For a very long time, the illiterate Romani saw themselves as a diaspora without knowing or caring where they came from.

Ur was a point of reference for Abraham. After the reference was made, its significance, and certainly its salience, quickly subsided.

Many Jewish organizations are thoroughly infused with Jewish political sensibilities. Because America is so hospitable to Jews and to reform generally speaking, some of the things Bundists fought for have been achieved; a narrowly Jewish agenda is not as necessary as it once was. Many descendants of Bundists morphed into Americans civil rights advocates, humanist professionals, etc.. Bend the Arc is one example. Still Jewish, still drawing into Talmudic values, still applying them within the context of a universalist Weltanschauung.

To the diasporist, Israel is not home. Home is home. Israel, for at least a significant number of Jewish-Americans -- I don't pretend to know how many -- is a foreign country that grows more foreign with every passing decade.

"I would be happy if you could name a Jewish political narrative in the present tense that has nothing to do with Israel"

A diasporist one. This perceives the Jewish diaspora experience as authentically Jewish. To the extent that some diasporists give thought to Israel, it's to reflect on its alleged trajectory away from the universalist trends that have increasingly defined Western Judaism since the late 18th century. If you're curious to read a good recent introduction, I'd suggest Alan Wolfe's At Home in Exile.

The problem with pro- and anti- is that there is no universal consensus on what those words mean and who conforms to the labels. You claim to know what every organization is "in reality."

Unfortunately, most Jewish leaders and organizations aren't blessed with your perspicacity. They quarrel all the time about who is and isn't pro- or anti-Israel.

No I didn't mention the "issue of Truman". Truman is not an "issue" in my posts. You are going off topic again.

I mentioned the issue of an esteemed author being banned from speaking at the Museum of Jewish Heritage solely because of his book's description of Truman's Middle East policies and attitudes and a Jewish lobby's influence on those policies.

I haven't read the book. Until I do so, I have no way of knowing what Judis's views might be on that particular lobby but it's immaterial.

I want to talk about censorship, the subjecting of Jews to political litmus tests, the Jewish policies and practices that unwittingly contribute to an impression of Jews as a fifth column -- and you want to talk about anything but.

Sorry, but you asked me what I meant by the politicization of Jewishness in the context of my "fifth column" remarks and I told you.

If you can't stay on topic, we're done here.

CMucius "I don't support him, but in fairness, he wanted to bomb Iran earlier, and the White House pressured him not to."

"In fairness?" That implies that there was an appropriate time to bomb Iran and the US made Bibi miss his golden opportunity.

There was never any such thing; no single, ground-level Osiraq that could have been easily and surgically removed. You also have to have proof of non-peaceful intentions before you go in and bomb the hell out of a country's energy facilities. There was no such proof. Bibi's recommendation, if acted upon, would have been pure barbarism with potentially devastating consequences for Israel and the region.

What on earth does that have to do with my point?

Answer: nothing whatsoever. It's a non sequitur.

Re-read what I wrote, carefully this time. The point is that a highly regarded scholar and former editor of the New Republic was barred from speaking solely because he offended some muckety-mucks with his reference to a powerful Jewish lobby and its influence on a US president with tepid attitudes toward Israel.

How is that censorship any different from the censorship that China regularly gets criticized for?

"What is "politicizing of Jewishness"? Is that a way of saying that Jewish activism on behalf of the Zionist cause is illegitimate in your opinion?"

No.

"I can think of two political narratives that Jews of today might be busy with. One is Zionism and the other one is anti-Zionism"

I can think of many political narratives, some merely critical of Israel rather than pro- or anti-, and others that don't have anything to do with Israel at all.

"The anti-Zionists are also politicizing Jewishness, but I think that you meant the Zionists. Do you?"

Mainly, but not exclusively. The difference is that the most fervent Zionists contend that you're not really Jewish unless you cheerlead for Israel. The anti-Zionists don't argue the converse.

"What is "politicizing of Jewishness"?

Thanks for asking. The politicizing of Jewishness occurs when one is accepted as fully Jewish only when one endorses a particular political or ideological agenda. Hillel does this. It claims to represent all Jewish students, but its guidelines insist that students conform to certain politically correct views about Israel.

"Hillel desires that students are able to articulate why Israel plays an important role in their personal Jewish identities and how Israel continues to influence Jewish conversations, global Jewish peoplehood, and the world."

Okay, what if a Jewish student is indifferent to this subject or disagrees with it?

"Hillel views Israel as a core element of Jewish life and a gateway to Jewish identification for students. Hillel promotes a continuum of experiences to engage students with Israel, educate their campus communities about Israel, and advocate for Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state in peace and security."

What if Jewish students disagree with this focus and prefer to establish programs dedicated to Diaspora Jewishness?

"Hillel will not partner with, house, or host organizations, groups, or speakers that as a matter of policy or practice:

Deny the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish and democratic state with secure and recognized borders;
Delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel;
Support boycott of, divestment from, or sanctions against the State of Israel;"

Note that all of those conditions are highly subjective -- more subjective than you might realize at first glance. All require interpretation. By whom? Against whom?

Thanks for setting me straight Lexaphus! I'm badly out of touch with campus developments and have been for decades now. When I checked Hillel's website, I saw so many strictures and ideological statements I was under the impression that Jewish students actually had to agree to certain conduct.

This in particular caught my eye: "These guidelines should be shared with students, partners, speakers, and other stakeholders to ensure they are aware of and adhere to Hillel’s Israel guidelines."

What does it mean for a student to "adhere to these guidelines"? What constitutes a clear violation? What happens to the "offending" student? Is he or she forced to leave?

Regarding your comment: "If they feel that way but fail to remove their standards that bar certain political viewpoints from their viewpoints (and thereby conflate Judaism with certain forms of Zionism) we shouldn't be surprised when non-Jews make similar conflations. If we're going to make progress, we need to be as upset with the former as we are with the latter. Glad TikkunOlam (the commenter) is, and hoping others are as well."

You said it better than I did. Excuse my shouting, but YES YES YES! I am absolutely stunned to think that this is not a huge issue in the Jewish community. It ought to be.

Again, thanks so much. I greatly appreciate your comments.

You think Jews do not subject other Jews to political litmus tests?

Look up the Forward article on how John Judis, former editor of The New Republic, came to be disinvited by the Museum of Jewish Heritage. He had the chutzpah to describe, in his latest book on Truman*, how Truman was dubious about the Zionist cause but was forced to act against his principles by the influence of the Jewish lobby.

Boom! Down came the ban hammer of Jewish censorship and good Jews like yourself didn't even bat an eye.

*Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict

I am not referring to the "mere existence" of Hillel, which I applaud.

I am referring to political litmus tests for membership. Have you read their mission statement? How does that not politicize Jewishness?

I never said that Beyda was a member of Hillel. I was merely speculating on one possible dimension to the conflict in the absence of details from this tabloidish article.

I surely welcome more detailed information about the total context here.

The one thing we can agree on.