Plenary Session 5: Does the coexistence with diversity affect the
continuity of a Jewish community?
We will begin this Plenary Session number 5. Panelists Alberto Senderey,
Judith Liwerant, Janan Nudel, Moses Fachler are here. Carlos Tapiero will be
the plenary moderator. Let me welcome to the president, Jaime Blay.
Jaime Blay [Plenary Session Chairman]
Good morning, my native language is Portuguese, but taking into account that
most of the people here speak Spanish, I will make an effort. Today's topic is
quite a complex one and it takes us to consider two aspects. The first one is the
fight for the prevalence of religious currents in the communities of the world in
detriment of a communitarian harmonic life. This happens worldwide and it
really hinders the work with young people who have difficulty to adopt and
incorporate members of mixed marriages to the community. This is a serious
problem which threatens deeply the continuity of many of our communities, in
the entire world. The other problem is the coexistence that we have with the
whole society. Nowadays it is very difficult to believe that there are restrictions
to the Jewish life in all the societies of the world. We have recently spoken
about Cuba, where not so long ago, nobody knew that there were Jews. They
were behind a curtain and they could not be found and today there are three
synagogues in Cuba, in the former Soviet Union and the satellites. Jewish life
flourishes. Everywhere Jewish life can be developed, but this brings the great
problem which is the coexistence with the whole societies that receive us. I like
the following phrase very much: we have fought for almost two millennia from
the exile of Babylon to be free, to have a homeland, a country, a home and we
only achieved this 60 years ago. We can raise our heads to say that we are
Jews and we are accepted but we have not prepared ourselves for freedom.
What should one do when ones is free and has to live in societies that are more
receptive? That is the great problem. I think that we are going to have hot
debates, I hope so, at least Rabbi Tapiero has guaranteed this. I invite you all to
think of questions and I am going to introduce panelists.
By my side, my fellow and friend Alberto Senderey, International Director for
Community Development for Europe and Latin America – American Jewish
1
Joint Distribution Committee, very well-known by all of you. On my left is Judith
Liwerant. She is B.A. and Ph. D. and is the Post graduate Political Science
Director of the Social Sciences University of Mexico UNAM, member of the
Mexican Academy Sciences. She has published 7 books, 70 scientific articles
about Judaism. On my right is our moderator, B.A. Carlos Tapiero, he is a
Rabbi and actually lives in Israel. He is Director in Education of the World Union
Macabi and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He has given courses at
Harvard University and he has obtained his Ph. D. in Guatemala. Dr. Janan
Nudel, psychiatrist, social psychologist, a person who you will find charming.
Finally, here is Dr. Moses Fachler, Doctor of Law at the University of Paris,
president of the Community of Costa Rica, ambassador of Costa Rica at the
UNESCO and Undersecretary of the National Liberation party. Let’s listen
Rabbi Tapiero who will coordinate the activities.
Carlos Tapiero [Plenary Moderator]
Good afternoon everybody, it is a pleasure to be in what has been, is and will
always be my community. We will make successive presentations, of 15
minutes each. Immediately after, we will start with the questions. We begin with
B.A. Senderey.
Alberto Senderey [Panelist]
Well, everybody is aware that we are facing a topic that if we describe it as
polemic, in fact, we are omitting its importance. We are facing moments in
which people are looking for points in common to work as well as a sensation of
fraternity, a word invented by the French when they made the revolution and cut
heads off, but in the name of the fraternity there was a spirit of diversity of
ideas, of debate, which was very encyclopedist. That thought of XVIII and XIX
century, of investigating, of learning and looking for new things, where the
debate was the important issue. Talking about the Zionist movement is talking
about the diversity of movement; I think there were a hundred representatives
and there were 150 parties and opinions, but all of them knew how to create the
State of Israel. Judaism is a permanent debate. The Talmud would be the
record of debates over each position of the rabbi, this person said this, this one
2
said something else and they registered the whole series of opinions and when
the Messiah comes we will see who is right about the opinions; a, b or c.
That is to say that our tradition, if we pay attention, is a tradition of diversity. If
Jewish law was so clear, the Talmud would be one page long and not so many
volumes as it is, and even so, we had to add comments later. In the Judaism we
live in a pendulum that goes from moments in which we open a debate and
moments in which we close it. Whereas in a given moment they said, OK that’s
it, these books are part of the Bible, until here none can be included, here the
history finishes, this is all the truth. But life goes on, new situations, the
collection of the Mishna arises, let us put the ideas together, moment to close,
we already know everything, the Mishna is over, but life continues, let’s make
the Guemara and we still have two Talmud, the one from Jerusalem and the
one from Babylon. Have we finished the story? No, it happens that in France
Rashi has to comment it and later Rambam, Maimonides, has to add his
comments there, etc. That page that we know from the Talmud that has a text,
the first comment, another comment and later on the margins, more comments,
it is a design invented by a goy in Venice, when the printing press was invented.
It is not a Jewish invention, but it had an incredible influence with the way in
which it was designed. For us, the design of that Talmudic page shows our way
of being Jew, it represents us, and it is a picture, a mirror of that Judaism that
periodically says: the whole truth is contained in Shuljan Aruj, or it is contained
in another one. Enough daieinu? Is that all? At the same time to be a four times
millenary nation means that life continues and we have to answer new
questions. And, in some way, we leave and add; sometimes we even jump to
the origin. Hertzl says, the Diaspora, creation from the Diaspora. All the writings
of the Talmud, Babel, Rashi, all this was written in the Diaspora. Let’s create a
State again and reconnect ourselves with the source, with that original Torah.
At the beginning Israel was full with Haganat Hateva, archaeologists went to
look for the things that happened there and the things that they could see,
because festivities, finally, coincided with climate: here was David, here was
such prophet, things could be seen and there was a turn, skipping all the later
writings so we come back to the beginning. What is good about Judaism? We
never throw anything. In the good sense, we add comments, we don't say “I
throw history away, I begin by myself”. But rather we look for how to create a
3
relationship between the previous thought of those texts that we don't discard
but we give a new turn.
But periodically, as you see dry seasons, when a tree is cut, you can see the
rings that show how the tree had grown every year. Judaism like other cultures
has its closing moments, of drought, that the fight is the true and the instinct of
power says "I am the owner of the truth; the rest has to obey me."
I want to emphasize this concept. Are we now in the time to open or are we in
the time that the heavy hand is held by those who say let’s close, let’s simplify,
is this the truth? This happens not only in Judaism. It goes by the
fundamentalism of the Mohammedans, of the Protestants, of the Hindu who will
have 100.000 gods but burn the Mohammedans mosques because the
pluralism doesn't accept certain union.
The second concept that I want to add is that in the XXI century, now that we
have got rid of extremist political ideologies, totalitarian religious ideologies
appear. That is to say, it seemed that the XX century of the totalitarianism had a
political sign, in the XXI century there is a tendency which I hope doesn't
prosper, but there is a clear tendency of fundamentalisms religious
totalitarianisms. This sign is observed under religion and we have seen, from
airplanes crashing in towers to people attacking a Jew in a street in Paris. Are
we looking only at Jews? What I can see is 300 people burned in a train in
India because of the fight between one religion and another, Mohammedans, a
Shiite fights and hates a Sunnite, in different Protestant sects one
excommunicate another and among the Jews this also happens.
Are we and should we think about exclusive, excluding communities or open
communities, communities that accept diversity, debate and the richness of the
interchanging of ideas? They can be polemic, we can shout at one another, but
we are all Jews and later we go together to take a coffee. But in fact the danger
is that one will declare the other heretic and the heretics are burned.
It was said in Rio, and I repeat it here, that these debates give way to killing
people of your own nation. We have all seen how Itzjak Rabin was murdered
in a square in front of Jews in Tel Aviv. It is not a hypothesis that the hate of
your own group takes to killing people of your own group, it has happened, it
may happen again. Which is the responsibility of a leader? Is it to create
communities? Is it to create a valid debate? No Jew can threaten another Jew
4
for the right to express ideas. When we say that we live in open-minded
societies we refer to democratic societies where Jews fight for the right to be
different, to express their opinion, to be able to say what they want and to
publish their opinion as citizens and not as Jews. As a society we claim respect
for the right to have an opinion, to express our words and that nobody will put
me in prison because I think in a different way. Are our communities
democratic? Do those communities defend the right of each one to be
expressed? Are they communities that foster debate or do they respect the
opinions? I believe that the only limit is that a Jew cannot threaten another Jew
for expressing a different idea.
The way that totalitarianisms work to have power is to threaten us with
paranoia, with dangers. Mixed marriage! We will disappear! People leave!
Nobody is in the communities! Then, we close, we build a new ghetto and we
will survive this way. Let’s look at ourselves; we all descend from a mixed
marriage. The Jews that got out from Egypt with Moses looked like the
Bedouins of the Sinai of nowadays, they didn't have light-colored eyes nor
blond hair or white skin. Why does a teimani Jew from Yemen seem Yemeni
and a Moroccan Jew seem Moroccan and not Yemeni? Besides, why is a
Polish Jew blond and an Italian Jew dark-haired? It is not because there was a
pogrom; a rape to change the genes was not enough. Evidently, there was
along the years a process of exchange with models of conversion which
sometimes is registered and sometimes is not. But the real story is that I take
part in a meeting in Europe and if somebody didn't know that it is a Jewish
meeting, nobody would know if it is a meeting of Jews or of Europeans. When I
go to a meeting of the Jewish community and the North African Judaism in
Marseilles, if anybody says that it is a Jewish meeting it could be a meeting of
Tunisians, Algerians, non Jews Moroccans of the next door mosque, because
they look alike.
One thing to be alert about is that models of totalitarian control implement, first,
a great threat outside. We will assimilate you. What does it mean when we say
that we will assimilate? This means that they are going to go not to my
synagogue but to another? It means that there is going to be mixed marriage?
They already exist! How can we solve it positively if almost everybody descends
from positive resolutions of integrating people to the mixed marriage through
5
thousand of years? We do not look like the Jews that were in Babel, we do not
look like the Jews that were taken as prisoners to Rome to be sold in the
markets.
Therefore, the problem is to know which the responsibility of a leadership is: to
guarantee the debate, the integrity and the right to express an opinion? Mutual
respect? This is a moment in which there is a tendency to close and to simplify,
this is Muslim, this is Jewish. Everything is briefly defined, but Judaism doesn’t
define anything briefly, everything implies a long debate, thousands of texts,
thousands of answers and comments; that is the richness of Judaism. Although
there was not censorship, not everything fit in the Biblical Canon, not everything
fit in the Talmud but we can say that a lot did. Why did not the book Ben Siga fit
in and why did the Ecclesiastes do? They are of the same time and the same
alteration with the Greek thought.
Nowadays I believe that all of us, as citizens of the world, support the
philosophy of diversity, we wish that all animals would survive, and that all our
children would see the world with the same flowers, the same animals and that
we would preserve diversity.
And how rich is the diversity of ideas! Because when Judaism clashed with the
Greek thought, this brought richness to the Jewish debate. This also happened
when we moved to Europe. When a culture meets another one that is what we
call a golden era. The golden era of the Spanish Judaism was its interaction
with the Muslim and Christian thought of that Spain. Therefore, we call golden
era the moments that chronicles of those time say that the Jews are divided: 50
newspapers, each one opens a synagogue, all of them fight against the others.
Five hundred years later we say: 50 glorious years! How much did they think?
How many articles? Nowadays it is a golden time because of so much diversity
and richness of ideas. In the moment leaders said we are all divided, one says
A, another says b and the other says z, that is the golden time.
To finish this part, how do you handle the situation when the tendency to close
is stronger than that to open it? Authoritarianism appears when people begin to
remain silent. Remember Brecht, first they fetched the white men, later the blue
one, they didn't fetch me as a Jew, but after the violet they came for us. When
freedom of speech is cut and people are discredited because they think in a
different way, freedom is over. I support and I love diversity, if everybody
6
thought the same way it would be boring and we would not have left the cavern.
If we can make fire with only two sticks let’s rub them together, if somebody had
told me that dad had invented a match, it would have been easier, but no, we
must stick to the tradition, in this tribe we have always rub two sticks to make
fire, so the hell with the match!... This is a model which is repeated at present.
Dr. Moses Fachler [Panelist]
Friends, let me begin with the topic of this Plenary Session.
As a Costa Rican Jew, completely Jew and completely Costa Rican, I believe
that learning how to cohabit with diversity is for the Jews – those in Israel as
well as in the Diaspora - a vital necessity, and not only an option among others.
Facing a stubborn reticence that opposes an authentic and dynamic integration
and an effective coexistence in the core of many Jewish communities, is it
surprising that so many Jews, in their majority young people, assume their
Judaism like a heavy burden and not like a valuable privilege?
Let me be precise because the topic demands it.
I remember that in many corners of the Judaism of the ´70, (in synagogues,
schools and community centers) a cocktail of lethal, deadly effects began to
expand. A cocktail that began to displace, imperceptible, Jewish education
based on historical and ethical principles. A cocktail made of two narcotics:
1. The non critical and non-reflexive insistence motivated by the lack of
possibilities of interchange and discussion and based on aspects of the
contemporary Jewish life in Israel and the Diaspora.
2. An increasing demand based on an unchangeable and non temporal Halacha
written and enacted by Divinity, not inspired by it - and in a meticulous liturgy
and omni-inclusive imbued in each aspect of the personal, matrimonial and
family life.
A mistaken self-preservation
Jewish institutions focused on the sole task of keeping the Jewish ceremonial
traditions leaving aside the transmission, the teaching and the spreading of the
historical and ethical treasures of Judaism. This fatally led to a Judaism founded
in the empire of self-preservation at any cost, and not, in the spiritual search.
7
Under such circumstances, the permanent and monotonous rediscovery - by
the “hard statistics data" - of the known increment of the interdenominational
marriages and of the decrease in the number of children that received a
traditional Jewish education, resulted very convenient to agitate phantoms and
implement preservation strategies and methodologies which are very
expensive as well.
Today, we know that those statistical and demographic charts, very frequently
drawn and provided from anachronistic racial notions do not help – except for
the funds raising which starts with the fear of disappearance. It does not help,
for example, the Jewish young people desire to remain inside the limits of a
Judaism understood like a survival conglomerate - as if they were a biological
species in extinction -, and not of a concept of Judaism like radical, original,
proactive and ethical proposal of a transcendent sense of life and product of a
three thousand years old.
Friends, be sure that the Jewries in our countries (Costa Rica among them) will
continue weakening as long as their pretended leaders persist in ignoring, with
suicidal vocation, that each generation must reinvent the Judaism by their own
responsibility and risk.
Instead of regretting the spiritual indigence and the lack of legitimate attraction
of the institutions - not because of the decline of some anachronistic religious
rigor -, we will have to learn, once and for all, how to improve the quality of our
organizations, taking into account qualitative verifications instead of quantitative
appreciations.
More and more mistakes
A big mistake is to suppose feasible and conductive to bring closer to someone
to the Judaism through coercions, constraint and other similar violence
methods. Respect and consideration are the only appropriate means. Psychic
and moral violence never helps, and it always causes the collapse of the
authentic and desirable encounter. Nobody experiences a genuine change
under coercion and extrinsic or intrinsic constraint. Although in some cases one
can apparently show a change under such circumstances, sooner or later, the
person will face a conflict which will take him / her to the collapse, the
abandonment and the rejection of the Jewish condition perversely imposed.
8
Harav Tzvi Yehuda Kook (1890-1983), spiritual father of Gush Emunim and son
of the first Great Rabbi of Eretz Israel - the well-known Harav Avraham Yitzchak
Kook (1865-1935) - wrote: "Increase positive and creative forces! Reduce
negative tensions! " (LeNetivot Yisrael, 1:31). He taught that the main work for
redemption must always be through positive thing, violence and aggression
could only influence in a minority group and less meritorious of Judaism. We
can be sure, friends, that in some Latin American Jewries, and certainly in one
of Costa Rica, there are forces that, openly and shamelessly according to
traditional political criteria, could identify themselves with the right wing
extremist fraction of Gush Emunim.
"Mixed” couples
Interdenominational marriages, which laziness of our thought takes us so many
times to denominate “mixed marriages” - as if not all marriages were so – is a
phenomenon that today reaches astonishing dimensions. What do we do, and
what will we do about it? Will we punish or will we condemn it to the cruelest of
ostracisms? To accept them, will we demand from them and from their
descendants the execution of rules and precepts that we ourselves are not
willing to adopt in our lives?
The question of what should be done in these cases, in which private affairs,
feelings, lives and human destinations are in scene, constitutes the question for
the ethics of our leadership procedure. Will we answer, as we have done it up
to the moment, with threats and anathemas against the Jewish members of the
couples? Will we continue accepting offenses against their spouses and their
children? Or will we assume the challenge of inventing and implementing a
scenario where they can lodge and nurture the inexhaustible and generous
energy of the Judaism?
In Costa Rica and in the rest of the countries between South American north
and Mexico - Caribbean included- we intensively live another phenomenon, as
a result of the historical incidents of our Continent from the European discovery.
Another phenomenon that should be included in our agenda, like the
interdenominational marriages, is that of the crypto-Jews and their
descendants.
9
Let’s remember, for example, the studies that are being carried out by the
Israeli investigator Shulamit Halevi about them. Let’s remember that they have
been self-taught in Jewish matters, and they are looking for their roots. What do
we do, and what will we do with them? Ignore, frighten, reject or harass them?
Should we reject them because of our jealously proverbial? Or still worse, will
we authorize them to come closer to us, but only under the excluding demand
of conversions always revocable, guided by implacable spies that they would
convert (and they do) in hostages for life?
Also, in this case, the worthy challenge of today can be that of inventing and
implementing with them appropriate opportunities next to ours.
Coexistence
Another chapter of our deep difficulties of conscience is in the core of our
Jewries. Orthodox, conservatives, reconstructionists, liberal, non-religious... Is
there enough space for the coexistence of all them and for the exchange under
the same roof?
I am not referring here, by the way, to spaces where they can pray together -
something lacking of sense, in a special way for the majority group of non-
religious people who don't pray -, but to social places to have an opportunity to
dialogue and mutual recognition and learning. In Costa Rica, at least, the
answer is categorical. They do not exist. At present, in the free, democratic and
open-minded Republic of Costa Rica, there is no place for the orthodox,
conservatives, liberal, reconstructionists and non-religious Jews to meet (and
their casual friends non Jews!) , know each other, interchange and learn ones
from the others. There exists, unfortunately, few places for interdenominational
marriages and their descendants quasi unknown. There are no places for non-
religious Jews in Costa Rican and I am not referring to antireligious places, but
to non-religious ones in which the religious factor and their options don't blind
and don't close the possible dialogue. This is helped by Ignorance, slack
attitude, disdain, the unusual intention of exclusivity of some and extreme laxity
or lack of Jewish commitment of others. We also can add intransigence. And
hypocrisy!
10
Notwithstanding, if we seriously yearn our Judaism to persist and survive, to
improve as Jews and human beings, we are "convicted" to success, to continue
inventing and trying to build the appropriate places.
The kind world
Lastly, but not less important, friends and dear friends, it is essential to include
immediately in our community agenda, the dimension of the relationships of the
Jewries with the majority Gentile sectors of the societies we are part of.
We suffer with them and we enjoy the social, economic, political and cultural
fluctuations. We form with them, whether we like it or not a caring whole. Here
we must consider two complementary aspects:
1. The integration to our national societies, through interchange, cooperation
and incorporation of values, habits and customs which are compatible with our
Judaism.
2. The disposition and the necessary opening to contribute to the growth and
development of those same societies, from the base and perspective of that
same Judaism.
Here we have, in a brief synopsis, the two axes around which it is possible and
desirable to make this third dimension (extrinsic) of our coexistence with the
diversity turn.
To live in diversity
Learning to cohabit in diversity and with diversity - in this globalized world, in
this 58 century of our Hebrew calendar, in this 21 st century of the common era,
in which we live, we grow and progress because of diversity and for diversity –
constitutes a categorical imperative for our Jewry. We must emphasize the
common things that join us. And we must recognize, consider and respect those
things that separate us. Our peculiarities and singularities split us. Our common
belonging to the Jewish nation and our constant desire to belong to it joins us.
Learning how to cohabit in diversity, and, because of and for it represents,
today more than ever a deep vital Jewish necessity, not only in the Diaspora but
also in the same State of Israel.
11
It represents an imperative not only because of the conditions that imposes the
present world and the future one, but because of the intrinsic and constituently
plural nature of Judaism, from three thousand years ago until eternity.
I am convinced that the non-coexistence or difficulties to cohabit decisively and
perniciously each time more and more with the differences (intrinsic and
extrinsic) affects and will affect the continuity of the Jewry. I strongly believe
that the decision of surviving or perishing is in our hands, in our minds and in
our hearts, inside the sphere of our responsibility.
Let’s decide wisely.
Dra. Judith Bokser Liwerant [Panelist]
Among the central dilemmas that modern times have presented to Judaism,
recreating a collective identity and guaranteeing the continuity in a context of
multiple social interactions is highlighted. This means the challenge to build the
singular and collective Jewish existence in an open-minded frame and not in
isolation, without abandoning one’s own identity. This dilemma could be defined
in terms of a learning process of how to be Someone Else without stopping to
be oneself.
Judaism has responded to this question by means of multiple options that led to
an internal process of pluralization, not only religious but also secular. While the
first one expresses through diversification of movements and religious currents -
the reformist movement, the new orthodox movement , the conservative
movement, etc. - secularization processes give way to the development of new
cultural answers, modern ideologies and political movements, we can mention
integrationist liberalism, assimilationist, Zionism, socialism and Buddhism
among others.
The wide range of options to build the individual and collective Jewish identity
would show the way to know how to recover and how to interpret a singular
historical legacy. Relationships of Judaism with modernity have been marked by
this dilemma that can be initially found in the encounter between Mendelssohn
and Kant: How the Jew could be himself and not the Other, and,
simultaneously, reach a place in the world of the Other? How a successful
12
process of incorporation could be undertaken avoiding assimilation and
interacting without losing the distinctive features? Unquestionably, the options
that emphasized the possibility to maintain the identity apart from the Other
have also recovered strength.
Definitely, speaking about what distinguishes us and about the difference,
takes us to the topic of frontiers, the external and internal, material and cultural
frontiers that separate us from the Other. However, frontiers, in which cultural
features are indicated, can change and cultural characteristics of the group
members can transform, even changing their form of their organization. In spite
of this, interactions and changes maintain the difference between us and the
Other and it doesn't lead to loss of identity; on the contrary, this is reaffirmed in
the interaction and not only, nor necessarily, in the isolation.
Together with the demographic tendencies that hard data shows today and
which indicate an important reduction of the Jewish nation due to mixed
marriages, the distancing of the organized Jewish life and the low birthrate, it is
necessary to affirm that the continuity today, more than ever, depends on the
individual and group’s capability to generate contents of ownership, symbols,
own representations, to configuration and reconfiguration of the past but also
the present of Jewish condition. It depends on the collective memory,
commitment, joined action and recognition of our diversity as source of richness
that, simultaneously, should encourage the nurture and internal dialogue.
Internal frontiers are also places of encounter and interaction; they promote the
vitality of Judaism, with its changes. Continuity and creativity are the
responsibility of the collective identity nature with which we identify ourselves
beyond and after birth.
The distinctive feature of Jewish in modernity is very wide, it is really a varied
offer: they are religious imperatives, ethical and ethnic values, social rules,
ancestral traditions, popular beliefs, Jewish thought and philosophy, local and
global shared customs, community institutions and wide cultural legacies. It is
conscience and contents. In this sense we point out that Jewish answers to
modernity have meant more than one way of being Jewish. The turning of XIX
13
century into the XX century which would take to the constitution of our new
communities, shows this diversification of options: immigrants brought beliefs
and ideologies, prophecy and politics with them. It was, precisely, the richness
of internal diversity and that of the institutional and organizational framework
that planned and gave continuity to the Jewish life in Latin America.
Today, the challenge, in the XXI century, is to recover this condition of diversity
and to assert oneself and recreate in interaction and dialogue, internal as well
as external, that we can find in the numerous roots and branches of the Jewish
legacy. Facing the hard demographic tendencies the answer must be cultural,
constructivist, educational. It is necessary to open to a reflection whose
polemic character doesn't inhibit it, about our ways of being Jewish and our
identifiers of identity. I discover in some of them paralization, not to be part of
the past because we are a millenary nation, but because of the lack of
appropriation and significant recreation of them.
This reflection that today is demanded cannot begin but for the recognition of
our internal pluralism. Judaism is a sand of dialogues among main characters of
the most varied tendencies. It has been historically like this; modernity
intensifies it and it is like this today. Today we add the ignorance of internal
frontiers to the risk of disappearance of external frontiers, if the later is
understood as interdiction and prohibition spaces. These exist. Pluralism
doesn't attempt against continuity and union. Our union is the product of
diversity and not of homogeneity.
On the other hand, this diversity has contents that if they don't recreate
themselves, they lose meaning and relevance: diversity of communities; of
countries and origins; of beliefs, of traditions and background; of thoughts and
projects... Diversity of socio-political movements that developed along a
permanent dialogue and strong conflicts. The developments in XX century of
the Jewish History would interrupt them abruptly, with the Shoah, and they
would reinforce the hegemony of Zionism and importance of the State of Israel.
It is unavoidable to point out the contemporary risks of the systematic efforts of
14
their non-recognition of legitimization to the light of the ups and downs of the
process of peace-war in the Middle East.
Diversity in the construction of memory cannot be based only on destruction. It
is necessary to center on the richness of Jewish life that has been erased and
not only in the act of the destruction.
Diversity in religion that can be observed from the changes in the Latin
American continent as from the 60's. They begin, with the arrival of the
conservative movement, not as the result of the baggage that the European or
Sephardic Judaism brought with the immigration, but as the influence of
developments in the United States. Until then, the religious-congregational
pattern around the synagogue had not marked the community life and the
profile of identity which had been in the hands, fundamentally, of the
educational network, non formal education and juvenile movements and which
was marked, by community and ethnic concepts. We understand the ethnic
level, on one hand, with the conjunction of tradition, religion, culture and
language and, on the other one, in a subjective feeling of ownership, in a desire
of continuity and in a sense of collective identity. The Conservative movement
marked new places and reasons to acquire as well as new characteristics,
assuming a more community-ethnic dimension. Its influence has been, likewise,
decisive in the creation of new leaderships: that of the Rabbinic Seminar from
which, until the last year, 70 rabbis graduated, 41 out of which lead the
communities of Latin America and 15 in the United States.
Meanwhile, and in the mark of contemporary tendencies of creating normative
spaces, in the last years we have witnessed the expansion of Chabad with
centers in big and small communities. Today there are 59 rabbis from Chabad
in Latin America, 20 in Brazil and 33 in Argentina. The social impact as well as
religion gives account of new transformations in the Jewish condition. It is
interesting to point out that in Mexico their presence is marginal, although there
are 48 synagogues and religious centers, 29 of which were created in the last
25 years. It is estimated 14 out of 24 kolelim belong to the Halabe community,
reflecting more the logic of another type of influence such as that of Shas.
15
Together with these tendencies, as well as the development of nuclei of the
neo-orthodoxy, there is a presence of traditionalist sectors and a secular
Judaism, varied in contents which looks for affirming its place in the changes of
spiritual and organizational context that today experiences Judaism. These
processes, cultural and organization icons coexistence, will face growing
difficulties to consolidate like part of a vital Judaism if they are viewed as
illegitimate.
There are other perspectives to explore the challenges of identity and Jewish
continuity. Judaism shares the burden of the moment of the individual
existence face to face, that of the group existence; the moment of the individual
freedom as opposed to that of solidarity and group cohesion with great part of
the culture of the end century. The relevance of one moment or another and
the possibility to find new balances between both of them emerges as a
challenge. Therefore, today we attend a Judaism whose nature tends to be
more individual and private than collective and public-communitarian, as it was
in its historical trajectory. This is manifested in its contents and in the renovated
meanings of certain actions and practices, (old as well as new ones), related to
the transmission of multiple cultural legacies. These actions should face the
challenge of guaranteeing the Jewish condition today- its inclusion in the world
and also its distinctive and unique character – by means of ethical contents
which are universal and relevant as regards the individual.
This wide scenario of Judaism fluctuates between continuity and change,
reformulations and ruptures. In the framework of the process of globalization in
which the world - and the Jewish world – is structured as unique and different
place, a double tendency can be appreciated. On one hand, new identities and
new relationships that attract and summon arise: ownership to communities of
knowledge, professions, civil organizations, social movements, etc. Many of
them assume the form of virtual communities that spread beyond the
community or national frontiers. On the other hand, and simultaneously,
particular, ethnic, local, religious or national identities are renewed which, in the
Jewish case, always have a global content that includes the Jewish life in the
entire world.
16
The recreation, then, of the global Jewish condition, in its internal diversity,
appears as a privileged dimension of identity. Consolidation of frontiers as
places of encounter are built on the knowledge and attraction and not on
prohibition, opening our scope to a complex and defiant, but necessary
horizon. In this process, community space is important as environment of
meanings for individuals and as context that allows them to administer their
identity and differences, to keep interpersonal relationships regulated by a
distinctive order, they can interact and answer being oneself.
I would like to conclude mentioning the presentation about Latin America
Judaism that I made the last year in the Studies Circle of the President of
Israel, in the plenary session in which my teacher and colleague, Prof. Haim
Avni, was present. Taking into account the crisis of Jewish community in
Argentina at that time, the title of the session was "Judaism in Latin America:
the end of a dream? When analyzing the different dimensions involved in the
trajectory of history of Jewish life in the region, we refer to the challenge that
constituted reaching equal rights in the legal and legitimacy dimension, this is,
the capability of Latin American societies to accept the difference. Both
dimensions manifest in the possibility to realize those rights and reach key
positions in economy, sciences, arts, politics, culture. But conditions were
different in the diverse environments and societies: Argentina has not been, nor
is, Mexico; Uruguay is not Guatemala. Today, however, in the framework of
processes of democratization and construction of democratic cultures which
are far away from an intolerant nationalism (Mexico) or from a political and
cultural authoritarianism (Argentina), a growing pluralism has spread in the
continent. In a plural and tolerant environment, not unaware of demonstrations
of exclusion, Jews have reached wider visibility and presence in the public
world.
For all this, today Jewish continuity is based on the recreation of the legacy that
allows us carry the frontiers with us which ensures the distinctive features which
generates creative identification and commitment. An identifying and organizing
pluralism which generates synergies is more productive than the mutual
ignorance.
17
Dr. Janan Nudel [Panelist]
The meeting was scheduled at 20 pm. At 19:15 Angela hurried to catch the bus.
Luis and Jose left their houses. Elena telephoned Raul and they fixed the place
for the encounter 15 minutes later.
Ruben washed his head, his hands, he prayed, he caressed the Kipah and went
out to fetch Esther, his niece, who was waiting for him outside the house.
Silvia's parents got in the car while Lucia asked Mario to hurry so as not to miss
anything of the talk.
Manuel, Sonia and David were the first to arrive. They put the chairs in their
place and they began arguing about whether it was correct that Elena, Raul's
girlfriend, who was not Jew, should be in the group.
- This is how we will start weakening - Sonia said.
- No. This is the only way to stop losing people - Manuel said.
- It is better to be fewer, but prevent the Gentiles from coming to the community
- Lucia added.
- In that case, it is better for those assimilated people to leave, so that they stop
threatening our customs - Saul said as he came in.
- We are going to disappear. We don't have a new speech to give to the people-
Jose explained - I don't want to be a religious Jew, and we don't value ways of
being Jews.
- Another way of being Jewish without being religious? I don't understand it,
Rubén commented while they came in and sat down with Esther.
- I don't care whether you understand me or not. You never bother to
understand the others. To tell the truth, for you, the only Jews are you. You do
not even accept conservatives. Who do you think you are? Did God give you
the truth or you appropriate it? I don't believe you anything - José said.
- Why do you get so angry? You do not know how to be Jewish and, for that
reason, you get angry with me - Rubén responded -. You wander around the
world, looking for a spiritual reason to live.
- Even though I converted to Judaism because of my love for Raul, you would
not accept me as Jew - Elena, Raul's girlfriend, stated.
- You do not belong and you never will - Rubén replied.
- Shut up!- Raul said - You can not decide who should belong to the
community and who should not.
18
- The only Judaism is the Torah. I won't accept that lack of respect.
- I don't want you to tolerate me. If you do, you put me in an inferiority position .
I prefer that you do not tolerate me, because if we, as Jews, begin to tolerate
ourselves, it is not necessary for the non Jews to tolerate us - Manuel added.
- The Torah can be your Judaism, but it is not mine. Mine is culture, tradition,
roots. I know that he doesn't stand that I am a Jew without God, but I am.
Nobody can prevent me from it. If you don't believe that I am a Jew, I do not
want to feel that we belong to the same people either. Those who do not
recognize me as Jew are not in my Jewish nation - Silvia's father strongly said..
- Well, do stop with aggressions.
- Why can not we discuss? I feel more connected / linked to non Jews people
who think like me – Jose added.
- Jose, you complain about me that I am religious and orthodox, dirty words for
you, but without us you would not know who you are.
- Do answer him Moses because you are a conservative rabbi, the orthodox
Jew is not listening.
- I will not listen to the conservative rabbi, because I can not think he is a rabbi
but I will to the person who is Moses, who at least, believes in God.
- We are not interested in convincing anybody - Moses began. Our doors are
opened for all Jews. We respect the Jewish law, but we accept the conversion
since for us it is more important to include a Jew than to lose one - Rabbi
Moses started.
- So, could I also go to your synagogue? - Elena asked.
- Yes, absolutely, if your interest is to be a Jew for yourself - Rabbi Moses
concluded.
- I can not know it. I am in love with Raul, but there must be something inside
me. I had a dream: "I had attended all the courses, passed the exam and I was
about to receive the university degree. I arrived at the synagogue holding my
father's arm in a white dress with a long tunic. I thought I had a long way
ahead even though the tunic was at my back. I was a Jewish woman as Leonor
and Gloria. They were two friends of mine from primary school with whom I
continued in touch and, of course, they were overwhelmed by emotion while I
was getting closer to the altar.
19
When I felt Raul's hand and the look of the rabbi, I felt God in the union of our
hands.
During the wedding march I walked with you along the path that we had
outlined. What does my dream mean, Rabbi Moses?
- I don't know what your dream means - Luis interrupted - but for me being a
Jew is to feel part of Israel although we don't live there. We are like in Israel:
each group is interested in something different. Some groups believe the
important thing is God. For other groups it is family, for others history, for others
power, for others expansion, for others peace or for others war. In my point of
view, Judaism entails accepting the centrality of Israel.
- Undoubtedly it is this way, although I don't agree that being Israel centrality for
the Jewish nation, we can not make any critic when we don't agree with
government’s policies. Confusing the government with the importance of
defending a Jewish State bothers all of us. Make a critic to Israel is as if one
spoke bad of the mother, I refer to the sacred aspect.
- The only sacred thing is the Torah – Ruben said.
- Don't interrupt me. You always say the same speech, and you don't allow
anybody to interrupt or think differently.
- The Israelis begin to rebel. Not all of them want to go to occupied territories.
- They are our territories. Look it up in the Torah. The Torah is Eretz Israel -
Ruben added.
- Now, things have changed. Israel is a rich country and we are making it
poorer. Peace is the only thing we must fight for, not only to guarantee security
of Israel but also ours. There are some people who believe that Zionism is not
over. Others believe that it does. Others believe that Israel is less and less
Jewish and I believe that it is very good to continue discussing these topics.
- We have to focus on the problems of our communities and, by doing this, we
also connect ourselves with Israel. – Silvia’s mother added. We don't accept
differences and we only speak about orthodox, Israelis and Americans. We
don't speak about what they give us, but about what they take away from us.
We lie. We lie ourselves.
In our houses Judaism is not experienced any more, we give it to the
community that received it in a charming mood in order to make beautiful
buildings, at the same time that their leaders avoid putting the Jews in contact
20
with their Judaism. They deny differences. They prepare the comfort that
guarantees everything to the partners avoiding to put in contact with their
Judaism, to be useful as a social class. Competitions among directors and
professionals arise, among the same directors and the same professionals, and
we leave aside the richest thing we have that are our differences.
The situation should be reverted to give a group which is affected by the
economic situation the possibility to continue and stop poverty from being a
cause of exclusion.
When Judaism was search, uncertainty, marginality, text, study, differences
added and tended to include. Today, rejection of differences, subtracts and tend
to exclude.
- Forgive me for the delay. My name is Janan Nudel and I should begin my
presentation.
- But we have already begun to speak. Don't interrupt us.
- It is just that I have to do it.
- While we speak, yours is not necessary. If we need you we call you.
- Well, It’s my turn - Jose said. - And what does it mean for Jews of a high
economic level, to share the institution with people of a low economic level so
as no to think of them as poor people.
When somebody understands the world and the things in a unique way and is
convinced that it must be like this for everybody, this is a fundamentalist
proposal, with an absolute limit: or you are like me or you do not exist, as Hitler
or the Arab or the Israeli fundamentalism thought.
When we think the world and the things in different ways, we are pluralistic but
with a limit: my pluralism doesn't include those who want to eliminate us.
I don't accept any type of tolerance. We are not inferior to anybody. Neither
superior. Our nation was not remained in its position because we were superior
nor because we are the chosen people, but because we found new senses to
our existence along our history.
We were, at the same time, Jews who lived in different ways and in different
times. If we reject that possibility, we run the risk of disappearing as a nation.
21
I am surprised when we speak about exclusion considering that we exclude
non Jews people, and in fact, we exclude Jews who are different from us. That
is another of our myths.
- Jose, do finish your speech – let us say something. You are a pluralistic
person but you are the only one who speaks - Sonia said and continued: - We
must have the doors opened but knowing what we want to be and what kind of
Judaism we are willing to share. Leave the doors open doesn't mean let anyone
in, that is not pluralism but indifference.
Having the doors open includes someone to be the host; someone who asks
without trying to correct them but accepting as they are. The one who enters an
institution comes to talk and, sometimes, to listen.
We talk about those who don't come and, when they come, there is no one to
receive them. Difference becomes indifference.
I would like to share with you a dream I had some days ago:
"I was dressed in white lying on a bed with a red bedspread. I had a crown on
my head. On my left a painter was painting my portrait. The painter's eyes came
out and began to travel around my body. I wanted to catch them but they
escaped. The holes in his face frightened me. I got up and approached to the
mirror. When I looked at myself I had a hole in the place of my heart. I looked
back, petrified, and the painter had my heart in his hand. He was offering it to
me. Suspiciously, I came closer to him when he said: - While I was painting
your portrait I didn't find the heart, and I could not continue my portrait because
when a person doesn't have heart I become blind. Take your heart so I can see
you. I took it with the feeling that I had found God. I woke up in peace. Nobody
had taught me faith, I had to learn it by myself. From that moment God is the
one who gives the heart. It is good for me and, although I still want to be the first
one, I follow the way the dream showed me: that of giving the heart". We must
be together…
- I agree that we should be together - David interrupts - but I don't need the
consent, what I do need is that no Jew be discriminated for being different:
white, black, homosexual, heterosexual, qualified, handicapped, non
fundamentalist or converted orthodox, that is to say, in the way he chooses to
live his or her Judaism. We must recognize it, because there is no law that can
be stronger than one’s will.
22
If we want ourselves to be seen as different among us, his wife continued- Let’s
not see the others as all the same. "We" doesn't mean "the same", but each
one with a particular way of living.
- Going through determined conditions of existence is something that we all
have in common - Angela added -. Our richness lies in the possibility that each
one solves the conditions of existence that he goes through in his own way.
It is more probable that we will be able to solve those conditions that affect us
as a community if each one can give the heart. And what does this mean?
Remember that debts with the past are paid in the future doing something for
other.
To have good a heart means to be able to think about what is that the other
needs, instead of only thinking in what I need. It means not to give when the
other doesn't need, even if the person demands, and it is also to give a present
to Judaism, in its three meanings: present as presence, present as time and
present as gift. Thank you.
Carlos Tapiero [Moderator]
Some points that we should consider: Let’s start with Alberto who described
nicely how to go from an institutional Judaism to a Judaism, in which, the
individual is recognized. Janan explained so eloquently the respect to the
individual diversity and personal resolution of that individuality. Alberto's
proposal about the responsibility of the leaders as regards creating communities
based on the dialogue and trying to put what we have said into practice about
society, this is the right to be different. Mixed marriage, a historical reality. How
should we integrate them to our communities in a positive way? Integration of
general culture to Jewish culture as a reality of all generations and to the
solution of Alberto about the anger to avoid disqualification of the instinct ,
undoubtedly, in the story told by Janan Nudel, appears repeatedly in the place
of the individual. Moses Fachler and Judith bring the question in the 40 of how
Judaism should be transformed so as not to be a burden and become an
outstanding proposal for the contemporary Jew. Judith told us with an eloquent
speech, how to be another without stopping to be oneself, how to be able to
maintain our belonging to the Jewish world and, at the same time, be a
participant in the western society. The question that I would like to ask the panel
23
is that, if we speak about multiple identities that are reaffirmed from different
places, which is the institutional place? How must the community respond to
this diversity of Jewish identities of nowadays?
We are going to go over all the questions and then will answer....
Questions
What a pity to agree without having a rival. The story of my brother Janan is
only a story. I won't ask a question, but I will simply tell you how I feel now. I had
all my experiences of life ready to discuss them with somebody who doesn't
agree with me, just because I agree with you. I think we have a responsibility.
What is responsibility? It is the ability with which we react. But, how do we
react? What do we answer to? To our commitment. With our identity, honesty
and that is what we have to do, walk in spite of causing rejection, because my
brothers are all of you, all the orthodox in my Jewish nation…
... (...) As a mother I request and demand that in my community, where I was
born and grew up (…), my parents came from Germany (…). I find myself in a
position of requesting because my daughter, and maybe many of our children,
don't have a space. It is said that there is such a small space that they cannot
act, they cannot be themselves, it is a pity. What can we do? Let’s say in this
community so that these Jewish children who are a minority don't go away;
homosexuals are a minority of 10%(…)
Good morning... One question to the panel. I would like to listen to your opinion
about the committee (...) you know that the Government of Israel mainly in the
first one (...) of Sharon (...) for (...) the relationships among conservative
orthodox Jews (...) In yesterday's panel we were convinced about the necessity
of being Zionist, today we are convinced of the necessity of being completely
open-minded, but there are practical solutions, I would love that, mainly Dra.
Liwerant who is an expert on Israeli topics to see if there is a support to a
practical solution that is good for us (...)
24
Daniel, I think there is a difference in the concept of pluralism between Israel
and the Diaspora. I think Israel established a Status Quo between the orthodoxy
that is the one that marks the limits of the Jewish ownership contrary to the
Diaspora. Being such an important topic for us, I believe that Israel must not,
like in the past, in the first analysis, discredit the Diaspora, because the
recognition of the Zionist movement in its own Diaspora has taken a lot of time,
I believe it is important. I do believe that a congress like this should take place
(...), this topic has an importance above the preponderance of the State of
Israel. I believe this is a topic in which we have to act more clearly and point out
the way the State of Israel we want to follow...
I agree we are in a historical moment and the panel assures that it is a
historical moment as regards the quality of opinions and, I am sure that, if
there was an orthodox opinion (...) we are all right, but most of us are seating
saying it is true, it is true, and are not being participating. We are here
representing hundreds of thousands. The question is, the door is open which
represents the welcome and there is no important part to come and receive our
welcome (...) What can we do to make them come and receive the welcome?
In my opinion as president of the Argentine Jewish Community and
representing an important sector of the Argentine Jewish Orthodox Community
, I consider the way in which the debate has been performed today is not very
serious. With all the respect that you deserve, all the work developed in the
whole of Latin America, the topics of religion, conversion and communities,
how they should be integrated, deserves a deeper debate. I would have liked, in
spite of my being a leader of the Jewish community, belonging to a movement
and to a lay party in which I do not support any religious movement, an
orthodox Rabbi to be seating next to a conservative Rabbi, and next to a
reformist rabbi, to open the debate, to start the discussion and then consider
the conflict. Most of the Jewish nation who lives in the Diaspora, realizes that
we are going to face a new reality: the State of Israel will cohabit with Jewish
communities in aliah. Today we think about if we should open our identification
spectrum and incorporate the religion like a vital element of the Judaism. This
is a complex problem of time and space. Because of the respect that you
25
deserve, the Joint Distribution Committee, I understand that the topic here
outlined deserves not less than several encounters to analyze the matter, thank
you.
Answers
B.A Alberto Senderey
I am happy that, finally, a debate has began. I believe that it is important to
devote many hours and many days. People, you run communities, you proclaim
yourself president of all the Jews of your country when, in fact, we are not. Each
one can speak in first person and not on behalf of a community. Each one is a
Jew, a first class citizen of the Jewish nation with the same right to have an
opinion, and what each of us wants to happen is that this debate lasts days,
years, in our communities. In a seminar that we took in Europe the concept of
opening a Jewish Sanhedrin again arises. The Sanhedrin was the group of
rabbis, in that moment of the Jewish nation, after the state and destruction of
the temple that tried to register and to collect everything that was said, the
Talmud and the whole legislation.
It was interesting how they discussed in the Sanhedrin. First, the youngest
began the speech and then the oldest continued so as not to be the one who
had the authority of being the president established the steps to follow the other
way round that is starting to hear from the bottom upwards. I would even say
that that is the correct way, first those one of a lower range speak and it begins
to ascend in the interchanging of ideas. The objective is to open again the
debate in our communities. Here there are 20.000 panels and meetings and
there are other 20.000 more missing. What we want, as Jews, is a burning
topic and we are all involved. We know what is happening in all the
communities; it is necessary to open the debate, to open a Sanhedrin to think.
Some people say it is necessary to write a local Talmud, that is to say a
recompilation of all the opinions that exist. That open door is to go to a
protected debate, nobody will be insulted in that debate. I consider that the idea
of this panel was this. We have the right and each community has the obligation
of creating those democratic spaces to talk, to say what today we said, what
you applauded and that, in some way, we shared, religious or not, religious of
different colors. Nowadays, Jewish nation has an open debate and the Jewish
26
nation is my great optimism. I believe that Jewish nation is alive because,
contrary to what happened 20 years ago, we are discussing. This is, OK people,
let’s study, let’s discuss about Judaism, we all are owners of Judaism, we are
all citizens, we should all write our history and, at this time, we don't want
another court. What we want is that in this living room we can have the chance
to debate. We have our website and our ways of advertising and reaching many
people not only those who live in buildings. Many times I have said: the Jewish
nation is the nation of the software and the hardware, it is not the nation of
walls, it is the nation of the writing. They destroyed the first hardware, the first
temple, we took out the diskette, we went to Babel, we rewrote, we returned
with the edition, second temple, they broke the hardware, we took out the CD,
we continue editing it until today. We are not in Windows 2000, we are in
Windows 5700. Let’s make Windows 8000.
Dra. Judith Liwerant
I will try to be punctual. We are not indifferent to anything at this table which
considers the problem of Judaism. It is a complex, wide, diverse and plural
issue. This has only been interpreted as one more opening space, not the only
one nor the last one. Dialogue is open, so, peace with everybody. We have only
analyzed some aspects; others will continue to be seen. Besides, let us know
that these reflections do not occur only here. There are many places in
communitarian life, in many regions, in societies, in communities which share
this concern.
Indeed, there is a commitment with pluralism and we all know that speaking
about pluralism is not the same thing that speaking about relativism. In order to
define what is inside and what is outside a dialogue among different people is
necessary, this is the common base.
Today, Judaism is confronted with living with multiple identities and, in this
sense, we also must imagine communitarian model designs which reflect a
multiple structure and not the existing communitarian structure of today that is
product of the turn of the century and the construction of the basis of Jewish life
in Latin America. But this is not the topic of this Plenary, tomorrow there will be
a conclusive workshop about it. Nowadays, we are facing multiple
communitarian models, different spheres actions that reflect this diversity and,
27
this is the challenge of planning, of leadership, of institutional design, of
personal necessities and of Jewish continuity. Identities are not built in space,
they are not only spiritual or conscience matters. Identities need spaces that
contain them, structures, institutions, and the institutions are important because
they generate regulations that allow handling disagreement. We are not
suggesting a life product of consent, we need communities because it is
necessary to regulate disagreement, this is our challenge, this is the bet to a
plural and democratic continuity...
Dr. Moses Fachler
I can perfectly agree with the president of the Argentine Jewish Community , the
question is if the president of the Argentine Jewish Community would accept
another thesis and a different position of tolerance which I do have with him. I
come from a family that follows the Nusaj, the orthodox rite, I am proud of
putting on my tefilin everyday, my children attend a Hebrew school, my wife is
100% Israeli, my children made Hasbarah but I cannot accept that there can be
an orthodoxy which can destroy another orthodoxy, I cannot accept, under any
circumstances, the orthodoxy to be the last true word inside the Judaism. It is
not a problem of orthodoxy, it is not a problem of not being in speaking terms, it
is a problem of the individuals that are conducting the communities and they are
a minority. I accept the proposal of making; I accept a discussion in any country
and in any moment with religious of any tendency. I have witnessed how
orthodox people have damaged other orthodox people, without necessity and
without any relationship of love, it doesn't matter affection, what matters is
imposition and destroying and we are really changing from the nation of the
book to the nation of the magazine. Thank you.
Dr. Janan Nudel
I want to close, in the line of existence of the other as essential condition for the
existence of oneself. I have also chosen a paragraph of one of my books which
says: Ruth left her house, God didn't want her to get married, she had to devote
herself to taking care of sick people, it was the place where God needed her.
You didn't perform your life here, why didn't you accept her to do hers. I suffer
because Daniel could not perform any life and I don't suffer for being far from
28
Clara, although I would have liked that she stayed with me. Because of her
ideal she broke up with me, but she left to another field where life flourishes and
so do my grandchildren. My walls were covered with pictures. Each birth was a
wall filled with life and colors. I live from the fields and walls, I love the walls.
My grandson left Israel and went to Japan, he got married and had a daughter
with her skin like porcelain, she has the same almond-shaped eyes as those of
the daughters of the people who work in the fields. If you want to do something
for Elena you should not intervene. Do stop with your silence and tell her your
story. When one tells the true reasons, behaviors are understood and stop to
appear as insanity. We are not crazy. Things have happened to us and only
cutting the silence the history appears. When Daniel died I was out of words
and you put yours: I will never forget it, you said. You can not do anything else
for Daniel, but you still have a lot to do, do it for whom may need it. I have lived
with your words looking for someone who needed me, luckily, I have always
found someone and, thanks to you, I am alive and I still feel needed, loving my
fields, my eucalyptuses and the walls of my house.
My friends, my brothers, I believe that the importance of this activity and debate
is obvious. I congratulate Joint for the initiative and, the summary is that the
doors are open, dialogue should go on, this is what we will do.
The worst thing that someone can do in these places is to say something
obvious, but all thoughts and currents have been invited to this congress, so if
there is any thought or current missing, it is not because they have not been
invited.
29