An impassioned speaker, she surely left a striking impression for the moderately liberal Conservative-affiliated synagogue, Ansche Chesed. The audience was unfailingly polite and mostly receptive to her message, which contrasted the massive upheavals for democracy and human rights going on in Tunisia and Egypt right now (including spillovers in at least a couple of other Arab countries) with a contraction of democracy and civil rights threatening to take hold in Israel. Dr. Chazan spoke powerfully of a crescendo of legislation up for imminent approval by the Knesset which, for example, seeks to criminalize the act of mentioning the "Nakba" (the Arab term for the catastrophic events that occurred in their community during Israel's war for independence), to investigate the funding sources of human rights NGO's, to outlaw any kind of boycott, and to facilitate discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel in housing.
Still, the first questioner during the Q & A strongly dissented. He expressed alarm at the chorus of strident anti-Israel voices erupting at our university campuses, as well as other places. (He mentioned the late Tony Judt in this connection, overstating Judt's ill-considered characterization of Israel as "an anachronism," as actually advocating its destruction.) Dr. Chazan responded on the need to distinguish between reasonable criticisms of Israeli government policies and moves that seek to delegitimize Israel's existence.
I see a need to build a bridge between these two views, with the recognition that there is an understandable emotional aspect to this discussion. The questioner is rightly worried by Israel's widespread demonization, but he is off the mark in blurring the line between dissent and delegitimization.
The next day, I chatted with Ms. Chazan at another Upper West Side liberal congregation, B'nai Jeshurun, following a panel discussion; the Forward's J.J. Goldberg served ably as moderator for this program entitled, "Loving Israel, Debating Israel: Between Debate, Democracy and Delegitimization." The panel consisted of spokespeople for the very left-wing Jewish Voice for Peace, the somewhat conservative David Project, and the left-liberal New Israel Fund.
While neither the more left nor more conservative speakers were rabid, the default position for Rebecca Vilkomerson, the national director of JVP, was to mostly find fault with Israel; Matthew Ackerman, Middle East analyst for the David Project, mostly defended the status quo. Vilkomerson indicated more of a personal connection to Israel than I would have guessed, but the JVP's position regarding BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) is flawed: while only explicitly endorsing the boycott of settlements and companies that "profit from the occupation," it does not condemn BDS campaigns which are more broadly aimed at Israel proper. Ackerman acknowledges that Israel is imperfect, but he has his head in the sand in refusing to see the ways in which democratic values are eroding. Only Daniel Sokach, the CEO of the NIF spoke from a well-informed reform-minded perspective.
Both Sokach and Chazan (the night before) highlighted the crisis for democracy threatening Israel by mentioning that even traditional Likud leaders--such as Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin, Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor and [cabinet] Minister Benny Begin--have voiced alarm at the situation. Both Sokach and Chazan articulate a vision of Israel that is consonant with the high ideals expressed in its declaration of independence: i.e., ".... THE STATE OF ISRAEL ... will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on the precepts of liberty, justice and peace as invisaged by the prophets of Israel; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture...."
No comments:
Post a Comment