Noah Pollak articulates everything that's wrong with Beinart's assessment and puts his finger on the true malaise that has infected so much of liberal American Jewry when it comes to Israel.
Worth reading in its entirety.
Peter Beinart and the Destruction of Liberal Zionism
Because the history of the peace process repudiates so many of liberalism’s most cherished premises, liberalism is increasingly repudiating Israel, and doing so in a perfectly logical fashion: with people like Beinart now saying that Israel is not in fact an admirable country and that it deserves to be thrown out of the company of liberal nations. In this way, the failure of the liberal vision is transformed from being a verdict on liberalism to being a verdict on Israel.
It is Israel, we are now admonished, that has been dishonest and aggressive and unwilling to compromise. Believing this is the only way to avoid confronting the real problem, which is liberalism’s inability to reconcile its beliefs about human nature with the cruel functioning of humans in practice.
Beinart writes as if none of the tragedies of the past two decades happened, or if they did happen, that Israelis, unique among peoples, may not allow themselves to acquire any fears or resentments or lessons. Even Shimon Peres, one of Israel’s greatest doves, understands what has transpired, telling the Wall Street Journal a few days ago: "I am not surprised that so many Israelis lost their trust when they're being attacked time after time, time after time." Lost their trust indeed: the Meretz/Labor peace-process faction held 56 Knesset seats in 1992. Today they have 16. Normally in politics, such a massive shift in public opinion is accompanied by genuine inquiry about why it happened. Beinart is unreflective. It must be because of the settlers, or racism, or AIPAC.
Beinart has thus joined a legion of others in the burgeoning profession of being an Israel Scold. Israel Scolds have adopted a set of condescending attitudes toward Israelis, their recent history, and their political choices, demanding that they never allow the cruelties of reality to undermine their faith in the promise of the progressive vision. The distilled pleading of Beinart is merely a series of demands that Israelis refuse to learn from experience: how dare they allow any hostility to Arabs creep into their politics; how dare they vote for Avigdor Lieberman, a populist who plays to the less-than-perfectly liberal Russian immigrants; how dare they lose faith in the peace process and the liberal hopefulness that animated it. Most important: how dare they upset the comfortable ideological existence of American Jews, whose acceptability to their liberal peers depends in no small degree on their willingness to join in pillorying Israel over the failure of the peace process -- a failure, alas, that is not Israel’s but liberalism’s.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Noah Pollak articulates everything that's wrong with Beinart's assessment and puts his finger on the true malaise that has infected so much of liberal American Jewry when it comes to Israel.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Peter Beinart, former editor of The New Republic, has the blogosphere abuzz with his new essay in NYRB, The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment. He raises important questions, but his essay is riddled with faulty assumptions, glib assertions, and on occasion, downright re-creations of history. Yaacov Lozowick comments on that revision of the historical record here,
Inventing Netanyahu's Past, on his blog, Ruminations, to my mind, the best commentary out there on Israeli politics, culture and Jewish history (Jeffrey Goldberg comes in a distant second, but remains the most important centrist voice on this side of the divide-- see Goldblog). But Lozowick gets it wrong on why Beinart "is right about America's Jews, but for the wrong reason," below, in his post,
A Growing Rift in the Jewish World?
"The problem with Beinart's article is that he's right about America's Jews, but for the wrong reason. It's not a growing disenchantment with Israel among young American Jews. It's a dwindling Jewishness. Over the past 65 years a majority of the world's Jews with the exception of the American ones have returned to their homeland. They have returned to the ancestral language. They have created a multi-faceted, complex and extraordinarily rich Jewish culture, such as has not been seen since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. They have built a vibrant democracy (and no, it's not under attack), a miraculous economy, and even the secular ones among them have a birthrate well above that of practically all rich societies: Israelis are optimistic about the future and wish to raise children into it. There's also the matter of a century of war, and of course the thousands of things that still need fixing - along with the expectation, based on experience, that many will indeed be fixed. America's Jews can't be bothered. Three out of four have never visited Israel. Only a small minority make the effort to learn Hebrew. Few try, even without the language, to figure out what Israel is about. I've long since grown out of the sophomoric Zionism that expects all Jews to pack up and come to Israel. Yet I can't help wondering what sort of Judaism it is that can't be bothered with the most important development in Jewish history in two thousand years, one that was always the central dream. Back in the 1970s there was discussion in Israel about how America's Jews would soon disappear because of their high rate of marriage out of the fold. For various reasons this theme was then muted, one being the feeling that it was counterproductive, another being the impression that maybe it wasn't happening. 35 years later, sad to say, it is coming to pass, even if in a different form. There are still plenty of Jews in America, but it's not clear what their Jewishness means. Since they aren't very Jewish, it's not all that surprising that they don't have much affinity for Israel; this has nothing to do with AIPAC or the Conference of Presidents."
But the problem is more profound. Many American Jews, with or without literacy in Hebrew or Israeli history and culture, care deeply about the Jewish state, even if they can't decide whether or not it should even have such a nomenclature. That caring may not translate into an authentic understanding of present day realities, but legions of American Jews feel very strongly about Israel. The problem is so many suffer from a profound misreading of the current situation, not to mention historical perspective, and Peter Beinart is emblematic of that myopia. That he is also representative of so much of the Jewish intellectual class compounds the problem.
Yet his analysis that young American Jews are increasingly alienated from an Israel they perceive as unnecessarily militant, intolerant, and moving dangerously to the right, is an accurate, if unfortunate truth. Even though that read by American Jewish youth does not square with the actual circumstances in Israel, perception trumps reality. And Beinart stokes those flames by offering up distortions of both the American Jewish leadership's positions as well as the conditions he reports on in Israel. Below, comments on some of his more glaring misapprehensions:
1. "...leading institutions of American Jewry have refused to foster--indeed, have actively opposed--a Zionism that challenges Israel's behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and towards its own Arab citizens." American Jewish leadership, from the AJC to the ADL, is rife with criticisms of "Israel's behavior," unabashedly calling for the reining in of the "Hilltop Youth" in the West Bank, categorically condemning the destruction of Palestinian property (burning of olive trees, orchards, etc.), and supporting the civil rights of Arab-Israelis.
2. "New historians like Tom Segev who have fearlessly excavated the darker corners of the Zionist past..."
Of course, Segev's 'fearless excavations' include his largely discredited account of the Six-Day War, 1967 Israel, the War, and the Year That Transformed the Middle East, where he argues that:
It was not Nasser's threats but the quicksand of [Israeli] depression. It was the feeling that the Israeli dream had run its course. It was the loss of David Ben-Gurion's leadership coupled with the lack of faith in Eshkol. It was the recession and the unemployment; the decline in immigration and the mass emigration. It was the deprivation of the Mizrahim [Jews from Arab countries], as well as the fear of them. It was the boredom. It was the terrorism; the sense that there could be no peace. --Tom Segev
...This portrait of Israel in 1966 and early 1967 is skewed. The economic downturn was a minor recession, nothing like the American or German depressions. (Indeed, the early 1960s saw the establishment of the foundations of the modern industrial economy.) There was greater immigration to Israel than emigration. The Sephardi-Ashkenazi gap, while extant, was hardly in crisis mode (there were no riots to compare with 1959 or the early 1970s); and the same applies to the religious-secular divide--hardly a period of violence or fireworks. Palestinian terrorism was meager and trivial compared with the standards set in the 1970s and 1990s. The country's political leadership, while not flamboyant or "great," was certainly composed of capable and honest people. Israelis were no more "bored" then than in any other time. In other words, the picture that Segev paints of Israel's internal condition in 1966 and early 1967, with which he tries to "explain" the war, is essentially false...
As for Tom Segev, his book points readers and scholars in no worthwhile direction. Its argument is not merely wrong; it also makes a small contribution of its own to the contemporary delegitimation of Israel.
3. Later in his essay, Beinart salutes Avraham Burg, one of Israel's saddest cases of defection (although not so disaffected as to give up his hefty pensions from the Knesset & the Jewish Agency: Burg enjoys two pensions from the Knesset, plus a comfortable pension of NIS 200,000 from the Jewish Agency, in addition to a car and chauffeur for life), when he quotes Burg from his "remarkable" 2008 book, The Holocaust is Over: We Must Rise from Its Ashes: "Victimhood sets you free." Ironically, in the same breath, Beinart juxtaposes his admiration for Burg with a swipe at "the American Jewish establishment and its allies in the Netanyahu government," accusing them of exploiting Jews historical victim status, and thus abdicating moral responsibility as "a luxury Israel does not have." The high-minded Burg was taken to task on his morals by Ha'aretz journalist, Ari Shavit in a July, 2007 interview: Defining Israel as a Jewish State Key to its End. At one point, Shavit responded. "We're talking about NIS 200,000. And about your behavior, which the judge found disgraceful. And about the fact that even though you talk high and mighty about morals, you don't see the moral flaw in the fact that 10 years after leaving the Jewish Agency you are driving on your business trips throughout the country with a Jewish Agency chauffeur driving you everywhere. On top of which, today you are so alienated from everything the Jewish Agency stands for."
Hillel Halkin, his 2007 piece in Commentary, A Wicked Son, offers additional perspective:
Given the clear aberrancy of the man and his book, how worried by Avraham Burg should one be? The answer is: probably more than my description suggests. The good news about the Burg interview is that, as David Remnick concluded after sampling the fallout during a quick trip to Israel, “criticism [of it] was, with few exceptions, general and crossed ideological lines.” Prominent Israelis on the political Left no less than on the Right, Remnick wrote, felt “disgust, or worse, for their wayward brother.” Much of this had to do with Burg’s perceived hypocrisy, which Ari Shavit, who did an admirable job of aggressive questioning, brought out in the interview. Since Burg’s retirement from politics, Shavit observed, he has ridden around in a chauffeured car paid for by the Jewish people as part of his Jewish Agency retirement package and has been linked to shady business dealings. How can he of all people accuse Israel of being materialistic and corrupt? ...
Indeed, there is probably no other country in the world whose intellectuals tend to see themselves so thoroughly through the eyes of the world. In part, this is because the eyes of the world always are on Israel; in part, because Israeli intellectual life, like that of any small land but even more so, takes place in the shadow of elsewhere. Its models of achievement live in other countries and write in other languages; most of its textbooks and scientific literature come from abroad; so do many of its grants and research projects; its best students go to the United States and Europe for their doctorates and post-doctorates; it is there that its professors, scholars, scientists, writers, and artists take their vacations and sabbaticals, attend conferences and give papers, and establish their reputations. No Israeli intellectual can remain uninfluenced by what his non-Israeli peers think of him, not least because this determines what his Israeli peers think of him, and no Israeli intellectual can remain uninfluenced by what his non-Israeli peers think of Israel. This does not mean that most Israeli intellectuals tend to identify with every criticism of Israel encountered abroad. On the contrary: most, even on the Israeli Left, do not, and many on the Israeli Left have argued vociferously back. Yet one of the less commented-on consequences of today’s anti-Israel climate is its spillback into Israeli life. There is a process of attrition that, because it is as slow as it is steady, often goes unnoticed. Even the Israeli intellectual most convinced of the fundamental justice of his country’s cause is undermined in his convictions upon hearing that cause repeatedly derided outside of Israel. In this respect, the intellectual war over Israel is being fought not just for European and American minds; the minds of Israelis are at stake, too. Defeating Hitler is one indication of how badly this war has been going. One of the greatest dangers facing Israel is that, under this kind of unrelenting pressure, its intellectual elite will eventually “crack” in precisely the way that Avraham Burg has cracked. A country whose best minds no longer believe in it is a country whose ordinary minds will sooner or later follow. The only way to contain apostasy is, as Jews traditionally have done, to place the apostate beyond the pale. Yosef Burg’s son should be made to understand that this is where he now is.
So much for Beinart's understanding of debunked revisionists and fallen leaders.
4. Beinart claims that "American Jewish organizations have waged a campaign to discredit the world's most respected international human rights groups." Among the offended NGO's, he cites Human Rights Watch, asserting that "an AIPAC spokesman declared HRW 'has repeatedly demonstrated its anti-Israel bias.'" In case Beinard still thinks HRW is the recipient of unfair challenges to its objectivity when it comes to Israel, he might want to look at the Times op-ed by HRW founder, Robert Bernstein this past October, Rights WatchDog, Lost in the Middle East, or
The New Republic's recent investigative piece, Minority Report, by Benjamin Birnbaum
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel
On October 19 of last year, the op-ed page of The New York Times contained a bombshell: a piece by Robert Bernstein, the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch (HRW), attacking his own organization. HRW, Bernstein wrote, was “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.” The allegation was certainly not new: HRW had been under assault for years by American Jews and other supporters of Israel, who argued that it was biased against the Jewish state. And these attacks had intensified in recent months, with a number of unflattering revelations about the organization. In July, HRW found itself under fire when a Wall Street Journal op-ed noted that the organization had solicited donations in Saudi Arabia by trumpeting the criticism it faces from “pro-Israel pressure groups.” In August, the blogosphere leapt on one of the organization’s top Middle East officials for having once been part of a team that edited a radical anti-Israel journal. And, in September, HRW suspended one of the primary contributors to its reports on the wars in Gaza and Lebanon after his private hobby—collecting Nazi memorabilia—became public.
Beinart offers us the pabulum that "HRW and Amnesty International are not infallible." The problem is we're not talking here about infallibility, we're talking about blatant bias by the very group that is supposed to be the gold standard for upholding human rights in an objective, fair forum. See Leon Wieseltier's exquisite dissection of this and other inanities, in his "to be sure" summation in TNR.
5. "Israeli governments come and go, but the Netanyahu coalition is the product of frightening, long-term trends in Israeli society..."
Reading this, you'd never suspect that part of ordinary Israelis' move to a center-right consensus has much to do with the trauma of 8 years of unrelenting rocket attacks from Gaza, with 3 of those years coming after Israel withdrew every last Jew, dead (48 graves were disinterred) and alive. That the international community was largely mute when it came to 1/4 million Israelis living under the threat of daily terror attacks from Qassams launched into southern Israel, you'd never glean from Beinart's account.
6. "In Israel itself, voices from the left, and even center, warn in increasingly urgent tones about threats to Israel's democracy." Such strong rhetoric would suggest that not only is Israeli democracy gravely threatened, but that a significant segment of the Israeli population thinks so. Except it turns out that it's a tiny, but loud and shrill minority with exceptionally thin skin who is doing the lion's share of catastrophizing. Lest readers be duped into thinking that Ha'aretz is representative of mainstream Israelis, it's not. Maybe 5-6% of the country read it. It's more a bellwether for Europe and the American left. See Lozowick below:
The Watchdogs Go Mad
The New York Times supports the narrative that Israeli democracy is under siege. True, there's enough professional journalism in the item to pretend the journalist is merely reporting, not sharing the opinion, but just barely.The evidence? One case in which the prime minister criticized an organization he felt was lying; one case of wrong arrest which was rectified the next day by a court; a single tax investigation which was then called off; the Im Tirzu campaign against the NIF (and note that Im Tirzu is now blandly described as "an ultra-Zionist nongovernmental organization", whatever that might mean); and worst of all, a parliamentary bill currently stuck and immobile which calls for transparency about foreign governments' support for political players in Israel (the horror!)Here's a counter explanation. The people who staff the so-called "human rights organizations" at the far left of Israel's political spectrum - and they're political actors, there can be no doubt about it in spite of their endless protestations - are mostly thin-skinned partisans. They are deeply and profoundly convinced that their view of the world is the truth, the only truth and nothing but the truth, and that anyone who refuses to see the world as they do is either unintelligent, benighted, evil, or all of the above. Once you accept this rather strange axiom, you'll have no problem with identifying any counter claim or adverse position with the forces of evil, out to destroy the embattled and besieged voices of rationality justice and peace.This explains how when they dish out endless fabrications, distortions, nasty allegations and radical positions, it's democracy at its finest; but whenever they're confronted it's a fundamental undermining of democracy, freedom, justice and all that is beautiful.It's a frame of mind, not an intellectual exercise.
And again here: "A Threat to Democracy" on the Anat Kamm story.
Yet if that's how it happened, Haaretz carries some responsibility for the gag order, too. So far, Haaretz comes out of the story badly. Their Friday (weekend) edition made things much worse. The editor in chief collected his entire staff and told each and every one of them to write a story based on their particular areas of expertise, but the common line was to be that the State if Israel is wrong. It's laws are outdated. It's system of classification of military documents is designed to protect the generals, not to serve the security of the state. Uri Blau wrote about how he's the protector of our democratic freedoms. And so on and so on and so on. Importantly, the attack was not against the Netanyahu government: it was against the State of Israel, its laws and its institutions. All of the articles were translated to English, of course, and put on the paper's website:Ze'ev Segal, the editorial, Anshel Pfeffer, Amos Harel, Uri Blau, Ron Leshem, Aluf Benn, Gideon Levy, Reuven Pedatzur, Akiva Eldar. Avi Issacharoff wasn't pulled into the morass, perhaps because no-one could figure out an angle to use his Palestinian sources to besmirch the country in this context.For many years Haaretz used to advertise itself as "The newspaper for thinking people". This was an edition indistinguishable from Pravda. Every single one of the articles trotted out the party line; not a single journalist dared let out a peep of dissent. There was chattering galore about the freedom of press which is somehow under siege, and the sanctity of the High Court which was allegedly tainted, but not a single word about the bald fact that Haaretz has been and still is engaged in brazenly illegal actions. Silence, nada, nothing. Brezhnev would have been proud.
Beinart is correct in pointing out there is a failure in the American Jewish establishment's leadership (see Where's Our Leadership? & Jews are Under Siege: A Call to Action--Charles Jacobs--co-founder American Anti-Slavery Group & Americans for Peace & Tolerance), but it's not what he thinks it is. One of the problems is mainstream Jewish orgs have failed to demonstrate to their minions how vulnerable Israel truly is today to attacks from lawfare, demonizations, delegitimizations in the form of the BDS movements (boycott, divestiture, and sanctions), and the relentless bashing that it takes from the Left, all too often either led or cheered on by Jewish activists. As it turns out, when people (and nations) actually are trying to kill and destroy you, it's not paranoia to say so. And no, this doesn't give Israel license to act badly and defy international norms. It's just that the folks who do so much of the hectoring and excoriating of Israel live in ivory towers or frequent quiet cafes on the upper west side, and really are in a lousy position to judge what ordinary Israelis deem are in their best interests.
American Jews on both the left and right who either want Israel to abdicate more land without solid--and realistic--guarantees of security or to fight til the last Israeli, should consider moving to Israel, sending their sons and daughters into the army, paying the suffocating taxes, waiting in the long lines, worrying about terrorism and the specter of a nuclear Iran, and on and on.
And the holier than thou purists who hold Israel up to a standard of perfection that even truly righteous Jews would find impossible to live up to, ought to consider why it is that Israel is held to a standard not demanded of any other country, let alone Israel's neighbors.
So yes, we need to do a better job of winning over American Jewish youth to the importance of Zionism in their lives. A good place to start is by reclaiming the liberal argument for Israel. It may sound trite to the sophisticated post-modern, multi-culturalists, but if you're for women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, and for God's sake, human rights (right to life being high up there as a human right--meaning safe from suicide bombs, among other things), it behooves you to support Israel. It's great to love humanity as a whole; but if you can't love--and support--your own people, universal love ain't gonna happen.
And to all the Tikkun Olamers out there, to paraphrase Yossi Klein Halevi, for Israelis, tikkun olam is not just about doing good and repairing the world, it's also about fighting evil.
Click Here to Read More..
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Daniel Gordis on Brandeis University, Ambassador Michael Oren, & the Crisis of Young Jews in America
If This is Our Future
Daniel Gordis May 7, 2010
Imagine this, if you can. A prestigious university in the United States, with deep roots in the American Jewish community, invites Israel’s ambassador to deliver its annual commencement address. But instead of expressing pride in the choice of speaker and in the country that he represents, the university’s students, many of them Jewish, protest. They don’t want to hear from the ambassador. (See this Facebook page.) He’s a “divisive” figure, the student newspaper argues, and the students deserved better.
Tragically, of course, there’s nothing hypothetical about the scenario. Brandeis University recently decided to award honorary degrees to Michael Oren, Dennis Ross and Paul Simon, among others, at its May 23 commencement, and Ambassador Oren, an extraordinary orator among his many other qualities, was invited to deliver the commencement address.
But the days in which Jewish students on an American campus would have been thrilled to have the Israeli ambassador honored by their school are apparently long since gone. Brandeis’s student newspaper, The Justice (how’s that for irony?), deplored the choice, writing that “Mr. Oren is a divisive and inappropriate choice for keynote speaker at commencement, and we disapprove of the university’s decision to grant someone of his polarity on this campus that honor.”
The ambassador is a polarizing figure? Why is that? Because, the editorial continues, “the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a hotly contested political issue, one that inspires students with serious positions on the topic to fervently defend and promote their views.”
This is where we are today. For many young American Jews, the only association they have with Israel is the conflict with the Palestinians. Israel is the country that oppresses Palestinians, and nothing more.
No longer is Israel the country that managed to forge a future for the Jewish people when it was left in tatters after the Holocaust. Israel is not, in their minds, the country that gave refuge to hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from North Africa when they had nowhere else to go, granting them all citizenship, in a policy dramatically different from the cynical decisions of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan to turn their Palestinian refugees into pawns in what they (correctly) assumed would be a lengthy battle with Israel.
Israel is not proof that one can create an impressively functioning democracy even when an enormous portion of its citizens hail from countries in which they had no experience with democratic institutions. Israel is not the country in which, despite all its imperfections, Beduin women train to become physicians, and Arab citizens are routinely awarded PhDs from the country’s top universities. Israel is not the country in which the classic and long-neglected language of the Jews has been revived, and which produces world class literature and authors routinely nominated for Nobel Prizes.
Nor is Israel the place where Jewish cultural creativity is exploding with newfound energy, as the search for new conceptions of what Jewishness might mean in the 21st century are explored with unparalleled intensity, particularly among some of the country’s most thoughtful young people. No longer is Israel understood to be the very country that created the sense of security and belonging that American Jews – and these very students – now take completely for granted.
No, Israel is none of those things. For many young American Jews, it is only the country of roadblocks and genocide, of a relentless war waged against the Palestinians for no apparent reason. For everyone knows that Palestinians are anxious to recognize Israel and to live side-by-side with a Jewish democracy. That, of course, is why Hamas still openly declares its commitment to Israel’s annihilation, and that is why Hizbullah has, according to US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, accumulated “more missiles than most governments in the world.”
None of this is to suggest that Israel is blameless in the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians, or that the present government has a plan for ending it. Those are entirely different matters. The point is that even if these students hold Israel partially (or even largely) accountable for the intractable conflict with the Palestinians, even if one believes that it should have conducted Operation Cast Lead differently, or even if one disapproves of its policies in the West Bank, for example, it is a devastatingly sad day for world Jewry when those issues are the only ones that one associates with Israel, when mere mention of the Jewish state evokes not the least bit of pride from students graduating from a prestigious institution long associated with the very best of American Jewish life.
WHAT WOULD have happened had Brandeis invited President Barack Obama to deliver the commencement address? Obama is, after all, not exactly a non-divisive figure. He is president of a country at war in Iraq and in Afghanistan, places in which (a small number of) American troops have committed their share of atrocities, a country in which civil rights issues are still far from resolved, in which the bounty of America is still far beyond the reach of millions of its citizens.
One suspects that the students would have been thrilled to hear Obama, despite the fact that many do not agree with his policies. They would have been honored to host him despite the fact that some must be disappointed that he has not lived up to his campaign promise to call the Turkish treatment of the Armenians a “genocide,” despite the fact that he is intent on pursuing the war in Afghanistan, to which many of the students must certainly be opposed. They would have been delighted by Obama’s presence because even if they disagree with some of his views or some of America’s actions, they understand that the US is more than Obama, and more than this war or that policy. And they are, quite rightly, enormously proud of what America stands for and what it has accomplished.
But that kind of instinctive pride in the Jewish state is, sadly, a vestige of days gone by, even for many American Jews.
Reading some of the reactions to Oren’s invitation, one is struck by an astounding simplicity, and frankly, an utter lack of courage to stand firm against the tidal wave of unbridled hostility toward Israel.
Jeremy Sherer, president of the Brandeis J Street U Chapter, wrote to The Justice, “I am… bothered [by the invitation to Oren] because I disagree with his politics.” That’s what education is now producing – people who want to hear only those with whom they agree? “I’m not exactly thrilled,” Sherer wrote, “that a representative of the current right-wing Israeli government will be delivering the keynote address at my commencement.”
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, of course, is now busy fending off members of his coalition who are far to the right of him, like Moshe Feiglin and Avigdor Lieberman, and whether or not one takes him at his word, he is the first head of the Likud to endorse a two-state solution, no small matter for those who know the history of the Likud. But Sherer makes no mention of that complicating data, for it doesn’t fit his overarching conception of the intrinsic evil of Israel’s “right-wing” government (of which the Labor Party is also – inconveniently for Sherer – a member).
The president of the Brandeis J Street U Chapter, who writes that he’s of “Israeli heritage” (whatever that means), did not see fit to say a single positive word about Israel. Not one. One wonders what the “pro-Israel” part of J-Street’s “pro-Israel, pro-Peace” tag line means to Sherer.
Ironically, though, some of the attempts to defend the invitation to Oren were no less distressing. A student representative to the Board of Trustees writes in a disappointingly anemic piece to the The Justice that Oren “is being invited for his academic achievements, not his political ones,” and then launches into a recitation of Oren’s many academic accomplishments.
Here, too, however, not a single positive word about Israel, or of the honor that having not only a world-class historian, but also its representative to the US, might be for the university. That sort of pride appears nowhere in The Justice’s editorial, the J-Street representative’s piece or the op-ed defending the invitation. For too many American Jewish undergraduates, it’s simply no longer part of their vocabulary.
Imagine that Sherer had written something like this: “I disagree passionately with Israel’s policies regarding the Palestinians, and welcome President Obama’s new pressure on Israel to bring the conflict to a close. But as a Jew who understands that despite my disagreement with Israel’s policies, the Jewish state is key to the Jewish revival of which my entire generation is a beneficiary, I honor Ambassador Oren for his service to a country of which I am deeply proud in many ways, and I look forward to welcoming him to campus.”
Or if the pro-Oren op-ed had said, “There is a radical disconnect between our generation and today’s Israeli government. Many members of my generation believe that Mr. Netanyahu and his government either do not know how to speak to us, or are uninterested in doing so. Ambassador Oren’s appearance on campus is a perfect opportunity for the Israeli government to address us and our concerns; I urge our campus to listen carefully to what may well be a watershed address at this critical period in Israel’s history and in the relationship between Israel and the future leadership of American Jewry.”
Imagine. But nothing of that sort got said.
Indeed, the seeming refusal of any of the student articles to say even one positive thing about the Jewish state was all the more galling given other events that took place across the globe on the very same week that the Oren controversy was unfolding. At the University of Manchester, pro-Palestinian protesters tried to attack Israel’s deputy ambassador to the UK, some holding Palestinian flags up to the windows of her car and others climbing on the hood and trying to smash the windshield. In Berlin, a Danish street art duo known as “Surrend” blanketed several neighborhoods with maps of the Middle East in which the State of Israel had been removed, with the term “Final Solution” at the top. The Scottish Labor Federation reaffirmed its support for a boycott of Israel, and the student government at the University of California, Berkeley fell just one single vote short in a bid to override a veto against a divestment bill; a similar bill was also debated at UC San Diego.
None of the writers to The Justice felt that they had to distance themselves from those views, even as they critiqued or supported the invitation to Ambassador Oren.
The student-thugs at UC Irvine, who disrupted Oren’s speech on campus in February, have won. They have set the standard for how one treats any mention of Israel on any campus. Israel is nothing but a legitimate whipping post even at institutions of higher learning, and sane discussion of its rights and wrongs need not be defended, even in communities ostensibly committed to civil and intelligent discourse.
Tragically, even these students at Brandeis, one of the great institutions of American Jewish life, had nothing terribly different to say to the world. Theirs are only more tepid versions of the delegitimization now spreading across the international community like wildfire.
One shudders to imagine a future in which they might be our leaders.