Ledger Editorial Archives

Ideas, and the people who bring them to us

Ruth Wisse, the holder of the Yiddish chair at Harvard, an articulate and brilliant speaker for Israel, during a presentation at Stanford University was asked, “Why is Israel an apartheid state?”
“Why did you kill your grandmother?” she answered.
Each time the student repeated the question, she responded in kind. Later she explained that there are times when questions aren’t questions, but are really weapons.
We can say as much about some of the groups we’ve seen come to Connecticut to ask questions about Israel. Many of them put Israel and her defenders in a difficult place before a word is spoken.
We can’t control what is said about Israel in our free and open society, nor would we want to, but we are obligated to be selective regarding whom we invite to speak to us in our own communities. Ostensibly we hold programs that may create “dialogue” on difficult issues pertaining to Israel, but we forget that real dialogue happens only when the speakers share common ground. Differing opinions might create notable or sensational events, but when there is no agreement on the facts presented and only opinions are offered, then honest discussion is difficult.
Right now a number of groups are traveling the United States with strong opinions and a unique set of facts that have more to do with their burning determination to demonize Israel, than to provide an accurate context on the issues they discuss. We are as likely to have a true dialogue with them as we would with people who say Israel and the U.S. government perpetrated the horror of 9/11.
Judie Jacobson’s story about the visit to Connecticut of an Israeli and Arab representing the group Combatants for Peace (Ledger, Jan. 26)-invited into our community by mainstream Jewish organizations-elicited much comment recently. We continue to look for answers to the questions that story raised. (See Letters, this page)
When there is no common ground in a discussion there is only advocacy and propaganda. However, for some reason, the notion persists that “diversity” is the overarching principle when it comes to the speakers we invite. But “diversity” is not an absolute and must be, like most things, tempered by critical judgment.
We’d probably all agree that bringing a David Duke or David Irving into our homes and synagogues to tell us the Shoah never happened has little to do with dialogue or diversity. And we would be as likely to invite Iran’s Ahmadinejad to dinner today as we would have had Goering or Stalin in their bloody time. But today, we too often depend on the “diversity” argument to include just about anyone into our midst to the extent that inclusion for every opinion has become automatic and elevated to the status of a right. Who the Jewish community should embrace and who it should exclude deserves discussion, and we offer these criteria as a start of that process.
Someone who would just as readily share a forum with us as point a gun at our heads should not be allowed to come to us to justify their motives. Those who blow up busses in Tel Aviv, take Israelis captive to murder them, or send rockets into populated areas to kill and maim Israel’s citizens all fall into this category. That’s an easy call. But the problem comes with those who support them.
Right now some of the groups traveling here offer seemingly objective programs that are actually rationalizations for Arab violence against Israel. To us, little separates those who do violence from those who promote and facilitate it. While the world can parse the difference, the Jewish community owes these groups no standing. Their violent message is clear before they get to the microphone.
We would also exclude those who come to debate Israel’s right to be. Any discussion of Israel’s existence concedes the point before a word is spoken. Of all the countries in the world, only one has its legitimacy challengedóIsraelóand we’re not obligated to offer another place where this argument can be made. This goes directly to Ruth Wisse’s point that questions can be weapons, and we think the same can be said for “dialogues.” Israel’s adversaries understand this, and it is important to determine whom we debate.
One more point-an important one: Those who challenge Israel’s existence visit campuses and churches across the country in search of the naÔve and gullible, to present Israel in the worst light while claiming victim status for the Palestinians. The inclusion of a Jewish institution on their itinerary gives them easier entree to the non-Jewish community, enabling them to open doors that would otherwise remain closed.
As long as our leadership is blind to these considerations and elevates “diversity” over true debate, then our Jewish organizations will continue to promote groups that malign the Jewish state and in fact advocate its extinction. Ignoring this point for any reason does us all a disservice and does Israel great harm.
–nrg

SHARE
RELATED POSTS
Moving away from our longstanding relationship with Israel
Another election: One more time / The Taliban at Yale
Dual loyalty and accountability

Comments are closed.