Three Stories of Gershom Gorenberg

Story One

"It's because I'm an Israeli journalist. If I were an Israeli heart surgeon they wouldn't be asking me this things."

I was eavesdropping on Gershom Gorenberg, the U.S.-born Jerusalem-based journalist who describes himself as a "left-wing, skeptical Orthodox Zionist Jew." He was speaking with Rebecca Lesses, a recently-tenured (deservedly so) professor of Jewish Studies following a supper Q&A with journalism majors and Ithaca College faculty.

This actually happened. I was reading an excerpt of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, an ethically questionable work. Capote didn't use tape recorders - claimed he could memorize everything. I can't. But I don't make up scenes either.

I was invited through Todd Schack via Jeff Cohen to attend this supper - wraps and pasta salad and cookies in swanky Park 220. It was an intimate affair: nine students, Gorenberg, and a handful of professors.

Israel. That's the magic word, isn't it? That's the powder keg of P.C., the sweating spotlit character on the world stage.

The first question was reductionist - which is fitting, as journalists by nature have to reduce things, distill them, boil them down to their most essential elements. This was the essence of the question: are American Jewish supporters of Israel supporting it on religious, nationalistic, or ethnic terms?

Gorenberg had just been discussing the intricacies of Israel. It's a nation, a religious nation, and Jews have traditionally identified themselves (and been identified by others) as an ethnic group. You can't separate them - they are all part of the identity.

But that was nothing compared to the question that came from Matt Mogweku, associate professor and chair of the journalism department. Like I said, I didn't record it. But this is the gist of what he said:

"When I was a boy growing up" (hand gesture to denote his height at this age) "I always wanted to visit Israel. Some people say, 'I want to go to Paris before I die.' I said, 'I want to go to Israel so I can die happy.' If I can go to Jerusalem..." (puffs out cheeks, denoting the grandeur of such a possibility). "But as I got older, and I began to read the news..." (rambles a bit). "I don't want to offend anyone here, but I started learning about Israel and nuclear weapons, and I thought, 'what is the difference between Israel and Iran?' I haven't seen any U.S. journalists or Israeli journalists writing about the question of nuclear weapons. I would like to know why no one is writing about this."

The essence of Gorenberg's response: Israeli journalists write about this every day.

But it was pursued more, and Gorenberg's frustration was evident, though he maintained his composure very well. Clearly he did not anticipate being put in the hot spot.

Then there were the questions about American journalists and Israel, even though Gorenberg said multiple times he did not frequently read American new sources. If you want news about Israel, you should read Israeli sources, because they don't get bogged down in reiterating the history of the issue, sacrificing precious words.

You might be thinking now, "Wait, Chris, you love it when journalists put people in the hot seat." That's true, but only when they do so fairly. Essentially Gorenberg was being asked to respond for Israel's government. Or being grouped with Israel and railed against. It is not Gorenberg that made these policies, and if you want to ask him about his views on it, you should ask him, rather than accuse him without reference to his writing or personal belief.

Story Two

Gorneberg then delivered a lecture in Emerson Suites to a small but attentive audience.

Images like the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque are symbols. It doesn't matter if important religious events ever happened there, because everyone "knows" that the did. The place is the composite of everything that ever "happened" there.

Also, the location cannot be called by neutral terms because any term used to describe it will instill the values of the describer. Al-Aqsa has the Muslim connotation, Temple Mount the Jewish. My corollary: "PSQ" will have an American, or at least English-language connotation with an English alphabet. It will be given by an outsider, like "Holy Land," which is only holy to the Big Three.

In any case, stories are what matter, because stories are what give our symbols meaning.

P.S. Before the Q&A portion, an announcement was made that all those that would like to discuss Israel politics without asking a question should do so on the Internet. Good call.

Story Three

Gorenberg closed this this beautiful story from the Bereishit Rabba, a midrash on Genesis. (Midrash is something of a rabbinic interpretation, but because of space considerations, and because I am a reductionist journalist, I will not discuss it here. I encourage you, however, to check out the Itche Kadoozy Show for all your questions on Judaism.)

This version of the same story of What Cain said unto Abel in Genesis 4:8 appears over at YU Torah Online.

And Cain Spoke unto Abel his brother.

About what did they quarrel?

“Come,” said they, “let us divide the world.” One took the land and the other took the movables. The former said, “The land you stand on is mine,” while the latter retorted, “What you are wearing is mine….”

R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in R. Levi’s name: “Both took land and both took movables, but about what did they quarrel? One said, ‘The Temple must be built in my area,’ while the other claimed, ‘It must be built in mine.’”

Judah b. Rabbi said, “Their quarrel was about the first Eve.” Said R. Aibu: “The first Eve had returned to dust.” Then about what was their quarrel? Said R. Huna, “An additional twin was born with Abel and each claimed her. The one claimed: ‘I will have her, because I am the first born,’ while the other maintained, ‘I must have her because she was born with me.’”

"It is appealing to suggest that this Midrash is portraying not just the specific dispute between Cain and Abel but from a universal perspective, presenting three reasons why wars break out.

"One reason is an economic one.
"A second reason concerns issues of power.
"A third reason is the religious one. Who will have the right to claim the Temple?"

Who will have the right to claim the Temple?