Boulder Jewish News Arts, Culture, Events, Lifestyles, Holidays, Synagogues, Education
Dr. Jack F. Sigman, Ph.D.
Two weeks ago, I received my doctorate in genocide studies from Gratz College. It was an arduous but rewarding five-and-a-half-year journey. Realizing I still needed more, I decided to re-enroll for an MA in Antisemitism Studies. While writing my application essay, I glanced at the latest BJN and read the Op-Ed on the seemingly taboo conversations about Israel within the organized Boulder Jewish community. Since the article directly relates to many of my academic presentations within the scholastic world, as well as my MA application, I am going attempt to answer the author’s questions.
First and foremost, what must be understood is that Israel is a secular state, not a theocracy under Mosaic law. Israel is the state of the Jews, not a Judaic state nor the state of those who practice some form of Judaism. Israel has a government founded on liberal democratic traditions, but it is not a mirror of American liberal democracy. Just as American democracy has evolved, so has Israel’s. And Israel is a state founded so that Jews will have a place of refuge if and when needed, unlike during the time periods no such state existed and antisemitism was the acceptable norm and violence against Jews was wide-spread.
There is an issue with Israel’s judicial reform. This issue is no different than when a liberal democratic state’s executive and legislative branch are controlled by the same political party. The executive puts forth judicial nominees and the legislature accepts or declines. Israel’s current system is different. Israel’s legislative and executive branches want it to be more like the US’s system. Why this is a cause of concern for American Jews and why there is a need for a discussion is not in my wheelhouse.
As the reason for Israel’s being is to be a place of refuge for Jews, the Nation-State law is clarification in that there cannot be a law that privileges Jews around the world with near automatic citizenship without such clarification. It is like the law establishing the Bald eagle as the official bird of the US. We all assumed it was the national bird as it is the national emblem. The new law just clarified. Should there be a discussion regarding the nation-state law within the halls of the Jewish community in the US? Of course, as a matter of education, not condemnation. It does not affect the liberal democratic status of the Israeli government.
The next issue is Israel’s policy of administrative detention and children. Again, Israel is not the US. The US system of government is not the standard to which Israel should be judged as the two states exist in entirely different circumstances. The US does not have military control of a territory bereft of previous legitimate sovereignty as once abandoned by the British government was illegally occupied by Jordan and liberated by Israel 19 years later and becoming “host” to a belligerent population with a history of violence directed against Israel. Additionally, there are international laws which compel Israel to treat the Arab residents of that territory differently that the citizens of Israel, that they are subject to military law and not civil law. As for children, anyone under the age of 18 is considered a child. Should there be a discussion regarding these laws within the halls of the Jewish community in the US? Of course, as a matter of education, not condemnation. It does not affect the liberal democratic status of the Israeli government.
Next is the legal military control of the disputed territories, which is an occupation by looking at it but is not so far as the law is concerned. It does not affect Israel’s robust liberal democracy. As for moral fiber, I do not understand the concept as it relates to a state. A state has national interests and national values. Often they are complimentary but sometimes they are not.
The “settlements” are an issue, but they are not illegal under international law. There is no international law governing the unique situation wherein Israeli citizens build homes on what is considered state land, which is all of the land within the disputed territories not privately owned. The international laws that do exist affect only the land occupied through war belonging to another sovereign state. The disputed territories are not such land. Should there be a discussion regarding these laws within the halls of the Jewish community in the US? Of course, as a matter of education, not condemnation. It does not affect the liberal democratic status of the Israeli government.
The issue of generational hatred goes much further back than check points, building permits, and evictions. History did not start with these events. The modern history begins with the settlements established on purchased lands in the 1860’s. In fact, all land that was settled by Jews, prior to the 1947 Palestinian Civil War started by the resident Arab militia and aided by a foreign Arab Liberation Army created and funded by the Arab League, was purchased from its legal owners in what are considered modern day transactions and not from a people with no notion of private property and commercial law. The generational hatred begins with the Pan-Arab and Pan-Islamic supremacist movements from the late 1800s and the concern over a possible loss of political power. Should there be a discussion regarding this history within the halls of the Jewish community in the US? Of course, as a matter of education, not condemnation of the Jews who came to Palestine as refugees from violence of European antisemitism.
As for the behavior of zealous nationalist Israelis, that is a concern of the Israeli government, and the Israeli government is trying to find a solution. Repeating propaganda about the issue and that the Israeli government has a “plan to subvert democracy” as fact is not a subject for discussion. However, fighting such propaganda should be discussed within the halls of the Jewish community in the US.
Israel does have issues dealing with its minority populations, just as the US has with its minorities as well as its undocumented population. But the Jewish community should not be acting as the USSR did in 1951 when the US was accused of committing genocide against its minority Black community. The US is still striving to come to terms and solve the problem of racism 73 years later, without enemy nations on its borders and automatic condemnation in the UN as experienced by Israel. Should there be a discussion regarding this situation in Israel within the halls of the Jewish community in the US? Of course, as a matter of education, not condemnation. It does not affect the liberal democratic status of the Israeli government.
We have lost a significant segment of the younger generations, not because of our censoring of information about Israel, but because we do a poor job of educating the younger generation so that they do not bite the hook baited with propaganda. Part of that is we do not want to discuss controversial matters in places open to possible hostile and violent protest such as from members of JVP, INN, SJP, and AMP (if you are unfamiliar with these groups, just do an internet search with the initials and Zionism) which we have seen so much of in our universities. Despite it all, Israel remains a vibrant state with a strong tradition of liberal democracy.
One item that was not mentioned was the genocide accusation. That directly applies to my wheelhouse. I am more than happy to discuss that within the halls of our Jewish community.
