Rabbis and Jewish communal officials constantly wring their hands about young Jews' disengagement from Israel. They commission studies, run focus groups, and convene meetings in an attempt to determine how they can engage my generation and ensure a lasting connection to the state of Israel.
But, sometimes, when young Jews finally enter a synagogue, attend an Israel-related event, or even attempt to have a conversation about the Middle East, they are met with the very vitriol and closed-mindedness that kept them out in the first place.
Those of us who care deeply about Israel - but are equally concerned about the path Israel is on and its future as a Jewish, democratic home - are subjected to name-calling and recrimination, told that we've "gone over to the dark side."
This was never clearer than last week, when a group of young Jewish Americans was told to "get out" of a synagogue simply because we disagreed on the policies that will best achieve two states and secure Israel's future.
J Street supporters, student activists and staff traveled to Stamford, CT for Jeremy Ben-Ami's second debate with Alan Dershowitz. The debate was part of the annual Hoffman Lecture Series at Temple Beth El, founded to highlight the multiplicity of opinion within the Jewish community and promote respect for the ideas of others. We were hoping for an evening of open, honest, and mature debate in the spirit of both the lecture series and the synagogue's willingness to engage on these tough issues.
Unfortunately, some audience members had other plans.
Never mind Dershowitz's own attempts to smear and demonize J Street rather than discuss the vital issues at hand (it is, after all, only one of the most critical moments in a tenuous peace process). What broke my heart was the outright hatred directed by Jews at fellow Jews, especially young ones, who held views different than their own.
When Jeremy invited audience members to find J Street's staff afterward, some audience members screamed: "Get out!" Later, staff members and supporters were cornered and told that we were "self-hating Jews."
Most appallingly, a Jewish American J Street U student leader was asked: "Are you Palestinian? I'm going to spit on you."
I can only imagine what my Holocaust survivor grandparents - who compelled me to live and study in Israel, become president of my college Hillel, and dedicate myself to working on this issue - would have said.
Make no mistake - these voices are an extreme minority. Almost all of the debate's attendees were there to respectfully listen and learn. And the synagogue itself, its rabbi and leadership, and its congregants were gracious hosts, eager to respectfully engage on the tough issues.
But the extreme voices are often the loudest. And in the face of experiences like these, it's no wonder many young Jews are avoiding the Israel issue altogether.
For our sake, and for Israel's, there must be a change in how our community discusses these issues. Our failure to confront this intolerance will increasingly shrink the pro-Israel community. When you shut the door to questions and constructive debate, you effectively shut the door to young people.
But the change won't come from a university study or a focus group. It must come from the community and its leaders themselves - through a willingness to stand up to demagoguery and smears, and an open-mindedness that is ready to constructively engage, even on the most difficult of issues.
Until then, I fear that most of my peers will remain outside, reluctant to engage for fear of being screamed at or spit on.
And when we're talking about nothing less than the survival of the state of Israel, there's too much at stake to let that happen.
Follow Amy Spitalnick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/amyspitalnick
Make no mistake - these voices are an extreme minority. Almost all of the debate's attendees were there to respectfully listen and learn. And the synagogue itself, its rabbi and leadership, and its congregants were gracious hosts, eager to respectfully engage on the tough issues.†(Spitalnick).
I respectfully bring to your attention that it is our community’s policy not to use the “Holocaust†to make political points or in hyperbole. It demeans the tragedy and is certainly not a “credentialâ€. Also you indicate that “these voices are an extreme minority.†J Street represents a small minority yet it is included and you indicate you were treated with respect.
Moses Maimonides admonished his children to “Fear the Lord the God of thy Fathers and serve him in love, for fear only retrains a man from sin, while love stimulates him to good….Measure thy words, for by multiplying words thou increasest error. … (D)espise not thy religion because thou art unable to understand one difficult matter….Defile not your souls by quarrelsomeness and petulance. I have seen the white become black, the low brought still lower…assemblies dispersed, the pious humiliated…all on account of quarrelsomeness. Glory in forbearance, for in that is true strength and victory.â€
http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger
This is easy...
His other comment was that murderous Arab violence is normal, if ill-advised. .“it’s not the most strategic thing to do always, it’s not the most effective thing.†Just like Mahmoud Abbas, who cannot bring himself to criticize the murder of Jewish children on any but practical grounds, Levy seems to be lacking in moral sense.
(1) In a letter he sent in 1902 to Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement, Lord Rothschild explained why he could not support a Jewish state in Palestine. He wrote that he “should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish colony pure and simple; such a colony would be Imperium Imperio; it would be a Ghetto with the prejudice of the Ghetto; it would be a small petty Jewish state, orthodox and illiberal, excluding the Gentile and the Christian.â€
(2) In 1944, Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, expressed himself as follows: "The concept of a racial state - the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences."
A "Jewish, democratic state" is a contradiction in terms, perhaps not when originally conceived (when only Jews were part of it), but as demographics change, certainly now. This is called "ethnic nationalism" and is a poor basis for democracy as maintaining the "ethnic purity" (to quote Jimmy Carter) of the state requires immigration restrictions most in the international community would find repugnant. Now if being "Jewish" is a religious thing, then it is a "theocracy" and not a democracy. Few here on HuffPo would say a "Muslim democracy" (Turkey, anyone?) is ultimately just if a huge minority becomes second class citizens. Certainly few here agree with Right wing tea baggers who insist the US should be a "Christian democracy". So the contradictions are glaring. And demographics will eventually win--in Israel, and everywhere else.
the extreme voice are not just the loudest but more powerful too, aipac being a true shining example...
if she represents the future leaders of Jewish Americans, then the future is bright.
I hope every parent, professor, and religious leader uses this as a springboard for a dialogue with our youth.
Amy is in the process of questioning and seeking answers.
her opinions and beliefs will change for she is still in flux.
but she must be shown respect and made to know the importance and value we place on the opinions of youth.
the responses she receives from the community will influence the final product.
YOUTH WILL OUT!
so better to keep the lines of communication open.
what parent does not know this?
People with the same desires, hopes, dreams, fears and, hopefully, the same ability to accept each others' differences.
Religion is no more inherently bad than a hammer. It all comes down to how it is used.
Seems pretty clouded to me
Nevertheless, it's not really funny. I understand not agreeing with JStreet. But getting agitated and condemning JStreet as a palestinian front, an anti-Jewish group...JStreet probably would be best served devoting its resources and enrgies on college campuses with students whose minds are not yet made up.
While J-Street is calling out the Extremists on the right for being close-minded, J-street itself is guilty of the same by refusing to acknowledge the 'concept' of a one-state solution, and going so far as to disalign itself from any candidates that it has supported who do not believe in a Jewish and Democratic state.
If you wish to "constructively engage, in the most difficult of issues" how can you do so by shutting out the idea of a one-state solution where everyone is equal under the law--where Jews, Muslims and Christians have equal access to the religious sites, where settlement-colonies will be transformed to cities, where the Military is made up Jews and Arabs, where the enemies Lebanon, Syria, Iran and other Arab nations have been transformed to economic and regional partners, where the safety and security of Israel is guaranteed.
It's understandable, even as a Palestinian, that the one-state is a difficult pill for Israeli apologists to swallow, but the fact remains the One-State solution is not only a reasonable solution but is becoming more and more the ONLY solution. So by shutting this option out, how is J-Street fostering an atmosphere geared towards "constructive debate"?
What's so hard to understand.
How so? Palestinians will become Israeli citizens, i.e. citizens of Israel. Jews will be able to roam freely and securely in Israel, living side by side with Muslims and Christians--something that our ancestors were not able to do because of a lack of civility.
One-state won't eliminate Israel, but in actuality will help Israel grow in more ways that it ever could/can with this whole 2-state nonsense--case in point, the growing isolation of Israel in the international community.
Myopinion2, your response is as a result of being indoctrinated as a youth to believe that Israel will be eliminated if it doesn't maintain a Jewish majority. This is why individuals like yourself support or defend the occupation, and the settlements b/c it goes to maintaining the Jewish majority.
In a democracy where the rights of ALL people are guaranteed in a real consitution with protections to make sure all citizens are treaeted equally and fairly, there should be no fear of losing the population battle.
In any case, what will Israel do when the Palestinian citizens of Israel become the majority, which is a likely scenario? Well, there's the obvious plan of Avigdor Lieberman (population transfer, i.e. Ethnic Cleansing): this plan has pretty much been THE plan for quite some time now and the Loyalty oath is a natural consequence and another step in that direction.
Amy wrote an article that deserves our attention.
i do not direct this to you, but i do want to respectfully suggest we could comment on her article rather than rerun the petty bickering.
(i choose your comment to piggyback because i felt it to be constructive.)