Would American Jews Abandon Israel?

In the interest of stimulating discussion between Russian and American Jews on burning issues of mutual concern--Israel and American domestic politics among others, I am posting here just such a discussion between Boris Gorbis, a leader of the Russian Jewish community in Los Angeles and an unnamed American Jewish lay leader from the same community.

Boris, with whom I had the pelasure of meeting and talking politics during the recent conference on the global Russian-speaking community at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, obviously comes from a political perspective very different than mine, but the primary point of this forum is to get people of varied opinions, hawkish and dovish, pro-and anti-Bush to mix it up--not to be a Walter Ruby echo chamber (that comes a close second). So here is Boris' piece, uncut and uncensored. I'll have some comments on it in a couple of days,

Would American Jews Abandon Israel?
©By Boris Gorbis
November 2006
“The question is a silly provocation,” said my American Jewish acquaintance, a lay leader and a major contributor. “Of course American Jewry will never abandon Israel.” Then he thought for a moment and added: “unless, Israel falls under the sway of irresponsible politicians, like your Lieberman, but even then…” He hesitated, lost in a number of imponderables and then asked me: “Well, what do you mean ‘abandon Israel?”
I was ready: “This means being unwilling or unable to prevent the destruction of the State of Israel. And you just identified the first component of this doomsday scenario by suggesting that someone like Lieberman might be so frightening to American Jews that they would consider giving up on the country altogether.”
Indeed, thinking that Israel might cease to exist is a mental taboo for most people, even those who daily swear to support and protect it. But there has been no guarantee of any state’s survival. At one time or another in this past century of uneasy memory, the world allowed for the disappearance of Ethiopia, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Tibet, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Why not Israel?
And so I proceeded to lay out reasons ‘why’ when’ and ‘how’ this might happen. My first argument was this:
“You are a life-long Democrat and your party just took over the Congress. Like your family, the majority of American Jews are embedded in the Democratic Party. While they pride themselves on making major financial contributions, the actual number of Jews is not enough to affect the party run today by many of the 60’s radicals. The party is quickly growing to the left because its ranks are swelled by anti-war and anti-globalization crowds, by the young and the disenfranchised.”
He interrupted: “There are many factions in the party and it always returns to the center. Besides, look at the number of Jewish representatives just elected.”
“Yes, I noticed that the Jewish mainstream in Minnesota worked hard to defeat a Jewish candidate for Congress, Alan Fine because he was a Republican and to elect Keith Ellison, because he was a Muslim with a past rooted in the Nation of Islam. I read that Fine’s own brother, Robert, called Ellison and pledged his support – all on account of his anti-war …”
I was interrupted: “First, Keith is not a Democrat per se; he is a candidate of Democratic Farmer’s and Worker’s party. He is a responsible person and the Democrats welcome his election. In fact we are proud that we could put our sectarian differences aside and support him. “
“And I am putting my sectarian differences with you aside in support of Borat Sagdiyev for Congress” I said irreverently.
I must have cringed and my vis-a vis noticed this. “Look,” he said. “I am personally a social conservative but our current policies are a complete fiasco. That is why voters elected people who can get us out of the mess.”
I asked: “Would you agree that the ‘Scoop’ Jackson-style Democrats are marginalized and have no or little power. They are out of the picture and when American Jews will discover that they cannot move the party back they will have no choice but to move with the party in all matters including Israeli-Arab or Israeli-Iranian conflict. Rest assured that this movement would involve a significant bent towards acceptance of anti-Israeli planks in your party platform.”
“Look at the signs,” I continued. “The creation of a lobbying group by George Soros in counterbalance to AIPAC is a case in point. If before, the Jewish community spoke with one powerful voice when it came to Israel, the likes of George Soros and Chaim Saban are likely to advance a different set of arguments to whoever will be running the United States, come 2008.”
This angered my acquaintance who met Mr. Soros personally. “What is wrong with that?” he bellowed. “We are a free society and anyone can express their views. We are the world’s best known marketplace of ideas.”
“Well,” I retorted, “all it takes is one anti-Israel resolution in the UN which the US fails to prevent or, even worse, votes for it and the end is near.”
“Nonsense!” interrupted my opponent. “Sheer nonsense!” he repeated for emphasis and said: “First, no UN resolution critical of Israel is going to put an end to Israel. Second, why would you think that the US might support it?”
Now came the time for my second and third arguments. “American society is divided on Bush presidency and the war in Iraq. But the majority of American Jews vehemently and unswervingly dislikes George W. Bush.”.
“The man is a moron and a liar.” responded my acquaintance.
“And you probably can’t even force yourself to listen to him,” I ventured.
“Right on, pal” he said, betraying his college vernacular.
“Well, this President happens to be the greatest and the strongest supporter of Israel”
“So what! This imbecile is destroying the country. Just look what he does to our civil liberties!”
To my pride I maintained a long pause and then said slowly: “I cannot argue with you about what you think of the President. My liberties are in good shape, no worse than under Kennedy or Johnson,”
“Worse than under Nixon!” he said.
“I doubt it, but the point we just made is that in the eyes of anyone claiming Presidency after George W, support for Israel no longer translates into support by American Jews. The lesson we taught all political contenders is that it is not essential to back Israel to be liked by Jews and vice-versa.”
This my opponent could not concede easily: “Not true and Nixon is a case in point. If Israel seeks peace with its neighbors and continues to live up to its international obligations anyone who hates or even dislikes it would not be tolerated in our society. His chances of election would be ‘nil’”.
“I am sure you are aware that you have just made a conditional statement.” I said in a tone of voice my father employs when he wants to annoy me. “What if Israel cannot make peace with its neighbors? What if it becomes aware of an imminent attack and launches a pre-emptive strike as it did in 1967? What if it cannot put its international obligations above its duty to survive, then what?”
“What do you think will happen?” he asked in response. I had no problem to shift gears:
“Well, I do not think necessarily that an Israel-hater would come to power. The next President of the United States is likely to be swept into office on the wave of anti-war sentiments.”
“So you agree that the Iraq war was a huge blunder, that Bush opened a Pandora box and cannot even close it?” rejoiced my acquaintance.
“Actually, I hate metaphors,” I said, “but I think he opened up a big bag of puss and it will take time before it drains and heals, but my view is not widely accepted. Anyways, the point is that in the eyes of many, Israel was either a reason for the war or a beneficiary of this war. Viscerally, these people connect Israel with an increasingly unpopular military action and are ready to blame it for anything that goes slowly or goes wrong in Iraq.”
“That it just too tenuous!” he exclaimed.
“I am not saying that the connection exists for all. But many, including Jewish anti-war establishment figures, would not hesitate to condemn Israel if a new conflict flares up in the Middle East.”
“Israel is not a sacred cow to be above criticism” declared my opponent.
“Right you are, but a cow that is not sacred can be slaughtered.” I took a cheap shot and decided to draw back a bit:
“Remember, we are only discussing a juxtaposition of events that would produce this unthinkable result. It does not have to happen. The very purpose of our dialogue is to see what ‘may’ take place. Just bear with me for a moment. Here are the ten components that might; I repeat might result in Israel being wiped out:
Israel elects a strong leader, like Lieberman, who is maligned and marginalized in the US media and whom the left loves to hate. American Jews openly voice their disagreement with tactics and policies of the new Israeli government.
US elects a popular anti-war crusader as President whose position of pulling out of Iraq and the Middle East is overwhelmingly supported by the ruling Democratic party.
Sensing this growing weakness and dissatisfaction and mindful of the ever strong US reliance on foreign oil, one of the actors in the Middle East, say Iran, or Syria, directly or by proxy begins to prepare for a decisive victory over the “Zionist entity” and its “occupation army.”
Any debate on the future of the Middle East is in the context of the best national interests of the US which, as before, require an uninterrupted supply of oil from the Middle East. Israel receives no support from the majority of American Jews,
In spite of all this, Israel reacts decisively to the threat of war. UN condemns any preemptive strikes with US voting in favor. Economic and/or arms embargo is imposed on Israel immediately.
It is clear that there shall be no re-supply of Israel.
Whether Israel does anything or not, one of the parties, say Iran, launches a massive rocket attack on Israel using its offensive conventional weapons. The nuclear shield, if it exists, merely serves as a deterrent to prevent retaliatory strike.
The UN deliberates with little or no real input from the US delegation. Anti-war demonstrations roll through the US in response to some groups calling for US military involvement to save the Jewish State.
Israeli major industrial and military centers are destroyed. Cities lie in ruins.
Israel capitulates.

“These are just vectors of possibilities,” I said, seeing that my opponent’s patience was running thin.
He admonished me: “Every American President since Truman had to deal with the threat of the Arab oil embargo because of Israel. Every American President resisted this pressure and protected Israel’s right to exist” he said.” There is nothing that the Arabs could do.”
“I wish you were right in the future tense” I responded. “In the past there always was a strong American-Jewish diaspora in America with access to the centers of power which clearly saw centrality of Israel as an important part of its identity. Not so now.”
“What kind of BS is that?” he said in a hurt tone of voice. “Look at our system of self governance. Look at our network of federations. In less than a week I shall be leading a panel at the General Assembly. Hundreds of delegates from all over are going to come. Our community is strong as is our support for Israel.”
“Strong we are, but the disconnect between American Jews and Israeli Jews is greater than ever before and growing wider. First, there is no reluctance to demonize Israeli politics on the part of the left-leaning Jewry and second, the young generation of Jewish kids couldn’t care less. ” I replied.
“Wait a minute!” protested my acquaintance. “The kids are all pro-Israel. Look at the rallies we had when Israeli soldiers were captured by Hamas and Hezbollah. Most of the faces were under 25.”
“How many young Jews in America would you say consider Israel an important part of their identity?” I asked.
“I think a lot, maybe 70, maybe even 80 percent” he ventured a guess.
“That is not true. A recent analysis by American Jewish Committee summarized findings of surveys of 1, 5 million young Americans (20’s to 30s) and it found that Israel was not a central component in their identity, placing 11th out of 15 components. The upshot is that the younger the people, the less sympathy they feel for Israel.”
“I have not heard of this study,” said my acquaintance shaking his head.
“Well, just check with the AJC and while you are at it, look into the study by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research that found that for American college and university faculty members US is the second most dangerous country in the world (North Korea is the first).
“I can’t blame them, to be quite honest”: my opponent smiled, possible indicating that he was not prepared to defend this point.
I charged: “Really! Do you also see US as more dangerous to world stability than Iran (Iran comes close third)?”
“No, of course not,” admitted my opponent. I was right – he thought it was a hyperbole.
“This is not a rhetorical exaggeration,” I said, “the study showed that nearly half of those teaching humanities (46%) and more than a third teaching social sciences believe that US is a greater threat to world peace than any other country (again trailing North Korea). About 12 % of faculty perceives Israel as a great threat to international stability – more than Syria (7%) or Russia (4%).
“That’s not good.” commented my acquaintance.
“It is rather bad.” I agreed. “Add the two and two together and you get a startling figure of American students being educated by 41 percent of teachers who believe that the United States and Israel combined are the most dangerous countries in the world. Would you support such an alliance if that was what you were taught?”
My opponent hesitated then said: “Figures lie and besides, this is no proof of how students would vote, or what they would do in the event tensions escalate in the Middle East?” He looked at me with obvious distaste and continued: “I see that what you are trying to convince me of is an immediate disaster but I see none of this happening to the extent that you do. Worst case scenario – Israel gets bloodied a bit but the country will survive. You are just an alarmist.”
“Again,” I repeated, thinking how Kissinger waited to warn arrogant Israelis about the impending attack on Yom Kippur until it was almost too late, – and said: “all we are talking are trends. The process is glacial until it shapes up. Besides, you are not responding to the specifics, and platitudes do not help one who wants to see the shape of things to come. Let us take a look at yet another dimension.”
“Which is what?” he asked, possibly losing interest.
“We must look at the fundamental belief system of those who confront Israel and the US”
“I am not sure I understand what you are talking about. Are you saying that we would abandon Israel over Arab oil?”
“Oh no, that is an issue of national priorities; not an individual choice. Our individual system of values has at its core two beliefs: One - every life is sacred and two – subject to the rule of law, each person has autonomy over his or her actions. The Muslim world’s system of values is different – it rests on two symmetrically opposite propositions. First, infidels spread spiritual and physical uncleanliness and, second, Koran obligates every faithful Muslim to stop the infidel’s sacral uncleanliness by conversion or annihilation.”
My interlocutor regained his interest: “I understand, but this applies to only a radical fringe of Muslims -- the bulk of Muslim population consists of decent and normal people. They want peace for themselves and their children no less than we do. We should be orienting ourselves towards them – not towards the fanatics. Calling these people Islamo-fascists as your beloved President did recently did not help”
I felt that we were moving away from the main theme but I had to finish what I started: “Your normal ‘decent’ Muslims voted for Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in Gaza. Look for the normal European Muslim and tell me you believe his interests are the same as yours. Your position is at odds with evidence. As far as children are concerned, do you remember Golda Meir’s famous statement that peace would come to the Middle East only when Arabs would love their children more than they hated the Jews?”
“Yes, of course, I know the aphorism, but the Israelis should be more responsible contributors to the peace process. Diplomacy, even individual kindness is a much better alternative than air raids and cluster bombs that are still maiming kids in Lebanon.” he retorted.
I was getting angry with my inability to bring up what seemed to be the core issue. “And you believe that there is symmetry between our values and the Islamic moral universe?”
“Of course, I do. What is more, I believe that fundamentally it is the right wing in Israeli politics, like this Lieberman fellow, who wishes to show that it is not so.”
I took the bait: “So, it is Lieberman who invented intifada and Shahids and it is he and those like him who brought upon Israel a barrage of suicide bombers and it is he who insists that Middle East should be free of Jews…”
He waived his hands at me. “Stop, stop! I never said such outrageous things and you know it. What I am saying is that the peace process is preferable to war. Israel is on the war path and there is a better way.”
“So the old Latin maxim: ‘Para pacem para bellum’ no longer applies?
“My Latin is rusty. Please remind me what it says?”
“It says that if you wish for peace, you prepare for war, and we, American Jews, would not force America to go to war for Israel, especially in support of a right-wing Israeli government. The question will not be put before us in black and white but we shall continuously signal our unwillingness to do so.”
There was silence and so I continued: “In any event, your belief that the entire world accepts the notions of sanctity of life and freedom of person and conscience is just plain wrong. The Muslim world as we know it rejects these notions. Most importantly, my point is this: any confrontation puts these conflicting values to test.”
My opponent waived me away: “I cannot agree with your pessimism. Democratic values are strong, much stronger than you concede. The notions of freedom, of tolerance, of human dignity – these are powerful weapons in our arsenal. Please do not underestimate them.”
I paused to make my point: “I am not. Our humanistic values will prevail: Americans, Jews and non-Jews, shall act strategically to avoid or limit a possibility of bloodshed and casualties. Given other factors we spoke about, we shall support every non-violent strategy. The Muslims shall act to prevail and thus inflict the greatest human loss without fear, restraint or hesitation. Just look at the deadly score between Sunnis and Shiites. ”
“This does not mean ‘abandoning Israel’ he reacted. “We choose the path of promoting peace. Why are you bringing this up as a calamity?” asked my opponent getting up.
“Because this is exactly what it will be. You just cannot accept the fact that there are no benefits of peace for the other side.” I stayed put and continued watching him pace.
“Don’t you think that everyone knows this and plans accordingly?” I continued. “Don’t you realize that when strategic planners in Lebanon, Syria or Iran analyze our responses they know the limits of what we shall do if they take up on Israel? They will know that American Jews will go with the mainstream and that mainstream America will not dare to suffer or to inflict casualties on them in order to protect Israel.”
He was looking at me from above and said: “We have no fear of inflicting harm on those who threaten us directly but are you saying that we shall hesitate to do so if Israel is attacked?”
“That is exactly my point. Now you got it! But it would be the Russian Jews in America who will come forward and…” My voice trailed. We looked at each other as if this were a joke and laughed.