Jane Eisner is editor-in-chief of the Forward, arguably the most read Jewish newspaper in the United States. She wrote in the midst of Operation Protective Edge: “When missiles slice through the air and bomb shelters are jammed and full-scale war seems a single misstep away, our emotional rawness can overwhelm our reasonableness. This is an extremely stressful time in Israel, and some of that stress is expressed in our conversations here. But that’s why we need to be all the more careful to focus on the argument, and not the Jew.”
She calls her article, “With Israel Feuds Raging, Can’t Jews All Get Along?” It’s a question many of us have been asking, especially when we see how any dissent from the official line as transmitted by the Jewish establishment is regarded as conclusive evidence of Jewish self-hatred and denial of Jewish identity.
Eisner wrote that “this happens only when the topic is Israel,” and she argued that “you can take controversial stands on intermarriage and conversion and child sexual abuse,” but Israel “has become the subject too controversial to discuss with anyone other than your ideological fellow travellers. Oh, and those who disagree with you should be excommunicated from the Jewish People.”
I hasten to add that, this time at least, I’m not among the dissenters. Though I didn’t vote for any of the parties in Israel’s present government, I’m committed to the democratic process that put them in power. And I’m not persuaded that another government would or could have acted differently. But I’m passionately in favour of the right to dissent and appalled at the attacks on those who do.
Because I’m a card-carrying Zionist and an Israeli patriot, I know that there’s more than one view on virtually anything to do with the politics and strategy of the Jewish state, especially when the subject is war and peace. The few rallies I’ve attended in Toronto have been out of an emotional need to be among supporters of Israel, not to hear wisdom from the podium.
Argument is the essence of Jewish learning and Jewish living. The fact that we now have a Jewish state again must not mean that the way Jews have always thought should now be disregarded in favour of official opinions only. Those who accuse dissenters of being enemies of the Jewish people risk becoming enemies of Judaism.
One unfortunate side effect of Diaspora Jewry’s often misplaced fervor has been that an alarmingly large number of Jews, especially the young, have chosen to stay away from the community altogether, perhaps even from Judaism. Their parents send them to universities and encourage them to develop critical minds and intellectual integrity. When they try to apply these to Israel and the Jewish condition, they run the risk of being vilified by the same leaders who say they crave their involvement.
Once again, we’ve reason to feel the absence of a representative forum where issues could be debated from all sides with civility and mutual respect. Neither we nor our American neighbours have a popular and authoritative assembly of Jews that could add strength to our communities by reflecting, and even promoting, variety. To involve many more Jews means inviting dissenters into the proverbial tent, thus showing unity in diversity. The self-appointed leaders who confuse advocacy with mindless endorsement, conformity with the quest for truth and ideological commitment with financial support may mean well, but they don’t seem to serve us well.
Though this time of crisis may not be opportune for making changes in our communal structure, it’s precisely now that present flaws become more glaring and the need to deal with them more urgent. When calm will be restored, official and unofficial inquiries will draw conclusions for Israelis. The experience should also lead to self-scrutiny and imaginative initiatives in the Diaspora. Publications such as The CJN and the Forward, splendid and essential though they are, may not be enough.
