J Street and Jewish state’s future

It’s hard to see fellow Jews advocate for the end of Israel. Harder yet to see such claims dishonestly veiled as Zionism and being “pro-Israel.”

Yet, J Street advisory council member Marcia Freedman said just that. She is suggesting that if Israel perfects its democracy to the point where minorities are completely protected, then thinking about an end of Israel as a state and instead as a homeland — a place for Jews to find refuge as a protected minority, living amongst a Palestinian Arab majority — is fine.

Her words: “If we think about Zionism as an attempt to create a homeland for the Jewish people, rather than a Jewish state, we have a lot of space in which to think about Zionism, we have a lot of space in which to think about what this country of Israel ought to look like, in particular with respect to the Palestinians from whom we took the land.

“And I think that’s another thing that we have to understand and keep in mind, always, that we took this land and we displaced a people who are now struggling for their place in the world and we are now opposing them.”

To think that it is acceptable to put forth such a simplistic and patently false narrative, without such demonization of Israel being contested, but rather accepted and, to boot, to a round of applause, is truly disturbing. Yet again, this is precisely what took place at the recent J Street conference.

Our fellow Jews at J Street may have good intentions, but I do worry about their extremist position that can seriously damage the wellbeing of Israel, and as far as I am concerned already has.

I believe in the Talmudic style of debating differing points of view. It is healthy, important and interesting. But when such discussions have pragmatic, real life, possibly even suicidal consequences for the Jewish people, it is not the time to focus on the value of increasing the spectrum of Israel-centered discourse, but rather on refocusing on doing what is safe and responsible in advocating for Israel in the world.