Reclaiming Alienated Liberals: Israel’s Imperative for Diaspora Jews

Originally published in the Spring 2016 edition of The Current.

It has been over seventy years since the end of World War II and the Holocaust. As remaining survivors become fewer and fewer, the Holocaust moves from being a living memory to one that is more historical in nature. Inevitably, as we are further removed from that generation, the connection to those events for the present and future generations is diminished. For many Jews, particularly those of an older generation, the Holocaust was a poignant rationale for the emphasis on maintaining a Jewish lifestyle and the importance of a state like Israel.

And so, as we are temporally distanced from the Holocaust and with the last generation of survivors no longer able to recount their lived experience, our collective connection to those events disintegrates—and with it, our understanding of the the importance of Jewish identity and the State of Israel for Jews living in the Diaspora. In addition to the continued neutralization of the realities of the Holocaust, American Jews, in particular, are wholly liberal and by and large follow Reform or Conservative Judaism. If recent events at Columbia University are any indication, millennial Jews, like other young American liberals, are becoming more alienated from Israel and are beginning to actively oppose the Zionist narrative. Young Jews see Israel less through the lens of the imperatives of its founding following the destruction of much of European Jewry than in light of modern Israel’s failings as a moral and humanist state.

Short of ceasing the Occupation, there is no clear panacea for this problem. The Occupation is an immensely complex issue, and both sides share blame for lack of progress in coming to a palatable resolution. Regardless, it is immensely easy for those without a connection to Israel to readily sympathize with the occupied instead of the occupiers. Given this state of affairs, if Israel wishes to connect with young, liberal Jews, programs like Taglit are simply not enough. When Israel can alienate a Jew like me—a strong Zionist, fully in tune with his Jewish identity—then Israel is failing in its attempts to appeal to many diaspora Jews.

Still, there is work that Israel can do to improve its reputation among young American Jews. Israel has an obligation to aid in pro-Israel advocacy on university campuses. Israel has largely ignored those fighting for Israel on campus and has failed to offer any true support for diaspora Jews. For example, the fight against BDS in America has largely been funded by wealthy American Jews, such as Sheldon Adelson, and remains a peripheral concern for the Israeli Knesset. While perhaps outside the domain of the Israeli government, this issue directly affects the viability of the Israeli state in the future and should be of primary concern for Israel.

A major dilemma for liberal Zionist Jews is the ability to express both liberal and Zionist views without being ostracized. Often, students choose to step out of the arena of debate over Israel due to its deep vitriol or for lack of a strong connection to Israel; this saps the state of potential American support. Support can be reinstilled by endowing pro-Israel students with the tools to combat movements like BDS. Though primarily financial, support might also include cooperation with American pro-Israel organizations to offer a clear and unified message against BDS. It is Israel’s obligation to finance and organize such programs that would allow young Jews to once again feel connected to the Israeli State. A failure to do so would spell the potential end of the once strong support for Israel amongst American Jews.

Israel must also do a better job of communicating its desire for a two-state solution and of taking concrete steps towards achieving that goal. For American Jews, seeing many people within Israel’s own government and society decry the two-state solution and seemingly ignore the rights of Palestinians is part of what is so alienating. While a final negotiated solution might be difficult and far off in the future, Israel should take meaningful action to create “facts on the ground” more beneficial to a two-state solution. This includes the cessation of settlement building and the expansion of water sharing projects. These actions can be cited by pro-Israel advocacy groups to strengthen their movements.

Israel can also empower J-Street, the American pro-two state solution NGO, instead of actively hindering it. Israel might also try to implement Ari Shavit’s bold plan of a Jewish Peace Corps: this plan suggests creating a platform for which all Jews, diaspora Jews included, may volunteer throughout Israel and diaspora-based Jewish agencies to perform social justice work around the globe. This will help promote the image of Israel as a model-nation state and create a stronger bond between diaspora Jews and Zionist thought. While the biggest issue remains the existence of the Occupation, these liberal-minded Jews could have a profound effect on the attitudes of Israelis and push them towards a negotiated two-state solution. Shavit’s proposal is only one small step in reinvigorating the American Jewish–Israel bond that will ultimately lead to more concrete steps towards promoting peace and understanding in the region. It will reinvigorate the collective Jewish memory of the need for a Jewish State, while opening Israel to liberal ideas from American Jewry.

There are negative drawbacks, of course. There would be accusations of foreign meddling, for one, as well as the introduction into the discourse of a powerful institution—a state—that could subvert the work of Jewish institutions in America in favor of their own politics and agendas. Furthermore, Israel, if it does not live up to the standards placed upon it in a potential Jewish Peace Corps, could further alienate American Jews. Yet it seems that inaction will only propagate that potential crisis. Action will be welcome as it would show Israel cares about the concerns of American Jewry; the working relationship would allow all voices to be heard, lest the same issues arise instead. Additionally, exposure to American Jews on a non-Taglit-like experience would allow liberal ideas and a platform for debate to seep into Israeli society. No single view on the political spectrum would dominate—nor could it with such a plethora of voices. The liberal American Jewry coalescing with more right-wing Israelis would create a moderate tone in the conversations surrounding the Jewish State and would benefit Israel’s image, and ultimately change Israel’s policies in the long run.

American Jews often claim that their criticism of Israel comes from their love for Israel—a strengthened bond would strengthen that love, and strengthen the legitimacy of their criticism. As it stands, American Jews are incredibly divided over the issue of Israel; on campus, Jewish groups span the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace to the far right Students Supporting Israel. A consensus might be created through a stronger American Jewish engagement with Israel advocates.

Israel must do more to remind American Jews of the importance of Israel’s existence. Ultimately, Israeli involvement in advocacy should strengthen the bond between American Jews and Israel, staving off a potential rupture between the two. Yet, this bond will eventually wither regardless, if Israel does not change its actions vis-à-vis the Palestinians. For now, Israel can focus on advocacy; eventually, Israel must end the Occupation to become, once more, a model state to diaspora Jews and the world.

Benjamin Davidoff is a senior at Columbia University. He can be reached at bpd2114@columbia.edu.