semitism.net

The fall-out from the Lebanon War has simply been breathtaking, in the breadth and complexity of issues raised. Over half of the Israeli public looks back, sees the hostages not returned, Hizballah’s reputation growing by leaps and bounds in Lebanon and the Arab world, and says that nothing was gained from the bombing. There are loud calls for the resignation or termination of the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, the IDF Chief of Staff. There are inquiries into the Chief of Staff’s stock deals as the war was getting underway. A few soldiers sit in jail for their refusal to go to Lebanon, others issue petitions and protest that they were not allowed to fight, most Israelis question what has become of their once-vaunted, seemingly invincible army. Beloved author David Grossman’s son killed, along with 30+ others, in terribly bungled operations in the “three terrible days” before the cease fire. The Finance Ministry reports that billions are needed for reconstruction, that pre-war planning and preparation of the citizenry were disastrous. Children in the north of Israel deal with PTSD, families deal with hundreds of deaths and injuries. Others wonder, louder than ever, what has happened to the Israeli left. Israeli Arabs face, as always, ostracism and Faustian bargains on all sides.

That’s a lot to digest. Many commentators opine that it will take a long time to understand just where Israel is after Lebanon — where it is as a country (including the government and army), as a people. Some, like Ari Shavit, have gone so far as to suggest that a complete, top-to-bottom examination of Israel is necessary:

Thus, the challenge of the final days of the war and of the long day that
will come immediately afterward, is to turn Israel into a sustainable state
again. To that end, all the basic questions must be reopened. To that end, a
thorough housecleaning has to be done not only in the systems of the
government, the army and the establishment but in all the systems of our
life. There must be discussion and debate, clarification and clarity. The
Israeli condition must be defined, and what that condition obliges must be
understood.

Consider this again: “The Israeli condition must be defined, and what that condition obliges must be understood.” What a massive task, an incredible admission, an even more incredible mission. To say that your society, your country needs a complete overhaul and reassessment. Certainly the range of issues at play in Israel lends support to Shavit’s theory. And none of the above even gets at the future of the conflict with the Palestinians, the settlers, the religious-secular divide, but those are, of course, as ever-present as before.

Even if you don’t agree with Shavit’s dire call for a complete overhaul, it’s indisputable that Israeli society is as tumultuous today as it has been in quite a long time. So in such a context, with these complex issues on the table, how do we in the United States know what to say or do about Israel? How do you say you are “pro-Israel” when it’s as unclear as ever what Israel itself is.

Well, it appears the answer is to not think about it, and just say you’re “pro-Israel” anyway. At least that’s what our mainstream organizations are telling our college students in the hot-off-the-presses, 130-page resource guide Focus on Israel: Tools for Education, Advocacy and Action on Campus.

The Guide was issued by Israel on Campus Coalition, which is an amalgated organization, basically a partnership between Hillel and the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation that works with a network of mainstream organizations, from AIPAC to ADL to Americans for Peace Now to the JCPA to each of the major religious movements to the ZOA, to provide Israel-related materials and resources to college students.

The Guide’s Introduction says it all:

Dear Students and Campus Professionals,

The months of July and August have been profoundly challenging for the civilians of
Israel and Lebanon, and for the men and women of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Between July 12th and August 14th:

• 3,970 Hezbollah rockets landed in Israel (www.mfa.gov.il)
• 4,262 Israeli civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries (www.mfa.gov.il)
• 117 IDF soldiers and 39 civilians were killed (Yediot Ahronoth, 8/15/06)
• 12,000 Israeli homes were damaged and 750,000 trees burned (Yediot Ahronoth,
8/15/06)

Out of the painful news and imagery surrounding this conflict arises a critical opportunity
– to engage in proactive Israel education and advocacy on America’s college
campuses this fall. As the following pages demonstrate, there are myriad ways to take
action – representing the broad spectrum of voices within the Jewish community. But the
only certainty is that we must do just that – take action. We must speak out – to
educate about and advocate on behalf of Israel.

Consider the distinction here: Ari Shavit, one of Israel’s leading intellectuals and writers (and certainly not someone I agree with all of the time), sees behind the bullet points, sees the issues raised above and says what comes out of it all is a need to reassess Israeli society, its present and its future, from aleph to tav; the ICC sees these issues only as a “critical opportunity to engage in proactive Israel education and advocacy on America’s college campuses.” How can that be? How can that be what comes out of the destruction in Israel, the tumult in society? How can the American Jewish understanding of Israel, at least in public, be so limited, the American Jewish interest in teaching its children about Israel so hollow, so short-sighted, so self-serving?

What will the education and advocacy be about anyway? How should it be done?

Unfortunately, our students aren’t told much beyond that Hizballah is a dangerous organization that threatens Israel’s existence and that Israel responded appropriately, takes all measures to protect civilians and just wants peace. The Guide contains many of the “FAQ”s and “talking points” and “Messaging” suggestions about Lebanon that I reviewed in an earlier post. The Israel Project provides a very useful and instructive guide to “Proven Pro-Israel Sound Bites” (page 11 of Section 5) Even the Americans for Peace Now entry in the Resource Guide (page 10 of Section 4) is a general statement issued early on in the war and does not include any of the insightful analysis APN usually gets to in other publications. There is not one item of analysis that takes a nuanced approach, hardly any publication longer than 2 pages (some of the FAQs are, but the length of those is misleading), and certainly none that explores what other perspectives might be. Like President Bush’s approach to Iraq, the ICC believes that if we tell our students something enough times, it will have to be true.

The problem is many Israelis themselves, in some cases even the Prime Minister, will not agree with what’s stated in these materials, at least the simplicity with which they are presented. Although this Guide was issued after the war ended, many of the statements are from early on in the war. And even though other sources are out there everywhere, other views and ideas that could round out their understanding, probe thier beliefs and ultimately make whatever they decide to believe that much stronger and more effective, the ICC apparently did not think it necessary for our students to have their minds cluttered with complexity, with post-war review of the early statements on the war. Or they did not want to take the chance that they might end up thinking slightly differently than the Guide allows.

Nevertheless, armed with this superficial level of “information,” our students are instructed to get out there and be actively “pro-Israel.” So, for those instances when they are confronted with fellow students who support Hizballah or Islamic Jihad, they are provided a few ideas:

Build Relationships With Campus Influentials and Key University Stakeholders: Pro-Israel student activists can begin building positive relationships with influential students on campus by setting up personal meetings with them to discuss their questions and concerns about the current situation in Israel. This effort positions pro-Israel student activists as mavens of information and raises their profile to the university’s most influential student leaders.
Circulate a Pro-Israel Petition: Pro-Israel petitions are a meaningful engagement opportunity, giving activists an opportunity to discuss Israel with their peers and provide meaningful, real-time information during this crucial time.
Host a Pro-Israel Teach-In: As events in the Israel and in the Middle East change at an increasingly fast pace, pro-Israel experts from academia – from a variety of political perspectives - can participate in a lecture series/teach-in and help interested students understand current events in Israel and in the Middle East in real time.
Bring Israelis to Campus: One of the most effective methods to educate students about Israel is by facilitating personal encounters with Israelis, especially students’ Israeli peers who are studying at Israel’s universities. By bringing Israelis to campus, students can learn about life in Israel through personal stories.
Bring a Member of Congress to Campus: Pro-Israel activists can invite their member of Congress to discuss the current situation, including why they support Israel, with the campus’ top student leaders.

Other than being thankful that none of our students need to worry about going to school in an area where their member of Congress does not support Israel, and that every parent should want his or her child to be a “maven of information,” it’s hard to know what else to glean from this. What does “pro-Israel” mean?

For example, what should a “pro-Israel petition” say? Why does it say what it does? Does it just say Israel was right to do what it did in Lebanon? That it remains right in what it is doing to Gaza? Does it assert that the Israel cannot be forced by the international community to do anything Israel does not agree to, that nothing should be imposed on Israel? Again, many Israelis would not even agree with this approach, with these statements. Should it say that we support Israeli soldiers? What does that mean? What about the soldiers on the streets protesting Olmert and Peretz, saying they did not get enough of a chance to reach their goals? Are they doing something that is pro-Israel or anti-Israel?

How will a “pro-Israel” student deal with the compelling op-ed by Daniel Levy, now at the New America Foundation and an Israeli negotiator at Oslo, Taba and Geneva? Levy argued that Israel was stuck in the position of fighting a war dictated by the neoconservative vision of the new Middle East, the same vision exploding in Iraq. Levy explained that Israel’s interests were not served at all by Washington’s approach during the war, the approach so loudly supported by the American Jewish community:

A U.S. return to proactive diplomacy, realism and multilateralism, with sustained and hard engagement that delivers concrete progress, would best serve its own, Israeli and regional interests. Israel should encourage this. Israel may even have to lead, for instance, in rethinking policy on Hamas or Syria, and should certainly work intensely with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in encouraging his efforts to reach a Palestinian national understanding as a basis for stable governance, security quiet and future peace negotiations. A policy that comes with a Jerusalem kosher stamp of approval might be viewed as less of an abomination in Washington.

Beyond that, Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest “pro-Israel” lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances.

So what happens when a Jewish student faces this critical point of whether Israel’s interests are not ultimately the same as the Bush Administration’s, even though the Bush Administration supported Israel unflinchingly during the war, which is what the Guide says was the right thing? And this point comes from an Israeli negotiator, not some crazy “anti-Israel” student.

Using this Guide, using what the mainstream organizations have provided to them, using the understanding of Israel that we are imparting to our children, our students can’t respond to Levy with anything other than platitudes like “Israel was just defending itself,” with ideas about IDF actions that belie reality and that will ultimately leave everyone worse off for the discussion.

And, by the way, does anyone working for the ICC or any of its organizations know that there are Israeli citizens who are Arabs? Muslims, even?

With the Guide in their hands, how will a “pro-Israel” student deal with an Israeli Arab, or anyone else who approaches with Sayed Kashua’s brilliant writing in the Israeli press during the war? What will they say when someone asks for comment to Kashua’s description of the Israeli Arab dilemma:

Ya’allah, how do you get out of this mess? Of all the options in the world, I had to be born an Israeli Arab, what shit it is. I don’t have many choices. No matter how I look at it, I have only two options: kowtowing or militancy. There’s no middle ground. I checked out all the possibilities, thought of a million different formulas. Nothing. I don’t have a lot of time and I have to decide what I am: an ass-licker or an extreme nationalist. It’s a hard choice.
…

If you come and say that we are all in the same boat - the fact is that people are being killed in Nazareth, in Haifa and in the Arab villages in the Galilee - that there is an alliance of life and an alliance of death with the Jewish people, and at the end of your remarks express the hope that the war will end, people will say it’s because you are looking after numero uno, that you don’t want to offend your boss, and above all because you’re afraid to lose your National Insurance. If you attack the government’s policy and the military way of thought and call for an end to the bloodshed on both sides, people will say that the sea is the same sea and the Arabs are the same Arabs and that they all want to throw the Jews to the sharks and have done with them.

True, there are also a few Jews, not many, but there are some who speak against the war on television, but that doesn’t mean under any circumstances that they support Hezbollah. They fall within the legitimate framework of the Israeli internal debate, and you don’t. So what do you do, damn it?

They will have no idea, because they have not been given a real understanding of Israel. They will have no idea that close to a quarter of Israel’s population would not meet the definition of “pro-Israel” that the Guide gave them. Do we expect our students to tell Kashua he is not Israeli at all? Not Arab? Cannot be both?

I included the 2 lengthy quotes above because I hope that some mainstream Jewish students will see this, and I want to give them a starting test. Of course, there are myriad other questions our students will be asked and need to understand and face in order to be the leaders we need in the next generation. But the mainstream community believes, essentially, that our students are stupid, that they need to have their hands held, their brains spoon-fed, their ideas formed for them.

I can only hope our students reject the Guide, reject what they have been given by the ICC. Not because I do not want them to be “pro-Israel.” The opposite. I just want them to be able to tell me — in their own words, based on their own research and exploration and wrestling with ideas — what that means.

Because I have no idea right now.