[Note: On May 3rd, Daniel Gordis addressed the “J-Street Leadership Mission to Israel and Palestine.” The following column is based on his remarks that day.]
Good morning and welcome to Jerusalem. It’s a pleasure to meet with this Leadership Mission; I understand that there are some first time visitors to Israel among you, so a particular welcome to those of you who’ve never been here before.
Before we got seated, one member of your group conveyed a message from the Israeli Consul General in his home community. The message was that I shouldn’t speak to you. As you can imagine, I received similar advice from a wide array of people after I received your invitation; but I’ve chosen to ignore it. As most of you know, I disagree strongly with much of what you do. But I think that we have an obligation to meet with people with whom we disagree. Given the extent of the forces aligned against Israel, seeking to delegitimize the very idea of a Jewish State, the pro-Israel camp needs a big tent. Neither Israel nor the Jewish People will survive if we work only with those with whom we agree. A big tent, by definition, means including people whom we disagree passionately, but who still share our basic goals.
Even a big tent, though, has its limits. There are things that one can say, or do, that place a person or an organization outside that tent. You know very well that there are many people who believe that J-Street is outside the tent, not in it. I’m not yet certain. That’s why I’m here.
Let me begin with a basic assumption: I assume that we want the same thing. We seek two states in this region, one a thriving, Jewish, democratic Israel, and the other a thriving, non-Jewish, democratic Palestine. Of course, there are Israelis on both ends of the political spectrum who do not wish this. Some Israelis no longer believe in the importance of a Jewish State and would prefer a State “of all its citizens” between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. But as that would make Jews a minority in this country and thus end the Zionist project, I’m utterly opposed to that. There are also Israelis who still resist the idea of a Palestinian State and who would prefer to either exile millions of Palestinians or forever keep them under our thumb as non-citizens, either of which is morally obtuse. But the vast majority of Israelis, if presented with a genuine opportunity to live side by side a democratic, transparent, peaceful, de-militarized Palestine, would accept it.
So, assuming that that’s what you also seek, I assume that our disagreement is about how to get there. You believe that people who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now are not serious about a two-state solution. You think that those of us who claim that we favor a two-state solution but who are not willing to give up the store at this moment are bluffing. Or we’re liars. Or, at best, we’re well-intentioned but misguided. But bottom line, if we’re not willing now to make the concessions that you think are called for, then we’re not really pursuing peace.
But that is arrogance of the worst sort. Does your distance from the conflict give you some moral clarity that we don’t have? Are you smarter than we are? Are you less racist? Why do you assume with such certainty that you have a monopoly on the wisdom needed to get to the goal we both seek?
In preparing for this morning’s session, I did a bit of reading of statements that you’ve issued on a whole array issues. One, just released, is a perfect example of the certainty and arrogance of which I’m speaking. Reacting to the most recent Fatah-Hamas agreement, this is what J-Street had to say:
“In fact, many who oppose a two-state deal have, in recent years, done so by arguing that divisions among the Palestinians make peace impossible. Obviously, reconciliation [between Fatah and Hamas] reduces that obstacle – but now skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.”
“Obviously,” you say, “reconciliation reduces the obstacle [to a peace treaty].” But I would caution you against ever using the word “obviously” when it comes to the Middle East. Nothing here is obvious. If you think that something is obvious, then you simply haven’t thought enough. Why is it obvious that Fatah’s signing a deal with Hamas, which rejects Israel’s very right to exist, reduces obstacles to peace? Isn’t it just as plausible that it makes peace impossible, or that signing a deal and returning large swathes of land to a group still sworn on our destruction would be suicidal? I suppose that reasonable minds could debate this matter, but how is it “obvious” that this is good news for peace?
And then you go on to say that “skeptics of a two-state agreement have immediately stepped forward to say that a deal is impossible with a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.” There you go again, telling us that if we don’t agree with you, then we’re not serious or honest. If we think that the Fatah-Hamas deal is terrible news for peace, then we’re just “skeptics of a two-state agreement.” In your worldview, there’s no possibility that we’re just a bit more nervous than you are, that we do not want to make a mistake that will turn our own homes into Sederot, that we are frightened of restoring the horror of 2000-2004 to our streets, buses and restaurants. No, that possibility doesn’t exist, because anyone who doesn’t agree with you is by definition a “skeptic of the two-state agreement.” I’d suggest that if you want to convince those of us still deciding whether you’re part of the big tent that you are “in,” that you drop this sort of condescension. It’s arrogant and intellectually shallow; it doesn’t serve you well.
And if you want those of us who are still unsure to become convinced that you are part of the Big Tent, then I have another piece of advice for you – recognize that not everyone can be part of the tent. There are groups who are clearly opposed to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state; they are our enemies. It doesn’t matter if they are in Israel or outside, or if they are Jewish or not. If they are working to end Israel, or to end it as a Jewish and democratic state, then they are our enemies, plain and simple. There are enemies who cannot be loved or compromised into submission, and you need to recognize that. The BDS [Boycott, Divest and Sanction] movement is a case in point. No one in their right mind doubts that BDS is opposed to Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish State. So why were they invited to your annual conference? There need to be limits to those whom you’d welcome into your tent. You need to show us that you care about Israel more than you care about dialogue with Israel’s enemies.
I still remember the first time I was struck by this tendency of yours to assail Israel when you’d been silent about what Israel’s enemies were doing. It was the first day of the Gaza War at the end of 2008. Sederot had been shelled intermittently for eight years, and relentlessly in the days prior to the beginning of the war. It was obvious that this couldn’t go on, for the first obligation of states to their citizens is to protect them. For years, Israel had been failing the citizens of Sederot. But when Israel finally decided to do what any legitimate state would do, J-Street immediately called for a cessation of hostilities. The war was only hours old, nothing had been accomplished and the citizens of Sederot were still no safer than they had been. But J-Street had had enough. Why? Why had you said almost nothing for all the years that Sederot was being shelled, but within hours of the war’s beginning were calling for it to end? What matters more to you – the safety of Israel’s citizens, or advancing your own moral agenda in our region of the world?
If you want us to be convinced that you’re in the Big Tent, show us. Show us that there are times that you will stand up for Israel, not her enemies. Explain why you lobbied Congress against a resolution condemning incitement in Palestinian schools. Explain why, when Israel is marginalized as never before (a recent poll showed that Europeans rank Israel and North Korea as the greatest threats to world peace!), you pressured the US not to veto a UN resolution on settlements, which the mainstream of American Jewry all thought need to be vetoed.
And ask yourselves this: if you were to take all the money you’re spending in the United States and do your work here in Israel, trying to strengthen the political parties who are more inclined to do what you seek, how much traction would you get? We all know that you would get a pretty chilly reception. Ask yourself why that is. Is it that we Israelis really don’t want to end this conflict? We enjoy sending our children off to war? We look forward to the next funeral at Mount Herzl? We’re not aware that time is not on our side?
Or is it that we live here, and that even rank and file Israelis know a bit more about the complexity of this conflict than you give us credit for? Why would you assume that we’re stupid, or immoral, or addicted to the conflict? Why do you insist that the Fatah-Hamas agreement is a good thing, or that it’s best for Israel if the United States twists its arm even harder? At a time when Israel is so alone, can you see why it’s hard for many of us to buy the argument that you’re genuinely pro-Israel, or that you should be part of the Big Tent?
It’s time for you to show us. Show us that you seek peace, that you care about the Palestinians, but that even more (yes, more, because that’s what the particularism of peoplehood requires), that you care about us. It’s one thing to put “pro-Israel” in your tag line, and another to be “pro-Israel.” You certainly don’t need to be a rubber stamp for Israeli policy – that’s not what’s at issue. Israel desperately needs critique, and Israelis issue it all the time. So, too, should Diaspora Jews.
No, what’s at issue is for us to see you pressure someone, anytime, to be in Israel’s camp on something. That’s what we want to see. When we see that, more of us will believe that you’re part of our tent, and then, even with all our disagreements, we’ll be convinced that we could work together for a better future for all the peoples of this region.
Postscript: in the Q&A session that followed, J-Street Founder Jeremy Ben Ami asked the first question. He said that he found it “astounding” that I had given an entire presentation “without mentioning the occupation of another people.” But interestingly, in the May 12th issue of Globes, Vered Kellner, who traveled with the group and went with them from my session to their meeting with Salaam Fayyad, noted that Fayyad didn’t mention the occupation either. “Is it possible that the occupation conversation simply doesn’t interest anyone anymore?” she asked.
“True,” Ben Ami answered, “neither Gordis nor Fayyad raised the occupation, but we’re here to remind Israelis that you can’t pretend that the occupation isn’t part of reality.”
So here’s my final suggestion – if the way that you’re framing the issues is no longer the way that Israelis and Palestinians are discussing them, is it possible that you are not even addressing the core issues that matter to the people actually in the conflict? Perhaps the time has come to ask yourselves what matters to you more: actually moving the policy needle, or assuaging your own discomfort with the undeniably painful complexities of this conflict. If what you want to do is to affect policy, how effective would you say you’ve been thus far?
Email
Print
Tags:
Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center, where he is also a senior fellow. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel...
The Jewish State must end, say its enemies, from intellectuals like Tony Judt to hate-filled demagogues like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even average Israelis are wondering if they wouldn't be better off somewhere else. 
As always, on the mark and I hope you were able to pound some sense into JStreet’s followers–the arrogance of any of us diaspora Jews assuming that we know better than those of you on the front line never ceases to astound and disappoint me. Shabbat Shalom from near Siena Italy!
Scott
Rabbi Gordis, I live in a hot bed of J Street activity (your good friend Rabbi Greyber will soon be my Rabbi). The spark you give our efforts to discover the other side of opinion in the woodwork of the community is of inestimable value. What piercing accuracy!! Thanks. BTW, we are making some progress here.
Extremely well said. J Street is a dangerous organization as it largely composed of younger Jews who are uncomfortable in their own skin. They seem to be “self-haters” as they can find nothing good or positive about Israel. Do they think that the gentiles will be more accepting of them as the “good Jews”?
They are equally dangerous because they give succor to Israel’s enemies and to those who seek the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state and with that the eventual disappearance of the Jewish people. We don’t need their so-called conscience to tell us that the deaths of Palestinian children of the continuation of the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a bad thing. We know it is, but we also know that despite the very sincere efforts of successive Israeli leaders to end the conflict, the Arabs/Palestinians have said “No, No, No. It is only the destruction of Israel that will satisfy us and end the conflict.”
Israel needs the J Street crowd to tell the Arabs/Palestinians to tell the Israeli people that they will accept and live peacefully alongside Israel as a Jewish state, and to stop teaching their children to hate all Jews and to become martyrs until the Jewish state has been destroyed. Only then will J Street be worthy of living inside the Jewish tent.
great,great column {as usual ] ,what saddens me is not just J street being outside the tent,but a senior director of J street and NIS, being elected as the new president of the Reform movement
Also when the president of JFNA thinks it is not appropriate for the federation “to take sides” after Obama’s speech. Just what we need from our leadership-NON LEADERSHIP
My first reflexive reaction when I read this was: “Who are you to tell me whether I am in the tent or not?”
Apparently everyone defines the “tent” differently (being a Major, Res. in the IDF with two wars history is enough?).
David Ben Gurion’s tent, for example, was “B’li Herut veMaki”. (without the Communist and Begin’s parties).
It takes a lot of chutzpah for those who will be out of the tent by BG definition, to make themselves the gatekeepers of the tent now….
So who is the arrogant here?
“It’s a pleasure to meet with this Leadership Mission; I understand that there are some first time visitors to Israel among you, so a particular welcome to those of you who’ve never been here before.” Dr. Gordis says it all in the first paragraph: apparently you can assume leadership position in J-Street without ever having stepped foot in Israel.
Excellent article! I hope this gets lots of press. Those of you who are reading these words, please spread around this article. Very important and timely. Daniel Gordis is a gem ~ a beacon of light in a world that often appears dark.
Articulate, passionate and searingly accurate in an area filled with endless complexity. Just excellent, and written with remarkable clarity, thank you.
I reserve the right to criticize Israel, as I should, but first I support its right to exist, to thrive and to prosper by supporting her insitutions, her people, and her fundamental being. I do not support all her actions, nor all her policies, and I yearn for the two state solution to happen sooner than later, but as you say – in so doing we cannot give away the store, all its contents and the secutiy system that protects it. Trade and barter we must, but retain significnat, proud and relevant ownership after all is said and done! Thanks again Dr Gordis
The response from Ben Ami showed very clearly that there is no sense in considering J-Street as inside the tent. Sadly J-Street have opened up a new front against Israel in the UK: we now have a group called ‘Yachad’ which appears to have exactly the same agenda (and sources of funding).
Edgar
It’s fascinating to me an article about Israel and Palestine and no mention of the biggest problem ISLAM.
J Street doesn’t have to take action on behalf of Israelis like sederot in order to be pro Israel; if its mission is to lobby for a two state solution than that activity is not relevant to its statement of purpose.
However, if J Street takes actions that are clearly detrimental to Israels welfare, no amount of care packages to sderot would make them pro Israel. Advocating againt the US veto was just such an action
I also thing that living in Israel is no more a reasonable criteria for J street than it would be for AIPAC. That should have been left out of the speech.
Also Ben Ami should note that Gordis DID bring up the occupation: He said “There are also Israelis who still resist the idea of a Palestinian State and who would prefer to either exile millions of Palestinians or forever keep them under our thumb as non-citizens, either of which is morally obtuse.”
A tempest in a teapot. There will be no peace for several centuries, regardless of what Israel or the Jews do or don’t do.
An interesting read, with some fairly strong points. However, Gordis’ central argument strikes me as somewhat unreasonable. It’s fairly clear to me that there is a continuum of positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as some positions that fall outside that continuum. For JStreet to only associate with members of Gordis’ “Big Tent” would be to concede that only JStreet and more rightwing groups have acceptable positions, and effectively stake the claim that JStreet itself represents a fringe viewpoint. What organization would make this claim?
Case in point: Gordis claims that “[n]o one in their right mind doubts that BDS is opposed to Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish State.” But of course plenty of people doubt that, in fact, its pretty clear to me that many people (particularly the boycotting universities) support the boycott campaigns out of sympathy for the Palestinians (poorly channeled in my opinion).
I’m also skeptical of the “we live here, we no better” argument. Yes, living in Israel implies a certain level of familiarity with the conflict, it also implies a fair degree of bias. I regret that many JStreet activists likely aren’t sufficiently educated about the conflict, but I’m sure that many are, and while they sometimes strike me as too extreme, I don’t think they can ever sign up for Gordis’ big tent and remain true to their ideals.
To be pro-Israel is to comment positively whenever possible about Israel. J Street is more concerned with anything that might lead to a 2 state solution, no matter how obviously that something might endanger Israel. The members of J Street just do not have the knowledge to advocate. They have to start reading the likes of Bernard Lewis,Shmuel Katz, Dore Gold and the legsl position for Israel’s rights by Howard Grief. They need to start listening to what the Hamas keeps saying and take it very seriously. To me it is clear that J Street is too pro- Palestinian and too little pro-Israel to claim to be pro-Israel.
Ben Chorin has it right.
“It seems that some people have a hard time understanding what was so
problematic about Obama’s speech. This is especially the case of Jews
committed to the Democratic Party (or, more precisely, committed to a
particular self-image) at all costs. In order to explain the point
succinctly, it is necessary to say explicitly something that Israeli
politicians generally talk their way around.
There will be no peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world. They
want us dead. We engage in sham “negotiations” with them only because
of the high diplomatic, economic and political price of not doing so.
In order to maintain the appearance of negotiating, we need to state
positions on the central issues. There are two tactics with regard to
this. One is to offer concessions that are limited enough — either
territorially or functionally — to do little harm in the event that
they ever need to actually be paid. This is a fool’s game because the
amount we can profitably concede in the face of continuing hostility
is so limited as to not even constitute the appearance of negotiating.
The second tactic is to condition any concessions on corresponding
Arab concessions that they are unlikely to ever pay. At the moment,
requiring cessation of claims on the part of the Arabs is a
sufficiently high bar, though not without risk.
What Obama did in his speech (and what Europeans have been doing for
years) was to counter both tactics simultaneously. First, he demands
concessions (the 1949 armistice lines as the default in the absence of
agreement on swaps and no Israeli military positions in the conceded
territory) that are indefensible in the absence of genuine stable
peace. Second, he demands these concessions prior to cessation of
claims by the Arabs (refugees and Jerusalem to be negotiated after
borders).
There is a point at which the price of participating in these sham
negotiations becomes higher than the price of not participating in
them.”
For me, as an Israeli, and a zionist, it was very annoying to read Gordis’s article which has one main strong argument – “we live here – we know better” – as if the argument is between people who dont live here and who think like j-street, and people who live here, and do not. I live here, was in the army, was as an officer in 85 in lebanon and in 87 in Gaza, and I agree with what j-street say a 100%. I think its unacceptable that we maintaint he occupation for more than 40 years, and to continue would be againsts Israeli interests – morally and practically – even if we have a lot of critisism on the palestinian behaviour. By maintaining the occupation until the palestinians behave better, we punish ourselves only.
Thank you Daniel for once again making a cogent article out of something so mercurial and hard to frame that for most folks the mere conversation is avoided due to lack of clarity.
From all of us who work on College campuses attempting to provide clearer answers to challenging questions… THANK YOU!
Bs”D
Daniel,
Yet another angle on this “Mah tovu ohalecha Ya’acov…” question can be seen in the following article:
“Can a Jew legally cancel his Jewishness?”
[http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Article.aspx?ID=222303]
As a religious Jew who strongly believes in free choice, I have confidence that most of today’s Jews will come back into the tent – of their own volition – BUT:
it behooves us to convince them that we are NOT trying to convince them to change their thinking. We would like them to expose themselves to listen to others, AND – being in the same tent – we must force ourselves to listen to those we classify as “others”, instead of just talking. The Jewish People is the ultimate pluralistic people, but we prefer to cast aspersions on each other instead of seeking ways of forging our differences to create a new “compound”. – this is the chemist in me coming out, but as long as we’re in that realm, try out the following:
Common table salt is the chemical compound NaCl – sodium chloride. It is produced by a reaction between two very different elements – antagonistic to each other: Sodium is a very active metal, while Chlorine is a very active (and poisonous) non-metal. They not only react violently with each other, they are each also inimical to the human being and its metabolism. However, once they do react, not only are they no longer dangerous, but the opposite occurs: they become a compound that is ESSENTIAL to human survival.
An entirely new set of properties is the result of this transformation, and very little was involved in making this happen.
And the analogy – to the Jewish People, I think is self-explanatory.
Dear Danny, you are on the mark and I think this speech is just fantastic.
Todah, Gladys
Rabbi Gordis’ cogent arguments undermined his initial assumption about J-Street: that J-Street is pro Israel. The various positions taken by J-Street point to the conclusion that they are opposed to the Jewish state. The only open question is whether this opposition is due to J-Street’s being benighted or malicious. If J-Street is composed of intelligent people, then the latter is true because intelligent people understand that the J-Street arguments are lacking in logic and their positions, if accepted, would lead to the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of millions of Jews; if, however, their postions derive from a lack of understanding of their own positions, then this group is simply composed of the invincibly benighted.
Excellent article. I hope to pass it on to people who might be thinking along the same lines as “J Street.” Your “arguments” were so well put. Thank you.
You bring up a lot of great points.
Let me try to express my thoughts on this in a short and succinct manner.
Stop. Stop everything. Stop discussing the giving up of land. Stop discussing Hamas. Stop discussing Fatah. Stop negotiating with them.
As long as they believe that we should all be killed; as long as their charter says to kill us; as long as they teach their young children to sacrifice themselves to wipe us out; as long as their maps try to make believe that we don’t exist – there is nothing to negotiate, nothing to talk about.
It has been proven that giving up land for peace doesn’t work. Let us stop making believe and make one definitive statement.
NO FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS OR CONCESSIONS UNTIL THEY STOP TRYING TO DESTROY ISRAEL AND THEIR JEWISH NEIGHBORS.
-30-
Daniel thank you for talking to these misguided young people. you should be blessed with many years of strength to talk to other misguided jews who believe the arab propaganda. even if they don’t hear you the first or second time the message will penetrate eventually.
Very interesting article. I agree almost completely. At points I disagree with the policies of the Israeli government, but one has to pick his battles. J-Street picks almost every battle, and often chooses to fight the wrong ones the hardest.
Really strong piece.
Thank you for this wonderful presentation of the situation. I also heard you speak eloquently in Washington, D.C. a week ago. We can only hope that your logical arguments will enlighten their membership and effect some changes in the direction and actions of J Street. BTW, there is no substitute for the experience of living in Israel. The Palestinian’s wouldn’t be “occupied” had any of their leadership chosen to accept any of the earlier peace proposals or stopped barraging Israel with missiles and homicide bombers.
Excellent presentation to a group that seems misguided, self-righteous, and more concerned about appearing politically popular than truly just.
Dear Dr. Gordis
You really told it as it is.
As for Jeremy Ben Ami, he either has never researched the history of the conflict between Israel and her neighboring land masses, or he id deliberately revising history.
In order to be occupying a territory, there had to be an established entity to occupy. In this conflict, there never was one.
With the defeat of Germany and her allies in World War I, the Ottoman Empire came to an end. The League of nations unanimously voted to create a Jewish homeland in the historical Biblical land of the ancient Hebrews. Britain, with it’s Balfour Declaration, was given the mandate to administer this land and promptly violated the mandate by creating several Arab States, some of which should have been part of Israel, including what is now known as Jordan. Therefore it can justifiably argued, that parts of Israel are being occupied by Arabs. The UN partition plan violated League of Nations mandate.
Mr. Ben Ami and his followers would do well to study a little history before shooting their mouths off.
Yosi Horowitz
Well done! I love your comment that if anyone refers to anything in the Middle East that they haven’t thought about it enough.
I meant, if they refer to anything as obvious..then they haven’t thought about it enough.
J Street is Hamas wearing a yarmulke.
Gordis writes: the particularism of peoplehood requires….
I’m a little confused… If we all agree that peace would be best for both peoples then can’t you be pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian?
Here’s an idea… June 5th is the next time we expect the palestinians to “peacfully” demonstrate at Israel’s borders for Naksa day… why don’t peace wanting Israelis gather on the border too and protest..? If your “Pro-Palestinian” and think that the Israeli Government is the problem, you can face towards Israel, if your “Pro-Israeli” you can face the border and if you just want peace you can just shout “I want Peace”! either way it will move the conversation forward.. it’s not a zero sum game… no one needs to win or to achieve the moral high ground and score points… it’s about putting pressure on the various governments to love their children more then they hate their enemies… It’s not about being pro or anti any particular people.. and that’s where Gordis and J-Street are equally at fault…
Dear chevra,
When Martin Luther King went to jail in Birmingham, was he “inside” or “outside” the tent of Alabama? Was he inside or outside the tent of liberal Christian & Jewish clergy to whom he wrote a vigorously challenging letter because they urged him to “wait”?
When Senator Wayne Morse voted, alone, to oppose the US war against Vietnam, was he “inside or “outside” the American tent, and Lyndon Johnson’s version of the American tent?
When Tom Hayden led a peaceful demonstration against that war in Chicago, 1968, for which he was later indicted, was he “inside” or “outside” the American tent?
When Abraham Joshua Heschel stood beside Dr. King to demand an end to that war despite urgent demands from established Jewish organizations and Israeli officials to shut up, was he “inside” or “outside” the tent of the Jewish people?
When Ismail welcomed Yitzhak into his tent at Beer Lachai Ro’I after they had together buried Ibrahim, was it shameful, or glorious, for Yitzhak to sit within that tent?
Is it shameful, or glorious, for Israelis and Palestinians to sit together in the tent of the Circle of Bereaved Families whose family members have been killed by “the others” — swearing to make peace, not more killing, out of their grief?
Perhaps the most important question is not whether they — and J Street — were “inside” or “outside” the tent, but whether they were right in the eyes of God and history?
And perhaps — if the deep meaning of the tzitzis is that they are threads of connection from each one of us to the world; that as fringes they mix each one’s own cloth with God’s air, YHWH’s Breath; that they teach us that not good fences but good fringes make good neighbors — then perhaps after all we do not really know each other until we do indeed check each others’ tzitzis: Do they make connection, or not?
Shalom, salaam, shantih, peace —
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, director, The Shalom Center http://www.theshalomcenter.org; newest book, co-authored with R. Phyllis Berman, is Freedom Journeys: The Tale of Exodus & Wilderness across Millennia (Jewish Lights),
I believe there’s a significant type in the last sentence: “If the way you’re framing the issue is longer the way ….” I think you meant “no longer the way”…. jarring.
Your coined phrase, “particularism of People hood” is very interesting. I assume you mean “tribalism”.
I found your remarks polarizing and arrogant. To my mind, they do not invite further discussion except to say “you’re right” or “you’re wrong”. I am an outsider, and don’t understand all the emotional/practical ins and outs of this issue, but as someone without a stake in either side, your article appears to alienate rather than mediate, unless one agrees with “your side”.
When you mention that Israel is not winning any popularity contests in the world, and you use your alienated position as an argument for more support, I want to ask you what your thoughts are as to why you are losing popularity and are being marginalized. Are you interested?
Outstanding speech.
The only real question about J Street is what is the proportion of useful idiots and what is the proportion consciously anti-Israel activists.
If Jeremy Ben Ami’s non-sequitur in response to your speech does not put an end to your ambivalence about whether J Street is in or out of the tent, I am not sure what more proof you would need. Not only are they not in the tent, but by actively seeking to undermine Israel from within the “pro-Israel” community itself they are a Trojan horse seeking to burn the tent down.
It’s time to decide if Doc Gordis is better suited to teach government approved History classes, post pictures from Anthony Weiner’s Twitter account and, through his tactics, help Israel increase its evangelical Christian support and further reduce its Jewish Diaspora and world support.
He may or may not be one of Israel’s leading authors but he is certainly one of its leading peace talk pessimists. Gordis defines who gets to enter the “pro-Israel tent” in terms of whether an individual or organization passes the Gordis “pro-Israel” qualification screen. (Although he would likely argue that his screen is really the Israeli government’s screen.)
In his recent Shakespearean-titled article — “In the Tent, or Out: That is Still the J-Street Question” — discussing whether J Street, an American based, primarily Jewish organizational supporter of a two state solution, qualifies for pro-Israel tent membership, he starts off by sharing a few points of agreement with J Street: Israel should be a Jewish state and keeping Palestinians in exile or “forever under our thumb, is “morally obtuse.” Good start. Build that bond with your audience.
But then J Street suffers from Gordis’s slings and arrows as he takes arms and inflicts a sea of mischaracterizations and “straw man” assumptions in an ignoble attempt to tarnish J Street’s pro-Israel bona fides. (Well, Gordis started this Shakespearean thing. I’m just carrying it to its logical conclusion.) He even engages in a pattern of liberally using “we” to purport to speak for “those of us (Netanyahu’s government) who are not willing to make major territorial concessions to the Palestinians right now.” Gordis writes, without equivocation, attribution or reference, that J Street believes people (like him and the Israeli government, of course ) are either “well intentioned but misguided,” “liars,” or are “not really pursuing peace” because “we” won’t follow J Street’s advice. (All juicy red meat for the anti-J Street crowd, even though J Street has neither said or suggested any of that.)
Or perhaps Gordis meant to express his thoughts in terms of the royal “we,” as in, ‘We are not amused by J Street ‘s public disagreements with our rulings. We do not like dissent.’ In fact, in his latest bloviation on the potential evils of J Street — we aren’t sure if they’re thoroughly rotten yet so we must let their ideas ripen while we offer more guidance to their misdirected and misguided — he clearly demonstrates that he is equally comfortable suggesting that his beliefs represent the way all or most Israelis think and that he also knows precisely what J Street thinks about Gordis and his minions.
In fact, Gordis apparently sees J Street as such an existential threat to his (Israel’s) and the Palestinians’ comfortable, uncomfortable intransigence that he feels it necessary to exaggerate points of difference and threaten to sew up his/Israel’s pro-Israel “Big Tent” flaps. (Which must differ from his/Israel’s regular tent flaps in some way, but Gordis does not make clear how.) In one particularly revealing part of Gordis’s attack, he criticizes J Street for calling for the 2008 Gaza War to stop and saying “almost nothing for all the (8) years that Sderot (a border city) was being shelled (before that).”
Hyberbole? Nope. He’s right. He is even kind to say J Street said “almost nothing for all of the (8) years.” Actually, J Street literally said absolutely nothing. Since J Street was actually founded in 2008 that would have been quite a challenge. But it’s an attack that resonates with Gordis and anti-J Street fans and better ensures Gordis’s/Israel’s tent will have even more room for the vetted faithful.
Gordis also didn’t like J Street’s open door policy at its recent Washington convention, where 2500 Jewish Americans (including 500 young adults) gathered in support of Israel. He spent several sentences lecturing J Street about the evils of the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement against Israel, while ignoring that J Street is adamantly opposed to BDS and has reiterated that position on many occasions. His main gripe is that J Street included a BDS group on a debate panel at the convention.
Why do that? J Street’s approach is a quintessentially Jewish one: They use their convention to present a broad spectrum of ideas, with the overarching thought being that J Street’s (and in this case Gordis’s/Israel’s) message resonates even stronger when presented in this context.
It’s why J Street also welcomes settlement community speakers, right-wing politicians and even people like Gordis who may have permanently closed tents along with their regular size and Big Tents. Still, Gordis doesn’t appreciate J Street’s approach: “You need to show us (both the royal “us” and the Israeli government “us”) that you care about Israel more than you care about dialogue with Israel’s enemies.” And with Gordis’s approach, he appears well suited to create a few more and to also move people who thought they were part of the pro-Israel tent into either other campgrounds or other pursuits.
Both Netanyahu and Gordis seem to need some help in expanding their thinking about their definitional choices, which focus too heavily on tactical maneuvers and not heavily enough on strategic ideas. Netanyahu’s “defensible borders” translation seems to be based on a belief that strong fences (and security and travel restrictions) make good (and peaceful) neighbors and that Israel will always be able to rely on America’s support to bolster whatever Israel decides it must do to protect itself from a incontrovertibly hostile world. Didn’t Obama just say America would always do exactly that?
Here’s the problem: Having to so strongly rely on another power to preserve your freedom of action, even if that power is America, is a gaping weakness. To have a strategy that suggests another country will always come to your rescue with superior arms, or just its vote in the United Nations, is to assume America will never suffer a diminishment in its economic, military or political strength and that your “values connection” and key regional security role will forever remain unchanged in a world that is constantly undergoing change, mostly when change is least expected or predicted.
Netanyahu can look in Israel’s rear view window and see the 1967 lines extremely well, but his view becomes cloudier when other aspects of 1967 are considered. Up until then, Israel’s chief benefactors were the Soviets and French. France, somewhat unexpectedly, broke with Israel after the 1967 war. That led to America stepping in and providing such a large amount of assistance that by 1974 it grew to 25% of Israel’s GDP.
Israel’s economy has grown significantly since then and while America’s aid has remained roughly the same, it now amounts to only 2.5% of Israel’s GDP. But those who suggest this reduction in America’s contribution to Israel’s GDP is a sign of Israel’s growing self-reliance miss the key point: Because Israel views its security needs more in terms of territory, weaponry and seeking to counterbalance what it sees as the uncontrollable hostile actions of its neighbors, than in terms of diplomacy, strategic alliances, and proactive actions to better ensure more peaceful relationships with its neighbors, Israel is not only dependent on American support, it must have American support.
Netanyahu can make political decisions to continue adding more and more settlers and settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, maintain a strong but also destabilizing West Bank security presence, and restrict freedom of movement in Gaza and elsewhere, precisely because he knows Israel’s security needs will be met by America’s most advanced weapons technology as well as its U.N. support. Should American support change, even minimally, and Israel maintain its present policies, George Friedman, head of Stratfor, a global intelligence service comprised of former high level intelligence officials, warns that, “This (will be a) mortal danger to Israel — a national security requirement that outstrips its ability to underwrite it.”
Gordis makes no pretense about the fallacy of peace negotiations. He has written a book whose title — “Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End” is a window into the “two steps back, two steps forward” ideal stasis that he sees. Yet Gordis is comfortable opening his “pro-Israel” tent to those whose “pro-Israel” actions are at times seriously disconnected from what are traditionally seen as Jewish values. Give the secret “pro-Israel” tent fraternity handshake to Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who once called for Arab Knesset members to be executed as “collaborators,” and has been widely accused of racism. Welcome Israeli Immigration Committee Chair Danny Danon, who advocates for Israel to annex the entire West Bank. Give the secret entry code to the tent elevator (but have it automatically stop at all the floors on Shabbat) to the ( religious) Shas party and its leader Ovadia Yosef, who described the Holocaust as God’s retribution against the reincarnated soul of Jewish sinners, blamed Hurricane Katrina on a lack of Torah study, said the “sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews” and who prayed for God to strike down the Palestinian leader, Abu Mazen.
Maybe Gordis is right to question whether J Street fits in this tent.
A J Street response to Rabbi G:
http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=223309
Regarding J Street’s response to Daniel Gordin:
While they insist they are inside the tent, they write: “Our tent should be opened as wide as possible to friends of Israel, even those who are at times critical of the government’s policies.” My comment is that there is a tremendous difference between constructive criticism and J Street’s actively working against the State of Israel.
J Street writes: “I would challenge Gordis to lay out a realistic path to a two-state solution to which both parties could agree and that the world would accept with parameters other than those outlined above.” My response would be to challenge J Street to do the same, and to let the other side try to come up with a solution. I, personally, do not see any solution to a problem when only one side wants a solution and the other side is completely working against it. Specifically, Hamas and the PLO are concerned only with destroying the Jewish state and founding the Palestinian state on its ashes. This cannot be new to J Street: whatever the leaders of these organisations have said has been well publicized. So my point is that J Street would do better to start pushing at the other end and not to try to push Israel into untenable situations that could cause her to risk her very security.
J Street believes “that the state of Israel has the right and the duty to protect its citizens and to defend itself, within reasonable limits.” Tell me, what are these limits when Israel is fighting for her life?
J Street writes that they believe “that the proper approach to the reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah is to ‘wait and see’ how the new government acts.” This is totally absurd. You have two organisations, both of which have written charters that state their raison d’etre is to destroy the Jewish state. In addition, they reiterate daily that they will never accept the Jewish state. For what should we wait, do you think?
J Street writes: “Without a change in the status quo, the Jews of Israel will soon be a minority ruling over a majority of non- Jews while denying them their democratic rights.” This is pure bunk. Arabs in Israel have full democratic and civil rights and serve in the Knesset, the courts and anywhere else they wish. Those Arabs who are not Israeli citizens have full rights to vote in Palestinian elections [whenever those might be]. Just what democratic rights are being denied?
J Street seems to think very simplistically. If it is not A then it must be B. Tell us how to manage this when 1] we believe in having a Jewish State and a Palestinian state and 2] the Palestinians want only to replace the Jewish State with their own? Don’t be so naive as not to recognize the fact that every compromise or gift we have given has returned an intifada to us. Ehud Barak nearly offered to give away the store, and Arafat’s response? One of the bloodiest intifadas we have ever experienced. I admit that it took me until that time to understand exactly what was being demanded of us. I finally wised up and I suggest that if J Street really cares, that they do too.
Dear Daniel Gordis, I just finished reading your book :Saving Israel”. It was fantastic. I do not recall reading another book that explained so clearly the different factions in Israel, in the Palestinian and arab waaorlds and the jews in the diaspora and how dierent oes cam to the plce they are both in their beliefs, their outlook and how they got there. I do not think there is anyone more opeminded than you. I could hardly put it down I thank you for your incites
Dr. Arthur Waskow was the head of the Jewish Renewal movement. We have one in Maryland run by Rabbi David Schneyer. From the beginning of the INtifada, he was with the arabs and still is. I had loved the openness of Jewish Renewal, bu now it is very much J Street and I left years ago because they became so anti-Israe and pro-palestinian. It was and still is crushing for me. All those good hearts wated on something that will neve be, we pray.
Anyway, I love the way you think and hope your thoughts will be heard in high places both here on earth and in heaven.
[...] to this topic is the transcript of a talk recently given by Daniel Gordis (author of the excellent book “Saving [...]
An interesting article by Professor Moshe Sharon:
How to bargain in the Middle East
No peace, No peace plans, No price for Peace (A short guide to those
obsessed with peace) Moshe Sharon
Everybody says that his donkey is a horse.
There is no tax on words.
(Two Arab proverbs)
On December 24th 1977, at the very beginning of the negotiations
between Israel and Egypt in Ismailia , I had the opportunity to have a
short discussion with Muhammad Anwar Sadat the president of Egypt .
“Tell your Prime Minister,” he said, “that this is a bazaar; the
merchandise is expensive.” I told my Prime Minister but he failed to
abide by the rules of the bazaar. The failure was not unique to him
alone. It is the failure of all the Israeli governments and the media.
On March 4, 1994, I published an article in the Jerusalem Post
called “Novices in Negotiations” The occasion was the conclusion of
the “Cairo Agreement.” A short time later, Yasser Arafat, proved yet
again that his signature was not worth the ink of his pen let alone
the paper to which it was affixed, and his word was worth even less.
Then, as in every subsequent agreement Israel was taken aback when her
concessions had become the basis for fresh Arab demands.
In Middle Eastern bazaar diplomacy, agreements are kept not because
they are signed but because they are imposed. Besides, in the bazaar
of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the two sides are not discussing the
same merchandise. The Israelis wish to acquire peace based on the
Arab-Muslim acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state. The objective of
the Arabs is to annihilate the Jewish state, replace it with an Arab
state, and get rid of the Jews.
To achieve their goal, the Arabs took to the battlefield and to the
bazaar diplomacy. The most important rule in the bazaar is that if the
vendor knows that you desire to purchase a certain piece of
merchandize, he will raise its price. The merchandise in question is
“peace” and the Arabs give the impression that they actually have this
merchandise and inflate its price, when in truth they do not have it
at all.
This is the wisdom of the bazaar, if you are clever enough you can
sell nothing at a price. The Arabs sell words, they sign agreements,
and they trade with vague promises, but are sure to receive generous
down payments from eager buyers. In the bazaar only a foolish buyer
pays for something he has never seen.
There is another rule in the market as well as across the negotiating
table: the side that first presents his terms is bound to lose; the
other side builds his next move using the open cards of his opponent
as the starting point.
In all its negotiations with the Palestinian Arabs, Israel has always
rushed to offer its plans, and was surprised to discover that after an
agreement had been “concluded” it had become the basis for further
demands.
Most amazing is the reaction in such cases. Israeli politicians,
“experts” and the media eagerly provide “explanations” for the Arabs’
behaviour. One of the most popular explanations is that these or other
Arab pronouncements are “for internal use,” as if “internal use” does
not count. Other explanations invoke “the Arab sensitivity to
symbols,” “honour,” “matters of emotion” and other more patronising
sayings of this nature. Does Israel possess no “sensitivities” or does
it have no honour? What does all this have to do with political
encounters?
It is therefore essential, as the late President Sadat advised, to
learn the rules of the oriental bazaar before venturing into the arena
of bazaar diplomacy. The most important of all the rules is the Roman
saying: “If you want peace — prepare for war.” Never come to the
negotiating table from a position of weakness. Your adversary should
always know that you are strong and ready for war even more than you
are ready for peace.
In the present situation in the Middle East and in the foreseeable
future “peace” is nothing more than an empty word. Israel should stop
speaking about “peace” and delete the word “peace” from its vocabulary
together with such phrases as “the price of peace” or “territory for
peace.” For a hundred years the Jews have been begging the Arabs to
sell them peace, ready to pay any price. They have received nothing,
because the Arabs have no peace to sell, but they have still paid
dearly. It must be said in all fairness that the Arabs have not made a
secret of the fact that what they meant by the word “peace” was
nothing more than a limited ceasefire for a limited period.
Since this is the situation, Israel should openly declare that peace
does not exist as an option in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that it
has decided to create a new state of affairs in the Middle East ,
compelling the Arab side to ask for peace; and pay for it. Unlike the
Arabs, Israel has this merchandize for sale.
From now on Israel should be the side demanding payment for peace. If
the Arabs want peace, Israel should fix its price in real terms. The
Arabs will pay if they reach the conclusion that Israel is so strong
that they cannot destroy it. Because of this, Israel s deterrent power
is essential.
Therefore, if anyone asks Israel for plans, the answer should be: no
“plans,” no “suggestions,” no “constructive ideas,” in fact no
negotiations at all. If the Arab side wants to negotiate, let it
present its plans and its “ideas.” If and when it does, the first
Israeli reaction should always be “unacceptable! Come with better
ones.” If and when the time comes for serious negotiations, once the
Arabs have lost all hope of annihilating the Jewish state, here are
ten rules for bargaining in the Middle Eastern bazaar:
. Never be the first to suggest anything to the other
side. Never show any eagerness “to conclude a deal.” Let the opponent
present his suggestions first.
. Always reject; disagree. Use the phrase: “Not meeting
the minimum demands,” and walk away, even a hundred times. A tough
customer gets good prices.
. Don’t rush to come up with counter-offers. There will
always be time for that. Let the other side make amendments under the
pressure of your total “disappointment.” Patience is the name of the
game: “haste is from Satan!”
. Have your own plan ready in full, as detailed as
possible, with the red lines completely defined. However, never show
this or any other plan to a third party. It will reach your opponent
quicker than you think. Weigh the other sides suggestions against this
plan.
. Never change your detailed plan to meet the other side
“half way.” Remember, there is no “half way.” The other side also has
a master plan. Be ready to quit negotiations when you encounter
stubbornness on the other side.
. Never leave things unclear. Always avoid “creative
phrasing” and “creative ideas” which are exactly what your Arab
opponent wants. Remember the Arabs are masters of language. Playing
with words is the Arab national sport. As in the market, so also at
the negotiating table, always talk dollars and cents.
. Always bear in mind that the other side will try to
outsmart you by presenting major issues as unimportant details. Regard
every detail as a vitally important issue. Never postpone any problem
“for a later occasion.” If you do so you will lose; remember that your
opponent is always looking for a reason to avoid honouring agreements.
. Emotion belongs neither in the marketplace nor at the
negotiating table. Friendly words as well as outbursts of anger,
holding hands, kissing, touching cheeks, and embracing should not be
interpreted as representing policy.
. Beware of popular beliefs about the Arabs and the
Middle East — “Arab honour” for example. Remember, you have honour
too, but this has nothing to do with the issues under negotiation.
Never do or say anything because somebody has told you that it is “the
custom.” If the Arab side finds out that you are playing the
anthropologist he will take advantage of it.
. Always remember that the goal of all negotiations is to
make a profit. You should aim at making the highest profit in real
terms. Remember that every gain is an asset for the future, because
there is always going to be “another round.”
The Arabs have been practising negotiation tactics for more than 2000
years. They are the masters of words, and a mine of endless patience.
In contrast, Israelis (and Westerners in general) want quick
“results.” In this part of the world there are no quick results, the
hasty one always loses.
Moshe Sharon is Professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University
I think the Proffesor has great understanding of this age old relationship. I wish we would take heed of his words.
Good work, Dr Gordis. As always. Unfortunately you have a number of jealous detractors, one of whom is someone called Gershom Gorenberg who tries to tortuously twist the tone of everything you write and/or say. One would think he’d perhaps be more interested in joining your fight to save Israel. But no. He denounces and denigrates you, and follows this with an advertisement for his forthcoming book! Guess what is his main priority? Certainly not the fate of Jewish Israel.
Keep up your remarkable work. All of us are with you, heart and soul.
I was going to write a comment but Gershon Gorenberg citizen of israel f0r 30+ years, idf vet, historian of settlement policy and parent of current chayelet did such a great job I’ll just give his link
http://southjerusalem.com/2011/06/arrogance-101-lecturer-daniel-gordis/
the tent is alot broader than the one rabbi gordis erectd
$64 billion has been spent on settlements am i outside the big tent to think it would have been better spend in the peripheria of the galil and negev inside the green line ?
you can read a report on the encounter with jstreet here
http://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1000644643&fid=861&fromsend2friend=1
i worry alot more about behavior like this being considered “inside the tent” then about jstreet. Most israelis have never heard or care about jstreet. This unfortunately is happening at home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t_ZjetcSMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I watched the video you posted, L Wineman, and my translation of what was being sung/chanted was not what was written on the screen. That video with those subtitles seemed to be a video to incite the viewer?
you need to work on either your hebrew or auditory skills here are times on video the quotes and the translation
1:06 mohammed mayt (mohammed is dead)
1 33 shyesraf lcfar (may your village be burned)
1 42 “mavet l’shmolanim”= death to leftists
2 56 another round maavet l aravim
instead of denying reality how about joining those of us who believe this behavior belongs “outside the tent”. These are young high school kids the future of israel educating them in this way is far more dangerous to the future of israel than a few 1000 jstreeters
here just for you martha is a longer one with no translation(you can even listen to some nice american mclala girls and their views)
http://youtu.be/7jvYCEarflI
you can provide your own more accurate translation right here in the comments section
Although not a member of J-Street, I tend to sympathize with their vision of a reasonable two-state solution:
• Two states for two peoples – with borders whose definition should be based on the 1967 lines adjusted through equivalent and mutually agreed land swaps so that the major settlement blocs can remain inside Israel;
• Security arrangements including demilitarization of the Palestinian state and international forces on its borders to ensure against arms smuggling and terrorism;
• Resolution of the refugee issue through financial compensation and relocation of refugees to the state of Palestine or third countries (i.e., “no right of return to Israel” – though negotiations could provide for some minimal family reunification);
• The capital of both states in Jerusalem – with Jewish neighborhoods part of Israel and Arab neighborhoods part of Palestine; a special international regime would administer the holy sites, ensuring free access for all.
Rabbi Dr. Gordis may or may not agree with this rather simple outline. J-Street, however, challenged him to engage in a public and vibrant discussion of the merits of the J-Street proposal. Perhaps in Jerusalem in a public venue? Maybe repeat it in Washington, New York and LA? I anxiously await Danny Gordis’ response.