2 Friday, January 5, 1919
THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS
Purely Commentary
Hanuka and Christmas, Harmony
and Ecumenism: The Jewish
and the Christian Attitudes
There is a 19-year cycle for Hanuka and Christmas to
occur on corresponding dates, due to the leap years that
occur on the Hebrew calendar which operates according to
the lunar system.
On the Hebrew calendar, leap years occur seven times
in every 19-year cycle.
Hanuka and Christmas coincided in this century,
prior to 1978, in 1902, 1921, 1940 and 1958. It will cocur
again in 1997.
The 1978 experience was exceedingly intriguing. More
than ever before, the Judeo-Christian community took note
of the calendar harmony. The ecumenical spirit ran high. It
was a time for exhilaration. Christians and Jews met to-
gether, harmoniously, spiritually, with a sense of obliga-
tion to make the human values workable.
There were serious questions to contemplate. Was
there an attempt to proselytize? Did amity predominate?
Was there a begrudging of superiority, since the Hanuka
observers are in such a minority, contrasted by the over-
whelming Christian participation in the observances of
ecumenism?
Let it be recorded to the credit of the Christians who
had a role in the dialogue that they were respectful, they
expressed pride in sharing the historic experiences, in re-
tracing the Maccabean glories commemorated on Hanuka.
Jews who appreciated the dignity of such dialogues were
equally joyful that two contrasting religious functions
should be honored in a community spirit.
Sadly, there were the injections of the escapees, of
those seeking excuses for having failed in their identifica-
tions as Jews. It was in this respect that, instead of giving
emphasis to the holiday spirit with toleration for the views
and devotions of each group sharing in a calendar identity,
some resorted to peripheral interests. The mixing of the
faiths, intermarriage, suddenly became a related matter
injected into ecumenism. This was confusion rather than
amity. It gave an opportunity to those who abandoned their
heritage in a mixing of family processes to think in terms of
the Christmas Tree as a linkage with the Menora.
Often, in earlier years, there were those who chose to
speak of a Hanuka Bush. It was an estrangement that was
resented. There never was cause to combine the two, and in
the 1978 experience of harmonious ecumenism the honora-
ble in both factions, the Jewish and the Christian, did not
confuse the ceremonial objects and the ceremonialism. The
Tree is for Christians, the Menora for Jews and when the
two were placed together they were as an expression of
unity and fair play for all.
The expression of escapism, limited as it may have
been, was regrettable. Exemplary of an unnecessary lin-
kage was an article in the New York Times by Anne
Roiphe, an author of novels, whose article was entitled
"Christmas Comes to a Jewish Home." This could not be
judged as respectful to Jews who adhere to the claim that
differences are tolerable and that a yielding to the majority
religion is only for those who seek an escape from the
Jewish past. Is Humanism, as viewed by the NYTimes
writer, so demanding, that it calls for abandonment of a
religious exclusiveness by Jews?
Emphasis, in a series of incidents publicized in a fea-
ture article in the Detroit News, could be viewed as notori-
etSr . inspired by the appeasing attitude of the Humanist
Rabbi. Since when does weakening of the Jewish right to
retain its legacies equate with humanism? And to what
extent is the concession to a reduction of Jewish identifica-
tion go in the name of ecumenism? If that means a vanish-
ing of the Jewish spiritual identity then it must be rejected.
And there is sufficient conceit in the opposition to conces-
sions to mixed marriages, imitations of Christian obser-
vances and partial abandonment of loyalties to cause one to
believe that the true ecumenist in Christian ranks will
support the Jewish desire and aim to hold fast to faith
rather than abandon the inherited principles.
There is no doubt that the majority has an influence,
and it is equally factual that mutual respect of one faith for
another does not necessarily command submission by the
lesser to the predominant.
How is this to be avoided? Only by education, and there
must be a recognition that if the minority will be self-
respectful the majority will admire identifications and
loyalties.
, The 1978 experience was a good one. The majority of
participants in the Hanuka-Christmas dialogues acted
admirably. So did the knowledgeable Jews. When the de-
featists, those who defect, introduced the negatives, the
great experience was weakened.
The Assimilationist Defection:
A Challenging Definition
An attempt at assimilation by Anne Roiphe in her
article in the New York Times entitled "Christmas Comes
to a Jewish Home," a piece that revealed what is generally
When Assimilation Is Defiled and Self-Hate Causes
' Defections: Cynthia Ozick's Definition in Response
to a Defection When Ecumenism Is Under Challenge
interpreted as self-hate and a failure to achieve self-respect
in dealing with Jewish spiritual-cultural legacies, has
drawn protests and condemnations that filled several col-
umns of a subsequent issue of the NYTimes.
There is something heartening in the responses. They
evidenced a recognition that knowledgeability is vital for
Jews, that the proper education of Jewish children can
obviate the atrociousness of the Roiphe approach to an
effort at escapism from everything that is respectable in
Jewish life.
There is special interest in
the challenge to the self-
hating article in a response
by Cynthia Ozick, the emi-
nent novelist and short story
writer. Miss Ozick wrote as
an assimilationist with self-
dignity, proving that one can
be universally responsive
without abandoning faith or
a people's legacies. Miss
Ozick's is a challenging defi-
nition of assimilation that
can be acceptable in dignity
and in mutual respect among
CYNTHIA OZICK
all peoples, all faiths, who can
tolerate the other fellow while not abandoning self.
Miss Ozick wrote, in part, in response to Anne Roiphe:
Like Anne Roiphe, I call myself an assimilated
Jew. I have penetrated into the psychology and
hypotheses of my surroundings. I am entitled to
call myself assimilated because I share the legacy
of Western literature, art, philosophy and history
that everyone else similarly educated in schools
and universities has inherited. When we speak of
assimilation among amoebas, we mean that the
larger substance swallows the smaller; the major-
ity digests the minority. But when we speak of
assimilation in culture, we need to raise a
standard of reciprocity.
I am glad to be an assimilationist — it is usually
the consequence of an insatiable interest and re-
sponsiveness to want to study the history and be-
liefs of every intelligible society. Not to have a
grasp of Christianity — and of Buddhism in all its
varities, and of Islam in its varieties, and of all the
other paths and expressions of religious aspira-
tion that crowd, differentiate, thrilling color and
amazingly speckle our all manifesting planet —
not to know my neighbor's way, is in some fashion
not to know myself, not to know what it is I
willingly receive and what it is I willingly deny.
But the corollary of this is that I, too, want to be
known! I want my neighbors to assimilate my per-
ceptions as I have assimilated theirs; I want them
to know the real Hanuka of history, not the local
parroting of December consumerism .. .
I want the perplexed, the misled, the innocent
among the Christian majority — my neighbors,
my friends, my colleagues — to study history and
learn their indebtedness to the Pharisees, a
school of broadly liberal, ethical thinkers who
were the source of Christianity's own portrait of
itself. I want them to assimilate Judaism and not
invite me to utter the unacceptable words "Old
Testament" when I mean Torah. I want them to
fathom why it is that Jewish tradition calls its
people "the children of mercy."
In short, I do not want to be like Anne Roiphe.
Anne Roiphe is not an assimilated Jew, as I am; an
assimilated Jew requests, as I do, an exchange of
study and of knowledge. An assimilationist rec-
oginizes the justice and plain daily decency of
reciprocal learning.
The reason Anne Roiphe cannot properly call
herself an assimilated Jew is that she is unable to
make such an exchange; she cannot sort out truth
from misconception; she can only receive, but she
cannot give .. .
Perhaps it was well that Anne Roiphe should have
written as she did. It provided a platform for the defen-
ders of faith and inheritors of a great culture to offer
interpretations that are necessary, especially in a sea-
son of the year when differing faiths met to be meas-
ured. For the measurements to be proper the discus-
sion that developed should be welcomed.
`Inevitable' Peace Accord
and the Menacing 'Wreckers'
`Inevitable," "Inerasable," "Unavoidable" and
synonyms by the dozen are used to give assurance that the
peace accord between Egypt and Israel eventually will be
signed and made a reality. Meanwhile, there are obstacles,
there is name-calling. Menahem Begin is called the villain
and the Egyptian ruler is treated saintly.
By Philip
Slomovitz
Who is at fault? What are the obstacles? Who threatens
to wreck the accord reached at Camp David?
A concerned American Jew has been placing adver-
tisements at his own expense, calling attention to the injus-
tices that were either practiced or plotted against Israel. S.
Norman Gourse of New York has just addressed another
appeal in Israel's behalf in a paid ad in the New York Times
which he headed "Camp David Accord .— Who's The
Wrecker?" in which he analyzed the existing situation and
placed blame where it exists. Here is the text of his mes-
sage:
Both Democratic and Republican Party pia.
forms always promised support for Israel as a
staunch protector of American interests in the
Mideast. Many times, before and after election,
President Carter defined peace as more than a
cessation of fighting, but rather genuine diploma-
tic and economic relationships which would di-
vert enormous expenditures for war into pro-
grams to benefit horribly depressed masses.
So the world applauded President, Carter as a
moderator whose initiative and achievement
created a framework for peace at Camp David.
His terms were adhered to by Israel. Then he and
the State Department decided to appease the
Arab "rejectionists," including the PLO — to for-
estall punishment by OPEC (a lesson in futility,
witness the disaster of the huge oil-price hike —in
displeasure over the peace negotiations!) Saudi
Arabia • given priority to staying on good terms
with Syria, Iraq, Libya — whose friendship is
dubious. Remember how President Carter jus-
tified the sale of F15 planes to Saudi?
President Sadat was encouraged to demand
unreasonable changes in the proposed treaty:
1) No exchange of Ambassadors with Israel
(even after Israel has withdrawn from 70 percent
of Sinai) until self-rule has been inaugurated in
Gaza.
2) Review of the peace agreement in five years,
after Israel has totally withdrawn from the Sinai.
3) The right to war against Israel anytime he
rules that Israel is the aggressor against a third
party with whom Egypt has a mutual defense
pact.
4) An insistence upon conditions in the West
Bank that would seriously undermine the secu-
rity of Israel (actually a rehash of the discredited
"Rogers" plan), Autonomy may take longer than
"linkage" would permit.
Accompanying the demands are plentiful signs
of increased Arab military buildups (such as 50
F5E American jets that Saudi Arabia is to buy
for Egypt). Weaponry is pouring into Arab coun-
tries from all the major powers.
Israel promised withdrawal from Sinai entirely
— without a single new condition, whereas
Sadat's distortions bear no resemblance to that
which was promised at Camp David. Henry Kis-
singer says no one is more dedicated to peace than
Israel. Over 100 generals and admirals have af-
firmed that we need a strong Israel to continue to
defend our Mideast interests. Then why a U.S.
policy of supporting a unilateral withdrawal that
would weaken a loyal ally? Why support Egyptian
blackmail conditions which dilute the nature and
permanence of the Egyptian commitment to
peace — and make the Jewish state vulnerable to
a new war after surrendering key territory? Why
permit a Sadat victory in creating a rift between
U.S. and Israel?
One "Munich" plunged the world into horn,
tragedy; conscionable Americans cry out agaitt.,
a policy leading to another "Munich."
The facts stated by Gourse are irrefutable. Will they be
ignored, under the cloak of another hate campaign,
engineered by Anwar Sadat against Menahem Begin?
These surely are times for testing the sense of justice of the
media and the diplomats.
Peace NOW — Most Certainly,
But With Honor and Justly
Some months ago there was consternation over a letter
by 36 prominent Jews — they were referred to as the intel-
lectuals — advocating "Peace Now" as a pursuit by Israel.
The approach by that group, at that time, was shocking to
many. Now 33 of the 36 have addressed a protest to
President Carter against the negations introduced in the
quest for peace, and the one-sided approach to the issue by
the President.
One must never give up hope—sooner or later blunders
are corrected. Even the most intellectual can commit er-
rors. In this instance an error has been corrected. What a
blessing — in time of need!