With supposed friends in Europe and the UN eager to blame Israel for the terrorist acts of Hamas and Hezbollah, it is my duty to speak out in Israel’s defense.
There are very few things that will animate anti-Semites more than someone with a Jewish-sounding last name who writes an article defending Israel.
Take my word for it. I know of what I write. You should see the e-mails that I receive when I write an article defending Israel.
Just about the nicest thing said in these dispatches is that I am biased. Given the objections these correspondents have to my surname it’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
But the accusation of bias isn’t confined to garden variety bigots. It is a criticism to which I am subject even when discussing Israel amongst friends and acquaintances who don’t have a bone of hatred in their body.
I recall one phone conversation that took place several years ago. I was talking with a woman I have known since childhood. Somehow in the midst of reminiscing and catching up on the present the subject of Israel came up. After making what I thought were some salient points about the travails of the Jewish state, she asked me so sweetly, “Aren’t you being biased, Aaron?”
Again, I do not believe that her intent was malicious. Her knowledge of Israel was limited to what she saw on the television news (much of it not very good) and it was clear to me that she had not thought her question through. Nonetheless that question disturbed me then and disturbs me now.
What disturbs me is that the logical conclusion of that question is in order for a Jew to comment on Israel in public or otherwise without being accused of bias, a Jew must take the Noam Chomsky or Richard Cohen position on Israel and denounce it. Chomsky has long called for the dissolution of the Jewish state while Cohen, writing in the Washington Post earlier this week, asked if the establishment of the State of Israel was “a mistake.”
Do Jews who speak up for Israel not count in the public discourse? Are our voices not to be heeded because we act in our own self-interest?
To answer these questions I must answer the question of friends and the accusations of foes alike. Yes, I am biased in favor of Israel and I will not apologize for it.
In the oft quoted question of Rabbi Hillel, “If I am not for myself then who is for me?”
Put another way, if I do not speak up for myself how can I expect anyone else to do so? A clever person might counter with another of Hillel’s questions. “If I am only for myself then what am I?” But in order to ask that question, one must first be prepared to acknowledge that every one of us, first and foremost, acts in our own interests, be those interests individual, familial, religious and towards the place we call home. To deny this is to deny that we need food and shelter. Anyone who claims not to act in his own self-interest is someone who ought not to be taken seriously. At best such a person is naïve in the ways of the world. At worst such a person is suicidal. All rational persons act in their own self-interest. Why should Jews and Jews alone be excluded and exempt from this all too natural human behavior?
I speak out in favor of Israel because it is the Jewish homeland. A homeland created out of necessity. A homeland created because the nations of the world did not want Jews living in their lands or at the very least did not want very many of us around. A homeland that in less than six decades has made enormous contributions in science, medicine, agriculture, military strategy and in the arts that have benefited not only itself but the rest of the world. So much for the argument that we are only for ourselves.
It is a homeland that has functioned as a democratic society with political parties for every ideological inclination, regular elections, a working government, a free press and an independent judiciary. It is the sort of homeland where I would be welcome if the necessity arose. It is unlikely that such a necessity will ever arise but having such an option at my disposal is comforting to say the very least.
My sense of comfort exists despite the very real threats Israel faces both externally and internally, threats Israel has always faced and probably always will. As a Jew, I believe it is my duty to do my part to speak up for Israel in good times and in bad. These are bad times, with the dual threat of Hamas and Hezbollah (with Iran and Syria pulling the strings). With supposed friends in Europe and the UN eager to blame Israel for the terrorist acts of Hamas and Hezbollah, it is my duty to speak out in Israel’s defense. With Jews in Name Only (JINOs if you will) who view themselves as socialists and citizens of the world first and believe Israel worthy only of condemnation, it is my duty to recite the virtues of Israel. It is also my duty to loudly proclaim that JINOs like Noam Chomsky and Richard Cohen do not speak for me.
So go ahead. Call me biased. I would rather be biased and live to tell about it.
Everyone is biased. I would not trust anyone who said that they weren’t.
Aaron, your absolutely right an individual from any other religious faction would eagerly defend his religion or people. Sadly though, Jews have a knack for defending their enemies rather than their own. I applaud your courage to stand up for what you believe even in the face of staunch disagreement.
It’s a non-issue for me and I believe these types of responses are typical today in that there is not a whole lot of logical thinking. What’s being said? Does it make sense? Is there enough information to change my mind about something? I don’t think anyone writes anything without a bias or at least a hypothesis to begin with.
Christians get a lot of that too. That’s the basis for the argument that if someone is religious then he should exclude himself from politics for example. That refutation is a non-sequitor as are most of the arguments, or rather techniques, as presented by the left.
We’re living in a day and age where most information we get (media presentation in order to form a positive conclusion) cannot be presented plainly. No one in their right mind, or who is not going to directly benefit in some way, would embrace the true end of what the left proposes. They’re in the habit of presenting their side deceptively, and that’s most of what we hear from the media.
‘Yea, but you’re biased’ comes from those who are biased although sometimes that may be heard downstream from the source, but the argument itself is purely deceptive.
We must not abandon, as JP II has said, “..Our Elder Brother..”
Until a recent dinner party I attended, I would not have appreciated your article. A man from Greece explained that he could see no difference between the US support of Israel and Iranian support of Hezbollah.
Chaim Potok hinted at a division among Jews in his novel, The Chosen, this Jewish rift between zionist and diaspora and non zionists I believe. Would some Jews backstab their Israeli bretheren because of this? Honest question because I am not Jewish and just have read about some divisions that existed before and after WWII concerning the creation of Israel.
Dean,
Backstab is not the right word to use here, though it seems so. There are Jews who fervently believe Israel should never have been created. Some, like Chomsky, are socialists who are revolted by their own Jewishness, yet cling to it all the same while espousing a world without such distinctions and who see Jewish safety in obliterating them. Chomsky rails against Jews for clinging to our Jewishness, then tells us how we ought to behave as Jews.
Many ultra-orthodox Jews insist it is contrary to divine will for Israel to exist; that it is not yet time for that, and, therefore, an abomination. Yet many ultra-orthodox moved to Israel as soon as it was created so as to take control of the theo-political formation of Israel, a nation they say should not even exist. Most of these are ambivalent about Israel, believing it a digression from Jewish destiny. Without them, Israel would have been organized entirely by Zionists, many of whom were socialists, syndicalists, secularists, and atheists; with results very different from what Israel has become. They (or their descendents) are on either side of the ‘land for peace’ controversy; and although many still feel Israel lacks legitimacy, defend her against Muslims and the rest of the world out to destroy her.
Then there are the media liberals, like Richard Cohen, who live in America or Europe and think of themselves as Americans or Europeans first and last, and as Jews only in the context of the pluralistic societies to which they belong. To them, Israel is another country not unlike the way most Americans view the countries from which they are sprung. An American of English descent does not automatically fly to the defense of the British, and neither do those like Cohen fly to the defense of Israel. Unlike other Americans, however, Cohen is a member of a tiny, close-knit, ethnic minority that was very nearly obliterated from the face of the Earth; and for whom there is only one country he has any certainty will shelter him and his children should such a thing re-occur. The name “Cohen” has special meaning of ‘priests’ entrusted with preserving Jewish religious knowledge and values; and indirectly for the preservation of a people. Cohen must be aware of this special status and the obligation it places in him. In this sense, Richard Cohen’s denunciation of Israel may well be regarded by some Jews as betrayal as they also see Israel as the greatest surity for preserving that heritage.
Every Jew knows other Jews living in Israel. Many of us have family there, so what happens in Israel has immediacy. We are supportive of Israel-the-People, even when critical of Israel-the-Nation. Thus, it is often hard to separate our political propositions from our familial concerns. Even someone like Chomsky must be regarded as having concerns for what happens there, even when he is absolutely wrong on what should be done.
There are others too, but all of them have in common some conviction that makes it (at least in their minds) a non-betrayal of their people. This is not unlike conservatives and liberals in America who individually believe it is the other who has betrayed the original intent of the Constitution or the actions of the other as treason either to country or world. Conservatives believe liberals defending terrorists and monsters like Saddam Hussein are traitors who risk country and the lives of soldiers protecting us. Liberals, just as fervently, believe conservatives risk country and the lives of innocents when we take the fight back to these monsters or pass security provisions they think too draconian. This is why I tend to go easy on most liberals as simply soft-headed or irrational, rather than traitorous or betraying. Real treason involves a deliberate intention to inflict harm. These people think they are saving us.
Aaron,
Regarding the accusations of bias made by well meaning friends. I have found that when people resort to such a riposte, it is because I have said something that is perfectly reasonable to me, but puts them in the position of having to choose sides. Maybe they have Muslim friends or friends who are unfriendly toward Israel whom they don’t want to offend. Very often, they have formed no real opinion of their own (even when they should have). These other friends don’t have to be physically present for them to feel discomfited by the position we’ve put them in, because to take sides is to betray one or the other.
It is our job to point out it is those other friends who need to defend their anti-Israel or anti-Semite feelings, not us. Failing that, we have to decide if these are really friends. Jews who went to the ovens had many such friends, and they would not stand with us. They are not to be despised, but are not to be counted on either.
Someone asks me if I am biased, I tell them “I most certainly am, and so are you”. When they protest, “Why am I biased?”, I say because they are defending the biases of others against me. Then, it’s their turn to weasel out of it!
I am certainly and unashamedly biased toward Israel. I do not apologise
for my bias, nor do I care about the opposition. Most people cheer for
football teams, I cheer for the Jewish state.
My reaction to accusation of bias is “So what?”
Does my “bias” change any facts that I quote?
Does my “bias” make someone else better? Or worse? How?
If you think I’m biased, does that mean that you think I am lying when I say something? If that is the case, then say it.
The accusation of bias means that the accuser doesn’t have facts to argue with and is resorting to an ad hominen attack. The logical part of the conversation is over.