic American then Israeli Arabs can sit and smile through Hatikvah and be patriotic Israelis.

Vox Populi said...

>If I can sit and smile through the Lord's Prayer and still be a patriotic American then Israeli Arabs can sit and smile through Hatikvah and be patriotic Israelis.

Not the same thing.

Or rather, that is the same thing, but it's not what the current situation is.

To be a patriotic Israeli is to be a Zionist. No one has yet invented a form of Israeli patriotism that escapes this fact. It is absurd to expect Arabs to be Zionists. It is absurd to expect them to sing along with Hatikvah, which puts to song the aspirations of Jews to return to Zion - and damn the political rights of whoever happened to be living there earlier!

Someone who grits his teeth and sits quietly rolling his eyes at the national anthem of his country is not most people's definition of a patriot. Someone who feels that his country's national anthem does not speak to him or his aspirations at all - and cannot speak to them - is not a patriot. At least, not conventionally. I'm sure the refugee boats full of German Jews in the 30s were crammed with people who considered themselves German patriots, but Germany, both legally and in the zeitgeist, certainly did not.

You say you would be fine with an America that defined itself as a Christian country with the Lord's Prayer as its anthem. You would be fine with a country that based its laws on a specific interpretation of the Christian Bible? With jurists who interpreted the laws so that they would be in accordance with Scripture? With laws that restricted the immigration of non-Christians, while simultaneously allowing automatic immigration for Christians? With laws restricting the purchase of land by non-Christians, while simultaneously offering various financial incentives for Christians to buy land? How about a national ethos that prized the reclaiming of Christian land from the pagan aborigines? A country that maintained an official ecclesiastical apparatus? How about a country that saw itself as the protectors of Christians worldwide? A country that would not allow political parties to join government coalitions unless they recognized the country as a democratic Christian state, or failing that, were Christianist parties? A country that consequently gave a disproportionately smaller share of resources to its non-Christian minorities? Now mix in and ethnic component. Christians are anyone with at least one Christian parent. Is that really a country you'd want to live in? Is that a country you would expect non-Christians to feel pride in being a part of? To be patriotic?

Israeli Arabs face similar obstacles. Arab immigration to Israel is practically nil, while Jews enjoy unlimited automatic citizenship. The Jewish National Fund, a quasi-governmental agency which owns 13% of the land in Israel, and "leases" substantially more, does not sell land to non-Jews. The Zionist ethos used to be all about reclaiming Jewish land for the Jews. The Settlers are holdovers from that mentality. Needless to say Arabs could not participate in that. Israel sees itself as vital to the protection of World Jewry and has undertaken various extra-territorial rescue missions in that capacity. Israel does not allow non-Zionist Arab parties to join in government coalitions, but allows Charedi parties, which, while Jewish, are not Zionist.

It's really not the same as having Christmas trees in shopping malls. You would of course expect the Arab minority to feel alienated and separated from the general culture. Sure you can expect loyalty to the law, but that's about all you could expect.

Izgad said...

I would marvel at the absurdity of the situation that I was the beneficiary of a group of Christian extremists who desired to set up their own theocracy, laugh, and recognize that it is a rare thing to live in a country that can both offer meaningful physical protection and does not attempt to interfere with your life and be grateful. The only reason why I would object is if I believe that I can get something better and someone is telling me that I deserve better. Otherwise I am off laughing and embracing the absurdity of the situation and doing my best to convince my Christian neighbors that I am a patriot like them laughing with them at this wonderful joke.
In Herzl’s Old New Land, he has an Arab character who loves being a citizen of this new Jewish State, grateful for all the improvements brought by Zionism to the region.
The question is why has this reasonable thing has not happened and I would blame modern liberalism that has convinced people that they can and should get better, leaving us in the mess of the modern Middle East that we know today.

Mordechai Y. Scher said...

First you mention Rav Meir Kahane, then you say:

"As a minority group, Jews are unlikely to ever be on equal footing with the majority culture. Therefore it is a reasonable solution to suggest that Jews immigrate to one place where they can be the majority and set up their own Jewish society and State. I will take a Jewish State in Israel over one in Uganda. This is not really any different from the Free State movement amongst Libertarians, which argues that Libertarians should move to one small State, like New Hampshire. This would allow us to get the votes to enact libertarian policies and thus demonstrate that they work. This Jewish State, while giving equal rights to all, is allowed to wrap itself in Jewish religious and cultural symbols and take an active interest in protecting Jews around the world. It is free to offer a law of return to all Jews, allowing them to come to Israel at a moment's notice if they so choose. I have yet to take advantage of this offer, but I am certainly glad of having it."

That wasn't Rav Kahane's position at all. The only reason he focussed on 'Israel as refuge' in Time To Go Home is because he believed American Jews weren't hearing all the positive aspects of the mitzvah to live in Israel. Too caught up in their materialistic, exilic existence. Much like German Jews, as he saw it.

For all that, his advocacy of Zionism wasn't to create a Herzlian refuge where Jews won't be a minority. His commitment to Zionism and a Jewish state is because he held largely like the Ramban, as evidenced in the many discussions we had, and the many times he chooses to emphasize certain statements of the sages in his writing.

Izgad said...

Correct that is not the position of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane. I was explaining my position in contrast to that of Kahanist ideology, which would place religious nationalist ideological weight on Jewish Statehood and not just pragmatic value.

Mordechai Y. Scher said...

My apologies. I guess I misread the flow of your post.

Vox Populi said...

>and recognize that it is a rare thing to live in a country that can both offer meaningful physical protection and does not attempt to interfere with your life and be grateful.

But it does interfere. It interferes with your ability to own property, to elect meaningful representation, to participate in the public sphere, to sponsor your family for immigration, etc.

>The question is why has this reasonable thing has not happened and I would blame modern liberalism that has convinced people that they can and should get better, leaving us in the mess of the modern Middle East that we know today.

You don't believe that everyone should get equal treatment before the law? Or you believe in some sort of "separate but equal" doctrine? I'm not understanding you.

Blaming modern liberalism for inspiring the notion that people possess natural rights is like blaming penicillin. Would you like to go back to a world before penicillin?

Izgad said...

The Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that it is illegal to discriminate against Arabs in terms of selling land. Whether this ruling is obeyed in practice is another story. Family relations are a way that Arabs can get citizenship. I know this happens a lot with people from Gaza or the West Bank marrying someone in Israel proper and getting citizenship. I am not claiming that if I were an Israeli Arab I would think everything is peaches and cream. I would probably be suing in court against some of the more open acts of discrimination I would likely face. At the same time I would be blessing God for allowing me to live in such a wonderful place that I can sue the State with a decent chance of winning and can thumb my nose at the society and still be accepted by it.
Again I am willing to buy into this logic even when it turns on me as a Jew. I accept the arguments of Christian conservatives and their desire to make a more “Christian State.”
Modern liberalism has not told people that they have rights. They have decided that certain privileged groups have the right to blackmail society and that everyone else must conform to them and make them comfortable.

Vox Populi said...

I still don't understand. Either people have an entitlement to be treated equally or they don't. Should African-Americans back in the 50s and 60s just given up because they enjoyed a higher quality of living than in the Congo?

>Whether this ruling is obeyed in practice is another story.

No, it's not. It's the same story. Having a law that is not obeyed is only slightly better than pointless.

>At the same time I would be blessing God for allowing me to live in such a wonderful place that I can sue the State with a decent chance of winning and can thumb my nose at the society and still be accepted by it.

But they're not accepted. Not by any means. Well, not by many means. You're setting an awfully low bar here.

>I accept the arguments of Christian conservatives and their desire to make a more “Christian State.”

Why? Why do they get to decide the character of the State any more than you do? Especially when centuries of constitutional interpretation have stated that America should not be considered a Christian country. Why do you have this inferiority complex when it comes to majority demographies? Just because another demography has more people doesn't mean they get to remake society in their own image, just because there are more of them. Not in a democracy. Well, at least not in a democracy that has long pretended to frown on that sort of thinking.

>They have decided that certain privileged groups have the right to blackmail society and that everyone else must conform to them and make them comfortable.

What's all this anger against liberals? What do you mean they've decided certain privileged groups? Everyone must conform? I don't know what you're talking about?

Izgad said...

Brown versus Board of Education was useful even if the South ignored it because it tipped the legal balance against segregation. Now it was the segregationists who had to ignore the laws on the books or at least dance around them. The good thing about liberal democracy is not that it will always act according to its own principles, but that it sets up a system in which those injustices can be dealt with through the system itself and without turning to violence. I do not expect full justice in this world. I will settle for a system that allows me to fight for that justice. For example my impression of many Orthodox feminists is that even if Orthodoxy does not give them what they want now they still desire a process through which their daughters might be able to become rabbis and go up to the Torah.

To understand my mindset you have to keep in mind the fact that I strongly identify myself as a Jew in a Christian society. Part of my identity is that I am the person starring in the shops at Christmas time at the tree that I do not have and singing Christmas carols that are not “mine.” This is reinforced by the fact that I have Asperger syndrome. Lacking the sorts of social skills that most people take for granted such as being able to read body language, I have spent my life as an observer looking in on society, but not being able to take part in it.

Since I accept this as the facts of my life and that this is unlikely to change any time soon, I have little sympathy for those who object to being in a similar situation. If I can live with it so can they. (http://izgad.blogspot.com/2008/10/being-part-of-disabled-community-versus_20.html) Now part of my Asperger mindset is that I naturally make a strong distinction between physical actions and feelings. Since I do not understand social cues and other people’s feelings I tend to regard them as having less meaning, particularly in the face of what I do understand, physical actions. This affects the political discourse I engage in. I would argue that the government can only deal with issues of direct physical harm. For example as long as homosexuals are not being physically harmed it is irrelevant if they are getting “equal” recognition.


Yes I am very bitter against the liberal establishment. I have spent my life being told how I need to conform to other people’s expectations and live by a social code not designed for someone of my mental framework. I therefore feel cheated when I see other groups being given the sort of protection that I as an Asperger never got. If I must pay for my white and heterosexual privileges then neurotypical blacks and gays must pay for their neurotypical privileges. In the end if every group is allowed to demand rights beyond physical protection then the entire system is going to collapse. This makes liberalism one giant Ponzi scheme. (http://izgad.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-defense-of-traditional-understanding.html)

Vox Populi said...

>Brown versus Board of Education was useful even if the South ignored it because it tipped the legal balance against segregation.

Gee, that's great. But isn't an America with an observed Brown v. Board of Ed better than an America with just the later possibility of a Brown? It sounds an awful lot like you would have told Brown et al to cool their jets because as long as they were not being physically harmed, they were living in a White country, and they should really get down on their knees and be grateful they have their own schools to go to.

That's what I'm not getting here about you. You say you're fine with discrimination, because you can always challenge it in court. But by challenging it in Court, you demonstrate that you are not fine with it - indeed, you find it illegal. How can anyone fight for equal rights while at the same time espousing a belief that they have no right to expect equal rights?

>For example my impression of many Orthodox feminists is that even if Orthodoxy does not give them what they want now they still desire a process through which their daughters might be able to become rabbis and go up to the Torah.

You don't find this completely incoherent?

>To understand my mindset you have to keep in mind the fact that I strongly identify myself as a Jew in a Christian society

But you shouldn't. We all see Christmas trees - doesn't mean that Christians come first in this country. Although what you're saying is probably the strongest argument against public prayer and Christmas trees on public property if I ever heard it. Christmas being the most widely celebrated religious holiday (though it is by no means confined to Christians) has intimidated you to the extent that you believe Christians get first dibs on the benefits of citizenship. You may feel unnecessarily intimidated, but why should everyone else?

>For example as long as homosexuals are not being physically harmed it is irrelevant if they are getting “equal” recognition.

Okay, but your Asperger-influenced emphasis on physical harm is wrong. There are lots of ways that non-physical harm is harmful, by any means. Not being able to automatically inherit your partner as his spouse deprives you of money. Not being able to adopt deprives you of children - by the way, children have substantial economic value, as well. There is more at stake in the gay rights debate than some touchy-feely emphasis on recognition of love.

>I have spent my life being told how I need to conform to other people’s expectations and live by a social code not designed for someone of my mental framework.

But why is that liberalism's fault? Why is it not the problem of conservatives? If liberalism failed to rescue you from the discrimination that you faced, then why would the solution be more conservatism, which created the problem in the first place? You can't blame firemen for not putting out the fire fast enough and then conclude you need more fire and less firemen.

>In the end if every group is allowed to demand rights beyond physical protection then the entire system is going to collapse.

Why would you think that? What society has ever collapsed from an excess of liberalism or human rights? Is Canada on the verge of collapse? Is the United States? On the other hand, history is littered with the bones of aging societies that could not grant freedom quickly enough. Which group of countries do you think has a better chance of surviving status quo in the next 75 years? On the one side, China and Israel. On the other, the US and Canada.

Izgad said...

The conclusion that would come out of my understanding of the situation for blacks in mid 20th century America is that yes America is a flawed country in which they are not being given equal right. That being said it is still possible for them to be patriotic Americans and identify with the American narrative. Whatever flaws this government has it still gives us a process through which we can hope for equal rights. In fact there can be something particularly American about struggling for civil rights. This attitude would be helpful because it makes it all the easier for white Americans to identify with it. We might not be comfortable with blacks, but who can deny rights to patriotic Americans. Obviously this same sort of logic could work for Israeli Arabs.
Daniel Gordis, in his Saving Israel, makes a similar argument to what I have been presenting.
Non physical forms of harm are harm and are real. The problem is that we have no means of evaluating that pain. The things that you mentioned are physical, but can easily be remedied without the government. I do not know how my having to suffer through a neurotypical education compare with gays having to go to school and read only books that talk about heterosexual marriage and neither does anyone else. I can live with being on the outside and taking my psychological lumps up until I see others on the outside all of a sudden receiving recognition and special protection for their non physical suffering. Either I wish to be first in line, which would be unjust as well, or I want there to be no line. If there is no line for anyone then I can hope to ally with other groups and we can give each mutual recognition and tolerance of our oddities.
The Liberal claims of rights are not really rights. It is a spoil of war system for different interest groups no different than giving labor unions a special deal. There is nothing liberal about this. Obviously China is a much worse situation. China lacks any process of dealing with the injustices of its system. That being said I do not believe that the United States and Canada will be able to survive its group rights system. Not with everyone demanding special protection.