June 2007 Archives

Before posting I took a few minutes to survey the numerous reader responses to Rabbi Grossman’s analysis of the horrific situation in Gaza. I am struck by how diverse and deeply passionate they are–from those who blame Israel and America for everything that has gone wrong to those who fling hatred and vitriol at the Palestinians. In that sense, Gaza is a good Rorschach blot for Israeli-Palestinian relations–everyone agrees that the current situation is intolerable but, depending on your own leanings and preferences, you’ll find vastly different causes and solutions.

I think it’s important to start by acknowledging, along with the lead editorial in this week’s New Republic, that “the primary responsibility for Palestinian actions falls on Palestinians.” Making excuses for those who chose to elect Hamas and bring it into the Palestinian government or for the armed factions competing for their own narrow ideologies and self-interests is absurd and despicable. However, taking a "you break it, you bought it approach" and washing hands of any responsibility for the current situation in Gaza by writing it off as "Hamas-stan" and trying to have dealings only with Abbas and the West Bank is, while tempting, not a realistic policy for either Israel or America. For one thing, having chaos on Israel’s doorstep is only going to lead to more violence against Israelis in range of Hamas’ and Islamic Jihad’s Qassams. But beyond that, failure in Gaza would represent yet another place where secular and more moderate Muslim voices are defeated by Islamist forces of fundamentalism and hatred. There are too many places in the world where these same forces hang in the balance–from Egypt to Lebanon to Pakistan to Indonesia to Iraq–to allow Gaza to become yet another victory for extremism and to have moderates demoralized by the world’s failure to act.

So like all Rorschach blots there is no right or easy answer, no facile analysis of the crisis in Gaza, be it pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. Instead of easy answers we will need difficult engagement, even if the current debacle is not a situation of our own choosing or making. Gaza differs from a Rorschach only in that Rorschach blots are black and white, and there is little that is black and white about how to respond to the current crisis. Tragically, the main color in Gaza for the foreseeable future appears to be red.

Commenting on the violence in Gaza, Jon Stewart quipped that those who hate Jews were overthrown by those who HATE Jews. So why should we care? The people in Sederot care, because they have suffered unrelenting rocket attacks since Israel left Gaza. The rest of us should also care because chaos anywhere threatens chaos everywhere.

Fouad Ajami’s Op-Ed in the New York Times last week blames the situation on Arafat for staying with the political myths of his people that they could have it all “from the river to the sea” rather than accept a decent and generous compromise offered by then Prime Minister Barak during the Clinton Administration. As someone once said, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

However, there is certainly enough blame to go around for what is happening.

Some blame goes to the Arab countries for funding families of suicide bombers and other “martyrs,” rather than adequately investing in businesses, schools and other institutions that would have created jobs and hope. Last time I was on the West Bank two years ago, a Palestinian cab driver explained to me as we drove through a refugee camp that all he wanted for his children was to have a better life than he had. Most parents would agree. Arab investment in the West Bank and Gaza would have given the Palestinians the economic opportunities and real quality of life improvements that would have made peace, rather than terror, attractive.

Some of the blame falls on former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Three years ago, I met an Israeli journalist who just came from a gun fight between Gazan factions. He predicted that unless an Israeli pullout was orchestrated to give Abbas the credit, Hamas would claim victory due to their violence, as did Hezbollah when Israel pulled out of Lebanon. That would lead to Hamas winning control of Gaza. Sharon could have used the pull out to bolster Abbas, even though Abbas seemed incapable of collecting weapons or stopping rocket attacks on Israeli cities.

Much more of the blame goes to President Bush for forcing elections in Gaza over the objections of PA and Israeli leaders. Abbas said he needed more time otherwise a Hamas victory was likely. Why the press is not slamming the Bush administration for again claiming “no one saw it coming” is beyond me.

However, most of the blame falls on the Palestinians themselves. They have gotten the leadership they deserved, for they--not President Bush--ultimately elected Hamas. They followed a corrupt and manipulative leader, Arafat, who, for years, was more concerned with maintaining his own power than leading his people to peace. He lined his pockets and suppressed the small group of intellectuals who sought to (ironically) bring an Israeli-style democracy to their fledgling nation. When Abbas failed to quickly deliver on his promises for transparency and reorganization (bread and roses), the people turned to Hamas, who, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, had spent years building its reputation for honesty through its social service programs (which were funded by donations from well meaning Americans as well as others).

So what do we do now? Thinking Gaza can be contained as a separate entity and not spill over into the West Bank is the kind of wishful thinking that got us into this mess there (and in Iraq).

As a rabbi, when all else fails, I turn to prayer. I pray God softens the hearts of our enemies and guides our political leaders to make wide decisions. I pray for the Palestinians caught in the crossfire who want a better life for their children. Is that a sign of my sense of helplessness in the face of such madness? I am not sure. I also believe God helps those who help themselves. Perhaps our politicians would do well to seek the advice of the journalists who have been covering the fractured West Bank and Gaza for years. if they had listened to them to begin with, we may not be in this mess.

Earth to British academics: Who are you and who cares what you have to say? My fellow blogger rabbis, Rabbi Waxman and Rabbi Grossman, along with Tom Friedman of the New York Times have already done a good job at pointing out the anti-Semitic undertones of this whole charade. Likewise, kudos should be given to Lee Bollinger of Columbia University who has lined up behind the Israeli Universities. As opposed to past incidents at Columbia where Bollinger was accused of being late in responding to Middle East issues, here he has put himself out in front of the issue and has made a very clear statement in support of academic freedom and Israel. Bollinger has gone so far as to exclaim:

"Therefore, if the British UCU is intent on pursuing its deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the universities you are seeking to punish. Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education."

To be honest, however, I am not getting all that worked up about the matter. No, not because I am in any way in favor of the boycott; it’s a disgrace on all British academics. But rather because in taking such a stance, they have only made themselves look foolish. The boycott only gives more food to fodder for those who mock and disdain intellectuals as irrelevant and unimportant. I love the academy and see it as an essential component of civilization and the betterment of society but when you hear pronouncements like this one you begin to understand why the influence of the academy has waned in the last 50 years.

The bottom line is that President George Bush has taken hit after hit by academics around America and yet he has won two elections. Next time you get a red and blue map see how many university areas voted for Bush--not many. The decline in influence excreted by academics is coupled with the disappearance of the responsible public intellectual who recognizes both the value and limitations of ideas in social and political contexts. The shrillness of certain academics has degraded the high moral ground the academy once held.

Thirty eight reporters are arrested in Iran. The most-watched independent television station in Venezuela is shut down. Palestinians kidnap two FOX journalists and a Palestinian radio journalist. Who does the British National Union of Journalists vote to boycott? Israel: the only Middle East nation with a free press. Ironic? Not any more so than British academics voting to boycott Israeli academics (including the leftists most critical of Israeli government policies) while remaining silent about the Sudan, Zimbabwe, and a host of other human rights offenders.

I agree wholeheartedly with Rabbi Waxman that the British boycotts are outrageously anti-Semitic, in that they single out Israel for approbation, out of all proportion to the criticism leveled (or not leveled) at much worse offenders, including the Palestinians themselves.

What can we do?

First we can support the ADL’s campaign to educate the public, which focuses on contextualizing the boycott to show how unfair it is.

Second, we can consider boycotting the boycotters. The United States can use its considerable clout to suspend contracts and grants to British academics and journalists who support this egregious act of bias.

Third, we have to take a long, hard look at how to stem the growing tendency on the Israeli left to delegitimize Israel as a Jewish State, as Adam LeBor does in his New York Times op ed, “New Lyrics for Hatikvah". LeBor’s guilt about inequities Israeli Arabs and other minorities face in Israel drives him, and an alarming number of Israelis like him, to think that the only just step is to de-Judaize the Jewish State. His position is dangerous on two counts: he is kidding himself if he thinks our enemies will be satisfied with a secular state in the Middle East where Jewish residents have equal rights. Just look at how Christians are being treated under Palestinian Muslim rule. Second, a Jewish State of Israel is needed now more than ever with world wide anti-Semitism on the rise. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The tragic history of the 19th and 20th centuries proves that abandoning Jewish particularist identity does not guarantee anything but political and physical vulnerability.

Israel must still do a better job at providing more equitable opportunities for its minorities. But it does not mean that the Jewish identity should be removed from the Jewish State of Israel. Even the name Israel is the name of the Jewish People. To think the two can be divorced is self-deception.

As a Jew in America, I know that Christmas and Easter are the legal holidays. The airwaves are filled with Christmas music and there is a national Christmas tree on the White House lawn. I may not like it, but it is part of what America is. Israel is a Jewish State in which there is a public Menorah and the flag has a Jewish star. Israel’s national anthem, Hatikvah, mentions the Jewish soul, just as our pledge of allegiance mentions God (which is offensive to those who are not monotheists or theists). Israel must treat its minorities as Jews would have liked to have been treated (but seldom were) in other countries. While Israel does a better job than most following the rule of law to protect minority rights, it can and must do better. Nevertheless, Israel should not, and need not, give up its Jewish identity to do so. What Israelis like LeBor need is a little exposure to Masorti Judaism, which hopefully can reconnect them to their Jewish souls so they can understand why there is a place (and a need) for a Jewish State in the world.

Two weeks ago, the British University and College Union (UCU), the union of university academics, passed an absurd and deeply offensive resolution calling on all union members to “consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links with Israeli academic institutions.” In plain English, the UCU is encouraging its members to agree to a boycott of Israeli academia–to cut ties with any Israel-based professors, conferences, journals, or institutions. This preposterous move presents itself in response to Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Now let me start by saying there are legitimate reasons one might have concerns about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians (although, frankly, a bigger concern might be Palestinians’ treatment of the Palestinians, given Hamas and Fatah’s nasty new habit of throwing each other’s members off of rooftops). Even for those who are concerned about Israeli policies, however, there are several reasons that a boycott should be seen as a ludicrous piece of theatrical grandstanding at best and a shocking display of anti-Semitism at worst. First, the whole core premise of academic freedom is appallingly disregarded when certain perspectives are systematically delegitimized in what Burt Siegel, executive director of the Philly Jewish Community Relations Council (full disclosure: and my congregant), calls “the worst kind of intellectual McCarthyism.” Add to this the fact that many Israeli academics who would be penalized under the proposed boycott are on the political left and share concerns about Israel’s policies in the territories. Rather than furthering the Palestinian cause, the boycott would only strengthen those on Israel’s right who see a systematic campaign to delegitimize Israel.

And they’re right. What makes this campaign so outrageous and dangerous is that it punishes Israel’s actions, which are relatively minor, even as it stays silent about flagrant human rights abuses and genocide in countries like China and Darfur. The UCU is completely silent when it comes to these countries and maintains relationships with human rights abusers around the world, including with Serbia during the height of the genocide. And what’s worse is that the UCU is not alone in this hypocritical effort to single out Israel. The Presbyterian Church recently voted to divest from Israel; the National Synod of the United Church of Christ has a similar resolution for Israeli divestment on the table for their coming meeting, while the question of divestment from Sudan isn’t even on the agenda. In other words, it’s clear that Israel is being singled out for isolation, even as organizations carry on business as usual with far worse offenders. The truth of the matter is that the UCU boycott will do nothing to help the Palestinian cause; it isn’t pro-Palestinian, it’s just anti-Israeli. The true aim of the UCU isn’t to change Israeli policy or help Palestinians. Its purpose is to delegtimize Israel and turn it into a pariah state. That is why it is so insidious and that is why it must be opposed.