Criticism and Civil Conversation Learning from the Other, Living with Ambivalence { A Symposium { ow many of us are of two minds when it comes to Israeli Hpolicy? How often do we experience a shift in our own views and language, depending on whom we are talking to? Many readers will surely identify with Deborah Lipstadt, the distinguished historian of the Holocaust and fearless foe of its deniers, who writes in our Symposium: 4 | Winter 2012 Criticism and Civil Conversation /// A Symposium “If I am at a gathering where critics are from even when one’s assessment of the matsav – the left and they are unwilling to concede any the situation in Israel and its place among the wrongdoing on the Palestinians’ side, I end up nations – is less than fully optimistic, it is sounding like I am to the right of Menachem essential to maintain hope and the motivation Begin. Conversely, when I am invited to a home to make things better. which believes ‘Israel is simply the victim here Fitzgerald, as readers of “The Great "The Right will not and has done nothing wrong,’ I end up sounding Gatsby” are well aware, was not exactly an silence me – Peace like a character who is left of Peace Now or its advocate for the Jewish People. Yet his well- Now." International contemporary incarnation.” turned comments on intelligence, hope and Human Rights March, Tel Aviv, 2011. Photo by Lipstadt is in excellent company. It was F. determination are wholly in the spirit of our Oren Rozen. Scott Fitzgerald who wrote in 1936: "The test Engaging Israel project. As it is written in Pirke of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold Avot (4:1): “Who is wise? One who learns from two opposed ideas in the mind at the same every man.” time, and still retain the ability to function. The range of views represented in this One should, for example, be able to see that Symposium testifies to the possibility – and things are hopeless and yet be determined to necessity – of civil conversation on the thorniest make them otherwise.” aspects of Israeli and Jewish life. Havruta’s One may extend Fitzgerald’s observations to editors posed questions to our contributors, apply to the collective as well as the individual. who supplied their frank opinions in either A healthy Jewish community, to sustain its oral or written form. The results, we hope, will capacity to function, needs to accommodate lead readers to further discussion – and fertile the radically diverging opinions and emotions engagement with Israel. that Israel inevitably arouses. At the same time, HAVRUTA | 5 Steven Bayme Judicious Dissent Steven Bayme serves The Book of Numbers (11:26-29, 12:1-16) and future. Some dissent emanates from those as Director of the juxtaposes two strange incidents. In the first, who are most passionate in their concern for William Petschek two elders, Eldad and Medad, prophesy in the and engagement with Israel. Their dissent gives Contemporary Jewish Israelite camp without authority to do so. This voice only to how deeply they care about the Life Department of act provokes the ire of Joshua, who urges Moses future of Israel and the Jewish people. Dissent of the American Jewish to restrain them. Yet Moses rebukes Joshua, this nature, what the Mishnah deems a “dispute Committee and of the Koppelman Institute saying he wishes all of Israel could share in for the sake of heaven” (Pirke Avot 5:17), signals on American Jewish- the gift of divine prophecy. In the second shared commitment to the collective Jewish Israeli Relations. incident, Miriam and Aaron also speak out endeavor accompanied by disagreement as to He holds a PhD in against Moses and his leadership: "Has the Lord how best to realize common goals. Jewish history from indeed spoken only with Moses? Has He not Unfortunately, however, there is also dissent Columbia University, spoken also with us?" In this case, Miriam is which spills over into delegitimization of Israel and is a Visiting afflicted with leprosy, and compelled to leave as a Jewish state. Whether it is the late Tony Associate Professor of the campsite for seven days. Judt’s call for bi-nationalism, Stephen Walt History at the Jewish Let us first note that both narratives point and John Mearsheimer’s assault on American Theological Seminary. to how deeply dissent is rooted in Judaic Jewish pro-Israel activism, or President Jimmy He is the author heritage and tradition. The prophets, as the Carter’s admonitions about apartheid, this of Understanding German sociologist Max Weber put it, were dissent undermines Israel’s standing and Jewish History: Text and Commentaries, “political pamphleteers” who openly challenged legitimacy, and, by extension, her right to co-author of American state policy. In turn they often suffered the exist. Judt’s one-state solution, by his own Jewry’s Comfort wrath of both public opinion and governmental admission, “would not be easy . [and] is Level, and co-editor officialdom. an unpromising mix of realism and utopia.” of Continuity and Democratic societies protect the right to More importantly, given the bitter tensions, Change: A Festschrift dissent in order to ensure minority expression on the ground, between Arabs and Jews, Judt’s in Honor of Yitz and to serve as a check upon governmental binationalism likely would place at risk the lives Greenberg. excesses. To be effective, however, the right of of millions of Israelis while putting an end to dissent must be exercised judiciously, so that the Zionist enterprise. Walt and Mearsheimer the dissent may be heard rather than dismissed charge that American Jewry has hijacked as the rantings of disgruntled voices or the American foreign policy to serve Israel’s naïveté of well-meaning but inexperienced ends even as they concede that democracies idealists. at their finest provide considerable leeway for In this context, acknowledging the need the exercise of collective minority politics. for dissent and the caveat that it be exercised Moreover, they ignore the fact that 97% of wisely, guidelines for dissent within the Jewish pro-Israel support in this country comes not community are necessary. First, considerable from the Jewish community but from gentile distance exists between dissent emanating society, and that a tiny minority such as the from passionate and pro-Zionist voices and Jews can realize its agenda only to the extent dissent from those indifferent to Israel’s fate that its perspective is deemed compelling and 6 | Winter 2012 Criticism and Civil Conversation /// A Symposium persuasive by the majority society. Carter’s use expected as part of a vibrant democracy. Dissent of the term “apartheid”, even if meant only as in the U.S., by contrast, undermines the core a warning, blurs the sharp lines distinguishing message of American Jews that the Jewish Israel from pre-Mandela South Africa. At a time community advocates continued Washington when Israel’s legitimacy is under international support for Israel. For decades, American Jewry assault, these dissenters do Israel no favors by has labored to minimize the distance between Aaron and Miriam invoking discredited and false images of Israel Washington and Jerusalem and maintain criticizing Moses. and its American Jewish allies. the special relationship between those two Reproduction from The Second, differences abound between governments. In this context, publicly expressed Bible and Its Story Taught by One Thousand Picture dissent expressed within Israel and dissent criticism of Israeli policy may weaken Jewish Lessons, 1908. in the Diaspora. The obvious difference – lost political influence and attenuate the strategic upon such critics as Tony Judt who worry that triangle of the U.S., Israel, and American Jewry, Israel has become "bad for the Jews" – is that which has been so critical to Israel’s security Israeli lives are on the line and Israel faces real and survival. existential threats, unlike American Jewry. The Third, we must distinguish between less obvious and more profound difference is that individual dissent and institutional or communal American Jewish views, publicly expressed in dissent. That individuals will disagree and Washington, impact upon U.S.-Israel relations. express themselves on one or another aspect Dissent within Israel, as noted above, serves as of Israeli policy is both natural and healthy. a check upon governmental policy and is to be Leaders of Jewish institutions, however, are HAVRUTA | 7 confronted with a somewhat different question costs.” The venues for dissent and the arenas – not how one feels about a particular policy, where dissent can be most useful need to be but what is the wisest thing to do given the identified carefully. Most importantly, all must complexity of relations between Washington consider the implications and consequences of and Jerusalem. When publicly expressed dissent their language and expressions in a world of from American Jews carries with it implications global communications in which Israel has so for the future of Washington’s Middle East few friends. Or, in the words of the rabbinic policy – for example, ads signed by prominent sages, “scholars, be careful with your words.” American Jews calling upon the U.S. to suspend aid for Israel unless Israel halts her settlement How dissent is expressed policy – the risks and the price to be paid by such expressions are enormous. Conversely, however, and the intentions of the when the dissent concerns issues internal to the dissenters may make all Jewish people and has few if any implications for U.S.-Israeli relations, dissent by American the difference in whether Jewish leaders may be quite constructive, as particular dissent will be evidenced, for example, in the “who is a Jew” debate that recurs on a fairly regular basis.