On Adelson, Birthright, and Discourse
I read Josh Nathan-Kazis’ article “Birthright: Hidden Cost ” (December 2008) and felt greatly distressed. To have reached the stage of such certitude that Netanyahu’s position is written off as evil – so evil that anyone who supports him (like Sheldon Adelson) is evil – so evil that non-profits should not accept money from that supporter less he be legitimated by that acceptance – I am speechless.
Is there no right to conclude that past concessions and compromises with the Palestinian Authority have not worked? Is it morally beyond the pale to argue that the present peace negotiations will not work because the Palestinian representatives cannot (or do not want to) deliver peace and mutual coexistence in return? One may argue that the urgency of peace and of ending Israeli control of the Palestinians calls for going further down the road– but to demonize the alternative view lacks balance. The left should do some soul searching as to how it has slipped into the absolute conviction of being so correct that anyone who argues any other view is not merely wrong but illegitimate.
But this is not the main reason I write. I write here personally, but for the record, until I retired officially last summer, I served as Chairman of the Education Committee of birthright israel/Taglit, the committee that sets educational standards for the trips and for the trip providers. There are ten major themes to be covered including Zionism and contemporary Israel. There is a specific requirement that in dealing with such issues as the Palestinians, or peace (or religion) there be exposure to the spectrum of views; one-sided propaganda is prohibited. Since there are multiple individual/organizational trip providers, I have no doubt that not all trips provide perfectly balanced programs. But all trips are monitored and assessed, and one-sided programs are considered to be violations of guidelines. This lowers the ratings – which are reviewed after every cycle with the providers. Persistent partisanship endangers a trip provider’s status.
Yes, birthright israel was and is funded by funders who want to strengthen Jewish identity and attachment to Israel. But they believe – and set up educational trip policies accordingly – that exposure to the unvarnished reality of Israel and Jewish historical experience is the best way to accomplish this goal. birthright israel respects the intelligence and freedom of the participants as well as the reality of Israel and of Jewish historical experience. The educational standards follow the dictum of my mother, of blessed memory; “The truth is the best (= most persuasive) lie you can tell the other.”
Finally: for the record: Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Dr. Miriam Adelson, herself an Israeli and influential in their philanthropic decisions, gave birthright israel the most amazing, generous support. They acted out of desire to strengthen Judaism and Jewish identity and Jewish attachment to Israel which they believed, in fact, to be the outcome of the trips. They never asked for or received any quid pro quo. They attached no ideological strings. They never requested any changes in birthright israel content or policies – neither in Israeli politics or peace policies nor in any ideological or policy area. They should be honored for such generosity and not besmirched by groundless conspiracy theories.
birthright israel understood that the Adelsons’ generosity was not guaranteed to last forever. In fact, the limit was announced before the recent drastic decline in the market. But there was never a thought to put off or not accept the Adelsons’ high level gift because everybody wanted to send as many people as possible now. Aside from the fact that eligibility runs out at age 26, birthright israel surveys showed that a high percentage of people who were put on waiting lists in the year of application, never reapplied and never went. We did not want to lose this opportunity to connect people to a great Jewish experience which they sought. If the money was not spent now, that opportunity would be lost.
New Voices is a publication dedicated to Jewish renewal and moral performance. That you would publish such a farfetched negative article is truly dispiriting. That I am a long time friend of the Nathan and Kazis families and an admirer of their goodness and their leadership for Jewry and Jewish values (including Josh and his generation) only adds to my sadness in writing. Still, the assumption that my side is absolutely right and pure and the other is evil or illegitimate (except in rare cases when we are facing Nazis or terrorists) is inherently undemocratic. Without some sense of humility and of the limits of one’s own position, it is hard to make room for — let alone achieve reasonable compromises with — alternative positions and parties. That is what democracy and pluralism are all about.
(Rabbi) Yitz Greenberg
Editor’s Response
I have no problem asserting that Benjamin Netanyahu’s continued opposition to a two-state solution is morally unacceptable and strategically flawed. I don’t call Netanyahu evil in my article, and I don’t call his supporters evil. I do call them wrong, and I think I’m within my rights to do so. Too often, the American Jewish Left has failed to make strong statements of belief. My generation, I hope, will be different.
With regard to the content of the trips, my article made no contrary claim. I used the word “propaganda” only in the broadest sense. Any program like Birthright, which is basically ideological in nature, is, at some level, propagandistic.
As you know, Rabbi Greenberg, I have a deep respect for you and your work, and I appreciate your letter.
