An American Jewish dilemma: Supporting Israel

Why do progressive Jewish-American leaders oppose Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria? Have they turned their backs on Israel? Plans to extend Israeli sovereignty to areas in which Jews have built communities (“settlements”) in Judea and Samaria (“the West Bank,” as it was called during the Jordanian occupation from 1949 to 1967) have energized progressive organizations, such as the Israel Policy Forum, the New Israel Fund, J Street and others. Not content with voicing their opinion, they have appealed to US senators and congressmen and community leaders to join their opposition. Dissent is certainly legitimate and is robust, as expressed in the media every day. But criticism of Israel by non-elected, self-appointed leaders of American Jewish organizations over the Nation-State Law and plans to extend sovereignty are distorted and misinformed. What purpose, therefore, does such blatant criticism serve? As organizational and communal leaders, they have an obligation to express a responsible, reasoned position that recognizes an expression of Israeli democracy. The issue of sovereignty – what belongs to Israel and the Jewish people – and the Nation-State Law have also revealed the ugly reality that hundreds of thousands of Arab-Israelis, citizens of Israel and their representatives in Knesset, denounce the state, supported by many left-wing Israelis and NGOs and much of the media. Although not a new phenomenon, opposing Israeli sovereignty and the Nation-State Law gives added support to those who seek the demise of the state itself. This coalition of anti-Israel critics was evident when they protested moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and their opposition to Jews living in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem – “the settlements.” They have legitimized organizations that boycott Israel and directly contribute to the increasing alienation of many – especially some Jews – to Israel and Zionism. Anti-Trump and anti-Israel campaigns in the US are similar to the anti-Netanyahu and anti-settlement movements in Israel. Both seek to delegitimize and depose duly elected heads-of-state, aided by elements of the judicial system and the left-dominated media. This power struggle has polarized the populations of these countries and encouraged anti-democratic, and in some cases antisemitic groups that seek to undermine Israel's national ethos. It is difficult to assess – let alone comprehend – the destructive impact of these campaigns on their societies. In the US, the Democratic Party has remained silent about the problem, thus encouraging its excesses. In Israel, opposition parties and leftist NGOs have joined protest rallies and demonstrations in common cause with Arab Palestinians under the PLO flag against the government. Left-wing parties, including Meretz and Labor officially endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state. Since Palestinian leaders have rejected such proposals, however, the question is, what purpose does it serve? As a version of the “two-state-solution,” it has no practical meaning. It ignores the basic Arab and Palestinian ethos of “the Nakba,” the catastrophe of the founding of the State of Israel and the consequences of the Arab “war of annihilation” which followed. The proposal has no realistic solution to the problem of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, or millions of so-called “Palestinian refugees” living in UNRWA-supported towns in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. No Israeli government would take the proposal seriously. The proposal, however, has a pernicious effect: it promotes the fantasy that Arabs are interested in ending the conflict and faults Israel for not taking “risks for peace” and allowing for a Palestinian state – however dangerous that may be. In other words, it contributes to a guilt trip – the same kind of motivation that led to the Oslo Accords and the Disengagement from the Gaza Strip. For American Jews faced with growing hostility to Israel, especially on campuses, such proposals offer a reasonable response to accusations that “Israel isn't doing enough to promote peace.” At a deeper level, however, such proposals legitimate the Arab and Palestinian narrative – backed by the international community – that 'Israel is “occupying Palestinian territory,” and “oppressing the Palestinian people.” And, for some, it's a way out of the uncomfortable position of supporting a “Jewish state.” Ironically, in this mindset the only ones who hold the keys to this dilemma, who can legitimate Israel's existence, are Arab Palestinians. To give up that prize means to renounce the century-old war against Zionism and the Jewish state, to dishonor those who struggled and died for that cause, and to undermine the struggle of those who will carry on that fight. The writer is a PhD historian living in Jerusalem.

An American Jewish dilemma: Supporting Israel

Why do progressive Jewish-American leaders oppose Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria? Have they turned their backs on Israel?

Man detained at Trondheim synagogue in Norway

They globalized the intifada; Michigan Jews paid the price

An American Jewish dilemma: Supporting Israel

Why do progressive Jewish-American leaders oppose Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria? Have they turned their backs on Israel?

See more on