The Jewish Humanist, May_June 1989, Vol. XXVI, Number 10
Israel will be 41 years old this month. As the Jewishs state it has served the Jewish people well. The Diaspora has acquired both pride, culture and identity from its achievements.
But all is not well. Enormous problems confront Israel that often seem insoluble (sic). The intifada, the Palestinian rebellions int eh West Bank and Gaza, is still strong after seventeen months. Although its fury has somewhat abated, the Israeli reserves are still mobilized to suppress the uprising. The cost of coping is high. Military deficits, the wear and tear of unpopular police duty and the frustration with adverse world public opinion have taken their toll.
The confrontation between the religious and the secular continues. While the Who is a Jew? Issue has been temporarily defused, the fanaticism of the fundamentalists fuels new incidents. Secularists are beginning to despair that they will ever be able to regain their primacy. The new immigrants are mainly orthodox and their birth rate is high.
Economic difficulties are everywhere. Tourism has slumped because of the intifada. Unemployment is on the rise. There are insufficient funds to support the health and education programs that Israel needs. In fact, the underfinanced school system is a disgrace to a Jewish state.
The surge of Zionist idealism that gave Israel its special moral character at its inception has waned. Old people have become cynical. Young people have joined the ranks of the consumer culture. Zionism has “normalized” the Jewish people to its disadvantaged (sic).
One of the mor4e serious problems is the disintegration of the special relationship with American Jewry., the most powerful of Diaspora communities. In the past American Jewish leaders were content to defer to the will of the Israeli government as an expression of Jewish solidarity. The prestige of Israel was so high in Jewish eyes that this deference seemed natural. Today rebellion is in the wings. The connection is more abrasive.
There are many signs of this new abrasiveness.
American Jewish leaders have publicly expressed their reservations about Israeli government policies in the occupied territories. Newspapers and the other media regularly report these disagreements. In the past any conflict would have been kept secret. The facade of unity would have been maintained.
Advertisements by Jewish dissidents denouncing Israeli policy appear in major newspapers. The signers are often leading intellectual and philanthropists who would formerly have never given their names or their money to such as assaultive exposure.
Conferences of dissidents now attract thousands of participants. Just recently, Michael Lerner, the found and the editor of the liberal magazine Tikkun (who will be speaking for us on May 22) held a major meeting of protest in New York. He challenged the American Jewish leadership to listen to the dissenting voice in their constituency. This challenge received wide publicity.
Delegations of American Jewish leaders now travel to Israel to “lobby” the Knesset and the government. During the Who is a Jew? controversy dozens of organizational heads took the time to go to Israel to express their indignation over proposed legislative changes. Their protest was effective in undermining the conservative coalition with the orthodox.
Many local welfare federations hage threatened to withhold their financial support from Israel unless the fundamentalists are restrained. Such threats would have been inconceivable in the past and would have been regarded as “betrayal”.
American Jewish philanthropy has decided, independent of Israeli counsel and in direct opposition to Israeli policy, to raise millions of dollars for the absorption of thousands of ew Soviet Jewish immigrants by the United State. The world Zionist Organization ad the Jewish Agency are fit to be tied. They simply assumed that Israel would have prior claim to special funds raised for immigrant absorption.
The recent unity conference called by Prime Minister Shamir in Jerusalem was less an expression of solidarity with the policies of the present administration than a show attempt to cover up the differences that everybody knows exist. The drama of unity lacks the substance of agreement that would make it effective.
Many factors have contributed to this new abrasiveness.
Ever since the Lebanon War American Jews no longer see Israel through the reverential glasses of earlier years. The “moral intimidation” power of Israel has seriously declined. Israelis no longer appear, in American Jewish eyes to (sic) be as noble as they once were.
A modicum of disillusionment has set in.
The growing power of the orthodox and their strident bid for political control have frightened many American Jews, most of whom are not orthodox. It was easier for liberal and secular Jews to identify with the “old” Israel than with the present one.
Adverse publicity concerning the Israeli handling of the intifada fills the American media and embarrasses American Jews. Accustomed to seeing themselves as victims of oppression the Jews of the United States are very uncomfortable in the role of military repressor. They are ambivalent. While they are concerned about the future security of Israel, they want the bad publicity to stop.
The Israelis have often behaved arrogantly, counting on American Jewish support without ever consulting with American Jews or eliciting their opinions. While claiming to be the “voice” of the Jewish people, Israel reflects only its own electorate with no real input from Jewish constituencies in the Diaspora. The insensitivity to American feeling in the Who is a Jew? issue is “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
The responses in the American community to this new dissent have varied.
Many American Jews view it negatively. They believe that public arguments give ammunition to our enemies, to all the antisemites who seek our destruction. Families should not wash their “dirty laundry” in public they say (sic). Freedom of speech yields to the need for survival.
Many are enthusiastic. They feel liberated from the fetters of an irrational control. They maintain that open discussion will energize the Jewish people and lead to the new and creative solutions to problems. They also maintain that the old leadership, attached to outmoded responses to problems, will never yield power unless publicly challenged.
Others are simply ambivalent. They agree with the protest. But they are uncomfortable with Jews arguing with Jews in public. They would prefer a quieter assault, although they are not quite sure how to engineer it.
Which of these responses is the most valid?
While many positive thighs can be said for solidarity it is no logger possible-either pragmatically or morally. But dissent has to be responsible too-not simply a vehicle for a power-hungry new elite to replace a power-hungry old elite.[Text Wrapping Break]
Four criteria ought to guide the relationship between Israel and American Jewry.
- American Jews are the equals of Israeli Jews. No special status of nobility attaches to living in the Jewish homeland.
- The voice of the Jewish people is more than the voice of Israel. When what Israel chooses to do affects the welfare of all Jews the leaders of the Diaspora must be consulted. A regular forum or “congress” for the formulation of joint policies ought to be established.
- The agenda of American Jews and Israelis are not necessarily identical. Not every issue in Jewish life, including the disposition of Soviet immigrants, needs central control.
- Publicity is no substitute for dialogue.
Our relationship to Israel is entering a new phase. We need guidelines.