Dear Ken,
I agree with nearly everything you write completely, and with the rest mostly.
I do not feel that I always have to bring speakers with whom I agree. What I love about Michael is that his analysis is grounded in fact and history. His sociological and historical critiques are both insightful and often unique. That is to say, he draws reasoned conclusions that are worth hearing from him.
Regarding Iran: I understand that most Israelis view the Iran deal, with its potential permissive posture on nuclear proliferation 10 years out, as entirely unacceptable. This is, as he said, because the possibility of Iran with a nuke is the possibility of Iran nuking Israel. Those of us who supported the Iran deal, and who criticize the Trump withdrawal, do not evaluate a nuclear Iran as more likely under the deal. However, that is - to be fair - a risk management decision. We can not guarantee it as a product of the deal itself. That is because we do not believe that any Iran statement will guarantee it. The idea of a better deal is false, dilatory, and is a political maneuver to empower the current conflict structure. But Israel doesn’t have the ability - in fact it is against the entire concept of the state - to assess acceptable risk levels when dealing with anything that can kill another 6 million Jews. The fact that we, in our comfortable armchairs in Essex County New Jersey, could ever say that any scenario that has even a slight potential for a legally nuclearized Iran is an acceptable risk is therefore a betrayal of the essential mission of Israel to provide an absolutely safe haven for the Jewish people. That is how they feel, and it makes us Nevils Chamberlain before the holocaust in their eyes.
Regarding Trump: The Israeli mindset is that Israel is more important than America. Our mindset is that we vote in American elections as fully responsible American citizens. This should not be a surprise. In every single election since Kennedy, with a minor blip during Carter/Reagan, 2/3 of the American Jews voted for the Democratic candidate for President. We are a liberal community, and we feel that applies to all humanity. Israel, perhaps of necessity, does not fully liberalize its civil rights - despite the fact that it does operate as a free and open Democracy. Freedom of expression, and free elections are not the only hallmarks of a free Democracy. They should not be underestimated, but they also do not paint a complete picture. Dr. Oren’s debating point that the losers in governmental decisions are allowed to protest freely does not address the idea that sometimes the majority is unjust. I will never vote for an American president who I fell is bad for America just because he/she would be good for Israel. Dr. Oren did not address the concept of dual loyalty, though he did mention Dreyfus as the background of Herzl’s vision. The insistence of priority of American loyalty in American elections is the issue that he avoids.
Regarding Obama: His critique is not shared by most American Jews because most American Jews think that Obama was very supportive of Israel economically and militarily. Dr. Oren’s CV intro that I read lauded his ability to bring Iron Dome and other items to Israel, but doesn’t note that those came from Obama. You can’t have it both ways. On the other hand, Obama adopted the Palestinian narrative of the State, did not agree that Judea and Samaria/the West Bank is Israeli land, and was politically very critical of Israel. But Bibi’s speaking in Congress is indicative of the main break between them, not Obama’s opposition to settlements. Once that happened, Israel would receive no more protection politically from the White House in the U.N. To state that J-Street (which precedes Obama) was invented by Obama and invited into the White House is pandering to the blackballing of JStreet by the remainder of the pro-Israel communities, as evidenced by its exclusion from the council of presidents of major Jewish Organizations, etc. It is based on the same kind of A=B=C argument that he criticized in a different context. JStreet wants to withdraw settlements and supports a Palestinian state (A), Israel’s enemies want to withdraw settlements and support a Palestinian state (B), therefore JStreet is Israel’s enemy (C). Classic debate rhetoric, and superbly delivered. Unfortunately, also not objectively true, unless you want to say that Meretz and the other left-wing elements of Israeli society in the Knesset are also the enemy of Israel. It is, however, a cogent political position and legitimate to articulate as a political position. But it is not factual. It is political opinion.
Regarding land: This is the origin of Dr. Oren’s distaste for Obama. Dr Oren’s politics here cloud objectivity, but do represent a coalition majority of the Israel voting public. The concept of "Palestinian land" does not have a role in his vision of Israel. He was quite clear that settlements in Judea and Samaria/the West Bank are a simple continuation of the Israeli ethos and manifest destiny, and that there is no difference between Hebron and Tel Aviv. He cited Torah as an argument that Hebron is more legitimate to Zionism than Tel Aviv or Haifa. Settlements, therefore, are - as he put it - people settling on their own land. Why cite Torah in this one singular case? Because he doesn’t have a legal modern fact to base it on. It is a motivation, and a justification from within: not a reasoned argument. He also denied the concept of occupation by citing the absence of active military in the streets of Ramallah or Jenin. The containment and surveillance of those towns is as active a force of occupation as the policing of the towns, so that is also a debating tactic and disingenuous. That is not to say that I am weighing in on the topic one way or the other. But this is an essential prejudice in his thinking, from which many other conclusions are drawn.
How to get news: When asked where English readers should get good objective Israeli news, he said The Times of Israel (An earlier version of this blog incorrectly identified this answer). The better answer would have been: all news today is slanted politically, so you will need to read 2 or 3 papers on a rotating basis to understand the differences and draw your own conclusions. Israel Today, HaAretz, Yehi'ot, The Times of Israel and Ynet would probably be a good recipe. There are others. But the obvious conclusion is this: read Israeli news sources if you want to understand Israel. He should have said that "bimforash," - explicitly.
I think that his understanding of the dynamics of American Jewish society are correct. But as soon as Liberal becomes a synonym for wrong he loses credibility. For the most part, he did not do that. But he did it enough that it colored the entire presentation.
So, why did we bring him? It was a very very successful event, and one that advanced the synagogue in many ways: financially, socially and politically in the larger community. We have enrolled several new members in the last few days who came to the speech and we raised something close to 30,000 dollars net benefit for the operating budget. We also advanced a genuine and provocative conversation about Israel and us, which is good.
All in all, I am very pleased.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Tobin
No comments:
Post a Comment