Posts
How Do You “Love Israel”?
By Symi Rom-Rymer / November 17, 2009
What does it mean to be ‘pro-Israel’ within the context of liberal Jewish thought? This is one of the most complex and frustrating questions that has dogged me since my return from the recent J Street conference. When this topic was the focus of one of the breakout sessions, it was clear that I was not alone in struggling for answers. The ensuing discussion was not only one of the most provocative and revelatory of the two and a half day event, but also one of the most personal. The conflicted and charged atmosphere forced everyone in the room to confront and struggle to define and defend their positions on this fundamental issue. At the same time, it pushed the bounds of the conversation, prodding both the audience and the panelists to ask the core questions: What does J Street stand for? and Where do I fit in?
Jonathan Chait, a journalist for the New Republic and one of the discussants, addressed these issues by suggesting that J Street has cast its net too wide and insisting that it needs to be clearer in defining itself. If not, he added, it would continue to attract unwelcome supporters. This fear was made tangible by an exchange between the panelists and a female audience member. A self-defined peace activist, the woman stood up and declared, "I don’t love Israel." She went on to say, however, that she feels a great deal of sympathy for the people of Israel and is an advocate for peace in the region. In response, the panelists asserted that if she isn’t comfortable declaring that she "loves Israel," then perhaps she doesn’t belong in J Street.
By focusing solely on what people say rather than what their intentions are, we shun complexity for simplicity. Throughout the event, Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street’s Executive Director, emphasized repeatedly, that J Street’s mission is to encourage a plurality of voices in a conversation that has too often been reduced to one voice. In order to do that, we must be willing to hear someone say that she does not love Israel. Instead of turning her away, we can ask her to unpack her statement, to clarify her position. When simple words like ‘pro’ or ‘love’ are such polarizing forces-as they are when it comes to discussing Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict– it is essential that a progressive voice, such as J Street wishes to be, continue to provide a space for a multiplicity of definitions of these words. This does not mean, of course, that it should be accepting of all views, such as those who question Israel’s right to exist or who use radical language to discredit its leadership.
The debate over language is not a trivial one and speaks to the larger question: how should J Street define itself? In his speech, Chait said that he sees it as a conflict between a broad definition and a narrow one. I disagree. It is instead a conflict over how to reconcile its centrist and activist ambitions. To be an effective political organization, J Street needs to maintain a moderate position, clearly define itself and be willing to repudiate statements that are seen as questionable by the mainstream public. However, to be a catalyst for change, it must remain an open tent, available to all those who support Israel‘s right to exist and have an emotional attachment to the existential meaning of the state of Israel, but who differ on what forms that support should take. Activists such as the woman in the session are outspoken and assertive and represent the energy that J Street needs to continue to build grassroots support. It cannot afford to push her, and many others like her, away. The centrist and activist sides feed off of each other and the enthusiasm that each generates pushes it closer to becoming a significant player on the political scene. At the same time, each side’s positions have been, and will continue to be, used by critics to discredit the overall goals of the organization. How this conflict is handled will determine J Street’s effectiveness in the future.
With the rise of J Street, a swath of the American Jewish community feels that it finally has a place where its voices can be heard. For too long, this kind of debate has been publically stifled while it has flourished in private. The 1,500 conference goers are back in their communities eager to open up the discussion among their peers. This is not the time to shut down the conversation. Rather it’s time to ask: What took them so long?
POST A COMMENT
J Street is but the latest manifestation of American Jewry seeking to undermine and ultimately destroy the State of Israel. It, like the Barack Hussein Obama regime to which it caters, is more focused upon form than substance. J Street will never advance a substantive platform that is viable or even subject to informed discussion. It is not in existence to do so because its entire charter, like the political rise of Mr. Obama, is informed by the negative: it is not AIPAC, much to the degree that Mr. Obama is not President George W. Bush.
J Street should (and will) flounder, and its demise will be a welcomed result of American Jews waking up and realizing that a strong, viable Israel has enough international–and domestic (see the Obama regime)–enemies. Indeed, one need only look at the recent votes in opposition to the House Resolution condemning the anti-Semitic and biased Goldstone Report accusing Israel of war crimes to see that the overwhelming majority of representatives voting against the resolution were members of the Democratic Party, the same affiliation of those Jews in their districts who sat by silently in complicity.
Silence, as we have seen throughout our human history, is the greatest enemy of the Jewish people. J Street does not respond to silence, instead preferring to add unnecessary and, frankly, inappropriate noise. The noise, however, falls along the side of the fence shared by fierce and blatant anti-Israel rhetoric that has and continues to plague civilization.
Yonahred,
I’m not involved in JStreet but if I lived in DC, I would definitely try to be. Are you sure that " [JStreet's] activists are just a little shy of the Boycott Israel movement"? I ask because that’s the kind of unsubstantiated statement I’ve been hearing from right-wing groups and I want to if there’s any validity to it. Thanks.
My problem, as someone who supports Israel, but within reasonable limits as you say, is trying to find a group with opinions reflecting my own, especially within the Jewish community. There are right wing Jewish groups which have an almost blind support for all of Israel’s actions. Then there are radical left wing groups that advocate boycotts of Israel and compare Zionism to racism. It’s hard to find any middle ground. I’m either just some other ignorant pro-Israel Jew to the left or a self-hating Jew to the right. That’s why I’m grateful to JStreet. Finally we have a more moderate Jewish group.
J Street was founded as a means to offer cover to those Congressmen (and women) who are willing to support Israel within limits- meaning to support Israel in the Meretz sense of the word and not in the Likud sense of the word. It was specifically founded to bolster the peace making efforts of Barack Obama.
A wide discussion of the various possible Jewish positions on the Israel Palestine conflict was always possible and certain positions were always condemned by some as being treasonous. J street is not the first to make these discussions possible (Tikkun for one made them possible in the past) nor does it shield the expressers of all opinions from accusations of treason.
J Street remains elusive about its true position- claiming to represent Kadima, when in fact it is probably a little to the left of Meretz and its activists are just a little shy of the Boycott Israel movement. This ambiguity might help them or not, it is difficult to judge a lobby that offers itself as an alternate to AIPAC at this point in history.
As far as the activists going home and expressing their heartfelt opinions- good. Go to your synagogues and stand out front with signs or ask your rabbi to invite controversial speakers. Some will call you traitors, some will laugh at you for asserting that you are pro Israel and some will feel freed to express their own opinions.
I suppose that the analysis you pose for the terminology: pro versus love is much akin to another debate we have: pro-life versus pro-choice. It is not as if an individual who declares him or herself to be pro-choice is pro-death (as death is the antonym life), but rather on the other side of the option table.
In the Israel debate that we American Jews are having with ourselves (and I am sure that probably every other Jew is having it, as well, but this is directly relavant to J Street, you see), an individual who is pro-Israel is not necessarily pro-settlements. In the same frame of mind, a citizen who loves Israel is not someone who hates the rest of the world.
As you stated, there is the necessity for an open debate. Alongside that round-table discussion there should be some representatives from dictionary.com.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!