In Search of a Difficult Peace

There is perhaps no nation that tugs at the heart, draws upon emotion, or is filled with such political and historical nuance as the State of Israel. Founded on a moral imperative just three years after millions of Jews perished in the gas ovens and concentration camps of Hitler’s Germany, the birth of Israel is an inspirational, heroic tale, involving an unprecedented culmination of political, cultural, and religious factors that continue to confound and intrigue the world. When in 1948 the British Mandate of Palestine ceded to official U.N. recognition, Israel became a haven to Jews from all over the world, embraced them as family, provided sanctuary, and built a national community of citizens devoted to a common cause.

Aided by the courageous, last-minute support of President Harry Truman, whose recognition of Israel’s provisional government went against the advice of his foreign policy team, most of whom favored the oil-rich Arab nations, and by American Jewish support, Israel and the United States formed a lasting bond that has remained strong through Israel’s 63-year history. It has not, however, been an easy history. Peaceful coexistence between Israel and its Arab neighbors has proved difficult; many of Israel’s citizens discovered early on that they had merely exchanged the insecurity of pre-War Europe for the insecurity of the Middle East.

Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948. The next day, 23,000 Arab troops from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, lined the borders of the tiny new nation and sought its destruction. From its very founding, Israel has been surrounded by hostile forces intent on its annihilation. Virtually every decade of its existence, Israel has been forced to defend its very survival. It is a nation uniquely and existentially attuned to the constant risk of extinction and what it takes to survive. In 1967, when Nasser’s Egypt and the Arab Legion once again threatened Israel’s destruction, Israel in self-defense launched a pre-emptive strike, conquering the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, and the Gaza Strip. No longer content to be history’s victims, the Israel Defense Forces now ranks among the most capable military forces in the world.

It was Israel’s success in defending its borders during the Six-Day War that resulted in occupied territories and prompted U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which called on Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders in exchange for the normalization of relations with its Arab neighbors. Despite the PLO’s and other Arab states’ failure to officially acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, the smallest and most basic of concessions, Israel has gradually and willingly made peace whenever true compromise and sincere negotiation was in the offering. In 1979, Israel exchanged the Sinai Peninsula for peace with Egypt. In 1994, it ceded a large swath of land in exchange for official recognition by Jordan. Both agreements resulted in a stable, if narrow, peace among the nations involved. Peace with Syria has proved more difficult, notwithstanding Israel’s repeated offers to give up the Golan Heights in exchange for peace on its northern borders. Israel has had even less luck on its southern border, as its full and complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005 has provided no peace in return, as Hamas continues to seek Israel’s complete and total destruction, firing missiles on Israeli villages and towns, and provoking Israeli reprisals.

There are times, it seems, that whatever Israel does, regardless of how many olive branches it offers, rockets continue to rain down on Israeli civilian targets. Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and suicide bombers from the West Bank remain an ever present threat to Israel’s population. Israelis themselves are intensely divided between doves and hawks, between those who would willingly exchange land for peace and those who take a more hard-line approach. But all Israelis are united on the need to defend their country.

I understand that Israel is far from perfect, and there is considerable room for debate on how it should respond to the threats it faces. While Israel must be entitled to defend itself, its actions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are more complicated. There, Israel’s actions, particularly under Netanyahu, have been counterproductive and resulted in unnecessary friction with the United States and Western Europe. The expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem on the eve of planned peace talks and in violation of U.S. policy, has been unhelpful. And the building of a security fence along its eastern border, while providing a justifiable defense to suicide bombers, has encroached upon 7% of West Bank territory in order to include the largest settlements.

Why is peace in this land so elusive? Every U.S. administration for the past half century has made concerted efforts to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians, with little to show for it. The Oslo Accords in 1993, when Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn between the outstretched arms of Bill Clinton, accompanied the promise of peace; the PLO finally recognized Israel’s right to exist and Israel agreed to formation of an independent Palestinian Authority as a starting point for future peace negotiations. But peace has been fleeting. In 2000, in what should have been a turning point in the conflict, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, in concert with President Clinton, offered Arafat a Palestinian state on 100 percent of the Gaza Strip and 95 percent of the West Bank, including sovereignty over half of Jerusalem and the surface area of the Temple Mount. Although it was the first time that Israel had ever offered to give up a portion of Jerusalem, and although the vast majority of Israeli settlements were set to be disbanded, Arafat and the Palestinians responded with a flat “no.” That the Palestinians might ever again receive such a generous offer is almost unimaginable, and yet, somehow, Israel is too often portrayed as the bad guy in this sordid affair.

It is true that history has not been kind to the Palestinians. Displaced upon Israel’s founding, then rejected and scorned by the very Arab nations which claim to be concerned with their welfare and political existence, the Palestinians have been deprived of statehood, suffered affronts to their dignity and experienced second-class status as their successive leaders have persistently rejected compromise and perpetuated their people’s suffering. President Obama understands and, to some extent, empathizes with the Palestinians’ predicament, which is why I believe he recently called for “bold action” and insisted to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and in a speech before AIPAC, that the starting point for peace negotiations must be the pre-1967 borders with “mutually agreed swaps.” Although the American press made much ado about the alleged rift between Obama and Netanyahu, Obama’s statement in fact was merely a continuation of U.S. policy and the public articulation of what has been the basis of virtually all peace talks between the respective parties. 

The formula for peace is relatively easy to outline, which only serves to render the elusiveness of peace so frustrating. The only hope for peace in Palestine is a two-state solution that guarantees Israel’s security and officially acknowledges its right to exist among the world of nations, while uplifting and respecting the dignity and peoplehood of the Palestinians. Land for peace -- Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and the dismantling of settlements, including in East Jerusalem, in exchange for a demilitarized Palestinian state that officially recognizes Israel’s right to exist -- is precisely the formula required for a lasting peace.

It appears that Netanyahu and Obama do not fully trust each other, and that is a shame, really, for it is simply another pothole on the road to peace. Netanyahu is less willing than his predecessors to take a chance on peace, to lead Israel into courageous and bold action, to risk political disfavor among his Likud supporters, even as his party occupies a minority of seats in the Knesset. Unlike Rabin and Barak in the Clinton years, and Olmert in the Bush years, each of whom understood that the security and very existence of Israel demands that Israel take risks for a lasting peace, Netanyahu seems more interested in his political survival at home than his historical legacy as peacemaker. Israel cannot move forward until it fundamentally addresses the cruel reality that it continues to effectively rule over and occupy territory outside of its internationally recognized borders containing more than a million non-citizen residents, including families with children who want and need a country of their own.  To absorb the population of the West Bank into Israel proper would be to compromise the democratic character of Israel, its Jewish nature, or both.

Of course, the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation further complicates matters, for as long as the dignity of the Palestinian people and their hope of independent statehood resides with the leaders of Hamas, peace will remain an empty promise. President Obama is right to call for bold action. He must, however, demand as much from the Palestinians as he does from the Israelis.

U.S. policy is and will remain, rightly so, pro-Israel. Israel is a staunch U.S. alley and strategic partner. It is the most democratic country in the Middle East. It generates more life-saving medical research than all of Europe combined. When natural and man-made tragedies happen around the world, whether in Haiti, Indonesia, Turkey, or anywhere else, Israel is among the first to respond in providing medical and technical aid. Because of Israel, Jews will never again be without sanctuary. But like his predecessors, President Obama must develop the capacity and credibility to push and prod and pressure both sides of the conflict, or he too will make little progress towards peace. Bold action is required if the vision of a peaceful world is ever to be attained. We must remain firmly committed to Israel’s safety and security, while continuing to push for the establishment of a legitimate, independent nation for the Palestinians.

I will always believe that the possibility of peace remains our best hope.  I envision a world in which Palestinians and Israelis exchange currencies and commerce, and tour each other’s countries; where friendships develop and thrive across borders; where the boundaries are open and the fear of rocket fire and terrorism a thing of the past. Is it such an unrealistic dream? Perhaps, but I refuse to give up the possibility that the dream of a democratic Palestine living peacefully, side-by-side with a secure and democratic Israel will one day become reality. Let us hope that President Obama’s call for boldness and courage will not go unheeded, that pride and egos and power struggles will not again prevent meaningful progress in the quest for peace.

Rebutting Podhoretz: In Defense of Jewish Democrats

Norman Podhoretz, a leading voice of neo-conservative thought in America and formerly the editor of Commentary magazine, recently spoke at a lecture I attended at Congregation Beth Or, a Reform synagogue in Maple Glen, Pennsylvania. A prolific author, Podhoretz was promoting his latest book, Why Are Jews Liberals?, in which he questions why 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, a voting pattern consistent with the political leanings of American Jews since 1928. Podhoretz acknowledges that prior to 1945 it made historical sense for American Jews to associate with the Democratic Party. He claims, however, that since Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, the left has grown increasingly hostile to Jewish interests, while the right is far more hospitable to Jews in general and Israel in particular.

As Podhoretz explains in the first half of his new book, the answer to why Jews have tended to vote Democratic lies in history. Centuries of atrocities against Jews, committed mostly by the political forces on the right, caused European Jews naturally to align themselves with the left. During the Enlightenment and similarly tolerant moments in history, the European left favored Jewish emancipation, while the European right proved less hospitable. For centuries, Jews were persecuted in medieval Christendom, accused of blood libels, expelled from entire nations, forced to convert, and subjected to ghettoization. More recently -- the Dreyfus affair at the end of the 19th century, and the rise of Nazism in the 20th century -- the political forces on the right were openly hostile and antagonistic to Jewish people and Jewish concerns. Indeed, six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, their very existence as a people threatened with total annihilation. In fleeing the persecutions of czarist Russia and Nazi-occupied Europe, Jews emigrated in large numbers to the United States, where they found a home in the Democratic Party.

Prior to the second world war, most American Jews were poor and faced discrimination in housing, the professions, universities, and many other aspects of American life, with the most virulent forms of anti-Semitism originating from political conservatives. Most Jews, including many recent immigrants, naturally affiliated with the Democratic Party led by Franklin Roosevelt, who employed many high-level Jewish aides and advisers, and whose vision of a New Deal resembled the progressive ideals of the European left. Roosevelt’s leadership during the war, combined with the isolationist sentiments of conservatives, many of whom opposed fighting Hitler, and President Truman’s recognition of the State of Israel in 1948, kept Jews faithful to Democratic politics.

It was the Six-Day War in 1967 that, to Podhoretz, was a turning point for American Jewry. When Israel’s existence was threatened by surrounding Arab armies who vowed to wipe Israel off the map, a major community of Jews faced the threat of annihilation for the second time in 25 years, while most of the world sat idly by. This time, however, the Jews were not the victims. Israel’s quick and impressive military victory forced Arab armies into retreat and led to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. No longer was Israel perceived as a weak victim, as David fighting Goliath; Israel instead became the new military power in the Middle East and transformed into Goliath almost overnight. The political left, which more readily identifies with victims, underdogs, and the downtrodden, now viewed the Palestinians as victims of a powerful and oppressive occupier. Podhoretz credibly suggests that a new, more subtle form of anti-Semitism emerged in the form of anti-Zionism.

At the same time, while the left became more critical of Israel, support for the Jewish state grew on the right. The right also became less tolerant of traditional anti-Semitism, which was no longer acceptable in polite society. The National Review, for example, which had previously contributed to the genteel anti-Semitism prevalent in mid-20th century U.S. culture, underwent a transformation led by William Buckley, Jr., who excoriated conservative writers with anti-Semitic views and published articles sympathetic to Jewish concerns. Christian attitudes towards Israel also changed course, as liberal Christians, who previously viewed Israel with protective eyes, became increasingly critical of Israel’s military might, identifying far more frequently with the Palestinian victims of oppression and occupation, while ignoring the actions of Palestinian terrorists. By contrast, the Christian right, which previously had little interest in Israel as a nation state, is today among its staunchest defenders. Similar reversals have occurred among Republicans and Democrats. In his lecture at Beth Or, Podhoretz cited a recent poll in which 69% of Republicans, compared to just 42% of Democrats, expressed greater sympathy for Israel than for Palestinians.

Podhoretz also points to the political battles and threats to Jewish interests posed by quotas and affirmative action, which liberals supported (wrongly, in Podhoretz's view) and which conservatives opposed. But Podhoretz’s perspective on why Jews should be in the conservative camp of American politics is perhaps best summarized in his recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal:

The great issue between the two political communities is how they feel about the nature of American society. With all exceptions duly noted, I think it fair to say that what liberals mainly see when they look at this country is injustice and oppression of every kind – economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see freedom and, even factoring in periodic economic downturns, more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. . . [T]he social, political and moral systems that liberals wish to transform is the very system in and through which Jews found a home such as they had never discovered in all their forced wanderings throughout the centuries over the face of the earth. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded – and apologized for to other nations – is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

Here, then, lies one of the many flaws in Podhoretz’s analysis. He essentially argues that, because conservatives love America more than do liberals, and since America has done more for Jews than any other country, Jews should be conservative. At Beth Or, Podhoretz added that Obama, as a “false messiah” out to radically transform American society, is a threat to the very society that has so benefited Jews (he, of course, offered no factual support for this ridiculously untrue assertion). Setting aside the offensive notion that liberals do not love America, for a man of such intellectual credentials as Podhoretz, his logic and analysis are disappointing.

Podhoretz arrogantly and simplistically dismisses the possibility that Jewish values have influenced the liberal leanings of American Jews. If that were true, he declares, the Orthodox Jewish community would be among the most liberal. Instead, Orthodox Jews, who know Jewish law and tradition better than anyone, are the most conservative of America’s Jews. He notes, for example, that Jewish law as expressed in the Torah forbids abortion except to save the life of the mother, and that it condemns homosexuality. Here, he sounds much like my fundamentalist Christian friends, selectively quoting from scripture and ignoring all else. Podhoretz contends that for many liberal and secular Jews, most of whom are pro-choice and support gay rights, political liberalism has become their religion, not Judaism.

I do agree with Podhoretz in one respect: there is a distinct segment on the left, in the United States and particularly in Europe, who now regards Israel coldly. This is a shame and something I have attempted to counter whenever the topic presents itself. The left indeed is far too quick to criticize Israel while ignoring the constant threats to Israel’s survival, and ignoring or justifying the daily missile attacks, acts of terrorism, and the corruption of Palestinian governance. But I think Podhoretz, in the interest of making his point, overstates his point, and ignores many inconvenient truths.

First, Podhoretz assumes that uncritical support for Israel is required to demonstrate support for Israel. Republicans are better for the Jews solely because, in his mind, Republicans are more uncritically supportive of Israel. It is true that enthusiasm for Israel among conservatives is sincere, and that sympathy for the Palestinians is mostly on the left. “The problem,” according to Leon Wieseltier, literary editor for the New Republic who critiqued Why Are Jews Liberals? in the New York Times, “is that he cannot suppose that sympathy for the Palestinians may coexist with sympathy, and even love, for Israel.” There are many pro-Israel supporters, Jewish and non-Jewish, who believe that the survival of Israel depends on the establishment of a Palestinian state; and that the absorption of millions of Palestinians into Israel, by annexation or occupation, will destroy the Jewish character or the democratic character, or both, of Israel. Podhoretz simply assumes that any sympathy expressed for the Palestinians is doctrinally incorrect and that any American President that does not automatically comply with the demands of the Israeli government is insufficiently supportive. He mistakenly assumes that all Jews think monolithically about Israel, and that Jewish interests equate with unabashed, uncritical support for the actions of the Israeli government – something that even Israelis do not agree with. And he is wrong to suggest that the Democratic Party is no longer pro-Israel – it is and always has been pro-Israel and, historically, has been a far more reliable supporter of Israel than has the Republican Party.

Second, Podhoretz overlooks the progressive strains of Zionism in his historical account of the emergence of Jewish liberalism. For the same reasons Jews fled Europe for America, they came to Israel, where at the beginning of the 20th century they proceeded to create a Jewish society in the Middle East that reflected and put into practice their progressive ideals. They formed kibbutzim, emphasized the value of community, and formed models of national health care and other forms of social democratic governance. The Israeli National Health System, for example, is one of the most advanced health care systems in the world, which rivals the United States on everything from quality to cost to coverage. It is extremely popular, well managed, and provides compulsory coverage for all Israeli citizens. Maybe Podhoretz believes that conservative principles need benefit only American Jews.

Third, Podhoretz fails to explain how Jewish values and interests are served by the Republican positions on the many other issues of governance and politics. He fails to explain why Jews should support Republican policies concerning the allocation of government resources, health care reform, abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, environmental protections, gun control, school prayer, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy in areas like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. He contends that affirmative action has hurt Jews disproportionately, despite very little evidence of this, and fails to acknowledge that affirmative action is a complex issue for which many reasonable people disagree. “It is . . . a matter about which liberals differ not only with conservatives, but also among themselves,” as Wieseltier explained.

Fourth, Podhoretz argues that American Jews, as the most economically successful ethnic group in American life, should be more accepting of Republican economic policies, which favor the affluent. Yet he ignores that Jewish religious traditions and the Torah support such concepts as “welcoming the stranger,” providing for the poor, treating workers fairly, and other liberal tenets of American politics. It perplexes Podhoretz that anyone would vote against their economic self-interest, citing Milton Himmelfarb's once humorous observation, “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” Wieseltier eloquently counters this conception:

It is not a delusion, not a treason, to vote against your own economic interest. It is a recognition of the multiplicity of interests, the many purposes, that make up a citizen’s life. When, in the Torah of Judaism, Moses commands the Jews to perform acts of social welfare, he sometimes adds the admonition that they were themselves strangers and slaves. . . . The fact that we are no longer strangers and slaves is not all we need to know. We may not regard the world solely from the standpoint of our own prosperity, our own safety, our own contentment. . . . The question of whether liberalism or conservatism does more for the helpless and the downtrodden, for the ones who are not like us, will be endlessly debated, and it is not a Jewish debate; but if the answer is liberalism, then the political history of American Jewry is neither a mystery nor a scandal.

Indeed, what seems so difficult for Podhoretz to fathom is that many American Jews vote liberal, or at least vote Democratic, for the reasons many Americans vote Democratic – because they believe it is better for America.

Even Jewish Republicans over the years (Jacob Javits, Rudy Boschwitz, Arlen Specter) have traditionally been moderate to liberal on social issues, supporting abortion rights, environmental protections, the separation of church and state, issues that have become less welcome in the Republican Party since the Reagan Revolution in the 1980’s. The dominance of the religious right in the Republican Party scares a lot of American Jews. Many of the same Christian conservatives who so adamantly support Israel also support prayer in schools, believe in proselytizing among Jews (even in Israel), reject the theory of evolution and deny the impact of human activity of climate change despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary (a topic for another day). Is it really any surprise that, as a minority religious group, most Jews are opposed to letting conservative Christian dogma dictate the laws over a woman’s reproductive rights, or prayer in schools, or the civil rights of gays and lesbians?

Finally, while it may be true that Christian conservatives support Israel, for many it is tied to the belief that it will hasten the Rapture. I believe that Podhoretz is asking the wrong question. It is not, “Why are Jews liberal?” Rather, it should be, “Where else are Jews to go?” Many centrist and moderately conservative Jews continue to vote for Democrats simply because the right wing of the Republican Party makes them uncomfortable. Perhaps, rather than trying to convince Jews to vote for Republicans, Podhoretz should attempt to make the GOP less beholden to social and religious conservatives, less hostile to minority rights, more open to scientific knowledge and research, and more reflective of Jewish values of justice as reflected in the Torah.