Micah Goodman

The philosopher Micah Goodman seeks here to address a tension that strains not just Israel or Diaspora Jews but really all of Western Civilization. Secular modernity frees the individual from constraints but can veer into corrosive skepticism. Melancholy, loss of meaning and even childless societies follow. The religious response, for Goodman very much including Orthodox Ashkanzic Judaism, is an unnaturally insular turn that calcifies, or, worse, leads to fanaticism.

Drawing on thinkers like Ahad Ha’am, A.D. Gordon, and Berl Katznelson, Goodman calls for a middle way and sees some evidence of one developing in contemporary Israel, with some religious Jews opening to the world and some seculars deriving meaning from aspects of religious tradition even if they do not accept its theological underpinnings.

A provocative thesis but one that the recent sociological book #IsraeliJudaism, by Shmuel Rosner and Camil Fuchs, suggests may have some grounding in reality.

4 stars.… (plus d'informations)

This is getting strong reviews, but I didn't find it terribly compelling. I'd like to state at the outset that I think the book's weaknesses are not so much a result of political partisanship: people who claim it's either right or left wing are really missing the point (the answer is probably just that Dr. Goodman is to their left or right).

The issue is twofold: One, the book is very short. Two, Dr. Goodman's background is in Jewish thought and philosophy, not in politics or history, and this leads him to make generalizations that he fails to support.

He divides Israelis into two broad camps: the right and the left. Unfortunately, this means that different segments of each camp are either conflated, or one stream is focused on. The anti-Zionist left, which has been strengthening in recent years, is ignored (he dismisses the non-Zionists or post-Zionists explicitly). The left, as represented in the book, is the Zionist left. This means that some arguments--for example, that the demographic problem is a fundamentally racist question--are simply not raised. However, his portrayal of Israelis is more incomplete than inaccurate.

His characterization of the Palestinians, however, I found to be a problem. This is not to say there's no elements of truth to it, but he tends to characterize Palestinians as a single group that doesn't have diverse viewpoints and he makes widespread generalizations without evidence, such as saying that Palestinians are motivated by humiliation and that they simply don't accept Jewish rule. If you're going to make these kinds of sweeping statements, you need to build your argument better. I know this book was initially written for an Israeli audience that has greater familiarity with the history and the conflict than English speakers, but if you're not even distinguishing between secular nationalism and Islamism, I don't think that's the whole issue.

He also argues that the West Bank and Gaza is not occupied territory because it doesn't belong to anyone (although he says the Palestinians themselves are occupied). Many scholars would disagree with that.

The book isn't all bad: it tries to promote a pragmatic view to dealing with the conflict. However, he doesn't deal sufficiently with all present problems. It may not be possible to have an overarching peace agreement that deals with what happened in 1948. However, the rights of Palestinians today are another question, and how political equality can be achieved--either through independence/self government or through Israeli citizenship--isn't fleshed out. More self government might be a pragmatic choice for Israelis, but will it be accepted by the other side? His arguments only apply to what Israelis might find palatable, and not anything else.… (plus d'informations)