My dinner guest was an Israeli government official who shall remain unnamed. Although he had some names for me. Just not any names I usually go by.
He also had special messages: Israel already has enough enemies. She doesn’t need her overseas fans to pile on. If in doubt, kibbitz privately. To publicly disagree is to throw a log on the world’s ire. Israel may not be batting one hundred percent, but she’s way ahead of her Middle Eastern misogynistic, corrupt, anti-democratic, anti-civil rights, and, yes, anti-Semitic neighbors. (Tougher neighbors than mine, for sure, although I do occasionally engage in a Middle East speciality with the neighbor on my western border: property line disputes. However, I’ve never considered missiles or rockets as a solution — mainly because my neighbor’s teenage miscreants are potentially more lethal. But enough about my neighborhood….)
My dinner guest polemicist wanted to use his reliable kill or be killed argument, the one designed to end all disagreement, if not ensure payment of his dinner bill: We — that would be us Israel-visiting, Jewish Federation-contributing Jews thousands of miles away — don’t live in Israel, pay taxes in Israel, and haven’t served in the military there. So we don’t know how to best protect Israel. We don’t pass the allowed-to-disagree-with-the-Israeli-government qualification formula.
That’s the formula officially sanctioned by the Israeli government and enforced by many of its Jewish American organizational and institutional coalition members. (Take a bow AIPAC, ZOA, ADL, AJC and assorted community leaders, several of whom recently told me that like Fox News is to the liberal media, we Diaspora Jews need to be the “fair and balanced” to the rest of the anti-Israel world. Not that any of us disagreeable sorts are anti-Israel. We’re just confused, naive and don’t fully grasp that by expressing any disagreement with Israel, we only provide succor to those who are truly anti-Israel. Hey, remember Jane Fonda?)
Look, my Israeli historiographer said, it is as simple as this: The Brits controlled Palestine, the U.N. divided it, one side accepted, one side didn’t, that side lost, and here we are. Then came the raised, irritated VOICE, a voice that brought back memories of a conversation I had with my father about 38 years and 12 days ago. It was 7:30 p.m and had been raining all day. I was leaning next to some dirty dishes — Clean my own plates? Are you kidding me? — and our temple’s rabbi was on the telephone. Not that I remember all of the details.
This was the TALK. My dad felt, as expressed through his own raised, irritated VOICE, that my support for the Jewish cause was not at all clear. His evidentiary proof was Mary Prentice, my date to a high school party. (My siblings had obviously practiced too much full disclosure, as siblings are known to do after you have acted as the family detective for so many years.) Mary clearly was not Jewish, and the fact she was featured in the high school yearbook wearing what to my parents seemed to be an eighty foot cross, and was not even a member of a Pastor Hagee-like Christians United for Israel flock, didn’t help my cause. I lost Round One.
But the dating tsuris had enough upside potential that I was willing to take some continuing risks. There were only two parents to answer to and one member of my parental coalition was amenable to household-duty related concessions. I tried to use the gap until the next yearbook was published to better organize my defenses. Alas, Mary knocked me out in late in Round Two — after the yearbook pictures were already published featuring both of us together on the back cover — so I got the TALK and VOICE again. No gain with all of the pain. (A Middle East pattern that I managed to repeat several times as I progressed from annoying teenager to annoying adult.)
Many years later it felt as if my dinner guest and I were now in Round Three, and I had the same feeling I had at the end of Round Two: My new VOICE was delivering a tough message that did not appear to have much, if any upside. Plus, the message wasn’t exactly revelatory or new: “Look, we’re the Middle East’s only real democracy. We elected our government. You didn’t. You don’t get to vote. Respect our decisions. And let us help you make yours — contribute to Israel’s friends in Congress. Make sure your government follows our government’s lead. Then keep sending us your donations, strings unattached. Do as I say, not as we do.”
Unfortunately for Israel, a growing number of her supporters want a higher return on their investment of time, money and support than Israel has been delivering lately. While Israel’s historic return for the benefit of the Jewish people has been exceptional, there is strong concern that the current leadership can no longer deliver the same return if it continues to follow a governance and occupation model that has allowed much of the world, and an increasing number of Israel’s Diaspora support base, to view the Israel of 2011 as a caricature of its founding principles.
But let’s assume for a moment that the role of the American Jewish community should be to remain in sync with the Israeli government. That still raises a question: Why would disagreement with specific Israeli actions prevent us DDT’ers (Disagreeable Diaspora Types) from syncing with the larger Israeli goal of remaining a democratic country that serves as the homeland for the Jewish people?
It may disturb the historic “contribute, visit, but remain subservient” model, but is it truly dangerous or even counterproductive to suggest (more strongly than Israel likes) that Israel use the opportunity presented by the “Arab Spring” and reasonable Palestinian leadership to take more aggressive steps to reengage in the peace process? Isn’t that a peace that would enable Israel to begin better addressing its growing political, economic and deeply interconnected social and religious malaise? (That’s the same malaise that the several hundred thousand Israeli tent protesters — the ones who actually do live, pay taxes and serve in the military in Israel, but who aren’t entirely in sync with the government they elected — have been actively protesting.)
While Israel conducts the same feckless efforts to enlist support for its actions and inactions, many within its formerly reliable Diaspora and American support base are demanding a different approach. Various surveys show significantly reduced Jewish communal support — contributions to the local Jewish Federations are, in some cases, less than half what they were a decade ago — and a continuing decline in young adult support and connection to Israel.
Israel’s first step program needs to begin with self-reflection. Time is not on Israel’s side. Nor is much of the world.
The approach Israel has taken for many years to encourage support and identify presumed enemies to encourage even more support, is clearly failing. To pretend otherwise is a form of myopic disloyalty far greater than any perceived disloyalty created by DDT’ers.
Birthright trips and educational programs on Israel are efforts to arrest this trend among Israel’s Diaspora base, but they treat a symptom and avoid treating the basic problem: Israel has to change the way it is addressing (or better said, not addressing) the Palestinian issues that are within its control.
For Israeli leaders to say there is no Palestinian partner is nonsense. It ignores the fact that the current Palestinian leadership is widely considered by many Israeli officials to be the best in its history.
It also ignores Israel’s ability to reach an agreement on the West Bank and then utilize that popularly-approved agreement, in combination with pressure from the Arab League, to force Hamas, the terrorist group in Gaza, to moderate and then qualify to participate in Palestinian governance. This isn’t the dream of naive Diaspora do-gooders. It is the actual stated plan of Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima party and Israel’s leading vote winner in the last election. (Israel also must begin to focus on the economic, social and political implications of its ultra-Orthodox demographic challenges, but the Palestinian issue has far more immediate importance.)
It is past time for a change.
Blink and Israel is down another Diaspora supporter.
Blink again and the U.S. is making a stronger Middle East alliance with Turkey, possibly positioning Israel as a less critical regional ally in future years.
Blink again and again and all the Israel sponsored Middle East history lessons and Arab-induced wars start to fade into the louder noise of a terrible world economy and growing American impatience. It is an impatience that while not now harmful or overwhelming grows nonetheless.
Blink again and again and again and Israel may become less critical to both American Jews and America itself as Israel’s demography and actions create a values disconnect.
Instead of Jewish American institutions, organizations and community leaders acting as Israeli government coalition members, which, of course, helps fulfill their fundraising raison d’ etre — it’s easier to raise money operating in a perpetual crisis mode — and instead of acting as enablers in perpetuating what many prominent Israelis feel is an existential crisis for Israel, why not also support specific actions that can better lead to a resolution of the conflict? Whether their Israeli government client is in full agreement is not as important as recognizing that Israel is the client of all of the Jewish people and that the highest form of caring is caring enough to speak up when speaking up can lead to a better Israel.
Israel will find that more, not fewer, people will be engaged in its support and defense if it is more open to welcoming disagreement from those who have backed away solely because dissent is proscribed.
Since most of the peace plan details, give or take a few settlements, refugees and time lines, have already been negotiated ( as former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, noted in a recent New York Times editorial) Jewish organizations, institutions and community leaders should use their “defend Israel” cohesiveness to encourage that the peace negotiations process begin where Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas left it three years ago. If there is a serious commitment to negotiate and a serious recognition of the danger to Israel arising from a protracted stalemate, why would Israel not want that to be a joint Israeli and Palestinian precondition to talks? To begin to negotiate as if the Israelis and Palestinians had not already reached many basic understandings — including the de facto recognition of Israel’s Jewish nature — is a recipe for avoidance not resolution.
The recent Quartet (U.N. European Union, Russia and U.S.) proposal to get the two sides back together, one that Israel just agreed to, albeit with caveats, is a decent start. But while it may be smart for Israel to get the accolades for agreeing to something and then retain the flexibility to back out back based on conditions Israel has not yet identified, it is extraordinarily unhelpful to play diplomatic games with an already broken process. Unfortunately, Israel’s unclear preconditions are a calculated reticence, one familiar to both sides. But at least Israel’s actions are movement.
What is now critically important to move the Palestinian negotiating ball is for the Arab League to also bless the Quartet’s plan, and to emphasize the end of 2012 goal layed out by the Quartet. The U.S. can work behind the scenes to make that happen. That endorsement must give Abbas enough political cover to reenter a process he has so far refused to reenter until Israel agrees to stop settlement building and use the 1967 lines as a starting point for the border discussions. Israel and its American Jewish backers can also help the peace process by agreeing to lower the decibel level yelps about Palestinian unilateralism and insincerity and by, yes, encouraging Israel to give a little. An end game is in Israel’s interest as much or more than it is in the Palestinians.’
So if it takes a 90 day “pause” in settlement expansion or new settlement construction to assist in getting the sides back together, do it. If Netanyahu needs something to feed his own coalition in order to make what his coalition will see as a major concession (and the world will see as no concession at all) then America should work to align any settlement-related pause with broad peace talk goals — goals that are broad enough to ensure the settlement pause and peace process continue when the inevitable negotiation hiccups occur.
Getting the peace process started again will require give and take on both sides. Both sides will need to make a first move that breaks them out of their molds (and talking points), but still leaves them able to navigate their own internal politics. In my next article I’ll focus on some ways to do that. Emphasizing actions that can be taken for peace, much more than emphasizing a perverted sense of alignment and loyalty or organizational and institutional platitudes, remains Israel’s best long term defense.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
6 Years ago, my ex Rabbi gave a talk from the Bima in which he said he loved Israel and hated their "evil" government. He quickly became my ex Rabbi. 8 days ago, my Rabbi gave a talk including vivid loving memories of Israel and unashamed support, and noted the serious error of "human trafficking and some other things (not including settlements). Yes, both of the them sort of said the same thing. But the teeth grinding tone contrasts sharply with the loving tone. This is what your "friend" was telling you. Don't be so pretentiously dense.
I wouldn't normally respond.But for you to conflate these two different messages is far more pretentiously dense than for me to react as I did to a message like I described. The first message your rabbi delivered is abhorrent if that was really the message and not simply how you received it. My beliefs would be maintream within Israel so where I live is immaterial. It is the ideas and thoughts that should be considered not who delivers them or where they are delivered. I have also contributed much to Israel and had a brother do aliyah to Israel .Treating Israel more normally would increase support for Israel among its many natural fans who sit on the sidelines. To pretend Israel is helped by discouraging disagreement is asinine. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Thank you for your response.
I commented on tonality and you respond as if I were concerned with your living arrangements and your family. Moreover, I specifically noted that the second rabbi who I praised did criticize Israel quite appropriately. For an example of the tonal issue, look at Ben Ami's latest post. He gratuitously comments on the latest Nobel Israel laureate before launching in to a relentless attack. BTW, I was not the only one who who heard the first rabbi call the government "evil." As evidence that tonality counts, read the entries into J Street facebook. Over half are extremely anti Israel and a sizable number acknowledge their hatred. Yet the content of Ben Ami's writings and posting is well within the mainstream, just as yours is. But why does he attract so many haters? Tonality
I understand your point of view, but we do disagree. My focus is onthe substance of the points. (If tone bothered me, it would be hard tolisten to many on both the left and right and for me to have the kindsof meetings I have set up here with a broad cross section of Israelsupporters. When people engage in discussions on Israel, they can getpassionate! Trying to channel the passion can be a struggle.)I happen to agree with Jeremy's points, but I would have preferred heseparate them so they both have the proper effect. The tone isn't whatcreates the detractors…at least in my experience — whatangers/concerns many of the “detractors” is the supposed overweightingof criticism of Israel. The line is usually something like “Yes,Israel has problems, but you act as if it is ONLY Israel's fault.”Many older generation Israel supporters — and I now fit in thatdemographic — are not used to hearing fellow Jews engaging in much,if any, criticism of Israel. So when a group like J Street getsstarted it is suspect. I could go on, but most of my thoughts arewithin the many blog posts I have done.I know many J Street supporters and they are Israel fans who simplywant her to be better…..
One of the stories in the drash by the second rabbi was of the hoarse lady who watched her daughter-in-law make supper. At the end, she finally spoke: "I have just one thing to say; you never do anything right!." J Street followers and others like them have the same hoarseness and this clearly attracts the Israel-adverse attention of Europeans and Arabs and Universalists type people in our country who feel they are getting support from "the Jews." Tone and emphasis matter as well as words.