It never ceases to amaze me how difficult it is to talk about Israel.  One enters a conversation about Israel-willingly or not-with a kind of dance of words in which every utterance is loaded from the get-go, so that the meaning of a simple phrase like, "I work for an organization that supports justice and equality for all Israelis" can no longer be assumed.  Justice and equality? For whom? All Israelis? Do you mean settlers in the West Bank? Who are you? And most importantly, are you with me or against me?

Jay Michaelson's recent opinion pieces in The Forward are a case in point.  Michaelson's ambivalence about Israel elicited a range of responses:  affirmation, suggestion that a meaningful relationship with Israel requires more perseverance and good will; personal attacks; references to the Holocaust; blanket dismissals; and, perhaps not surprisingly, accusations that Michaelson somehow questions Israel's right to exist (though he specifically said he supports Israel's right to exist).    

It's hard to pinpoint when the breakdown of the American-Jewish conversation about Israel began, but one thing is clear: our relationship with Israel has not been nurtured.  The cliché about ‘two Jews, three opinions' references an ancient tradition of Jewish argument and debate dating back to the Talmudic era.  This tradition values, above all, the questioning of ideas.  Somehow, though, when it comes to Israel, there is an institutionalized insistence on one opinion for all. Or else....

Or else what?

Over the span of several generations, this institutionalized insistence has engendered frenzy, dogma, stagnation, and rejection among us young Jews.  Many of us have become either gatekeepers of the conversation on Israel or, as Michaelson suggests, have simply walked away.  Some of us are inspired and interested, yet exhausted, disappointed.  Then there are those of us who simply don't know.  We don't know where we stand, we don't know enough about the issues.  Above all, we feel unable to get away from the ongoing volley of judgment: back and forth, and back and forth, and back and forth...  

All of us are looking for a safe place to talk about Israel - a place that will respect our thoughts, experiences, emotions, knowledge (or lack thereof), and most of all, our questions.  Many of us have been told we must love Israel, or hate it, but have not been given the tools to discuss its complexities-as a country, as an ideal-and how it might relate to American Jewish life.

Love, Hate, and the Jewish State

Back to my original phrase for a moment: I work for an organization that supports justice and equality for all Israelis.  This organization, which helps give a voice to every member of Israeli society-Jewish, Arab, Russian, Bedouin, Sudanese, and Filipino, whether Orthodox, Secular, or anything in between-is also working to give a voice to the next generation of American Jews.  We at the New Israel Fund are deliberately carving out a space to dialogue about the difficult (and the easy) issues related to Israel.

Why are we doing this? Because this safe space is critical to fostering a thoughtful and nuanced Jewish identity.  Because we've found that investing in a safe space empowers people to develop tools to understand each other and the world around them.  This is especially important when it comes to a place like Israel, which engenders conflict both internally and externally.

And let me be clear: ours is not a space for the faint-hearted.  You will hear the words Nakba and Occupation.  These words will be given as much credence and respect as we give to Yom Ha'atzma'ut and Jewish identity.  But your opinion will be heard and considered.

We invite you-the ambivalent, the opinionated, the fatigued, the disappointed, the head-strong, the inspired, the angry, the naïve, and the inexperienced-to join us.

Interested?
Check out this video: www.nif.org/lovehate

Get a word in edgewise at our next event:
Love, Hate, and the Jewish State: Jews, Arabs, and conflicting narratives
Thursday, November 5 @ 7 pm
The JCC in Manhattan
To register, visit, www.nif.org/lovehate

On June 6, the New Israel Fund (where I work) gathered one hundred young Jewish activists in New York City to discuss social justice and Israel, and the deep chasm between them. It's no small matter, considering that the average Israel organization wants you (young impressionable Jewish scions) to give up your funds and your fealty to the Jewish state, but never mind those starving people in Tibet. And the average social justice organization wants you to donate your shekels and spare time to disempowered people all over the world. Good thing there are no disenfranchised people in Israel, right?

If only that were true. Israel is quite the unfinished project. Beyond prevalent poverty, there are serious structural problems with minority rights, religious freedom, environmental protection, and the rights of migrant workers, gays, and women, for example. Not to mention the human rights issues of the territories. Sadly, progressive causes are in no short supply in the modern State of Israel.

It's a blind spot in the Jewish psyche, one which the New Israel Fund has made its mission. Who else will support the young, new social justice organizations and grassroots activists of the Jewish state? Israel's equivalents of the ACLU or the League of Conservation Voters need funding and training to make Israel a state worth living in.

Last year, 40 participants joined a Birthright Israel trip sponsored in part by the New Israel Fund. In addition to the normal Birthright stops, they met a dozen of Israel's most inspirational activists and organizers.

On day one, a staff member of the Regional Council of Unrecognized Villages led a tour of a Bedouin village near Beer-Sheva, a ramshackle hovel of corrugated aluminum siding and cracked concrete without electricity or water. Several participants had recently visited New Orleans for Hillel service trips and the similarity of state disenfranchisement wasn't lost on them. This was no touristy "ride the camel" Bedouin camp.

By day three, participants debated a panel of five young Jewish activists: an environmentalist, a Mizrahi empowerment organizer, an Ethiopian immigrant organizer, and an orthodox advocate of religious pluralism. (See here for short videos of these issues.)

Continue reading...

In the world of politics, especially that of Israeli policy and related activists worldwide, there is a constant effort to demonize the other side. Nowhere is this more evident than in the small cottage industry that has grown up to “monitor” human rights groups.

This industry is led by groups like NGO Monitor and UN Watch, and, while their role is certainly needed and acceptable, their tactics often fall well short of civilized political discourse.

There is nothing wrong with “watching the watchers.” It is not only fair but necessary for the work of human rights groups – whether international ones like Amnesty or Human Rights Watch, or domestic Israeli groups like B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence or Gisha – to be scrutinized closely. But there’s a difference between scrutiny and pursuing an agenda to delegitimize all criticism of Israel.

NGO Monitor is headed by Gerald Steinberg, the chair of the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University. The group spends its time examining all criticism of Israel, mostly from human rights groups both in Israel and abroad. They trace the funding and rely on a blanket label of “anti-Israel” to describe both the activities of Israeli and international NGOs as well as such funders as the New Israel Fund, European Union charitable funds, Oxfam, the Canadian International Development Agency, and USAID.

NGO Monitor says that by funding such groups as B’Tselem, Breaking the Silence, and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, these governments and foundations “…contribute to conflict, and in some cases to incitement.” They also use innuendo, such as listing a host of groups “some of which support boycotts, divestment and sanctions” while intentionally including groups who do not support such measures.

This sort of chicanery is meant to not only shield Israel from unfair criticism, which is a laudable goal, but also to discredit legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and actions, which is not. But in fairness, they couldn’t do that if they weren’t getting a lot of help from human rights and other groups.

Israel is in fact unfairly singled out, for example, at the UN Human Rights Council, as the only country in the world under permanent review. Israel’s very real human rights violations are often used cynically for political gain, much as Israel’s own complaints about Arab human rights violations are.

Additionally, Israel has its own very well developed human rights community, part of a larger and vibrant Israeli civil society. Israel’s human rights violations are thus held up to scrutiny more than other countries. The US frequently contends with the same issue. Still, if the violations weren’t so severe, Israel would not have so much to worry about.

NGO Monitor turns this stunning example of the reality of Israeli democracy into a smear against those Israelis who try to hold Israel to the standards of its own high ideals. By asking why such groups as B’Tselem, Gisha, Yesh Din, Breaking the Silence and others do not raise issues of intra-Palestinian violations (which some of them do, often), they are intentionally framing these Israeli groups as having an innately Palestinian agenda.

In fact, those groups, as well as Israeli peace groups like Shalom Achshav or Gush Shalom, are distinctly Israeli, and act as the critics any democracy needs to function properly. Naturally, being Israeli groups, they focus much more strongly on Israeli human rights violations because their task is to improve Israeli society and policies.

Consider, for example, NGO Monitor’s criticism of B’Tselem: B’Tselem categorizes suicide bombings and rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians as "war crimes" and "a grave breach of the right to life", according to international humanitarian law. Yet its political agenda is evident in the minimal attention it gives to intra-Palestinian human rights abuses (including torture, extra-judicial executions and abductions).

One need only look at B’Tselem’s web site to see it is a leader among non-Palestinian groups in criticizing intra-Palestinian abuses (see: http://www.btselem.org/English/Inter_Palestinian_Violations/), some even argue they are more so than an Israeli group should be. But indeed, B’Tselem focuses much more on Israeli violations and this does shed light on B’Tselem’s “agenda”: it is, primarily concerned about the actions of its own country, of strengthening the democracy it is part of. Its reason for existing is not primarily the good of the Palestinians—that is for Palestinians to pursue. It is for the good of Israel, because no democracy can sustain itself while turning a blind eye to its own behavior.

A major feature of NGO Monitor’s work is tying their criticisms (which are, to be fair, themselves a mix of distortions with a few legitimate complaints) to the network of governments and foundations that fund NGOs. This has come to the fore in recent weeks with the group Shovrim Shtika (Breaking the Silence).

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked the Dutch government to review their funding of Shovrim Shtika in the wake of the group publishing testimonies of soldiers who fought in Gaza earlier this year and reported human rights abuses. He has also publicly blasted the group.

Operation Cast Lead as a whole has been a storm for Israel to weather, and one that is unlikely to end soon. Israel’s refusal to launch a credible, independent investigation of the accusations that have been made about its conduct in Gaza, or to cooperate with any outside investigations, makes it impossible to get past the issue and ensures it will continue to be raised.

So instead, try to attack the funding.

Israeli NGOs are particularly vulnerable to such attacks. Funding for Israeli groups comes in very great measure from outside the country. That’s true for all Israeli groups, right to left, across the political and ideological spectrum. Israel lacks the sort of vast philanthropic network that, for instance, the United States has. Nor does the government allot significant sums for non-profits as one finds in Europe. In the US, lower taxes and tax breaks sustain a culture of philanthropy, while in Europe, higher taxes means the governments take more care of charitable giving. In Israel, though, the higher taxes pay instead for a massive defense budget.

So, just as foundations and other community sources in the US are the primary source for many right-wing groups in Israel, so too are international foundations the source of human rights and left-wing groups’ funding.

This isn’t foreign interference in Israeli affairs, it is the system of non-profit operations Israel has set up. And the attack on only one side of this system is unfair. NGO Monitor and similar groups should indeed be there to “watch the watchers,” but not to defend the Israeli government in any and all cases. Such groups should be there as part of the democratic system, and they should be there to ensure that human rights and peace groups’ work is of the highest standards, as those groups do with the government.

Until they stop pursuing an ideological agenda, the “watchers” are not doing their jobs.

How do you feel about Israel?

It seems like a pretty simple question, but any diaspora Jew can tell you that their thoughts on Israel are layered, complex, and emotionally charged. Makom and the New Israel Fund are organizing an event on June 18th in New York City called "Love, Hate, and the Jewish State." Jewcy is cosponsoring this event, and we'll be encouraging panelists and participants in the discussion to continue their dialogue here on the website.

You can learn more about the event here or sign up on Facebook. Below is a video of young Jews discussing their complicated feelings about Israel and social justice - you might recognize a Jewcy contributor or two in the mix.