Matthew’s critique of Israel’s latest PR fad is spot-on: No campaign can succeed without addressing the fundamental issue of the Jews’ “right to self-determination in their homeland.” But there’s one simple thing both Israel and Jewish organizations could do to improve the situation: stop appointing official representatives who actively promote the anti-Israel case. Consider two examples: former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev, and Zoe Jick, New York regional director for the World Zionist Organization’s Department of Diaspora Activities.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times in August, Shalev said Israel shared the blame for the Palestinians’ statehood application to the UN, inter alia because it put “new things on the table, like the requirement that Palestinians recognize Israel as the homeland of Jewish people, which to my mind is superfluous.” If even Israel’s former UN ambassador deems this a “new” and “superfluous” condition that contributed to stymieing peace efforts, you can’t blame the general public for thinking so. Yet Shalev is wrong on both counts.
First, far from being a “new” condition invented by the Netanyahu government, this demand originated with the Olmert government – the very one she served. As leaked memos from the Palestinian negotiating team revealed in January, Olmert’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, repeatedly raised the issue of Israel as a Jewish state with her Palestinian interlocutors, though to no avail: They replied that while they couldn’t stop Israel from calling itself Jewish, the Palestinians would never recognize it as such.
Moreover, far from being a superfluous issue, the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is the core of the conflict: Until Palestinians are prepared to accept a Jewish state, as opposed to an “Israel” flooded by millions of Palestinian “refugees” to create a second Palestinian state, no solution is possible. But if even its former UN ambassador refuses to admit this, how can Israel possibly convince the general public of it?
Or take Jick, who was hired for a job that “entails designing and leading Zionist education seminars” despite her “personal doubts about Israel,” as she frankly acknowledged in a Jerusalem Post column in September. But no worries: She soon concluded that Zionism “does not entail defending Israel”; one can maintain “steadfast loyalty to Zionist ideology” while being “anti-Israel.” How? By focusing on the original Zionist vision of Israel as “a utopia.”
To be fair, Jick also offers an impassioned defense of Zionism as “the belief in the Jewish national movement,” which can’t be rejected without “rejecting the
history, heritage, and tradition that defines Jewish peoplehood,” and of the need to educate students “about Israel’s limitless potential and its raison d’etre” rather than rejecting “the ideology that gave us this miracle”–a state.
But if even someone who supports Zionism in the abstract isn’t willing to defend the actual Jewish state – if Jick can only tolerate the actual Israel’s existence by fantasizing about a “utopia” that no flesh-and-blood state can ever become – then how can one expect the general public, which lacks even an abstract commitment to Zionism, to tolerate the Jewish state’s existence at all?
And if neither Israel nor Jewish organizations can be bothered to find representatives willing to sell Israel’s case, how can they expect the world to buy it?
The efforts to gain legitimacy within a framework first formulated by the League of Nations, then the British and finally with the UN has not led to the desired conclusion. As Israel continues seeking permission to exist it seems the hatred and intolerance directed their way becomes more organized, entrenched and institutionalized. Peace will come when Israel stops begging and hoping and instead starts demanding with force. n nIn the numerous wars they have fought since 1948 with Arab nations as well as with the terrorist organizations, Israel has demonstrated the capability to bring this never-ending conflict to a resolution. But instead they listen to the international clamoring for a cease-fire and quit the conflict prematurely. Just as the WWII conflict between the US and Japan ended with the unconditional surrender by Japan and the US dictating the terms that followed, the Israelis should approach the inevitable next conflict as an opportunity to do something similar. An Israel that demands respect is more likely to be on peaceful and friendly terms with their neighbors in 25 years than the Israel that continues acquiescence to international dithering whimsy.
The means for obtaining that unconditional surrender, indiscriminate strategic deadly force against major population centers, is not the current doctrine of the IDF–which is far more comfortable with force–to whatever degrees of lethality–applied to politico-military strategic goals more circumscribed than the hail-mary pass let's-reinvent-the-Middle East horizons of, say, Sharon's 1982 campaign or, if it comes to that, the no-end-game bombing and air campaigns in Lebanon or Gaza pre Operation Cast Lead. The latter (and most successful) was never intended to decisively dismantle, or replace, Hamas in Gaza. n nThe well-endowed cosmopolitan Jewish elites on both sides of the Mediterranean–do they matter any more than the opinions of last week's contestants on Dancing with the Stars?
The problem is Israel's Oslo Left filled the Foreign Ministry with post-Zionist hacks and timeservers more noted for actively defending Israel's enemies than Israel's national interests and values. Until Israel's diplomatic corps are purged of them, don't expect Israeli diplomats to defend the government of day and its policies before the world.
this is retarded. israel must be criticised, and specifically by those who love her most. this essay is an oversimplification of the situation. just as you on the right are willing to criticise the "OSlo Left" others on the left must critices the failures they perceive in current israeli administrations. israel today is not what either side has dreamt. through critique and dialogue we can come up with action.
This is ridiculous. Zoe Jick was taken out of context and you completely misrepresented Zoe on a personal level and the organization for which she represents. I am appalled at the lack of facts and the way Zoe was misconstrued in this article. This is embarrassing for the Commentary to even write due to the lack of facts
I just read Evelyn Gordon's interesting response to my September op-ed in The Jerusalem Post. I appreciate her citing my work. As an official representative of the WZO, I daily face the problematic gaps in Israel advocacy and education here in North America, and am deeply involved with the issues she discusses. I know the influence of my job, and understand how important my words are for Israel and for future Zionists and Jewish leaders. Therefore, I wish to defend them, as I believe that Gordon has quite harshly misquoted me.
I consider myself Zionist. In fact, as I say in the article, Zionism is one of the most crucial elements of my identity. However, for me, Zionism does not prohibit finding fault with some of the policies enacted by the state of Israel and its current administration. As I continue to struggle with this dichotomy- believing in Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, yet still disagreeing with some of the tactics used to uphold this right – I wondered whether I would find working in Israel education a taxing experience. Now, four months into the job, I can proudly assert that educating about Israel and Zionism with the WZO is one of the most rewarding and exhilarating experiences of my life. Through my job in Israel education, I am able to engage students with all aspects of Israel that make Zionism so powerful- culture, history, achievement- not only the politics that so frequently overwhelm campus conversations.
I do not consider myself anti-Israel. I do not believe, as Gordon stated out of context, that one can be Zionist and anti-Israel at the same time. Identifying as a Jewish nationalist entails accepting the gift of 1948 and unconditionally supporting the tangible State of Israel. However, supporting Israel does not preclude criticizing some of her actions. As an educator, in fact, I find that creating a space which allows my students to feel comfortable asking all questions about Israel provokes discussion, listening, and openness in my programs on campuses. It is this type of flexibility which allows the confused and even uninformed college students to become Zionists, when they otherwise might have felt alienated by a one-sided or polarized conversation. It also provides the dedicated Zionist students a full picture of Israel, better equipping them to successfully advocate for Israel in the face of her detractors.
After years of engaging with Israel advocacy, education and activism, I recognize the disconnect for many people between "Zionism in the abstract" and the "flesh-and-blood state" itself. It is my hope that my educational initiatives will allow students to understand the complexity of this schism. Only through an appreciation of how complicated the issues are surrounding Israel will students know how to best defend the Zionist project. This process will also sculpt responsible Zionist and Jewish leaders for Israel's future. I believe that only through remaining committed to Zionism, while still not standing for the moments where the Zionist vision is not upheld, will we be finally rid of the "failures in Israel advocacy." This is not a naïve belief in "utopia," as Gordon faults me. This is a hope for a time when we will not need to "sell Israel" anymore.