The American Jewish World Service exists to help out the under-privileged around the world. Is that a model for Jewish intervention in foreign conflicts?
Israel is noticeably absent from the operations in Libya. It has been quiet about suppression in other countries. It does not send peacekeepers to conflicts around the world. It keeps a low profile. But does that make sense?
I do not believe the Holocaust serves as the predication for the State of Israel: Jews deserve their own country for an array of reasons. But, as might have been noticeable by the discussions on the blog, the historical proximity between the Holocaust and Israel’s independence are loud in the chronicles of human history. The Holocaust merely cinched United Nations recognition of a Jewish state, if it was not already an unavoidable conclusion in 1947.
But when Israel brings up the Holocaust, it keeps it personal, or I should say “communal.” Either way, it is private. The collective memory of the Holocaust is heavy here. The dead are remembered in the same light as are Israeli soldiers killed in battle or civilians in terrorist attacks. Even though the country’s founders and initial elite grew up in Israel before independence, their descendants have intermarried with Holocaust survivors’ children, and the same goes for much of the Sephardi-Mizrahi community.
The Holocaust was a unique experience so say many Jews, or at least it seems that way. The State of Israel refrains from invoking it in any other context than the country’s and its majority people’s preservation. But this seems to contradict the values I grew up with in the Jewish community.
The American Jewish community is liberal, but the appeal of going abroad and helping out the downtrodden is tremendous. If the American Jewish community had a military, its officers would lead every UN peacekeeping mission. The ideal to help others is marvelously appealing throughout the community, be it within or outside of the Jewish communal framework. Jewish religious and secular organizations have sprung up dedicated to international causes. Synagogues and Jewish federations consistently send disproportionate amounts of financial charity to disaster areas: Haiti, Japan, you name it. But that attitude does not easily translate into Modern Hebrew.
Israel is the top cause, but only one of many international causes, which are a priority to American Jews. Its image as David against the Arab Goliath (now, the Muslim Goliath) is still well rooted despite widespread sympathy for Palestinians and even prominent voices in the community who oppose Israeli policy.
Israelis have the attitude they come first – they cannot afford to think of Africa or Central Asia before themselves. A constant state of war (for example, Syria has officially been at war with Israel since Israeli independence 63 years ago), has entrenched this attitude. Even as Israel’s “qualitative military edge” over its neighbors has reached a new zenith, the attitude has not changed. The siege mentality pre-1967 has remained because of flare ups with its neighbors and the shift of anti-Israel activity to asymmetrical warfare (i.e., terrorist attacks and geurilla warfare).
So why do American and Israeli Jews not make the next logical leap? As American Jews continue to come here in bigger numbers, the idea of global activism prevalent in that community would serve well reshaping Israel’s doctrines for existence. Religiously, there would be no better manifestation of the Torah’s vision of a “Light unto the Nations” than a country which literally takes the Biblical laws to not return escaped slaves to their masters and to love the refugee (ger, i.e. “the stranger” or “the convert”) and fight for his cause in the international arena. Israel’s disproportionate contribution to medical and agricultural technology would go far in helping so-called Third World nations. It would seem to be that it goes without saying, connecting the over-represented Jewish leadership in charitable causes internationally with their brethren in Israel would give the country, the people, Judaism and its modern manifesto Zionism a very revitalizing and crucially needed orientation in the world of today.
Opposing genocide and human rights violations seems to be a sticky subject for Israeli leaders who do not want to conduct rhetoric wars with international figures who emphasize Israeli crimes and policies (while ignoring widespread violations in other countries hardly comparable to Israeli policies in the West Bank).
Would it be in Israel’s interests, even its ethos to intervene in violent conflicts around the world where genocide or mass human rights violations are widespread? Is the doctrine of intervention used more often to disguise foreign countries preserving their own interests in the conflict zone? I think Jews have much to consider regarding their ability to make a difference on the world stage. The country is at a unique crossroads, where its self-concern is now a liability regarding its image. Not only would the country experience a face-lift with an assertive policy of intervention, it would be a chance to inject a genuine spirit of idealism and zeal into the idea of helping others.
An American soldier in Bosnia
Most importantly, for Jews and Gentiles, it would give teeth to the ethos of “Never Again.”
