I recently returned from the Jstreet conference in Washington DC which I attended in order to learn more about Jstreet and its members, and hear from some of the world’s leading Middle East analysts, members of the American administration, Israeli politicians and activists. The conference, attended by over 2000 people was a testament to Jstreet’s success in the USA. Having launched in April 2008 with a staff of three, it now has a staff of fifty, with a budget of US$7million. It boasts over 175,000 members.
Applauding the success of Jstreet, attending their conference and listening to the multitude of ideas and opinions expressed, does not mean blanket support for every opinion voiced by the organisation, or those that spoke on platforms at the conference. However, some of the subsequent press around the conference would suggest that merely walking into the building at which the conference was held, signals a morally bankrupt position on Israel, and one that I, or the 2000 individuals that attended the conference, hold simply to feel comfortable in our skins with our fellow travellers – the delegitimsers of Israel.
I believe these criticisms, levelled by individuals who were not at the conference, and have spent little or no time speaking to the individuals involved in Jstreet, or the 175, 000 American Jews donating $7 million, signals a lazy intellectualism. Rather than tackling some of the biggest challenges facing Israel and the Jewish people as the conference sought to do, the entirety of the conference and the organisation itself, is dismissed on the premise that even giving a platform for views we may disagree with to be debated, somehow makes it ‘treife’ (including, presumably, the six MKs that journeyed from Israel to participate).
This perspective conveniently avoids engaging with the very real questions and challenges we face as the Jewish people: How do we prevent Israel from ending up as a de facto one-state, signalling the end of either the Jewish state or Israel as democratic state? In light of the democratic tides sweeping the Middle East, how can Israel ensure it remains on the right side of history, or as journalist Mona Eltahawy so eloquently put it at the conference, ensure Israel is not, like its neighbours, 10 days too late? And in September, when the United Nations votes on whether to unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state, how can we best respond as Israel’s friends and advocates?
These are indeed painful and uncomfortable questions to deal with. Certainly there were opinions aired at the conference with which I did not agree. But to refuse to engage in a debate with those whose opinions I do not agree with, not only runs contrary to the two thousand year old Jewish heritage of which I am part, it also does a great disservice to Israel. Acknowledging the existence of these challenges does not mean we ignore the legitimate concerns Israel has regarding its security, or the role that its neighbours must play in guaranteeing its safety. Those at the conference, and I would argue, those that align themselves in the pro-Israel, pro-peace camp at large, are not seeking to feel comfortable in the context of delegitimisation of Israel – in fact quite the opposite. They choose to occupy the much more complex and less straight-forward position which says we must find a way of marrying a language of Jewish self determination, safety and security, with universal values. Reaffirming your commitment to Israel in public, aligning yourself with an organisation that is ‘pro-Israel’ is hardly the behaviour of an ashamed Jew or supporter of Israel.
A few weeks ago I travelled to Malawi to visit a project I am closely involved with. Malawi ranks between the fourth and fourteenth poorest country in the world dependent on which index you look at – the under 5 mortality rate stands at 175 out of every 1000 live births and 40% of the population live below the poverty line. And yet, despite these very real challenges, the UK government which remains Malawi’s largest aid donor, still impresses upon the Malawian government, that UK aid is contingent on the Malawian government upholding democracy, which has of late, been under threat by the actions of the current president and government of the day. No country, whatever the circumstances in which it finds itself, is devoid of responsibility for dealing with its own shortcomings. One cannot simply deflect the challenges that Israel faces by levelling the accusation at those that try to tackle them that they are giving succour to Israel’s enemies, or, in a self-interested manner, seeking to ‘look good’ amongst their anti Israel friends.
I maintain the position that as supporters of Israel it is possible to defend Israel against unfair criticism or when Israel is held up to double standards, whilst at the same time tackling some the of the major challenges outlined above. The pro-Israel camp needs a new lens through which to view this debate. Applying old and out-dated notions of what support for Israel looks like can only result in the mud slinging that has been sent in the direction of Jstreet since their conference. I think this new framework must include the following guidelines:
One: we must unashamedly acknowledge that whatever unfolds in Israel has a direct impact on global Jewry. Pretending that what happens in Israel has no impact on the Diaspora and vice-versa is not a tenable position. We must be confident in our right to have an opinion.
Two: those whose opinions we do not agree with should not be dismissed as giving succour to our enemies, or selfishly articulating positions simply to allow them to feel more comfortable at a dinner party. Our enemies have all the succour they want and anyone who is willing to stand on a public platform that unashamedly calls itself pro-Israel is hardly an embarrassed supporter if Israel. In fact it seems that those who would rather conduct the debate privately are the ones that are embarrassed. The pro-Israel, pro-peace camp is publicly declaring its love for Israel – warts and all.
Three: We must acknowledge, as painful as we find it, that we cannot dismiss all criticism of Israel as part of a worldwide attempt delegitimize Israel. No country, despite the very real challenges it may face (and as my recent trip to Malawi highlighted so clearly to me), is immune to international pressure or demands for safeguarding human rights and democracy. Even if we believe there are times that Israel’s shortcomings are highlighted more than those of her neighbours, this should not be an excuse to not engage.
Four: If we are to create a new generation of Jews who feel a great sense of attachment and responsibility towards Israel, we must understand that we cannot expect this generation to be content with a democracy that has a bit ‘shaved off the side’ to fit our current vision of a Jewish state. We need, with our partners in Israel, to create a vision for what a truly democratic Jewish state would look like.
Five: We must create better advocates for Israel. These advocates will not look and feel like what we are used to. They will not stand up and explain or defend every action of the Israeli government if they do not believe them to be in the best interests of the Jewish people. They will be articulate, passionate and well informed. They will be able to distinguish between unfair criticism and deep concern for human rights and democratic freedom. They will be happy to defend Israel in pubic and they will also articulate a vision for Israel that may at times be at odds with the current government of the day.
