Therapeutic Distance

I've been in and out of therapy for a good part of my life, in an attempt to "work through" my own issues or those of my immediate family (birth and adult-made ones). My mom is a psychotherapist and I'm also trained as a social worker--a community organizer as opposed to clinical work--so, I've been sensitive to the roles of both therapist and patient.

A difficult marriage and a poor employment history since getting married prompted me to enter individual therapy again.  It was in addition to couple’s therapy which began shortly after the wedding. Recently, the issues surrounding the survivability of the marriage have brought both components to a head.

My wife [W] has been adamant in desiring access to my individual therapist. I have long resisted this demand--despite her [W] argument that she's paying part of the costs--with the consent of my therapist. It's his position that he's my advocate alone.

By extension, I have kept her individual therapy and therapist at arms length. When she decided to switch people, I allowed her to do as she wished (though frankly, I don't believe the "lack of progress" was a result of the therapist's approach as much as the desire of the patient to seriously and consciously confront the deeper [as opposed to surface/superficial/immediate] issues of her life). She has expressed satisfaction with the switch, though I continue to believe the same issues are unresolved and present.

I had the "opportunity" to meet her new person when he was invited and came to the last two couple therapy sessions. W demanded that we switch to a new person who would conduct a short-term therapy cycle (instead of the on-going relationship with the immediately previous person). In an effort to jump start the process and determine the total agenda as well as attempt to bring all the different players into one room, all the therapists to our couple’s therapy. At the first of the two joint sessions, my person was unavailable due to another work commitment and was on vacation for the second session. W's person came to both.

Frankly, I really didn't care whether he came or not. My issues were with W and the (new) therapist and his presence was generally unremarkable.

That said, I found his behavior and approach to be extremely problematic. Rather than maintaining a professional distance; providing critical feedback to his patient's behavior (both in the couple therapy session as well as what happened during their individual sessions), I found him to be like a cheerleader and "lawyer"/advocate for W. Rather than seeking to use his perspective to assist W to seek accommodation with me and my needs, he appeared to uncritically promote the status quo.

I was really unimpressed with his style and approach.

What am I looking for? I look for someone who will confront me with inconsistencies, to catalyze my own ability to reflect on my behavior and change/adjust my behavior(s). In other words, I remain responsible for my own behavior but the therapist helps me to clarify my thinking and prods me to make the needed changes to reach my stated goals. I want to be gently challenged, forced to think through my issues and how I respond to challenges to my ego and impulses. To merely allow me to continue on my self-delusional path is reckless and negligent therapeutic behavior.

To do this, the therapist needs to maintain enough distance to avoid getting caught up in my 'fantasy world' and cut through my fog machine, but at the same time be close enough to have my trust to bring me to a/the place where I can cut through the smog on my own.

(As I reflect on the above, I look to a therapist much in the same way I look to a teacher. As someone to help me acquire the tools to deal with future challenges, be in the deeply personal/psychological arena or the academic world.)

Moral authority means what exactly?

I serve as a moderator for an email discussion group. As such, I view my role as a neutral facilitator of discussion, despite my own personal view or mastery of the facts (that may differ from the submitter).

The topic or issue that creates the greatest degree of "excitement" and activity revolves around Israel and its relationship with its Palestinian neighbours and citizens. The style of discourse may be best described as shrill and highly reliant on hand-picked facts and suppositions.

For the record, I am troubled by the treatment and level of services Israel (as the State/ Government) provides its non-Jewish residents and especially citizens. Not only is their municipal services ("city hall") and infrastructure less supported--sewage, roads, solid waste/garbage, school system--though they pay their taxes, they are also subjected to harassment. Bedouin are forced to live in Israeli designated areas and when they choose to live where they want they're informed they're living in an illegal area and denied all government services. And, this is done in spite of the high level of enlistment in the IDF.

Those living under either Palestinian rule--the Palestinian Authority [PA] in the "West Bank" or Hamas in Gaza--or, under direct Israeli control, I believe need to be treated as human beings, but with suspicion. Until the Palestinians engage in serious efforts to curb their anti-Israel/ Semitic rhetoric and behaviour, actively stop and pursue those engaging in terrorist acts against Israel and Jews and work towards the achievement and realization of a two state solution.

A recent thread, this one regarding the accusation that Israel used white phosphorus during the Gaza War, went like this:

"A" wrote:

>… some members of Yedidya vilified the IDF for alleged barbarities. I appreciate that we are to be judged by a higher standard than our terrorist neighbors but I see very few of those members who are at the vanguard of criticizing Zahal speaking out every time a terrorist crime of humanity is done by Hamas against Israeli citizens

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here. Barbarities committed by the I.D.F. are a moral issue for me; I am not vilifying the I.D.F. but rather taking responsibility for my own side. Barbarities committed by Hamas are a practical, not a moral, issue for me.

In response, "B" wrote:

... I, too, care about moral standards and consider them to be an integral part of my Jewishness and observance of the mitzvot.

Unfortunately, to conduct a military campaign against an enemy that is not comprised of an organized and structured army ... and which does not conduct itself according to some mutually accepted and recognized code to which we also might adhere, it's virtually impossible to fight according to some higher moral code that both parties do not recognize. I believe that their code is to kill, maim, and dismember as many men, women and children as they possibly can, without regard to combatant status. They purposely target hospitals, ambulances, cafes, restaurants, schools, nurseries, old age homes, hotels, etc. They then seek refuge in and hide in those same institutions, knowing that we won't target them. You simply
cannot deter a determined enemy under those conditions.

Returning once again to the old WW II analogy, the German and Japanese peoples, as represented by their governments, were unwilling to cease and desist from the mayhem they undertook to unleash on the civilian populations of the free world until they finally came to understand, late in the war, that the allied forces really would conduct what would otherwise be considered immoral reprisals against the populations of Germany and Japan, like the firebombing of Dresden that murdered scores of thousands of men, women and children, and the total destruction unleashed by the 2 atomic bombs on the civilian populations of Japan. Only then were they able to understand that the allies were determined to continue the wholesale and wanton destruction of their countries and populations, and that if they didn't surrender unconditionally, they would simply cease to be, i.e., they would all be dead. The results, as you know, are apparent today, i.e., we don’t all speak German, and we Jews are free to pontificate and agonize and moralize and beat our collective breasts about how horribly we conduct ourselves on the field of battle against an amorphous, implacable, immoral enemy. So, yes, I DO care about what Hamas and Hizb’allah do, and I believe that unfortunately we need to respond in kind.

In in response to the analogy to World War II, "A" then wrote:

The relevant analogy is not the mass killing of civilians but the wise decision of the Allies to rebuild occupied Germany and Japan so that they would become the stable democracies they are today. If Israel, instead of colonizing the captured territories, had been wise enough to decide in 1967 to foster (with international support) a democratic and stable Palestine, we would all be more secure and prosperous today.

The underlying assumption of "A" seems to be that Jews/Israelis are expected to confirm to a higher standard than other countries adhere to in times of war.

• Higher than other countries adhered to during WW2, which later was seen as a needed (possibly even morally and ethically) step to end the war more quickly.
• Without regard to actual conditions on the ground. A terrorist or guerrilla is due the same degree of protection as a civilian. Only uniformed soldiers are "open targets." Conducting a war purposely, from densely populated civilian centres or neutral locations (e.g. hospitals, schools, NGO offices or buildings) means that no military response is permitted. Such behaviour is to be condoned.

War is hell and those who enter it, all the more so those who initiate it, must understand its costs and be willing to pay them. Not go running around complaining how they are being bullied.

Lastly, the response to the analogy also ignores the actual facts and context of the Six Day War (1967) in which Israel acquired the additional (Palestinian) territories.

Unlike in the case of Japan and Germany who agreed to an unconditional surrender and openly (if that's not too strong a term) embraced the rebuilding efforts of the (former) Allied victor countries/forces, the Arab countries outright rejected an rapprochement with Israel. When one side refuses to recognize the existence of the other, it's near impossible to arrive at any kind of accommodation to rebuild the society/economy.

Following the Israeli military victory and Israel (unity) government's declaration (on June 19, 1967) that it was ready to return the Golan Heights to Syria, Sinai to Egypt and most of the West Bank to Jordan, in return for peace treaties with its Arab neighbors, normalization of relations and guarantee of navigation through the Straits of Tiran (and that the refugee problem would be solved by resettlement outside the borders of the State of Israel),the Arab League met in Khartoum Sudan for a summit at the end of summer (29 Aug - 1 Sept. 1967) to address its next steps. It issued the Khartoum Resolutions which has been described as the "3 Nos"--NO peace with Israel, NO recognition of Israel and NO negotiations with it.

The implications of this was far-reaching. Conciliatory voices in both Israel and the Arab countries were muted (and possibly even stifled). It would take 20 years for an Arab country, Egypt, to conduct peace talks with Israel. Israel would launch a settlement program to establish "facts on the ground." Refugees would continue to live in the squalor of refugee camps loosing hope of ever returning and denied citizenship in their new host country.

The Khartoum resolutions weakened conciliatory voices in the Israeli government, and legitimized those voice who were calling for annexation of the conquered territories and Jewish settlement in them. They argued that in any case, it was clear that the Arabs would not make peace in the near future, and that the settlements would establish "facts on the ground" (a literal translation of a Hebrew phrase that means fait accompli) and would pressure Arab governments and Palestinians to make peace. Consequently, on September 24, the unity government led by PM Levi Eshkol, under [political] pressure ... announced plans for the re-establishment of a Jewish community in the Old City of Jerusalem (exiled in 1948 by the Jordan Legion) of the Etzion Bloc (kibbutzim on the Bethlehem-Hebron road wiped out by Palestinian in the war of 1948)and for kibbutzim in the northern sector of the Golan Heights. Plans were also unveiled for new neighborhoods around Jerusalem, near the old buildings of Hebrew University, and near the Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. This phase of the settlement plan was well within Israeli the consensus.

The rest is, as they say, history. The settlements have expanded well beyond the Jerusalem corridor, the terrorism has been active, and the rejection and delegitimization of Israel has continued unabated. If there's going to any positive movement towards true peace and mutual respect, we must relate to the history and seek to distort or ignore it because it's inconvenient to our case/ideological mindset.

Jerusalem as the symbol

Today--6 January 2009--corresponds to the fast of the Asara be'Tevet (10th of Tevet). The fast commemorates the siege placed around Jerusalem by the Greeks which lead to the destruction to the Temple in 581 BCE. It's one of the four fasts associated with the destruction of the Temples -- the Fast of Gedalia (3rd of Tishrei, immediately following Rosh Hashanna), Asara b'Tevet, the 17th of Tammuz and Tisha b'Av [9th of Av]. The first three along with Tannit Esther [Fast of Esther] are considered a "minor fast", meaning it lasts from sunrise to sunset as opposed to the entire Jewish day -- the evening through the following sunset -- like Yom Kippur and Tisha b'Av.

Today, few people outside of the devout, most haredim and some "serious" orthodox Jews, observe them. I wonder if others actually are aware of the date.

The four Jerusalem fasts are more than recounting a series of historical events, imbued by the Rabbis, and halakha, with religious meaning. They also (can) speak to the contemporary meaning of Jewish life. Unfortunately, the religious meaning and requirements drown out the national and existential meaning of the cycle.

• The Fast of Gedalia addresses political murder/assassination of a Jewish leader seen as a puppet for outside (not-"Jewish") forces. It addresses zealotry and how it can set the stage for a downward spiral towards loss of sovereignty. The Zionist movement/State of Israel has experienced this with the assassinations of Hayim Arlosoroff [1932] and Yitzhak Rabin [1994] as well as other murders.
• Asara b'Tevet is also used to commemorate the yahrzeits of people who's actual date of death is unknown during the Shoah. It can also be used to discuss issues surrounding warfare like laying a siege.
• The 17th of Tammuz commemorates the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem and the onset of "The Three Weeks" leading up to the actual destruction of the Temple on Tisha B'Av. Issues like how to prevent loss of sovereignty and issues surrounding sadness (some people start to change their behaviors -- stopping to swim/bathe, eating meat ... now).
• Tisha B'Av commemorates the destruction of the Temples and the exile into the diaspora of the remaining Jews. It spelled the end of any semblance of self-rule, even if as a puppet of a more powerful foreign power.

The Temple was more than a religious symbol -- the place to bring sacrifices and pray to god. It was the central institution of Jewish life, the seat of the high court (Sanhedrin), the repository (especially for the First Temple) of the "Tablets" (Ten Commandments) -- in a word the central meeting place for the Jewish people. With its destruction, Judaism underwent a cataclysmic and "paradigm shift".

With the destruction of the 1st Temple, the Hebrew Bible (Tanach) was codified. In wake of destruction of the 2nd Temple (70 CE) was the onset of the Rabbinic Period and the redaction of the "Oral Law"; the Mishna around 200 CE and the Gemara in 400 CE (Palestinian/Yerushalmi) and 500 CE (Babylonian/Bavli).

The loss of the Temple and living in exile also meant finding new ways to express a Jewish identity. Despite the creation of the State of Israel 61 years ago, the struggle has continued unabated. Yet, little attention seems to be paid to this period outside of academic world and the educated religious world.

I'm not suggesting that everyone be expected to fast on these days. Instead, I believe they need to become part of the public calendar so they can be commemorated (instead of ignored). They are valuable 'teaching moments' and an opportunity for deepening people's connection to Jewish history and the Jewish people.

What I have been noticing as the current trends for promoting Jewish identity are:

• promoting Israel as a place to visit or spend time either as a free trip like Birthright/Taglit", or for a semester/year with MASA;
• social action projects through programs like Jewish Social Action Month or JGooders;
• preventing (or at least trying) intermarriages.

--more later--

Finding the generational voice

Attended the opening program of an international conference dedicated to promoting "Jewish Peoplehood" and prepare/train the leadership for the new generation. I left the program excited, invigorated but with many questions.

1. Calling itself a group, network, to promoted Jewish Peoplehood, it fails or chooses not to define the (parameters) of the term "peoplehood". What are its component parts, its expected common behaviors or attitudes? In other words, how does anyone know that their actions are actually promoting Jewish Peoplehood?
2. While bemoaning the low level of affiliation among the current generation of Jews, young and old, the number of attendees (and I assume non present supports) is small. Is this an (other) elite group attempting to present itself as a mass movement? How do they intend to actually attract a massive following?
3. If a sense of community is a fundamental element of developing and maintaining affiliation, is a virtual community of an interactive website enough to create the needed interpersonal connections and community spirit? How do you attract the current outsider, generally on the periphery and sometimes even beyond the periphery to come inside?
4. Is a virtual community enough to hold together the current "membership" beyond the core?
5. Is this a group/concept set up to grow old together or a model or paradigm for the succeeding (next) generation to take over just like the group hopes to do the current power structure (generation)?

The one question that requires further thought and elaboration, that I think I can attempt to work though is: Does today's contemporary reality present fundamentally different challenges to this generation than it did to previous ones?

Here I believe that every generation confronts the common challenge of determining a contemporary and relevant meaning for traditional values in the face of modernity. Modernity is really an ongoing continuous contemporary challenge. While today's challenges of modernity are different than those my parents, grandparents and ancestors faced, each generation, nonetheless, confronted the challenges of a new and modernizing world. The secret of continuity is the ability to respond to those challenges and make life and commonly held traditions meaningful in the new reality.

It's important to understand what's come before us, to appreciate the values and principals of past and current life, if only to understand how the previous generations confronted their challenges.

That said, I don't believe that the underlying issues are that much different from generation to generation. It's how we understand them and how we choose to address them to make our lives meaningful and "authentic" to our heritage. It's how we "frame" our reality.

by way of introduction

This blog is an opportunity for me to express my thoughts without regard to actual events. For actual events, please see bear response: paws for reflection. Instead, I hope to tease out my thinking about general life issues that i feel have no other outlet.