“Being critical of Israeli policy is perfectly legitimate and not anti-Semitic. I myself am a critic of Israel. I didn’t agree with Oslo, Camp David, Taba, The Road Map, Annapolis, the disengagement from Gaza, the withdrawal from Sinai, the Peace treaty with Jordan and think that we should have done more in the Second Lebanon war and in Operation Cast lead.”
Being critical of Israel has been something, which at times has led to what I can only describe as some very naïve and ignorant, ardent supporters of Israel calling me a self-hating Jew.
In fact, one need not be critical of Israel to have ones views questioned. I recall my room-mate in Israel questioning why I had a book on my shelf titled “Occupied territories, the untold story of Israel’s settlements” by Gershom Gorenberg, for he objected to the term ‘occupation’ to describe what he believed were more correctly to be referred to as ‘disputed territories.’ As well as taking a look at the back cover of “The Invention of the Jewish People” by Shlomo Sand and instantly accusing it of being anti-Semitic, without having read the book. At no point did it occur to him that just because I read a book does not mean that I agree with its content. This highlights a problem that people face at certain phases when involved in a protracted conflict, that one is not willing to hear or absorb information that is contrary to what they want to accept or believe.
I read the works of both those who are alleged to be pro-Israel and those whose views they write critically about, primarily because most people I know (sympathetic Jewish supporters of Israel) will get their information on the Arab Israeli conflict from books such as ‘The Case for Israel’ by Alan Dershowitz, or ‘Myths and Facts about the Middle East’ by Mitchell Bard and many other books which are written in such a way that a beginner or lay person can understand such a complicated and multi-faceted conflict and to read one sides perspective, and of course the side that is advocating the opinion one wishes to believe is nothing short of ignorance. For one to form a seriously informed opinion one must hear what others have to say and not only what they have been told that others claim, who have a vested interest in discrediting their claims in order to advance their own agenda.
What I have noticed when discussing issues in Israeli society or with the Palestinians is that many people seem to be almost programmed now days to respond to certain comments in certain ways which sound as if they have just come out of a text-book. For example one may look at the issue of inequality and discrimination that Israeli Arabs experience. There are a few possible responses I have heard to bringing up this issue, here are but a few of them, 1) they are only discriminated against because many of them are disloyal and many do not accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, 2) No country is perfect, it is anti-Semitic to hold Israel to a higher standard, when considering what Israel has been through it has not handled this issue nearly as badly as other countries have, the United States and the Native Americans, Black Slavery or states who were former Colonial powers to name a few, why focus on Israel when there are much worse things going on in the world? 3) Yes, but in spite of all that you have to say Israeli Arabs enjoy a higher standard of living and more civil rights and democratic freedoms than any of Arabs in the Arab world do.
These three responses are characterized by three different points, the first is that the Israeli Arabs are only mistreated because they are guilty of something, in this instance they are believed to be holding views that are perceived as hostile or threatening to the establishment or sympathizing with the ‘enemy,’ this somewhat seeks justification for the treatment. The second response focuses on not wishing to address the issue at all but is looking to divert attention elsewhere and accusing whoever is bringing up the issue of imposing a double standard on Israel that they apparently would not apply to any other country. The third response does not even attempt to make an excuse for any unjust treatment they may have faced but merely points to the fact that no matter how bad they may feel, they are still better off living in Israel than they would living under a non democratic Arab regime. None of these responses however are willing to address the issue.
Something I hear a lot is that it is perfectly legitimate to be genuinely critical of the Israeli governments policies but it seems that is acceptable until you wish to voice any criticism and particularly outside of the Jewish community and outside of Israel.
Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel claims that only Jews living in Israel have a right to criticize Israel:
“All this, as you may have guessed, is the prelude to a few criticisms. I dislike having to articulate them; it is a role that does not suit me. Yet such is the price I must pay for living in the Diaspora. I never criticize Israel outside of Israel.”
(Wiesel, E 1978:130)
I recall having this conversation when I was a participant in my youth movement days as to whether we as Diaspora Jews have a right to influence or speak out against Israel because we do not live there and are not the ones directly affected by what goes on there.
Sometimes this is explained through comparing the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora to a parent child relationship. Where one may be very angry or even ashamed at something their child has done but will still love them and support them no matter what.
What I have found on a few occasions is that even if you do live there, there is occasionally an argument that you may hear from some Israelis to put your argument to sleep, which is that your view is somehow irrelevant or misinformed because you have not served in the IDF.
This is an argument that makes no sense whatsoever, it would somehow imply that either only those who have served in the IDF are entitled to an opinion, or that everyone who has served in the IDF all come out with the same political opinions as a result of their experiences, a phenomena which certainly does not occur. There are Israelis who go into the army left-wing and come out right-wing and vice versa as well as Israelis whose political views were not radically changed by their experiences in the army. It is merely just a poor attempt to silence political opposition. One could argue that people who haven’t grown up in Israel have possibly a more objective perspective on the conflict as they possibly are not as emotionally affected or traumatized by experiences of living in Israel.
The view that Israel is to be defended unconditionally whenever she is criticized by outsiders or at best to not add fuel to the fire by ‘giving bigots and anti-Semites ammunition’ to advance their cause and to just remain silent and keep ones criticisms to oneself is but in effect unhelpful. If we have learned anything about the nature of anti-Semitism, is that anti-Semites will hate Jews no matter what they do, in the case of using Israel as an excuse for anti-Semitism if Israel restrains herself she will be accused of being a wimp and if she uses force to defend herself she will be accused of being an aggressor. There is simply nothing that Israel or Jews can do that anti-Semites will not attack her for by virtue of the fact that they do not actually dislike what Israel or Jews do, they dislike them because they are Jews.
This however does not mean that Israel or Jews are somehow immune to any legitimate criticism of their behavior in certain instances. It is however being used at times to advance a specific political agenda.
As many of Israel’s advocates point out, that it is a country like any other and it cannot be expected to be perfect and particularly in light of its history and the obstacles that it has had to overcome and the challenges that it still faces. But at the same time Israel cannot expect to declare itself the “state of the Jewish people” and the homeland of every Jew, call on their support and grant them not only the right to but also insist that it is a duty to some extent to defend Israel, but then not grant Jews not living in Israel the right to be critical of it too.
What will ultimately occur if enough Jews wishing to criticize or challenge Israel’s policies and actions get labeled as self-hating Jews, enemies of Israel or traitors is that when Israel is genuinely being treated unjustly or attacked by true enemies, those Jews will not come to her aid and will remain silent. I do not think I am being unfair, I am more than happy to condone Israel for what I believe to be good things, to recognize that sometimes Israel does face moral dilemmas which are not easily answered through right or wrong actions, but I do not expect to have my credentials as a Jew or a Zionist called into question when I wish to criticize something which I believe is wrong and would like to see changed.
What comes to mind is the thought of how we as outsiders view Muslims with regard to Islamic fundamentalism. There is a general perception in the world that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to just about everyone including Muslims as we have seen that its dangerous ideology does not shy from targeting Muslims who do not conform to its beliefs. This is most evident in the assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat for making peace with Israel. When outsiders look at the Arab Israeli conflict they generally see two major obstacles to peace based on a two-state solution; the hardliners on both sides, Palestinian terrorism and Israeli settlements.
Israel advocates go out of their way to assert that Israel wants peace, and to argue that Israel wants the Palestinians to have their own state. But outside of Israel we (Jews) do not speak up against the continued building of settlements. What the world sees are rallies in solidarity with Israel with a mostly Jewish turn out. It does not send out a message that there are many Jews who do not support settlement building and want to make peace and compromise.
Political Scientist at Tel Aviv University Yossi Shain in his article Jewish Kinship at a Crossroads: Lessons for Homelands and Diasporas asserts that:
“Throughout the 1990s, the Israeli-Diaspora relationship had been evolving in different directions. For almost a decade, many Israelis and diaspora Jews believed that a comprehensive Middle East peace would fundamentally alter both Israel’s Jewish character and relations between the sovereign Jewish state and Jewish existence in the West. Peace would have enabled Israel to achieve a level of normalization that would have loosened the bonds of involvement with and responsibility for the diaspora, while releasing the diaspora from burdensome entanglements with Israeli security issues that had overshadowed lives in their countries of domicile for over a generation. As late as summer 2000, the prevailing sense among observers of Jewish-American affairs was that “the Israel agenda” of American Jews and Jewish advocacy groups “has changed radically. Whatever the serious problems and deep pitfalls in the peace process, the issues that have come to the fore are related more to the relationship between
Israel and America’s Jews than with the physical security of Israel.””
(Shain, Y 2002:282)
This is suggesting that the relationship between the Diaspora and Israel has become much less about helping Israel to make peace and have normal relations with her neighbours but that the relationship is essentially a means for creating Jewish unity. It is not uncommon a view that many in Israel hold that without the Arabs there would be little unity at all amongst Jews in Israel which could result in civil war (particularly along religious divides), and similarly in the Diaspora the view that with the absence of anti-Semitism there would be a higher rate of assimilation.
The power of Diaspora Jewry is particularly enhanced by the role they take on as ambassadors and lobbyists for Israel. Israel by becoming the central component in the post Holocaust era Jewish identity has served a purpose but it has also become the very foundation for being a Jew, which in the Diaspora for the most part has been defending and fighting on Israel’s behalf as well as against anti-Semitism domestically. It is particularly evident amongst many secular Jews as it provides an alternative to religious observance as a means of connecting to ones Jewish identity but is also growing more so amongst the religious communities too.
Israel has benefited from this change in the Israeli Diaspora relationship in so far as that it has found allies unlike any others they will find whose loyalty to Israel will go beyond mutual interest on a certain issue.
It is the fact that Israel has been the common denominator Jews use as well as fighting anti-Semitism in the Diaspora, which has kept for the most part Jews united. In Israel however, we see a crisis in Jewish identity, precisely because Jews are not homogeneous, and do not share the same views on Judaism, Zionism nor politics and addressing these issues runs the risk of disunity and conflict.
Jews in both Israel and the Diaspora may share a common pride in their Jewish heritage but what Judaism means to different Jewish groups are often not only conflicting but opposing views to one another, the Reform and the Orthodox are no closer to resolving their differences, they are simply competing against one another for members as well as the Orthodox taking the monopoly on all religious affairs in Israel. What then occurs is that unity amongst the religious is found when differences are put aside to fight anti-Semitism and to defend Israel. Today defending Israel has become in a strange sense a measure of ones Zionism. Zionism too is not a singular ideology; there are many different forms of Zionism, which too oppose one another’s beliefs, visions and also rationales for what the purpose of Zionism was.
Israel is still arguing as to what kind of state it wishes to be, what the criteria for its Jewish character should be? What its borders should be? Who is a Jew? What should be the relationship between religion and state? There are so many different issues and people have conflicting opinions on all of these questions. It is also questionable as to whether such an idea is sustainable in the era of globalization.
Daniel Gordis in his latest book Saving Israel, How the Jewish people can win a war that may never end discusses the decline in Zionist sentiment amongst Israelis:
“The real threat to Israel now comes from Israelis themselves. What remains to be seen is whether Israel’s elites will so undermine their society’s sense of justice and purpose – and the narrative that has sustained them – that rank-and-file Israeli citizens soon will see no reason to defend what previous generations built.
The Jewish state is at stake, then, because the idea of the Jewish state is under attack. And is under attack not only from Tony Judt, or Jimmy Carter, or Jostein Gaarder, but from Israelis themselves, often among the ranks of Israeli leadership. And that challenge, Israel cannot afford to ignore.”
(Gordis, D. 2009:122)
To what extent are those who believe in the continuation of a Jewish state willing to go to ensure that it survives in some form or another? The current Israeli government has been pushing for a law that Israelis should take loyalty oaths. It is believed that the law put forward by the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu is specifically targeting the Israeli Arabs, but the policy will also no doubt infringe on the freedom of thought of many of Israel’s Jewish citizens too. One cannot make not being a Zionist a crime punishable by a jail sentence and still maintain freedom of speech or remain a democracy.
The issue of Jews being divided on difficult issues such as the future of Jerusalem and Israel’s control of the West Bank is something, which we will have to face at some point or another. The issue of Israel’s existence being at stake has been the factor pushing this issue aside for now, but if we really do want peace we will have to face this issue head on. We have become so used to defending Israel as a means of connecting to our Jewish identity that the thought of Israel living in peace and not needing our help and solidarity has created a problem for us, for it means that we need to find a new means of Jewish expression. It will not be until we reach this realization that Israel is not the be all and end all of Jewish identity, that we need to essentially end our dependence on having common enemies and confront the forces within the Jewish world that are creating obstacles to peace.
Israel advocacy is also not a luxury reserved for the right-wing. The Israeli left has been very weak in recent years to the point that it has lost its ability to speak up against the Israeli governments policies in the name of Jewish, Zionist and Israeli interests. When the left were in power the opposition were not regarded as traitors or anti-Israel when Rabin was assassinated. In fact he was and in some cases still is regarded as a criminal and betraying Israel and God for willing to exchange land for peace. The same was the case for Ariel Sharon when he decided to disengage from Gaza. It seems as though one may only be critical of the Israeli left without being accused of betrayal, threatening Israel’s security or self-hatred. The Israeli right who claim to be serving Israel’s interest are endangering both Zionism and Judaism with their self-destructive policies. Where the left really lost their credibility to be taken seriously in this debate was when many stopped challenging in the name of a form of Zionism or from a Jewish values perspective.
There are a few critics who use either Jewish values or Zionism to challenge the right such as Amos Oz, who never lost his credibility as a Zionist and as a Peace activist. Or the more controversial Avraham Burg, who many may argue is not a Zionist through some of his past quotations, but he certainly makes good use of Jewish tradition in his arguments. Other prominent but rare religious, peace activists among the left are Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Gershom Gorenberg. Benny Morris has too from time to time, whilst he is regarded as one of the key ‘New Historians’ on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, he still regards himself as a Zionist. It is the stance that Morris has taken which is a relatively good example of how the left should model itself. It often sets off alarm bells in peoples heads when one makes statements that are considered to be a part of the ‘Post Zionist’ narrative. There is a reason why Zionists who do not accept the ‘New Historians’ narrative get alarmed, and it is because there are some among the ‘New Historians’ who are more radical than others, such as Ilan Pappe, who has gone so far as to call on boycotting Israel, including Academic boycotts.
It seems to be a package that ‘New Historian’ means non-Zionist, therefore anti or Post Zionist, who is not concerned with the safety of Israel or the Jewish people, is also possibly Post-Jewish and not concerned with Jewish continuity either and that is where we get the accusation of self-hatred or anti-Semitism as the cause of the criticism.
We therefore have to differentiate between New Historians and Post Zionists. I see no issue with accepting parts of the New Historians narrative and remaining a Zionist, committed to a two state solution to the conflict. This is how the Israeli left can reclaim not its right to a say in representing Israel’s interests but will once again win the hearts and trust in the Jewish people as a whole, by ensuring the Israeli public and the Jewish Diaspora that they are not the path to self-destruction or to assimilation, they are the true answer to the continuation of a Jewish and Democratic state.
Alex Carson
Bibliography
Shain, Y (2002) Jewish Kinship at a Crossroads: Lessons for Homelands and Diasporas, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 117, Number 2
Wiesel, E (1978) A Jew Today, Vintage Books: United States.
Gordis, D (2009) Saving Israel, How the Jewish people can win a war that may never end, John Wiley and Sons, Inc: New Jersey.
For more articles by Alex Carson, visit: http://alexcarson.wordpress.com/
