In The News

By Aaron Howard

| More

07/06/2007

Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston): Progressive Zionist. Simply a term for a Jewish traitor says the Right. An oxymoron says the Left.

Including Everybody In the Family Conversation

Progressive Zionist. Simply a term for a Jewish traitor says the Right. An oxymoron says the Left, since Israel is an apartheid state engaged in ethnic cleansing and therefore indefensible from a progressive perspective.

At this time, when criticism of Israel has become so strident and hostile that the “solution” to all the problems in the Middle East has become the eradication of Israel as a whole, it’s not surprising that there’s no safe space for legitimate criticism of Israel within the Jewish community itself. Those Jews who question Israeli policies are publicly isolated, demonized, marginalized and excluded.

On June 21, two Progressive Zionist organizations, Ameinu and Mertez USA, held a forum in New York’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue to discuss the obstacles to talking critically about Israel in the public arena. The event marked the first public expression of a heated conversation that’s been going on in progressive journals and blogs over the past year.

One of the speakers at the New York forum was Dan Fleshler, a media and public relations consultant who serves on the Board of Ameinu. Fleshler has been engaging with the far left on his blog www.realisticdove.com

“There remains an intolerance of any kind of dissent by American Jews,” says Fleshler, “and that’s a familiar topic. I talk about something more subtle: how the far left, in its own way, is also inhibiting Progressive Zionists who occasionally critique Israeli polices.”

Fleshler says two camps inhabit the US left. They share a critique about some Israeli policies related to the occupation, Palestinian suffering and American policies in the Middle East.

“My camp, progressive Zionists like Ameinu and Mertez USA, want Israel to survive and thrive. We want to make Israel better. We think the current status quo is disastrous for Israel, morally and strategically.

“The other camp includes a large contingent that would just as well have Israel disappear. It includes people who believe the inherent notion of a Jewish State is irredeemable and evil, or that Israel is a criminal empire. Within the second camp, there is a considerable amount of anti-Semitism; and if it’s not overt, it has the same effect. That camp has made it difficult for Jewish college students to associate themselves with human rights groups because, in order to be associated, you have to say something nasty about Israel.

“That camp has also taken over a large neighborhood of the blogosphere. (There, they are) spouting off all sorts of theories, saying for example, US Jews who support Israel are fifth columnists, subverting American interests in favor of Israel. So my thesis (is) if they think they are being progressive and helping out Palestinians, all they are doing is inhibiting the silent majority of US Jews from speaking out. Jews who may want to speak out about the occupation won’t want to contribute to an atmosphere that could encourage anti-Semitism.”

Many US Jews feel there’s no safe place to talk about the occupation or “the Situation” in Israel (ha’matzav) with the same candor that one can find in the Hebrew press. They get a clear message from the organized Jewish community, which makes it seem not kosher to speak out. And increasingly, they hear the vitriolic critics of Israel, whose assault on Jews in general and desire to eradicate Israel, drives anyone who might criticize Israeli politics to the fringe in most people’s perception.

“The left is saying things that are frightening,” says Fleshler. “I’ve never before in my life felt the tangible ability of anti-Semitism to hurt my family until I got on the blogosphere. The things people are saying about Jewish money, power, and influence are a completely distorted vision that holds Jews are part of an infernal conspiracy that controls the world. They… blame the war in Iraq on the entire Jewish community, saying that US Jews, as a whole, are disloyal and (guilty) of treason. Whether you’re left or right wing, that should scare all of us.”

Following the New Anti-Semitism Debate

In March 2004, Executive Director of Ameinu Gidon (Doni) Remba duked it out in print with Oxford scholar Brian Klug over “the new anti-Semitism” in The Nation magazine. Klug reviewed four books that had come out on the new anti-Semitism. Klug’s essay, “The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism” denies that Jews are confronting a new type of anti-Semitism that cloaks itself in an increasingly acceptable anti-Zionism. Remba, Senior Foreign Press Editor and Translator in the Israel Prime Minister's Office from 1977-1978 during the Egyptian-Israeli Camp David peace process, forcefully rebutted Klug. His two major points: Much of the leftist critique of Israel is anti-Jewish racism. And leftist advocacy of an anti-Zionist, bi-national single state in the Middle East as the only “just” solution is dangerously naive and undermines any chance at Israeli-Palestinian political solutions.

As a Progressive Zionist, Remba says he’s been trying to have a real conversation in the American Jewish community about the occupation for “many years”. Recently, says Remba, the need for public dialogue has become more urgent.

“The longer Israel goes on without peace or a solution to this problem, the harder it will be for Israel to get to that peace,” says Remba. “And the more insecure life in Israel becomes.”

Over the last year, numerous developments have increased the threat to Israel: the war in Lebanon, the rise of Hamas, the strengthening of Islamic groups and Iran itself. From Remba’s perspective, the longer Israel goes without biting the bullet and making painful compromises necessary to make pragmatic alliances with non-radical Arab states, the worse Israel’s political status will be.

“(Radical) forces are pushing those (Arab) nations to ally with Israel and the US because they are more worried about the Islamic radicals than about Israel,” says Remba. “Israel must take the bone out of the Arab throat. These Arabs see, on a daily basis, Israeli control over the lives of three million Palestinians who resist the occupation with violence and terror. If we got rid of that violence associated with the occupation, then the only violence remaining would come from the fringe or the most radical elements who won’t accept Israel under any condition. As Ehud Olmert said, ‘Many Palestinians genuinely want to make peace with Israel’. So what Israel needs to do, for its own sake, is to take those first steps towards an accommodation process. The lion won’t lie down with the lamb but it’s going to enable the moderates in the Arab world to become more closely allied with Israel if the occupation and the conflict is no longer a source of daily offense and daily humiliation.”

So why should it matter what American Jews say? Remba argues that over the past year, the Middle East has devolved into a morass with so many forces operating against peace. Any real negotiations require leadership from the US and a commitment to get through the phalanx of obstacles to that goal.

“And that’s what ties it back to the US Jewish community,” says Remba. “The US must be deeply involved in the process, working with both sides. And there must be an American leader willing to risk the political capital to do that. Because committed US leadership is absolutely vital, without support of American Jews, it’s going to be very difficult for that to happen. In other words, we have to be the loudest cheering chorus for working with the Israelis and the Palestinians to work towards peace. No US president will do that without our support.

“Most Israelis want to end the occupation. Helping them is the most Zionist thing a US Jew can do. When we (in the US) neglect to play that role, things get worse. And they can always get worse. If you care about Israel, how can you be silent and watch the unhelpful role some Jewish organizations are playing”?

Creating a Rhetorical Space in Houston

As a community, we have to create a rhetorical space and guidelines for saying things that may be unpleasant for Jews to hear.

“The question of whether there should or shouldn’t be critical discussion is answered by Jewish historical experience,” says Congregation Or Ami spiritual leader Rabbi Shaul Osadchey. “If we deny Jews the right to speak their point of view, we contradict a history that goes back to the Torah, where Abraham and Moses argue with God. And we contradict the Rabbis’ creation of the Talmud, in itself a critical understanding of what the Torah meant and how it should be applied”.

In Pirke Avot, we learn of two kinds of controversies, says Rabbi Osadchey. One is l’shem shamayim (for the sake of heaven) such as the discussion of Hillel and Shammai. And one is not such as the discussion between Moses and Korah. The first is enduring since each side seeks the truth and each elucidation adds to the truth and to the ultimate decision as to how to proceed.

“The controversies about how Israel proceeds is worthy of the participation of all Jews as l’shem shamayim as long as its aim is the ultimate well-being of the Jewish people,” comments Rabbi Osadchey. “In that context, discussion and debate is legitimate within and outside of Israel. To say that unless you live in Israel you don’t have a right to criticize Israel is mistaken. We’re taught in Talmud: ‘all Israel is responsible for one another’. I would maintain the perspective of Jews outside Israel is important for those Jews inside Israel to receive and understand.

Stifling conversation also goes against the grain of being an American Jew says Rabbi Osadchey. American Jews are taught to be very involved in US society and the political system.

“To have opinions about everything that concerns us with one exception--Israel’s foreign policy--is incorrect,” says Rabbi Osadchey. “If you give of your time and resources, you expect a say in the affairs of the society. So how can the established Jewish leadership ask for our money and support without allowing us to engage in critical thinking about that support?

“By stifling conversation, the younger generation has, in fact, been turned away from feeling that Israel is a place that seeks their true allegiance since they are not allowed to engage in any serious conversation about Israel.

Bottom line, says Rabbi Osadchey: Jewish organizational leadership should embrace a more inclusive attitude about people who have a more divergent view about Israel. On the other hand, he continues, perhaps the better place for this conversation would be inside the synagogue community.

“As rabbis, we teach elu v’elu divrei Elohim chayim (these and these are the words of the Living God. The synagogue can be a place for respectful and dignified conversations. That’s where we teach how to talk and respect one another.

“The role of the rabbi in this regard is to foster that kind of respectful conversation as a spiritual moderator. At this moment, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis have become involved in issues that involve religious freedom in Israel, as well as human and civil rights issues. Extending the conversation to other aspects of Israel’s future is legitimate.

“Besides, many of us have family members and children who live in Israel and who serve in the army. My son fought in the war in Lebanon last summer. To say that I don’t have any vested interest in Israel’s security and foreign policy is to deny the sacrifice my son made to serve in the Israeli army.”

Published in Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston), July 6, 2007 and at Aaron Howard's own website