Communal Upheaval : On the “Verge of
Fratricide”
By Lawrence Davidson
September 08, 2015 "Information
Clearing House" -
The insistence that Israel is somehow the
national embodiment of the Jewish people 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 unsavory practices of the Israeli
state.
The Zionists tried to force the Jews into this Procrustean bed
through the monopolization of elite Jewish organizations 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 labeled
“self-hating” traitors.
It is a long-standing effort at censorship. Some people might get
upset with those who publicly accuse Charles Schumer 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.
Part II – On the “Verge of Fratricide”
It was inevitable that the Zionist requirement of public silence
would get harder to enforce the more outrageous the behavior of
Israel’s political leadership became. On the American scene, the
combination of the brazen intrusion of Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu into U.S. politics (particularly his 3 March 2015
address to Congress) and the warmongering position on Iran taken by
Jewish organizations 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, 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 (NYT). That article is
entitled “Debate on Iran Fiercely Splits American Jews.”
The NYT’s main example of this near-fratricidal behavior 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 of the Forward,
the New York Representative was hit by “vociferous attacks” labeling
him a “traitor,” one who wants to “abandon the Jewish people.”
According to the NYT’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 NYT’s article, Obama, speaking on “a webcast for major Jewish
organizations,” 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
counselor who comes too late to the party.
Part III – Persistent Incivility
The truth is that the tone of the edicts coming out of Israel both
past and present, and then transmitted by elite Jewish-Zionist
organizations down the line to the synagogues and community centers
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
U.S.) national interests. And if you don’t follow their lead, you
will be accused of betraying “your people.” This persistent
incivility has just been below the U.S.’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 U.S.- Israeli relations?
Well, according to the NYT some are predicting “long-term damage to
Jewish organizations 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 behavior 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 NYT 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 realize that this is more than a family
squabble? It is a fundamental break between those who favor
humanitarian values and sensible diplomacy, and those who favor 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.
Part IV – Conclusion
It is probably accurate to describe current events as doing lasting
damage to American Jewish organizations. 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 organizations had long ago turned
into fronts for Israel and have been hurting, not helping, American
Jews.
As to the future of the U.S.-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.
Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of
history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His
academic research focused on the history of American foreign
relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East
history, the history of science and modern European intellectual
history.