David Milliband and I

Today I hate a private meeting with David Milliband- the foreign secretary.  Well, not quite private.  My good friend Dave, myself and about 59 other people.  He talked about Israel and such like to important communal people!!  I was so enamoured with his responses that I can't remember a single word he said.  Either that or it was before 9 in the morning and I was a zombie.  (It's something to tell the parents at any rate.)

On the whole, the answers which he gave were very politique and thus, friendly and positive about Israel.  On the other hand, he was honest and candid.  So, for example, he clearly said in response to a question: "I don't think Hamas has been politically weakened by the Israeli incursion, and I don't think Mahmoud Abas has been strengthened". 

Example 2: he said that absolutely, allegations of Israeli war crimes should be fully investigated just as Britain are constantly investigated for such crimes in other Afghanistan.  That democracies such as Israel and Britain should be held to higher standards than terrorists is a good thing.  It is our values- Britain and Israel's values- that make us what we are.

Other than this, I can't remember much.  I do remember feeling sorry for the older people in the room.  Standing there, all I could think of "oooooh... ain't he young?"  He looked very good for his age and not a single gray hair.  If I was thinking that, what must everyone else been thinking?

Hannah's Song

I was searching through my old files and I found the first ever song I composed on my music programme. It is very cheesy, very badly sung and has a boring base line, but quite cool nonetheless. Written for a friend having missed her birthday. Here is the unimaginatively titled "Hannah's Song":

Primark: Too good to be true?

I

I don't like ethical decisions.  They take me away from the path I admire the most... that of least resistance.

This is a problem given that I shop at Primark a lot.  Maybe it's because I'm tight with money or maybe because I'm a man of simple tastes.  Whilst it's probably a mix of the two, I hope it is more the latter.  What is the point of getting something fancy when you are going to look back in ten years time "Why was I wearing that?".  Why go for something that is five times the price just because it has a brand name on it?  I suppose an argument can be brought that other shops are better quality.  However, just like M & S vegetables, they may be better but not five times better, so don't be a snob.  Also, no matter how good the quality is, my trousers will always develop a hole in the crotch.  It's natural law.

So Primark it is.... or is it?As the saying goes: "If it looks too good to be true, it probably is".  If the clothes are that cheap, there must be something wrong. 

However, just imagine that you have just had a whole menagerie of Jewish festivals, you are coming up to the last one and you have no shirts that are simultaneously both clean and dry.  Never happened, of course, but just imagine.  Now whilst in general you don't need a new shirt, you just want to buy something cheaply and quickly to avoid looking like a vagabond and vagrant in synagogue.  Here, old adages fly out the window and plenty of reasons come to reassure me:

• They probably have automated machines which cut down on costs
• Plus... they must buy in bulk which'll make them inexpensive
• Reasonable quality clothes are bound to be that cheap if they are part of last year's line and other shops will no longer stock them.
• They explicitly state on their website that they ensure all their suppliers are ethical
• They are regulated and so wouldn't be able to get away with unethical practices

So go on then.  Let's get a nice plain shirt for a few pounds.  After all, G-d will probably love me more in a Primark shirt than if I turn up in a "Shit Happens" T-Shirt.

II

Today however, Primark- again- have been found to source from unethical suppliers. 

Once before they were found to have imported clothes made in Indian slums where children laboured in poor conditions.  At the time, Primark investigated promptly and decided to stop using these factories once they were aware of the problem.  This is exemplary company policy- and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.  Companies make mistakes and it would be unfair to accuse them of knowing what is happening.  This is especially so if they have done everything they can- such as send out auditors- to find out if the suppliers are kosher.  The mark of morality is not that you don't make mistakes but that you say sorry and correct the mistake instantly.

Yet, today BBC news reports in this link  about their undercover report into conditions at a TNS Knitwear factory, who make clothes for Primark.  The workers get paid as little as £3.50 an hour (a long way below the minimum wage) and for as much as twelve hours a day, seven days a week.  All the money gets paid out in cash and there is no paperwork.  This is just as well because many of the employees wouldn't be allowed on the books.  Amongst the workers are illegal immigrants and people claiming unemployment benefit.

Once again,  I'm sure there was no intentional wrongdoing on Primark's part.  They are part of the 'Ethical Trading Initiative' and they have a precise code of conduct suppliers should follow.  However, it makes one very uneasy that, rather this unethical practice being detected by their procedures, the scandal only emerged after an undercover investigation.  It makes one wonder how many other dodgy suppliers they have on their books.

III

I'm not usually one to advocate boycotts of anyone or anything.  They are ineffectual, firstly, because unless everyone boycotts them, then your action is merely symbolic.  No-one is going to listen to your voice and you won't be able to affect change.  Secondly, even if everyone did boycott a particular firm and they went bust, what would that achieve?  You will be scapegoating someone without doing anything about the problem.  It's like the police arresting an insignificant drug dealer when a) they haven't cut off the supply and b) there are plenty of insignificant drug dealers to take their place. 

In this case, the public will have got on their high horse about Primark, thought how wonderfully moral they are, and move on to the next cheap retailer.  That is, until they have been caught in an act of indiscretion, at which point you have another scapegoat. 

No, given that such retailing isn't on its way out soon, the best thing for regulators to do is help tighten up Primark's procedures and to help them enforce the policies they already have .  The right thing for the kind of people that will continue to bargain-shop is:  demand that wrongs are righted, and then shop in a place committed to an ethical policy (which Primark seem to be).

However, having said this, I will boycott Primark products and stop buying there.  This will be coupled with not buying from similar stores.  I realised that this incident hasn't taught me anything about Primark per se, but about this kind of trading in general.  When you look for the cheapest mass-produced products from anywhere in the world, you are bound to run into trouble. 

To use another drug metaphor, no matter how careful you are, if you are going to buy your ecstasy from a man in the club, you'll eventually end up with a dog pill.  No matter how good Primark's procedures are, when dealing with these types of firms, you are going to run into unethical suppliers.  While there is still a demand for these clothes, then these scandals will always arise.  My boycott then, one which ideally others would follow, is to stop going for financial shortcuts.  Go to a shop and pay a bit more money, but where you know the worker's will get a fair deal.  Cut off the demand.  Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

Given that I'm in a metaphor mood, let's use one last one to sum up my position...

With certain foods, checking the ingredients and spotting a green 'v' on the packet is no guarantee that the product is kosher.  It's not even a guarantee that it's vegetarian!  If you want the hescher, you have to pay for the hescher.

An honest religious thinker...

I

Once more, there is a beautiful quote from Wittgenstein that perfectly summarises the status of religion today:

An honest religious thinker is like a tightrope walker. He almost looks as though he were walking on nothing but air. His support is the slenderest imaginable. And yet it really is possible to walk on it.

The intellectual conditions, as such, for religious belief have never changed. Only the social conditions have. Ultimately religion isn't based on evidence for the probability that it is true. In fact, it is of the very essence that it is not. The question as to whether we accept the 'yoke of heaven' or not is firmly on our shoulders. Of course, I'm not saying the choice is arbitrary; 'How we act' very much depends on what how we take the world to be. However, Judaism stresses the 'limits of reason' and no reason will force us one way or the other. Ultimately one has to make a decision- do I see the world like this or like that?

This is precisely the Jewish concept of free-will. Reason cannot intellectually arbitrate between what Christian/secular culture denotes by 'theism' and 'atheism' (No religious Jew could be an atheist or a theist). Thus, one can't adequately conclude such a discussion before deciding how to act. The 'yetzer hara' (evil inclination) can always reinterpret the facts to justify what it wants without being irrational. I won't believe I have to do x, y or z, unless I have an 'ultimate reason', a 'proof' that I have to.

Rationality, so religion tells us, doesn't go 'all the way down'. What I mean by this can be illustrated by the following:

[A scientist gave a lecture about astronomy]. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

What's supports the world? A turtle. What supports the turtle? Another turtle. What supports that?... and so on. Ultimately, you can (and should) give reasons for what you believe. Religion is not for the intellectually frail. However, on the one hand, there is no bottom turtle- one which you cannot ask what supports it. In philosophical parlance, there is no indubitable belief that lies at the bottom of our knowledge claims. There is no 'basic belief' from which you can argue outwards from, or inwards to. On the other hand, our finite minds can't intellectually settle for for infinite turtleness! We cannot justify our claims by a premise that lies infinitely far away.

So what to do? Ultimately, we have to rely on practical rationality. Whilst we can be intellectually agnostic, in practice we have to live a secular life or a religious one. The choice is not one between atheism and theism (the search for the bottom turtle) but between being an Ish ha-Elokim (man of G-d) or an Apikorus (one who mocks the sages). Through the actions we choose we are committing to interpreting the world as an expression of divine creation or as mechanical entity without moral consequence. Either we see the Mesora (Jewish tradition) as divine order or a human creation.

II

As I say, this has always been the way. So why does it now appear that we are "walking on nothing but air"? There are two reasons. Firstly, people in bygone eras (practically) related to the world as if it were enchanted. This was one in which the world was controlled by powers that lay outside of our understanding. The world- so to speak- had a personality. From a Jewish perspective, this isn't unanimously seen as positive. It was such a view that led to the prevalence of avodah zara (untranslatable! strange worship). People who couldn't understand why the sun did what it did began to attribute it as an independent power (a god). Whether we should, in a limited way, believe in an enchanted world depends on which view of Judaism you take (Rambam/ Malbim vs. Ramban/ HaLevi) and both have merits.

Nevertheless, when holding such a view, it is obvious to believe in the supernatural. It is natural and woven into the very fabric of your being. In a post Cartesian and Newtonian world, this is no longer so. The major change was not theoretical per se- both Descartes, Newton and many after them were firm believers in G-d. Instead, they affected a change in the very way we see the world. Everything is there to be intellectually conquered, brought into our understanding, control and subdued. We are suddenly in a world where something beyond our grasp becomes instinctively alien. With such a mindset one can passionately believe in G-d but it's a decision that is against the grain. One always had to make a decision but its now more like a leap

I suppose a simpler way of putting that (although it misses some of the subtleties) is that it is very counter-cultural to believe in G-d so seems to require more justification. Yet as I said above, there is nothing one can point to that 'settles the matter' that would compel you to accept it (esp. if you were looking for ways not to believe). Hence tightrope.

III

The second reason is that- as Jews- we no longer live in self-governing communities governed by halacha. We now seem to require a justification for the institution itself. Previously the keeping of halacha, in the public realm at least, was de facto- it just was what happened. It was the base or practical starting point from which all decisions or philosophizing began.

Even from such a social position there is a role for the free intellectual and moral decisions laid out above. First of all, there was taking upon oneself all the obligations that were not of specific concern to the public order. It is unlikely that in times past, many people were shomer mitzvot (kept the commandments) in the way explicated by the rabbis in their academies. However, let's assume by habit or instruction they did. We are taught that free will isn't only about the keeping of commandments, but performing them with kavanna (the right intention). This directly depends on how we take the halacha- divine order or human creation? One may keep it out of habit or only keeping it where one has to avoid the wrath of the authorities (Beth Din). On the other hand, one perform an action with the awareness that it is is mitzvah from G-d. However, no intellectual premise could lead one to this awareness.

So what is the difference today when Jews are growing up secular? Again, we could just highlight the obvious practical consideration that a) it seems a bigger leap to decide to keep halacha in the first place than to do what you already do with more kavannah b) to decide to keep halacha is harder when it is counter-cultural and c) whilst no-one in the past would have doubted that halacha should govern society, one now is asked for justification.

However, this might be misleading. It is not that they didn't realise the 'tightrope' nature of the justifications for halachic practice because they happened not to ask! Instead, to a certain extent it was unnecessary to do so! The whole life of the community was built around the rhythm and pulse of the religious life. One could see a practical manifestation of G-d's will in the world. One could be inspired by tzadikim- living Torah scrolls. And so on. Of course, one could use free will to see things in a different way but there was a living testament to the fact that we are a 'wise and understanding people'. Nowadays, without being born inside such a society, we can only look at it externally. From the outside, without the testament, why halacha?

IV

But, as Wittgenstein says, despite the fact that "His support is the slenderest imaginable.... it really is possible to walk on it" The reason being that in Wittgenstein's words "explanation comes to an end" and our beliefs ultimately rest on a "form of life". From the outside- from the perspective of philosophy- the ground is continually slipping from under our feet. That is, no honest religious thinker can believe in religious dogma. We can't believe that there is a statement that is philosophically indubitable and not open to challenge.

Thank G-d then that our feet do not rest on such a slender base but one that is the broadest imaginable. We stand on a base of action- on a form of life- which provide a context in which our beliefs make sense. Within a halachic lifestyle a Jewish orientation is revealed throughout every aspect of our life. Our actions are in a sense, revelatory of our beliefs.

This doesn't mean we can point to our actions as a justification our belief. From the outside, as I have said, we can only be intellectually agnostic. How then, in the modern world where we are conditioned to see everything from the outside, should we make such a decision? I don't know. Yet I am sure that I can see the world as divine without breaking my neck.

Is the BBC biased? "No but...

.... yes but, no but, yes but, no but" said Vicky Pollard as reported on the Ten O' Clock News. The BBC were trying every so hard to be neutral and thought that Vicky covered all possible angles and view points. The only minor hitch was that she was very unwilling to commit on the important issues of the day. Is Jamie Oliver was a plonker or an inspired prophet of our time? Are standards improving or exams getting easier? She was however, most adamant that Hamas were not terrorists but simply militants.

Those who took the 'yes' side in the debates thought the BBC were biased for the very suggestion that 'no' was an answer that a sane human could take. Those on the 'no' side thought Vicky most insane for letting 'yes' cross her lips. The more discerning viewer realised that the BBC actually advocated the yes-no amalgamated view despite its flagrant violation of classical syllogistic logic. However, the vast majority of viewers simply admired the pouting woman sitting cross-legged on the desk who was quite good for her age. Woo woo!

But seriously... Little Britain is rubbish isn't it?

P.S. I was going to write a serious post about BBC bias or otherwise but then I was assailed but a recurring thought of mine: "What the heck is the point?" The next bulletin at midnight

Remembering not to forget: What I did at Limmud

I just thought I'd write down the titles of all the educational seminars and lectures I went to on Limmud.

You see, when I came back I had grand plans. Firstly, I would lay out the grand highlights and lowlights of Limmud. Second, I would utilise what I had learnt by teaching it, explaining it and criticising it. Thirdly, I thought I'd have time to incorporate the material into other philosophical discussions I have and with other reading. Fourth, I thought I'd be able to use my experience at Limmud to discuss how Jewish education should be taught.

Whilst these plans are still there, time is a limiting factor! And I have such a bad memory that if I leave it any longer, then I will forget completely. Plus, it would just be good to keep a record of this week of my life. Given that I don't keep a diary (or more accuratly start but never continue to keep a diary), most parts of my life have been consigned to memoryless oblivion. So any testimony to the fact that the time of my life did indeed exist is welcome!

Hopefully, at the very least, I will update the sessions below with at least a short summary of what the session is about, while I still remember.

----

Self, Other, Text, G-d: Rosenzweig to Levinas- Dr. Tamra Wright
1. Rosenzweig
2. Buber
3. Fackenheim
4. Levinas

Radical Medieval Poetry- Jeremy Schonfield

Conversion in Jewish Law- Diana Villa
1. From the sources
2. Current situation in Israel

Does Truth Matter When it Comes to Religion?- Jonathan Wittenberg

The Truth Behind Four Great Talmudic Stories- Rabbi Dr. Raphael Zarum
1. Defrosting Hillel
2. The defence of Akavyah ben Mehalalel
3. Some Rabbis Do: Rabbi Yehosua versus the Athenians
4. Jewish caveman: R. Shimon bar Yocha’s escapade

Love, Learning and Laundry: Gender roles in Jewish Marriage- Tamra Wright and Rabbi Dr. Michael Harris

Where to Look for Miracles- Jacob Joshua Ross

Letters from an Unknown Woman: Joseph’s Dream- Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg

Trembling Before G-d

Where and Why Israel has Gone Wrong and What We Can Do About It- R’ Shlomo Riskin

The Expulsion of the Arab- R’ Gideon Sylvester
3. Expulsion
4. Reconcilliation?

Nehama Leibowitz: The Grande Dame of Bible Teaching- Yael Unterman, Chaim Weiner, Tamar Ross

Heresy, is it Jewish?- Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo

History on Trial: Reflections on Irving v. Lipstadt- Deborah Lipstadt

Futuristic Judaism: Contra ‘Halacha’, Pro Mitzvah and Spiritual Authenticity- Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cardozo

What Happens When Educators Find Solutions to Problems Children Don’t Have: The Case of Integrated Bilingual Palestinian-Jewish Education in Israel- Zvi Bekerman

Israel and Gaza: Random thoughts 1

· Isn’t it amazing how there is a humanitarian crisis with no food or medical supplies in Gaza? Isn’t it equally amazing that there are thousands of rockets ready to be fired at Israel? If the Palestinians went to as much effort into ‘smuggling’ food in as they do rockets, the situation would be a lot different. Maybe they haven’t realised that food is cheaper, more portable and less likely to be stopped. Maybe they need reminding that it will do a thousand times more to help the Palestinians than weapons ever will. Maybe they just need reminding and now it’ll stop. Maybe but I don’t think so.

· You can’t help but get the impression that the timing of the offensive was designed with the coming election in mind. The Lebanon War was a ‘flop’, the disengagement led to more attacks against Israel, Kadima’s negotiations with the PA are going nowhere and it seems that Livni is incapable of defending Israel. A whitewash in favour of Netanyahu looms and oh look.... a full-scale assault on the Palestinians. Politicians’ motives are never entirely pure, but to play with lives (on both sides) for such a shallow reason is indefensible. Not to say that that is the reason but....

· There was a beautiful moment at Limmud when we held a one-minute silence for the situation in Gaza and the Palestinians that have lost their lives, followed by a rousing rendition of Hatikvah (Israeli national anthem). If everyone had such pride in their country coupled with empathy of the ‘other’ we would not be in such a mess.

Of course, Palestinians might say this is a phoney ‘show’ of emotion orchestrated by the oppressors. “They can afford such pretence”. Well I say, let them think that. It may even be true but the Palestinians don’t even have the desire to fake it! They seem to have given up entirely on such notions as justice, compassion and the innate morality of certain actions. There doesn’t seem to be any protest to Hamas’ claim that Jews everywhere have given up their right to live.

· The ‘invasion’ (so people have called it) seems to have got just as much ire as that of bombing. As I said on my previous post, I found the bombing to be morally outrageous but as for a ground operation I am less unhappy. Of course, if the operation involves certain tactics then I am just as unhappy. If mortars are fired in such a way that they know it to take innocent lives with the guilty, then there is no moral difference. However, a ground operation has the potential to be far more targeted and far more accurate. Bombings in densely crowded areas will always kill civilians no matter how targeted; going in by foot should allow them to target specific things.

· I don’t know whether to be proud or sick when I see Israeli soldiers by their tanks donning tallit and tefillin. A Kiddush Hashem or a Chillul Hashem? Of course, the secular world and the Christian world would like to see religion confined to Church and the inner sanctum of the heart. Religious people should be saintly, spend their days in monkly solitude or on the parish green and not dirty their hands with worldly affairs. “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, Render to G-d what is G-d’s”. This is a view of religion I reject entirely. If it is not concerned with real life, then it is impotent. Plus you have to bear in mind that regardless of the relation between religion and the army, these men are commanded to put on such garments. Yet... there can be nothing more dangerous than mixing religious zeal and deadly weapons.

· It could be argued that Israel treats Palestinian lives very cheaply and on the part of some, this is true. But at least they value the lives of their own civilians. This is more than can be said for the vast majority of Palestinian groups. It is Israel’s concern for its own that leads it release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the dead bodies of Israeli ones. It is this which leads the name of each and every name of fallen Israeli soldier to be recited and remembered on Yom Hazikaron. It is this that leads us to campaign on behalf of MIA soldiers decades on.

This is in sharp contrast to Palestinian children’s TV that implores people to grow up martyrs. In sharp contrast to mothers who allow their children to be suicide bombers. In sharp contrast to terrorist groups who use civilians as human shields. In sharp contrast to groups who prevent their injured civilians gaining treatment in other countries. For Palestinian terrorists, there is only one thing better than Israeli deaths: dead Palestinians.

· I get worried by the ‘wavering’ of my moral sense. What, straight after I heard the news, was so certain is no longer. What was so emphatic when I wrote my post is now just a theoretical position I hold. What kept me up at night because of its outrageousness seems ‘not so bad’. Yes, I hold that what Israel did was wrong, but not so wrong. I’m influenced by the fact that there is evidence the bombs were targeted, I am swayed by the deaths of Israeli civilians, I have taken in that the vast majority of Palestinians that died were terrorists and I am assuaged by the very justification I fought so hard against, “What else can we do?”

But the Palestinian civilians that died weren’t only “20-25%” of overall deaths, they weren’t part of the “grand scheme of things”, there is no comfort for a family who knows that their daughter has died accidentally as part of a targeted attack. THEY ARE REAL PEOPLE. Yet, I fall into the numbers game.

As I write this I am swelling up with tears. Lest you think that shows that I care, or that they are part of a morally nuanced position, let me assure you they are purely selfish. They are a detestation of my moral impotence and my inability to see clearly. What good is a morally nuanced position anyway? Who does it help? I couldn’t with any conscience join in a rally against the bombings knowing who I was marching with and what this would imply. I couldn’t with good conscience join in the Israeli propaganda. I can’t with good conscience do anything and that makes me upset.

MORE THOUGHTS TO COME BUT I'M TIRED...