I’ve been thinking about the split between progressive Zionists and more radical critics of Zionism - a split which I think is exploited if not manufactured by the Jewish right wing.

The right makes the case that the dividing line for “acceptable” speech should be support for Israel. In other words, it’s OK to criticize the settlement policies of the Israeli government, but not to question the morality of the ideal of a Jewish state. Criticism
must stop when it comes to policies necessary for Israel’s survival (including, of course, the separation wall, restrictions on Palestinian freedom of movement, ethnic separation, the invasion of Lebanon, etc.).

But reading through the resolutions of the 1918 ZOA meeting, their positions are surprisingly close to those of today’s so-called anti-Zionists, who are concerned to a large degree with ethnic separatism and its social consequences in modern Israel.

Progressive Zionism, post-Zionism and anti-Zionism may not be as widely divergent in their basic goals as the right would have us all believe.

At a more practical level - I wonder if we could support free speech at Brandeis University with donations of our own? Maybe create a pool of Donors for Diversity, or something like that?

Obviously we’re not going to replace millions lost if big donors withdraw, but, still, new donors are important, and it would allow more progressive Jews to put our money where our mouths are, and help create positive change at a major Jewish institution.

What do others think?

Like son, like mother.

Signed, Dad and husband