good jew bad jew

As mentioned in a Salon article, a group of Birthright participants have used their trips to Israel in different ways than those intended by the organizers. Some have extended their trips to see the separation wall, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, or to volunteer with organizations like the International Solidarity Movement .

One organized trip, Birthright Unplugged, directed toward North American Jews, visits "Palestinian cities, villages and refugee camps in the West Bank and spends time with internally displaced Palestinian people living inside Israel. Throughout the journey, we help participants develop an understanding of daily life under occupation and the history of the region."

Personally, I was never apprised through Birthright's advertising or orientation sessions on what I was allowed to do politically during or after the trip.

The Birthright response (in this case, Gidi Mark, marketing director of Birthright) to these incidents gives clear insight into its agenda:

"Birthright is a Zionist program and we want the students to go back to their campuses and be able to answer questions from a Zionist perspective. There's a lot of gray area, because we want to be pluralistic, but at the same time make sure that people aren't taking advantage of us."

How "pluralistic" can your program be if you want your participants to argue from a Zionist perspective? When representatives of Birthright Israel define their Zionist agenda in opposition to Palestinian cultural exchange/community service programs, they imply that Zionism cannot exist alongside Palestinian rights.

In these "Birth-Left" scenarios in question, the participant took part in the Birthright trip, then went off on their own during the trip extension (up to 3 months) that Birthright offers. Yet Mark still considers this "taking advantage." As the Salon article notes: "Potential [Birthright] candidates who are discovered to have a 'hidden agenda' are not allowed onto the trips."

If the Birthright trip is a gift, the purpose of which is to allow participants to see Israel, and the living conditions of Palestinians under the occupation are a concrete reality of Israel, and a bunch of kids motivated by their humanistic values (in some cases springing from their Jewish upbringing) want to have dialog with or give support to oppressed people, then what moral higher ground does Birthright think they have? How much of a gift is Birthright if there are strict limits and on how you can use it?

Leaders on my Birthright trip tried to emphasize how everyone on the trip should think of themselves as part of a family. However, the love of this family is conditional. If you go "astray" like some participants have, then "you're out of the family" or if Birthright doesn't like your politics you can't join in the first place. It reproduces the "Good Jew" versus "Bad Jew" dichotomy illustrated here.

"Good Jew" ----------------- "Bad Jew"

In the Salon interview, Mark states that the practice of "Birth-lefting" is "taking advantage of the Jewish money that sends people to Israel, exploiting this money to promote an agenda which is not the agenda of the people who funded Taglit,"

Mark has made his point perfectly. Birthright has not only an agenda, but a very specific one. A participant fraternizing with Palestinians on their own terms does not fit Birthright's agenda and is a misuse of "Jewish money." This is occasionally forgotten during these programs; as when someone on my trip asked: "Why can't we focus on why we're here [in Israel] instead of politics?"

In response I wrote:
You take a bunch of Jews from America, send them to Israel for free (on the the dime of two Jewish businessmen in cooperation with the Israeli government) in an effort to get them to connect with and thus support the State of Israel-- the situation can't be anything but political!

I support the acts of these "Birth-left" participants, who act on their consciences and reclaim their trips. Thinking back, I wish I would have extended my trip even a few days. I'd be interested to hear about what kinds of ways other people have used their trip extension.

A former Birthright participant said it best: "If Birthright is going to weed people out according to politics, then it's not really about Judaism anymore."

a few hours at yad vashem

The pace of the this trip is relentless. Days have begun to meld together. Today we spent a few short hours on the grounds of Yad Vashem. A tour guide lead us through the Holocaust history museum rather quickly, but at least he had a few interesting stories to tell. He talked about how the Nazi regime mailed each German citizen a free radio (the equivalent of sending everyone now a free flat-screen television). This gift radio could receive only one Nazi-controlled frequency.

The front entrance to Yad Vashem

The endpoint of the Yad Vashem's Holocaust history museum opens onto a sunlit vista of the city of Jerusalem, an ambivalent image of both the collective Jewish effort to survive the Holocaust, and a city held in part by a brutal military occupation.

Nahum Goldman, former president of the World Zionist Organization, expressed this strife over Israel's use of the Holocaust:
"We will have to understand that Jewish suffering during the Holocaust no longer will serve as a protection, and we certainly must refrain from using the argument of the Holocaust to justify whatever we may do. To use the Holocaust as an excuse for the bombing of Lebanon, for instance, as Menachem Begin does, is a kind of "Hillul Hashem" [sacrilege], a banalization of the sacred tragedy of the Shoah [Holocaust], which must not be misused to justify politically doubtful and morally indefensible policies."

While I disagree with Goldman about the sacred nature of the Holocaust, I agree with the sentiment that this past act of genocide does not give the Israeli state license to oppress others. Yad Vashem is a required site on all Birthright trips; and while I think it's an important visit, it is also important to recognize how memorials and museums may construct histories to support the status quo.

A cement pillar at Yad Vashem: "I will put my breath into you and You shall live again, and I will set you upon your own soil" (Ezekiel 37:24)

After a whirlwind tour through the history museum , we circled up on the lawn for a discussion about our feelings. I thought: how can I talk to anyone respectfully about the fact that the reasons the Holocaust happened all make sense to me? And since the Holocaust was an aberration only in its scale, events like it can happen again. Large-scale genocide continues to happen in the post-World War II world.

Later in our circle discussion, one guy said the whole experience made him want to go out and kill some Germans (how ironic). I made the case that the Holocaust could not be claimed as an exclusive event of Jewish suffering. The Nazis targeted for death homosexuals, Roma, trade unionists, communists, and disabled people among others. However, it seemed to fall on deaf ears. A bit later in our discussion, someone asked, "why didn't the Jews resist?'
"Actually, they did." I said.

However, the resistance did not have broad support in the Jewish community, and was heavily suppressed by the Nazis. Jewish and non-Jewish resistance to the Holocaust occurred on a number of levels: including underground presses, sabotage, and armed revolt. For more information, I suggest reading Resisting the Holocaust which contains essays on a number of different kinds of resistance to the Holocaust including a piece on the demonstrations of German gentile wives of Jewish men.

The book also does an excellent job of complicating the Jewish role in the event. On all too many occasions, Jews have been depicted as passive victims. In fact, the word "holocaust" itself comes from a Greek term that refers to a sacrificial burnt offering. Jews were not just victims; some were collaborators (in a number of cases community leaders hoping to buy more time for their village), some insurgents, and others were not as easy to classify.

I expect to come to back to discussing Holocaust Tourism in more detail later.

the "debate"

What a conversation we had today. Uzi, an executive from our trip organizer came to talk to us as a guest lecturer on "politics." He prefaced his talk by stating that he was "neutral" in his views of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. He jumped right into discussing the current security dilemma of Israel and a story began to emerge:

Uzi (our guest speaker) -- Those [Arab] countries don't have existential questions. Israel is a unique bastion of "purity of arms."
[by "existential", I'm not sure whether he meant that Israel's existence is still uncertain (a paranoid and hyperbolic claim), or that Israelis engage in profound thought over their lives and their ethical choices whereas Arabs do not (a racist claim)].

But Uzi didn't even need to say very much since the guides and participants on the trip were helping bolster his narrative thread. I sat scribbling furiously in my notebook, hoping that their words would be incriminating enough:

Rivkah (Israeli tour guide) -- They [Arabs] don't value life like Israelis do.
Uzi -- I don't understand why Palestinians see the return of political prisoners as a victory, instead of Israeli goodwill.
Richard (trip participant) -- When are the Israelis going to say 'enough is enough' trading terrorists (ie. Palestinian political prisoners who are accused of being terrorists) for Israeli soldiers?
Leah (Israeli guide) -- There's a third party that's involved in this conflict; the media. The media is antagonistic to Israel, and holds the Israeli military to a higher standard.
[I find it hard to believe that anyone could say this after watching only a few hours of American cable news. I have no qualms about saying that I have never heard anything positive said about a Palestinian group on an American news show, and I have never heard anything deeply critical about Israel.]

Uzi -- Absolutely right about the media. It's extremely frustrating when the media takes politicians to task. We just need to trust our leaders to make decisions about Israel's security policy.

I could not stand it! All of these assertions were going unchallenged as facts. The authority figures were monopolizing the conversation and telling 21-25 year-olds how to think. I needed to stop this farce in progress, so I raised my hand to ask what I thought was a particularly soft question: "Since you're referring to the existential crises of Israel, is there anything that the Israeli military has done which you are deeply ashamed of? I'd appreciate it if the soldiers want to speak on this as well."

Uzi spun right into the old "every country's military does bad things" hustle, while jumping straight into a laundry list of the various atrocities that Arab terrorists have committed. He lists these atrocities for about ten minutes. Then, perhaps realizing that he is completely evading my question, finally gets into talking about a specific case of Israeli wrongdoing, Jenin. However, his entire discussion of the events at this refugee camp focused on the fact that this "massacre" was exaggerated by the Palestinians, Arab media, and international community. [He was probably right. What happened in Jenin was not large-scale mass murder, however there is agreement among human rights groups that there were civilian deaths, dozens of destroyed houses, and instances of war crimes. He spoke of Jenin, but could not bear to talk about things like the Deir Yassin massacre, or the current occupation's day to day violations of human rights.

Uzi motioned toward the soldiers to speak, but we were faced with a wall of silence. Our medic, a former IDF soldier, spoke vaguely of soldiers who are bored and at times "act like children," but nothing more was said.

Not even allowing this meager accusation to go unchallenged, Uzi assured our group that every offense by IDF soldiers gets investigated and that the guilty are punished justly. He was invoking a judicial Disneyland. At this point, time ran out and we had to travel to our next stop on the trip.

Luckily, he looked so absurd that people realized he was totally biased. Our group leader apologized and even offered an extra discussion session about politics. Sadly, it's exactly how I assumed Birthright would present things: through only one fairly consistent framework; that it's Israel versus the "terrorists."

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.

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.

thanks for your letters and FAQs

Every couple of months I get an e-mail from someone considering going on a Birthright trip. I'm actually happy to get the mail (and will respond), but I thought it would be helpful to readers to post some FAQs and answers so that they don't have to wait for my responses:

I'm having doubts about going on a Birthright trip. Should I go at all?

I recommend taking advantage of the trip while you have the chance, but you might have a lower tolerance for these kind of experiences than I do. If you feel extremely uncomfortable in situations where most people disagree with you, you may not want to take the trip, but going with a good friend or family member might make the rough parts more bearable.   

I have not regretted making the decision to go.  I took the trip with my brother, and since we agree on a lot we could share our feelings of frustration with one another. In addition I have one friend that I made on the trip, whom I still see on occasion.  

 If you feel uncomfortable going on principle (ie. the hypocrisy of a Jewish "birthright" to the state of Israel while not extending a right of return to Palestinians) I'm not sure what to recommend, as I set those principles aside for the purpose of accepting a free trip.  

I'm not convinced that abstaining from a Birthright Trip is making a coherent political statement.  If you're on the trip you may have some perspective to add to the conversation while you and your peers are experiencing the same things. At least they won't be able to say "you wouldn't understand, you weren't there."  

You will have the opportunity to bring up discrepancies and points of criticism during what might be an otherwise placid session of propaganda. In some cases, speaking up may encourage others who agree with you to share their opinions. There are also ways to extend your trip, and others have used this extension for their own political purposes (see my post on "Birthleft").

Are all the other people on the trip going to be right-wing zionist assholes?

Almost certainly not. On my trip most people considered themselves politically liberal and had minimal exposure to organized Judaism and most knew very little about Israel, much less Israeli history (granted most of them had pretty conventional views on things, mostly cribbed from American media coverage on Israel). Most were also willing to listen, even to ideas that they didn't agree with. Young American Jews are also increasingly ambivalent about the state of Israel and its policies (see this article). The proportion of political radicals on your trip will be exceedingly low if there are any at all. Among the Birthright participants I didn't feel any more out of the place than I do in the larger American society.

The trip leaders, guest speakers and soldiers were another story as documented in this blog. Don't go in with any illusions about convincing everyone on your trip of your beliefs and you'll be fine. 

Can you recommend a specific trip organizer?

Since I only went on one Birthright trip, I cannot recommend any specific trip organizer. The number of trip organizers is overwhelming and they tend to obscure their politics in vague language. The trip I went on was with Livnot and they do not lead Birthright trips anymore.  The trip Heeb 'n Vegan went on (mentioned in the comments of the blog) was with the Union of Progressive Zionists in conjunction with Israel Experts. Many of the trips cater to secular Jews, but the organizers do try to inject religion into the mix. I didn't express this in the blog, but after the Birthright trip I actually became a stauncher atheist than before. 

Could you recommend some books or websites for me to read or look at before my trip?

Here are the books I recommend:

1. Beyond Chutzpah by Norman Finkelstein - You can skip the first section about antisemitism if pressed for time. I think Finkelstein overstates his case in this section. The real meat is in part two and the appendices where Finkelstein demolishes Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel (a book Brithright recommends on their website). This is significant not because The Case for Israel is a great book, but because it serves as a stand-in for many of the myths people believe about the state of Israel, many of which you will hear on the trip.

Finkelstein's main thesis is that Israel's human rights record put forth by supporters of Israel (like Alan Dershowitz) does not match independent reports from several mainstream human rights organizations (including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem).

2. The War for Palestine: Revisiting the History of 1948 Edited by Eugene Rogan and Avi Shlaim -- This book examines the 1948 war from the perspective of the "New Historians" who want to challenge the conventional story of Israel's founding.

3. Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky -- An examination of Arab-Israeli conflict and the role of the United States in this conflict.

4. Uri Gordon's Thesis chapter 8 -- Israeli anarchist Uri Gordon presents his thoughts about anarchist solidarity with the Palestinian nationalist movements.

I also suggest you look at Anarchists Against the Wall website:  if for nothing else to show you there are radical Israelis putting their bodies on the line to challenge the military occupation of the West Bank. Their actions short-circuit the argument: "You wouldn't think that way if you actually lived here."


If you want to see the kind of conditions that Birthright wouldn't take you anywhere near go here: http://www.activestills.org/

Let me know if you have any other questions or you want clarification on any part of this FAQ. You can send e-mail to: birthrightdetoured@gmail.com. 


I am happy to personally respond to e-mails.

additional reading

Since I have recommended that people take the trip, I thought the impassioned plea of this Israeli citizen would be a good counterpoint: It's worth reading whether you decide to go on a trip or not.

In other news, straight from those who brought you Birthright Israel.................Here comes

In this article, Mairav Zonszein writes about why TBZ is an embarrassment. I'm working on a post to cover this new development, but in the meantime, I'm interested to hear what others have to say on the subject.