Archive
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 2 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
“And if I am only for myself, then what am I?”
The second phrase of Rabbi Hillel‘s aphorism implores us to attend to the other. In this context we might also give attention to what is perhaps Rabbi Hillel’s most famous quote. As the Gentile stood on one foot, Hillel summed up the Torah:
The Gentile
“What is hateful to thyself do not do to another. That is the whole Law, the rest is Commentary.” This is one of the most clear-cut and direct definitions of Jewish Values that one can find (and with a better pedigree than the kishke test) and one that should be appropriately applied to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian people – no matter whether there is a peace agreement or not.
In this context, one of the biggest issues being addressed by AIPAC, the Jewish Federations, and other major Jewish organizations is the “delegitimization” campaign against Israel. There certainly are people who are purposefully trying to weaken or even destroy Israel by making it a persona non grata among the nations of the world. But there are others who raise very legitimate questions about Israeli government and military policies. It is time for the Major American Jewish Organizations to recognize the difference between those who seek to purposely delegitimize Israel as a strategy and those who honestly and objectively are concerned with the treatment of the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs and whether this treatment lives up to the standards enumerated in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment. Currently, virtually any criticism of the Israeli government or military is labeled as “delegitimization”, and any issues raised are blindly dismissed by these American Jewish groups. Presumably, the argument is that admitting any wrong-doing simply provides ammunition to Israel’s enemies. The opposite is actually true. Failing to criticize any Israel policy at all or refusing to recognize obvious, documented incidents only destroys the credibility of the anti-delegitimization campaigns. In essence, the Major American Jewish Organizations are delegitimizing their own campaigns against delegitimization!
A simple example: The day-to-day treatment of the Palestinians as they try to travel through the checkpoints.
Scene from a Checkpoint
I have seen with my own eyes the disrespectful, disdainful, and humiliating way the Palestinians are treated. It is wrong – plain and simple. My very first experience crossing into Bethlehem was to witness a nineteen year-old border guard leaning back in his chair in the glass enclosed control booth, talking on his cell phone and simply ignoring an old Palestinian woman trying to show her passport to get into Jerusalem. It was a very light day and she was the only one in line at that time. We watched as she waved and waved her papers to no avail. The guard continued to ignore her. Finally, after she banged on the glass, he simply waved her along with a sneer of impatience and contempt. Not the end of the world, one might say. Perhaps. But again, I use a simple criterion: How would I feel if it was my bubbe being treated this way? Outraged. And I can’t think of anyone who wouldn’t feel the same way.
Sure, this example doesn’t rise anywhere close to a human rights abuse. But it does illustrate an important point: as concerning as the impact of this type of behavior is on the Palestinians involved, the effect on Israeli youth may be even worse when viewed through the prism of Jewish values. The attitude displayed by this young man (and this was not the only incident like this that we observed) shows a callous disregard for the very humanness of the other. This sector of the Israeli military has gone from being brave defenders of Israel’s very existence to being masters over the day-to-day lives of others
who are powerless. As Peter Beinart pointed out several weeks ago when he spoke at Northwestern University, you measure the nature of a people not by how they treat others when they are in a position of weakness, but rather when they are in a position of power. Israel is taking young eighteen and nineteen year-olds and putting them in positions where they are lording it over men and women two and three times their age. These young people are allowed to treat the Palestinians with disrespect and contempt. And either through neglect or purpose, there appears to be little supervision or questioning of these attitudes and actions. A whole generation is growing up with attitudes that would make our bubbes cringe. This is the insidious part of the current situation: the fact is that when a society is in the position of controlling another people it morally rots from the inside (more posts on this to come). It is time for American Jewish organizations to make realistic, open and candid analyses of Israel’s policies and actions with regard to the Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. They should then state publicly the very real abuses they will almost certainly find. And finally, openly engage with the Israeli government and military to change or eliminate objectionable behaviors. To do otherwise calls into question the veracity and integrity of their anti-delegitimization campaigns, but more importantly allows a moral cancer to fester within Israeli society.
While addressing these issues should be done as soon as possible, there are even more pressing needs that require immediate attention as will be seen when we examine the third phrase of Hillel’s admonition.
Hillel’s Message to AIPAC and all American Jews: Now Is The Time To Make A Two State Solution Happen (Part 1 of 3)
|
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?
And if I am only for myself, then what am I?
And if not now, when?”
|
This statement of simple eloquence seems to be an appropriate guide to how we, as American Jews, should approach the Israel-Palestinian conflict:
“If I am not for myself, then who will be for me?”
There is a very visceral connection to Israel for Jews around the world that begins with our historical, Biblical lineage. And whether you are a believer in the divine covenant or a cultural Jew – whether a Jew by matrilineal descent or a Jew by choice – whether an ardent Zionist or an indifferent secularist – there seems to be an intangible link to the land of the matriarchs and patriarchs. There is also a connection created by the sweat and blood of the early Zionists who really did make the desert bloom.
But what is really at the heart of the American Jewish relationship to Israel is the desire and the need to protect its very existence. The number one goal is to protect and preserve Israel as it is envisioned in its Declaration of Establishment: as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people.
The need for a safe haven for Jews is self-evident to even the most skeptical observer in light of the 2,000 years of the Diaspora culminating in Hitler’s attempt at the Final Solution which was met by apparent indifference from much of the world. Although some in the world try to deny the Holocaust, that very denial amply proves the point of the need to preemptively prevent another holocaust by maintaining the state open to all Jews without question. And while some in the West, particularly those of the younger generation, forget or dismiss the reality of anti-Semitism, new currents of this age-old sentiment have been bubbling closer to the surface in dangerous ways. Though most American young people cannot conceive of a return to the explicit anti-Semitism that existed until the last generation or so, history tells a different story. Although we can hope that the trend will not continue to grow, it would be naive to blithely believe that it won’t.
So, even today, the need for a refuge remains very real.
But, the most prominent message (that often drowns out all others) of AIPAC, the Federations, and many other Major American Jewish Organizations is that danger lurks around every corner: Terrorists waiting to blow themselves up killing innocent women and children; missiles amassed at Israel’s border – now with the capability to strike at the heart of Israel’s civilian population; the specter of a nuclear Iran looming ever closer. Unfortunately, they are right. There are very, very real treacherous enemies that will not rest until every “Zionist” is driven into the sea. However, the message conveyed by the Jewish organizations is usually simplistic and absolute. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranians represent the devil incarnate – evil and implacable with the sole goal of wiping Israel off the map. The message preserves the images from 1948 of Israel surrounded by hostile armies ready to cross the border at any moment. The tone is of tense fear often cloaked in the language of righteousness and the an absolutist version of history. Again, it is certainly true that there are a significant number of jihadists in these groups who fit this definition – but it doesn’t take much digging to find examples of the voices of moderation in each of these groups. Ironically, the monolithic characterization actually works to Israel’s detriment.
First, ignoring the moderate voices has the effect of strengthening the more radical elements. Examples of some moderation include the Green Movement and current inter-governmental turmoil in Iran, the voice of Hamas leader Khalid Mashaal
saying that he will conditionally accept an agreement with Israel, and the recognition that both Hezbollah and Hamas have social and political arms which provide necessary services to their populations. Not recognizing these moderate elements only supports the radicals’ contention that the Israeli and American governments are blindly seeking to destroy the Muslim world. It is hard to see how widening the gap between Islam and the West does not increase the influence of the radical Jihadists.
More importantly, simplistic characterizations lead to a dangerously poor understanding of the complexity of one’s enemy, Israel’s geo-strategic situation, and therefore the best ways to avoid attacks as well as the most effective ways to defend against them should they occur. Tactics will always change as facts on the ground change. For example, in a recent conference call, Major General (Ret) Natan Sharoni, a member of the Council for Peace and Security, pointed out (in response to the criticism that President Obama has taken with regard to his explicit public endorsement of setting the borders based upon the 1967 borderswith land swaps) that the importance of “defensible borders” has diminished significantly. The concept of “defensible borders” is really based on a misunderstanding of the current state of military technology and military tactics. What he said was that we no longer have huge armies massed on the border of Israel. In 1948, Israel was threatened by standing armies from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. But today, neither Iran nor Iraq have expeditionary forces. Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with Israel, and Syria cannot and will not act alone. The inveterate framing of the military threat as that of conventional armies attacking across physical borders is now highly unlikely. Instead, General Sharoni points out that the military threat now comes from 1.Terrorism, and 2.Missiles. Neither of these threats is particularly mitigated by borders per se. In addition, although he did not mention this factor, the logistical
capabilities of 2011 including helicopters, cellular and satellite communication, and naval capabilities, make the military advantage of cutting off Israel’s North and South quite a bit less critical than it was in 1948. And while military strategists and tacticians can certainly debate these assertions, it is precisely the benefit of debate which the mainstream Jewish organizations need to recognize and embrace. Rehashing the old naïve and simplistic phrases that we constantly hear from AIPAC, the ADL, the AJC, et al, prevent a
realistic assessment of the military threats facing Israel.
But there is an even more insidious danger to the Jewish People that arises from the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that is the transformation of the State of Israel into a country whose values are no longer representative or even recognizable as “Jewish”. That is to say, Jewish values as expressed in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment: “[Israel] will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” It seems impossible to see how many recent actions and proposals of the current Knesset meet these criteria. I use a simple litmus test to determine whether or not Israel’s actions reflect my personal Jewish values. It is not the legal definition of whether Israel’s actions fit the letter of international law. It is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself (of course, it does). It is not whether some world leader denounces Israeli actions. No, my test is simple. It is called the kishkes test. When I read the newspaper, listen to the news, or see something on TV, do I cringe and feel a deep sense of shame in the pit of my gut – my kishkes? If so, then there is something inherently wrong with the action. Ironically, one of the unshakable demands of the current Israeli government is that the Palestinians unequivocally recognize Israel as a “Jewish state”. By my way of thinking, we need to be even more concerned that Israel recognize itself as a Jewish state in accordance with its Declaration of Establishment.
Hillel’s admonition to be “for myself” rings true in every one of the above contexts with regard to how American Jews should relate to Israel. But Hillel also posits that it is not sufficient to think only of one’s self.
- President Obama’s Middle East Speech Rattles Israelis, Palestinians Alike (newyork.cbslocal.com)
- Great Job: Obama Endorses “Two States For Two Peoples” at AIPAC (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Related articles
- Great Job: Obama Endorses “Two States For Two Peoples” at AIPAC (tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com)
Precept 1: The Endgame for Israel
Image via Wikipedia
“If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up somewhere else” – The Great Yogi
In analyzing and developing policies, an obvious prerequisite is defining and understanding your desired outcome: The Endgame. One of the problems that often occurs when people are talking about Israel, Palestine and the rest of the Middle East, is that they talk past each other. They almost immediately get caught up arguing facts (or myths), history, speculation, generalization, demonization, almost any damn “-ation” you can name. But often they never bother to try to understand the framework of their arguments. What is the outcome that they are looking for? How can one determine if they are right or wrong unless they know what goal they are trying to achieve.
It seems that the endgame for Israel was defined at its very birth. It goes back to the original Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel which David Ben-Gurion read aloud in the sweltering heat of the former Dizengoff home, the Tel Aviv Museum of Art on 5 Iyar 5708 (May 14, 1948). The very essence of what the country stands for is contained in the 13th paragraph:
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
I don’t think there can be a clearer, more succinct ideal that any of us who love the State of Israel could set for her. And it follows from that that this should be the standard which the people of Israel and their institutions (government, the military, economic, and religious) should be measuring themselves against. And fellow Jews everywhere should be supporting Israel in reaching for that ideal.
So, in summary, when analyzing policy decisions, using this definition, the endgame is the sustenance of Israel as the democratic homeland of the Jewish people.
Related Articles
- Welcome Richard Goldwasser & Blog Zahav (beyondzerosum.wordpress.com)
- What’s The Endgame? (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
beyondzerosum 