another unbearable "discussion"

When we arrived at our new lodgings, a girl named Tamar (who was Bat Sherut on a different Birthright trip) asked me how my trip was going. When I said that Birthright had met my expectations, some of them negative, she challenged me to come up with my reasons. Immediately I was thinking "well, here we go again." I talked about what the Birthright trip had left out of our experience: namely the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the chapters of Israeli history that are not so flattering.

She instantly got defensive, and I kept trying to pile words in there, but I could sense from her body language that it wasn't working. She was most offended when I said that the leadership of our group was trying to present their interpretations as absolute truth (what I should have said was "facts").
"So, you're trying to say that the leaders are not presenting the Truth?" she replied.

There's a subtle distinction (but important) that she clearly did not get. The last thing I told her was "you're twisting my words" but she had to take some cell phone call and left. I never got to resume the conversation.


I wasn't claiming that there is one Truth in the world and that I know it. I was only trying to say that the picture being presented by our leaders omits and distorts information that has agreement outside of Israeli apologist circles.

There are ways to engage in conversation to discover facts, but there are also ways to obfuscate them. When speaking about the "situation in the Middle East," where some of the most basic facts are still contested, it's important not to muddle them or pretend to be vexed about Truth. In doing just that, supporters can create controversy where none exists.

That's why Norman Finkelstein, in the introduction to his work Beyond Chutzpah, draws a distinction between, "those controversies that are real and those that are contrived." People can agree on an historical record and come to different political conclusions, but it's clearly dishonest to come to your conclusions first, then omit, distort, or create facts out of thin air to support them. He goes on to write, "One can speak of, basically three sources of artificial disagreement [in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict]: (1) mystification of the conflict's roots (2) invocation of antisemitism and the Holocaust (3) on a different plane, the vast proliferation of sheer fraud on the subject [as long as the conclusions are politically suitable]"

The Birthright trip contained all three kinds of artificial controversy. From attempts to present the Palestinians as recent immigrants to the area, insinuations that Iran would commit a second Holocaust (an image incessantly invoked by John McCain and Sarah Palin), to the faulty assertion mentioned earlier in my blog that all IDF soldiers who commit criminal acts always get punished justly. I'll delve more into the meat of this in additional, better researched posts.

UPDATE: One of the better researched posts can be found directly below this one

a trip back in time

"A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view of their past and a hatred of their neighbors" -- Attributed to Karl Deutsch or Ernest Renan

I'm going to take a break from the trip events to go back to the 1930s-40s, years that were critical in the formation of the Israeli state, to discuss events and insights that were beyond the pale of my Birthright trip. At this point in time, it's impossible to get a complete picture of what happened in the events that Israelis call "The War of Independence" and Palestinians refer to as "The Disaster." Thus far historians have relied on documents declassified by the IDF and the Israeli government (which still contain redacted information). Many documents about the 1948 war in the archives of Arab nations have not been released to the public.

Why is it important to discuss founding events that occurred over 60 years ago? As "new historian" Avi Shlaim explains, "debate about the 1948 war cuts to the very core of Israel's image of itself." (Rogan, p.101) A state's founding story can serve as a legitimation and precedent for that state's future policies. Coming to grips with this history may also mean questioning the very idea of a Jewish birthright to the land of Israel, and the very premise of free Birthright trips to Jewish youth.

Israel has a traditional narrative which American Hebrew School students and Israeli students may find familiar. In this story, Israel fights bravely for its very existence against an aggressive and coordinated attack of Arab states. Shlaim summarizes it thus: "a simple bi-polar, no holds barred struggle between a monolithic and malevolent Arab adversary and a tiny peace loving Jewish community. The biblical image of David and Goliath is frequently evoked in this narrative." (p.79) This is the story I was taught in Hebrew School. It places responsibility for the war on the Arab nations and casts Israeli Jews in the role of victims. Required sites on Birthright trips such as Mount Herzl Cemetery tend to reinforce this narrative. Other required sites such as Masada, and the Bar Kochba caves reference the time when Jews were being oppressed by the Roman Empire and tried to defend their own freedom. The emotional force of these sites can make a participant think that the 1948 war was Masada: the sequel. But the situation in 1948 is not analogous. It had the added complexity of Jews building a nation-state. However, ego-boosting and Biblically epic it may be, the narrative above is not consistent with the historical record that has been uncovered. The Arab states were not solely to blame for the 1948 war.

The first Jewish emigrants arriving in Palestine had to deal with the problem of creating a Jewish state on land that was inhabited by a majority Arab population. The Jewish immigrants and those who encouraged them to move to Palestine deserve some blame for the later conflict (as well as Britain for making promises to both Jews and Arabs that were impossible to keep). David Ben-Gurion said, "politically we [Jewish immigrants] are the aggressors and they [the Palestinians] defend themselves...The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." (Chomksy, p.91)

The First Aliyah in Palestine, donning keffiyehs

Some "supporters of Israel" recognize the ethical problem inherent in commandeering other people's land, and have tried to sidestep this issue altogether. In dubious books they claim that a large population of Arabs didn't exist before the first Jewish immigration. Some others allege that Palestinians didn't constitute a coherent or legitimate ethnic group or some other bullshit. Even if their theses were true, they would still be irrelevant. As Andy Dyer commented on the controversy surrounding Joan Peter's book From Time Immemorial: "But most striking is that she [Joan Peters] and the Zionists believe that robbing people because they've only been there 10 or 50 years is somehow alright. Claiming that it is only reminds most western people (few of whom live near where they were born) that it's not alright."

The"demographic problem" or "demographic threat" (still hotly debated in Israeli society) was taken up by the temporary government headed by David Ben-Gurion. Ben-Gurion and other officials grappled with the difficulty of founding a Jewish state on land that didn't contain a majority Jewish population. Transfer of the Arab population seemed the only practical course of action to create such a state.

While I don't take issue with Jewish people immigrating en masse to Palestine (though certainly I can understand why they didn't receive a warm welcome), I do criticize the ejection of non-Jewish inhabitants by force.

In his essay, "Revisiting the Palestinian Exodus of 1948" Benny Morris shows that thinking about transfer was prevalent in the Yishuv. In 1937 Ben-Gurion wrote in his journal, "With the evacuation of the Arab community from the valleys we achieve, for the first time in Jewish History, a real Jewish State." He further stated: "We must first cast off the weaknesses of thought and will and prejudice-- that [says that] transfer is impracticable." Ben-Gurion goes on to write that the Jewish leaders must understand that the world would not look favorably upon transplantation of the Arab population, however it would be crucial to "condition the leadership to transfer's implementation." (Rogan, p.43) Transfer would be beneficial and would not be challenged. If another power began Arab transfer out of Palestine, nothing would be done to prevent it (p.45 ). Ben-Gurion relayed his thoughts at the World Zionist Congress where he said, "You must remember that this method also contains an important and humane and Zionist idea: to transfer parts of a people [i.e., the Arabs] to their own country and to settle empty lands [i.e., Transjordan and Iraq]..." (p.43) These are patronizing words (i.e. that Jews know better than Arabs where Arabs belong and where they should live). This phrase was even deleted from Ben-Gurion's later transcript.(p.44)

The deletion demonstrates a consistent theme within Israeli mythology: a constant attempt to seem humane or moral while considering immoral policies and committing immoral acts. This isn't specific to Israel. In the U.S. we have similar mythologies that justify our history of immoral acts (such as manifest destiny or the argument that slaves were actually better off with their masters). It's also important to note that this debate among the Zionist leadership was going on in 1937; and although Hitler had come to power, this was pre-Kristalnacht and before death camps were constructed. As Morris writes, "Ben-Gurion was very careful in speech and writing not to leave too clear a spoor in his wake." ( p.49)

Nevertheless, careful management of rhetoric does not the change the actions of the Jewish forces in the 1948 war. "...the refugee problem was caused by attacks by Jewish forces on Arab villages and towns and by the inhabitants' fears of such attacks, compounded by expulsions, atrocities and rumor of atrocities - and by the crucial Cabinet decision in June 1948 to bar a refugee return" (p.38) "From April 1948 on, Palestinian Arabs were the target of a series of expulsions from individual villages, clusters of villages and towns" (p.49). There were documented military orders to do so:


"On the morning of 31 October, Carmel radioed all brigade and district commanders: 'Do all in your power to clear quickly and immediately all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The inhabitants should be assisted to leave the conquered areas.' On 10 November, Carmel added the following somewhat 'softer' order: '(B) [The troops] should continue to assist the inhabitants wishing to leave the areas conquered by us. This is urgent and must be carried out swiftly. (C) A strip of five kilometers deep behind the border between us and Lebanon must be empty of [Arab] inhabitants.' There can be non doubt that, in the circumstances, the brigade and district OCs understood Carmel's first order of 31 October (and perhaps also his follow-up of 10 November) as a general directive to expel." (p.52)

I'll discuss the historical legacy and its effects in a later post.

Sources

Chomsky, Noam. Fateful Triangle. Cambridge: South End Press, 1999.
Rogan, Eugene L. and Avi Shlaim. Ed. The war for Palestine : rewriting the history of 1948. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

our second speaker

Our second political speaker, David, got together with us today. Our guides felt somewhat guilty about our first speaker (which might have to do with his answer to my question). The second speaker was a lot different and also more upfront than the first. Not surprisingly, he was a reserve officer in the IDF and works for the Israeli strategic department. Obviously our Birthright organizer was intent on getting a speaker with the least amount of bias and personal stake in the status quo *sarcasm*. However, he didn't claim any special status for Israeli "purity of arms." He didn't take an obnoxious, and moreover, hypocritical moral stand.

He was an academic who spoke from a very specific theoretical framework:
International Relations Realism with an emphasis on Game Theory. This limited what anyone could directly challenge him on because this framework so powerfully narrows ethical debate. We sat there in what seemed like a college class for two hours listening to him. I looked back and forth over my shoulder hoping that the audience wasn't thinking, "we're all sitting at this lecture because of YOU!"

He prefaced his talk with the complexity of the situation in the Middle East and how it is a multi-level conflict. And therefore the lines are not so clearly drawn. He referenced the fact that in the 1980s, Maronite Christians, teamed with Shiite Muslims, supported by Israel, fought against Hezbollah. "Anyone who says they can explain what's going on in the Middle East is a liar," he said. There was potential here.


After that he got straight down to business defending Israeli security policy, stating that X number of possible attacks were thwarted by Israeli security forces each week. One member of the audience scribbled this down on a piece of paper, eager to collect ammunition. David would not talk in detail about how he came to these numbers because of military confidentiality. But it would certainly be interesting to know in what stage these "plots" were "thwarted." Were participants just talking about an attack? Planning logistics? Obtaining explosive materials? From what I know about police responses to demonstrations in the U.S. against the WTO and IMF, cops are eager to pretend that normally common household items like paint thinner, glue, paper-mache, and hammers are bomb building materials and weapons.

Certainly I'll admit that there are a handful of people planning to commit suicide attacks against Israel on a given week. But in a state that condones torture as an interrogation method (to be discussed in another post), I wonder how much Israeli security forces "cook the books" by extracting confessions out of people that haven't actually done anything.


Obviously David is a statist (otherwise he'd have nothing to study). He also bandied about the belief that most nation-states are based on a cohesive ethnic group and that when there is a single ethnic group in a nation, you're more likely to have peace. If there is more than one ethnic group then conflict is more likely. I think the theory is just too simplistic, a touch racist, and of course totally ignores any economic factors that may set groups of people in conflict.
It privileges the idea of ethnicity (itself a fluid term, usually categorized by common ancestry) over any other possibilities that might bring people together such as class.

He
also made a big deal about another theory: if Palestinians actually want a two-state solution they just need to "declare independence." He suggested that they draft a document similar to the U.S. Declaration of Independence. After drafting the document, he argued, Israel might formally recognize the Palestinian state, and then make peace with it. He seemed genuinely excited about this proposal, as if he were the first to make it.

The problem with this theory is that a Palestinian Declaration of Independence has existed at least since the 1980s. And one could see the resulting Palestinian Intifada as a war for independence.
He argued that Palestinian leaders are not interested in real independence because they would have to take full responsibility for the new state. These same leaders are probably so complacent because they are benefiting from the current arrangement with Israel either economically or by retaining their current power. This is something Edward Said had been suggesting for a long time before. And I agree with him. I don't think Palestinian leaders are representing their people (as it is impossible for a few people to make decisions for a mass) and more often than not sell them out. Which brings us to the simple but often forgotten distinction between criticizing leaders and criticizing a given cause.

He did get a few things right. First, he acknowledged that states can engage in acts classified as "terrorism." Second, he stated that each Palestinian is equal in value to each Israeli in his calculus. He also brought out two messy words that had not been uttered by an authority figure on the trip: "military occupation." I thought this might "break the spell" of the trip, though I didn't notice anyone flinch. He clearly stated that the West Bank and Gaza Strip were under a military occupation by the IDF. However, he later argued that a military occupation is acceptable under International Law.


He contradicted himself when saying that people should take statements from Iranian and Fatah websites very seriously and literally; but then later, that statements from Europe supporting the Palestinian cause should not be taken seriously. So, how do we know which public statements to take seriously? He also sidestepped the events of 1948, saying that there wasn't sufficient time to discuss them (though I suspect if he did our group may have also heard the term "Palestinian expulsions" for the first time in the trip).

Even more interesting were the reactions of other participants after the speech. They turned to me, dying to know what I thought of him. As if the right speaker could easily repair the fissure in the group. As if the state of Israel could now officially be considered a completely unproblematic, democratic, benevolent country as long as the opposition gets a chance to speak (then the substance of their argument can then be ignored). I sincerely hope this wasn't the case in their heads. Or perhaps they felt guilty that I had been feeling left out and hoped David's speech could change that?

I tried to explain that I didn't agree with his framework, how it simplifies our world into reductive and sometimes sadistic games, but there wasn't much more I could say. After all, it didn't seem like there was much more than that they wanted to hear.
Sometimes I don't think people realize the sheer amount of time and energy it can take to construct a new theoretical framework, especially if a given audience is not familiar with it. In a situation (like a lecture) that requires such concise statements from someone in the audience it's nearly impossible to present new ideas.

a poem

Birthright Israel Untitled #1

They're turning to me.
Looking at me.
Prying from me,
arguing with what they've pried.

I see myself as a tower,
the barracks of a thousand insurgents
who are pitched in battle within my walls;
the turret can't contain them all.

I can't give them what they want.

I don't want to give them the satisfaction.
I am not called "disaffection."
And as for me, I say to my name: 'let me be and get away from me.
I've been fed up since I spoke and since your adjectives grew.'


You have me playing that foul game of representation
and I play along because its better than the simple denunciation
the sanctioned point-of-view presents without so-much-as complication,
under the corner-crimped-smile that says, "we're here to answer every question"

Final Survey

We were given a final survey to fill out at the conclusion of the trip.  Here were my answers to the Open-ended questions:
 
1.  What, in your opinion are the goals of the [trip organizer]?
Goal 1) To create connections between young Jews and the state of Israel (to create a strong connection between Jewish identity and support for the state)
Goal 2) To create connections between trip participants (with an emphasis on heterosexual marriage bonds)
Goal 3) To serve the people of Israel through community service

2.  In your opinion, what part of [trip organizer] needs fixing the most?
[Trip organizer] needs to admit that forging a Jewish identity can create friction between a Jew and the State of Israel (diaspora Jews as well as Israeli Jews), and that this perspective is totally legitimate and merits further discussion.


3.  What was the one most significant "message" for you in the entire program? 
That we are free to practice any kind of Judaism we'd like, but that our identity is tied not only to ancient Israel but also to the modern state of Israel.


4.  Has this experience affected your Jewish identity? 
I feel that I have a greater understanding of pre-20th century Jewish history and how hard people fought to protect their traditions and their land.


Other Comments: 
Especially in the discussions of the political situation of Israel, I saw few examples what I think of as Judaism at its best: humanism, self-examination, and critical thinking, as well as a certain amount of egalitarianism.  I didn't see people in a deep existential crisis brooding over even the possibility that their state may be oppressing others.  Rather I felt defensiveness and I heard apologia which on occasion developed into an "us vs them" kind of narrative.  When certain group members reiterated this narrative it seemed as if their fires were only stoked.  It was a well-oiled propaganda machine where certain opinions were beyond the pale, or did not merit further discussion.  Perhaps on 2 or 3 occasions I heard soldiers speak critically, but that's it.  Perhaps it's almost insane for me to expect anything different from a Birthright sponsored trip?  And then perhaps I am a little bit insane, but also a little bit Jewish.

article in the forward

This recent article sheds some light on Birthright educational tactics and strategy:

Birthright Alumni Center Tied to Haredi Outreach Group “ Forward.com










Pluralistic? Birthright seeks out Jews from all walks of life for its trips to Israel. But some alumni of Birthright’s New York post-trip program have reported pressure to become Orthodox. (caption from the original article)



The article concerns the Jewish Enrichment Center in Lower Manhattan, a popular gathering place for Birthright Alums, staffed by Haredi Rabbis. The organization's interest seems to be making Orthodox Judaism palatable to twenty and thirty somethings. I can't help but see parallels between my experience and this strategy. On my trip, Birthright staff often took on a progressive guise while downplaying their orthodox beliefs to appeal to our group.

Most of the American participants I met on my trip would probably consider themselves socially liberal. They like the freedom to dress how they want, eat how they want, most want social equality for women, and people of all sexual orientations. This is all incompatible with Halacha (Jewish Law) as interpreted by Haredi Judaism, so these Rabbis must use a more clever strategy:
“If they had just said, if their whole mission statement was, we’re Orthodox Jews, we’d love to present this lifestyle to you and see if it’s for you, and then did the same exact things that they are doing, that would not bother me,” said David Siegel, who was involved with the JEC for two years and went on three of the center’s follow-up trips to Israel. “But they know they can’t do that. People will get scared.”
Haredi and Orthodox Rabbis cannot be upfront about their beliefs with most Jewish American youth because most of these beliefs would be rejected out of hand. This reminds me of a point on the trip where another participant asked a very direct question to one of our guides: do you personally believe that women and men should be separated while praying? It was a smart question because it made our guide squirm, trying not to take an actual position. He was a particularly hippie-ish guy who acted more like a spiritual guru. Ultimately he was forced to admit that he thought women and men should be separated. He danced around the question precisely because he knew an honest answer would conflict with the progressive image of this particular trip. He knew very well about the political beliefs of the average American Jew. He even went on to call a female Jewish sage one of the first feminists, which I would never say with a straight face given that she advocated rigid gender roles. An interview in the Forward article echoes this sentiment:
“They are ideologically ultra-Orthodox, but they would never identify themselves that way,” said Allan Nadler, a professor at Drew University who has studied the Orthodox world, referring to Ohr Somayach. “It’s the soft sell. Come for dinner, come for lunch, hang around, smoke some weed after Shabbos. But there’s always an element of deception.”
The deception strategy works for people with or without experience with organized religion. Birthright brings in people to try to sell Judaism (part of their own market analogy) without explaining its direct historical and continuing relationship to sexism, homophobia, and the legitimation of government. Our guides make it seem almost hip. They know exactly what they're doing. Someone who has spent little or no time in a synagogue may not understand the authoritarian experience it can be. In fact, they diligently avoided temple services.

Just to clarify: all Orthodox Rabbinical associations currently refuse to ordain female rabbis (although there are expanding roles for women in this sect of Judaism). If anyone is in doubt about the Orthodox community approach to homosexuality I suggest watching the movie Trembling Before G-d.

Birthright claims pluralism, but in my view, pluralism does not mean temporarily tolerating someone else's beliefs (and concealing your own) so that you can create the space to slowly impose your views on them later.
 
Jewish Bloggers
Powered By Ringsurf