Politics and Policy Archive

Welcome to Politics and Policy where you will find the latest thoughts and reflections by CLAL faculty and associates on the important political and public policy questions facing us as Jews and as Americans living in the ever more interdependent global village of today. Every other week you will find a new article on this page.

To access the Politics and Policy Archive, click here.

Our authors are especially interested in hearing your responses to what they have written. So after reading, visit the Politics and Policy Discussion Forum where you can join in conversation with CLAL faculty and other readers.

To join the conversation at Politics and Policy Talk, click here

Context and Critique: A Closer Look at Greenberg's "Offensive" Speech

By David Kraemer

As a matter of communal policy, what should our position be concerning criticism of Israel? Should we insist that any criticism of Israel is "anti-Israel" or even "anti-Semitic?" Or should we allow criticism when the critic speaks in good faith, in a way that is both caring and balanced? The former, it seems to me, is the position of the self-appointed Zionist protectors of Israel's honor who castigated Yitz Greenberg for his comments at the G.A. in November. But the latter is the only ethical policy our community can support. It is those who spoke against Yitz, I would claim, who are the enemies of Zion, for they fail to understand that Zion without Jewish values is not Zion at all.

As I reviewed the transcript of Yitz's talk, the most "offensive" words I could find were these: "It is entirely possible, in my judgment, that they [Israeli police forces in the Galilee] overreacted, and that in the overreaction killed people unnecessarily, and as a serious violation of the Jewish ethic of power." Now, I admit that these are critical words. But they are offered in a larger context-one in which Yitz asks what a Jewish ("covenantal") exercise of power would mean. Yitz's answer to this question is long and, in the way of oral addresses, rambling, but it is also thoughtful and carefully nuanced. Among the suggestions Yitz makes are these: ·

"Jewish power is never self-validating, so we have to sit in continual judgment upon ourselves." · ·

"Given what cannot be changed… given the evil that cannot be avoided, there is still some best possible or least evil way of exercising power." · ·

"You have a continuous process of correction." ·

Each of these criteria emerges from long Jewish traditions of prophetic critique and rabbinic questioning. Without these traditions, there would have been no Jews longing for Zion and no Jewish competitors for the land they call Palestine.

So Yitz's critique asks what could be better given what cannot be. He recognizes that no exercise of power should be exempt from examination and critique, and he admits that errors will be made. The way to respond to these realities is, as he says, to have a continuous process of correction. In fact, in the section following the critique quoted above, Yitz praises Israel for offering a model in this regard, for a commission has already been created to investigate the shootings of Israeli Arabs. In other words, Israel has the ethical sense-and the procedures in place-to exercise power "covenantally." Since all governments will err in the exercise of power from time to time, this can only be understood as high praise for Israel, for she goes one step further than most.

Another crucial component in Israel's "continuous process of correction" is her free press. And as anyone who followed that press in the weeks after the shooting knows, there were many Israeli voices that were far more critical of the shootings than was Yitz. Thank God, Israel doesn't have to depend on outsiders to express the ethical critiques. Her own citizens assume this responsibility on their own. But this doesn't mean that diaspora Jews such as Yitz should keep their mouths shut. The world Jewish community must also hear the critical, ethical voice. Otherwise, their ethical sensibilities would be dulled, and this too would be a tragedy.

So the claim that Yitz's comments were anti-Israel is simply absurd. But this absurdity highlights an important problem in the American Jewish dialogue. Questions about Israel have too often been derided as "anti-Israel," and spokespeople who disagree with "you" (whoever "you" are) have too often been castigated as enemies or worse. These tendencies are destructive to the fabric of our community conversation, and they must change. As a matter of course, we should assume that those who disagree with us are thoughtful, caring members of the community, whose disagreement emerges from a different judgment from our own. We should listen carefully to those who disagree because they may have something to teach us, no matter how much we believe their conclusions to be wrong. And we should assume that critics are motivated by the ethic of covenantal self-correction. They question because they care, and we must hear the wisdom in their questions.

What should the community's position be? Let the critics multiply! Caring critics will bring us closer to the world we all seek. Those who seek to stifle their voices are unfortunate impediments.

[Click here to read transcript of Greenberg's November talk at the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities]