I spent Sunday through Tuesday at the AIPAC national policy conference. AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – was founded in 1963. Its stated mission is “to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.”
I’d like to share some highlights from my perspective along with some of the challenges I experienced as a participant. Using my reactions as a guidepost, I hope to reflect on how each of us might navigate when it comes to our own social and political views and our relationship to Israel. Ultimately I hope to suggest how established institutions like AIPAC can support engagement that is deeper and, ultimately, more effective for America and Israel.
First the highlights. There were roughly 18,000 people at the conference.
Approximately 1000 rabbis attended.
Approximately 4000 college students attended.
The student presidents of approximately 150 colleges and universities were there, including 50 student presidents of historically black colleges.
Major speakers included VP Mike Pence, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, PM Netanyahu (via satellite) and Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog.
By far the most well-received speaker was Nikki Haley. Daughter of Indian immigrants, former governor of South Carolina, she received multiple standing ovations as she described how she has begun to oppose the deep-seated anti-Israel bias in the United Nations.
Her successful efforts so far include convincing the Secretary General to pull the Falk report accusing Israel of being an apartheid state.
Haley was quite charismatic but what impressed the crowd most was that she has already begun, successfully, to take action against anti-Israel bias at the UN.
Other highlights for me included the rabbinic programs, among which I would single out a particularly good session for the Rabbinical Assembly with Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.
It was exciting to see the degree of support for Israel among thousands of people. As someone who was in Israel during the Gaza War in 2014, I remember experiencing the impact of Iron Dome, the rocket interception system for which AIPAC’s advocacy has helped ensure funding. AIPAC’s advocacy has indeed been, and remains, remarkably significant in helping to advance Israel’s security. I have been, and continue to be, grateful for this advocacy.
But there were aspects of the event that I found challenging and I want to share them because honesty often leads to a better outcome. And when it comes to Israel, and especially the relationship that the younger generation has to Israel, we need to ensure the best outcome possible.
The challenges for me center around two areas.
The first challenge has to do with issues of policy that may or may not be directly connected to Israel. Many of the politicians speaking, leaders in the current administration, are advocating for policies that I find deeply troubling, policies that I believe undermine equality and opportunity for all Americans and for those who seek to become Americans.
How do you navigate your response when leaders who are supportive of Israel advocate for policies relating to gender, education, health care and environment that you find problematic to say the least?
My brief recommendation is that we keep our eyes and ears open and choose a path that we can defend. That path may include, for example, expressing gratitude to leaders for supporting Israel while, at the same time, continuing to advocate for those issues that we believe to express our deepest moral values as American Jews.
I'm not sure what role AIPAC leadership envisions when it comes to helping American Jews navigate support for Israel in the context of the whole array of issues that matter to us politically, socially and morally. But I do believe that this navigation is more crucial now than ever and requires deep and focused attention.
The second area of challenge has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and its implications for the whole conversation. There were protests during much of the AIPAC conference that resulted in security measures to block off the main entrance to the conference center. The protestors were protesting Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Inside the AIPAC conference there was a range of ideological opinions presented that included, on the left, my self-described progressive colleague Rabbi Menachem Creditor. AIPAC, to its credit, has sought to include progressive rabbis and to elicit their participation in leading sessions. My question is, to what extent is that participation shaping AIPAC's mission and policies?
The major applause lines, as I observed especially at the large gatherings, are not about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they are not about working toward peace. The main thrust of the conference, AIPAC’s raison d’etre, based on my observation, does not give sufficient emphasis to the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a moral and political issue which also has significant repercussions for Israel’s security.
We dare not ignore or patronize the protestors. Many of them grew up in synagogues across the country, went through religious schools and day schools and are active in their respective Jewish communities. Given who they are, and given that there is at least some legitimacy to their protest, we can’t afford to dismiss them or their views.
And even if there were no protestors, we don’t have the luxury of consigning the Israeli-Palestinian relationship to the nether reaches of our to-do list.
What I want to see happen is a deepening of conversation between those who were outside protesting and those who were inside. I mean that substantively and literally. Why not invite both parties to an honest exploration of the various dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what blame both sides bear, what reasonable pathways forward might look like?
In our educational programs here at Temple Israel I call for “high resolution,” a term and concept initiated by the Israel educational organization, Makom.
"High resolution" meaning a full, deep exploration of the issues. Rather than “here’s why we’re right and they’re wrong.” Because that’s too simple and our children are too smart. And the people involved – Israelis and Palestinians alike - deserve better.
We need to nurture in each generation the capacity to navigate current realities with the deepest understanding possible.
This morning we dove into Book 3 of the Torah, ספר ויקרא, the book of Leviticus. I was thinking about Leviticus in the context of the thinking of Professor Jonathan Haidt of NYU.
Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Righteous Mind, distinguishes between right-wing, conservative, thinking and left-wing, liberal thinking.
He writes how conservatives tend to focus on purity and loyalty and liberals tend to focus on equality and justice. A generalization to be sure, but not without basis.
Leaving aside the question of intentionality, I find it interesting that the Book of Leviticus has something profound to offer conservatives and liberals alike.
Purity and loyalty are key elements. Here’s how you need to dress, to behave, to set boundaries. והבדלתם בין הטהור ובין הטמא. Distinguish between pure and impure. Leviticus.
But so are equality and justice. You may not take advantage of the deaf or the poor. לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. Don't put a stumbling block in front of the blind. Also Leviticus.
What Jews continue to discover in the United States is that there is danger on the right and danger on the left.
The danger on the right comes when we discover that some conservatives, surely not all, don’t see us as quite fitting into their narrative of loyalty and purity.
The danger on the left comes as we discover that some liberals, surely not all, will accuse Israel of perpetuating injustice and inequality in ways that are exaggerated, biased or both.
The AIPAC conference reinforced for me how important it is that we keep our eyes open, that we strive to understand domestic and international situations as deeply as possible, and that we be willing (as I’ve said over and over) to speak with people with whom we disagree.
I’m glad I went. I’m grateful to AIPAC for all it does. I wish the tent and the conversation could be widened even further. With appreciation for the depth of analysis that I saw in the smaller sessions, I'd like to see that extended to the larger plenums.
I commit, and I ask us all to commit, to high resolution, deep understanding and deep conversation among people of different ages, backgrounds and perspectives. So that together we can advocate for all that Israel needs and all that America needs.
So that together we can channel the highest American and Jewish values and help bring blessing to Israel, America and the world.
Originally shared with the Temple Israel of Great Neck community on April 1, 2017
I’d like to share some highlights from my perspective along with some of the challenges I experienced as a participant. Using my reactions as a guidepost, I hope to reflect on how each of us might navigate when it comes to our own social and political views and our relationship to Israel. Ultimately I hope to suggest how established institutions like AIPAC can support engagement that is deeper and, ultimately, more effective for America and Israel.
Panel on "Shifting Landscapes: Israel and the African American Community", AIPAC Policy Conference 2017
First the highlights. There were roughly 18,000 people at the conference.
Approximately 1000 rabbis attended.
Approximately 4000 college students attended.
The student presidents of approximately 150 colleges and universities were there, including 50 student presidents of historically black colleges.
Major speakers included VP Mike Pence, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, PM Netanyahu (via satellite) and Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog.
By far the most well-received speaker was Nikki Haley. Daughter of Indian immigrants, former governor of South Carolina, she received multiple standing ovations as she described how she has begun to oppose the deep-seated anti-Israel bias in the United Nations.
Her successful efforts so far include convincing the Secretary General to pull the Falk report accusing Israel of being an apartheid state.
Haley was quite charismatic but what impressed the crowd most was that she has already begun, successfully, to take action against anti-Israel bias at the UN.
Other highlights for me included the rabbinic programs, among which I would single out a particularly good session for the Rabbinical Assembly with Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens.
It was exciting to see the degree of support for Israel among thousands of people. As someone who was in Israel during the Gaza War in 2014, I remember experiencing the impact of Iron Dome, the rocket interception system for which AIPAC’s advocacy has helped ensure funding. AIPAC’s advocacy has indeed been, and remains, remarkably significant in helping to advance Israel’s security. I have been, and continue to be, grateful for this advocacy.
But there were aspects of the event that I found challenging and I want to share them because honesty often leads to a better outcome. And when it comes to Israel, and especially the relationship that the younger generation has to Israel, we need to ensure the best outcome possible.
The challenges for me center around two areas.
The first challenge has to do with issues of policy that may or may not be directly connected to Israel. Many of the politicians speaking, leaders in the current administration, are advocating for policies that I find deeply troubling, policies that I believe undermine equality and opportunity for all Americans and for those who seek to become Americans.
How do you navigate your response when leaders who are supportive of Israel advocate for policies relating to gender, education, health care and environment that you find problematic to say the least?
My brief recommendation is that we keep our eyes and ears open and choose a path that we can defend. That path may include, for example, expressing gratitude to leaders for supporting Israel while, at the same time, continuing to advocate for those issues that we believe to express our deepest moral values as American Jews.
I'm not sure what role AIPAC leadership envisions when it comes to helping American Jews navigate support for Israel in the context of the whole array of issues that matter to us politically, socially and morally. But I do believe that this navigation is more crucial now than ever and requires deep and focused attention.
The second area of challenge has to do with the Israeli-Palestinian relationship and its implications for the whole conversation. There were protests during much of the AIPAC conference that resulted in security measures to block off the main entrance to the conference center. The protestors were protesting Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.
Inside the AIPAC conference there was a range of ideological opinions presented that included, on the left, my self-described progressive colleague Rabbi Menachem Creditor. AIPAC, to its credit, has sought to include progressive rabbis and to elicit their participation in leading sessions. My question is, to what extent is that participation shaping AIPAC's mission and policies?
The major applause lines, as I observed especially at the large gatherings, are not about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they are not about working toward peace. The main thrust of the conference, AIPAC’s raison d’etre, based on my observation, does not give sufficient emphasis to the importance of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a moral and political issue which also has significant repercussions for Israel’s security.
We dare not ignore or patronize the protestors. Many of them grew up in synagogues across the country, went through religious schools and day schools and are active in their respective Jewish communities. Given who they are, and given that there is at least some legitimacy to their protest, we can’t afford to dismiss them or their views.
And even if there were no protestors, we don’t have the luxury of consigning the Israeli-Palestinian relationship to the nether reaches of our to-do list.
What I want to see happen is a deepening of conversation between those who were outside protesting and those who were inside. I mean that substantively and literally. Why not invite both parties to an honest exploration of the various dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what blame both sides bear, what reasonable pathways forward might look like?
In our educational programs here at Temple Israel I call for “high resolution,” a term and concept initiated by the Israel educational organization, Makom.
"High resolution" meaning a full, deep exploration of the issues. Rather than “here’s why we’re right and they’re wrong.” Because that’s too simple and our children are too smart. And the people involved – Israelis and Palestinians alike - deserve better.
We need to nurture in each generation the capacity to navigate current realities with the deepest understanding possible.
This morning we dove into Book 3 of the Torah, ספר ויקרא, the book of Leviticus. I was thinking about Leviticus in the context of the thinking of Professor Jonathan Haidt of NYU.
Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Righteous Mind, distinguishes between right-wing, conservative, thinking and left-wing, liberal thinking.
He writes how conservatives tend to focus on purity and loyalty and liberals tend to focus on equality and justice. A generalization to be sure, but not without basis.
Leaving aside the question of intentionality, I find it interesting that the Book of Leviticus has something profound to offer conservatives and liberals alike.
Purity and loyalty are key elements. Here’s how you need to dress, to behave, to set boundaries. והבדלתם בין הטהור ובין הטמא. Distinguish between pure and impure. Leviticus.
But so are equality and justice. You may not take advantage of the deaf or the poor. לפני עור לא תתן מכשול. Don't put a stumbling block in front of the blind. Also Leviticus.
What Jews continue to discover in the United States is that there is danger on the right and danger on the left.
The danger on the right comes when we discover that some conservatives, surely not all, don’t see us as quite fitting into their narrative of loyalty and purity.
The danger on the left comes as we discover that some liberals, surely not all, will accuse Israel of perpetuating injustice and inequality in ways that are exaggerated, biased or both.
The AIPAC conference reinforced for me how important it is that we keep our eyes open, that we strive to understand domestic and international situations as deeply as possible, and that we be willing (as I’ve said over and over) to speak with people with whom we disagree.
I’m glad I went. I’m grateful to AIPAC for all it does. I wish the tent and the conversation could be widened even further. With appreciation for the depth of analysis that I saw in the smaller sessions, I'd like to see that extended to the larger plenums.
I commit, and I ask us all to commit, to high resolution, deep understanding and deep conversation among people of different ages, backgrounds and perspectives. So that together we can advocate for all that Israel needs and all that America needs.
So that together we can channel the highest American and Jewish values and help bring blessing to Israel, America and the world.
Originally shared with the Temple Israel of Great Neck community on April 1, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment