Matthew M. Hausman
Recent news reports suggest that the Obama administration intends to solicit the help of American Jewish leaders to sell its prescription for Middle East peace to their constituents. The strategy is to shore up Jewish support in order to lend credibility to President Obama’s foreign policy, regardless of how ill-advised or detrimental for Israel. That this White House is seen in the Arab world as either weak or willing to undercut Israeli sovereignty and security is of no moment. Most of the putative leaders who will be courted are already slaves to a political confederation known as much for what it rejects as what it promotes and leaves little room for original thought or dissent. Moreover, they are committed to political consorts who expect Israel to bow, bend and break to accommodate enemies who deny her history and are committed to maintaining the state of conflict. Unfortunately, these figureheads tend to ignore left-wing or liberal antipathy for Israel in the mistaken belief that antisemitism is the exclusive province of the political right.
Antisemitism has indeed been a political force in right-wing politics, particularly when associated with reactionary governments and churches, radical groups and demagogues, but it historically has been no less potent in leftist or liberal circles. As the ghetto walls came down in 19th Century Europe, many Jews flocked to the nascent liberal movements in the belief that anything opposing the forces that had oppressed them was good. Yet, they were so enamored of their apparent enfranchisement, and so eager to assimilate into a new European society, they could not fathom that the movements that seemingly afforded these opportunities were no more tolerant of Jews and Judaism than the old regimes had been. And this false affinity carried over to New World shores where it persists to this day.
Many American Jews truly believe that antisemitism does not exist in leftist circles because of the idealized history they associate with the birth and growth of European liberalism. But this history has been sanitized of its sordid reality and of the Faustian bargain required of Jews seeking membership. Most Jewish liberals are unaware that some of their most cherished philosophical icons were as virulently antisemitic as the systems of government they were rejecting. Voltaire, for example, was well-known for his hatred of Jews as were Diderot, Holbach and the later fathers of European socialism. Georg Ritter von Schonerer led the vocal left-wing antisemitic movement in Austria, while Wilhelm Marr, a German socialist, actually coined the term “antisemitism” in two pamphlets published in 1873 and 1880, in which he promoted hatred of Jews on political, economic and racial grounds.
Perhaps most famous was the hatred and self-loathing of Karl Marx who, with Friedrich Engels, wrote the Communist Manifesto. Most left-leaning Jews are unfamiliar with early socialist history and are unaware that Marx and Engels learned the theory of dialectical materialism and Hegelian philosophy from Moses Hess, a traditionally educated Jew who had become radicalized in his youth. Hess was considered one of the early pillars of European socialist thought and was highly regarded as such until Marx and Engels determined that all nationality was evil and that the Jews represented the most pernicious of all national spirits. It was then that Hess realized that the Jews’ salvation lay not with socialism but rather with Jewish nationalism and self-determination. His epiphany prompted him to write “Rome and Jerusalem,” which presaged Herzl’s “Der Judenstaat” by more than a quarter century.
Unfortunately, Hess’s national stirrings did not similarly move his political brethren, and the sad reality was that Jews could be accepted into leftist society only if they were willing to cease identifying religiously, nationally and intellectually as Jews. The requisite disaffiliation was often expressed by outright rejection of traditional values. And this rejection was a common thread binding Jews who rose to prominence on the left, whether those of the old Komintern who bowed without question to Soviet authority, or the radical leftists of our day, epitomized by the likes of George Soros, Noam Chomsky, and Norman Finkelstein, who disingenuously advocate for enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. These modern demagogues engage in pathological conduct rivaling the calumny of those medieval Jews who joined the Dominicans and instigated the burning of the Talmud and other holy writ.
Now clearly, not all liberals today are ardent, self-rejecting leftists, and in fact most consider themselves part of the non-extremist mainstream. And for the most part that’s probably a fair assessment. Where they go wrong, however, is in their failure to view their political bedfellows critically and hold them accountable for moral inconsistency or to condemn behavior that is clearly antisemitic. If liberal criticism is leveled at Israel for her response to terrorist aggression but not at those who foment the aggression that sparks the response, if the United Nations condemns Israel’s right to defend herself, or if Human Rights Watch falsely accuses Israel perpetrating “massacres” that never occurred and then refuses to retract, these Jews become complicit by their silence. In extreme ideological circles, such silence implies agreement with the accusations no matter how absurd.
Where left-leaning Jews also go wrong is in their willingness to abandon the religious, cultural and philosophical precepts that kept the Jewish people intact during two millennia of exile, and to replace them with secular ideals that are not necessarily or automatically compatible with the Jewish historical experience. Those who knowingly reject their values are only slightly worse than those who are completely ignorant of their heritage and who, because of their ignorance, cannot honestly distinguish transient political concerns from authentic Jewish priorities. The knowing rejectionists are like the wicked child spoken of at the Seder table who rebels despite his knowledge, while the benignly ignorant are like the child who does not know how to ask and risks moral darkness and spiritual decline.
The risk in being the child who does not know how to ask is that it renders one susceptible to the blandishments of those who misrepresent history for the sake of political agenda. Those lacking in Jewish self-awareness can be manipulated into believing that support for Israel is not an absolute and is antithetical to humanist values. Supporting Israel, however, should not be a conservative versus liberal issue. Rather, objective knowledge of world history should a priori engender support for Israel despite political affiliation.
The late Ronald Reagan is a case in point. During his first administration, his relationship with Israel had a rocky start under the guiding influence of James Baker, George Schultz and Caspar Weinberger, none of whom were friends of Israel and all of whom had ties to the Arab world. Shortly after Israel’s annexation of Golan in 1981, the administration secretly negotiated with the Arab countries a “peace plan” calling for a ceding of the Heights and a retreat to indefensible borders. Israel was not informed of these talks, but was presented with the “final plan” as a fait accompli, which Israel nonetheless rejected. That same year, the administration also condemned Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor and weapons plant.
Menachem Begin rose to these challenges, publicly rebuking the administration through its ambassador and endeavoring to educate President Reagan regarding Jewish and Israeli history and Middle East politics. Although they would not always agree, President Reagan thereafter became for the most part a trusted friend. The point is that the Republican administration in the 1980s was neither inherently supportive nor opposed to Israel based on philosophy or doctrine. The relationship between the two countries eased only after the president’s education about the realities of the Middle East and Israel’s historic rights.
If President Obama now wishes to call upon his Jewish political allies to promote his Middle East policy in order to lend it credence, it is up to the constituents of those allies to say “enough” and to reject their stewardship. Their support for a toxic foreign policy that first spawned Oslo and now presumes an unworkable two-state solution must be met with vocal resistance, grounded in history and informed by the knowledge that left-wing antipathy and liberal discomfort for Israel is often tinged with antisemitism. Although Menachem Begin is no longer with us, we need to channel his resolve and character in the hope that the current administration can be similarly educated. The effort may not succeed, but silence will be taken as acquiescence.
No comments:
Post a Comment