Shmuel Rosner’s answer to Jeffrey Goldberg’s question — “Do American Jews have a role to play in bringing about a just and equitable solution to the
Middle East crisis?” – produced an interesting comment from Doris Wise Montrose and an equally interesting reply to her comment from Rosner.
Here are Rosner’s original answer, Montrose’s comment, and Rosner’s reply, followed by my own thoughts:
1. Rosner’s Answer to Goldberg’s Question:
I think that what American Jews can do — the best service they can give as to advance Middle East peace — is to support
Israel as much as they can. And by support I do not necessarily mean “give money”. In fact, giving money is the easiest way for people to support someone when they do not want to be bothered — but I’d like American Jews to be bothered. I want them coming for visits, I want them caring, I want them lobbying.
And no — I do not want them to be criticizing Israel in public and trying to pressure Israel on matters of policy and trying to “save Israel from itself” and all that condescending crap. Not because I think Israel doesn’t deserve criticism, or doesn’t make mistakes, but because there are more than enough people criticizing Israel already and because making policy is for people who will eventually pay the price for it — and because Israel is a “responsible adult”.
And with all due respect for those thinking that they know better — I think they don’t. Not those on the right urging settlers to defy government orders to evacuate from their homes in Hebron . . . and not those on the left thinking they have the key for Middle East peace . . . .
. . . I know that unconditionally supporting
Israel might sound like a mission that is hardly ambitious for those Jews in
America who believe that their role is fixing the world (Tikkun Olam). But I’m a man of small ambitions, and I think that it is better for American Jews to try and do one thing they actually can do — and not the many things they can’t. Supporting
Israel is a responsibility you did not ask for — but it’s yours nevertheless.
And since I also believe that a stronger
Israel gives more hope for
Middle East peace, this is what I’d prescribe for those eager to advance this specific cause.
2. Response to Rosner’s answer by Doris Wise Montrose (president of Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors Los Angeles):
This post brings up one of the single most important issues that many American Jews contend with. Unfortunately, I’m not sure I understand Rosner’s answer. To me, it sounds a lot like – support
Israel‘s leadership unconditionally no matter what they do.
I’m not comparing the sovereign country of
Israel with a friend who has had too much too drink at a party and they want to get in their car and drive home. But would we let them do that because they’re adults? I don’t think so.
And, frankly, there is not much coming from the leadership of
Israel that would make anyone – Jew or non-Jew, friend or foe – believe that the security of
Israel is their goal. At this point in time, even Netanyahu does not look like he is going to be so different from the Netanyahu who is reviled.
Should American Jews support the Israeli people or the Israeli leadership? Because from where I sit, it does not look the same.
As a child of Holocaust survivors and a student of that history, the existence of a Jewish state is crucial to the continued existence of the Jewish people anywhere in the world.
I believe that a strong
Israel is vital to
Middle East stability. Not all nations in the Middle East are interested in peace so
Israel has to seek security in order to have a chance at peace. The world can see that the actions of the Israeli leadership are not leading to security or peace. And from my perspective, I see the citizens of
Israel “paying the price” and not those making the decisions. As a Jew, I don’t understand how anyone can simply continue to support this type of leadership unconditionally.
3. Rosner’s email reply to Montrose’s comments (reprinted here with permission):
A simple answer starts with a sentence included in this readers’ comment. This is where misunderstanding starts: “Should American Jews support the Israeli people or the Israeli leadership? Because from where I sit, it does not look the same.”
Well — dear reader, here’s a news-flash:
Israel is a democratic country in which leaders are elected by, well, “the people”. This means that yes, “Israeli leadership” represents “the people”. There’s no such thing as “supporting the people but not the leadership” (no matter where “I sit”). What you’re really saying is this: “I want to support the political causes of my choosing, no matter what the democratic majority of Israelis want”. Of course, I can’t prevent you from doing this, but I can surely argue that this is not “support for
Israel” — it is “support for my political camp in
Israel” — a totally different thing. While Jewish American support for
Israel is most welcomed and necessary, American Jewish support for specific political causes in
Israel is much less appreciated. It is also morally problematic. It is also, in most cases, barely an educated political decision. By the way, a similar response applies to your “drunk driver” comparison (also common among supporters of “the people”): Did you ever consider the possibility that you’re the drunk, and we are the sober – much too sober – driver?
The reader also raises a question I hear a lot: Do I want him to “support
Israel‘s leadership unconditionally no matter what they do”? (Again, “
Israel‘s leadership” is a new-speak. It is “
Israel“). And of course the answer is no — I don’t think support should be given to
Israel “no matter” what it does. But I think we are really far from a point in which such question should even be raised. Israel is not perfect, but it is also quite far from being a country to which “no matter what it does” apply. But hey, if you really think
Israel is such moral pariah that you can no longer support it — then don’t.
And I will also ask this: when you no longer support
Israel, just admit it. Don’t call it “support for the people”, or “pro-peace, pro-Israel”, or “pro-Jerusalem, pro-Israel” or “
Hebron forever,
Israel‘s government is illegitimate” or “one state solution for
Israel” or whatever creative bullshit-name one might come up with.
I am not sure that Montrose and Rosner are actually that far apart, since neither one of them takes the position that the Israeli government should be supported whatever it does in whatever the circumstances. It may be they simply disagree on exactly who is drunk in the current situation.
But it may not be correct simply to equate elected leaders with the people who elected them: the case in point is the
Gaza disengagement. Where a leader is elected based on a campaign promise not to withdraw from Gaza, ridicules his opponent for thinking Israel could safely withdraw without eventually putting the country at risk, and then — once in office — decides not only to withdraw unilaterally but to do so after ignoring the results of a party referendum he called on the issue (and promised to respect) and then refusing to hold a public referendum, I am not sure it is sufficient to say the government’s decisions should be supported on grounds the government was elected. In fact, what Ariel Sharon did in that instance was to administer a significant blow against the democratic process. See “Disengagement and Democracy” and “Sharon’s Disengagement Plan: Why Not Vote?”
The same may hold true where the elected prime minister violates what Michael Oren and Yossi Klein Halevi described as the Israeli “social contract:” making life and death decisions while compromised by multiple criminal investigations, the residue of a botched war, a single-digit approval rating and a pervasive feeling that decisions spring from the leader’s personal or political considerations.
Finally, what are we to make of the current Israeli leaders who negotiate life and death decisions in secret, afraid even to tell the people (or the Knesset) the positions they are taking, precluding a public discussion and debate before a fait accompli? If the peace process is ever to succeed, it requires such a public discussion — by both the Israeli and Palestinian publics — so that decisions can be made with sufficient public support to be legitimate. In the Palestinian Authority, there is not even a process in place to elect a president past January 9, much less validate the compromises that will need to be made if a Palestinian state is ever to be formed.
But such a political process is now going on in
Israel, and will be concluded on February 10. The person elected then can fairly be said to represent the people – at least until s/he starts disregarding the promises that won the election. Rosner’s fundamental point is correct: Israel is a democratic country, making life or death decisions for which it will directly bear the consequences, and those of us who render opinions — but have not taken the action necessary to have a vote — lack the standing to criticize, at least once the collective political decision has been made. February 10 will be an important date.
UPDATE: I guess (reading between the lines) Shmuel Rosner did not like this post. But he graciously offered me the space to reply. Anne Lieberman took the discussion to a much higher level in one of her most spirited (in every sense of the word) posts.
