Welcome to Mosaic
Get expert writing and analysis
on the biggest issues in the Jewish world

 
or
Already have an account? Sign in now

When Jews Became Hebrews and When Hebrews Became Jews

This week’s Torah reading of Lekh-l’kha (Genesis 12-17) contains the Bible’s first use of the word “Hebrew” (ivri), employed to describe Abraham. The term, the origins of which are uncertain, fell into disuse sometime in the biblical period, and was replaced entirely by variations of “Jew” or “Judean” by the time of the Second Temple. Yet so often did Christians use Jew as a slur that when European Jews began seeking emancipation and social integration toward the end of 18th century, many wished to replace the word, as Jonathan Sarna relates:

One ancient rabbi had playfully connected [the Hebrew ivri] to Abraham’s fierce non-conformism: “All the world was on one side (ever) and he on the other side,” [as the two words share a three-consonant root.] . . . . Whatever the case, by the time of King David, some 3,000 years ago, the word meaning “the Hebrew” had largely disappeared. . . .

Since the word Israelite conjured up far more positive associations [in modern times], it became the term of choice in several countries [in the early 19th century], especially France. . . . Others looked to rebrand Judaism as “Mosaism” or “the Mosaic persuasion,” hoping to capitalize on the reputation that Moses enjoyed even among non-Jews. . . . The term that won the greatest favor among American Jews, however, was the one borne by Abraham in Lekh-l’kha: “Hebrew.”.  . .

For a time, this well-meaning strategy succeeded. “Hebrew” became the socially acceptable, politically correct, term for Jews. . . With the rising anti-Semitism in the late-19th century, however, the same stigma once applied to “Jew” became associated with the word “Hebrew.” . . . Abandoning the name “Jew” turned out to have accomplished nothing. So young Jews, beginning in the late 19th century, began to take the word back. . . . Within a few years, the Hebrew War Veterans became Jewish War Veterans, many Young Men’s Hebrew Associations became Jewish Community Centers, and “Hebrew charities” became Jewish ones. . . .

The remarkable odyssey of the word Hebrew carries important contemporary lessons as institutions today once again look to “rebrand” and alter their image in a bid to overcome stigma and win over critics. Sensitive politicians may be swayed and temporary benefits accrued by such changes, but history suggests that they may well prove ephemeral. We might do better by learning, as the rabbis did, from that fierce nonconformist, “Abram the Hebrew,” who valiantly stood his ground—even when “all the world was on one side and he on the other side.”

Read more at Jewish Theological Seminary of America

More about: Abraham, American Jewish History, Anti-Semitism, Hebrew Bible, History & Ideas, Political correctness

To Deter Iran, America Must Stop Playing by Its Rules

So far, the U.S. has responded to attacks by Iran-backed terrorists either by inaction or by attacks on the groups themselves, while avoiding what Naftali Bennett called “the head of the octopus.” Oved Lobel argues that deterrence

can only be achieved by also targeting those actually responsible for these attacks: the Islamic regime ruling Iran and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). For too long, the U.S. has been engaging in the IRGC’s shell game, pretending that the Houthis, more formally known as Ansar Allah, were a Yemeni problem. The reality is that, like Hizballah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank, and various militias in Iraq and Syria, Ansar Allah is an IRGC problem. . . .

Imagine if the situation were reversed and the Islamic Republic treated every branch of the U.S. military as an independent organization, each merely backed by or allied with the U.S. government. Whenever the U.S. Air Force struck a regime target, for instance, it would respond only against the air force, never the U.S. Army or Navy, and in a very narrow fashion, with [the U.S.] itself never suffering any kind of retaliation. At no stage would they all be treated as a unitary enemy whose decision-making center was in Washington.

If this seems patently absurd, that is because it is, and it is precisely what the U.S. is doing by trying to compartmentalize the components of the IRGC and deter each one as if it weren’t part of a whole. This approach, for obvious reasons, isn’t working in Iraq and Syria and it clearly won’t work in Yemen.

Read more at Fresh Air

More about: Iran, Iraq, U.S. Foreign policy, Yemen