As with any similarly-placed diasporic identity community, debates over policy and priorities within the pro-Israel American Jewish community are important for the community's vitality. Yet in contrast to the increasing centralization of the Canadian trajectory, the American community appears to be moving too much in the other direction: increasing schisms, including over how Zionist individuals and groups are.
These trends distract the community from discussing fundamental philosophies, values, and policy ideas, which in turn undergird its organization, its activities, and its relationship to Israel. The ease with which individuals and groups are distracted by non-critical issues, to the point that the focus becomes not the issue but the other individual or group, is highly problematic.
One way to address this might be to establish a set of working principles or ground rules, which members would agree on. This would allow them to then move to the more necessary discussions.
First, there should be a determination of what, exactly, it means to be "pro-Israel." There is lots of talk about how big the pro-Israel tent should be, but it should be obvious that the answer is tied directly to the Zionist enterprise itself. The culmination of this enterprise is the Israeli Declaration of Independence. The Declaration makes reference to "the right of the Jewish people" to rebuilding itself in its ancient homeland. It also makes reference to "freedom" for all its citizens, "complete equality of social and political rights," "freedom of religion," and "full and equal citizenship." So, to be pro-Israel on the basis of Israel's founding document itself means to support an Israel that is grounded in Jewish values as well as liberal democratic values and structures.
Second, any group that is pro-Israel must eschew violence by non-state groups. Isolated vigilantism aside, which every country has, no state can survive intact without it holding a monopoly on the use of violence. Indeed, the Failed State Index includes as one of its indicators just such a lack of control over the means of violence. (Of concern in this context is the fact that the Index ranks Israel, including the West Bank, 53 out of 177 countries; the closer to 1 a country is the more failed it is.)
Third, American Jews must be committed to liberal democracy in Israel. In part this is because that is what the Declaration sets out, and Israeli leaders from Ben Gurion on promoted it. But it is also because most American Jews, and indeed most Diaspora Jews around the world, place a premium on it. It is part of this community's value structure because we see it as a very good thing. And the community cannot -- should not -- support structures and policies that conflict with the very values they demand of their own government and society.
Fourth, Israel must be geographically defined as contained within the 1967 borders. This is not an argument on final borders, which will be determined through negotiations with the Palestinians. Rather, there must first be an acceptance of a specifically defined entity before we can move on to discussing the final form of that entity. Because Israel accepted the 1949 armistice lines as its border, and because Israel itself never formally and legally annexed the West Bank (despite the administrative and military control it exercises over much of it), the Diaspora community cannot argue that it is part of Israel. Once this is accepted as the baseline, the conversation can then turn to what kind of support for what kind of borders. But the basic acknowledgment must come first.
Fifth, there must agreement that Israel must be secure from attack, both from regular armies and irregular forces. And the contours of this security must be defined according to Israeli needs and perceptions, and not according to the balance sheets of outside strategists and military planners. In The Jewish State, Alan Dowty has noted that "Israelis ... tend to interpret security more broadly as freedom from threat to their personal safety and the ability to live without fear of politically motivated violence." Given that Israelis, not Diaspora Jews, face these types of threat, it must be the measuring stick by which Israel's ability to defend itself is supported.
This also means that the community will have to expect, under conditions of war, potential levels of violence they might otherwise be uncomfortable with. This doesn't mean that all kinds of Israeli violence should be accepted; Israel has signed on to global norms and laws of war and it must be held to that standard. But neither should we expect that the fight against guerillas and terrorists is the same as the fight against state armies on clearly-delineated battlefields.
Such discussions will not be easy, and many people won't want to meet these guidelines. But the conversation itself is necessary, because of the intimate connections between the American Jewish community and Israel -- emotionally, institutionally, and religiously. Both the Declaration of Independence and the Law of Return establish a legal and normative right. While the precise nature of Diaspora Jewish responsibility toward Israel remains an open topic, the fact that Israel asks for, even expects, political and financial support enhances this link.
None of this is to say that other issues aren't relevant. But if we are to have genuinely productive and serious discussions about our future and the future of Israel, we need to start from some common ground. Identifying a set of minimally-acceptable guidelines can go a long way toward this end.
Follow Brent E. Sasley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/besasley
While I personally agree that Israel should withdrawal from the territories and concede to the pre-Six Day War borders, I do not understand how the author arrives at this conclusion based on the rationale for principles one through three. I do not really consider the West Bank part of Israel, but I am confused as to why these borders must be the jumping off points. I do not see a connection between these borders and the fundamental ideas in the Israeli Declaration of Independence or in the maintenance of a liberal democracy.
When arguing for social justice on this issue, I have found that it helps to assert the need for the Jewish state to survive whatever negotiations yield from peace talks. As much as it is for Arabs, this issue is existential for Jews worldwide, not only Israelis.
Several MKs participate in the 'March for Independence,' the first such Jewish-Arab event in 20 years.
Approximately 2,000 Palestinians and Israelis took part in the "March for Independence" Friday, calling for the recognition of a Palestinian state.
Although the organizers of the march issued a statement saying the march was carried out peacefully, police had to intervene and separate right-wing and left-wing activists."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/thousands-of-israelis-and-arabs-march-in-jerusalem-to-support-palestinian-independence-1.373462
People on both sides of this argument need to stop operating in what I call the 'Israel-Palestine Time Vortex' - The Jewish people were there first > But they left so long ago that the Palestinians really are the natives now > It doesn't matter because the Palestinians moved there from Syria.... ad nauseum back and forth.
It sounds like children arguing over a lunchbox and would actually be amusing if lives weren't at stake.
What Israel’s borders have to do with the Jews’ support of Israel, not only in the US, but all over the world, or whether Israel government is Liberal or Right wing….
I may suggest other points that are more pertinent to the Jews in diaspora to be concerned with or address, such as Judaism pluralism in Israel, which has more implications to US Jews than Israel’s borders, or the establishment of secular/civil family law system rather than being strictly Orthodox, or acceptance of intermarriage….
Regarding you discussion of “pro-Israel” definition -- There is no room for vacillation here, it is and must be straight forward: being Pro-Zionist and support the State of Israel right to exist as a Jewish state, NO BUT or IF…..
As for being a Jewish state, it is important to define what we mean by that, and is captured in points 1 and 3. But it is full of contradictions. One of them is, as you noted, the role of Judaism in determining the laws of the state--which has implications both for the large non-Jewish minority living there and for Jews in the diaspora.
On that last point, if we allow ourselves to be affected by how Israel defines Jewishness, then surely we must also be able to contribute to the construction of these definitions in Israel.
The armsistance line was simply that. No final peace agreement (including borders) was ever accepted or acknowledged by the Arabs in 1949. It was simply where the armies stopped fighting in 1949.
Prior to 1949 there were many Jewish settlements in what is now the West Bank (in fact the old city of Jerusalem was majority Jewish before 1949). Besides saying that this 1949 armsistance line is (in principle) a final border today makes the negotiations much more more difficult and less likely-because it retains the illusion that some of the Arab leadership has - that the majority of settlements in the West Bank which are contiguous to Israel will be abandoned.
With regards to your other points - really - Israel is democratic already... so it is a moot point. The country does what it can to keep the violence to a minimum. "Vigilantiasm" by Israelis is not the main issue as far as violence goes. The only reason for the number of checkpoints (and the wall) is because during the "intifada" 1000 Israelis were literally blown up by homicide attacks...
The main problem is not/has not been Israel in preventing a reasonable settlement. It has been (up till now) a dysfunctional (anti democratic & violent) Arab leadership that does not & has not given Israel a truly frank and reasonable peaceful viable alternative & a TRUE ACCEPTANCE of the longterm existance of Israel as a Jewish state (instead of what is effectively a temporary HUDNA with
Besides saying that this 1949 armsistance line is (in principle) a final border today makes a NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT much more more difficult and less likely...
As for Israel being a democracy, there are real debates about how democratic it should be versus how Jewish, and whether there is any contradiction in the two concepts--and what the role of Jewish norms and laws should be in a state with a large non-Jewish minority. In addition, being democratic means enshrining certain minority rights, and there are debates about what those rights should be as well.
The point of my piece wasn't to suggest what needs to happen to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians, but rather to try to resolve some of the conflicts within the US Jewish community.
The fact that Israel did not formally annex the West Bank does not mean or imply that Israelis are abandoning their communities in the West Bank (either in "principle" or in fact).
Israel's Jewishness is part of the reason it was created. I am troubled by your suggestion that there is a debate (of any merit) which states that Israel cannot be both Jewish and democratic.
In fact, your suggestion makes me wonder if you have ever visited or are at all familiar with Israel's minority communities (and I am not referring to the West Bank/Gaza of course). The Israeli Arabs want to stay INSIDE Israel - rather than become part of any new Palestinian state - for the precise reason that Israel is democratic and they are effectively the freest Arab community in the Middle East.
Finally you state you are concened with the Jewish community (and I have no idea if you are Jewish yourself) - yet the Jewish community is pretty much overall in agreement that Israel is a Jewish state that needs a negotiated solution that involves a border which will very likely be different from the 1949 border.
Forgive me if I seem to question your sincerity with regards to some of what you state -but I find many of your arguments incredulous. Sorry.
Sure would be nice to know exactly what that means?
Aren't we all Diaspora from somewhere. Didn't all of humanity move around?
Besides, and importantly, sure are lots of Slavic peoples who converted to Judaism between the 1 and 3rd centuries. With NO historical connection ever to the ME.
Remember there was a time in history (perhaps in social competition with early Christianity) where Judaism was a proselytizing religion. Fortunately, Judaism moved away from that. Although the motivation was not to be mixing with so many peoples.
Point is, Judaism is Universal. It spawned Christianity, after all. Jews are of many people everywhere. The meme of a Diaspora is a nationalistic myth.
The suggested cookie cutter is skewed too much to the left, in particular, 3rd and 4th guidelines.
Regarding 3rd one, democracy, I would rather agree Benjamin Franklin who said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.". It holds true for Jewish minority in the mids of the Arab world.
Regarding 4th one, 67 border line. Israel needs defensible borders to survive from unstoppable attacks from her benevolent neighbors. And that is the bottom line.
The "might makes right" strategy never wins in the long run. It is the politics of weakness.
Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/root-causes-behind-the-is_b_894867.html#comments
Like the Palestinians in Israel?
"Palestinian diaspora (Arabic: الشتات, al-shatat) is a term used to describe Palestinians living outside of historic Palestine - an area today known as Israel and the Palestinian territories or the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip.[12] Of the total Palestinian population worldwide, estimated at between 9 to 11 million people, roughly half live outside of their homeland.
Large-scale emigration of Christians began in the mid-19th century as a response to the oppression of Christians by the Ottoman Empire.[13][14][15][16]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_diaspora
Second, the Palis are not a separate ethnic group per say, they are plain Arabs who migrated to the area called Palestine during the Ottomans and British rules, and most of them have relatives and families in Syria, Jordan and Egypt, including your infamous leader Arafat.
Last, the migration of the Christians started during the Ottoman, but accelerated within Palestine area and Lebanon upon the large influx of Muslim Arabs crossing over from the surrounding countries….. and today it is even more troubling in places like Iraq, Syria and Jordan….
Nor is there any evidence that Jewish tribes were ever forced out of the region. The Roman Empire fell apart. (Blame the Italians if you still want to believe that) Opportunities were elsewhere. People moved. People came. Life goes on.
There was never conflict among the Palestinians until Europeans came and claimed land based on bronze age stories and strange nationalistic myths. Like all Colonial enterprises of past centuries.
It hurts to deal with a life of brainwashing, but try it....it will set you free.
And seriously, you´ve seen the citations to genetic studies, you know they´re out there and that its the scientific consensus that the Palestinians are native to the area, yet you STILL try that "recent immigrant" bilge? Sad.