In recent months I’ve heard more and more reports of rabbis who say they no longer know how to talk with their congregants about Israel. They feel — correctly, as far as I can tell — that our community is deeply divided, and that the divisions extend to the communities within the whole: to wit, the congregations.
How does one address an audience, a portion of which regards “Beware, it is 1938 again!” as an applause line, while the other portion is outraged by what it sees as Israel’s persistent provocations? Or perhaps it is into three parts that we are divided — the “Who are we to criticize Israel?” crowd, the “How can we refrain from rebuke when rebuke is warranted?” crowd and a growing number who want the whole matter of Israel to be pushed off-stage, who find it too confounding or too painful to tangle with.
Two parts or three, not necessarily of equal size or equal volume, their public intensity marked and disturbing not only to the rabbis but also to all who call themselves friends of Israel. Who are these others, those who boo while I cheer, those who cheer while I boo? They cannot be the enemy, but they are too blind to be counted as allies, or even as friends.
Relax. There really is a way, after all, to talk to all (or almost all) of us, and that means there is a way for all of us to listen, to comprehend that we are family. That way begins with acknowledgment of the fears we share. It accepts that the vehemence of our public views may well coexist with private pricks of doubt we cannot overcome.
Here’s an example, quite personal: I have written and spoken for many years now, since long before the idea had become a mantra for so many, in favor of a two-state solution. In my view, any other conceivable solution spells death to the Jewish state.
But though that is as deep a conviction as I have, I do not think that a two-state solution, even if achieved, will be a picnic. It is riddled with hazards, both in conception and in execution: Where shall the borders of those states be? Shall Jerusalem be divided by an international boundary, or shall anyone who enters it from the new Palestine be able to exit it into Israel? How, if at all, will Palestine’s eastern border, its long border with Jordan, be controlled? And how shall the limited water supply be shared between Israel and Palestine? Above all, how shall both the Jewish state and the Palestinian state deal with their own extremists, those who claim that their nation’s leaders have stabbed them in the back and those who persist in denying the other’s legitimacy?
One can go on, and on, and those whose task it will one day be to negotiate the terms of a solution to the conflict will have to go on, and on, detail by cumbersome and contentious detail. And their agreed-upon responses to those “details” will leave many on both sides dissatisfied, suspicious.
It grieves me to say all that; I wish it were not so. But it is so, and because it is, I cannot scorn those who feel trapped by the details and who therefore conclude that a two-state solution is folly. I am as outraged as they by Palestinian extremism and incitement (though I wish they were as outraged as I by Israeli extremism and incitement), and I share their doubts that a comprehensive peace treaty will put an end to the excesses.
Yet I continue, not out of stubbornness but out of Zionist fidelity, to believe that a Jewish state is ours by right. (That does not make the Palestinians wrong. One definition of tragedy: when two rights collide.) And the only way to preserve and defend that Jewish state is to embrace the independence of a new and viable neighbor: Palestine.
Some say the two-state idea is simply not realistic. But if I am right in my claim that only with two states can there be a Jewish state, those who say that the two-state idea is not realistic are defeatists. Some say the two-state idea is too problematic. Theirs is a three-letter error; scratch the word “too,” and they are not wrong.
And then, in any case, there is work to be done now, for the house is truly burning. The escalating conflict between state and religion in Israel is a gathering menace to both. The continuing discrimination against Israel’s own Palestinians citizens is an unacceptable affront to Israel’s stated ideals and commitments. Can we speak of such things? Or is the Israel we love and cherish all milk, honey, falafel and high-tech entrepreneurs?
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
As First Maharats Graduate, Roles for Orthodox Women Take Leap Forward
Samantha Power's Support for Israel Is Deeply Personal 
Why I Only Date Jewish Guys
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
Taking Aim at Corporate Jewish Burial Business
You've successfully signed up!
Well said Leonard. My only fear is that before long this piece will be filled with the same hostile comments as before.
The two-state idea is very realistic. Actually, it's "the only show in town" (it's the only idea that is being seriously considered). The topic that is NOT being discussed is the end of conflict. Will the founding of a Palestinian state end the conflict?
Mr Fein raises the question of extremists "on both sides". It seems to be very PC to make an even-handed presentation of the conflict. So, he mentions in one breath Palestinian extremism and incitement with Israeli extremism and incitement. A Jewish state "is ours by right", but in the same breath we hear that this "does not make the Palestinians wrong". There's this strong tendency not to point a finger of accusation solely at the Palestinians - as if being obviously pro-Israel is some sort of a social "no-no". The only time that Mr Fein can present a criticism only on the one side is when this criticism is focused only on Israel. So, we learn about the conflict of religion and state or about discrimination in Israel - and there's no PC need to balance such things and mention the status of Islam in the Palestinian Authority or the pressures on Christians there. Mr Fein can criticize Israel in her own right - and that's just fine, of course - but, strangely, he can't criticize the Palestinians without mentioning Israel in the very same category. That's PC, not journalism. Palestinian "extremism" won the parliamentary elections, and it is very likely to win the presidency next January. Jewish "extremism" is simply not mainstream at all. Palestinian extremism (let's say the Hamas government in Gaza) wishes to destroy Israel (and world Jewry). An extreme Jewish politician in the Knesset(let's say Lieberman) is on record as accepting a two-state solution. I surely wouldn't present the two phenomena as if they are merely the two sides of a single coin.
Now, if you don't mind, I would like to drop the issues of PC. Let's look at the conflict straight in the face, even if the sad conclusion (heaven help us) places the Palestinians BY THEMSELVES in a negative light. The question is: Will a two-state agreement be the end of conflict? Will the two-state agreement be final? From the point of view of Israeli society, the answer is absolutely "yes". There will be opposition, and there will be protests - but the government will be able to force its policy on the public, and the public will accept the finality of the signed agreement. In my humble understanding of the Palestinian position and sociology, they will not sign an agreement that defines the conflict as "over". They might agree to a two-state arrangement which could include their rule over East Jerusalem, an agreement about the right of refugees, etc - but if the meaning of the treaty is that there are no more grievances against the Jewish people, they will not sign it. They do not speak in terms of an end of conflict, even as they express a willingness to found a Palestinian state next to Israel.
Mr Fein - indeed, the two-state idea is the course we wish to take. It is the best interest of the Jewish people. However, there is a misunderstanding when we say "two-state solution". We (the Jews) understand that the word "solution" means "finality" - the conflict is over. For the Palestinians, the "two-state solution" defines the new basis upon which they wish to continue their national drama. It would be in our terminolgy a "two-state arrangement". Your repeated cry for a two-state solution should be restated as "an end of conflict through a two-state arrangement". And, yes, it is allowed to point fingers at the other side and ask them tough questions. It's perhaps not PC in the liberal Jewish world, but it is necessary in such a life-and-death debate over the future of the Jewish people.
If every time you extend a finger to a cat it bites you what do you think will happen when you extend your hand?
The only thing that will be gained by a two state solution will be providing the Arabs more targets for their missiles and a way station for their goal of conquest.
As I am not a liberal I can only deal in facts. Mel
Why do rabbis in this country feel the need to even discuss these issues? Let rabbis discuss Torah and let everyone else play Secretary of State!
Everyone from Ben Gurion onwards has accepted that Israel doesn't want millions of Arabs voting in Israeli elections. Israel tried to give Gaza back to Egypt, who refused to accept it. Jordan occupies 77% of British mandatory Palestine and Jordan's population is at least 70% Palestinian, so reconnecting the West Bank with Jordan would make sense -- but Jordan renounced her claim years ago. The Palestiian state will soon be ruled by Hamas as a proxy for Iran. Egypt and Jordan must join Israel in giving Palestinians autonomy within existing Arab states.
Mr. Field-That's pretty much Israeli journalist's Benny Morris' assessment in his new book "One State, Two States." He feels an independent PS would turn very quickly into another Zimbabwe as would a binational state. So we're stuck.
The Obama administration has actually undermined the whole peace process. There wasn't much chance that a deal could be finalized even under the best of circumstances, but now there won't even be negotiations. The Palestinians will not negotiate as long as the American government seems to be cold and distant from Israel. Why should they negotiate and obligate themselves when the Americans might force concessions out of Israel for free? Moreover, Israel would only be able to make concessions when she feels that the Americans can be trusted. The White House, for example, has denied the existence of understandings between past administrations and Israel vis-a-vis the settlements. The Americans could have stated honestly that they are changing policy - but they preferred to say dishonestly that there weren't any past understandings at all. Add to all that the fact that Obama didn't visit Israel to speak to our public, while he did visit Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Turkey to speak with their public. Don't hold your breath. There aren't going to be any breakthroughs in the Middle East conflict any time soon. One of the reasons that the Arabs wished to negotiate in the past was the fact that the only superpower is behind Israel. The cold shoulder approach to Israel is a real mistake.
Worth reading: http://israelinsider.ning.com/forum/topics/jonathan-tobin-a-pause-for
Maybe it's time the Forward permanently bans Alan & Frank from posting.
Pro-Israel Rabbis should urge their congregations to organize and stand up to Israel's enemies. They should be urged to recognize the existential danger to Israel, and honestly assess the Obama Administrations attacks on Israel. They should contact their representatives spread the word that American Jews support Israel, and expect their representatives to do so. They should be told to stand strong and be of good courage - Chazak v’Amatz.
This president is no juggernaut, and American Jews need to stand up now for Israel ,and oppose his administration's attacks on Israel. .... Today, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday (today) shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barak Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. That’s the first time his ratings have reached double digits in negative territory.
Do not despair - it does not have to be 1938.
Frank,
You have already established that you are a hate filled nudnik, so, don’t bother submitting your comments – no one will be reading them.
Yehuda,
It is reasonable to expect the Arab oil states, the U.S. and the EU to help defray the cost of resettling those West Bank Israelis who are willing. The others can take their chances as citizens of Palestine.
The short term stability of a peace agreement can be assured by the U.S. and the EU acting as guarantors by stationing troops on the treaty established border – the troops having permission to use all force necessary to suppress treaty violations.
The long term stability of a two-state peace depends on the ability of Israel and of the Palestinians to establish mutually beneficial commercial relations.
Shalom Joel - There might be a guarantee from the international community for a future peace treaty. It's nice, but I wouldn't attach too much importance to it. Since the war in Lebanon three years ago, there is an international presence in the form of a UN force to preserve the conditions of the agreed cease-fire as determined by the UNSC 1701. The Hizbullah (a political party, not a state) is not allowed to be armed, and it's not allowed to have a presence south of the Litani. All this was meant to enable Lebanon to restore government rule over its own sovereign territory. Nothing became of all this. No government in Europe or in America will allow the endangering of its troops in Lebanon by agreeing to confront Hizbullah, so the UN army just looks the other way.
Conflicts come to an end when both sides have decided so. This, of course, is my question vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Do they see a future peace agreement with Israel as "end of conflict"? They will sign a treaty with Israel which might even include the recognition of Israel. Yet, they do not even keep it a secret that the peace treaty will not be seen as final, as "end of conflict". Essentially, this is the source of my overall pessimism. The concessions that Israel will have to make in order to reach an agreement with the Palestinians are concessions that we can make only in the framework of "finality". But the Palestinians cannot promise finality. So, it's hard to believe that a treaty can be reached.
It's hard to understand why you think that "mutually beneficial commercial relations" will bring long-term stability. First of all, the Palestinians have proved again and again that they are willing to pay a very heavy economic price in order to continue the struggle against Israel. Thousands of Palestinians lost their source of income as a result of the intifada, and yet the struggle is very popular. You cannot "bribe" proud people. More importantly, you should take note of the fact that the Arab world is fearful of Israel's economy. They see our society as very dynamic, and they are afraid that peace will bring Israel tremendous economic power and dominance throughout the Arab world. So, have a nice talk with a Palestinian friend, and explain to him that peace will bring "mutually beneficial commercial relations". If he's polite, he'll just tell you simply "no, thank you". If he's less polite, he might use a nice juicy Arabic expression. I can already heard it ringing in my ears.
I know that I'm wasting my time explaining such things. I can't even convince an intellectual American Jew that it's important to know Hebrew. Everyone seems to think that Jewish cultural life in English translation is good enough. So, how could I possibly explain to you that Arabic is also important if you would like to understand the conflict in the Middle East. Not everyone is an English-speaker who sees the world as English-speakers see the world ("mutually beneficial commercial relations"). It's hard to understand that other peoples see the world very differently.
Joel-I liked your very creative, and accurate, description of Frank.
I have read Fein,s article and all the comments posted. As far as I can assertain, and after readind all comments about the American position regarding the Israelie/Palestinian conflict, one salient fact emerges. After many wars and peace proposals, I feel the πalestinians have no real intention to agree to any peace negotiations. They can sit back and allow the Obama administration do the work of presuring the Israelies into giving yjr store away.[ that is if the Israelies accept the pressure].
Dear Yehuda,
Thanks for wasting your time explaining things to a provincial American like me. Forgive me if I am so audacious as to add some facts that you chose to omit.
The Palestinians are no more proud than we Jews. Well educated Palestinians, aware of the recent offenses committed against them by Israeli Jews, are also aware that: most of the Yishuv land was purchased from its legitimate owners; that they were responsible for most of the atrocities of the 1920’s; that they aided, abetted and rejoiced over the attacking Arab armies in 1948; that they helped to foment the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars, and that they carried on the incursions that preceded the invasion of Lebanon. Aware of all this and aware that the welfare of their people requires peace, many of these Palestinian leaders are working to keep their fellows aware of the facts and are working to achieve a peace – witness Yasser Abed-Rabbo, former PLO Minister of Information and Culture and chief Palestinian negotiator at Geneva, Hanna Siniora, Co-CEO of IPCRI and Ghassan Khatib, coeditor of the “bitterlemons” family of internet publications, vice-president for community outreach at Birzeit University and a former Palestinian Authority minister of planning.
The most virulent opponents of a two-state peace are the religious factions, Hamas and Gush Emunim. Fortunately, the Palestinians have for decades been mostly secular. What is to become of Gush Emunim, I don’t know.
If it should become obvious to both peoples that their two-state commercial relations with each other are essential to their welfare, the stability of any agreed two-state peace will be assured.
Thanks for your patience,
Joel
Leonard,
You wrote, “In recent months I’ve heard more and more reports of rabbis who say they no longer know how to talk with their congregants about Israel.”
The divisions within their congregations threaten to destroy the congregations of these rabbis and threaten their positions of employment. But, these divisions will not evaporate on the basis of the strength of the fear and guilt based propaganda to which their congregants respond.
I think that these rabbis would be best served by giving their congregants the facts, the facts of the history of both sides, all of the facts. And, these facts must include the contemporary facts of the destruction of Palestinian society and the facts of the cost to Israel in lives, in the radical reduction of social services, in the decay of the educational system, in the rising delinquency of Jewish youth, in the rising rate of corruption, and in the falling respect for the law of the state, in general.
With profound respect,
Joel
I remember my Russian grandfather railing at the television each time a Jew would speak when I was a child growing up in rural Illinois.
There was something in the way he said the word – JEW – that made it sound like a noxious, subhuman, thing….
I never knew any – until I left Illinois.
At almost 62, I’ve now lived long enough to see Jews collude in America’s courtrooms, planning commissions, school boards and in business and media.
It goes without saying that there is plenty of greed and corruption in the world – but there is something more nefarious going on here between Jews – as the efforts in Reston show us.
I think the most chilling example I’ve witnessed was in family court between a Jewish attorney and what was supposed to be an independent assessment by a psychiatrist from the Family Clinic which guides judges in custody cases.
The Jewish psychiatrist was persuaded to rule against the mother because she called the Jewish lawyer a ‘filthy scumbag’.
The cause and effect was pretty self evident when the psychiatrist taunted the otherwise innocent mom with “what happens to anti semites” ….
The outcome was pretty awful. The two Jews managed to destroy the life of the child – a gentile child – so no matter -
and created a family of VIRULENT JEW HATERS. This event changed the life of 6 people I know very well. Their hatred for Jews is focused and activist.
Over the years, I’ve witnessed Jews in the ski town of Telluride Colorado collude with board members to increase zoning capacities for Jewish properties on the side of a cliff with no access… and down zone properties which, if developed, would have affected the ‘view’ of a fellow Jew.
I’ve seen a Jewish lawyer betray his client in favor of a fellow Jewish plaintiff. I’ve seen Jewish judges favor Jewish claimants, and I’ve seen seen two Jewish lawyers gang bang the clueless gentile – again serving their own.
The problem with this evolutionary strategy for a very very ambitious minority – is the backlash.
Victims of these heinous ethnocentric practices NEVER FORGET. And it narrows their focus in life… they are changed by the enormity of the deceit… and by the inability to get anybody to listen or speak up about the practices.
The Telluride Times was owned by a Jew – who refused to print letters about these practices. The community was unable to defend itself from these monsters, because not only did the Jews own the media, they owned the moral high ground….. complaining that we were all neo nazis… jealous, ignorant and DANGEROUS anti semites.
A tag team of Jews buying properties in Aspen had an ongoing scam wherein they bought up properties and then immediately filed suit to void the sale because of ‘defects’. They were notorious down at city hall because of how many properties they bought and returned – keeping the commission of course.
Which of course was the point of the purchase. One Jew was the buyer – his partner was a real estate attorney with a crew of contractors whose job it was to inspect the property AFTER the sale and invent costly defects.
The weary sellers usually took back the property and cut their losses rather than hire expensive [and possible Jewish] representation.
Again… everybody knew these two… yet nobody could alert the public because the paper was owned by Jews….. and charges of anti semitism can be highly damaging to any professional reputation.
…. on and on it goes…
America is Sobibor West – with a Jew in every watchtower.
I don’t buy the good Jew – bad Jew techniques proffered by the likes of the author above….
Jews know the score… they understand the game.
And yet they are alarmed and aghast each time they witness the evil of their brethren….. “WHO KNEW?”
YOU KNOW…. I KNOW….. THE GERMANS KNEW
and yet it continues….
so I am an unapologetic JEW HATER…. I hate ALL OF YA…. I don’t want to hear your ‘reasoned debate’ on the subject.
Jews should be judged as what? — individuals????
Sounds like the intellectual alps — for gentile saps.
I’m rootin for Islam.
THIS TIME – REAL OVENS.
Georgann Marks, you foul hate monger, apparently your “Russian grandfather” taught you how to see, but with psychiatric help (largely invented by a Jew) you can probably grow beyond him.
Meanwhile, you’re lucky that you no longer live in Illinois, because, as sustained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, under law Ill. Rev. Stat., 1949, c. 38, § 471 in Illinois it is a crime to “exhibit in any public place any publication which "portrays depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion" which "exposes the citizens of any race, color, creed or religion to contempt, derision, or obloquy."
The most vile anti-Israel and Jew-hating rants imaginable are welcome by the Forward (see above), while pro-Israel comments by actual Jews are DELETED:
......
Leonard Fein, the Forward's resident far-left anti-Israel propagandist issues his latest offering, this time to legitimize the members of the "Jewish family" who hate and attack Israel. For anyone who has read a number of his screeds, the purpose is always the same, to weaken American Jews' support for Israel.
The attempt to legitimize anti-Israel fanatics like J Street is evident in this latest attempt, along with Obama, to "divide and conquer".
"Relax", we can work it out! Relax while Iran builds its nukes and while Clinton suggests its OK since there will be an American "umbrella", relax when it becomes clear that Obama lied to Jewish Americans about his intentions to prevent a nuclear Iran, relax while Obama excoriates Israel and redefines Jerusalem as a "settlement", relax while the "palestinians" sit back with glee and watch Obama act as their agent, relax while all prior understandings between the US and Israel are repudiated and attempts are made to force Israel into the "Auschwitz borders", relax while the White House and anti-Israel "Jewish" media tries to legitimize George Soros' J Street and attack the Zionist Organization of America, relax while Israel is libeled by far-left haters accusing it of "apartheid" and "colonization" and treating its own citizens as "second class citizens" (a Fein favorite) and "occupation" and every anti-Semitic ruse posing as "anti-Zionism, relax as Fein uses the BIG LIE (claiming that there is a moral equivalence between arab terrorists and patriotic Israelis), relax as anti-Semitism rises along with the "progressive" leftists in America, relax as attacks the Jewish community flounders in finding its footing to resist and confront the most anti-Israel American administration in history. Just "relax" and read the latest "Jewish" Forward's propaganda story attacking Israel.
For "palestinians" the "extremists" are those who would live in peace with the Jewish State of Israel. They have raised from childhood, four generations of Jew-haters. Even the arab citizens of Israel deny the Holocaust, and cheer when Hezbollah bombed (their) country. To the palestinians, an "extremist" is one who sells property to a Jew, or cooperates with the authorities to prevent a terrorist attack. Those "extremists" are murdered by their arab brothers. For Fein, a Jewish "extremist" is one who wants to live his life in all of Jerusalem or one of its Jewish suburbs, which have long been accepted (until Obama/Clinton) to be an expected part of Israel in the final status peace plan. There is in fact no moral equivalence. Palestinians hate and murder. Jews grow, plant, and create. But not in Fein's make-believe world.
Rabbis should be speaking frankly with their congregations about the extremely dangerous situation that the Jewish people find themselves in today because of Iran and the Obama administration.
However, there are a group of "rabbis" who feel much as Fein does. They are the "progressive" lovers of the enemies of the Jewish people, who attack Israel (to the extent they can get away with it given their own political constraints). These political leftists advocate for the "rights" of the arabs who would destroy Israel. Believe it or not, there are "rabbis" who support J Street, and its ilk.
"Rabbis" such as those should be shunned and condemned by American Jews for the quislings that they are.
I've enjoyed reading Leonard Fein's columns over the years, though I often find myself disagreeing with his tone and sometimes with his conclusions. I'd like to comment briefly on this one, w/ the hope that he looks at these reader's postings!
Mr Fein, there seems to be one persistent thread in your columns: that Israel won't survive without a "two-state solution" and so must do everything in her power to make this a reality. However, like you ask yourself and your readers in this column, what if the two-state solution cannot or will not actually happen? Then what?
When you say: "Yes I continue, not out of stubbornness, but out of Zionist fidelity to believe that a Jewish state is ours by right", I fully agree. You need not, and should not add any qualifiers or conditions. Yes, it would be great to have a peaceful Palestinian neighboring state taking up the remaining territory outside of the Jewish areas of Jerusalem and the main settlement blocks. It might even be okay, in theory, in a purely utopian world to cut the borders of Israel so close to the bone that they barely encompass the territory of the 1949 Armistice lines. Though I think you know as well as I do, that in reality this would be such a demoralizing retreat, that the only context in which it would make any sense would be in exchange for full, lasting peace and acceptance.
In other words, you would need real, genuine Arab recognition of Israel in advance, and outreach, at the very least for example, along the lines of Sadat coming to Jerusalem. When the Saudi leadership won't even meet or shake the hand of an Israeli diplomat, that doesn't sound like real acceptance to me. When Fatah keeps the "resistance" option still on the table and doesn't want to recognize the Jewish character of Israel, it's clear that the sort of two-state resolution that we American Jews, Israelis, Zionists are dreaming of is still quite far off. Maybe it's an unrealizable dream.
I think it's our responsibility, in these times, to stay strong. I don't think that the sort of self-blame (J Street approach?) is helpful, and sometimes it seems to me that your columns veer too strongly in that direction.
So here's where I take exception: It's clear, like you say, that the two-state idea is problematic. Though desirable, I strongly disagree that it is absolutely necessary.
Without a perfect peace and a perfect, utopian two-state solution Israel will not evaporate. It will be difficult. But the absence of an immediate solution does not mean that one state in which Jews are a minority is inevitable. We've been through harder times. We have a state by right. We'll find a way. We must defend and support her and we must not prejudge the outcome.