A liberal Jewish friend complained that the moderate Muslims of Canada seldom raised their voices against militant Islamists and thereby forfeited credibility. “Are we Jews any different,” I responded? “Don’t we also circle the wagons and refuse to publicly criticize Israel, even when such criticism is much deserved?”
That very day the Israeli Knesset had undeniably damaged the peace process, by passing a new law that would require either an 80 per cent vote of parliamentarians or a public referendum if any of the conquered lands, annexed by Israel, were to be part of a peace treaty. Yet, not one of our Canadian Jewish leaders spoke out against this effort to sabotage negotiations. Nor have their voices been heard when new loyalty oaths are proposed for non-Jews, when Arab citizens of the State of Israel are discriminated against or when Bedouins are dispossessed from their homes.
Of course, some of our leaders are as dedicated to Greater Israel and perhaps even to the suppression of dissent as the most right-wing members of Israel’s government, but there are many others whose hopes for peace, devotion to minority rights and commitment to civil liberties cannot be questioned.
There has been reluctance on the part of Jewish leaders to publicly debate Israeli policies. Diaspora Jewish communities have strong social controls. There’s the fear of giving comfort to the enemies of Israel and breaking community solidarity. There’s also the canard that it’s not the time for criticism when Israel is locked in an existential battle (but isn’t it always?). How, it is asked, can one of us, living in the safety of the Diaspora, outside of the range of Hamas or Iranian missiles and not obligated to send one’s children to the Israeli military, dare to criticize? Beyond the above controls, there are also ties of friendship, social and business relationships which could be put at risk by becoming a public critic of some of Israel’s actions.
Yet despite these powerful controls, there are signs that this questionable unity is breaking down. In the United States, we have seen the emergence of J Street, a liberal and peace-oriented alternative to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Peter Beinart’s powerful essay, “The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” which argued that younger American Jews were increasingly alienated from Israel. There was, Beinart believed, a disjuncture between the liberal values taught by their parents and the markedly reactionary trends in Israeli society.
At the end of November, similar voices were raised, this time in the United Kingdom and not just from the young. Mick Davis, chair of the United Jewish Israel Appeal and head of the Jewish Leadership Council, broke with years of constraints to speak out against “additional building on settlements” and loyalty oaths. His sharpest words were reserved for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom he accused of lacking the courage to take the necessary steps toward peace, thus risking Israel becoming an apartheid state. Davis called for an open and civil discussion in which critics of some Israeli policies would not be labelled self-hating Jews.
There were predictable attacks. Davis’ remarks could be used in the international campaign to delegitimate Israel, some charged, and he was also accused of “brazenly inciting his fellow Jews to criticize Israel.” However, 22 major leaders of Anglo Jewry backed Davis’ call for “public and honest discussion.”
One of Davis’ strongest defenders was Lord Greville Janner, a former chair of the Jewish Board of Deputies and longtime member of Parliament. Janner wrote an article, aptly titled, “It is our obligation to speak against injustice.” Janner affirmed his own continuing support for Israel, but reminded his readers that it’s nevertheless “our obligation to speak out against injustice, even when it is extremely awkward and fraught.”
The unity of silence may thus be ending in Diaspora Jewish communities. Many liberal-minded Jews begin to realize that their silence constitutes acquiescence to actions done in the name of Israel and Zionism that run completely contrary to their own value systems. What does the present Israel of loyalty oaths, bulldozing of Palestinian homes and exaggerated claims to territory have to do with their own liberal values? They may also understand that many of the actions of the present government of Israel endanger the real security of Israel, which lies not in maintaining Israel’s rule over the Palestinians or in its force of arms, but in retaining the respect and goodwill of the democratic nations of the world.
It’s time for North American Jewish leaders to also “speak against injustice” and to let the public debate begin.
Stephen Scheinberg is a professor emeritus in history at Concordia University and co-chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now.
