The Allison Benedikt story and its aftermath raise urgent questions for the Diaspora Jewish community. Why do Diaspora Jews feel compelled to publicly discuss the evolution in their feelings for Israel? And explain what kinds of Zionists they are? And vehemently disagree with those who don't share their same position?
Of course it's important to have such conversations. Israel is part of the community's identity, and its member care deeply about what it does (and how that might reflect on them) and what happens to it.
But at some point, the community cannot continue to be defined by what its members think about Israel. And after awhile, the conversations themselves become repetitive, boring, distracting, rude, and shrill.
The community is caricaturing itself right out of a Philip Roth novel, shoving its angst down its own throat. At the same time, it's caricaturing itself into two specific groups: Those obsessed with criticizing Israel, and those obsessed with lauding it.
Each group has created its own narrative, which it has elevated into a combination of myth and truth. The first group considers it the moral, universal-humanist thing to do to point out Israel's immoral actions in its foreign policy (toward the Palestinians) and in its domestic policy (illiberal democratic norms). The second group considers it the moral, Jewish thing to do to highlight the unwillingness of the Palestinians to make peace, trumpet Israeli security concerns, and underline its thriving democracy.
Like any meta-narrative, both have become so entrenched that it has become too difficult to question them and move beyond them, and especially to find common ground between them. Thus, those who criticize Israel are branded as self-hating Jews who'd rather assimilate to please the Gentiles than as Jews who care about their own people. And those who defend Israel are marked as bloodthirsty and vengeful soldiers who wear blinders and consider themselves so superior to others they are immune to criticism.
Of course these are caricatures themselves. But that is the point.
The other problem with this unconscious (or maybe conscious) insistence on dividing the community in two is that every blog post, op-ed, story, and news item becomes a site for proxy wars between members of each group. It's as though the Diaspora community has now created its own culture wars, and there doesn't seem to be any momentum against them.
All of this moves people away from the critical issues at hand. It's certainly acceptable -- indeed, it is healthy and desirable -- to disagree and debate over Israeli policy and what Diaspora Jews should do about it. But stop focusing on whether Allison Benedikt loves or hates Israel, or herself.
Instead of talking at each other, a more constructive conversation would eschew criticisms of individuals (or groups) and focus on policy differences. This will move the community toward a serious effort to discuss how it can best promote Israeli and regional interests.
Of course, it begins with a discussion of what, exactly, are Israeli interests and whether they are compatible with regional interests. That is a very tricky discussion, but it, too, can and should be done in a productive and practical manner.
Most members of the community, I'd bet, want to see Israel be prosperous, secure, Jewish, and democratic. Some certainly don't care, and legitimate differences exist over where the balance should be (how Jewish compared to how democratic, what it means to be secure). But figuring all this out is the important part. Such questions should be given the time and gravity they are due.
Follow Brent E. Sasley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/besasley
Your discussion missed a central premise, Israel policy and actions are the prerogative and choice of Israeli citizens and are not for the benefits or the ‘good feelings’ of either Jewish groups outside Israel. In addition, none of the outside groups live in harm's way, as the people living in Israel do; and these groups outside Israel have no skin so to speak in that game (except for relatives and maybe pride...) so their criticism is a hypocritical at best.
Those that criticized or maligned Israel say that they are doing so because they love and support Israel and want to see it a highly-moral society, the way they were taught in their bible classes to be “Or La’goyim”…. Well rather than talk, let them first walk a mile in Israel shoes and then I would like to hear their enlightened opinion.
All those people demanding Israel to meet higher standards are just delusional, Israel society and state is not different than any other nation around the world, with its good and bad points.
Re the second point, I would disagree. Diaspora Jews are intimately connected to Israel through emotional attachments, religion, family, and institutions. Diaspora Jews contribute enormous financial and political support to Israel, and Israel itself asks for it. And Israel takes upon itself the right to make decisions that impact on world Jewry, such as the "who is a Jew" issue. Finally, the Law of Return automatically implies and builds on a direct connection between Jews in Israel and elsewhere.
Because of all that, I'd argue that Diaspora Jews have a right to be part of the conversation on Israel, its policies, and its future. At some point, though, I'd agree that that right stops since Diaspora Jews don't live in Israel, and therefore don't pay its taxes, serve in the military, and so on. I'm not exactly sure where that line is, but certainly so long as Israel expects support from Diaspora Jews the line will remain blurred.
Yet there is a difference between sounding an opinion or criticizing, for good or bad, then acting in a way that is contrary to the well beings and security of Israel, no matter what the intentions are, similar to groups such as J-Street or Peace Now who support and collaborate with sworn enemies of Israel, ot those useful Jews that joined the Gaza flotilla….. I agree it a matter where the line is, and this is where I am afraid people get carried away with their emotions and skewed views and believe in their ’cause’.
This is the very problem Mr. Sasley is talking about in his article - the divisive claim that "only people who believe ____ support _____" that prevents any intelligent discussion and debate from occurring.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304432304576371771855162448.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
It is hard to talk to a radical, crazed, fundamentalist jihad organization (Hamas) who has sworn to destroy you no matter how long it takes, even if that organization occasionally tones down their rhetoric when English-speaking media members might be nearby.
Palestinian negotiators have already offered to accept Israel at 1967 borders. Thats acceptance of Israel by definition. Stop whining.
Right. The Muslim, Hindu or other communities exhibit remarkable unity. So odd for God to choose the Jews