This Week: Just Between Us ….
I give you my word, You-Who-Put-Up-With-Me-Weekly, that Donald Trump has as much to do with my plea to you this week as Donald Duck.
We American Jews have got to take a hard look at ourselves.
Starting with our leaders’ reaction to Israel adopting its Nation-State Law last summer, time and again over the past year we’ve not just failed to support Israelis’ struggle, endless if that’s what it is, for sovereign redemption of our three-millennia Jewish homeland of Israel, but have repeatedly taken positions harmful to it. If it seems to you I’m exaggerating, come along this week for the ride.
Re: Nation-State Law
Last summer, Israel adopted its Nation-State Law, which commenced:
“A. The land of Israel is the historical homeland of the Jewish people, in which the State of Israel was established.”
“B. The State of Israel is the national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination….”
It went on inter alia to declare Hebrew Israel’s official language (with “special status” for Arabic) and the formation of Jewish communities in the land a “national value.”
The usual suspects, e.g., the EU, Turkey and “the Arab Republic [n.b.] of Egypt,” complained, but not alone.
Times of Israel headline, 7/22/18:
“Reform and AJC Leaders Bitterly Criticize Israel’s Nation-State Bill.”
World Israel News, 7/19/18, headlined:
“Reform Judaism Head Slams Law Enshrining Israel’s Jewish Character.”
It quoted the American Reform movement’s leader, Rabbi Jacobs, that it “passionately opposes this new law because of the harmful effect on Jewish-Arab relations in Israel, as well as its negative impact on the balance between the various core founding values of the State of Israel.”
The Jewish Federations of North America expressed three “concerns” with the law – Arabic’s downgrade from official under the Mandate to mere “special status” under the new law; formation of Jewish communities as a “national value”; and language relating to Israel’s relations with the Jewish Diaspora.
Re: “The Palestinian Territories”
Also last summer, the wonderful media-fairness-to-Israel championing CAMERA confronted media usage of the expression “Israel and Palestine,” which it rightly criticized as elevating “Palestine” to the status of a sovereign state. But its suggested alternatives for referencing the two sides in the same expression were “the Israeli government and the Palestinians … Israel and the West Bank … [Israel and] the Palestinian territories.”
Our #912 of 7/15/18 quoted my email to CAMERA, in which I objected to calling Judea-Samaria “the West Bank” or “the Palestinian territories” and, far-right fanatic that I am, calling Palestinian Arabs “the Palestinians,” as though there’s no Jewish equity in “Palestine” and “Palestinian.” I quoted CAMERA’s appreciated reply, in which it acknowledged that while using “Judea and Samaria” is historically justified, “only a very minute fraction of the world population uses it” and that CAMERA suggestions that media use “Judea-Samaria” would “immediately end up in the editor’s trash box.” I ended #912 that that “very minute fraction of the world population” that uses “Judea and Samaria” is “us,” and that “the more an historically justified place name that we use differs from the name that the media and most of the rest of the world use, the more important it is that we use it.”
Re: “Two-State Solution”
In April of this year, JTA wrote:
“In what appears to be an unprecedented plea, establishment Jewish groups were imploring a U.S. president to restrain an Israeli prime minister.”
These “establishment Jewish groups” were heavyweights in our American Jewish community: the Reform Movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis and Union for Reform Judaism; the Conservative Movement’s United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbinical Assembly and Zionist affiliate Mercaz; the Anti-Defamation League, the lead Jewish civil rights advocacy group; Ameinu, a liberal Zionist group; the National Council of Jewish Women; and the Israel Policy Forum, a group focused on reaching a two-state solution (JTA. 4/13/19, “Reform, Conservative Jews to Trump: don’t let Netanyahu annex West Bank”). The JTA article quoted ADL leader Jonathan Greenblatt: “We continue to believe in the two-state solution.”
That letter by the nine American Jewish organizations calls on the American President
“… to clearly express your opposition to unilateral measures outside of this framework [i.e., “a negotiated two-state solution”], including annexation by Israel of any territory in the West Bank.” [emphasis added]
It goes on:
“… While that [two-state] solution is unlikely to hew precisely to the 1967 borders, any territorial adjustments must result in a signed agreement between the two sides.” [emphasis added]
They weren’t, of course, “the 1967 borders,” but only 1949 military ceasefire lines (succeeded by 1967 war ceasefire lines, far less perilous to Israel) expressly declared in their defining document not to be political borders. And the disputed territory across those 1949 ceasefire lines is Judea and Samaria, not “the West Bank,” and Israel applying Israeli law to Jewish communities in that disputed area is not “annexation” of another nation’s territories. But what’s most disconcerting is American Jews, indeed “establishment Jewish groups,” having the chutzpah to tell Israel’s Jews, who defend Israel’s borders, what Israel’s borders should be, indeed presently are (“the 1967 borders” with “any territorial adjustments” that don’t “hew precisely” to “the 1967 borders” to be effected by “signed agreement between the two sides”).
And AIPAC as well calls for an inside-the-land-of Israel Arab state, security-wise suicidal and Jewish homeland redemption fulfillment-surrendering as most Israelis themselves see such a potential creation to be.
Re: The Would-be Visitors Omar and Tlaib
These two were up to no-good, and it is the sovereign prerogative of any nation to deny entry to foreigners whom it deems to be up to no good.
AIPAC publicly joined in criticizing Israel for excluding these two Congresswomen (who could have come in the just-preceding Congressional delegations’ visit instead of demanding their own, and Cong. Tlaib accepted and then rejected permission to apolitically visit her grandmother). ZOA (News Release, 8/20/19) pointed out the damage done by AIPAC’s criticism:
“The ZOA respectfully urges AIPAC to retract its mistaken criticism of Israel’s just and proper decision to refuse to admit Jew-haters Rashita Tlaib and Ilhan Omar for their planned visit to incite hatred and boycotts against Israel, designed to destroy the Jewish state. AIPAC’s unwarranted criticism of Israel did tremendous harm to Israel and to AIPAC’s repeated declaration that they support the policies of the democratically elected government of Israel, and whose mission is supporting the U.S.-Israel relationship and the security of Israel and the United States. AIPAC’s mistaken criticism of Israel was widely quoted by the media, including major American networks and cable stations (including Fox, CNN, NBC and others); was retweeted over 6,200 times (far more than a typical AIPAC tweet); encouraged and gave a free pass to politicians to join in AIPAC’s criticism of Israel; and gave grist and succor to hostile-to-Israel groups, including J Street, to unfairly condemn Israel and Israeli officials.”
Conclusion: Where We Are, and What’s a Just-Plain American Jew To Do?
Back in May, our #954 quoted a Haaretz article, Two-State Solution: U.S. Jews Won’t Budge. Will It Cost Them Their Relationship With Israel?, which said that “the alphabet of organizations comprising the so-called Jewish establishment – from the muscular pro-Israel AIPAC to the ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace’ J Street, through the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, the policy arms of the Reform and Conservative movements, the Jewish Federations of North America and the rest – are all in lock-step agreement” that “a two-state solution is a declared goal to securing a Jewish and democratic state” and that “they faithfully their constituency on this issue.” [Emphasis added]
And see last week’s #969, referencing pending U.S. Senate resolution 234, “affirming the United States commitment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and noting that Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank would undermine peace and Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”
We grassroots U.S. Jews comprise these Jewish establishment organizations’ constituencies. On
* respecting Israelis’ right to decide for themselves where within the land of Israel the State of Israel’s borders, which Israelis defend, should lie;
* respecting Israelis’ right to declare the Hebrew language the Jewish State’s official language and declare formation of Jewish communities in Israel a national value of that Jewish State;
* respecting Israelis’ right to call what has been called “Judea and Samaria” for three thousand years (including by the U.N. in 1947) “Judea and Samaria,” and not ask others to call it “the West Bank” or “the Palestinian territories”; and
* respecting Israel’s right to decide what foreign visitors to admit into its country,
we constituents of American Jewish organizations can and should make clear to these groups’ leaders that publicly disrespecting these Israeli prerogatives is not what we signed up for.