I wrote this a while ago. In light of the recent deterioration in the way we debate, I thought it appropriate to repost: Hello? Is anybody there? World Jewry is in crisis. Perhaps we are not aware that there is a crisis, but it is growing. My uncle used to say about drinking gin, that you never felt you were getting drunk, until it crept up and suddenly hit you. This is what is happening to World Jewry. The disturbing thing, is that the cause of this crisis, is what used to be a central part of every Jewish persons identity: Israel. Unfortunately, today, this can no longer be considered a given. Perversely, it has become a source of contention among Jews in the Diaspora. More specifically, the issue of the settlements and Israels presence in the disputed territories (what some call the occupied West Bank and others call Judea and Samaria) is tearing apart what used to be close knit communities. Thirty years ago, virtually every person who identified himself as a Jew, identified with Israel. Today, one can no longer say that. Many in the Diaspora no longer care about Israel. Many synagogues have adopted a narrative of Israel which prevents many from feeling a part of the community – so they stop going to Synagogue. The Zionist Federations, Jewish Boards of Deputies and other such bodies, like AIPAC, often adopt a stance of blind support for Israel and do not allow dissenting opinions. The result is that Jews who feel differently, stop being active in supporting Israel. The settlement issue is as divisive and destructive to the fabric of world Jewry today, as Black slavery was to the United States before the Civil War. It is slowly tearing us apart. More and more Jews feel they are being forced to choose between their moral consciences and their support for Israel, their Zionism, because they disapprove of the settlements. They choose the former, and are lost. One day we will wake up and find that we have caused an irreparable rift among fellow Jews. By then, it will be too late. The rift has been gradually growing wider over a period of about thirty years. The consequences are becoming more and more apparent, over time. Take for example the army and its officers. When I came to Israel in 1982, a few months before the First Lebanon War, the majority of officers in the army were from kibbutzim. Today they are right wing National Religious. The War in Lebanon and the situation in the disputed territories, especially during the first intifada precipitated the change in the trend; the young men from kibbutzim, who were Leftist Zionists, began choosing not to become officers and pursue a career in the army. They felt that the army was being used as an executive arm to further the governments political agenda. Although their commitment to Israels security was absolute – and still is (they still make up a large percentage of the elite units), they found that the things they were being asked to do in the army, conflicted with their beliefs. They therefore chose not to continue in the army more than they were conscripted to do. As a result, the quality of Israels officers suffered. This does not mean that all of todays officers are less talented, but it is obvious that if you have a smaller pool of willing candidates and you have a number of positions to fill, that is going to happen. Another example is how much more acrimonious the argument between the two camps has become. This is evident in the way we debate this emotionally charged issue. The extremist rhetoric used by both sides is causing a polarization of our stances. We are caught in a vicious cycle and it is only a matter of time before this verbal violence erupts into physical violence. It will not be the first time this has happened: Rabins assassination and the circumstances surrounding it, is a tragic reminder of where this rhetoric can lead. The murder of Peace Now activist, Emil Greenzweig is another. A major factor that precipitates this vicious cycle, is that we no longer relate only to the issue. We now seek to discredit the other sides argument, by discrediting the advocates. And unfortunately this phenomenon has become commonplace. Leftists call the settlers and the Right wing, fascists. It is not important if the word is accurate or not, its connotations are highly emotionally charged, making it inciteful. To call a Jew, after what we have suffered at the hands of the Nazis, fascist, is possibly one of the most violent examples of rhetoric one can use. It is impossible not to take it personally, especially if one has lost members of ones family in the Holocaust. The animosity this causes and the hate it evokes, obviously does nothing to further discussion; at best, they stop listening. At worst, they lash out. Settlers are also described as gun toting thugs. Granted, there are some settlers who do bully and provoke Palestinians. They believe that they are untouchable, because they are armed, but to describe all settlers as such, is a generalization. I believe the majority of those who live in the disputed territories are quiet and law abiding. But put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel if you were called a thug? I must admit that in my thoughts, upon hearing about Price Tag attacks, I have equated these hooligan to the Brown Shirts. Their tactics are similar. However to place this mark of Cain on 300,000 people, because of the acts of a very small, but despicable minority, is grossly unfair. On the other side of the spectrum, often anyone who opposes the settlements is called a variety of derogatory names. Traitor is one. We all know that treason is a crime which carries the death sentence. If this is not an incitement for murder, I know not what is. They are accused of colluding with Israels enemies. This often goes together them being blamed for the deaths of Israeli civilians during the Oslo period and the second intifada... Really? Have they undermined Israels security? Have they conspired with Israels enemies to overthrow the government? No! They have expressed their belief that the settlements are detrimental to Israels best interests, and are causing damage to Israel diplomatically. They also believe that the need to protect these settlements - and the settlers - are causing us to commit human rights offences. That view is legitimate! Another term often bandied about, is Anti-Zionist. Does the Right Wing have a monopoly of what is Zionism and how to express it? Not since I last looked. A conveniently forgotten fact when arguing this issue, is that Israels birth was by those same people who today are being derided as anti- Zionists, by the settlers. Israels borders were defined by such people, who spilt a lot of blood in doing so. It seems that what the settlers are saying, is if you are not with us, not only are you against us, you are against Israel and Zionism. This is an exclusionary denunciation and it alienates people. They stop listening and become more extreme. It also may have the opposite effect: If the settlers definition of Zionism is the only expression of Zionism allowed, then they prefer to no longer be Zionist – and they are lost. Forever. Furthermore, by defining Israel as only an Israel with the settlements (which is legally inaccurate, the region has not been annexed), it jeopardizes the very legitimacy of Israels existence. The logic is: if you question the legitimacy of Israel settling the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), then by the same token, you also have to question the legitimacy of Israel itself. How would you expect one who has spent the better part of two thirds of his life, fighting for Israel, and building the country he loves, feel to be labeled an anti-Ziionist? Another favorite used by the Right Wing, is Anti-Semite. Also self-hating Jew. It is about the same as the Left calling the right, fascist. The claim that Jews have a right to build and settle wherever they want, and if you oppose that right, you are an anti-Semite, is not only simplistic, but just wrong. Building settlements in the disputed territories are often equated to buying an apartment in London or Paris. It is not. The settlements are established through ideological motivation, in order to create facts on the ground, with the eventual aim of forcing the Israeli government to annex the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and hopefully to cause the Palestinians to leave. That is NOT the same as buying an apartment in Paris. You can be in favor of the settlements and their aims, and you can be against them (also for positive reasons, out of concern for Israels character and its national conscience). That certainly does not mean that you hate Jews. It is bad enough, that in the heat of argument, accusations such as those mentioned are used liberally. However, as journalists and writers, we weigh every word we write. I believe we have a responsibility to ourselves, to Israel and to world Jewry not to add to the incitement. We have a responsibility to debate the issues and not to discredit the advocates. This is an impassioned call to step back from the brink. Before it is too late. Before we alienate thousands of Jews in the Diaspora. Before our own version of the first shots fired at Fort Sumpter, are fired, sparking a civil war. We have too many enemies plotting our demise to allow that to happen.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 06:20:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015