Jews against Israel

by Farrell Bloch

Why are many Jews receptive to anti-Israel perspectives, some to the point of rejecting the very existence of the modern state of Israel? A common answer is that although such people may be of Jewish ancestry, they have minimal Jewish identity and perhaps want to reject their Jewishness or at least to fit in better in the wider society. But these rationalizations don’t apply to Israelis or strongly identified Diaspora Jews.

To begin, Jews are as susceptible as anyone else to the successful promulgation of the Palestinian narrative taught in university Middle East Studies departments heavily funded by Arab donors. This narrative elides much history including (1) the allocation of 78 percent of the British Mandate to the Kingdom of Jordan so that roughly 10 percent, not half, was allocated to Israel; (2) substantial 20^th century immigration of Arabs to Palestine from Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere, contradicting the presumption of a large and longstanding Palestinian Arab population; (3) lack of a campaign between 1948 and 1967 for a Palestinian state to replace Egypt’s occupation of Gaza and Jordan’s occupation of the West Bank, suggesting dissolution of Israel rather than establishment of their own state as the primary Palestinian objective; (4) Palestinian Authority celebration of and generous reward to Arabs who murder Jews, even infants asleep in cribs; (5) expulsion of more Jews from Arab countries than Palestinians who fled Israel in 1948-49 (which Palestinian flight was a consequence of five Arab armies invading the fledgling Jewish state); and (6) that about half of Israel’s Jews are neither immigrants from Europe nor those immigrants’ descendants.

Moreover, the pro-Palestinian narrative is nurtured by the zeitgeist prevailing among contemporary academics and journalists that favors people of color over whites (conveniently ignoring brown Middle Eastern and black Ethiopian Jews), the less affluent over the wealthier (without acknowledging the hard work and entrepreneurship that create prosperity), the militarily weak over the strong, and anti-Western cultures over Judeo-Christian societies and American allies.

Furthermore, there are specifically Jewish values that support an anti-Israel stance or at least limit support for Israel. A small number of Orthodox Jews who regard the rebirth of the modern state of Israel via human effort in 1948 as an affront to the divine plan are invaluable propagandists at anti-Israel demonstrations. Still other Jews interpret hostility they face as divine punishment for Jews failing to follow the Torah’s commandments, a position that encourages individual or communal improvement rather than political action. In addition, Isaiah’s admonition to be a light unto the nations induces Jews to self-impose a high standard of behavior that includes unusual open-mindedness to opposing, even hostile, viewpoints. And Abraham’s beseeching God to reprieve Sodom and Gomorrah initiated a tradition of Jewish concern for others including contemporary Palestinians.

Psychiatrist and historian Kenneth Levin has argued that the reaction of Jews to centuries of degradation has been to believe that self-effacement, acceptance of antisemitic indictments, and concessions will stave off despair and perhaps alter the behavior of their persecutors—rather like abused children blaming themselves instead of their dysfunctional parents. Another Jewish historical response has been rejection of Jewish particularism in favor of universalistic utopias such as communism that would embrace all peoples and mute ethnic distinctions, a viewpoint that would also eliminate support for a Jewish state. Denial of the extent of anti-Israel sentiment is yet another Jewish psychological response. And some may fail to counter anti-Israel positions in the hope of preventing those ideas from gaining further publicity and attracting new adherents.

Expectations of non-Jews can reinforce these points. For example, some have argued that given historical persecution, Jews should be particularly sensitive to and forgiving of others. But I am not aware of this standard being suggested to other groups and instead have observed quite the contrary, namely, rationalizations offered for recalcitrance, even violence, from those considered past or present victims.

Traditional Jewish emphasis on education, transmuted in modern times to advanced secular study, has inculcated Jews with today’s multicultural sensitivity, imprecise language usage, and substitution of subjective narratives for a supposedly chimerical objectivity that can never be achieved. Thus, strong judgements, pro-Israeli or otherwise, become unacceptable. What’s more, some Jewish students choose to eschew Israel-oriented activities and the associated confrontations and devote themselves without this distraction to studies and extracurricular activities.

The reasons given here are not mutually exclusive. And they apply to other phenomena such as Jewish individuals and organizations assisting impoverished peoples all over the world—but not Jews in need in Eastern Europe or Israel. Similar behavior by other minorities is rare. For example, while rabbis have invited allies of the Muslim Brotherhood to synagogues for dialogue, I have never heard of an African American pastor extending such courtesies to unreformed white supremacists. These most unusual, if not unique, reactions of Jews are consistent with antisemitism differing from other varieties of prejudice in degree as well as in kind.

Dr Bloch, Stanford Ph.D, is former Princeton professor. His latest book, Identity and Prejudice, (Mantua Books) is being released next week and will be available on Amazon.