ISRAEL

Is Unity Good for the Jews?

By Jo-Ann Mort
Jo-Ann Mort is national secretary of Americans for Peace Now and co-author of the forthcoming book, "Our Hearts Invented A Place: Can Kibbutzim Survive The New Israel?"

December 22 2002

NEW YORK -- It's always been a point of pride: Put two Jews in a room, and you'll get three opinions. But when it comes to Israel today, it's beginning to seem like only one opinion is acceptable. You must blindly endorse the policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government, or you're disloyal to the concept of Israel and the unity of Jews.

There is a difference, though, between harmony born of genuine agreement and harmony born of censorship. And there is a difference between questioning Israeli governmental policy and questioning Israel's right to exist. I worry that this current quest for consensus silences the discussions necessary to dislodge Israel from its current stalemate with the Palestinians.

Sharon's ill-conceived unity government, which tried to unite parties from both the left and right, was an example of this yearning for harmony.

But consensus can't be forced, as the coalition's recent dissolution demonstrated. In the end, the unity government squeezed the more-dovish Labor Party into right-wing Likud's mold, which put the Laborites in the awkward position of participating in a Cabinet alongside purveyors of the racist policy of "transfer" that espouses the removal of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip to make room for Jewish settlers. The left bent so far toward the right that it lost its identity and must now scramble to define itself anew before voters go to the polls.

Something similar has happened in the U.S., as the consensus-oriented Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations attempts to represent American-Jewish viewpoints and support Israel. Too often, this translates into simply echoing Likud politics. Consensus may be tidier, but it's not genuine. Give me the good old days of disagreement.

The fact is that being Jewish -- or for that matter being a Zionist -- doesn't mean accepting an unalterable set of beliefs.

There are areas in which unity among Jews is desirable -- in providing, say, for those less fortunate or speaking out for those without a voice. It is also vital for Jews to make clear the importance of Israel's continuing existence.

But if unity means dissolution of the diversity that has always existed among Jewish communities around the world, then it is a mistaken, even harmful, ideal.

A lot of Jews feel, not unreasonably, under siege at the moment. The latest intifada has revealed anti-Semitism in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere. The very right of Israel to exist has been challenged. As Israeli author Amos Oz has noted, Israel is fighting two wars right now. One is for its right to exist within secure borders; the other is to define those borders.

In the spirit of debate, let me state that I believe the first war to be valid. The second, fought by a hawkish Israeli government that seeks to hold on to the West Bank and Gaza through occupation of the Palestinian population, is not. How one feels about the validity of these two wars defines one's stance toward Israel today. But considering the second war immoral doesn't make a person any less pro-Israel than those who support the current Sharon policies.

It's worth remembering that Zionism was born of two secular strains, one left wing and socialist, the other much more conservative and free-market oriented. Religious Zionism once fell into the left camp. It wasn't until 1967, when Israel captured the old city of Jerusalem and the West Bank, that the settlers' movement became the prominent face of religious Zionism, turning it toward a more right-wing messianism. Until the late 1970s, when then-Likud leader Menachem Begin brought his conservative minority views to the mainstream, socialist Zionism was dominant within the movement. Although the early socialism of Zionism has yielded to a triumphant capitalism, the vision of a humane state remains -- albeit, much weaker than in its earlier years. It is this Zionism that is visible in the current Israeli election campaign of Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna.

The looming elections are crucial to Israel's future as a democratic state, not simply in who wins but in what kind of dialogue and debate Israelis -- and American Jews -- are willing to embrace. In the United States, we understand that one can be a loyal American and hold beliefs far to the left or right of the president. Israel has always understood this too -- indeed, there has been much more diversity of opinion among Israelis than in the organized American Jewish community of late. But there is also a growing intolerance of dissent in Israel.

This intolerance, at its most extreme, led to the assassination in November 1995 of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an ultra-right Israeli Jew. But it crops up subtly in Israel every day. Key members of the Israeli Knesset continue to call for prosecution of those Israeli politicians who supported the 1993 Oslo accords, which laid out broad principles of support for peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. Earlier this month, Israeli media quoted secret service sources who said they cannot provide adequate security to Mitzna in light of threats by Jews against him. Yossi Sarid, leader of the even more dovish Meretz Party, goes nowhere without a two-man security detail.

Citizens there -- and here -- need to understand that supporting Israel means supporting the right of the country to exist; It doesn't mean endorsing every position of the prime minister and his party. That's not how democracy works. Rather than applauding ourselves for being democratic, American Jews need to face up to the anti-democratic forces at work within Israel -- and within our own communities.

Let's get back to the time of two Jews, three opinions. You tell me why you think Sharon's policies are the only thing that can ensure the future of Israel, and I'll tell you how I think he's leading his country into grave danger. We may not come to agreement, but we can agree to disagree. The stakes are too high and the future too uncertain for any of us not to be heard.