‘Israel Can Do No Wrong’: Jewish Dissent, Jewish Repression

bibi-barack-350American Jews are expected by the Israeli government and by its American lobbying arms, such as AIPAC, to unequivocally support Israel against its very real enemies, but also any against criticism whether from abroad or within the American Jewish community. The prevailing mode is “Israel can do no wrong,” and AIPAC demands American Jews march in lockstep. But Israeli policies of the moment can and do betray values held by a large swatch of American Jewry, including their independence of mind, and the right to dissent, whether as Americans or as Jews.

The moment is difficult. Benjamin Netanyahu’s embarrassing, intemperate outbursts following the interim agreement between the United States and its allies and Iran further isolated Israel diplomatically. But the Israeli Prime Minister continues to work the back door as he recently announced that he had dispatched a delegation of Israeli military and intelligence experts to “advise” their American counterparts on Iran. We can be certain that he did not send any prominent and numerous Israeli experts who have courageously opposed his adventurism.

Now comes a “bipartisan” group of U.S. senators determined to join Israel in isolation. They are motivated from little else other than electoral fears and campaign contributions. They have offered legislation imposing new, more severe sanctions on Iran at a most inopportune time, and a pledge of American diplomatic and military support if the Israelis attack Iran. Talk about blank checks. Israeli lobby groups such as AIPAC actively support the measure, meaning so does the Israeli government. It seemed inconceivable that anything could surpass Netanyahu’s audacity and obtuseness. Maybe Congress’s dysfunctional is better than functional.

Since Barack Obama emerged on the national political scene, there has been a sub-current of belief that he was “bad for the Jews,” and would undermine the Israelis. Given Obama’s circle of Jewish friends, financial backers, and ardent supporters, this was absurd on its face. But the underlying motivation is obvious — start with racism and the belief that Obama is a covert Muslim. Such whispered sentiments became commonplace in influential Israeli circles — the governing Likud party, religious parties, and settlers. The proposed congressional action is intended to embrace an Israeli alliance as never before, and added bonus, embarrass the President of the United States, which makes for good spin in Israel.

American Jews do not support such knee-jerk reactions. Polls consistently show support for Obama at a very high level of; further, they reject (albeit passively) the Israeli maintenance of the Occupation and oppose an Israeli air strike against Iran. It is not rocket science to see the downside for both Israelis and Americans if Iran is attacked. Who wants radioactive clouds over the entire region? Would it destroy Iran’s future capability to develop nuclear weapons? Would it destroy Iran’s nuclear development — which it has every right to do notwithstanding Israel’s singular objections? And then what of Israel’s place in the international community — let alone the United States’s preeminent role in international leadership?

Fortunately, a counterweight of 10 other senators, significantly including the committee heads of the Senate Banking, Intelligence, Armed Services, Appropriations, Judiciary, and Energy, warned that additional sanctions now only would “play into the hands of those in Iran who are most eager to see negotiations fail.” Only fear and possibly politeness prevented them from saying that it also played into the hands of Israeli elements who oppose any settlement with Iran. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Carl Levin (D-MI) — and not insignificantly, they are Jewish — only delicately criticized their bellicose colleagues, as did the administration’s chief spokesman, Secretary of State John Kerry.

Beyond the international flap, American Jews ought to be concerned how controversial Israeli positions and statements are causing significant cleavages within our own Jewish community. An undeservedly little-known website, MuzzleWatch, which is devoted to tracking the stifling of open debate about US – Israeli foreign-policy is most instructive.

MuzzleWatch reported an incident at Harvard in November 2013, when Harvard’s Hillel “student organization,” barred a talk from Avraham Burg, the former speaker of the Israeli Knesset. The governing body, not the students, complained that the talk was co-sponsored by the Palestinian Solidarity committee, as well as several Jewish pro-peace groups. A Harvard student appropriately responded that this was “an attack on free speech in its most naked form.”

“I’m not sure what they were afraid of — people with all kinds of political views had a very constructive conversation with Mr. Burg,” she added. Are we to believe that nearly 8 million Israeli Jews think alike?

Burg is a well-known Israeli political figure; his father was the longtime Minister for Religious Affairs in Israel’s founding decades. Views such as his apparently are dangerous for the tender minds of Harvard students. In 2003, he published an article in of all places, Israel Today, a right-wing Israeli newspaper owned by casino owner Sheldon Adelstein, in which Burg observed:

Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centers of Israeli escapism.

Burg is reviled in Israel for breaking Israel’s long-standing “nuclear ambiguity” and denounced as a “self hating Jew” because of his criticism of the religious establishment and the Occupation, among other deviations from the now-prevailing nationalist, right-wing Israeli ideology. Commentary magazine denounced his attempt to define a post-Zionist Israeli state as an exercise “despising Israeli democracy.”

Swarthmore College’s Hillel chapter also tried to have a balanced discussion of the Palestinian question, but the governing body prevented it. Later, apropos nothing, the chapter was vigorously denounced by the notoriously intemperate John Podhoretz, the hereditary editor of Commentary.

Parenthetically, the latter affair illustrates only too sadly what the media chooses to report. Politico described a public panel discussion as strictly a personality clash between some well-known names in the Jewish community over snubs and insults, real or alleged. MuzzleWatch, however noted that the outburst was over the very real repression at Swarthmore.

The Swarthmore Hillel student board’s reaction to the clumsy attempt at censorship undoubtedly triggered Podhoretz’s outburst. Hillel International’s declared policy prohibited student groups from partnering or hosting anyone who denied Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, or who “delegitimizes, demonizes, or applies a double standard to Israel, “or who supported any boycott or sanctions against Israel.

The students responded with a direct attack on the barring of speakers such as Burg and from Jewish Voice for Peace. Such policies, they declared, insulted the memory of their namesake, Rabbi Hillel, “who was famed for encouraging debate.” They attacked attempts to present “a monolithic face pertaining to Zionism that does not accurately reflect the diverse opinions of young American Jews.” The Swarthmore chapter then declared itself to be an “Open Hillel,” one that would encourage “dialogue within the diverse and pluralistic Jewish student body” — meaning that they would host a partner or any speaker at their own discretion and retain “the values of open debate and discourse espoused by Rabbi Hillel.”

Stanley KutlerBeyond AIPAC’s destructive lobbying efforts — and let us hope, self-defeating — American Jews should be concerned with what is happening in their own communities. AIPAC and its like-minded allies can praise Israeli democracy but first they must respect it at home. The Israeli government and the various lobby groups in the United States would do well to heed the stark reality of polls revealing ever-declining support for Israel among younger American Jews.

Stanley Kutler
Huffington Post

Republished with the author’s permission.


  1. JoeWeinstein says

    The apparent intent of this article is to portray Israel or its supporters as somehow uniquely and specially to blame for big ills.

    Whatever be Kutler’s personal motives, this overall message, compulsively repeated, is what you get now mainly either from Israel’s dogmatic Arab and Islamic enemies or from insecure types with a need to be certified as ‘real progressives’ who conform to yesteryear’s establishment ‘progressive’ party-lines from Moscow and Beijing.

    Of course, the last thing Kutler wants is to be tagged as being with any
    ‘establishment’. In fact, he realizes that many readers at first blush will view
    all ‘establishments’ as evil and all ‘dissidents’ as good, so he depicts those who disagree with him as a Jewish or pro-Israel ‘establishment’ and those who agree with him as virtuous ‘independent minded’ folk or ‘dissidents’.

    Kutler’s actual arguments feature the classic devices of anti-semitic rhetoric: quarter-truths, outright mislabels, unevidenced claims, irrelevancies, and – above all – self-righteous expressions which heap shame on Jews (or on Jewish organizations or institutions) for not living up to a standard that (for perfectly good and understandable reasons) no one else is expected to do.

    Few if any Sierra Club donors see any reason for Sierra Club chapter meetings to divert time and resources be sure to give speech opportunities to pro-Big-Coal propagandists, even propagandists who in past times gained pro-environment credentials. After all, democracy and free speech in America give such propagandists plenty of other opportunities to convey their message.

    Likewise NAACP donors do not expect NAACP chapters to sponsor speakers – even if they might happen to be prominent blacks – whose concern is the injury done to some whites by abolition of Jim Crow.

    Donors of and supporters of Catholic movements typically do not see their funds and energies being used appropriately by a campus chapter which devotes a meeting to a speaker who calls for abolition of the Papacy.

    Few Armenian Americans will be interested in sponsoring speeches by advocates – even those who may happen to be prominent Armenian politicians – of Turkish minority rights within that surviving sliver of the ancient Armenian homeland represented by today’s Armenia.

    But Kutler demands that Jews be different, and that their failure to be different means that a Jewish ‘establishment’ – uniquely among all other groupings of voluntary organizations in America – is ‘undemocratic’.

    Kutler’s other misrepresentation include these :

    – Despite his protrayal of its alleged ability to make demands on Jews, AIPAC is a non-sectarian American organization, not a Jewish organization.

    – Despite his claim, neither AIPAC nor most other pro-Israel organizations claim or act as if Israel can do no wrong.

    – Despite his sneaky use of the term ‘Occupation’, very little if any of Israel’s presence west of the Jordan counts as an ‘occupation’ (except for Palestinian ideologues, according to whom all Israeli territory – including downtown Tel Aviv – is to be deemed ‘occupied’). This presence qualifies as far MORE justified and far LESS (in either intensity or geographic scope) of an ‘occupation’ than are: (1) China’s seizure and continuing forcible occupation of Tibet and Xinjiang; (2) Russia’s seizure and continuing forcible occupation of Chechnya; (3) USA’s seizure and continuing forcible occupation of First Nation and Mexican territories. Israel’s defensive military presence in parts of the territory owes to the fact that – 66 years later – five Arab nations which declared war and attacked Israel in 1948 have elected to remain at war and have yet to move to peace negotiations with Israel. 90% of the non-Israeli inhabitants of the region are not under any Israeli governance at all, but are governed by the Palestine Authority or Hamas.

    Contrary to Kutler’s claims about Israeli ‘policies’ and what he sees as Jews’ proper ‘values’:

    – Netanyahu’s ‘outbursts’ on Iran were hardly ’embarrassing’ to Israel or Jews: They spoke the truth, and therefore were embarrassing to Kerry, Obama and all those who wish to appease the Iran regime. .

    – Netanyahu’s ‘outbursts’ were ‘intemperate’ only in the sense that the so-called ‘agreement’ (in effect endorsing a slightly rescheduled Iran nuke weapons program) called for plain speech.

    – The terror-sponsoring domestically repressive Iranian regime, continues daily to sponsor and materially support mass slaughter in Syria, public proclamations of ‘death to America’ and threats to Israel’s existence. If, as Kutler implies, such a regime has the ‘right’ to nuclearize beyond any needs of a purely civilian program, then what’s the point in all the progressive and pacifist cries and fluff that we’ve been hearing ever since 1945 about an alleged need for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament?

  2. says

    Duh, this article suffers from the Fallacy of Composition. Let’s look at the big picture and decompose it, rather than the reverse like he does. Poor outnumbered surrounded Israel is surrounded by 300 million madass Muslims who don’t acccept its right to exist because of ISLAM, whose god Allah wants only Muslims to rule the land. The rest is b.s. HuffPo stinks.

    • ben chifley says





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *