Inauthentic

Cheng's article reminds me of a conversation I had with a non-Jewish friend Jennifer about Birthright Israel. I told her about a friend of mine who was contemplating going on it. His father was a Jew-turned-Quaker, his mother a Christian-turned-Quaker, and he was a practicing Quaker. I thought that it wasn't right that he was twisting the system, calling himself Jewish when he wasn't, at least not in my eyes. Then Jennifer told me that the Birthright program allows anyone to go who has at least Jewish grandparents, much to my surprise. This conversation led Jennifer to ask me how exactly do you define a Jew, and I found it really hard to explain (much to her confusion). I think many times you end up deeming someone "Jewish" on a case-by-case basis. There are so many categories and caveats, as Cheng points out, that in the end I think it ends up being a "feeling" you have after learning about the person's situation.

Cheng discusses one version of Jewish identity; that of the perpetual victim. I think that this is an identity less and less assumed by Jewish people today. Perhaps Cheng is not getting the full picture. On one hand, there is a deep connection to or a common reference to a history of oppression or discrimination, but I think today it is many times employed wryly. Instead of embracing victimhood, Jews are using humor to manipulate the subject, making them victims no longer. Furthermore, I've found that more Jews who are searching for a sense of Jewish identity that is void of actually religion concentrate more on the positive accomplishments of other Jews. I have seen more non-Jews define Jewishness as victimhood. Particularly, a surprisingly large number of non-Jews in the Czech Republic have recently converted to Judaism because they feel a connection to the religion based on their experiences living under the Nazi and then Communist regimes. (A situation similar to the one in Poland that Cheng discusses).

Part of me thinks that perhaps the view of Jews as "an expiring people" as Wieseltier dubbed it actually works in favor on their promulgation. A constant pressure that the group is dying out forces people to define that group, feel more attached to and protective of it, and thus makes them care more about the religion of that child.

I thought some of the discussion of the Holocaust was offensive. There is a difference between not wanting a city to always "be in mourning" and building a night club on top of a major former-concentration camp. It is not as if hundreds of years have passed; people whose families were killed there are still alive. To put something like a dance club there is inappropriate. Many cities recognize the historical importance of former factories or buildings and do not let people destruct them. I think Auschwitz qualifies. Furthermore, every year, Jews remember the 400 years they spent as slaves in Egypt. This rememberance does not constitute an identity of victimhood. It is one important story in the context of a larger, vibrant history. I think the rememberance of the Holocaust is similar. Every year, Jews are supposed to say that G-d rescued "us" from slavery; that "we," not just our anscenstors were slaves in Egypt. Taking on part of the memory of the Holocaust experience may be a continuation of this tradition. One can also view it as an example of the strength of Jews to overcome some even as horrifying as the Holocaust.