One of the thing conservatives like me marvel at is the way the supposedly objective media will describe a conservative politician who adopts liberal positions as having “grown” in office. It doesn’t really mean that the politician became more flexible, because a politician moving in the other direction would be described as “having become more conservative.” What “grown” means is “he’s become more like us.”
That’s how to approach the Washington Post’s U.S. Jews’ Relationship With Israel Evolves. “Evolves” in this case means the same thing as “grown” in the context mentioned above.
Growing up at Congregation Olam Tikvah, Michelle Pearlstein remembers how Israel was taught at religious school: “Black and white — you can’t trust anyone, and it was a united front in support of Israel.” Today, Pearlstein, 35, is the Israel specialist at the Fairfax synagogue, where she teaches what is now the mainstream approach: “We call it ‘Israel, warts and all.’ “The change in curriculum is but one manifestation of the changing relationship between American Jews and the Jewish state, even as the country celebrates its 60th birthday this week.
Multiple new polls show that younger American Jews feel less of a connection to Israel than older Jews. And while there is heated debate about some of the polls’ methodologies and conclusions, most Jewish leaders are very concerned about the data. The leaders see them as a long-term byproduct of intermarriage, assimilation and controversial Israeli policies, including settlement expansion in the occupied territories.
I’d put that last bit differently, “… growing ambivalence, reflecting attitudes seen in the media, towards such non-controversial Israeli policies as defending itself against terrorist organizations.” But of course emphasizing “settlements” as “controversial” underscores the reporter’s belief that American Jews are becoming more like her.
Then there’s this:
What affect would a weakening of the emotional link between Israel and American Jews have on U.S. policy toward the Middle East? Last month, a group of left-leaning Jews established a lobbying group hoping to counter the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has often lobbied U.S. governments to maintain a tough line toward Israel’s adversaries.
J-Street is of course not the result of the “weakening” of an “emotional link,” rather it is the expression of contempt by a segment of Jews towards Israel. Though masquerading as a leftist “pro-Israel’ lobbying group, it features the likes of Henry Siegman who has made a career of ripping Israel and apologizing for the likes of Hafez Assad, Yasser Arafat and Hamas.
Experts in Jewish education describe replacing mushy classic ballads like “Jerusalem of Gold” from the 1960s with tracks from Israeli rappers who sing about immigration and sexuality, or jettisoning lessons about pioneering kibbutzim and replacing them with ones about Israel’s technology wunderkinds.
While I can’t disagree with the later sentiment, the first one is offensive. “Jerusalem of Gold” (“Yerushalayim shel Zahav”) is not mushy. It’s beautiful. At least to my (untrained) ear. More likely the problem with it is that it was written Naomi Shemer an Israeli who was associated with the political right and who was proud of her country. And those who wish to see the American Jewish relationship with Israel “mature” have no place for for feelings of nationalism and pride.
Pearlstein said much of the teaching material about Israel is outdated. Either it sticks to Biblical Israel and does not go beyond 1948, or it ends at 1967 — the Six-Day War. “I think that’s because recent years have been so negative,” she says. Her main goal is to teach students to have a connection with Israel, “to show that Jews have always been in this land, we can see it in the Bible and we can see it today.” But you have to do it frankly, she says, by showing “shades of gray, Israel’s challenges as well as its achievements.”
I don’t have a problem with the “shades of gray.” Israel is a country run by people, so obviously it won’t be perfect. The problem is that those who see the importance of adding the “shades of gray” are looking for opacity; they’re looking for for a really dark gray that will block out all light of achievement. (Pardon the cheap metaphor.)
Read (most of the articles in) the Forward or read James David Besser in most American-Jewish weeklies. I would argue that neither of them are pro-Israel. The problem isn’t that they present shades of gray. It’s that the image of Israel that they project is almost unremittingly negative. The problem isn’t that education about Israel in the Jewish community is overly romanticized; it’s that many of the public forums in the Jewish community unfairly criticize Israel.
The evolution hailed by the Washington Post is, in reality, a step back.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
