Linda Sarsour speaking onstage during the Women’s March on Washington in Washington, D.C, Jan. 21, 2017. Photo by Theo Wargo/Getty Images

Why should we care what Linda Sarsour says?

The internet treated us to quite a debate last week. The issue: Are Zionism and feminism, two of the most successful social revolutions of the 20th century, compatible?

In a New York Times op-ed, Jewish American Emily Shire wondered if her identity as a Zionist would alienate her from a resurgent feminist movement aligned with the Palestinian cause. “I am troubled by the portion of the International Women’s Strike platform that calls for a ‘decolonization of Palestine’ as part of ‘the beating heart of this new feminist movement,’ ” she wrote. “Why should criticism of Israel be key to feminism in 2017?”

She was answered by Linda Sarsour, a Muslim-American activist and one of the organizers behind the Women’s March on Washington. In an interview with The Nation, Sarsour responded bluntly: “It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?’ There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way around it.”

On one point, Sarsour is right: To believe in the rights of women is to believe in the rights of all women — including those in Sudan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. A feminism that lacks inclusion is a flawed feminism. There’s just no way around it.

But many in our community only heard Sarsour say: “criticize Israel.” And so the debate descended into something vicious and misguided, helped in large part by The Nation’s deeply irresponsible headline — “Can You Be a Zionist Feminist? Linda Sarsour Says No” — and a reporter who was even more irresponsible. She offered Sarsour an unrestricted soapbox on which to air her views, without ever thinking to ask if she supports the same Jewish right to self-determination that Sarsour is seeking for the Palestinians.

I spent a few days thinking about why this little tempest matters, and you know what I concluded? It doesn’t.

“Basically, this is a conversation about theory,” Anat Hoffman, perhaps Israel’s most famous feminist, said when I reached her by phone. “The practical, immediate repercussions of this are zero.”

Talking is not especially useful to Hoffman, who is one of Israel’s leading activists. She is a founding member of the Women of the Wall movement, which seeks prayer equality for women at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, and the executive director of the Israel Religious Action Center, a legal advocacy arm pursuing gender equality, social justice and religious pluralism. Hoffman spends most of her time bringing lawsuits against the State of Israel, demonstrating that arguments about the definition of political movements are far less consequential than policy change.

If people like Sarsour count no Jewish Zionists among their friends or colleagues, it is virtually guaranteed they will never modify their views.

For women who work in the trenches of Israel’s justice movement, the tension between Zionism and feminism is nothing new. The Orthodox establishment within Israel’s government has precluded women from realizing their full rights since the country’s founding.

“What about the 50,000 women who cannot get divorced because there is no civil marriage or civil divorce in Israel? What about the gaps in salaries? What about domestic violence?” Hoffman said. “To the Jewish woman who says that for the first time she feels a tug between her Zionism and her feminism, I say: ‘Good morning, sister!’ ”

How one Muslim-American woman defines feminism, or Zionism, is irrelevant. Any thoughtful person can define his or her personal politics and has the right to set their own political priorities. What matters is that we stop instantly vilifying anyone and everyone with whom we don’t agree — whether within our own communities or outside of them.

“Zionism needs a good kick in the ass,” Hoffman said, “as long as there’s one condition: that you love Israel, that you are committed to the existence of Israel, and to the right of the Jewish people to have a sovereign state and self-determination. Then you can criticize Israel as much as you want.”

But what about people like Sarsour, who might not love Israel? Should we, as a community, even bother talking to her? Where do we draw the line?

“If you believe terrorizing innocent civilians is the way to achieve liberation, then that crosses my line,” Hoffman said. “Someone who believes the only way to go is to explode buses in Israel — he is my enemy.”

A shared premise of nonviolence is a reasonable rule of engagement. Better to engage — even our foes — than walk away from the table altogether, right? At least if we’re talking, there is hope our views will prevail over time, or that we’ll reach a compromise. After all, if people like Sarsour count no Jewish Zionists among their friends or colleagues, it is virtually guaranteed they will never modify their views.

Sarsour says she is committed to non-violence, but other aspects of her record are troubling. She fights on behalf of the oppressed but seems to have little regard for Jewish history. Nowhere is there a record of her support for the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, and she has tweeted that Zionism is “creepy” and akin to racism. Is it worth talking to her if she doesn’t support Israel’s right to exist? If she’s really an anti-Zionist activist disguised in social justice clothing?

“I believe in Sarsour’s right to self-determination and an independent state of her own,” Hoffman said. “And I would like you to find out if she believes in my right to [the same]. Because I have no other choice: Hebrew is my language and Jerusalem is my home. I have nowhere else to go.”

That’s a Zionist feminist talking.

Is Zionism a bad word?

With characteristic poise, Rabbi David Wolpe turned to the three panelists onstage at Sinai Temple on a recent Wednesday evening, in front of a sellout crowd of some 250 people.

“I’m going to start with a quick yes-or-no question,” he began. “Do you believe that people under 35 are less attached to the State of Israel than they were 30 years ago?”

On either side of me were Rabbi Sarah Bassin, 34, of Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills, and Sam Yebri, 35, a lawyer, accomplished leaders in their respective Jewish communities, progressive and Persian. Each answered immediately in the affirmative. And then there was me — the only millennial on the panel, feeling intellectually outmatched, my headset pressing uncomfortably into the back of my skull.

“Yes,” I answered quickly.

And yet, in my mind, I was already hedging, picking at the very premise of the question. I scribbled the phrase “less attached” on the legal pad perched on my knee and frowned at it. Of course my generation is less attached to Israel. Is a parent less attached to an 18-year-old child than to a defenseless toddler taking its first steps into the world?

That’s the difference the past 30 years have wrought for Israel: from a state struggling out of its uncertain beginnings to a proud and mighty nation. Over the generations, the meaning of the word “Israel” has changed, and consequently, inevitably, so has the meaning of the word “Zionism.”

“No one in the Jewish community supported a Palestinian state — I mean, no one, post-1967,” Wolpe said at the March 15 panel about young Zionists, sponsored by Hadassah and the Jewish Journal. “Then, a Palestinian state became orthodoxy. Everybody in the Jewish community supported a Palestinian state. Now, it’s becoming unorthodox again.”

The pendulum has swung wildly and often. What began in Europe as a movement of socialists and atheists to re-establish a Jewish homeland these days often feels monopolized by the religious right.

“Instead of creating bridges, we are contributing to the conflict between East and West by our stupid desire to have more.”
—A.B. Yehoshua, Israeli author

Each generation defines and redefines Zionism to suit its needs and circumstances. It’s a task that becomes more and more difficult, as each passing year is another separating today’s youth from the movement’s inception.

By the time I enrolled at UCLA, Zionism was read in many circles as a type of extremism. “Really?” an editor at the UCLA Daily Bruin once said to me after I professed to being a Zionist. “I didn’t expect that.” I read his meaning well enough: How could a person who seems to be reasonable also be a Zionist?

It used to be that the definition was a simpler and easier one, dictated by ironclad concerns of Jewish continuance and survival. Such was the case, for instance, in the Galician shtetl where my paternal grandfather was born, where Zionism meant young people training together in preparation to cultivate the land that would shortly become their only refuge.

In 1939, my great uncle, Mordechai Arom, was one such youth, preparing to join his brother, my grandfather Shmuel, in Mandatory Palestine, when their mother took ill. Mordechai was ready to stay in Poland to care for his dying mother, but she called him to her bedside and commanded him to go. With her dying act, she became the matriarch of a Zionist tradition that still holds. The first day Mordechai arrived in Palestine, he received a telegram that she’d died. His first week in the Holy Land was spent sitting shivah for his mother.

For my grandfather Shmuel, in the years after the war, Zionism meant building an observant congregation in Rishon LeZion even while questioning the God that sent his relatives to be slaughtered en masse. He died in 1964, struck by a car while collecting alms for the temple, later named Neve Shmuel in his honor.

Zionism intruded on my mother at Leuzinger High School in Lawndale, on June 10, 1967, when news came over the radio in Mr. Cameron’s 12th-grade history class that Israeli troops had taken the Western Wall plaza. My mother was visibly emotional, so the teacher dismissed her to the library, where she wept.

After college, she got on an airplane — for the first time ever — and flew to Jerusalem, not knowing a soul in Israel, not a cousin, not a second cousin, nobody. She stayed for two years. “As soon as I knew there was a State of Israel, I knew I had to go,” she said.

Those years marked an inflection point for Zionism. It had started almost a century earlier as a whisper, an outlandish notion popularized by Theodor Herzl, a peripatetic journalist and self-identified atheist. It began, if you will, as a bad word, denounced by much of the Jewish establishment as a Messianic affectation. In 1880, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, the founder of Hebrew Union College, wrote, “We want no Jewish princes, and no Jewish country or government.”

“Zionism demands a publicly recognized and legally secured homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. This platform is unchangeable.”
—Theodor Herzl, father of modern Zionism

Of course, the attainment of such a country in 1948 changed everything. My mother was born three years later, and the first 16 years of her life were marked by an aspirational Zionism, with Israel as the David to an Arab Goliath.

That Zionism reached its high point in 1967, with Israel’s astonishing victory in the Six-Day War. Then, Israel enjoyed the world’s admiration. Today, pro-Palestinian activists, including thousands of Jews, see 1967 as the beginning of the occupation — the moment the Jewish people went from oppressed to oppressor.

That unlikely triumph has come back to haunt the conscience of American Jewish youth, who have never known any Zionism other than one of victory and strength.

Meanwhile, the 80-year history of flight, toil and fear of death that my parents and grandparents experienced as Zionism is regularly obliterated by the reductionist slogans of pro-Palestinian groups and their allies, for whom a Zionist is an occupier, Jews are the White Man and oppression in Palestine is no different from oppression in Ferguson, Mo.

Nearly half a century after my mother graduated from UCLA, African-American activist Amy Hunter was invited by Students for Justice in Palestine to speak at UCLA’s campus as part of Palestine Awareness Week.

“We will not be free here in the United States if they are not free in Palestine,” she told a small but diverse audience, their fingers snapping in agreement. “I’m clear about that.”

It’s not as if the “Zionism-is-racism” equivalence is news. My mom remembers campus leftists asserting as much in the early 1970s. In response, she and her Hillel buddies walked around with pins that read, “I am a Zionist.”

Those pins still might be a good idea today. In 2017, campus Zionists face a movement that bills itself as a global liberation struggle. In the parlance of that struggle, “Zionist” is a slur, and the connections and political opinions it suggests have become so toxic as to discourage its use, even among many who ostensibly support Jewish statehood. Imagine if people who don’t eat meat balked at calling themselves vegetarians.

Among the reasons for my invitation to speak at Sinai Temple are the many conversations I have in the course of my reporting with members of the Jewish far left, including the group IfNotNow, a diffuse network of young Jews openly challenging the Jewish establishment for its support of the status quo in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

It’s neither the largest nor the most influential pro-Palestinian Jewish group, but it’s the newest and, because of its confrontational approach, perhaps the most worrisome for mainstream Jewish organizations. Lately, I’ve taken to asking members of IfNotNow if they consider themselves to be Zionists.

Unanimously, they decline to be quoted by name and then give variations of the same answer: I’ve moved past the term. It doesn’t apply. It’s beside the point. I don’t identify either way.

These young people are neither Zionist nor anti-Zionist — they’re post-Zionist.

In fact, IfNotNow and its constituency seem to be in the minority of young people in that they care about Israel at all. A Pew Research Cemter poll in 2013 found that among Jews 18 to 29 years old, 32 percent said caring about Israel is essential to being Jewish, compared with 53 percent of Jews age 65 and older.

Within that slice of young Jews, there is, of course, a considerable range of opinion. Among such groups as IfNotNow and J Street and Jewish Voice for Peace, caring means advocating a Palestinian state for the sake of maintaining a Jewish one.

But on the other hand, when the American Israel Public Affairs Committee convenes its annual policy conference later this month in Washington, D.C., you can bet there will be plenty of Jewish youth in attendance for whom caring about Israel means something very different. Just ask Ron Krudo, executive director of campus affairs for the pro-Israel organization StandWithUs, which is active on high school and college campuses across the country. Notwithstanding anti-Israel sentiment, students “are excited to share their stories of being a proud Zionist, and what Zionism means to them.”

“Even on some of these tougher campuses, you can always find a student who’s inspired to take action and be a voice,” said Krudo, 26.

Yet the fact remains that most young Jews can’t be bothered to care, or at least don’t feel their Judaism compels them to. For many, the question of Zionism is so fraught with contradiction that it’s much easier just to swear it off entirely.

I’m not immune to my generation’s ambivalence on the matter of Jewish nationalism. In the vocabulary of my education on a liberal campus, the word “nationalist” is likely to follow the word “white” or “militant” or “ultra.” In other words, mine is a Zionism that’s not without reservations.

“Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with patriotism. Multiple loyalties are objectionable only if they are inconsistent.”
— Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

But to say that I’m post-Zionist would be tantamount to saying that I’m post-Jewish — which is simple and easy but altogether untrue. The struggle for Jewish nationhood was written into my biography long before I was born.

After all, if it weren’t for the itinerant Zionism that motivated my grandfather Shmuel to drag his wife, the daughter of a cultured and well-to-do German-Jewish family, to hardscrabble Palestine, where they slept in tents and toiled without end, it might very well have been somebody else’s byline on this story; I may well have never been born. Israel is the center of gravity for world Jewry. You may object to its pull, but you simply can’t free yourself from its orbit.

To be sure, mine is not the blustering, self-assured Zionism of my parents. Even having this conversation with my mother sets her singing an interminable series of Israeli folk songs. Recently, standing in her kitchen, I pressed her on whether she truly believes that God gave us all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. “Listen,” she replied, “I don’t know who gave it to us, but it’s ours.”

I’m not so sure about that. But that doesn’t mean we’re not part of the same movement, she and I, the same multigenerational struggle for identity and soil. The panel at Sinai Temple landed repeatedly on the idea of “big-tent Zionism.” The tent has to be big enough for my parents and me.

Sometimes, that prospect feels doubtful. But nothing could be more necessary for the continuance of the movement. If Zionism is little more than a narrow political creed, it can be shouted down or reasoned away. What ultimately will win over the next generation of Zionists is what Yebri called “the beautiful aspect and miraculous magical aspect of Zionism.”

The miracle, in short, is that in 80 years, we have moved from total disempowerment to a position of such security and strength that we can argue bitterly among ourselves about what to do with it. It’s a compelling narrative, if we can capitalize on it.

“One of the strongest indicators of having a strong Jewish identity, beyond campus and education and peer trips to Israel, is a Jewish grandparent that identifies strongly with his or her Judaism, and I would submit that follows for Zionism,” Yebri told the crowd at Sinai Temple. “So if you’re a parent or a grandparent in this room who feels strongly about Israel … don’t delegate it to school or a book or Birthright, because by that point it’s too late.”

I suspect that many of the Jewish youth who have distanced themselves from Zionism aren’t as familiar with the Zionist narrative of their forebears as they are with today’s more politically charged definitions. If they were, they might be more likely to adopt it, baggage and all. It is, after all, an enthralling story, with no small share of heroes and martyrs.

A decade after sitting shivah for his mother, Mordechai, my great uncle, closed out his own life by sacrificing it to the Zionist cause — cut down while defending his village in Gush Etzion during the War of Independence. This, before Green Lines and settlement blocs and two-state solutions.

If the next Jewish generation wants to be part of a global struggle for liberation, then it may as well be our own. 

Young Judaea is experiencing a resurgence on the West Coast. Photo courtesy of WikiCommons.

Young Judaea sees resurgence in L.A.

Young Judaea, a peer-led Zionist youth movement that saw the closure of
its West Coast summer camp in 2009, is starting to see a resurgence in
Los Angeles.

A case in point was the election of El Camino Real Charter High School junior Maccabee Raileanu to Young Judaea’s national teen board on Feb. 18, during the organization’s national midwinter convention in Atlanta. Raileanu’s peers elected him mazkir (president) of the Young Judaea teen board. He will serve for one year.

“I was interested in the role because, ever since getting seriously involved in the movement about three years ago, I have wanted to be the most involved that I possibly could,” Raileanu, 17, said in an email.

Young Judaea National Teen Board President Maccabee Raileanu. Photo courtesy of Michael Raileanu.

Young Judaea National Teen Board President Maccabee Raileanu. Photo courtesy of Michael Raileanu.

Raileanu attended the organization’s national Camp Tel Yehudah in upstate New York from 2014 to 2016 after being awarded a fellowship that subsidized his attendance at the camp and provided training in how to return to his community to build local programming for his peers.

“I have so much love, passion and ideas for Young Judaea,” he said, “and I felt my experience of being the L.A. mazkir has trained me well to move up to the next level and lead the entire movement.”

Founded in 1909, Young Judaea operates year-round programs, an Israel-based gap-year experience for incoming college freshmen, Camp Tel Yehudah, regional camps and other activities.

Los Angeles events are regularly drawing 15 to 20 people, compared with just three people as recently as 2015, Sharon Schoenfeld, Young Judaea’s director of U.S. programs, said in a phone interview.

The organization is spreading the word about renewed local presence by increasing its relationship with The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles.

“I keep in touch with the L.A. Federation and if they’re doing something with teens, I ask them to let us know, so we can be part of it,” Schoenfeld said. “If something’s happening in the community, it’s important our kids know what that is and be involved. … We are trying to be very thoughtful about how we’re building it and what we’re doing. It’s still in its infancy right now.”

Schoenfeld said she hopes people understand that, whatever their views about Israel, the camp is pluralistic and nonpartisan.

Zionism is “a hard word nowadays, but as a pluralistic Zionist youth movement, we don’t necessarily tell people what it means to be a Zionist, we don’t tell kids how to be a Zionist,” she said. “We try to open minds to all sorts of ways of celebrating Israel, learning it and being part of it … going there and being active for it. We don’t tell them this is the way you have to be.”

Young Judaea is currently accepting applications for the latest cohort of its fellowship. The deadline is April 1. For additional information about how to apply, email 


Calendar: March 10-16, 2017



cal-casablancaNoah Isenberg and Monika Henreid discuss Isenberg’s new book, “We’ll Always Have Casablanca: The Life, Legend, and Afterlife of Hollywood’s Most Beloved Movie.” Its focus is the award-winning film that was released in 1942 featuring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and a memorable supporting cast. Isenberg, a film historian, reveals the myths and realities behind “Casablanca’s” production. Through extensive research and interviews with filmmakers, film critics, family members of the cast and crew, and die-hard fans, Isenberg reveals why the film remains so revered. He also focuses on the major role that refugees from Hitler’s Europe played in the production (many cast members were immigrants). The book is filled with fresh insights into “Casablanca’s” creation, production and legacy. 3 p.m. Free. Book Soup, 8818 Sunset Blvd., West Hollywood. (310) 659-3110.



Shalom Hanoch and Moshe Levi perform their final show in the United States. 8 p.m. $100. The Canyon Club, 28912 Roadside Drive, Agoura Hills.



cal-born-survivorsWendy Holden chronicled the stories of three young mothers who were torn from their families by the Nazis in her powerful book “Born Survivors: Three Young Mothers and Their Extraordinary Story of Courage, Defiance, and Hope.” The three women were strangers, but all a few months pregnant and in need of help to keep it a secret from their Nazi captors. Despite the odds, they all defied death to give their children life. Meet one of the Holocaust survivors, Hana Berger Moran. 7:30 p.m. Free; registration required at Wilshire Boulevard Temple, Irmas Campus, 11661 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles. (310) 556-3222.



cal-david-wolpeAs the debate over Israel rages on across college campuses and in living rooms throughout the United States, is “Zionist” still a term of support for Israel, or is it now a loaded term? How do younger Americans interpret “Zionism”? Join the Jewish Journal and Hadassah’s Defining Zionism program as we explore how tomorrow’s leaders are thinking about and engaging with the Jewish state, and how their relationship with Israel differs from that of previous generations. Moderated by Sinai Temple Rabbi David Wolpe; Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills Rabbi Sarah Bassin; 30 Years After co-founder Sam Yebri; and Jewish Journal staff writer Eitan Arom. 7 p.m. $10 in advance; $15 at the door. Sinai Temple, 10400 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles.


How does our Jewish tradition understand the concept and practice of mercy and how do we live up to this ideal, which is one of the highest qualities we look for in a human being? Rabbi Steven Silver will discuss “Catholic and Jewish Concepts of Forgiveness.” After lunch, there will be a screening of “Stolen Summer,” a Project Greenlight film about a young Catholic boy who goes on a quest to help a dying Jewish friend get into heaven. 11 a.m. $14; $12 for members. The Rosenberg Cultural Center at Temple Menorah, 1101 Camino Real, Redondo Beach. (310) 316-8444.


Harkham-GAON Academy (at the Westside Jewish Community Center) is hosting this event for high school juniors and seniors to gain insight into Jewish life opportunities at college campuses across the country. The event will include a panel of experts on Jewish life at college with the opportunity to ask questions. You will also hear about challenges Jewish college students face. 6:30 p.m. Free. Harkham-GAON Academy, 5870 W. Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, (310) 556-0663.


In response to the recent wave of bomb threats at Jewish Community Centers nationwide, and the vandalism at multiple Jewish cemeteries across the country, The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles will hold a town hall addressing security issues at Jewish sites. Los Angeles Police Department officials and senior representatives from the FBI will speak. 5 p.m. RSVP required at; no walk-ins. The Jewish Federation, 6505 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles.



cal-FabrizioLelliFabrizio Lelli will discuss the extraordinary spiritual rebirth of contemporary Judaism by comparing it with other intellectually significant phases of Apulian Judaism in the past. Lelli studies the history of Apulian Jewish culture, concentrating on written and oral testimonies of former Jewish refugees who were in transit camps in the region of Apulia. Lelli teaches at the University of Salento in Italy. Sponsored by UCLA’s Alan D. Leve Center for Jewish Studies. 4 p.m. Free. Pre-registration required at or (310) 267-5327. UCLA, 314 Royce Hall, Los Angeles.

‘Anti-Zionism’ is the anti-Semitism of choice on college campuses

Hating Israel is the thing to do today on university campuses. It makes you seem “progressive.” It means you’re “woke” and socially aware. It means you’re fighting against a tyrannical regime. It is supporting the struggle of an oppressed people at the hands of white colonialist supremacy. Zionism is racism. Israel is evil, end of story

Except that’s complete nonsense.

Zionism is the support for and affirmation of the Jews’ right to self-determination in their indigenous homeland of Israel. It’s the Jewish civil rights movement. It is the struggle of a native people who have been oppressed for thousands of years, expelled from their land, killed and persecuted wherever they went in the world. It is the celebration of victory, of the return home after millennia of Diaspora, of surviving and flourishing against all odds.

Read the full column on

NADIYA AL-NOOR is a young Muslim interfaith activist with a focus on Jewish and Muslim communities. She is a graduate student at Binghamton University, studying public administration and student affairs administration.

Obama was, for better or worse, the face of liberal Zionism

During his campaign for president in 2008, I wrote a column suggesting that Barack Obama was struggling to connect with Jews because they weren’t sure that he supported Israel’s cause in his gut — that is, in his kishkes. I may have been the first to apply the term “Kishkes Factor” in relation to Obama’s politics and Israel.

Obama himself even heard a reference to the term, at least once. In an interview with the candidate that year, The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg asked Obama about “the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you … then everything is suspect.”

In some ways, I’ve come to regret the framing, which suggests that had Obama only worn his support for Israel on his sleeve, or taken a few more trips to the country, he would have won over the centrist and right-wing pro-Israel groups that dogged him for all eight years of his presidency.

In fact, the tension between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — and by extension, between the president and the pro-Israel mainstream — was a matter of policy, not emotion. Simply, Obama represented a way of being pro-Israel — call it liberal Zionism — that was no more popular among the pro-Israel mainstream than it was among the Israeli majority who backed Netanyahu and his right-wing government.

Liberal Zionism supports Israel as the homeland and nation-state of the Jewish people, but asserts it cannot live up to its founding principles — or its claims to be the Middle East’s only democracy — as long as it remains in control of the millions of non-citizen Palestinians living in the West Bank. Obama and his people were consistent on this point. Here he is in 2012 speaking at the AIPAC policy conference in Washington: “And I believe that peace with the Palestinians is consistent with Israel’s founding values — because of our shared belief in self-determination, and because Israel’s place as a Jewish and democratic state must be protected.”

And here is John Kerry, his secretary of state, speaking last month: “Today, there are a number – there are a similar number of Jews and Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. They have a choice. They can choose to live together in one state, or they can separate into two states. But here is a fundamental reality: If the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic – it cannot be both – and it won’t ever really be at peace.”

This conviction — that the only way to solve the Middle East conflict and preserve Israel’s democratic character was the separation of the two peoples — was behind Obama’s deep antagonism to the expansion of Jewish settlements. How could someone support a two-state solution, as Netanyahu said he did, while continuing to build on land that would be at the heart of any deal?

Coming from two such different places, Obama and Netanyahu were perhaps destined to never get along. Obama gambled — in his 2013 visit to Israel and in his appeals to American Jewish audiences — that he could bypass Netanyahu and convince the Israeli people and Jewish voters that the logic of the situation made his position unassailable. And Netanyahu pinned his hopes on the Republicans, sometimes openly colluding with GOP lawmakers and donors in casting traditions of bipartisanship aside. It’s a gamble, one can argue, that Netanyahu ultimately won, with an incoming administration and a Republican-led Congress that seem to be wholly aligned with Israel’s right.

The strained relationship between Obama and Netanyahu represents splits within the Jewish community itself, and between American Jews and Israelis. Poll after poll shows American Jews solidly behind a two-state solution and ambivalent, at best, about the expansion of settlements. Slight majorities of Israelis show at least an emotional preference for two states, but the majority feeling is that the idea is a pipe dream given the Palestinians’ recalcitrance, incitement and ineptitude. The result in Israel is a right-wing government adept at maintaining the status quo.

Most of the big American organizations are in the position of defending this status quo, accepting the judgment of Israeli voters and the government they elected. In the last eight years these organizations have committed themselves to combating what they say are the symptoms of the world’s refusal to accept Israel’s reality. This refusal takes the form of a one-sided Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that in its moderate form puts the burden of peacemaking entirely on the Israelis and in its militant version rejects the very notion of a Jewish state.

Liberal Zionists, meanwhile, also reject BDS while arguing that Israel, as the undisputed military power in the conflict and the only adult in the room, could defuse the critics and write its own future if it made bold moves toward separation. They warn that young Jews are becoming more alienated toward Israel precisely because the values of occupation and settlement no longer reflected the millennials’ belief in tolerance, democracy and human rights.

Liberal Zionists have their champions at J Street, in Peter Beinart and George Soros, and in legacy organizations like Americans for Peace Now and Ameinu. But they don’t have an Israeli majority on their side, nor an Israel government, nor even a robust opposition in Israel to validate their views.

They did, however, have an American president, who could speak emotionally about the Israel they grew up on and still believe in while offering tough-love rhetoric imploring Israel to grab the opportunity for peace before it is too late.

By the end of Obama’s second term, it began to look like time was running out. Donald Trump and his party no longer talk about a two-state solution, and Trump nominated a U.S. ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, who fully supports the settlement enterprise and regards the pro-Israel left as “smug advocates of Israel’s destruction.” Although hardly representative of the average Jewish voter, Friedman — Orthodox, Republican, a firm believer in Greater Israel — nevertheless embodies a shift in power, and a coarsening of rhetoric, within American pro-Israel activism and Zionism itself.

It’s not clear what Obama could have done, from a liberal Zionist’s perspective, to buck these trends, not without a commitment from Israel, the Palestinians or their supporters to bring something new to the table. Obama could have wrapped himself in the Israeli flag and danced the hora on Independence Day — and in some ways, he did — and still would have found himself on the wrong side of the Zionist debate.

Perhaps sensing this, Obama offered a dubious parting gift to the liberal Zionists — and a bitter pill to the other side — in the form of a U.S. abstention on a largely one-sided U.N. Security Council condemnation of the settlements. Even a few of the major liberal Zionist groups here were ambivalent about the move — either because they have learned to distrust the United Nations or because they knew it would hand the Trump administration another cudgel with which to beat up on Democrats.

The right seized on the abstention as proof of what they had been saying all along: that Obama was antagonistic to Israel and perhaps even anti-Semitic. Even his middle name, Hussein, began to reappear in news releases denouncing the move.

More likely, however, the abstention was not the last-minute confession of an anti-Zionist but the frustrated parting gesture of a liberal Zionist scorned. You can fault Obama for a rosy, idealistic and ultimately naive view of an Israel that no longer exists, and of a vision of Israeli-Palestinian coexistence that might have been buried alongside Shimon Peres. But if the president was stuck in the days of Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin, of hardy kibbutzniks and selfless socialists, he’s not alone: A plurality, if not a majority, of American Jews probably share a vision for Israel’s future rooted in a fast-fading past.

William Safire once wrote that the greatest thrill a writer can experience is “to coin a word or phrase that fills a linguistic void and becomes part of the history of the era.” Kishkes, I am afraid, is not that word. Obama wasn’t too “cool” for pro-Israel tastes. He was merely the wrong kind of pro-Israel for the times.

Bernard-Henri Lévy: A calling to see — and write about — the truth

The peripatetic philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy was en route from Iraq to his home in Paris when the Journal caught up with him by phone during a stopover in Morocco and spoke about a wide range of topics, from the election of Donald Trump to the successes of Zionism.

The author of the recently released “The Genius of Judaism” has a conversational style that is somewhat less charged-up than his prose, but he displays the same command of history, politics and literature — and the same urgent moral concern —

Jewish artists’ intertwined roots, identity on display

“You have his nose,” said a man I’ve never met before, pointing to a photo of Theodor Herzl displayed on the wall. 

There he was: Herzl, with his dark eyes, his ridged forehead and, according to the man next to me, my nose. 

Herzl, the father of modern Zionism, an Austro-Hungarian Jew who conceived the notion of a Jewish state while living in the Diaspora — and just one of many panels making up “The German Roots of Zionism” exhibition now on display at Hillel at UCLA. 

A major point of this exhibition was to reflect on the relationship between German Jewish identity and contemporary American life, so maybe — just maybe — my schnoz was one more poetic link, connecting me to Zionism’s utopian roots. 

The exhibition was one of three being celebrated on Oct. 27 when 100 intellectuals gathered for the Triple Art Opening, held at the Dortort Center for Creativity in the Arts at UCLA Hillel. Organized in conjunction with one another by Perla Karney, UCLA Hillel’s artistic director, they will be on display until Dec. 9. 

“The German Roots of Zionism,” located on the second floor of Hillel at UCLA, was intended to give context to the two other exhibitions: “WINGS” by Harriet Zeitlin (located, not by accident, on the staircase leading up to the third floor) and “Seek My Face” by Joshua Meyer (on view in the Spiegel and Dortort galleries, located on the third floor). According to Karney, both Zeitlin and Meyer are products of the German Jewish identity.

These three separate yet intertwined exhibits chronicle the evolution of Jewish identity, starting with its Zionist roots, ascending up the staircase with “WINGS” and eventually landing on the contemporary works of Meyer. Although Meyer and Zeitlin are, stylistically speaking, polar opposites, there’s a sense of closeness and intimacy with both of their approaches.

Zeitlin is a scavenger of sorts, recycling found objects and transforming them into art. It’s especially apparent when ascending the staircase at UCLA Hillel, where her artwork lines the walls, that one man’s trash is this woman’s treasure. Her installation “WINGS” is a series of whimsical portraits that use appropriated objects such as clogs and shoehorns on the canvas. A shoehorn becomes the head of a bird mid-flight; a quilt becomes the wingspan. Her colors are vibrant and bold, stylistically resonant of Japanese cranes.

Although she doesn’t consider her art Jewish, per se, Zeitlin, a Jewish-American of Ashkenazi ancestry, told the Journal about her installation, “This is my reaction to nature. Nature is God and God is nature.”

As Zeitlin’s work is airy and whimsical, Meyer’s work is brooding and grounded. Meyer’s oil-on-canvases aren’t crisp like a photo; rather, they are more like a photo zoomed in too many times. The result is pixelation, with viscous slabs of paint. The difficulty to discern details in his portraits makes the title of the show, “Seek My Face” (after a line extracted from Psalm 27), very relevant. It’s worth mentioning that Meyer only paints people he knows personally, so these portraits are meditations on his own personal relationships.

Artist Ruth Weisberg, former dean of fine arts at the University of Southern California, spoke on Meyer’s behalf (since the Boston-based artist was unable to make the opening). An established artist herself, she told the Journal, “Even though our work might not resemble each other’s that much, we’re passionately interested in the history of art, we have similar enthusiasm for particular artists, and we are also both very involved Jewishly.” She said that what makes their art Jewish is that “we have a strong sense of that identity, the history, and how that’s affected us. Yes, we are Jewish artists in the very large, ample definition.” 

Rabbi Aaron Lerner, who is early in his tenure as Hillel’s rabbi, made sure to mention during the opening’s public program that the room where Meyer’s work is displayed is filled with 200 to 250 UCLA students on a typical Shabbat. In fact, all gallery areas at UCLA Hillel are public spaces. 

These works being a part of such a thriving community, rather than being limited to a gallery room, proves their relevance. They are part of the conversation, the social landscape. They decorate the walls, in rooms where we dwell, pulsing with conversation.

Iran’s president blames ‘Zionist groups’ for US ruling that he says violates nuclear deal

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blamed “Zionist pressure groups” for a U.S. Supreme Court ruling he said could undermine the Iran nuclear deal.

“The lack of compliance of the United States with the JCPOA in the last several months represents a flawed approach,” Rouhani said Thursday, addressing the annual opening of the U.N. General Assembly, using the acronym for the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action, the formal name for the deal that traded sanctions relief for a rollback of nuclear development in Iran.

“The latest case in point is the United States Supreme Court ruling to seize billions of dollars of the Iranian regime’s assets,” he said. “This demonstrated that the Zionist pressure groups could go as far as having the U.S. Congress pass offensive legislation forcing the highest judicial institution to uphold peremptory violations of international law.”

In April, the high court upheld a 2012 law that allows U.S. victims of Iran-backed terrorism to claim funds from the $2 billion in Bank Markazi’s assets held in the United States. Bank Markazi is Iran’s central bank.

Litigants include families of Marines killed in the 1983 Hezbollah attack on barracks in Beirut, and the Rubin family, whose family member was injured in a 1997 double suicide bombing on Ben Yehuda Street in Jerusalem. The family is represented by the Israeli NGO Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center.

Rouhani said such rulings should be seen as a “wrongful international act” in violation of the deal.

The deal does not include the unfreezing of U.S.-held assets, although the Obama administration, in what was seen as a good-will gesture, unfroze $400 million in separate Iranian assets and delivered the money to Iran.

The Anti-Defamation League slammed what it said was Rouhani’s anti-Semitic language.

“President Rouhani’s U.N. address demonstrates clearly that there is no evidence of Iranian moderation,” Jonathan Greenblatt, ADL’s CEO, said in a statement. “His espousing of noxious anti-Semitic conspiracy theories alleging ‘Zionist’ control of Congress must be condemned by the international community.”

Rouhani was otherwise bullish on the deal, saying Iran’s economy had improved – an implicit rebuke to hard-liners in his country who said the deal was not worth it.

He otherwise referred to Israel only once, unlike predecessors such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who made hostility to Israel a centerpiece of their speeches. Rouhani was more focused on Islamic State terrorists, blaming Saudi Arabia for creating the environment in which they flourished.

“The oppressed Palestinians are still afflicted by a web of apartheid and oppressive polices set by the Zionist regime,” he said in his only reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Keeping UCLA a place of thriving Jewish life and pro-Israel activism

There’s a campus where Israel is celebrated and Jews thrive. It’s a place where Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns have been defeated 15 times since 2002 and where 80 percent of the most recent student body presidents have been committed Jews. 

Every year, hundreds of students celebrate Israel on Yom HaAtzmaut by dancing and waving Israeli flags in the center of campus. More pro-Israel students attend national Zionist conferences than from any other college in the country. And it was students from this campus who piloted the idea of campus-specific trips of non-Jewish influential students to Israel and the Palestinian Authority, a program which is now being replicated on 20 other campuses.

[RELATED: UCLA’s betrayal of Milan Chatterjee]

Not to belabor the point, but 200 students regularly attend Shabbat dinners, and at the most recent Interfaith Shabbat, dozens of Muslims joined with Christians, Hindus and Buddhists to celebrate alongside their Jewish friends. Students here wear Jewish paraphernalia with pride all over campus, including Israel Defense Forces T-shirts.

The university I’m profiling is UCLA, and if you have any doubts, you can read more from UCLA students by visiting

Based on everything you’ve read so far, UCLA is exactly the kind of place you’d want to send your kids — and rightly so. UCLA has one of the most vibrant and robust Jewish communities of any college campus in the United States.

So why is it that this university has been labeled anti-Semitic and even “unsafe”? 

Well, it’s complicated. The UC system was targeted more than a decade ago by anti-Israel activists for a pernicious community-organizing effort with one goal: to delegitimize the Jewish state. 

Activists strategically built relationships that are now bearing fruit, not just at UCLA, but around the country on nearly every major campus. Hiding behind attractive concepts such as “justice” and “human rights” lurks a movement that denies Israel’s right to exist. As BDS advocate Ahmed Moor stated succinctly: “BDS does mean the end of the Jewish state.”

The resulting BDS programming now attacks Israel and its supporters year after year.  The UC system is no longer unique. This is a nationwide problem.

The most recent tactic attempts to defame student leaders who take pro-Israel or even neutral positions. The case against Milan Chatterjee echoes the intimidation and questioning of former UCLA students Rachel Beyda, Lauren Rogers, Sunny Singh, Avinoam Baral and Avi Oved in recent years. Some of those cases even involved illegal email hacking and the leaking of private information. 

Despite these events, Jewish life and pro-Israel activism at UCLA is secure and thriving, and has only grown stronger as a result of Jewish students’ impassioned response. Nevertheless, the current tenor of the anti-Israel campaign on campus is absolutely unacceptable, and I’d like to share some humble suggestions for how you can help:

1. Continue to send us your most passionate, well-educated Jewish students. A strong pro-Israel community is only possible where there is a strong Jewish community to support it. And with few exceptions, the leaders of the pro-Israel community come from homes where they received a robust Jewish education and learned to love Israel.

2. Avoid hyperbolic language such as “unsafe.” It unnecessarily scares parents — and insults the truly dangerous aspects of campus life: sexual violence, drugs, alcohol and stress. We absolutely should push back hard against BDS hostility. And we can do that without invoking Hitler, fascism, Zika and terrorism.

3. Be specific. Join us in insisting that the recently passed Principles Against Intolerance, which specifically reject anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionsim, be vigorously enforced. The policy was enacted. Now it needs to be implemented.

4. Insist that UC administrators refrain from entertaining politically motivated attempts to intimidate students.

5. Praise the administration when it takes positive steps. I disagree with UCLA’s handling of the most recent case, but I applaud the positions Chancellor Gene Block took in an interview with the Jewish Journal last year. Positive feedback provides much more motivation than going negative.

6. Don’t fight with people with whom you mostly agree. Let’s devote our energy to combatting BDS, not fighting other Jews.

7. Finally, let’s reconsider how our reactiveness may be helping draw unwarranted attention to anti-Israel messaging. BDS groups promote divestment campaigns and create controversy to get attention. The response of the Jewish community to these events sometimes provides them exactly that — we wind up inadvertently fueling their fire.

Education, relationships and even empathy are much stronger change agents than yelling or scare tactics. And shifting our focus to the 99 percent of the students who have yet to form an opinion about Israel is a better strategy for ensuring its future than arguing with a handful of obdurate radicals.

There is even hope for those students, though it may simply be a matter of waiting. There’s a reason insurance rates go down at age 25. That’s when the prefrontal cortex, the area of our brains that governs executive function, fully develops. Or to quote one of my Muslim colleagues who is a former BDS activist: “Let me just start this conversation by telling you that I want to smack the 18-year-old version of myself.”

Is everything perfect at UCLA? Of course not. But we have a robust and secure Jewish community, and we are working really hard, and strategically, to make it even better. We need your help to make sure that Jews here continue to enjoy a safe, thriving, innovative and strong community. Your support is valued and appreciated.

Rabbi Aaron Lerner is the executive director of Hillel at UCLA.

What football can teach us about Israel education

Imagine a quarterback who had to run every play through a gaggle of coaches, agents, broadcasters, analysts, advertisers, fans and peanut vendors. Crazy, right? You don’t have to be a Vegas bookie to know that regardless of the talent on the field, this is not a winning strategy for success. Yet, across America, Jewish institutions routinely do just that with their Israel education initiatives. With more than a decade of classroom experience teaching Israel to high school students, I’m going to suggest something you might find hard to hear. The 400-pound linebacker blitzing up the middle of your child’s Israel education isn’t the Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment movement, or Bibi, it’s you. 

There is hardly another subject area in which people outside of the classroom feel so comfortable influencing what, when, how and by whom it can be taught to our students. The result is that too many Israel educators are put in the unenviable position of the quarterback trying to scramble around a host of competing interests and hidden agendas that have less to do with Israel and more to do with internal community politics.

Outside interference in Israel education manifests itself in a variety of subtle and not so subtle ways. It may come from a donor or board member who suggests that a certain outside speaker give a presentation on Israel to the students. Or from the parent who complains to the head of school that a lesson was too political, or the other parent who constantly floods your inbox with articles and Facebook posts hinting (in ALL CAPS, of course) that these email chains become required classroom reading. Not wanting to be left out of the action is the well-intentioned colleague who suggests that you avoid entire topics because the issues are too complex or controversial for the students to comprehend.

What these examples and many more like them all have in common is that important educational decisions are being made by people outside of the classroom, all of whom lack the content knowledge and experience necessary to make sound pedagogical decisions about how to best provide students with the Israel education they deserve. Just like in sports, sharing an end-goal isn’t a license for Monday morning quarterbacking. It doesn’t work when your child is playing a team sport, and it won’t work with Israel education. As American Jewry begins to address the issue of Israel engagement among our youth, it is important to consider the negative impact of the “everyone’s an expert” approach to Israel education.

Every year, it seems, the establishment has a theme for speakers to promote. One year it is “startup nation” and the wonders of Waze, another it’s all about water innovation. Although  inviting guest speakers to pitch the latest version of “Hey kids, did you know that Israel invented …?” may make a good photo op for the school newsletter, optics must never be confused with good education. When it comes to Israel, students don’t need to be lectured from the sidelines. Authentic engagement and real learning requires students to get in the game so they can apply their knowledge, critical thinking skills and Jewish values to the important Zionist issues of their generation. 

Perhaps the biggest challenge for Israel educators is the growing politicization of Israel among American Jewry. Often, teachers who engage students in nuanced learning about Israel are labeled as being too political, too pro or too anti, or too right or too left, and once the label is made, the stigma is almost impossible to erase. What’s more, the charge (euphemistically termed “a concern”) can be levied by almost anyone at any time with a populist ease that would make a Salem pilgrim blush. The environment has become so charged that it has started to impact what is being discussed in the classrooms, leaving the goalposts of authentic engagement with Israel almost beyond the reach of our students. 

It is high time for us to grow out of our Zionist “Scopes Trial” phase and do away with ideological litmus tests placed on our Israel educators. It is counterproductive and needs to stop. Consciously or not, many teachers dilute lessons to avoid any hint of unacceptable inferences about political attitudes and loyalty. However, when Zionism is reduced to predictable talking points and prepackaged information, study after study confirms what teachers already know: The students aren’t buying it. 

Besides, controversy and politics are as Israeli as Bamba. If we want our kids to get an authentic taste of Israel, let them act Israeli. A classroom brimming with passionate debate about important issues may actually be evidence of solid learning. If your child’s classroom sounds like the Knesset, understand that your quarterback is moving the team closer to the end zone. Running onto the field breaks a quarterback’s confidence and kills momentum. So avoid the fan interference penalty and cheer from the sidelines. 

Zionism has always been a full-contact sport, the highs and lows are an integral part of the Israeli experience, and with the right educator at the helm, your child will come out not only more knowledgeable but connected to Israel in a more meaningful way. 

If you really take issue with a teacher’s playbook, share your perspective with your child. Such discussions are an authentically Jewish way of transmitting values and ideas to the next generation. This game plan has served us well in the past. Why change now that we finally have our own national team?

Jason Feld is dean of students at Shalhevet High School and an alumnus of the Teaching Israel Fellowship.

Does an American Jewish historian’s rejection of Zionism signal broader trend?

Hasia Diner is one of the most acclaimed American-Jewish historians in the country. A product of the Habonim Dror Zionist youth movement, she is a former Fulbright professor at the University of Haifa in Israel.

Now, she’s calling Zionism a “naïve delusion” and says she feels uncomfortable entering a synagogue that celebrates its support for Israel.

Diner’s Op-Ed piece discussing her disillusion, which appeared Aug. 1 on the website of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, immediately stirred passionate and angry responses among readers, including her fellow academics. It also raised the question whether her distancing from Israel makes her an outlier, or reflects a growing trend among American Jews, in general, and the Jewish academic elite in particular.

Diner, who directs New York University’s Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History, writes in her Op-Ed that she stopped being a Zionist in 2010, and now feels uncomfortable visiting many American Jewish institutions because of their support for Israel. She blames Zionism for the disappearance of “vast numbers of Jewish communities.” She condemns Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, as well as the growth of its Charedi and right-wing sectors.

Israel “is a place that I abhor visiting, and to which I will contribute no money, whose products I will not buy, nor will I expend my limited but still to me, meaningful, political clout to support it,” Diner writes.

“The Law of Return can no longer look to me as anything other than racism,” she writes, referring to the Israeli law that bestows automatic citizenship on immigrants with at least one Jewish grandparent.

In a later portion of the piece, co-written with Babson College history professor Marjorie Feld, the two assert that their renouncing of Zionism signals a broader trend in the American Jewish community. More and more Jews, they imply, do not support Israel.

“Though we certainly do not claim to speak for all American Jews, as scholars we know we are a part of something much larger, something that, we assert, should be shaking the foundation of American Jewish leaders,” they write. “There is a growing gap between these leaders and the people for whom they claim to speak.”

The Op-Ed has certainly shaken the foundation of one American Jewish scholar: historian Jonathan Sarna, who penned a response to it Aug. 2 in Haaretz. Both acclaimed in their field, Sarna and Diner each published histories of American Jewry in 2004. Sarna accused Diner and Feld of believing “demonic” myths about Israel and wrote that they “sacrifice truth to advance their newfound ideology.”

“Diner and Feld’s current view is at least as much a ‘naïve delusion’ as the earlier one that they rejected,” he wrote. “Sadly, instead of drawing serious, nuanced, scholarly lessons from history, they have provided us with just what they claim Israel’s supporters once gave them: propaganda.”

Diner told JTA that Zionism was once “one of the most important parts of my existence” and that her shift away from it has been “painful.” As late as 2014, she signed on as a founding member of the academic advisory council of The Third Narrative, a pro-peace initiative of Ameinu, the progressive Zionist alliance.

But she feels that speaking out is necessary, and that she speaks for a wide swath of American Jews.

“It’s the kind of thing people whisper about in metaphorical terms,” she said. “The younger one is, the more one is negative about this conflict of [being] Jewish and Israel, and the kind of politics that come out of Israel and the like. I think there is an enormous world out there of American Jews who are not at all far from this position.”

Diner and Feld aren’t the first American Jewish academics this year to publicly advocate criticism of Israel. In October, Harvard University government professor Steven Levitsky and Yale University economics and law professor Glen Weyl wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post supporting a boycott of Israel on the grounds that it would be the only way to meaningfully advance the peace process.

“I feel like I’m part of a silent large minority,” Weyl, 31, told JTA. “There’s a lot of Jews of my generation who are very, very unhappy with Israel, but who, on the other hand, have no trust [in] anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist extremist groups representing Palestinians or political Islam or things like that. I don’t think my position is actually so small.”

Polls show young Jews growing more critical of Israeli policy. While three-quarters of Jews older than 50 feel attached to Israel, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center study of American Jewry, only 60 percent of Jews ages 18 to 29 feel attached. Among those, only 26 percent said Israel is making a sincere effort toward peace.

“There’s no question that liberal American Jews are increasingly uncomfortable with Israel,” said Steven Cohen, a Jewish social policy professor at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, who attributed part of the distancing from Israel to a broader disaffiliation with Jewish life. “Unfortunately, people tend not to distinguish the government from the country from the ideology, and legitimate criticism of government policy often flows over to alienation from the country and disavowal of Zionism.”

Sarna said discontent with Israel among American Jews could have to do with the distrust between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“American Jews are always happier when the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel are on very good terms,” he told JTA. “When Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin were on the best of terms, they were very happy. That could happen again.”

But Diner, who has written extensively about Diaspora Jewry and the American Jewish experience in particular, would prefer a more fundamental shift among American Jewry — one where Zionism is among several “icons of Jewish identity,” not the predominant one.

“There was a time when there was a much broader and bigger conversation,” she said. “That’s become less and less possible. 

Caroline Glick and me

You know you’ve made it in the Jewish world when you get to speak to 1,000 Hadassah women at their national convention. 

For its annual convention in Atlanta last week, Hadassah asked me to converse onstage with columnist and author Caroline Glick, a discussion moderated by journalist Linda Scherzer. In addition to the live audience, a video camera would livestream and archive it for web viewers. 

The women’s Zionist organization has been sponsoring conversations on the subject of Zionism: What is it? How’s it doing? Where is it going?  

“It’s not a debate,” an organizer warned me the week before. “It’s a dialogue.”

Really, a dialogue? I have been reading and virulently disagreeing with Glick’s writing for years. I’ve printed her columns — inclusion is what we do here at the Journal — but I’d never spoken to her. I imagined we’d jump down each other’s throats in about 30 seconds.

Then we met. She is diminutive, with short auburn hair, a tightly drawn mouth and dark eyes. We shook hands and made small talk about mutual friends. I knew she had asked some of them how to score points off me, and I’d asked them the same about her.

After just a minute of fake nicey-nice chit-chat, there was an awkward pause. Glick said, “Your, um, pants.” She blushed.

I looked down at my black wool suit slacks and — the horror, the horror! About half of the toothpaste I’d spit out of my mouth that morning had ended up as a series of large white splatters covering my crotch. It was bad. It was Jackson Pollock-meets-“There’s Something About Mary” bad.  We were two minutes from showtime. 

I ran backstage, grabbed a water bottle from a tech guy, poured it on a nearby rag, gave my pants a few wipes, and, presto, Crest-free.

The lights were already dimming when I raced back into the convention hall. And when I thanked Glick, I realized I could no longer possibly see her as just a ferocious kneejerk right-winger. The lion had pulled the thorn from Androcles. I had nothing but gratitude for this woman who saved me from total embarrassment.

So when Glick launched into a long indictment of the Democratic Party as being overrun with the anti-Israel sentiments of the “left,” I pushed back firmly — but gently. If “left” means Democrat, I pointed out, the standard-bearer of that party is Hillary Clinton, who is hardly anti-Israel, nor is the party’s platform. Even their new progressive hero, Bernie Sanders, made clear his support for Israel. 

I agreed with her that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is anti-peace and a stalking horse for straight-up Israel bashing. But I did point out that the best way to deprive it of more mainstream support is to fight the status quo of the occupation. Most people cannot abide by a situation in which millions of Palestinians are deprived of their democratic rights by a democratic nation. They support Israel but cannot support Israel-as-oppressor. Simple.

The solution, I admitted, is not so simple. And that’s where things got a little heated.

Last year, Glick published a book, “The Israeli Solution,” which advocates for a so-called one-state solution to the conflict. That is, Israel would annex the West Bank and Palestinians would have the option of becoming Israeli citizens. 

After she outlined her idea, I took a deep breath. I started by praising Glick for the effort. Mainstream Jews once thought Theodor Herzl was nuts when he proposed political Zionism, and now he is seen as a Jewish savior. Who knows, I said, maybe Caroline Glick is the new Herzl. The important thing is that a moribund peace process needs new ideas, for better or worse.

But, I added, the one-state solution is the worst possible idea. My reasons? One, why would Israel want to make people whom Glick describes as born and bred Israel- and Jew-haters citizens of a Jewish state? Two, Israel is already struggling to incorporate Charedim and Arab Israelis into its economy and educational systems. How could it possibly absorb 2 or 3 million Palestinians? 

“There are way too many Arabs and Jews who are uneducated and unemployed, before even one Palestinian receives Israeli citizenship,” I said, quoting Dan Ben-David of the Shoresh Institution.

Three, experts disagree on the actual population numbers — wouldn’t it be smart to have a census we can all rely on before even arguing such an idea?

And finally, the only one-state solution I can think of in the Middle East is Syria — and that hasn’t worked out so well. If states with Shiite and Sunni Muslims implode, imagine a state of Arabs and Jews.

What was my solution? Actress Gwyneth Paltrow had just been honored at Hadassah’s gala the night before. She’d once famously described her separation from husband Chris Martin as “a conscious uncoupling.” That, I said, is what the Israelis and Palestinians need — a conscious uncoupling. 

Before I could finish, Glick interrupted me. Then I jumped in on her. I wouldn’t say it got heated, just spirited. The debate style these days is to attack not just the ideas, but the person. That didn’t happen this time. Because you never know when that person will be for one critical moment maybe not Israel’s savior, but your own.

ROB ESHMAN is publisher and editor-in-chief of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal. Email him at You can follow him on Instagram and Twitter @foodaism and @RobEshman.

Palestinian terrorism and Muslim hypocrisy: An open letter from a Muslim woman

While millions of children got out of bed on the morning of June 30 excited to be on summer vacation, one child did not. A young Israeli girl, 13-year-old Hallel Yaffe Ariel, was brutally murdered in her own bed by a 17-year-old Palestinian terrorist. He broke into her house and stabbed her to death.

Another life lost to senseless violence. Another poor soul taken too early from this world. But few Muslims in this world will be mourning her death because Hallel was an Israeli Jew.

Read more at Times of Israel.

Nadiya Al-Noor is a Muslim interfaith activist with a focus on Jewish and Muslim communities, and she actively supports peace between Israel and the Palestinians. She is a graduate student at Binghamton University in upstate New York, studying public administration. This essay originally appeared in Reprinted with permission.

Ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, but not Nazism

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone told a Parliament committee that he does not believe Zionism or the policies of the Israeli government are at all analogous to Nazism.

Livingstone also reiterated that he regretted saying Adolf Hitler supported Zionism because of the furor his remarks sparked, not because he disavows them.

“I therefore do regret raising the historical points about Nazi policy in the1930s when the specific issue of Hitler was raised by (reporter) Vanessa Feltz,” Livingstone said in a written statement filed with the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee hearing on anti-Semitism. “I regret it because there was an hysterical response from opponents of the Labour Party and of its current leadership, which will not have aided Labour’s campaign for the 5 May elections. I am horrified by the way my remarks have been interpreted and twisted. I cannot think of a worse insult than to be called a racist or an anti-Semite. And I am sorry if what I said has caused Jewish people, or anyone else, offense. That was not my intention.”

In a radio interview in April with the BBC, Livingstone had said, “Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism.”

He made the remarks in defense of Labour Party lawmaker Naz Shah, who was suspended a day earlier over a Facebook post in 2014 suggesting that Israelis should be moved en masse to the United States. Days later, Livingstone was suspended from the party for the remark.

In recent months, Labour has suspended at least 20 members, including at the senior level, for anti-Semitic or vicious anti-Israel invective that critics say party leader Jeremy Corbyn had not done enough to curb.

The inquiry into anti-Semitism was launched in April to determine whether anti-Jewish prejudice has increased in the U.K. and to assess the particular dangers facing Jews.

Livingstone objected to the fact that in its questioning, the committee dwelled on the BBC interview in which he made the Hitler remarks rather than asking him about anti-Semitism and racism because of what he called his “long track record” of fighting both.

“Instead, the overwhelming majority of questions asked of me were about my views on the history of Germany in the 1930s, Hitler, the Nazis, Israel, Zionism and the Labour Party. Committee members seemed to be obsessed with these issues,” he wrote.

Livingstone also wrote: “To avoid any other misunderstanding, I do not believe that Zionism or the policies of Israeli governments are at all analogous to Nazism. Israeli governments have never had the aim of the systematic extermination of the Palestinian people, in the way Nazism sought the annihilation of the Jews.”

He did accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing, continuing: “However Israel’s policies have included ethnic cleansing. Palestinians who had lived in that land for centuries were driven out by systematic violence and terror aimed at clearing them out of what became a large part of the Israeli state.”

Livingstone served as mayor twice, from 1981 to 1986 and from 2000 to 2008.

‘Renew our days as of old’

Israeli democracy is under threat. Incitement against human rights organizations proceeds with little trace of official censure; cabinet ministers aim to impose new ideological litmus tests in the realm of education and culture; government-sponsored bills place Jews on a higher plane than other citizens; and the state’s Ashkenazic chief rabbi declares, “Israel is first and foremost Jewish, and only then democratic.”

These acts deviate sharply from principles that were clearly and forcefully articulated before, during and after Israel’s Declaration of Independence was approved May 14, 1948. Those earlier principles, drawn from a range of diverse perspectives, reflected the mix of enlightened Jewish and Zionist ideals at a crucial moment of formation. A number of these first principles figure centrally in a series of broadsides that are on display at the Yitzhak Rabin Hillel Center for Jewish Life at UCLA. In observance of Israeli Independence Day, we present excerpts from them in translation below.

Sixty-eight years ago, in the face of intense pressure from inside and out, powerful voices were heard calling for the anchoring of robust democratic principles in the foundation of the new state. They figured in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, which called for “complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex.”

On the same day the declaration was issued and as the nascent state was confronting the invasion of five Arab armies, the provisional government published a decree calling on all residents to prepare for struggle and sacrifice in the coming days. Concomitantly, the decree proclaimed:

“Within the confines of our State, citizens of the Arab people continue to live — for most of them this war is loathsome. Their rights as equal citizens we are duty-bound to uphold. We look to peace. Our hands are extended to them as partners in building the homeland.”

This striking call to recognize Jews and Arabs as equals was offered in the shadow of the Holocaust and in the face of an ongoing conflict understood as a war of survival. Seven months earlier, an even more soaring expression of this principle appeared in a broadside published Oct. 19, 1947 in Hebrew and Arabic by the left-oriented League for Jewish-Arab Rapprochement in Jerusalem. It announced:

“JEWS AND ARABS! Let us end this Satanic dance! The Jewish and Arab masses do not want chaos and bloodshed! The Jewish and Arab masses do not want a war of one people against another! The Jewish and Arab masses want a life of peace and creativity, a life of freedom and progress! Whatever the ultimate political outcome of the question of the Land of Israel will be, it will be meaningful only to the extent that it will guarantee peace and cooperation between two peoples whose fate is linked in an unbreakable bond to the fate of the land. Only Jewish-Arab unity can create enduring facts in the Land of Israel; only Jewish-Arab unity can advance this land toward independence and true freedom, toward progress and efflorescence.”

Despite what some might assume, this sentiment was not confined to the secular left. A coalition known as the United Religious Front — comprising the religious Zionist Mizrachi party, the non-Zionist Agudat Yisrael, a range of yeshiva deans, the Chasidic rebbes of Belz and Ger and a host of municipal rabbis — published a broadside in 1951 that laid out its vision for the new state. While calling for the Torah to serve as a key pillar, the poster also insisted that the state be fully democratic and recognize the complete equality of non-Jews as a matter of nationality and religion. The following are two of the planks in its platform:

“THE DEMOCRATIC STRUCTURE OF THE STATE: BASIC RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. Beloved is Adam (all humanity) who was created in God’s image” (Avot 3:14). We are commanded to guard with extraordinary care the sanctity of life, the freedom and the dignity of every human being. It is the task of the State of Israel to take pains to assure that the rights of the individual, and his/her freedom of speech and conscience, will not be compromised.”

“RIGHTS OF ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES. In the State of Israel, full equal rights shall be extended to all citizens irrespective of their religion or race. Most especially, in the wake of our suffering and torment through millennia of wandering among the nations when we were bereft of civil rights, we ought to remember the exalted morality captured in the words of our Torah: ‘A sojourner (ger), you are not to oppress: You yourselves know the feelings of the sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt’ (Exodus 23:9).”

The passage of time has not been kind to these notions. Citizens in Israel today confront stiff challenges to the values of democracy and equality. Rather than lapse into despair, they would do well to recover the range of foundational principles that were present at the birth of the state and are contained in the above texts. They represent an important antidote to the current scourge of chauvinism and a repository of some of the most exalted ideals of the Jewish and Zionist traditions.

Chaim Seidler-Feller, who recently retired after 40th year as director of UCLA Hillel, is director of the Hartman Fellowship for Campus Professionals.

David N. Myers is the Sady and Ludwig Kahn Professor of Jewish History at UCLA. Many of the posters in this article are from Seidler-Feller’s private collection.

A look at the fragmented history of Zionism

“Zionism” is a word that has come to mean many different things to different people, which is why veteran foreign correspondent Milton Viorst decided to take a fresh look at the origins and the destiny of the Zionist project in “Zionism: The Birth and Transformation of an Ideal” (Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press). The conclusion he reaches is deeply unsettling, and it can be ignored only at our peril.

“The Zionism we know today is not a unified idea, but a composite of bitter rivalries between stubborn men and their visions of Jewish statehood,” Viorst writes. “Zionism has created a successful country, but it has not made the Jews more secure. The absence of peace, in my judgment, keeps the Zionist achievement in jeopardy.”

Viorst served as a Middle East correspondent for The New Yorker and has contributed to publications ranging from the New York Times Magazine to Haaretz.  He has written six previous books on the Middle East, most recently “In the Shadow of the Prophet.”  He is a critic of certain strains of Zionism — engaged and compassionate, but a critic nonetheless. For that reason alone, I suspect that his point of view (and his book along with it) will be dismissed by some Jews in both America and Israel. But anyone who regards him- or herself as a Zionist ought to be able to answer the hard questions that his book poses.

“Zionism” looks back at eight foundational figures in Zionism, not only Theodor Herzl, Chaim Weizmann, Vladimir Jabotinsky, David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin and Benjamin Netanyahu, but also Rabbis Abraham Isaac Kook and Zvi Yehuda Kook, father and son, both of whom played a leading role in Religious Zionism. Each of these men, in his own way, shaped an aspect of the diverse movement that we call by a single name.

Indeed, Viorst’s book is a useful and important reminder that Zionism has not always been a shared value among Jews; indeed, Herzl started out as a highly assimilated Jew of Vienna who was capable of expressing contempt toward many of his fellow Jews. It’s also important to recall that Zionism started out as a solution to a European problem, the so-called “Jewish question.”   The answer, of course, was national sovereignty. “A flag, what is that?” Herzl wrote in one especially stirring letter.  “A stick with a rag on it?  No, sir. A flag is more than that. With a flag one can lead men wherever one wants, even into the Promised Land.  For a flag men live and die.”

The problem of European Jews was to be solved on Palestinian soil, and when the map of the Middle East was redrawn after World War I — an act of imperial hubris that ultimately resulted in the invention of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq — the future site of a Jewish homeland was planted among them. Yet the earliest Jewish pioneers, Viorst notes, “scarcely took note of their settling on land for which they had no legal title. They were not hostile to Arabs; some even emulated the Arab style of life.  Rather, their ideals contained no room for contemplating Arab possession. They deeply believed Palestine was their land.”

Significantly, it was a dissenting faction of Zionists who spoke out loud what the Labor Zionists preferred not to talk about. “Our peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claims to priority in Palestine,” Jabotinsky, founder of the Revisionist faction, wrote in 1923. “We may water down and sweeten our aims with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, just as we know what they do not want.”

Jabotinsky, according to Viorst, was a crucial figure in the making of modern Zionism. “His huge impact lay in the ideology that he created, which produced a tougher, more rigid, heavily militaristic and deeply divided Zionism,” Viorst writes. So we should not be surprised by the new generation of maximalists like Avigdor Lieberman, who flank Likud on the far right. “Revisionism thrives today with an ideology that has changed little since Jabotinsky’s time,” Viorst warns.

But he does not spare the Labor Zionists from some of the same criticism. When the British first began to consider the formal partition of Palestine among Jews and Arabs in the 1930s, the Labor Zionist leader Ben-Gurion publicly embraced the idea of partition, but privately explained why he saw it as only a tactical concession: “By the time we complete the settlement of our state … we shall break through these frontiers,” he wrote at the time. “All our aspiration is built on the assumption … that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs … but I regard this scheme as … an unequaled lever for the gradual conquest of all of Palestine.”

Ironically, it was Ben-Gurion’s great adversary, Begin, who started a process that ultimately supplanted the Labor Zionist leadership that had long dominated the politics of the Jewish state. “His Revisionism succeeded largely because Labor Zionism failed,” Viorst writes. “Over time, he won the approval of the black-hatted haredim and the post-Communist Russian immigrants, who took their place alongside Jabotinsky’s Revisionists and Rav Kook’s Religious Zionists.”

By the end of the book, we are not surprised to learn that Viorst refuses to blame the current generation of Israeli leaders for the stalemate in what we used to call, in more optimistic days, “the peace process.”  Indeed, he insists that it “derives from competing visions of Zionism, dating back to the bitter struggles between Vladimir Jabotinsky and David Ben-Gurion.” And, intriguingly, he expresses hope rather than despair about the fact that the Middle Eastern frontiers that the Western powers dreamed up in 1920 are now collapsing. 

“No one can say how the pieces will come back together, or how long it will take,” Viorst concludes. “But it is reasonable to say that in the interstices between the fragments, there is probably room to maneuver on behalf of a new Israeli-Palestinian relationship.” Exactly here is the best evidence that Viorst sees the whole sad and frustrating picture through authentically Jewish eyes. 

Jonathan Kirsch, author and publishing attorney, is the book editor of the Jewish Journal.

Is ‘Fiddler’ Zionist? It is when Israel’s UN envoy hosts a performance

If, like me, you’re an Ashkenazi American Jew whose grandfather was a poor tailor who fled Eastern Europe for America at the turn of the last century, you tend to think of “Fiddler on the Roof” as family history.

The story of “Fiddler” tailor Motel Kamzoil is my grandfather’s story, which is the way a lot of American Jews have always viewed the show.

Alisa Solomon, author of “Wonders of Wonders: A Cultural History of Fiddler on the Roof,” describes how the musical became the “Jewish American origin story.” Imperfectly, of course, since not everyone’s ancestors came from a poor shtetl, or Eastern Europe, or a pious family.

Which is why it was a little surprising to see Israel’s Mission to the United Nations host a by-invitation-only performance of the current Broadway revival to celebrate Israel’s Independence Day. Wednesday night’s audience of diplomats, Jewish organization types and assorted machers nibbled on cheese and crackers and sipped prosecco before sitting down to a performance of the musical, introduced with brief remarks by Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon.

“Fiddler” never struck me as a very Zionist musical, to say the least. When Tevye and his fellow villagers are forced out of Anatevke by the czarist police, they head for New York, Chicago and Krakow. Only Yente, the matchmaker, declares that she is going to the “Holy Land,” a detail I had completely forgotten from the movie and previous revivals. Perchik, the presumably socialist revolutionary, wants to transform Russian society, and doesn’t say a word about the political Zionists who sought to create a workers’ utopia in Palestine.

“There is nothing explicitly or even to my mind implicitly Zionist about it,” Solomon said in an interview this week. And yet, she said, “any story of Jewish persecution becomes from a Zionist perspective a Zionist story.”

That is the approach Danon took in his remarks. Watching the musical, he said, he couldn’t help think, “What if they had a place to go” where the Jews of Anatevke could “live as a free people in their own land? The whole play could have been quite different.”

His office also explained that the evening — the mission’s largest Yom Haatzmaut event to date — was part of an ongoing effort to present Jewish culture to U.N. diplomats who might have a one-dimensional view of Israel and Jews. In a statement, Danon called the performance “a window for the leaders of the world into our rich heritage,” saying it “allows them to better understand how vital the modern State of Israel is to the Jewish people.”

Israelis have always had a complicated relationship with “Fiddler,” Solomon told me. The first Hebrew production was brought to Israel in 1965 by impresario Giora Godik. American Jews were enthralled by its resurrection of Yiddishkeit, the Ashkenazi folk culture that their parents and grandparents had left behind and the Holocaust had all but erased. Israelis were less inclined to celebrate the “old country.” “Israelis were – what? – not exactly ashamed or hostile, but the Zionist enterprise was about moving away from that to become muscle Jews, and even denouncing the stereotype of the pasty, weakling Eastern European Jews,” said Solomon, warning that she was generalizing about a complex reality.

Still, Sholom Aleichem, the Yiddish genius whose stories formed the basis for the musical, was – in Hebrew translation — a national literary hero. His plays and works based on his stories were already a staple of the Hebrew theater before 1965. In part as a result of Godik’s “Kanar Al Hagag” – a big Broadway-style production following his successful staging of “My Fair Lady” – Israel experienced a “kind of claiming and celebration of Yiddishkeit,” said Solomon.

And when Chaim Topol starred as Tevye in the 1971 movie, he immediately became the best-known Israeli outside of the country since Moshe Dayan and Golda Meier.

Composer Jerry Bock, lyricist Sheldon Harnick and bookwriter Joseph Stein set out to write a hit musical, not a political statement or a Jewish version of a passion play. But that has never stopped audiences – and directors – from shaping the musical to their needs.

In the previous revival, in 2004, director David Leveaux excised a line from Yente’s speech about going to the Holy Land. In the original script, Yente tells Tevye’s wife Golde, “All my life, I’ve dreamed of going to one place” – Jerusalem. Adds Yente: “And you want to know what I’ll do there? I’m a matchmaker, no? I’ll arrange marriages, yes? So I’m going to the Holy Land to help our people increase and multiply. It’s my mission.”

The “increase and multiply” line was gone from the 2004 production – which was staged in the middle of the second intifada. In a review of “Wonder of Wonders,” Edward Shapiro conjectured that the producers of the revival didn’t want Yente to be seen as “a soldier in the demographic war between Jews and Arabs.”

Yente delivers the “increase and multiply” line in the current production.

Most reviews of this revival – starring Danny Burstein as a very affable Tevye – have noted its brief nod to current events. Burstein appears in the first scene bare-headed and in a present-day parka, reading the play’s opening lines from a hardcover book – a tourist, it seems, visiting the ghost town known as Anatevke. Burstein returns as the tourist in the final scene, joining the line of villagers as they drag their meager belongings behind them.

It’s an unmistakable reminder of the mostly Muslim migrants flooding Europe at the moment. In his review in The New York Times, Charles Isherwood calls the final tableau “an image that might have been taken from the front page of a newspaper on almost any day this year.”

There’s another image in the second act with contemporary echoes: soldiers pointing rifles at unarmed villagers, kerchiefed women huddled in their ramshackle homes. As old as the original production, it’s an image bound to give some Jews agita, and some critics of Israel ammunition. Solomon recalled a 2008 staging at the Cameri Theatre in Tel Aviv – coinciding with Israel’s 60th anniversary – in which director Moshe Kepten drew a subtle comparison between the Jewish and Palestinian narratives of dispersal.

“He really wanted people to understand the dispossession of Palestinians through the exile of the Eastern European Jews,” said Solomon. “It was no big change, but it was something that concerned him.”

If anyone minded, it didn’t hurt the box office – the revival played for six years.

Pro-Sanders Jewish group distributes anti-Zionist flyer

A flyer distributed in Yiddish on Monday calls on Orthodox Jewish voters to vote for Bernie Sanders in Tuesday’s New York presidential primary to dispel the notion that the ultra-Orthodox community supports the ‘Zionist’ agenda and the “extreme right-wing” Israeli government.

“Recent attacks by the Zionist groups and Haredi spokespeople are aimed at Sanders only because he refused to bend to the extreme right-wing Zionist agenda, and was not willing to agree with the radical politics of Netanyahu,” the flyer reads.”The entire political world is watching how the New York Jewish votes are going to be cast since the election is being viewed as a referendum over how blind support of Israel is being supported in Jewish and ‘heimish’ neighborhoods.”

“It’s an unfortunate fact that members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in America are seen as ardent supporters of the right-wing Israeli government – far more than the secular world. It would be, indirectly, a tremendous ‘Chilul Hashem’ (desecration of the name of God) if a majority of Orthodox Jews don’t vote for Sanders while in the ‘gentile world’ support for the two candidates are split.

“Dear Jew, before you cast your vote think how it would be used against your interest unwillingly. Let’s be thoughtful and do the right thing. A vote for Sanders is a vote to push off the Zionists’ interests and groups.”

Why UC Regents report on intolerance works

The sculptor Rodin was once asked how he would approach a likeness of the vibrant Theodore Roosevelt. He replied that his job was to get the blood flowing through the marble. Most university statements on intolerance, racism and anti-Semitism are lifeless and have platitudes coursing through the veins. Not so the recent task force report to the UC Regents.  

The report as a whole is one of the most thoughtful statements on intolerance, including anti-Semitism, to appear from any university leaders. Members of the task force demonstrate a firm grasp of the dispiriting anti-Semitic events that have occurred on too many University of California campuses, including malicious vandalism, inappropriate challenges to Jewish students vying for student government offices, outright expressions of anti-Semitic claims and narratives, and threats to the physical safety of persons. The authors say forthrightly that “Anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination have no place in the University.”

Some fear censorship and the muzzling of speakers if the report is adopted by the full board. Not true. The report firmly and clearly embraces the values of academic freedom and freedom of expression. It emphasizes: “First Amendment principles and academic freedom principles must be paramount in guiding the University’s response to instances of bias, prejudice and intolerance and its efforts to create and maintain an equal campus learning environment for all.”  Adopting the report would not impose restrictions on teaching, campus debate, research, and First Amendment rights, as some have suggested.  

But the legal protection of speech does not obviate the responsibility by university leaders to challenge intolerant speech in all its malignant forms when it appears.  Above all, the role of a university is to educate and expand knowledge. We should celebrate university leaders who oppose racist, sexist, genderist, Islamophobic, and other forms of spoken or written intolerance with their own clear and reasoned words.   University leaders are to set moral tones for their campuses, affirm academic freedom and free expression, and support values of intellectual pluralism and robust and open exchanges of views. 

We appreciate that criticism of Israeli policies is not per se anti-Semitic. There are forms of anti-Zionism that should not be understood as anti-Semitic in origin or in thrust or consequence.  Questions about (and critical consideration of) the Israel-Palestine conflict, its origins, history, dynamics, and current realities and prospects must continue to be important matters attended to on campuses. 

But when anti-Zionism is couched in a language of stereotypes and offensive narratives, when a demonizing discourse claims about the Jewish state what classic anti-Semites earlier claimed about the Jews, we witness an updated form of an old intolerance — what some scholars call “the new antisemitism.”  This discourse is demeaning and damaging, underwrites a single-minded assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish state, morally disparages those tied to or supportive of that state, and stirs currents of speech and action with real consequences for lives on campuses.

We commend the task force for its work and respectfully urge the full Board of Regents to adopt its report.

Mr. Yudof is President Emeritus of the University of California; Mr. Waltzer is Professor Emeritus of History, Michigan State University. They lead the Academic Engagement Network.

Europe should hire Israel, not condemn it

Do you know what European honchos were doing in Geneva recently even as the Islamic State was planning another terror attack on their continent? They were preparing yet another condemnation of Israel, this time with an ironic twist.

They were targeting Israel for its actions in the Golan Heights, the same region where the Jewish state has set up field hospitals to care for Syrian rebels maimed by the venomous weapons of the Islamic State.

You read that right. The Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council circulated a draft resolution on Israel’s “systematic and continuous violation” of the rights of “Syrian citizens in the occupied Golan Heights,” in addition to four other draft resolutions censuring Israel.

Hypocrisy on steroids.

When we talk about the proper response to terror attacks like the one we just witnessed in Brussels, we have to start with eradicating the malignant European hypocrisy towards the Jewish state. 

How many thousands of hours have been squandered at the European Union in Brussels discussing the labelling of Israeli products made in Judea and Samaria instead of developing an anti-terror strategy?

How much time has been spent at the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands discussing the prosecution of Israeli leaders while ignoring murderous dictators and genocidal war criminals?

How many visits to the Middle East have been initiated by European diplomats to pressure Israel to make peace with terrorists rather than confront a region in violent meltdown?

In other words, when will the powers that be in Europe realize that the Islamic terrorism threatening their continent has nothing to do with Israeli tomatoes being grown in Judea and Samaria or Jewish apartments being built in Jerusalem?

In the wake of the latest atrocity in Brussels that killed 34 people and wounded more than 200, it looks like the reality of evil may have interrupted, at least for now, Europe’s obsession with Israel.  

“We are at war,” said French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. 

“These attacks mark another low by the terrorists in the service of hatred and violence,” said European Union Council President Donald Tusk.

“We realize we face a tragic moment. We have to be calm and show solidarity,” said Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel. 

Cutting to the chase, HBO’s “Real Time” host Bill Maher wondered if “Europe will have a little more sympathy for what Israel goes through” instead of being “real a**holes” to them.

Well, that would be nice– I’m also hoping Europe will have more sympathy for Israel, a country that has endured the scourge of terrorism since its very inception.

But what I’m really hoping for is that Europe will come to its senses and realize that the Jewish state is its #1 ally against the Islamic State. I’m hoping Europe will not only stop condemning Israel but will actually hire Israel to help protect and defend the continent against Islamic terrorism.

It’s not just because of the obvious—that no country has more experience fighting this kind of war, and that Israel has developed the most advanced techniques to fight terror at all levels and prevent attacks. 

No, the real reason Europe should hire Israel is because Israel has been winning its long war against terror while maintaining a civil society that protects human rights and the pursuit of happiness.

Faced with a primitive and medieval violence that respects no boundaries, Israel has managed to fight back while maintaining boundaries of law and decency and nurturing a vibrant and creative culture that is the envy of the world. Most countries would have turned into an emergency police state as a mere matter of survival.

In fact, as Eli Lake reports on, this is already happening in France: “Since the attacks in Paris last November, the socialist government of President Francois Hollande has placed his country under a state of emergency. France's national guard has been deployed to protect sensitive religious sites and other ‘soft targets.’ The country of Voltaire, Diderot and Camus is in 2016 the police state that critics warn Cruz or Trump would bring about if given the chance.”

Of course, there’s one major caveat to Europe hiring Israel. The continent’s obsession with condemning Israel has resulted in a culture of hatred towards the Jewish state. This means that European leaders would have to be very discreet about any partnership with Israel.

We can only hope that, with time, Europeans everywhere will realize that a good relationship with Israel is in their best interest and they'll be open about an anti-terror alliance with the Jewish state.

After all, if there’s one thing we know civilized Europeans care about, it’s the pursuit of happiness.

Chilling debate or chilling hate on UC campuses?

The proposed UC Regents statement concerning anti-Zionism is a milestone in the struggle to protect Jewish students from harassment and intimidation on UC campuses. (The statement will be presented to the Regents for a vote on March 23.) While most commentaries focus on the implications of the statement:

“Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California,”

I would first like to applaud the decision to mention the word “anti-Zionism” in an official document of the University of California.

This may sound incredible to most readers, but, though everyone recognizes anti-Zionism as the main source of campus intolerance and hostility, the word “Zionism” has never been mentioned in any official communication of the university that I can remember (and I have been on the UCLA's faculty since 1969). The word “Zionism,” or even “Israel,” has been shunned by the UC administration like leprosy, possibly because it was considered “politically charged” or because it was judged  “controversial,” or because it could be interpreted as “taking sides.”

This is no longer the case.

The recent proposed report endows Zionism with a moral dimension and casts anti-Zionism as morally unacceptable. The statement recognizes “anti-Zionism” not merely as an arguable manifestation of anti-Semitism, but as an independent form of discrimination, carrying its own charge of bigotry and hate – at long last.

It reminds the university community, students and faculty, that all the ugly rhetoric of de-legitimization and de-humanization targets the fate of real people who seek life, security and dignity on this God-forsaken planet.

It is a paradigmatic shift of great symbolic value.

As is usual in paradigm-shifting situations, some people cannot stomach the shift. Israel eliminationists, taking cover in slogans of “human rights” and “social justice,” suddenly find themselves on the ugly side of the moral equation. The Regents report reminds them that conflicts have two sides, that there are human beings on both sides, and that morality and justice require more than just shouting: “Me, me, me.” In their bewilderment, these pseudo-guardians of morality now pull out two beaten-up mantras and chant: “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism” and “this report might chill debate.”

Every child knows that “anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism”; the first targets Jews as individuals, while the second targets Jews as a people. The first targets all Jews, while the second targets only Jews who demand their right to self determination. Accordingly, the report explicitly distinguishes  “anti-Zionism” from “anti-Semitism” as two independent “forms of discrimination,” each laden with its own claim on racism.

Let us examine now the second mantra, concerning “chilling the debate” which some alarmists view as an attack on the First Amendment. Nothing of the kind. It might sound surreal, but all of our ongoing debates are already “chilled,” since we are all operating within norms of discourse that society has imposed on us. For example, in debating the notion of “gender Equality,” we are not advocating “women’s inferiority,” and in debating the nature of racism, we certainly do not preach “white supremacy.” Preaching white supremacy is not forbidden by the university, it is actually protected by the First Amendment, yet it is considered to “have no place at the university,” exactly the way the proposed Regents report labels anti-Zionism. I do not know many of my colleagues who are disturbed by the temperature of the debates that are currently being “chilled.”

Some of my colleagues say that speech norms cannot be imposed by decree, they must emerge organically to reflect universal societal values, and Zionism is not universal yet. This opinion is incompatible, however, with the dynamic of norms, as I recall it. I still remember the days when women’s inferiority was not seen as “socially unacceptable” as it is today, and Islamophobia was not as deadly a sin as it is today.

These norms have not emerged on their own. They were shaped and became universal over the years by hardworking, visionary leaders using statements of principles, guidelines and recommendations, just like the one issued last week for consideration by the Regents.

This report now adds anti-Zionism to the list of “chilled debates,” and rightly so. Through this report, the working group has reassumed the Regents’ responsibility to set norms of civil discourse without limiting free speech; Zionophobic and Islamophobic hate speeches would both remain protected, but, like all hate speeches, would be shunned by students and faculty, and equally “chilled” by the unwritten norms of good judgment.

Judea Pearl is Chancellor’s Professor of Computer Science and Statistics at UCLA and president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation.

Zionism isn’t important only to Jewish people

My name is Jessica Moore. I am a legal resident of Los Angeles, California and have applied for acceptance to UCLA to major in communications. I have requested the opportunity to address the California Board of Regents on March 23 to speak in support of the Report of the Regents’ Working Group on Principles Against Intolerance, which consists of the “Principles Against Intolerance” and “Contextual Statement” and to urge  the Board of Regents to approve it in its entirety, including the “Contextual Statement”.  

There’s no better example of academic scholarship for college students to follow than the Working Group’s Contextual Statement in their report. The causes and meaning of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism need to be clearly understood. Far too many people are trapped in a lexicon of common usage and should become thoroughly familiar with the differences and distinctions between anti-Semitism and words of attitudes like bias, stereotype, and prejudice. People have a First Amendment right to express attitudes. The report correctly describes anti-Semitism as discrimination   …actions like harassment, conspiracy, intimidation, and mob incitement that results acts of violence and intimidation are not protected by free speech and are violations of law.

But with all due respect to the members of the Board, Zionism is not only a symbol of Jewish sovereignty to the Jewish minority. Hundreds of millions of Christians share my conviction in Zionism, and many call themselves, as I do, Zionists. Given the huge difference between Jewish and Christian populations, there may well be more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists!

*The rapid growth of anti-Semitic acts on college and university campuses across America has created a toxic and unwelcoming climate for far too many students of all religions and viewpoints. Far too many Jewish students say that they no longer feel that they can wear their symbols of their religion, as their fellow Christian students do. This alarming situation concerns me, as it should all students, parents, and grand-parents. And, disturbingly, it is having its intended effect of undermining the Jewish students’ educational experience, as well as of those students around them. I am encouraged to see that the UC Board of Regents is considering taking important steps to reduce the incidence and incidents of campus anti-Semitism.

The University of California (UC) proposed Statement of Principles Against Intolerance is in line with global leaders and the world’s preeminent scholars of anti-Semitism.

Pope Francis, President Obama, French Prime Minister Valls, British Prime Minister Cameron, former Secretary of State Clinton and the majority of this year’s presidential candidates have all drawn the distinction between acceptable criticism of Israel’s policies and calls for the destruction of Israel which are anti-Semitic.  The world’s leading anti-Semitism scholars have also long stated anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

President Obama When asked to define when anti-Israel rhetoric and activity becomes anti-Semitism, Obama stated “…when voices around the world veer from criticism of a particular Israeli policy to an unjust denial of Israel’s right to exist,” that is anti-Semitism. In previous interviews, Obama has acknowledged that anti-Zionism is distinct from sharp, public criticism of Israel and its policies and is anti-Semitism.

Pope Francis “To attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism.” The Pope has also said that “anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism.”

French Prime Minister Valls After the massacre at a kosher supermarket in Paris, Valls stated, “It is legitimate to criticize the politics of Israel. This criticism exists in Israel itself. But this is not what we are talking about in France. This is radical criticism of the very existence of Israel, which is anti-Semitic. There is an incontestable link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Behind anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” Valls has also stated that “French authorities must change their attitude” towards BDS protests. He added, “It is perfectly obvious how we have shifted from criticism of Israel to anti-Zionism and from anti-Zionism to anti-Semitism.”

British Prime Minister Cameron In April, Cameron stated, “What is frightening at the moment, because of the rise of Islamist extremism, is that you see a new threat—a new anti-Semitism—and not the traditional anti-Semitism. As well as the new threat of extremist Islamism, there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism. We have to be very clear about the fact that there is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over. This is a state, a democracy that is recognized by the United Nations, and I don’t think we should be tolerant of this effort at delegitimization. The people who are trying to make the line fuzzy are the delegitimizers. And I have a very clear view, which is that if you disagree with the policies of Israel, fine, say so, but that is never a reason to take that out on Jewish communities. We have to be very clear about threats—this is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over,  that says that anti-Zionism is a legitimate form of political discourse.”

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton recently condemned BDS campaigns and called them “forceful efforts to malign and undermine Israel and the Jewish people.”

All of these world leaders have been critics of Israeli policies, including settlements, and advocates for a two-state solution, however, they have unequivocally labeled anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism.

Pursuing my communications degree at UCLA is an important step in my career and life aspirations. I fully expect that all of my student rights and civil rights for freedom of expression, religious beliefs, and freedom of assembly will be afforded to me as they would any other student. Adoption of the Report of the Regents’ Working Group on Principles Against Intolerance by the UC Board of Regents will make a significant contribution to an academic environment that would nurture intellectual development.

It would be reassuring for me to know that discrimination, harassment, and intimidation against me, a Christian, because of my belief in Zionism, would not be tolerated in the institutions of the University of California.

UC Regents prepare to vote on ‘Principles Against Intolerance,’ free speech and pro-Israel advocates

Does the latest report on “Principles Against Intolerance,” written by top University of California officials, offer a balanced compromise that would protect Jewish students while safeguarding free speech?

Or would it potentially chill free expression on campus and therefore violate the First Amendment?

These are the questions being debated since a working group of members of the UC’s Board of Regents released its latest draft statement on March 15, ahead of an expected vote on March 23 in San Francisco. The proposal was created in response to a series of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel incidents on UC campuses since 2014.

The report begins with the assertion, “Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California,” a statement that quickly drew both praise and sharp criticism.

“It’s not perfect, but we feel that it’s an excellent compromise, and it’s actually going to serve Jewish students very, very well,” Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a UC Santa Cruz lecturer and a co-founder of the AMCHA Initiative, a pro-Israel campus watchdog said of the report.

Rossman-Benjamin and a coalition of other Jewish and pro-Israel groups—including the Jewish Federations of North America, Hillel International, the Anti-Defamation League, the Israeli-American Council and StandWithUs—have called on the regents to endorse the report in its entirety and commended the working group for specifically condemning “anti-Zionism” and “anti-Semitism.”

However, others argue that whether or not the “Principles Against Intolerance” explicitly give administrators the power to censor or punish anti-Zionist speech, its message of disapproval could chill debate on what are supposed to be intellectually open campuses.

A diverse group of opponents includes not only pro-Palestinian and left-wing groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, but also First Amendment experts, such as the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, a right-wing libertarian who runs the Washington Post’s popular blog “The Volokh Conspiracy.”

Last October, Kenneth L. Marcus, the President and General Counsel for The Louis D. Brandeis Center, an independent, public-interest advocacy organization, met privately with the working group in Los Angeles. On March 18, Marcus said he’s happy with the group’s final draft, but stressed that every component of it—the “contextual statement,” “observations” and “principles against intolerance”—must be adopted as a whole for it to have meaning.

“If the regents really want to make a difference, they need to adopt the entire work product of the task force, especially the contextual statement. Without that the Statement of Principles Against Intolerance is not really helpful,” Marcus said. “I do think it will make an extremely important contribution— especially in the one sentence that is gaining the most attention,” he said, referring to the opening statement.

“I think the regents are flat wrong to say that ‘anti-Zionism’ has ‘no place at the University of California,’ Volokh, a supporter of Israel, wrote on his blog. “I think such statements by the regents chill debate, especially by university employees and students who (unlike me) lack tenure.”

On March 18, Volokh said in an interview, “The university is supposed to be an organization where people feel free to express their view, but now the bosses say, ‘Well these views have no place at the university.”

Volokh suggested that had Palestinian and Arab students lobbied the regents to criticize speech “denying Palestinian claims to have their own state,” Jewish and pro-Israel students might have opposed such a measure.

“Would we say, ‘Oh well that’s just the regents saying that in the preamble? There’s no actual policy saying you’ll be fired or expelled for that?’ Well, no, I think we’d say the administrators are going to get the message and others are going to get the message,” Volokh said. “We should have exactly the same reaction when the university is saying the same thing about anti-Zionism.”

The California Scholars for Academic Freedom, a group of academics who raise awareness of potential threats to First Amendment and academic rights, released a statement calling on the UC regents to reject the portion of the report referring to “anti-Zionism,” arguing that including it would “allow for the development of policies throughout the UC system that seek to suppress political viewpoints that are rightfully part of public discussion and debate.” The group also asked for a clear distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and asserts that the two are not the same.

On the other side, the report’s supporters, among them Max Samarov of StandWithUs, believe the proposal would not restrict or chill free speech, but, rather, is an expression of the regents’ own First Amendment rights.

“Just like people who want to publicly disagree with Israel’s right to exist and the right of Jewish people to self-determination have the freedom of speech to do that, the UC regents also have a First Amendment right to condemn that,” Samarov said.

Judea Pearl, president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation and a UCLA professor, similarly argues that the regents struck a healthy balance in setting “the norms of civil discourse on UC campuses without infringing on anyone’s free speech.

“Zionophobic and Islamophobic speeches remain uncensored but are visibly marked as ‘unbecoming,’ ” Pearl wrote to the Journal.

AMCHA has documented a dozen or more anti-Jewish incidents over the past two years that have raised alarm bells in the Jewish community, most notably the initial rejection of a Jewish  student, Rachel Beyda, for a campus judicial role in February of 2015. At her nomination hearing Beyda was “>blog post on FIRE’s website of whether the line, “Each member of the University community is expected to consider his or her responsibilities as well as his or her rights,” could impact students if administrators determine they did not sufficiently consider their First Amendment responsibilities.

“Are they then subject to punishment?” Creeley wrote.

On Wednesday, the regents will consider policy, and if they approve it, such questions may be answered after it has been implemented by the UC system. The Brandeis Center’s Marcus believes the ultimate impact of the final report, if adopted, will be determined on a campus-by-campus basis, “where they flush out and explain what’s meant here.”

When Volokh was asked whether the report could be challenged in the courts on Constitutional grounds, he expressed doubt:

“If someone were to bring a legal challenge, I think the courts would say there’s no prohibition for us to strike down,” Volokh said. “I’m not saying it’s unconstitutional. I think it’s bad.”

Partition, pragmatism and missed opportunities between Israel and the Palestinians

Two scholars examine, from Jewish and Arab perspectives, the historic United Nations vote on the partition of Palestine on Nov. 29, 1947, which ultimately led to the creation of  the Jewish State of Israel.


The Palestinian national movement has long been accused of “never failing to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” But how much have Palestinians really contributed to their predicament through a refusal to compromise? When and how might they have acted differently?

Of course, no people this large, territorially defined and with a well-established national consensus can legitimately be denied self-determination because they have made strategic mistakes. Basic human rights aren’t dependent on good judgment. If they were, who would ever really qualify?

In practice, however, human individuals and collectivities are not the objects of history. Rather, they are subjects with agency. Palestinians tend to speak as if they simply need to be “given” their rights. In reality, there’s much they need to do and not do, not to “earn,” but to actually secure, their freedom.

Core among the Israeli litany of supposed Palestinian “missed opportunities” is the rejection of the 1947 United Nations partition plan. If only the Palestinians had agreed, it is alleged, there would now be two states and would never have been a conflict, “Nakba” or refugee crisis.

As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is plainly not open to ending the occupation in the foreseeable future, it’s worth revisiting that decision — not because past errors mean Palestinians somehow deserve to live as noncitizens under foreign military rule and have their land colonized, but because it is important to forming a wise Palestinian policy.

No one can be sure how such a counterfactual scenario would have played out. The Jewish community had the military power to enforce the establishment of its state. The size and capabilities of the military forces meant that the combined Jewish forces were virtually certain to defeat not only the Palestinian, but also the collective Arab militaries. Many complex and contingent factors were always going to determine how far that success might run. But, that overall victory would fall to the Jewish community, even though it felt vulnerable and threatened, is evident even on paper.

It can’t be known whether Jewish groups would have found the proposed United Nations partition borders, and the status of Jerusalem as an international city, acceptable, even if the Palestinians had agreed to them, given that they had the objective military power to unilaterally alter that equation. To this day, Israel, most unusually, will not clarify what areas, precisely, it considers part of its national sovereign territory or not. It’s therefore questionable whether the partition borders would have been acceptable to the Jewish state in the long run, particularly given the way in which Israel has pursued settlements in the occupied territories.

Nonetheless, in hindsight, it would obviously have been wise, given the outcome of the 1948 war, and, even more, the subsequent decades, for Palestinians to have at least tried to secure what they could diplomatically. However, this wasn’t obvious at the time. To the contrary, all of their behavior indicates the Palestinians had radically different expectations. They didn’t believe a Jewish state in Palestine could be established over the objections of a vast majority of its inhabitants, and with the opposition of the surrounding Arab countries. And when the Palestinians who became refugees fled or were expelled, almost all of them believed they would return home in a matter of weeks.

Palestinian rejection of partition was also based on moral and legal arguments, particularly the objection to the U.N. disregarding the passionate wishes of the large majority of a small country, as Arabs were about 1.4 million of the 2 million residents of mandatory Palestine in November 1947, when the partition resolution was adopted. Even in the proposed Jewish state there would have been an Arab plurality, despite the proposed U.N. borders being gerrymandered in a geographical crazy-quilt in order to include a maximal number of Jews and a minimal number of Palestinians. Finally, the Jewish minority of about one-third of the population was going to be granted not merely 55 percent of the territory, but some of the choicest areas.

Although it plainly would have been wise for Palestinians in 1947-48 to at least try to accomplish as much as possible by agreeing to the U.N. partition proposal, it’s virtually unimaginable that any national group could have demonstrated the foresight and determination to accept what necessarily seemed to them profoundly unjust, indefensible and even, from their sincere point of view, actually rationally inexplicable. Palestinians obviously made a mistake, but, in all honesty, what community in its situation would ever have acted differently?

Insistence on a checklist of national demands (which has been constantly downgraded) has been a consistent feature of — and disaster for — the Palestinian movement. A pragmatic track record beginning in 1947 would have gained the Palestinian movement a tremendous amount of international legitimacy and sympathy without actually losing them any more than they have lost anyway by insisting on more than they could accomplish at every given moment.

In fairness, however, it should be acknowledged that the Palestinian national movement has had at least one moment of enormous pragmatism, characterized by a vast concession that most Israelis don’t even recognize as a concession at all. When the Palestine Liberation Organization recognized Israel in 1993, after two decades of painful movement toward embracing a two-state solution, Palestinians made what, for them at least, looks like the mother of all concessions. By downgrading their national goal to establishing a state in the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, they effectively abandoned political claims on 78 percent of what they universally regarded as their country. Unfortunately, the peace process that this recognition initiated has not resulted in an end to the conflict or the occupation. 

There is no peace because both sides have made multiple proposals but neither has ever accepted the other’s terms. Israel’s effective PR machine has ensured its supporters have a strong narrative about Israeli peace proposals not accepted by the Palestinians. But few understand why the Palestinians turned them down. More important, most know nothing about the multiple Palestinian proposals rejected by Israel.

Palestinians would certainly have been well served historically, as they would today, by adopting a more pragmatic approach. Consistent overreaching has cost them dearly and never accomplished anything. But it’s hard to imagine a less pragmatic, or more overreaching, approach than Israel’s current policy of maintaining a de facto greater state that renders itself neither Jewish nor democratic, and hence not really “Israel” at all. Who is standing firm against partition now, and why?

Pragmatism, it would seem, can even become a victim of its own successes. Imagining oneself as either too weak or too strong apparently renders real pragmatism the most difficult of choices. All the more reason to adopt and protect it as a guiding national ethos.

David Myers and Hussein Ibish recently taught a course for the New Israel Fund in Los Angeles on the shared and diverging paths of Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism, as seen from their different points of view.
These essays, and other future teaching engagements, are the outgrowth of that course.

Hussein Ibish is a senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, D.C.

Kerry: Defeat ‘Zionism is racism’ by confronting anti-Semitism, advancing 2 states

The struggle to defeat the notion that Zionism is racism persists both in the battle against resurgent anti-Semitism and the efforts to arrive at a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Secretary of State John Kerry said.

“Too many outside this room fail to recognize the global reality of anti-Semitism today,” Kerry said at an event Wednesday marking 40 years since Chaim Herzog, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, spoke against the U.N. General Assembly’s resolution equating Zionism with racism.

“Too many fail to realize that a witch’s brew of old prejudices and new political grievances and economic troubles and nationalism combine to create dangerous new openings for extremism. So Herzog and Moynihan together have left us a major responsibility to continue to tell the world that anti-Semitism is as abhorrent and vile today as it was in 1975.”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then the U.S. ambassador to the body, also spoke out against the motion, which eventually passed in 1975 but was rescinded in 1991. Herzog famously tore up a copy of the resolution at the conclusion of his speech.

Kerry, who led an unsuccessful bid in 2013 and 2014 to conclude an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, said that arriving at a two-state solution was critical to maintaining the Zionist dream.

“The Zionist dream embraces the concept of Israel as a Jewish democracy, a beacon of light to all nations,” he said. “And that dream can only be upheld by two states living side by side in peace and security. And we all know, from years of discussion and effort, this is not an impossible dream. It is achievable.”

The event was co-sponsored by the Israeli mission to the United Nations, the American Jewish Committee and the Chaim Herzog Public Council. The American Jewish Committee led the effort to rescind the 1975 resolution.

On hand were the two sons of Herzog, who went on to become the president of Israel: Isaac Herzog, currently the leader of the opposition Zionist Camp party in Israel, and Mike Herzog, a retired general. Also present was Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary-general.

“The reputation of the United Nations was badly damaged by the adoption of resolution 3379, in and beyond Israel and the wider Jewish community,” Ban said. “As we commemorate Chaim Herzog’s words, I appeal to the community of nations to always act to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter ‘to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors.’”

The power of Jew-hatred

With the most recent violence flaring up in Jerusalem and throughout Israel, I’ve been reflecting on the kind of hatred that could animate such cold-blooded murder of innocents.

We all have dark thoughts, but very few of us act on them. Through the power of language, we are conditioned to manage our dark impulses. We learn the right words that codify moral behavior—words like “human values,” “forgiveness” and “consequences.” When language fails us, though, we can easily crack.

The darkness that continues to emanate from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is very much connected to the language of Jew-hatred that permeates Palestinian society.

This Jew-hatred is especially lethal because it originates at the top – with the government, media, schools, mosques and other institutions. Even “moderates” like Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas routinely set the tone, as when he said recently that Jews have no right to “defile” the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, with our “filthy feet.”

When this hatred builds to a breaking point, the hater cracks and Jews become demons, which makes it easier to murder them. And since it is officially sanctioned, officials can’t put the genie back in the bottle. The hatred becomes codified, like a constitutional amendment.

This is the tragic paradox of the Palestinian people: They’ve been taught to hate the Jewish state more than they’ve been taught to love a Palestinian state.

This Palestinian-centric narrative must be jarring to Israel critics who focus only on Israel's disputed occupation of the West Bank. But such criticism of Israel should not cover up the fundamental, game-changing Jew-hatred that long predates the occupation.

This is the tragic paradox of the Palestinian people: They’ve been taught to hate the Jewish state more than they’ve been taught to love a Palestinian state.

Decades before the first Jewish settlement was ever built, there was a deep aversion toward Jews and Zionism. Between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank was in Jordanian hands, and Israel was busy building a state while fighting off Arab armies, it was anti-Israel aggression that dominated Palestinian-Arab society, not the yearning for a state. The Palestinian national movement sprung to life only after Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the Six Day War of 1967.

Since then, despite an emotional and biblical attachment to the West Bank, Israel has made several offers to end the occupation to allow Palestinians to build their own state. Yet, Palestinian leaders walked away each time, without even making counter offers. If you follow their narrative, who could blame them? Once they had taught their people to despise Zionists, how could they turn around and teach them to make peace with them?

I’m not suggesting that Palestinians had no reason to feel aggrieved by Israel, or no right to feel humiliated by the creation of the Jewish state. What I’m suggesting is that the resentment has been so internalized that it has become virtually impossible for Palestinian leaders to lose their obsession with Israel and seize opportunities to build their own state.

This resentment is reinforced by the perception of Israel as a “colonial and imperialist entity” that deserves to disappear. As Jewish Journal political editor Shmuel Rosner wrote this week, quoting Israeli scholar Shlomo Avineri, the conventional wisdom that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a struggle between two national movements may well be an “illusion.” Palestinians have been taught that the whole notion of a Jewish state is illegitimate. That's why the hatred goes so deep.

This hatred for Zionism has had another, rarely spoken of, side effect. If it's true that a Palestinian state would save the future of Zionism—by allowing Israel to remain a Jewish democracy— then why would Israel-hating Palestinian leaders want to help “save” Zionism? 

When I hear that globe-trotting Palestinian politicians are “frustrated” by the status quo, count me in as a cynic. The status quo means they can continue to bash Israel in international circles and undermine its legitimacy. Also, many of these leaders are corrupt. They know that as long as the occupation continues and Palestinians remain the victims, they'll keep collecting billions in international aid to fill their Swiss bank accounts.

Given all that, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict today has become a perfect storm of paralysis, with no incentive to move forward. Throw in the violence and instability erupting throughout the region, and the prospect that a Palestinian state will arise anytime soon is as likely as Syrian president Bashar Assad joining Peace Now.

Yes, the current tone-deaf government in Israel hasn't helped things by just digging in and failing to show a future vision of Israel as a Jewish democracy. But we shouldn't let any distaste for this government cloud the reality that what really killed the two-state solution was the very birth of the Zionist state some 67 years ago — what the Palestinians call the nakba, or catastrophe.

During those fateful days when the United Nations approved a partition plan for an Arab and a Jewish state, Palestinian leaders had a choice. They could choose the destructive language of victimhood and Jew-hatred, or they could choose the constructive language of moving forward and building their own state.

Unfortunately, instead of following Israel's lead, they followed the lead of the Arab world and chose Jew-hatred. Thus began a long, destructive journey that has hardened hearts on both sides, turning Israel into a besieged country without official borders and many Palestinians into chronic haters who prefer to burn rather than build. 

In this land of confused dreams, where violence coincides with festive Jewish holidays, the language of hate is overtaking the cries for hope.

David Suissa is president of TRIBE Media Corp./Jewish Journal and can be reached at

Umm al-Hiran, racism and the confounding of Zionism

The Israeli government is set to destroy Umm al-Hiran, a Bedouin village in the Negev, to build a Jewish town in its place, which will be called Hiran. No matter what anyone tells you about unrecognized Bedouin villages, no matter what Israel’s Supreme Court or Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked say, this is the expression of a racist policy.

I grew up marching for Israel every year. In response to the U.N.’s infamous 1975 “Zionism Is Racism” resolution, we marched under the banner “Zionism is not racism” — and I still believe in that. What do we say then about a government that seizes land through twisted legal reasoning, and what do we say about tearing down this village of Israeli citizens? 

Interestingly, Hiran means nothing particular in Hebrew. The name of this new town will forever be a reminder that it was first the home of Arab residents. The Jews who will live there can remember that forever. That’s better than what happened to the land the Bedouins living in Umm al-Hiran were forced off of in the 1950s. That land became Kibbutz Shoval; the memory of their past was erased for all but the most tenacious students of history — except for the Bedouin clan of Abu Alkian, who still remember that it was once their land.

The land present-day Umm al-Hiran sits on was granted to the Abu Alkian tribe more than six decades ago by Israel’s government — granted but not deeded. The plan to destroy Umm al-Hiran has been around since 2003. In 2007, I started a campaign called Save the Negev. The goal was to stop the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from pouring its money into building Jewish Hiran and dispossessing the Bedouins, and instead ask the JNF to make a significant investment in Bedouin communities. Although the JNF eventually shifted its resources, that didn’t stop the Israeli government in its long pursuit of the opposite of peace. But only in May did the supreme court rule that this demolition was completely legal, giving its blessing for the permanent conversion of Bedouin Umm al-Hiran to Jewish Hiran. As a fig leaf, the court required Jewish Hiran not to bar Arabs from applying to live there.

Meanwhile, the group Garin Hiran, the work of T’nuat Or — the so-called “Movement of Light” that deems itself the “new Zionism” — lives in nearby caravans, ready to take over the land after the village is razed. How can it be that these human beings who call themselves Jews will not be ashamed to live in this place called Hiran built over the crushed remains of Umm al-Hiran? Who are these people who see themselves as the real Zionists, who belie everything we were once (naively) taught Zionism stood for?

The Negev is a big place — big enough for an Arabic Bedouin town called Umm al-Hiran and a Jewish town — let’s imagine it as a sister city — called Hiran. Big enough that the one does not need to be utterly destroyed in order to give birth to the other. Even if that were not the case, even if there were room for only one Hiran, it would still be a kind of racist fratricide to tear down Umm al-Hiran.

But there is room, which only makes it crystal clear, painfully, ruinously clear, that this is a policy of racism, or what people actually call, without shame, a plan to “Judaize” the Negev. 

The difference between Umm al-Hiran and Hiran — I mean the names themselves — is that the word “mother,” Umm, has been erased. The land, our real mother, is also being erased, its face defaced, by the violent actions of the state.

Hiran is an Arabic word that has other echoes. Hiran can mean confounding, confusion, perplexity. For those of us who once were taught about the beauty of Zionism, this indeed should be a watershed moment of perplexity.

The supreme court has given its final word on this long-standing, confusing conflict. Umm al-Hiran must die so that Jewish Hiran will live. Let the new Hiran become a monument and memorial to what we all should feel — perplexed and confounded about what Zionism has become. 

Last week’s Torah portion read: “Do not twist judgment! … Justice, pursue justice — so that you will live to inherit the land …” (Deuteronomy 16:19-20). Isn’t the whole contradiction of Zionism all bound up in these two verses? But the Torah is clear: If you want to live, justice comes first, before possession.

What could save us now? Maybe Kibbutz Shoval, in a gesture of moral grandeur and spiritual audacity, could invite the dispossessed Bedouin families to come back to their land, to dwell together as brothers and sisters, or at least as cousins. Short of such extraordinary measures, however, we are left with nothing but audacity, the audacity of a brand of Zionism shot through with racism, running amok.

Rabbi David Seidenberg is the creator and director of and author of “Kabbalah and Ecology: God’s Image in the More-Than-Human World” (Cambridge University Press, 2015). He lives in western Massachusetts, where he runs the Prayground Minyan

The long history of Jewish violence in Israel

Last week’s terrible killing of 18-month old Ali Saad Dawabsha in Duma, together with the horrific violence at the Jerusalem gay pride parade, left many Jews stunned, repulsed and demoralized. We have inculcated in ourselves — and projected to our children — the belief that whereas they operate according to a primitive code of morality, we adhere to a standard of ethical virtue. Golda Meir gave crystal-clear expression to this sentiment when she proclaimed: “Peace will come when the Arabs start to love their children more than they hate us.”

But what happens when “we” willingly kill “their” children — when we hate their children with a purity that sanctions all acts of violence? What does that say about us? It is tempting to cast the killers, who wrote “Revenge” on the home where they threw a gasoline bomb that burned the toddler, as complete outliers from Jewish tradition and Zionist history. (In parallel fashion, it may be consoling for some to regard Muslim terrorists as renegades from Islam.)

[MORE: Fighting Jewish terrorism is the burden of Israel’s right]

This kind of thinking may offer some measure of comfort, but it cannot insulate us from the fact that the century-long history of Zionism is replete with acts of terrible violence committed by Jews against Jews and non-Jews. In fact, the Zionist movement emerged on the stage of history with a deep commitment to overcome the perception of millennia of Jewish passivity through strong action. 

Much of that action took the form of self-defense against Arab attack. But not all. Indeed, violence directed against civilians — what some might call terrorism — has hardly been exceptional in Zionism. Perhaps the first major example was the killing, most likely conducted by members of the Haganah, of Dutch Orthodox Jewish writer Jacob Israel de Haan in Jerusalem in 1924. De Haan’s anti-Zionist sensibilities and close relations with local Arabs (at political and sexual levels) were deeply discomfiting to Zionist officials. 

Nine years later, in June 1933, a leading Labor Zionist official, Haim Arlosoroff, was assassinated while walking on a Tel Aviv beach with his wife. His killing occurred in the midst of intense animosity between Labor and Revisionist Zionists in Palestine. One Revisionist-leaning group that was accused of being involved in Arlosoroff’s death was known as Brit ha-biryonim (Alliance of Thugs). The group operated in an environment in which the spilling of blood was seen not as a necessary evil, but as a vital redemptive act, as poet Uri Zvi Greenberg unabashedly declared: “Land is conquered with blood. And only when conquered in blood is it hallowed to the people by the holiness of blood.”

Under cover of such poetic expression, murder became a path of political and ethical rectitude. It prompted members of the Irgun Tseva’i Le’umi (National Military Organization) to plant bombs in markets that killed scores of innocent Arabs during the Arab General Strike in 1938. It justified the actions of the paramilitary group Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) to plot and execute assassinations of international officials — British minister Lord Moyne in 1944 and United Nations official Count Bernadotte in 1948. And most famously, it led the Irgun to blow up the King David Hotel, where the British Mandatory government and military were headquartered in 1946, leading to 91 deaths. 

All of this activity — and sadly a much longer list could be compiled — occurred well before 1967. It was undertaken in the name of the movement for national redemption. After 1967, a new and explosive element was added to the mix. Violence conducted in the name of Judaism and Zionism was suffused with a highly charged religious, even messianic, fervor that attended the conquest and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Jews in Israel who have attacked and murdered political opponents or Arabs since then have frequently done so in the name of God, at times empowered by rabbinic warrants. The toxic and intoxicating blend of religious and national virtue has yielded a lengthy roster of victims, most notably Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated by a Jewish terrorist in 1995; the West Bank mayors who were maimed in 1980 by the “Jewish underground” that set its ultimate sights on blowing up the Temple Mount; Jewish activist Emil Grunzweig, who was killed by a bomb at a Peace Now rally in 1983; the 29 Muslim victims of the murderous rampage of Baruch Goldstein in 1994; the four Palestinian Israelis killed by a Jewish terrorist in 2004; Palestinian teenager Muhammad Abu Khdeir, who was brutally murdered last summer; Shira Banki, who died of her stab wounds from the assault at the Jerusalem gay pride parade; and Ali Saad Dawabsha, the Palestinian toddler who was burned by unknown terrorists. 

It would be very easy to isolate these cases and say that the perpetrators are not “ours.” But they are. They emanate from Zionist and Jewish history, from the heart of our Zionist and Jewish worlds, in which we have all tolerated for too long a language and culture of violence as redemptive. It is therefore our, not their, responsibility to look inside ourselves — into our sources, our curricula, our values, our sense of self — to remove the cancer that lurks. Rabbis, teachers and parents alike share in that task. As we enter the month of Elul, we should bring to our work of cheshbon ha-nefesh an awareness of history and an unsparing resolve to confront the terrible demon of violence within us.

David N. Myers teaches Jewish history at UCLA.

Who should define anti-Semitism?

“Anyone who does not recognize the Jewish people and the State of Israel — and their right to exist — is guilty of anti-Semitism”  – Pope Francis

“I think a good baseline [for when anti-Zionism becomes anti-Semitism] is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people…If your answer is no…then that is a problem” – President Barack Obama

“Criticism of Israel that is based on anti-Zionism — that’s anti-Semitism today, this is the refuge of those who do not accept the State of Israel” – French Minister Manuel Vall

“This is the face of the new anti-Semitism. It targets the Jewish people by targeting Israel and attempts to make the old bigotry acceptable to a new generation… what else can we call criticism that selectively condemns only the Jewish state and effectively denies its right to exist, to defend itself while systematically ignoring, or excusing, the violence and oppression all around it?” – Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

In 2005, the U.S. State Department adopted a definition of anti-Semitism based on the International Working Definition of the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (EUMC), a joint project of international scholars, government officials, and representatives of civil rights and community organizations. Besides its adoption by the U.S. State Department, numerous national and international agencies have used, referenced and recommended the EUMC definition, including the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism.

The importance and utility of the definition derive from its understanding that contemporary anti-Semitism manifests itself through anti-Zionism.  The State Department definition makes an important distinction.  It recognizes that while criticism of Israel similar to that lodged against another country is not anti-Semitism, expression which demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state, or deny its right to exist, is unequivocally anti-Semitic.

The Jewish community understands this.

In 2011, the following statement affirming the State Department’s understanding of anti-Semitism was signed by the leaders of 61 Jewish communal organizations, including AIPAC, American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Hadassah, International Hillel, Jewish Federations of North America, all three major Jewish denominations (Orthodox Union, United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, and Union for Reform Judaism) as well as both the Republication Jewish Committee and the National Jewish Democratic Council: “We, the undersigned members of the Jewish community…recognize and accept that individuals and groups may have legitimate criticism of Israel policies.  Criticism becomes anti-Semitism, however, when it demonizes Israel or its leaders, denies Israel the right to defend its citizens or seeks to denigrate Israel’s right to exist.”

Jewish college students understand it.

  • “The rhetoric I heard from students opposing Israel at this meeting could easily be equated to arguments that I have only seen in quotes at museums or mentioned in textbooks for their use in the justification of historical persecution of the Jewish race.”  (Margaux, University of California Santa Barbara)
  • “Clearly motivated by anger about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, these [social media] posts expressed vitriol not toward only Zionists but also toward everybody of the Jewish faith, toward all Jews on this campus, toward me. I am not ashamed to say that this hatred moved me to tears.”  (Shoshana, University of Chicago)
  • “People say that being anti-Israel is not the same as being anti-semitic. The problem is the anti-Israel culture in which we are singling out only the Jewish state creates an environment where it is ok to single out Jewish students.”   (Natalie, UCLA)

In the wake of a frightening increase in anti-Semitic incidents at the University of California last spring, student governments on 3 UC campuses — UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UC Santa Barbara —unanimously approved resolutions adopting the U.S. State Department definition of anti-Semitism.  Soon after the student resolutions were approved, 17 UC student organizations and thousands of UC students, faculty, alumni and community members called on UC President Janet Napolitano and the Board of Regents to adopt the U.S. State Department definition for identifying anti-Semitic behavior and addressing it as all other racial, ethnic and gender bigotries.

Despite widespread support for the State Department definition’s accurate portrayal of contemporary anti-Semitism, there are those who are working feverishly against its adoption at the University of California.  Foremost among the definition’s detractors are four avowedly anti-Zionist organizations — Palestine Legal, National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights and Jewish Voice for Peace — each of whom provides considerable legal and material support for anti-Israel campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine to engage in activities that promote the dismantling of the Jewish state.  In letters and petitions to the UC Regents, these organizations have demanded that the University of California reject any definition of anti-Semitism that acknowledges a connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. 

It is not surprising that those who perpetrate and enable behavior defined as anti-Semitic by the State Department definition would want to ensure that such a definition is not adopted by the University of California. What is surprising is the degree of disingenuousness and cynicism that has accompanied their efforts.

While hiding their own self-serving motivation, these organizations have falsely accused Jewish students of fabricating accounts of anti-Semitism and unfairly accused Jewish groups of promoting the State Department definition simply in order to shut down all criticism of Israel.

Furthermore, these anti-Zionist organizations have spuriously argued that just by virtue of adopting the State Department definition the Regents will be violating the First Amendment rights of “Palestinian human rights activists.” Not only is this patently false — there is nothing remotely unconstitutional about adopting a definition in order to identify and educate the campus community about anti-Semitic bigotry — the UC Regents themselves have a constitutionally protected right to adopt principled viewpoints on matters of important social concern such as this. In fact, if anyone is engaged in violating the First Amendment it is groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, who routinely act to disrupt and shut down pro-Israel student events, thereby depriving Jewish and pro-Israel students of their constitutionally protected freedom of expression.

Finally, those seeking to torpedo the adoption of the State Department definition at the University of California have cynically made anti-Zionist Jews the “poster children” of their campaign.  After all, they say, how can anti-Zionism be anti-Semitic if Jews themselves are calling for an end to the Jewish state?  The truth is, despite the existence of a small number of strident anti-Zionist Jews, the vast majority of world Jewry affirms the right of the Jewish people to a Jewish state.

The bottom line is this: allowing groups committed to the dismantling of the Jewish state to define anti-Semitism is tantamount to allowing the KKK to define racism, gay bashers to define homophobia, or rapists to define sexual harassment.  It is an outrage.

Rossman-Benjamin is faculty at the University of California and the co-founder and director of AMCHA Initiative, a non-profit that combats campus anti-Semitism.