tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480763369736326403.post7287673210157079087..comments2023-06-08T18:12:39.596-04:00Comments on Water Over Rocks: My Response to Andrew SullivanAndy Bachmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12793260246107995501noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480763369736326403.post-56529639626310443922011-06-28T12:49:43.281-04:002011-06-28T12:49:43.281-04:00This is a great response, but I think that you are...This is a great response, but I think that you are giving Andrew Sullivan too much credit for good will. No one who read your original post could have possibly thought that you were advocating callousness to non-Jews, or that the Talmudic injunction that Jews are responsible to one another in any way encourages or excuses lack of responsibility to non-Jews. Using the fact of Jewish peoplehood to insinuate that Jews care only about themselves is an old anti-Semitic canard. Sullivan's opposition to Israeli policies and actions have in recent years led him several times to make rash statements that cross the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and its supporters and anti-Semitism.<br /><br />Leon Wieseltier nailed it:<br /><br />Sullivan desperately wants the Jews to be good Jews, to be the best Jews they can be. He wants edifying Jews. Don’t they realize that if they fail to edify, they may lose his friendship? The fools! Jews ought to determine their beliefs and their actions apologetically, so as not to disappoint “goyim like me.” This is a common phenomenon in the experience of minorities. They may awaken to their autonomy, but they must not go too far. ... Is the Jews’ claim upon American understanding premised upon their conformity to a particular politics? Is their legitimacy conditional? Sullivan’s more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone is cheap. He can keep his sorrow and he can keep his anger.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480763369736326403.post-25071328654629413782011-06-27T13:02:02.879-04:002011-06-27T13:02:02.879-04:00Isn't it possible that the confusion over what...Isn't it possible that the confusion over what, "All of Israel are responsible for one another.," means is understandable by means of a misunderstanding of "walking away"?<br /><br />1. Benedikt "walks away" from Israel insofar as she refuses to endorse (indeed she is enraged by) Israel's trajectory towards ethnic nationalism.<br /><br />2. Benedikt "walks away" from Israel insofar as she refuses to engage with Israel and the views of Jews on Israel.<br /><br />It seems to me that (1) is true, and (2) is false. It also seems to me that Sullivan thinks this. And this is consistent wit your understanding of the dictum. <br /><br />So, I'm not clear that the misunderstanding is Sullivan's.Dan Onoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480763369736326403.post-70087550753049596122011-06-27T09:19:59.651-04:002011-06-27T09:19:59.651-04:00I think that joke suggests the opposite point ... ...I think that joke suggests the opposite point ... he won't even set foot in the other shul!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480763369736326403.post-65670923077431630142011-06-26T04:17:17.089-04:002011-06-26T04:17:17.089-04:00I don't want to nit-pick here, but "kol Y...I don't want to nit-pick here, but "kol Yisrael arevim zeh la'zeh" means "All Israel are guarantors for one another." See BT Shevuot 40a for a pretty thorough exposition of how the difference between the way it's frequently translated, and the precise version, plays out.Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-480763369736326403.post-89850161062346475432011-06-24T20:31:01.951-04:002011-06-24T20:31:01.951-04:00By Sullivan's line of reasoning, a commandment...By Sullivan's line of reasoning, a commandment to love one's family would be equivalent to a commandment not to love other's families. (!)Adam Hollandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06245468599571473818noreply@blogger.com