Since taking a look at this video yesterday, I can’t stop thinking about it. Not only because it is hysterical (The Norwegians killed the Salmon), but because it is so sad. It comes from "Eretz Nehederet," an Israeli political satire program and has spread across the internet among those of us who care deeply about Israel.
As we struggle with making the case for Israel, too often our dialogue and approach resembles that of the kindergarteners in this video.
Fixated on our echo chamber (there it is again), we delude ourselves into thinking that a binary view of the world will suffice in communicating Israel’s message to anyone outside of the bubble. We struggle with the incredibly difficult position in which Israel finds itself and the seemingly endless pressure it deals with. Without “skin in the game”, we have been told for decades, our role is to support and defend. However, we are faced with an interesting dilemma.
On one hand, we experience many of those in the “Peter Beinart” generation who not only do not have “skin in the game” but aren’t connected at all – despite what the “studies” tell us. Despite the miracle of Taglit-Birthright, many of our institutions do not confront the dilemmas of supporting Israel in a complex world. And, certainly do not approach the question of when it is appropriate to question the decisions of one government or another.
I recall one Tisha B’av, at a rally to support victims of terror, I exhorted the crowd to pressure the Israeli government to act decisively on behalf of the people of Sderot region. (I admit that I asked the Israeli Consul, who was in attendance that day, if it would be ok. She graciously agreed). So there I was, in front of hundreds of people, activists and community leaders, urging the crowd to do something I had never asked before – to put pressure on the democratically elected government of Israel to take action on a matter of peace and security. After the speech a well-known community activist and gadfly in his own right approached me and said – “How about that from Ronkin! I toned down my remarks and you came out and finally said it!”
And, do we not have “skin in the game?” No, we don’t fight in the army or pay taxes (however, many Israelis don’t either – but that’s a topic for another time), but we put ourselves out there every day – organizationally and personally – on behalf of Israel, and by extension, the Jewish people. Increasingly, the Jewish people are being held accountable for Israel’s behavior. This is true in Seattle where a wonderful Jewish professional was murdered at the beginning of the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon and in numerous incidents across Europe. While I firmly believe that not all critique of Israel is anti-Semitism, I think that we are all susceptible when anti-Zionism leads to extremist rhetoric or worse.
So, where are we today?
Honestly, I am not sure.
Many of us, myself included, have strong opinions about which policy alternative makes most sense. Some of us speak out. Some of us speak privately to those whom we think we can influence. And others keep their mouths shut.
So, what’s a committed Zionist (or Zionist organization) to do? How do we stay relevant and create a space for the discussion. And, more importantly, how do we make a real difference, because ultimately, talk is cheap if it has no impact.
Let’s discuss!
Showing posts with label Jewish. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jewish. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Monday, October 26, 2009
Civility for the Uncivil
I’ve just returned from my quarterly meetings in New York where we had some quality discussions on issues of the day. Because there was so much going on, I had to make some choices about what meetings I would attend, but there were a number of combined sessions that brought the whole group (about 75 in all) together.
While the agenda covered the “usual suspects” – Israel, Iran, Church-State issues, Social and Economic Justice and the like, these meetings kicked off a new initiative on “civility” in the public discourse. While tangentially linked to the raucous and often disrespectful summer of “town meetings”, this initiative responds to the deterioration of the Jewish community’s ability to sit in the room and talk amongst ourselves when we disagree. The heat is mostly seen on the Israel agenda. Not that there aren’t deep disagreements about domestic social issues, but those conflicts are handled very differently. (I will defer discussing those).
On the Israel agenda, especially after 9-11 and the end of the Bush presidency the debate has polarized our community like never before. I experience this on a regular basis in Boston where the left has no problem categorizing the right as fascists and the right returns the favor by referring to the left as traitors. (Forgive me for oversimplifying)
Now, one of the speakers at the meetings described this conflict as being so heated because both sides believe that their survival is at stake. For the “pro-Israel” left, the soul of the Jewish people can no longer withstand the guilt of the oppression of the Palestinian people. For the “pro-Israel” right, knuckling under to terrorists spells the end of the Zionist enterprise and threatens the Jewish people with being thrust back to 1938 and the hands of modern anti-Semites, primarily of the radical Islamic persuasion.
By the way, there is merit to the arguments on both sides and therein lies the rub.
Our community pattern is pretty straightforward. The left looks at the right, turns its collective nose up and either expresses condescension or walks away from the mainstream with its tail between its legs, complaining that they have been silenced or marginalized. The right screams invective, sometimes goes on personal attacks and walks away from the mainstream cursing those who don’t agree with them or, at best, pitying the “useful idiots.”
And so it goes.
What troubles me is that this initiative on civility is being organized by the most “civil” organization in the Jewish Community. For more than 60 years, JCPA (once NJCRAC, once NCRAC) has developed and implement policy positions and a unified action agenda for the broadest spectrum of the organized Jewish community. Sometimes, they are able to achieve that by taking principled stands that not everyone agrees with but doesn’t object to enough to do anything more than “dissent” (abortion rights) and other times by not taking action when the community would be torn apart (like on ‘settlements’).
So the question that I am left with is “Why would the uncivil come to the table?” As a dear friend and colleague said at the meeting, the “public square” is virtual. One need not ever see those with whom they disagree. Snarky, vicious comments posted on websites have replaced face to face confrontation and the uncomfortable need to put a face with the ideas that one so abhors.
So if the “table” is a place where idiots sit or bullies marginalize people, why would they bother?
The speakers at the meeting offered some potential incentives, but nothing rang true to me. One young rabbi quoted Jewish texts. This is a non-starter since anyone who takes Jewish texts on civility and “derech eretz” seriously is not behaving badly. Those who do will not be swayed when the very existence of the Jewish people is at stake. And, of course, there is a text to support that (Et Laasot LaShem hafeiru Toratecha). At the time when you must take action on behalf of God, you can violate the Torah. So much for that.
I think that we can only reestablish civility when it is in everyone’s enlightened self-interest to be civil. Unfortunately, the uncivil seem to get their voices heard. (Insert cliché here about the squeaky wheel or uppity women).
It would be easy to end this with an admonishment that we must redouble our efforts to build the relationships, meet people where they are and invite them to the table to participate. That was once an option. Nowadays, that leads to nasty letters, threats to funding and out of context reporting to those with power about the (fill in the blank) process that either silenced me or threatens to destroy all of us.
Oh well, (insert cliché Jewish text here forbidding giving up or that we are not free from starting a task although we may never finish – or something like that).
Thoughts?
Until next time…
While the agenda covered the “usual suspects” – Israel, Iran, Church-State issues, Social and Economic Justice and the like, these meetings kicked off a new initiative on “civility” in the public discourse. While tangentially linked to the raucous and often disrespectful summer of “town meetings”, this initiative responds to the deterioration of the Jewish community’s ability to sit in the room and talk amongst ourselves when we disagree. The heat is mostly seen on the Israel agenda. Not that there aren’t deep disagreements about domestic social issues, but those conflicts are handled very differently. (I will defer discussing those).
On the Israel agenda, especially after 9-11 and the end of the Bush presidency the debate has polarized our community like never before. I experience this on a regular basis in Boston where the left has no problem categorizing the right as fascists and the right returns the favor by referring to the left as traitors. (Forgive me for oversimplifying)
Now, one of the speakers at the meetings described this conflict as being so heated because both sides believe that their survival is at stake. For the “pro-Israel” left, the soul of the Jewish people can no longer withstand the guilt of the oppression of the Palestinian people. For the “pro-Israel” right, knuckling under to terrorists spells the end of the Zionist enterprise and threatens the Jewish people with being thrust back to 1938 and the hands of modern anti-Semites, primarily of the radical Islamic persuasion.
By the way, there is merit to the arguments on both sides and therein lies the rub.
Our community pattern is pretty straightforward. The left looks at the right, turns its collective nose up and either expresses condescension or walks away from the mainstream with its tail between its legs, complaining that they have been silenced or marginalized. The right screams invective, sometimes goes on personal attacks and walks away from the mainstream cursing those who don’t agree with them or, at best, pitying the “useful idiots.”
And so it goes.
What troubles me is that this initiative on civility is being organized by the most “civil” organization in the Jewish Community. For more than 60 years, JCPA (once NJCRAC, once NCRAC) has developed and implement policy positions and a unified action agenda for the broadest spectrum of the organized Jewish community. Sometimes, they are able to achieve that by taking principled stands that not everyone agrees with but doesn’t object to enough to do anything more than “dissent” (abortion rights) and other times by not taking action when the community would be torn apart (like on ‘settlements’).
So the question that I am left with is “Why would the uncivil come to the table?” As a dear friend and colleague said at the meeting, the “public square” is virtual. One need not ever see those with whom they disagree. Snarky, vicious comments posted on websites have replaced face to face confrontation and the uncomfortable need to put a face with the ideas that one so abhors.
So if the “table” is a place where idiots sit or bullies marginalize people, why would they bother?
The speakers at the meeting offered some potential incentives, but nothing rang true to me. One young rabbi quoted Jewish texts. This is a non-starter since anyone who takes Jewish texts on civility and “derech eretz” seriously is not behaving badly. Those who do will not be swayed when the very existence of the Jewish people is at stake. And, of course, there is a text to support that (Et Laasot LaShem hafeiru Toratecha). At the time when you must take action on behalf of God, you can violate the Torah. So much for that.
I think that we can only reestablish civility when it is in everyone’s enlightened self-interest to be civil. Unfortunately, the uncivil seem to get their voices heard. (Insert cliché here about the squeaky wheel or uppity women).
It would be easy to end this with an admonishment that we must redouble our efforts to build the relationships, meet people where they are and invite them to the table to participate. That was once an option. Nowadays, that leads to nasty letters, threats to funding and out of context reporting to those with power about the (fill in the blank) process that either silenced me or threatens to destroy all of us.
Oh well, (insert cliché Jewish text here forbidding giving up or that we are not free from starting a task although we may never finish – or something like that).
Thoughts?
Until next time…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)