It was on Sunday nights at Temple Bet Ha'am in South Portland, Maine -- a reform congregation my mother started in 1985 -- that I first learned to think and talk about Israel. For members of my religion, Israel is the physical manifestation of our endurance as a people; though a younger political entity than Joe Lieberman, the nation represents the ancient beating heart of our identity, earthen evidence of our triumph over a history of violent oppression and unending hate. Halfway across the globe, American Jews end their Passover Seders with the words "next year in Jerusalem," and in Hebrew schools from Boro Park to Fairfax Avenue the children of Americans who were born alongside Israel in the aftermath of World War II have learned to love and protect the world's only Jewish state.
It has become clear to me in the wake of the botched flotilla raid of last week that loving Israel means something starkly different to different generations of American Jews. For those who lived through the Yom Kippur War, for whom the very survival of the Jewish people has been at times a terrifying uncertainty, love means never having to say you're sorry. Every policy of the Israeli government is justified in the name of self-preservation, acts of apparent aggression are in fact preemptive defenses against enemies whose sole desire is Jewish extinction, and any reactions among the international community that question -- even in the slightest regard -- the propriety of Israel's actions are borne of the rotten fruit of anti-Semitism. For those of us who came of age in a world where the Holocaust was a tragedy of the past -- a chapter in a book rather than the memory of a parent -- Israel is a sacred and beloved state, but not one that we tend to connect viscerally to our own sense of survival.
The fundamental disconnect that exists between generations of American Jews has of late widened the gulf of commonality when it comes to how best to support Israel. For many Jews my age, who love Israel and strive to nourish her efforts to thrive in a hostile region, defending her actions in Gaza has too often become an immense moral struggle that requires the suspension of our values as human beings and, notably, the suspension of our values as Jews. Where many older American Jews see a faultless and holy entity struggling simply and nobly to exist, we of the younger persuasion see a government -- a special government, presiding over a place near and dear to our hearts, but a government nonetheless -- with the capacity to make wrong decisions in light of a tortuous history. Some among my mother's friends rejoice in violent attacks on Palestinians who seek to harm Israel, while my friends cringe at the initiation of bloodshed by Jews. We see their aggressive stance as zealotry and paranoia; they see our discomfort as abandonment and naiveté.
The silver cord of friendship that has bound America to Israel for sixty-two years is today threatened by this discrepancy in viewpoints. Older American Jews for the most part insist upon the sort of relationship in which the American government grants Israel its full-throated support in all circumstances, operating under the theory that the need to strenuously and unwaveringly champion the Jewish state over the forces of evil supersedes any ephemeral political concerns that may arise from specific incidents. This is neither morally (let alone politically) wise, nor is it, in fact, true friendship. As one of my all-time favorite members of the Tribe, Toby Ziegler, would say, friends have to be honest with each other. Older generations may dismiss the capability of America to be an ardent supporter of Israel while at the same time admonishing her when admonishment is called for, but the tired ethos of "you're either with us or against us" ultimately serves no one: not America, not Israel, and least of all peace -- a fact that has become increasingly apparent given recent events.
I believe that the strong opinions of my elders arise from a place of eternally-justified love and once-justified fear. While I respect the considerable judgment and experience of those who came before me, a place for rationality and dispassionate thinking must be carved out of what has become a purely and furiously emotional discourse if the American-Israeli friendship is to remain strong and effective in years to come. After all, as Shakespeare put it so eloquently, hath not a Jew eyes? I pray for Israel to always be worthy of America's unflappable protection, but I cannot close my eyes at those times when they are not. As a human being, I cannot ignore evidence. As a Jew, I cannot support violence and vengeance. In our own way, young American Jews love Israel no less than do our parents' generation, and we demonstrate our affection by holding our brothers and sisters to a higher standard. We protect and defend Israel's leaders as much as we are able, but ask in return that they behave like Jews. The love of Israel is the love of an idea, an idea we share as Jews, and is not the love of a government of men. This does not mean that I don't abhor the actions of Israel's enemies, true anti-Semites who repeatedly and viciously assault her and who are offended by her very existence. When it is Israel, however, that succumbs to anger and chooses to jettison even the slimmest possibility of peace in favor of the fleeting, hollow satisfaction of vengeance, I am heartbroken and embarrassed as a Jew. When I am myself beset by troubles, and walking a road that leads away from happiness, I count on my friends to set me straight. Israel would be wise to insist upon such friendship from America, and American Jews of all ages would be wise to provide it.
Follow Daniel Cluchey on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dancluchey
How would Americans react if Iranian Americans openly expressed their allegience to Iran? How would we react to major Muslim lobbyist groups? During the last election we saw the outrage by many at the very thought that the president might be muslim.
Radical politicoreligious zealotry is a cancer in this country. Relgion can be a positive influence in peoples lives, but when religion and politics mix they tend to form an explosive combination.
Why not ask "How would Americans react if Irish/German Americans openly expressed their allegience to Ireland/Germany?"
Does not your posed question indicate that very duplicity that is the hallmark of the double-loyalty constantly challenged 'race' with Pollard and Lewinsky being the more obvious?!!! Why query an Iranian's loyalty when disloyalty is an obvious hallmark of Zionists while Zionist murder American citizen with impunity?!
Remember...
“Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every
Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.”
~~~Louis D. Brandies, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
Clearly I'm inferring the exact opposite with Zionists, with the evidence to support this if doubted!
I find it interesting that you feel so strongly about Israel and don't feel strongly at all about me inviting you to see Jimmy Fallon in New York for my birthday. (J.K. Rowling). Seriously though, at times like this I have found a very useful thought experiment that can often help to illuminate the issues at hand. If Morgan Freeman, and Nelson Mandela were in a room together who would talk to them first?
Israel? Palestine? Gaza? Old jews? Young jews? Mom's friend Jeanette?
Most people know what a talker Jeanette is so lets remove her from the thought experiment.
I think the answer is that nobody would talk to them, because they would be busy fighting about this great blog post! WAY TO PROMOTE DISCUSSION! I think everyone can "rejoice" in that.
P.S. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the crisis in the American Media's representation of the tribe. Now that Lebron is leaving Cleveland, what shot at relevance do they have? (Couldn't find Ziegler in the gamelogs...)
http://www.slate.com/id/2256342/
For those that have been taking part in this discussion, here are two more pieces you might find interesting written by people way, way smarter than me. The first is by Peter Beinart, the second is a rebuttal to Beinart by Jack Shafer.
The Israeli operation was an obvious failure because of the lack of ruthleness. The Navy commandos who boarded the ship had only non lethal weapons with them and would been lynched if their comrades had not killled this mob.
CONTACT
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
The United Nations, New York NY 10017
tel: +1 212 963 5012
fax: +1 212 963 2155 or 212-963-4879
email: un.orgorg -or- sg at un dot org
The blind acceptance of every Israeli State action by the worlds superpower has probably done more long term damage to the nation than any of their enemies have and is detrimental to their long term existence.
There are many whose views are not polarized on the Palestinian side but are sick to the back teeth of one nation being portrayed as unable to do anything wrong when its as clear as day that some of their actions are frankly racist while the opposing side have been described with derogatory terms such as terrorists no matter what they do.
If they carry on as a nation on this path they'll gradually drive the limited number who are still wandering about the middle onto one side or the other and I have a feeling that the side the vast majority end up on will not be one conducive to the long term security of the Israeli State.
I think the key is the end of all settlements. It is the source of the corrupting influence on the IDF and Israels government, and the source of the VAST majority of anger towards Israel from their neighbors and the rest of the world.
End the settlements completely, and Israel will have the best shot a peace they have ever had.
Except that Israel had to fight two wars before a single settlement appears. The settlements are a problem, but they aren't "the key" to solving the conflict.
What has occurred non stop since the last one ( that was preemptive, on Israels part)? The The Occupation and the settlements.
You are full of it.
This is true. For instance, it is often claimed that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. It's not true, but even if it was, Hamas and the other militant groups number about 15,000. They are armed with some Kalashnikov's, some shoulder carried homemade rockets, and rocks.
They are broke. And they have only existed for half the time of the occupation as an entity almost entirely created by Israel itself when it nurtured Hamas as a counter-weight to Arafat. But he's long dead now. And the average person does not recognize that more than less, they have always operated in an efficient and fair manner.
That's one of the reasons they were elected. They were seen as non-corrupt unlike Fatah. They have an extensive humanitarian arm. And they've undoubtedly committed war crimes by firing homemade rockets towards civilians.
Their threat, their resistance, is driven by the occupation Hamas's armed wing was created from. And Israel is not strong enough to counter those seek to continue and expand the occupations. I agree, Israel existential threat is from within.
I don't care if Zionists want to try and conquer the Middle East. Just don't hijack my government to do it and we're fine....
Can we not support Israel's existance, its right to defend herself, want it to be a place that its citizens can live in peace and prosper without fear of rocket attacks, yet at the same time condemn the current government for being aggressors, radicals and holders of "the bomb" with no checks and balances like the rest of the world is forced or demanded to?
I feel like the Israel of the past is gone, that it has flaunted its do-whatever-it-wants-to with impunity and is now paying the price. That backing it up without question is no longer on the cards for the US Government and that Israel will certainly have its special relationship with that country for historical and personal ties, but never again at the expense of others. That a good relationship with Israel's neighbours and yes current enemies is on the card, why not?
But tell me why, asking such questions or thinking down those lines makes one anti-Semite?
Donny vdH
Rotterdam
Blootstellen.wordpress.com
Just one example, of many possible: the war in Afghanistan have (like all wars) caused many losses of civilian lives. Numbers are disputed, but are certainly very large – perhaps tens of thousands. Just recently, circa 70 Afghan civilians were killed by German troops. Has a formal international commission been sent to investigate "war crimes", as it has in the case of Israel-Gaza? No. Well, Q.E.D.
The point is not whether the war in Gaza was justified or not (I think it was); the point is not whether the commission's conclusions are valid or not (I think they're not). The point is discrimination. Imagine that NYPD would decide to investigate only when the alleged perpetrators are African Americans. Irrespective of the investigation's result, that's racism.
"Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group. The Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world… the root cause is their use of enemies they create in order to keep solidarity…"
~~~Albert Einstein,
quoted in Collier’s Magazine, November 26, 1938
“Let us all recognize that we Jews are a distinct nationality of which every
Jew, whatever his country, his station, or shade of belief, is necessarily a member.”
~~~Louis D. Brandies, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
I've come to know about the guy here — http://www.win.ru/en/ideas/4549.phtml
I somewhat doubt you'll say "ditto" to those.
After all we have been able to manage 50 states and lots of rouge elements without a pogrom.
I'll start by saying that those who think this article is chock full of sweeping generalizations and lacks specifics about policies I object to are absolutely right. Those generalizations are largely unfair, and for that I am sorry, but a piece of writing can easily lose its point when every sentence begins with the words "some of." My point is that many older Jews feel a certain way, in contrast to many younger Jews who do not -- I personally know plenty of Jews of all ages to whom these generalizations do not apply. If you are angry with me about this, rest assured that my mom's friends are, like, a thousand times angrier.
I should have been clearer when saying that my mother's friends "rejoice in the death of Palestinians." Firstly, this is true of only a small fraction of my mother's friends; again, what I intended to mean was that a portion of Jews of that generation do feel that way -- and I have to stand by that, because it's true. Not everybody, but certainly some, and the larger point is that older Jews are in my opinion more inclined to forgive attacks on Palestinians than are younger Jews.
[cont'd]
What I am not in favor of is an American-Israeli relationship that easily rendered disingenuous by to the fact that it is based more on blind loyalty than on rational considerations. The way I defend Israel is by encouraging American Jews to approach Israel as a friend who is honest, not as a friend who panders. Such friendships are stronger, and (I believe) will better serve Israel's interests in the long-run. Accusations about one state solutions and other nonsense are just that -- nonsense. The point of this was to spur a discussion about the way we as American Jews approach a nation we love given a government that doesn't necessarily always do the right thing (which is to say, any government).
I wish you would have just left the article to stand alone. You've pretty much muffed it all up now.
The closure of Gaza by Israel is illegal. It is collective punishment of a captive and occupied people and legal reasoning for this truth can be found at Israel's own Foreign Ministry Web site where you can view the Gaza "Disengagement Plan" both the draft and the final version. But an even better pair of sources are the Goldstone Report and gisha.org who also has a current list of the items banned and not banned, subject to change hour by hour by arbitrary IDF decision of course.
And finally, the two state solution is dead. I mean long dead. It's been over for years. All one has to do is look at the UN West Bank Fragmentation Map and this readily becomes clear.
Israel would have to start today, dismantling all the illegal colonies on Palestinian land for there to ever be a chance at two viable states, and Israel will never ever do that unless forced. And clearly no US government will ever have the strength or the will to do so.
And of course Israel simply won't give up the stolen Golan or Shebaa Farms either even though Moshe Dayan readily admitted it is stolen.
So a One State Solution(tm) it is Daniel. There's nothing either of us can do about it except count and mourn the bodies.
I would like to know, then, how you reconcile such liberalism and awareness of history with the notion of, say, white Southern conservative Christians forming a large enough majority within their respective state or states seceding from the union and forming a separate Christian nation that is legally dominated by Christians.
There are certainly Christians who desire this, but wouldn't it be absurd if other Christians, outside of the white conservative Southern worldview were to adopt your stance and claim to support such a racially and religiously segregated and/or dominated nation, while still being critical of it?
I dare say that those Jews and Christians who want separate states where they get to dominate are neither to be supported, nor trusted, without regard to whether or not they commit acts of savagery towards minorities and other outsiders.
The very idea of race-based or religious-based nations is inherently antithetical to the secular Western ideal.
Too bad that there are so many extremists around (including among the commentators on this website). Rather than taking a leaf from Daniel's book and critically examine THEMSELVES and THEIR OWN beliefs, they stick to their old fanatic and obsessive finger-pointing.
What a contrast! Daniel speaks of love and friendship for Israel coexisting with the truth and morality of self-examination. The extremists below speak of "all out war", "another bloody regional war, where Israel takes far more punishment than it ever has before", etc. Don't they understand that, should such a war ever occur again, people like Daniel and the vast majority of his friends would totally stand by Israel? One of those extremists even takes the opportunity to expose his "one-state solution". A "solution" designed to make Jews a minority in "Palestine" – something as akin to Daniel's article as a whip is to a book.
How telling: on one side careful moral self-examination; on the other – belligerence and not even the slightest attempt of understanding (let alone accommodating) the other side. The main problem Palestinians face is not Israel. It is the extremist "friends" who seek to hijack their agenda.
Nope. Daniel has now come out and defended the illegal closure of Gaza. So now he has turned into yet another apologist for the violent status quo, it turns out, just like you.
I would much prefer a fair and just, durable peace agreement but those pesky half a million illegal colonists makes that forever impossible.
Israel always wanted all of it. Well, now they shall have all of it. Including all of the Arab Palestinians that go with it. One person one vote and equal rights for all like it claims was supposed to be in Israel's non-existent constitution (gee I wonder why...), or evil Apartheid worse than exists now.
NTT, thank you for hitting the nail on the head.
Well, it's a good thing those "extremists" in the various Israeli governments do not think like you do. If they did, by now there would be no Palestinian left between the sea and the river...