retour article original
The insistence that Israel is somehow the national embodiment of the Jewish people (1) has always been dangerous.This is so because it tied a diverse group spread over the globe to the apron strings of a single political entity and its ideology (Zionism). Thus identified, the Jews were allegedly what a bunch of Zionist ideologues said they were, and were also supposedly exemplified by the consistently unsavoury practices of the Israeli state.
The Zionists tried to force the Jews into this Procrustean bed through the monopolisation of elite Jewish organisations and the emotional blackmail of those who might have dissenting views. The mantra here was that if a Jewish person had disagreements with Israel, he or she should express them behind closed doors and never in public. Behind closed doors the dissenter could be contained. However, if he or she went public with their differences, they undercut the myth of Jewish community solidarity with Israel. To go public in this fashion was a mortal sin, and one risked being shamed within one’s community. Those who persisted were labelled “self-hating” traitors.
It is a long-standing effort at censorship. Some people might get upset with those who publicly accuse Charles Schumer (2) of having dual loyalties involving Israel, but no one seemed to get equally upset with those Zionists who have accused thousands of Jews worldwide of being “self-haters” because they publicly came out against Israel’s atrocious treatment of the Palestinians.
It was inevitable that the Zionist requirement of public silence would get harder to enforce the more outrageous the behaviour of Israel’s political leadership became. On the American scene, the combination of the brazen intrusion of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu into US politics (particularly his 3 March 2015 address to Congress) and the warmongering position on Iran taken by Jewish organisations openly allied to Israel seems to have been the tipping point. The combined adamance of this Zionist front has forced American Jewish congresspeople and senators to make a choice, and do so publicly. Those who have chosen, against the wishes of the Israeli government, to support the Iran nuclear agreement as reflecting the long-term interests of the United States (and Israel) are now treated to the same degree of defamation as those Jews called “self-haters”.
A national window on what Greg Rosenbaum, the chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, calls “the verge of fratricide in the Jewish community” was opened by a front page article in the 29 August 2015 issue of the New York Times. That article is entitled “Debate on Iran fiercely splits American Jews” (3).
The New York Times’s main example of this near-fratricidal behaviour is the case of Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York. Nadler, like the state’s senior senator, Charles Schumer, has spent his entire political career supporting Israel. The only difference between the two is that unlike Schumer, Nadler has come out in support of the Iran agreement. However, that is all it took to make him a target.
According to an interview with Nadler in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and reprinted in the 25 August 2015 edition (4) of Forward, the New York representative was hit by “vociferous attacks” labelling him a “traitor”, one who wants to “abandon the Jewish people”. According to the New York Times’s piece, he has also been called a Kapo (the name given to Jewish collaborators with the Nazis), and a “facilitator of Obama’s holocaust”. New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, a Zionist stalwart, has sworn to work for Nadler’s defeat come the representative’s next primary election and has been harassing him in various ways ever since he announced his support for the Iran deal.
This sort of thing has been going on across the nation where American Jewry interfaces with national politics. It is interesting that the one who is trying to bring civility back into this internecine debate is a gentile : Barack Obama. Again, according to the New York Times’s article, Obama, speaking on “a webcast for major Jewish organisations”, called the treatment of Nadler “appalling” and then, ignoring a fast unraveling political status quo, said “we’re all pro-Israel, and we’re family”. Nonetheless, he concluded that “It’s better to air these things out even if it is uncomfortable, as long as the tone is civil”. Alas, President Obama sounds like a marriage counsellor who comes too late to the party.
The truth is that the tone of the edicts coming out of Israel both past and present, and then transmitted by elite Jewish-Zionist organisations down the line to the synagogues and community centres in the United States, has never been civil. Israel’s self-righteous position has always been that it has an unquestionable right to tell American Jewry when to support or not support their own (that is US) national interests. And if you don’t follow its lead, you will be accused of betraying “your people”. This persistent incivility has just been below the US’s public radar till now. We can all thank Netanyahu and his Likudniks for the fact that that is no longer the case.
So what does this mean for the future of US-Israeli relations ? Well, according to the New York Times, some are predicting “long-term damage to Jewish organisations and possibly to American-Israeli relations”. One thing is for sure, the abrasive Zionist modus operandi will not change. It is built in to the historical character of both their ideology and Israeli culture.
The real questions lie on the American side of the equation. For instance, will American politicians who have belatedly become uneasy with Israeli behaviour come to understand that what they face is a fundamental difference in worldview ? Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of JStreet, in a rare moment of clarity, was cited in the New York Times article as having spoken of “a fundamental break between Democratic Party leaders inclined toward diplomacy and the worldview of a conservative Israeli government which has more in common with Dick Cheney”. Ben-Ami is surely correct here, even though he shortsightedly confines the problem to the current Israeli government.
A corresponding question is will American Jews who disagree with Israeli policies come to realise that this is more than a family squabble ? It is a fundamental break between those who favour humanitarian values and sensible diplomacy, and those who favour the ways of war and ethno-religious discrimination. In truth, American Jews who support civil and human rights have no more in common with Israel and its culture then they do with xenophobic fanatics of the Republican right. They just have to accept that fact and, on the basis of that awareness, take a public stand.
It is probably accurate to describe current events as doing lasting damage to American Jewish organisations. It is not the case that “names can never hurt you”, and there has been a lot of harsh name-calling within these groups. From the anti-Zionist perspective this is all for the good. These organisations had long ago turned into fronts for Israel and have been hurting, not helping, American Jews.
As to the future of the US-Israeli relationship, it is hard to know if the storm that has blown up over the nuclear agreement with Iran has delivered a lasting blow. The Zionist lobby still has a lot of financial power and an increasingly firm alliance with the Republican right. And, who knows, we might someday see those barbarians back in the White House. On the other hand, that evolving alliance will continue to alienate more liberal Jews and Democratic politicians.The safest prediction to make is that while recent events might not spell the end of America’s “special relationship” with Israel, they are surely a big step in the right direction.