Moment magazine’s latest issue has an interesting symposium on what it means to be pro-Israel today. Though some of the choices are bizarre (the contributors include two Palestinians, one of whom formerly advised the Palestinian Authority, and John Mearsheimer, author of the notorious “Jews-control-Washington” screed The Israel Lobby), other pieces are illuminating.
I found Hillel Halkin’s definition particularly helpful. But I’d like to add one thing to his list. Clearly, it’s okay to criticize any particular Israeli policy; Israelis do it all the time. But those with influence in the Jewish community, like rabbis or officials of Jewish organizations, also have an obligation to try to understand – and explain to his community – why Israelis might view the issue differently.
For instance, it’s perfectly acceptable to argue that Israel should withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, or unilaterally evacuate West Bank settlements; I disagree with both positions, but they don’t make you anti-Israel. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Israel’s government also disagrees, as do most Israelis. So a pro-Israel leader can’t just say “this is what Israel must to do to bring peace” and stop there, leaving his audience to conclude that since Israel’s government thinks otherwise, it must be anti-peace. He must also explain to a community that quite genuinely might not know why Israelis are reluctant to take such steps –like the fact that every previous withdrawal has produced a surge in anti-Israel terror, or the fact that Palestinians’ insistence on a “right of return” and refusal to recognize a Jewish state leads Israelis to fear they still haven’t given up their dream of destroying Israel. He thereby shows that while Israelis, in his view, are misguided, they are not anti-peace. And that is critical – because an Israel that’s “anti-peace” is evil; an Israel that’s merely misguided is not.
This rule is even more vital in light of the current assault on Israeli policies that critics portray as “anti-democratic,” because to most American Jews, Israel’s democratic character is even more important than its positions on the peace process. Again, there’s nothing wrong with opposing any or all of the recent controversial legislation. But a pro-Israel leader cannot just assert that, say, proposed changes to the judicial appointments system are “undemocratic”; she must also explain why many Israelis consider such changes essential: the fact that Israel is virtually the only democracy in the world where Supreme Court justices are chosen by unelected legal officials rather than the public’s elected representatives, or where sitting Supreme Court justices not only help choose their own successors, but actually have veto power over them; the fact that Israel therefore has one of the most monolithic courts in the democratic world; and the fact that it also has one of the world’s most activist courts, making the justices’ worldviews of paramount importance. She thereby tells her audience that even if a particular bill is flawed, Israelis aren’t “anti-democratic”; they are grappling with a genuine democratic concern.
The necessary information generally isn’t difficult to obtain; Israel now has several English-language news sites, including The Jerusalem Post, Israel Hayom and Ynet, that can usually be counted on to run multiple articles arguing both sides of any controversial issue (the main exception is Haaretz, where opposing views are few and far between). So all that’s needed is a bit of time and effort.
If a Jewish leader isn’t willing to invest that time and effort – if he would rather just slam Israeli policies as “anti-peace” or “anti-democratic” – then far from being pro-Israel, he is one of its worst enemies. For he is exploiting his own credentials as a Jew and self-proclaimed “lover of Zion” to convince others to hate the Jewish state.
You've overcomplicated things. You are anti-Israel when you hold Israel to different standards than other countries. It is that simple. If you attack Israel but not other countries for doing something that those other countries do or would likely do in a reasonably comparable situation, you are anti-Israel. And if you criticize Israel but not other countries for a policies other countries have, you are anti-Israel. And if you give other countries but not Israel the benefit of the doubt in a situation, you are anti-Israel. And if the degree to which you attack Israel or fail to give it the benefit of the doubt is not roughly in line with the degree you do those things for other countries, you are anti-Israel.
Well said BDZ. The double standard is the ultimate anti-Israel screed. Something our current Secretary of State, Defense Secretary and President seem to thrive on. Groups like CAP, J Street, MoveOn are merely the mouthpiece for the Democratic Party which has abandoned its bi-partisan, pro-Israel consensus.
It is also the easiest to hide. The double standard ploy is so effective because the particular point of criticism of Israel may be 100% valid. But the fact that the attacker would never, or has never, or never does make the same attack on other countries in the same situation is not going to be immediately obvious until you step back and look at the whole situation, which rarely happens in these discussions.
I agree with Evelyn completely. This is an excellent standard to hold people to in the internet era. If a person opposes a policy of the Israeli government and they can not articulate precisely why others support it, and why said supporters are in error, then it is safe to call them Anti-Israel. If such a person is a Jewish public figure they should be called out to answer for their self-hatred.
Yes, but suppose they can articulate why others support and give their reason why its in error, and yet they don't hold other countries to this same kind of criticism. It is the double standard that is the key, not whether or not they can accurately describe the counterargument to what they've said. Evelyn has overcomplicated it and actually missed the point at the same time. Being able to faithfully describe an opponents position and calmly say why you disagree is just a skill in debating. Good debaters actually do this. But if those good debaters, who accurately relate their opponents arguments, are only attacking Israel for a given issue, that is a problem, even though they've given due consideration to the counterarguments. Not to beat a dead horse, but it is all about the double standard. Nothing more, nothing less.
"Anti-Israel" and "anti-Zionist" are merely euphemisms for "anti-Jewish". If Israel were not a predominantly Jewish country, no one would care what they did. n nIn fact, if Israel were a Muslim dictatorship, with political prisoners, persecution of gays and dissidents, no rights for women, no tolerance of other religions–why, they'd fit in just fine in that part of the world and the righteous Left of Europe and America would simply ignore them, as they largely ignore all the other backward, oppressive countries of that region. n nIf Israel were a peaceful and productive Muslim democracy, righteous Leftists the world over would extol its virtues; they would hold Israel up as a model of development for the other nations in the region. They would praise and gush over Israel even if it had low tolerance for Christians and other faiths, as in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. n nIf Israel were a Muslim country, its military preparedness and aid from the U.S. would never be questioned. Like Egypt, it would somehow "deserve" the aid despite the fact that its culture and values would be at odds with those of the donors. There would be no talk of a "peace process" and other such nonsense because everyone would see the situation for what it is: aggressive states coveting Israel's land. n nNo, it's all about the Jewish factor. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in the 21st Century, despite the vigorous efforts of Jews all over the Western world to assimilate, blend in, and hide in the majority culture. The sooner that the Jews wake up from this foolish and self-defeating strategy and take a little pride in their people's exceptionalism, the better off they will be and Israel will be. People will hate us, but they'll have to be up front about it and sometimes it's confrontation that provides the best pathway to reconciliation.
Just to add to the double standard BDZ describes one has only to look at the “Human Rights” agenda of the Western World let alone the rest, to see in numerous cases how Israelis were denied this privelege.
With all the young children of Sderot suffering from PTSD after all the rockets and mortars exploding around them where were those exponents of HR demanding that those children not be submitted to that abuse?
Where were Israeli rights to protect themselves from suicide bombers as their construction of a barrier to the murderous onslaught was criticized as inhuman?
Why was the context of Israeli actions always removed from discussion when criticizing them?
Where were Shalit’s rights while being kept in captivity after being kidnapped?
Where were the objections to the treatment of European Jews in France and elsewhere at the hands of Muslims as the American succumbed to the excuse that Israel was to blame?
Now the violence has come to New Jersey it must be because of “settlements”?
I believe an important point is missed here. I believe a person must be considered Anti- Israel if they wish to eliminate the Jewish character of the state. I thus believe that all those who make the 'state of all citizens' argument have the aim of so transforming the state that it eventually ceases to be a Jewish and democratic state. nThis of course raises the question of those who claim to be 'pro-Israel' by defining Israel in a way it was not intended by its founders to be defined.
Evelyn, with all due respect for your intelligence and your past achievements –as in criticism of the Israeli Supreme Court and its self-perpetuating oligarchy– I believe that urging Israel nto "withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines, or [to] unilaterally evacuate West Bank settlements" is not "perfectly acceptable." It is fundamentally an unjust and indeed racist, anti-Jewish position. After all, not only is the so-called "west bank" part of the historic Land of Israel but it was recognized as part of the Jewish National Home under international law by the San Remo Conference [1920] and the League of Nations [1922] and by the UN charter in Article 80, etc., a status in int'l law never changed, despite the current Judeophobic UN majority that is so automatic –as Abba Eban pointed out– that it would resolve that the earth is flat if the Arabs demanded it of them. To exclude Jews from the "west bank" or Judea-Samaria is racist against Jews and an apartheid policy. Moreover, withdrawing from Judea-Samaria would leave the remaining rump of Israel much more vulnerable to Arab attack, as well as denying Jewish rights under the National Home principle. If I am saying that the Obama administration and the European Union are racist and pro-apartheid against Jews, then so be it. But I believe that those positions that you mentioned are not at all "acceptable," although they are legal. After all, it is legal under the freedom of speech to say all sorts of things that are false and unjust.
Being pro-Israel is 'Never having to say you're sorry,' no matter how many men, women and children you have murdered in cold blood (Gaza/2008 – Lebanon/2006 – and The USS Liberty/1967.