Home > Uncategorized > What’s Really Best for Israel?

What’s Really Best for Israel?

by Rabbi Michael Lerner

WashingtonsBlog (May 29 2016)

The New York Times has consistently turned its news’ pages into the loudest cheerleader for Hillary Clinton’s bid for the nomination. If mentioned at all, they bury deep in their paper, Bernie Sanders’s primary wins. So it’s no surprise that when Sanders won permission to appoint five of the fifteen members of the Platform Committee of the Democratic Party Convention, the Times made the story focus on the possibility that two of these appointees, James Zogby and Cornel West, would turn the convention into a debate about US policy towards Israel, and thereby weaken Clinton’s capacity to fight off Donald Trump in the general election.

The Times ignored the important appointment of Congressman Keith Ellison, a leader of the Congress’ Progressive Caucus, a supporter of social justice for middle income people and the poor, universal healthcare and a $15 minimum wage, and an opponent of Obama’s use of drones; Rebecca Parker, vice chair of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington State, who is likely to emphasize rights for indigenous peoples and criminal justice reform; and Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org who is likely to push for a tax on carbons and other aggressive policies to save the planet’s life-support system.

To turn the discussion solely to Israel, and suggest that somehow Sanders’s very mild call for an even-handed policy that took into account the needs of the Palestinian people, is a threat to Israel’s existence is irresponsible and ludicrous.

As if not to be undone by The Times, Jane Eisner, editor of the center/right Jewish Forward magazine, issued a statement that insisted that Sanders unveil a full plan for how to achieve peace in Israel and Palestine. Clinton’s plan has been to give 100 percent unconditional support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Eisner knows that some of her readers might have doubts about the wisdom pursuing Obama’s legacy, which only recently included a ten-year military aid package (larger than any the US has ever given to any country). This agreement was reached even after Netanyahu rejected every attempt by the US and Western countries to push him to stop expanding West Bank settlements and end the Occupation. Why does Eisner not call on Hillary Clinton to similarly state what her full plan is for achieving peace?

Eisner worries about a recent Pew poll which shows that the share of liberal Democrats who side more with Palestinians than with Israel has nearly doubled since 2014 – to forty percent from 21 percent – and is higher than at any point dating back to 2001. Only thirty percent of liberals say they side more with Israelis.

But she misses what most center/right apologists for Israel always ignore: that the decreasing support for Israel among liberals is not a product of some irrational hatred of Jews, but rather of the growing recognition that Israel’s oppressive policies toward Palestinians (soon to enter its 49th anniversary of the Occupation) and its denial to them of the same rights for self-determination that we Jews rightly fought for ourselves in creating the State of Israel, is generating a worldwide anger at the Jewish people that is bad for Israel and bad for Jews everywhere.

What those of us who want to see Israel achieve security while returning to the Jewish value articulated frequently in the Torah: “You shall love the Stranger/Other, and remember that you were strangers/others in the land of Egypt”. In this respect, Bernie Sanders is closer to this traditional Jewish value than any of the other candidates, and his approach is far better for the Jewish people and for the future security of the State of Israel.

The Netanyahu government may be able to hold on by force and by endlessly scaring the Israeli people, aided by Netanyahu’s de facto best ally, Hamas, which obligingly digs tunnels or sends bombs to Israel so as to head off any support the Israeli peace movement and the moderates of the Palestinian Authority might be gaining.

Pushing Israel to negotiate a sustainable peace arrangement that would grant Palestinians an economically and politically viable state is the only path toward a sustainable peace, and Sanders’s rather temperate remarks indicate a willingness to push Israel and Palestine both in this direction.

Tikkun and our education arm the Network of Spiritual Progressives are non-profits that do not endorse any candidate. And if we did endorse, like most progressives we’d have many other issues to consider besides a candidate’s stand on Israel/Palestine:

* Saving the earth’s life-support system, switching the US foreign policy from a strategy to achieve “homeland security” through military, economic, cultural and diplomatic domination of the world to a strategy of generosity as provided in our proposed Global Marshall Plan http://www.tikkun.org/gmp (introduced into Congress by Keith Ellison),

* A guaranteed living wage (not a “minimum wage”) and guaranteed income and guaranteed health care for all,

* Requiring corporations with incomes over $50 million per year to prove a satisfactory history of environmental and social responsibility every five years (see our ESRA – Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the US Constitution at http://www.tikkun.org/esra)

Those issues would be some of what we’d be looking for.

Advocacy for a New Bottom Line to judge corporations, government policies, our education system, our legal system and our economic system as rational, productive and efficient not only to the extent that they maximize money and power (the OLD Bottom Line) but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, kindness and generosity, environmental and ethical responsibility, and enhance our capacities to respond to others as embodiments of the sacred and respond to the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement – these are what spiritual progressives would be seeking were they to endorse a candidate.

It is not obvious that anyone, even Green Party candidate Jill Stein, is ready to put forward this kind of a spiritual progressive agenda.

But we will not remain silent when manipulative and unscrupulous political candidates, and their allies in The New York Times, the Jewish Forward, and the Israeli Lobby, play fast and loose with Israel’s future and the well-being of the Jewish people globally, in order to gain short-term electoral advantage with right-wing American Jews and their Christian Zionist allies. Shame on them.


Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine, chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in Berkeley, California and author of eleven books.


Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: