Former Israeli Ambassador’s Assault on American
Jewish Critics of Israel Is a Revealing Look at
the Zionist Worldview
Allan C. Brownfeld
Issues
Fall 2015
ALLY: MY JOURNEY ACROSS THE AMERICAN-ISRAELI DIVIDE
By Michael Oren, Random House, 412 Pages, $30.00
In his new book, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, a
native-born American who emigrated to Israel and renounced his U.S.
citizenship, launches an attack upon President Barack Obama and American
Jewish critics of Israel which is unprecedented for a former diplomat. It
reveals a great deal about the Zionist worldview, perhaps more than Oren
intended.
In op-eds and lectures prior to the book’s publication, Oren psychoanalyzes
President Obama and accuses him of being too soft on Muslims because his
Muslim father and stepfather abandoned him. He accuses the president of
“intentionally, maliciously, abandoning Israel.” In Israel itself, this
assault on Mr. Obama has been widely criticized. Oren, now a member of the
Knesset representing the Kulanu Party, did not even gain his own party’s
support for such claims. Instead, the party leader, Finance Minister Moshe
Kahlon, apologized for Oren’s remarks in a letter to the U.S. ambassador.
Israel’s Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan declared that, “Oren’s claims
are disconnected from reality.” Columnist Nahum Barnea, writing in Israel
Opinion (June 23, 2015), noted that, “Some of Oren’s colleagues in Jerusalem
and Washington thought that he had gone mad.”
Main Argument Is Caricature
In his review of the book in The Washington Post (June 28, 2015), Philip
Gordon, who served from 2013 until this spring as White House coordinator
for the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf region, declares
that, “The problem with the book is that Oren’s main argument is a
caricature, bolstered by exaggerations and distortion.”
To Oren’s charge that Obama is the first president to air differences with
Israel in public and the first to break with the principle that there should
be no “daylight” in the U.S.-Israel relationship, Gordon responds:
“Really? To take just a few examples. Dwight Eisenhower slammed Israel for
the 1956 Suez operation and forced it into a humiliating retreat. Gerald
Ford froze arms deliveries and announced a reassessment of the relationship
as a way of pressing Israel to withdraw from the Sinai. Jimmy Carter clashed
repeatedly with Prime Minister Menachem Begin before, during and after the
1978 Camp David summit. Ronald Reagan denounced Israel’s strike on the
Osirik nuclear reactor in Iraq and enraged Jerusalem by selling surveillance
planes to Saudi Arabia. George H.W. Bush blocked loan guarantees to Israel
over settlements. Bill Clinton clashed publicly with Israel over the size of
proposed West Bank withdrawals; George W. Bush called for a settlement
freeze in the 2002 road map for peace and afterward repeatedly criticized
Israel for construction in the West Bank. In other words, Oren has a point —
-except in the case of virtually every Republican and Democratic
administration since Israel’s founding.”
Jewish Journalists’ Critical Coverage
When it comes to his attitude toward American Jews, Oren is particularly
instructive. He claims that Jewish journalists are largely responsible for
the American media’s critical coverage of Israel. In his view, Israel’s own
actions and policies have little to do with the coverage he finds
objectionable.
According to Oren, the work of such journalists as Thomas Friedman of The
New York Times, David Remnick of The New Yorker, Joe Klein of Time Magazine,
the late Bob Simon of Sixty Minutes, Leon Wieseltier of The Atlantic and a
host of others resembled “historic hatred of Jews.” He speculates that,
“Perhaps persistent fears of anti-Semitism impelled them to distance
themselves from Israel.”
Oren catalogues some of the criticism of Israel he found disturbing: “Tom
Friedman … for him, Netanyahu was ‘annoying’ and ‘disconnected from reality’
and most commonly, ‘arrogant’ … American commentators, almost all of them
Jewish — were fiercely indisposed to Netanyahu. Joe Klein of Time decried
him as ‘outrageous, cynical and brazen.’ For The New Yorker’s David Remnick,
Netanyahu was ‘smug and lacking diplomatic creativity,’ a firebrand who
posed a risk ‘to the future of his own country.’ In The New Republic, Leon
Wieseltier described him as a ‘gray, muddling reactive figure, a creature of
the bunker.’”
Characteristic of Anti-Semitism
Such criticism, Oren somehow concludes, has little to do with Netanyahu
himself or his policies, but is, instead, characteristic of traditional
anti-Semitism: “The antagonism sparked by Netanyahu, I gradually noticed,
resembled that traditionally triggered by the Jews. We were always the
ultimate other — communists in the view of the capitalists and capitalists
in communist eyes, nationalists for the cosmopolitans and, for jingoists,
the International Jew. So, too, was Netanyahu declaimed as ‘reckless’ by
White House sources and incapable of decision making by many Israelis.”
Oren’s characterization of Netanyahu as a “biblical figure” tells us
something of his mindset. He describes Netanyahu this way: “Netanyahu, a man
of mighty contradictions, less than a modern Jew, he reminded me of a
biblical figure with biblical strengths, flaws, appetites, valor or wrath,
scything his foes with rhetorical and political jawbones … the images of
Masada, Auschwitz and looming Jewish apocalypses permeated his speeches and
even our private talks.”
Oren describes how, “The pinch I felt reading articles censorious of Israel
sharpened into a stab whenever the names on the bylines were Jewish. Almost
all of the world’s countries are nation-states, so what, I wondered, drove
these writers to nitpick at theirs? Some, I knew, saw assailing Israel as a
career-enhancer — equivalent of Jewish man bites Jewish dog — that saved
struggling pundits from obscurity … Others still, largely assimilated,
resented Israel for further complicating their already conflicted identity.
Did some American Jews prefer the moral ease of victimhood, I asked myself,
to the complexities of Israeli power? … I could not help questioning whether
American Jews really felt as secure as they claimed. Persistent fears of
anti-Semitism impelled them to distance themselves from Israel.”
Fanciful Analysis Overlooks Reality
This fanciful analysis overlooks another possibility, which is reality
itself. The overwhelming majority of American Jews — journalists and others
— do not believe in the Zionist worldview which so captivated Michael Oren
as a teenager. He writes: “Zionism allowed us to assert our self-
sufficiency, even independence from formal religion, but in the one place
that our forebears cherished as divinely given. Zionism enabled us to return
to history as active authors of our own story. And the story I considered
the most riveting of all time was that of the Jewish people. I belonged to
that people and needed to be part of its narrative. Being Jewish in America,
while culturally and materially comfortable, felt to me like living on the
margins.”
Oren’s Zionist teachers and youth group leaders evidently were very
convincing in advancing their doctrine that Jews outside of Israel were in
“exile,” and that Israel was the Jewish “homeland.” He followed their
ideological imperatives, abandoned his American “exile” and emigrated to
Israel and joined the Israeli army. Most American Jews, however, reject
Israel’s presumptuous claim to be the “nation-state” of all Jews. They
consider the “nation-state” of American Jews to be the United States. Rather
than living in “exile,” they consider themselves very much at home. They
view themselves as American by nationality and Jews by religion, just as
other Americans are Protestant, Catholic or Muslim.
Oren notes that, in his view, “the major chapter” of contemporary Jewish
life “was being written right now … and not in New Jersey. History, rather,
was happening in a state thriving against all odds and thousands of miles
away. How could I miss it? In the summer of my 15th year, I finally
purchased my ticket. I acquired my first U.S. passport and booked a plane to
Israel … The pride of becoming part of the first Jewish army in 2000 years.
This was the answer to exile, to the Holocaust.”
Tribalism Rather Than Religion
In fact, Oren’s notion of Jewish identity has little to do with Judaism, a
religion of universal values which uniquely held that all men and women, of
whatever race or nation, are created in the image of God. His view, instead,
is one of tribalism, which he understands has little appeal to most American
Jews. He writes, “More tormenting still were the widening gaps between
Israel and American Jews. Whatever our differences, I insisted, and however
disparately we practice our religion, we still belonged to the same tribe …
I could not imagine anyone not being thankful for belonging to it.”
Of particular concern to Oren is that younger American Jews did not believe
they were members of a “tribe,” but had an obligation to advance Jewish
morals and ethics, to pursue Tikkun Olam, the mandate to repair the world.
He provides this assessment: “No longer comfortable with defining themselves
solely in tragic terms, younger American Jews searched for a fresh source of
self-affirmation. This was Tikkun Olam. Meaning literally ‘Repair the
World,’ the concept derived from the medieval Kabbalistic idea of
reconnecting with the bright light of creation. But, in its 21st century
American Jewish interpretation. Tikkun Olam became a call to rescue
humanity. For liberal American Jews especially, Tikkun Olam served as
Judaism’s most compelling commandment, almost a religion in itself.
Addressing synagogues, non-Jewish politicians dependably mentioned the term
… and like the Holocaust before it, Tikkun Olam tended to sideline Israel as
the focal point of American Jewish purpose. How can we donate to the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem, when children went hungry in Honduras?”
Making Israel rather than God the “focal point” of American Jewish life is,
in reality, a form of idolatry, much like the worship of the golden calf in
the Bible. But to Oren and those who share his tribalistic and ethnocentric
views, this form of idolatry represents the essential core of what it means
to be Jewish. He writes: “The drift away from an Israel-centric American
Jewish identity distressed me, of course. I welcomed the willingness of
American Jews, who once only whispered about it behind closed doors, to
publicly reckon with the Holocaust. But, for me, the annihilation of the 6
million remained a uniquely Jewish catastrophe whose recurrence was best
prevented by Israeli power. By contrast, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial
conveyed a universalist message that stressed tolerance as the cure for
future genocides.”
Lamenting Jewish Generosity and Sense of Belonging
Michael Oren is deeply troubled by the generosity of American Jews to others
and their sense of belonging as an intrinsic part of the fabric of American
life. He notes that, “ … ambivalence characterized my feelings about Tikkun
Olam. Here, on the one hand, was an outstandingly prosperous community
recalling its humble origins and responding to Judaism’s ancient
compassionate appeal. And yet, in fulfilling their commitment to aid the
world, what resources would American Jews retain for assisting our own
people?”
The “Jewish identity” with which Oren identifies, one which is “tribal” and
nationalistic rather than religious, is one he finds largely absent among
young American Jews. “The supreme question asked by post-World War II Jewish
writers such as Bernard Malamud and Philip Roth, ‘How can I reconcile being
Jewish and American?’ was no longer even intelligible to young American
Jews. None would feel the need to begin a book, as Saul Bellow did in The
Adventures of Augie March, with ‘I am an American, Chicago born.’ Bred on
that literature, I saw no contradiction between love for America and loyalty
to my people and its nation state. But that was not the case of the Jewish
20-somethings, members of a liberal congregation I visited in Washington,
who declined to discuss issues such as intermarriage and peoplehood , that
they considered borderline racist. Israel was virtually taboo.”
Israel, rather than bringing Jews together, Oren found, instead divided
them: “Israel ruled over more than 2 million Palestinians and settled what
virtually the entire world regarded as their land. The country that was
supposed to normalize Jews and instill them with pride was making many
American Jews feel more isolated and embarrassed.”
Early Zionists Never Understood America
The history of Jews in America, where religious freedom existed from the
beginning and where there was never a religious test for citizenship or
public office, in which our first president, George Washington, wrote a
Jewish congregation that in America bigotry would be given no sanction, was
something the early Zionists never anticipated or understood, and fail to
comprehend at the present time.
Michael Oren seems to have some understanding of this dilemma. He writes
that, “Zionist pioneers never came to grips with an America that defied
their definition of Diaspora life as a cultural and political dead end.
Their point of reference was Alfred Dreyfus, the French captain who, though
thoroughly assimilated, was accused of spying in 1894 and sentenced to
Devil’s Island. Covering the Dreyfus trial, encountering mass anti-Semitic
protests, the journalist Theodor Herzl concluded that Jews could never be
part of Europe but rather must leave and establish their own Jewish state.
Herzl and the early Zionists could not have conceived of the sight that I
came to regard as commonplace — of six Jews, three Israelis and three
Americans, sitting in the White House and discussing Middle East peace.”
Similarly, writes Oren, those early Zionists “could not have foretold the
question I would one day pose to my son Noam, now an officer in the IDF
(Israeli Defense Force), ‘Who do you feel you have more in common with, your
Bedouin Sgt. Mahmud or your cousin Josh in Long Island? And no pioneer could
have predicted Noam’s answer, ‘Are you serious?’ he shrugged. ‘Mahmud slept
in the dirt with me. Mahmud fought for this country.’”
Israelis Look Down on American Jews
Not recognizing that American Jews have a country of their own, Oren reports
that, “Many Israelis, the world’s only Jews without a compound identity —
looked down on an American Jewry that preferred comfort to sovereignty … The
presence of so many Jews in print and on the screen rarely translates into
support for Israel. The opposite is often the case, as some American Jewish
journalists flag their Jewishness as a credential for criticizing Israel.
‘I’m Jewish,’ some even seem to say, ‘but I’m not one of those Jews — the
settlers, the rabbis, Israeli leaders, or the soldiers of the IDF.’ The
preponderance of Jews in the U.S. media often means, simply, that Israel is
subjected to scrutiny and standards imposed on no other foreign nation.”
When Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote of an appearance by
Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress that, “I sure hope that Israel’s Prime
Minister … understands that the standing ovation he got in Congress was
bought and paid for by the Israel lobby,” Oren “called him the moment the
article came online and urged him to retract it.” He told Friedman: “You’ve
confirmed the worst anti-Semitic stereotypes that Jews purchase seats in
Congress.” Friedman was unmoved. He replied: “For every call I’ve received
protesting, I’ve gotten ten congratulating me for finally telling the truth.
Many of those calls were from senior administration officials.”
Ally has come under widespread criticism from many prominent American Jewish
voices. According to The Atlantic’s Leon Wieseltier, long a vocal supporter
of Israel, “Oren might … consider the possibility that it is not fear of
anti-Semitism that impels his brethren in America to distance themselves
from Israel and its often controversial policies, but the policies
themselves … American Jewish insecurity? You must be kidding … Our problem
over here is not Jewish self-hatred but Jewish self-love, we are secure to
the point of decadence.”
Critics Might Be Right
Foreign Policy editor Philip Rothkopf, a former Columbia University roommate
of Oren, declares: “He proposes their (American Jewish journalists) critique
of Netanyahu is similar to the age-old, anti-Semitic image of the Jew as the
‘other’ … Nowhere does he entertain the possibility that those critics might
just be right and their views motivated by the same hope for a better future
for the U.S.-Israel relationship or for Israel itself, as are his. This view
is not just wrong, it is profoundly, offensively wrong … He is rationalizing
his view with perspectives and analyses that twist reality, pervert his
analysis and make it hard for him to accept the idea that perhaps these
criticisms don’t come from American Jews because of their flaws but because
of their strengths.”
In an article titled “Michael Oren, You Hardly Know Us At All,” Jane Eisner,
editor of The Forward, notes that, “The pluralism Oren ridicules is now
built into the DNA of American Jews … We feel accepted here because we are,
and that leads many of us to broaden that acceptance to those not as
privileged. Of course, the president looks awkward wearing a yarmulke in the
official Seder photograph, but that image serves as a powerful
acknowledgment that our religious tradition is on an equal footing with the
Christianity that once dominated America. The same cannot be said for Reform
and Conservative Jews in the Israeli religious context.”
In his review of Oren’s book in The New York Times Book Review, Jacob
Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest, describes the debate over U.S.
Mideast policy as, more and more, an intramural Jewish enterprise: “On the
one side are traditional liberal Jews who continue to see Israel as an
egalitarian version of America … On the other side are more conservative
Jews and Christian evangelicals who believe that this is sentimental piffle.
Instead of lecturing Israel, Americans should unflinchingly stand by it …
and recognize that peace is an illusion. It is here that Oren’s memoir is
most illuminating … his personal odyssey exemplifies the shift from a
liberal and secular Zionism to a more belligerent nationalism.”
Lens of Ethnic Identity
In Heilbrunn’s view, “It’s difficult to avoid the impression that Oren
continues to carry a large chip on his shoulder. He complains, for example,
that ‘The New Yorker and The New York Review of Books, both Jewish-edited,
rarely ran nonincriminating reports on Israeli affairs.’ The odd formulation
‘Jewish-edited’ suggests that Oren views everything through the lens of
ethnic identity. In addition, Oren hastily dismisses the historian Tony Judt
as someone who ‘opposed Israel’s existence.’ If anything, Judt’s
apprehensions about Israel’s future seem more cogent than ever.”
Oren’s contention that President Obama has embraced ideas of pacifism is
also challenged by Heilbrunn: “Oren seems stuck in a time warp. Obama has
never sought to resuscitate warmed-over pacifist ideas from the 1960s. As it
happens, Obama ramped up the drone war and attacked Libya. Nor has he
extricated the United States from either Afghanistan or Iraq. So much for
the bogus notion that Obama reviles military power. … What Oren, much like
Netanyahu himself, refuses to countenance is that Obama’s focus on reaching
a deal with Iran isn’t based on wishful thinking but on cold strategic
considerations. Oren concludes by saying that Israel should not take America
for granted and that he wants to help restore ties between the two. If so,
he has a funny way of going about it. ‘Ally’ does not strengthen the
alliance but could further erode it.”
Jewish publications have also been highly critical of Oren’s book.
Editorially, The Forward (July 3, 2015) provides this assessment: “Oren’s
reputation as a respected historian has … taken a beating … as the version
of events outlined in Ally has been challenged repeatedly … A fair and
careful reading of Ally reveals an ambassador so intent on analyzing what he
perceives to be a hostile White House that he doesn’t try hard enough to
understand why most American Jews not only continue to support Obama but
also align themselves so fulsomely with progressive values and politics.”
Anti-Semitism Not a Lived Experience For Most Jews
To Oren’s argument that fear of anti-Semitism causes Jewish journalists and
others to distance themselves from Israel, The Forward responds: “Fears of
anti-Semitism don’t impel American Jews to distance themselves from Israel.
Anti-Semitism is at historic lows … it is simply not a lived experience for
most Jews today — especially younger Jews, who are more likely to question
the controversial policies Oren cites or to reject Netanyahu’s persistent
warnings that it is 1939 all over again. Oren is famed for writing
brilliantly about the Six Day War, but for many Jews who came of age since
1967, Israel is seen not as David but as Goliath, not as victim but as
occupier. That same generation’s experience of American military engagements
— Iraq and Afghanistan — has understandably persuaded them that the ‘soft
power’ Oren derides is far preferable to pursue than the reckless wars
championed by George W. Bush and his contemporary acolytes.”
In an editorial with the headline “Oren’s Un-Diplomacy,” Washington Jewish
Week (June 25, 2015) declares: “ … these kinds of attacks on a sitting U.S.
president are highly unusual — all the more so when coming from a diplomat.
There is much blame to go around for the foundering U.S.-Israel relations,
and Oren is certainly entitled to his opinion. But we are troubled that
nothing in his book appears to be designed to improve relations between the
two countries. Add to what has been described by others as Oren’s ‘amateur
psychoanalysis’ of Obama and his veering ‘into the realm of conspiracy
theories’ and we are left with a work that is both undiplomatic and a-
historical. All in all a disappointing turn of events for a respected
historian and former ambassador.”
Writing in Mondoweiss (June 17, 2015), Philip Weiss notes with regard to
Oren’s reference to Israel as the “nation-state” of all Jews: “… our own
nation state. This is of course why Oren moved there from the U.S. — and now
is a member of the Israeli parliament — he believed it was his country. And
he expects us to hold the fort in the U.S. for our own little piece of
heaven in the Middle East, and keep the checks coming, but keep our mouths
shut when
Israel adopts the same kind of Jim Crow … policies that we fought in the
U.S. … I’m thrilled by Michael Oren’s shot, as a sign of what is coming:
open warfare between the American Jewish community and the Israeli one will
break out in the U.S. press. Even Abraham Foxman is criticizing Israel these
days … almost all American Jews will stand by the country they live in.
Zionism will be seen by everyone to be what it has worked out to be, a
segregationist ideology, and important liberal Zionists, led by Peter
Beinart, will with sadness and sagacity renounce it.”
Oren Tried to Influence Times on Danon Article
After The New York Times published an article by Palestinian leader Mahmoud
Abbas, which Oren believed was historically inaccurate, he called the editor
of the op-Ed page, Andrew Rodenthal, and urged him to publish a response by
Israeli President Shimon Peres. Oren writes that, “Rosenthal said that he
already had an article by Knesset member Danny Danon. A rightist who opposed
the two-state solution, Danon would only make Israel look more extreme, I
knew, which is perhaps what Rosenthal wanted. ‘Hold off on Danon,’ I urged
the editor. ‘I’ll get you the Peres piece in time to go to press tomorrow.’
… The next day The Times published Danon’s article. How to explain such
chicanery?”
Oren seems to be saying that presenting Danny Danon in the Times as a
representative of Israel represents “chicanery” and an effort to portray
Israel in a negative light. This seems a strange assessment in light of the
fact that in August, Prime Minister Netanyahu named Danon as his next
ambassador to the United Nations. According to The New York Times, “Mr.
Danon is an ambitious, headline-grabbing young politician who has called for
Israel to annex all West Bank settlements, annul the Oslo Peace Accords and
allow Jews to pray on the Temple Mount. He has described the Obama
administration’s criticism of Israeli construction in East Jerusalem as
racist and said the United States is not an honest broker between Israel and
the Palestinians.”
Israelis understand the meaning of Danon’s appointment. Alon Liel, a former
director of Israel’s foreign ministry, said that it showed Mr. Netanyahu’s
disdain for the diplomatic corps, which is more moderate than the
government’s ministers. “This is a right-wing government; it’s not a center-
right government,” Mr. Liel said’ “The message goes through, I think, that
Israel is not surrendering on the issue of two states.” The center-left
Zionist Union faction of Israel’s parliament, issued a statement calling the
appointment “another nail in the coffin” that Netanyahu was “putting in
Israel’s foreign relations.” One of its lawmakers, Erel Margalit, called
Danon “a right-wing extremist with the diplomatic sensitivity of a pit
bull.”
Danon Is Representative of Today’s Israel
While Michael Oren, in effect, told Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times
that Shimon Peres, rather than Danny Danon was more representative of
Israeli thinking, he seems to have been mistaken in his assessment. Danon’s
extremist views, and willingness to give them full expression are
instructive. He has likened the nuclear agreement with Iran as “providing a
pyromaniac with matches,” described President Mahmoud Abbas of the
Palestinian Authority as having hands “drenched with the blood of innocent
civilians,” and said Secretary of State John Kerry was “disconnected from
the reality on the ground and is ignoring the basic security needs of
Israel.” A 2013 profile in The New Republic said that Danon “was doing
everything he can to push his party — and his country to the right.”
Danny Danon tried to torpedo Secretary of State Kerry’s peace talks with the
Palestinians by saying that a majority of Netanyahu’s government and Likud
leaders opposed a two-state solution, and by threatening to quit if the
prime minister released more Palestinian prisoners as promised. “The
international community can say whatever they want and we can do whatever we
want,” he told The Times of Israel at the time. Michael Oren may still
believe that Shimon Peres is more representative of the “real” Israel than
Danny Danon, but the available evidence does not support that view.
The case of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was of particular interest to Oren,
who did his best to secure Pollard’s release from prison. He acknowledges
that Pollard violated the law and even points to his lack of remorse. In an
interview with Wolf Blitzer, then a reporter for The Jerusalem Post, Pollard
declared: “I want to be very clear. I do not believe the operation was a
mistake.” Oren notes that, “After initially disassociating itself from
Pollard, Israel granted him citizenship in 1995. Israelis increasingly
viewed him as a principled Jew who sacrificed his freedom for his people, a
soldier who must not be abandoned in the field.”
Oren and Pollard
American Jewish opinion on the Pollard case was divided, although at the
time of his arrest his act of espionage received little sympathetic support.
Oren notes that, “While many community members, especially the more
conservative and religiously observant, rallied for Pollard’s freedom,
others upheld the verdict. ‘Pollard is no hero of Israel,’ Martin Peretz,
the avidly pro-Israel editor emeritus of The New Republic, blogged. ‘He was
paid for his filthy work … and his moral profile is truly disgusting.’ Such
revulsion reflected, at least in part, American Jewry’s lingering fear that
the Pollard affair exposed it to accusations of dual loyalty … Indeed,
Pollard’s supporters accused the half-Jewish (Secretary of Defense) Caspar
Weinberger of seeking the harshest possible punishment in order to deflect
charges of conflicted loyalty from himself.”
Oren saw similarities between himself and Pollard: “Pollard, roughly my age,
was disconcertingly familiar. Like me … he bore the burden of the Holocaust,
and exulted in Israel’s rebirth. ‘There was no difference between being a
good American and a good Zionist,’ he explained to Blitzer. ‘American Jews
should hold themselves personally accountable for Israel’s security.’ “
Among American Jews in sensitive U.S. Government positions, hostility to
Pollard and to calls for his release was overwhelming. Oren recalls that,
“One senior member of the National Security Council told me over breakfast,
‘As an American Jew, I believe Jonathan Pollard should get out of prison … ‘
He paused … ‘In a coffin.’” What Oren does not properly consider is the fact
that Jonathan Pollard, more than anything, was a victim of Zionism. In
religious school, in youth groups, in summer camps, young people such as
Pollard viewed the Israeli flag flying. They were told that Israel was their
“real” homeland and that they were in “exile” in America. Their highest
religious obligation, they were instructed, was to make “Aliyah,” emigrate
to Israel. Most young people who are subject to such ideological thinking,
reject it, recognizing that it has no connection with the reality of their
lives. A few, like Pollard and Oren, believe it and act upon it, although in
different ways. It is not a question of “dual loyalty,” a dubious
proposition at best. Oren, after all, left America, fought in the Israeli
Army, and abandoned his U.S. citizenship. He lived the Zionist dream, very
much involving a “single” loyalty. Jonathan Pollard lived a variation which
turned into a nightmare.
Little Introspection
There is little introspection in Oren’s book. He never mentions the long
history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, of which, as an historian, he must
surely be aware. Prior to the mid-20th century, the overwhelming majority of
all Jews rejected Zionism. In 1929, Orthodox Rabbi Aaron Samuel Tamarat
wrote that the very notion of a sovereign Jewish state as a spiritual center
was a “contradiction to Judaism’s ultimate purpose.” He wrote: “Judaism at
root is not some religious concentration which can be localized or situated
in a single territory. Neither is Judaism a ‘nationality,’ in the sense of
modern nationalism, fit to be woven into the three-foldedness of ‘homeland,
army and heroic songs.’ No, Judaism is Torah, ethics and exaltation of
spirit. If Judaism is truly Torah, then it cannot be reduced to the confines
of any particular territory. For as Scripture said of Torah, ‘It’s measure
is greater than the earth.”
At the beginning of Reform Judaism, perhaps its most articulate spokesman,
the distinguished German rabbi and scholar Abraham Geiger (1810-1874) argued
that Judaism developed through an evolutionary process that had begun with
God’s revelation to the Hebrew prophets. That revelation was progressive;
new truth became available to every generation. The underlying and
unchangeable essence of Judaism was its morality. The core of Judaism was
ethical monotheism. The Jewish people were a religious community, destined
to carry on the mission to “serve as a light to the nations,” to bear
witness to God and his moral law. The dispersion of the Jews, Geiger pointed
out, was not a punishment for their sins, but a part of God’s plan whereby
they were to disseminate the universal message of ethical monotheism. Geiger
deleted all prayers about a return to Zion in a Reform prayerbook he edited
in 1854.
One of the leading Jewish theologians and philosophers of the 20th century,
Abraham Joshua Heschel, who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for
civil rights for all people, said, “Judaism is not a religion of space and
does not worship the soil. So, too, the State of Israel is not the climax of
Jewish history, but a test of the integrity of the Jewish people and the
competence of Israel.”
Ignoring a Long History
One would think that a highly educated observer such as Michael Oren, while
embracing the Zionist philosophy and worldview himself, would acknowledge
that most American Jews are ambivalent at best about Zionism’s claims. From
the beginning, American Jews considered themselves full and equal citizens
and embraced the promise of the American Dream. In 1841, Rabbi Gustav
Poznanski of Charleston, South Carolina spoke at the dedication ceremony of
Temple Beth Elohim. He declared: “This country is our Palestine, this city
our Jerusalem, this house of God our Temple.”
Jews in Europe were equally critical of Jewish nationalism which they viewed
as a substitute for religion. Adolf Jellinek, who became the greatest Jewish
preacher of his age and a standard bearer of Jewish liberalism from his
position as rabbi at the Leopoldstadt Temple in Vienna, deplored the
creation of what he called a “small state like Serbia or Romania, outside
Europe, which would most likely become the plaything of one Great Power
against another, and whose future would be very uncertain.”
In 1897, the Central Conference of American Rabbis adopted a resolution
disapproving of any attempt to establish a Jewish state. The resolution
stated: “Zion was a precious possession of the past … as such it is a holy
memory, but it is not our hope for the future. America is our Zion.” In
1904, The American Israelite, edited by Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, the leader
of American Reform Judaism in the 19th century, noted: “There is not one
solitary prominent native Jewish American who is an advocate of Zionism.” In
a speech to the Menorah Society Dinner in New York City in December 1917,
Chief Judge of the New York State Supreme Court Irving Lehman, brother of
Governor Herbert Lehman of New York, stated: “I cannot recognize that the
Jews as such constitute a nation in any sense in which the word is
recognized in political science, or that a national basis is a possible
concept for modern Judaism. We Jews in America, bound to the Jews of other
lands by our common faith, constituting our common inheritance, cannot as
American citizens feel any bond to them as members of a nation, for
nationally we are Americans and Americans only, and in political and civic
matters we cannot recognize any other ties. We must therefore look for the
maintenance of Judaism to those spiritual concepts which constitute
Judaism.”
Idolatry, Which Judaism Abhors
Beyond showing no understanding of the long history of Jewish opposition to
Zionism, Oren’s embrace of what he admits is “tribalism,” and his rejection
of the mandate of “tikkun olam,” to repair the world, pushes him to make the
State of Israel into a virtual object of worship, the very kind of idolatry
which Judaism abhors. He states many times that Israel and the United States
share “common values,” but this is hardly the case. We believe in religious
freedom and separation of church and state. Israel is, in effect, a
theocracy with a state religion, Orthodox Judaism, which is supported by
Israeli taxpayers. Reform and Conservative rabbis have fewer rights in
Israel than any place in the Western world. They cannot conduct weddings and
funerals and their conversions are not recognized. There is no civil
marriage in Israel. For a Jew to marry a Christian or a Moslem or a Jew
whose mother is not Jewish is impossible, without leaving the country. These
are hardly “common values.”
Israel’s current government makes no secret of its contempt for religious
diversity. In July, its minister of religious services, David Azoulay, said
that he did not consider Reform Jews to be Jewish. He declared, “The moment
a Reform Jew stops following the religion of Israel, let’s say there’s a
problem. I cannot allow myself to call such a person a Jew.” Even so vocal a
supporter of Israel as Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said
that the Israeli government’s “refusal to recognize the vibrant diversity of
mainstream Jewish religious practice is of particular concern to the
American Jewish community.” He referred to Mr. Azoulay’s “demeaning and
hateful comments about Reform Jews.” Some years ago, Israel’s president,
Reuven Rivlin, when he was a member of parliament, attended a service at a
Reform synagogue in New Jersey. As he left, he told an Israeli newspaper,
“This is idol worship, not Judaism.” In June, Rivlin reneged at the last
minute on a plan to host a disabled children’s bar mitzvah ceremony under
the auspices of Orthodox and Conservative rabbis. He agreed to hold it only
if the Conservative rabbis did not participate.
Rabbi Burt Visitzky, a Reform rabbi in Connecticut, declares that, “We’re
commanded to love one another … So why are we teaching hate, and not just
Jew against Jew. We have raised a generation of Israeli kids who can set
fire to a bilingual school and then, when they’re sentenced at trial, hear
them say it was worth it? Why are we raising a generation of kids in
yeshivot who can spray-paint ‘Death to the Arabs’? … How did this happen? …
Instead of working to find ways to talk to one another, we find ways to shut
one another out.”
Beyond this, the U.S. and Israel do not share “common values” when it comes
to citizenship. Israel proclaims itself as the “nation-state” of “the Jewish
people,” even though 20 per cent of its population is not Jewish. American
nationality is not based on common race, religion or ancestry but upon a
common commitment to the idea of freedom. “If you shed one drop of American
blood,” Herman Melville wrote, “you shed the blood of the whole world.”
Sadly, at the present time Israel represents the tribalism Oren embraces.
This, however, is not a “common value.”
Sovereignty as Americans
It disturbs Oren that “American Jews prefer comfort to sovereignty.” But it
is not “comfort” with which American Jews identify, but an American identity
that guarantees freedom and equality to all citizens, regardless of
background. They already exercise sovereignty as Americans.
Oren abandoned America to join his “tribe.” Zionism did a good job of
alienating him from his native country. In this sense, it remains a uniquely
subversive enterprise. It is still doing its best to alienate young
Americans from their country. Few, however, are heeding its call and
following in Oren’s footsteps. This accounts, in large measure, for the
dismay he feels about younger American Jews who, he observes, are committed
to universal Jewish values rather than the “tribal” identity he has
embraced.
When he laments that not very many in the younger generation are following
his example, Oren seems at least to recognize that Israel and American Jews
are going in decidedly different directions. In that sense, this book serves
to illustrate the ever growing gap between American Jewish values and
Israel’s exercise of power — perhaps a different result than the author
intended. But he has done us the service of making Zionism’s worldview clear
to all, something we seldom encounter, since obfuscation serves a philosophy
such as this far better than clear explication.
|