It was one of those American Jewish dust-ups that play out along predictable lines.
People on the left anger people on the right. The rightists respond by calling for banning the leftists from something most people have never heard of. In the end, the leftists emerge with their right to speak triumphantly undiminished while the rightists skulk away muttering.
Seen that movie already? So have we all. Ad nauseam.
But sometimes, even these boring ideological struggles are worth looking into. And the more you think seriously about the underlying issues, the less comfortable you may be with the stereotypical outcome.
In a recent case, the Zionist Organization of America and its controversial leader Morton Klein were the rightists. Rivals and critics often portray Klein as a bully and an enforcer of a pro-Israel standard that few support.
He was the perfect antagonist for the left-wing Union of Progressive Zionists. They battled recently over whether or not the UPZ should be allowed to remain part of the Israel on Campus Coalition.
The coalition, comprising 31 groups, says it seeks to advance a pro-Israel agenda on American college campuses. It is funded by Hillel and the Shusterman Foundation.
Founded in 2002, it strives to enable students to hear Israel’s side of the story at a time when anti-Zionist propaganda is drowning out the truth about the Palestinians’ terrorism and rejection of peace.
Predictable reactions
The controversy arose when the UPZ chose to sponsor, on the ICC’s dime, a speaking tour of Israeli critics of their country’s policy in the territories.
These speakers’ program, titled “Breaking the Silence,” repeats a view often heard on the extreme left of the Israeli political spectrum, and describes the nation’s measures of self-defense as illegitimate and illegal.
The speakers are Israeli military veterans who believe the Israel Defense Force’s counter-terrorism mission has become dehumanizing and immoral.
Although these speakers seem to complement the well-publicized views of anti-Israel groups, there should be no question of their right to be heard — at home and in this country — wherever people wish to listen to their message.
But when Klein petitioned the coalition’s governing board to expel the UPZ for this, the reaction from other groups was predictable.
A committee that deliberated on the subject unanimously refused to contemplate banning the UPZ. Nor were the committee’s members prepared to revisit the coalition’s membership criteria or mission statement.
It’s no surprise that they wouldn’t listen to Klein, who has been a gadfly in the Jewish organizational world since the signing of the Oslo peace accords, which he opposed. That he was right hasn’t improved his popularity.
In recent years, ZOA’s critical attitude toward the Israeli governments led by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert has marginalized it again. As such, the chances that most other groups would join ZOA to do something that could be labeled as censorship were slim.
But was Klein really in the wrong here?
UPZ and its supporters claim that they seek to educate students about the diversity of Israeli opinion. In an environment in which anti-Zionism is the norm, they reason that putting forward a leftist critique of Israel from an Israeli frame of reference is the best way to reinforce support for Israel.
They say getting students to support Israel’s extreme left-wingers, who criticize the country from within, is preferable to having students become activists for groups that oppose Israel’s existence in principle.
Since the playing field of academia is so skewed, seen this way, banning sponsorship of “Breaking the Silence” would hamstring the pro-Israel community’s best way of getting through to young people who will not listen to anything that doesn’t originate on the left.
What’s the difference?
But what is the difference between a Jewish group bringing in Israeli extremists who bash Israel, and an Arab group bringing in a Palestinian to do the same thing?
And if Jewish-Arab dialogue on campus, or anywhere else, is defined as Jews and Arabs agreeing that Israel is awful, then aren’t such exchanges doing more mischief than good?
Moreover, is it appropriate for a coalition created expressly for promoting Israel’s defense — at a time when the press and campus radicals are undermining it with disinformation — to pay to bring in speakers who echo the same distortions the group was founded to oppose?
It is well and good for Klein’s critics to say the right shouldn’t be allowed to decide who is pro-Israel enough to speak. But where are supporters of Israel prepared to draw the line?
If groups in this coalition, like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, are willing to co-sponsor presentations that defame Israel, how can they complain when others do the same thing?
And if they agree that a campaign to delegitimize Zionism exists that has seemingly won over mainstream opinion in Western Europe and established a foothold in this country principally on college campuses, how can they be unwilling to take a stand against those who question the Jewish state’s right of self-defense, even if they are Israelis?
This is not a question of it being okay to say something in Tel Aviv, but not at the University of Pennsylvania.
Rather, it’s a matter of those who purport to represent the community being willing to say their purpose is to present the truth about the war against Israel, and not to sponsor those — however sincere they might be — who fan the flames of anti-Zionist propaganda.
Perhaps things would have gone differently if someone less controversial than Klein were to voice these concerns. But that is the fault of the other groups, not of Klein. The questions he raised deserve more of an answer than he received.
These days, Israel-bashing in academia requires no courage, even if done by Jews who say they love Israel. What takes guts is to walk onto a campus and say that Israel is in the right.
Rather than acquiescing to a perspective that sees Jewish rights as illegitimate and Israeli self-defense as morally indistinguishable from terrorism, campus coalitions ought to be finding the courage to challenge this notion altogether.
And if they can’t agree to do that, then, frankly, who needs them?
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia.
Loading ...