I RESENT THAT!

QUOTE:
"The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.

An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled " ‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism," says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, "Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State." Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, "whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted."

This is from a New York Times article (here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin) about an essay on the website of the American Jewish Committee(http://www.ajc.org/site/c.ijITI2PHKoG/b.685761/k.CB97/Home.htm).


As a liberal, I feel that the best rebuttal is to stress precisely how deep the antipathy towards Israel is among certain segments of the traditional community (can you say Satmar and Neturei Karta?), and how dubious the blessing of support is from other segments (Meshechists and assorted mumbo-jumbo fruitcakes).


In a large part, the "debate" mirrors that of Gentile society. Support for Israel is still broadly based in the US (and though it may not often be apparent, also in Western Europe), and a distaste for styles of Arab rhetoric (read: explosions and bullets) serves admirably to keep many in permanent doubt about the motives of the Palestinians as well as their ability to actually form a viable nation.


If the question is whether one may criticise Israel, the answer is that one certainly may. But those who engage in that criticism must certainly be questioned - who are they to criticise Israel, and what is their agenda in so doing?
[I will accept frank discussion of Israel's flaws in camera, but will give not an inch b'farhesia.]


The reason for that is that unless Israel's right to exist and her right to a determinative voice in the future of the settlements is accepted in toto in the first place, a discussion of Israel's flaws or problems is a waste of time that strengthens the enemy by bolstering their point of view and their rhetoric.


A major part of accepting Israel's right to exist, naturally, is accepting that Jerusalem is and must remain Israeli - Israel without Jerusalem (all of Jerusalem) would be pointless (and the refusal to move embassies to Jerusalem, part of which was Israeli from the get-go, is a meanspirited political stance the only purpose of which is to snub).


That, I think, is the crux of alleged liberal animus towards Israel. Accepting the national aspirations of the Palestinians should not cast doubt upon Israel's right to exist, the status of Jewish majority areas in the entire area, or the fundamental Jewishness of Jerusalem.
There davka is the line, and many on the extremes of both left and right have crossed it.


Further, if one criticizes Israel, it must be done in context - and the context is far broader and much more complex than just those poor bleeding Palestinians.
[As a side note, I feel that European commentary on those issues is proster chutzpah - far better they should shut up, they've said and done enough already.]




---B.O.T.H.