Do you have a better plan for the Jews of Europe?

Should the Jews of Europe pack up and leave? Should they move to Israel? To other countries? As the debate is heating up – with commentators and leaders, right, left, and center, all expressing opinions that often seem to coincide with other political preferences –  it’s important to remember that this is first and foremost a very practical question.

Practical in the sense that a decision to stay has consequences. Practical in the sense that a decision to move has consequences. There are actual people who actually have to walk to the supermarket or to the synagogue, who have to send their children to schools under guard. There are people that for them to leave means actual packing, shipping, finding a new place, new friends, adapting to a different language, learning to get by in a new cultural environment.

I know, all of this seems obvious. But it also seems to get lost in a fierce debate that is focused on principles and ideals rather than solutions. Roger Cohen wrote two days ago that it is important that “not every Jew choose[s Israel to be his] home…. [to] guarantee… Europe’s liberal order… [and] the liberal idea itself”. A worthy cause, no doubt. But should we burden a Jew in Paris with the “liberal idea itself” – does he or she not have enough problems to deal with?

Practicality is lost in a debate saturated with political undertones – many of them connected to Israel’s upcoming elections. It is lost on the right, as we can see in Avigdor Lieberman’s fantasy plan to absorb 3.5 Million new Olim – no less – in the coming years. It is lost even more frequently on the left. “Europe’s dangers, the failure of its liberalism, the murder of its Jews just for being Jews, the intractability of existential threats — all of these Netanyahu fixations are part of Israel’s founding mythology as Likud sees it”, writes Bernard Avishai, who rarely misses an opportunity to twist data in order to explain to his readers why Israel is worth less than they thought it is.

Practicality is lost in a debate among Israelis, who have no instinctive understanding of the love and affinity that many European Jews have for Europe, a place they call home. It is lost in a debate among Jewish Americans, who have no instinctive understanding of the dangers and complications for Jews who live in a Diaspora that isn’t America.

Last week, Jay Michelson wrote in the Daily Beast that “when Netanyahu ‘reminded’ French Jews that ‘Israel is your home’ and would welcome them with ‘open arms’, his message was a cynical one”. I don’t know what basis Michelson has for reaching such a conclusion. I’d be surprised if he spoke with Israel’s Prime Minister. In fact, I’d be amazed if he did. Michelson did with Netanyahu’s call to European Jews what he blames Netanyahu of doing: he played politics.

But even if Michelson is right – even if Netanyahu’s call was “cynical” – why does it matter? The headline for Michelson’s article was: “Israel's Calls for Jews to Flee Europe Aren't the Answer”. So I searched his article thoroughly to discover his own “answer”, but there isn’t one. Michelson makes many good points – a second Holocaust is not coming being one of them – but forgets to be practical. If Aliyah is not the answer – what is the answer? Staying put? Fighting back? At what cost? Until when? Does he expects the situation to somehow get better? How?

Rob Eshman also wrote an article resisting Netanyahu’s call for Aliyah. Clearly, Netanyahu is getting on everyone’s nerves, but is that a good enough reason to object to everything he says? Could he be right just this time? Eshman writes that European Jews should not flee “because it’s cowardly”. Frankly, I have a sense of unease with such advice. Sitting in Los Angeles and telling people in the line of fire to stay put is somewhat problematic (as Eshman admits). But even more problematic is his misreading of the situation. “Israel is not safer for Jews”, he writes. And also: “If Bibi were concerned solely with the safety of Europe’s Jews, he would urge them to go to the United States”.

Netanyahu’s concern is not merely with the safety of Jews, nor should Eshman’s be. What is concerning about the state of European Jewry is that under the current circumstances being demonstrably, proudly, openly Jewish in Europe is dangerous. This means that even if the Jews stay, there is still a real danger that “hundreds of years of European Jewish history, tradition and culture [would] come to a screeching halt”. The Jews will remain, but their ability to be actively Jewish will diminish greatly or will only be accomplished at great cost.

So yes, urging them to go to America, where Jews can be proudly and openly Jewish, is an option. But the fact that Netanyahu didn’t mention this option does not stem from a lack of concern “with the safety of Jews”. Netanyahu didn’t mention this option because what worries him about Europe probably also worries him – albeit in a starkly different way – about America. He probably believes, as most Israelis do (and most American Jews don’t; having such disagreements is natural and healthy for the Jewish world) that living a Jewish life in Israel is more meaningful and more intense than living a Jewish life in America. That is to say: if the goal is not just to guard the lives of Jewish Europeans but also to ensure Jewish continuity for their children, Israel is the safer bet.

Again, the problem of Jewish life in Europe is a practical matter. So while I understand and can even sympathize with the fact that “leaders” in Europe reject Israel’s call for Aliyah, I am not sure how they intend to solve the problem that seems to be growing – how they propose to guard not just the lives of Jews in Europe, but also Jewish life in Europe. If a Jewish radio program based in Copenhagen had to cancel its daily broadcast for security reasons, the anchor might be saved from risking himself, but the presence of Judaism in Denmark is diminished. If a man cannot walk the streets of Paris wearing a yarmulke without getting death threats – the presence of Judaism in France diminishes.

Could anyone come up with a plan that will make Europe safer for Jews without them having to lower their profile, without them having to forgo Judaism to keep themselves safe, without them having to constantly weigh the risk as they walk to a synagogue to celebrate a Bar Mitzvah in a public place? If anyone has such a plan, I’d like to see it. Maybe someone, somewhere, has an idea that is as good as, or even better than, Netanyahu’s. But what we’ve seen up to now is a chorus of rejections of Netanyahu’s sensible suggestion and very few ideas that are both sensible and practical.