Israel has not voted for any of the parties. It did not vote for any of the ideologies. It did not vote for something – but rather against: those voting for Livni voted against Likud’s Binyamin Netanyahu. Those voting for Israel Beiteinu and Avigdor Lieberman voted against the ruling elites.

But they also voted against the political system. Lieberman made a name for himself as the scary candidate promising to change the relations between Jews and Arabs in Israel. However, Lieberman has many other important items on his agenda and one of them is the need to change the system and give the Prime Minister more power (those fearing him tremble when they think of the prospect of a more powerful Prime Minister Lieberman). This longstanding desire for system change is the tempting promise Kadima is now dangling in the hope that Lieberman might grab the achievement he can get – the achievement he’ll be able to take credit for.

The speakers of Kadima have a simple message to Lieberman: with Kadima and Labor you can have this success – with Netanyahu you can’t. Netanyahu, they say, is committed to other parties, namely, the religious parties, and will not be able to implement such change. One Kadima Minister went even further, suggesting that Lieberman join the coalition until this change is completed, and promised that another election round will be scheduled when this is done.

Labor’s Ehud Barak also dedicated a significant portion of his election night speech to the need to better the system. Of course, that’s a more understandable position when it comes from a losing party. Yet again, Kadima and Lieberman, both on the winning side of this day also sing the same tune – and I think they will have another important supporter: the public.

The post What Today’s Election Means appeared first on Jewcy.

In 1978, when he was 20, Mr. Lieberman immigrated to Israel from Moldova, then a Soviet republic, and he lives in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank. Popular with the country’s so-called Russian vote, he is vocal about the threat from Iran and advocates swapping areas of Israel that are heavily populated by Arab citizens for parts of the West Bank that are populated by Israeli Jews.

A timely appearance as Lieberman and his colleagues, according to all polls, are now the hottest political commodity in Israel’s politics. But while Lieberman’s policies and their impact on Israel and its relations with its neighbors are now extensively discussed in Israel and beyond, there’s also a "Jewish angle" to be taken into account. That is — Lieberman as the "great alienator". His rise might give even more credence to claims that Israeli Jews and American Jews are growing apart, and might help accelerate trends already in play in these complicated Israel-Diaspora relations.

It is an open secret that liberal American Jews have turned their attention in growing numbers to the plight of Israeli Arabs, and are now contributing more than ever to causes related to the advancement of this minority within Israel. Almost two years ago, I wrote about dilemmas emanating from this strange alliance of American Jews and Israeli Arabs:

Thirty percent of the money the NIF distributes is channeled to activities aimed at promoting the Arabs of Israel, to raise them to an equal status. This is a central part of the important objective of "a Jewish and democratic state." This is also a significant matter for the American Jewish community, which is a minority itself. 

And while there were some setbacks along the way, allocating money to better the relations of Jewish and Muslim citizens of Israel has remained one of the more popular causes for American Jewish funders. It is also an issue many American Jews identify as a moral cause, and has the potential of making them less comfortable with Israel’s society and culture.

Enter Lieberman: if polls are correct, what American Jews will see in Israel is the growing power of a party seen by most of them — rightly or wrongly — as racist toward Arab citizens. Lieberma’s platform, of course, is more nuanced and complicated than just being "racist" (which he claims it isn’t). Nevertheless, I can hardly envision a narrative that will not make Lieberma’s political achievement a nuisance and an embarrassment to the average American Jew. Thus, the stage is set for yet another show of differences:

American Jews will wonder about the nature and the morality of the "Jewish state".

Israeli Jews — if they even notice American reluctance — will look at their American brothers thinking that their simplistic naiveté makes prevents them from understanding Israel’s tough reality.

The post Avigdor Lieberman’s Rise (And What It Means for Disapora Jewry) appeared first on Jewcy.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds.  And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

I don’t think many serious people will argue that doing good for the world is, well, good. That feeding the hungry, if possible, is desirable. It is also not a novelty to espouse the Wilsonian message of the need not to be indifferent “to suffering outside our borders” (it’s called “Wilsonian” for a reason).

But I’d like to take issue with the last sentence of this paragraph, because I think that at the end of the day it all comes down to this: has the world really changed? And if it did, how?

Obama didn’t elaborate on this “change” assertions – he similarly avoided explaining his message of “change” during the campaign. It is essential to understand what kind of change Obama sees in the world, since he builds around it his call for America “to change with it”. How can one adapt oneself to changes around the world, when one doesn’t understand how the world has changed?

Like many leaders before him, Obama crafted a message to the crowds, and like many before him he tends to see the world as if everything has started afresh when he was elected. The world has changed when the first Bush was in office (end of the Soviet Empire). It has changed under Clinton (the internet), it has changed under the second Bush (9/11) – and going backwards we can easily find changes in every term of every president. Some bigger changes, some smaller changes. We see them as they happen, and we try to figure out what impact they will have in the future, and we try to adapt accordingly, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.

The problem I have with Obama’s message is that I don’t know what change in the world he talks about. It must be something new – otherwise, why would Obama bother talking about things that we already know. And it must be something related to changes in other countries that also require change in American behavior – that’s the whole point of mentioning it.

I can try and guess what he means: maybe it’s really the war on terror, and his assumption that making the world safer will only be possible if other nations are more prosperous and less hungry. This is also an idea as old as the American republic – almost a cliché – and it’s also a matter for debate: it is not really clear whether prosperous countries are inherently less dangerous to the world than poor ones. Case in point: Iran. Case in point: Saudi Arabia. Of course, one can also find less well to do environments serving as fertile ground for despair and terror: Somalia, Afghanistan, Gaza, Egypt.

But since both prosperous areas and not-so-prosperous areas serve as launching pad to terrorists and agents of instability, one has to ask oneself if it’s really the hunger, or something else that makes the world dangerous. A reasonable conclusion – also not new – is that the real reason for such diseases is lack of democracy and corrupt leadership or chaotic atmosphere. Gaza – leadership which doesn’t care about the people. Somalia – no leadership. Afghanistan – same. Egypt – autocratic regime. Etc Etc.

And of course, this doesn’t mean that feeding the hungry can’t be an end of itself for many other reasons. Reasons mainly categorized as “idealistic” rather than “pragmatic”. That’s why I always thought that Obama’s message of pragmatic government – Hillary Clinton called it – has limits. As I wrote here:

[A]t the end of January, when the Obama administration has to start making decisions, its pragmatism will only help if there’s a framework of ideas and beliefs guiding it toward the right decisions. It is the pragmatic means that Obama hopes to be able to use–but there also has to be an end.

If Obama’s idealism is one that’s guiding him toward feeding the hungry around the world – I’m all for it. However, the world hasn’t changed in that respect, and if it did, it’s probably for the better: less hungry today than it was yesterday. But if Obama is trying to tell us that feeding the hungry will be the way with which he intends to fight dangerous, bad people – there’s reason to doubt the receipt, and even in these days of justified but rather mind-numbing celebration — also worry about the future.

The post What Change? appeared first on Jewcy.

Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni explained today that "[t]he international community understands that Hamas is an extreme Islamist organization that spreads its hatred in the entire region, which is being supported by Iran. And the international community needs to understand that this is the translation of the right of Israel to defend itself, that there is no other alternative and we are doing what we need to do in order to defend our citizens."

But does it really understand?

The much admired President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy – no doubt a better friend to Israel than his predecessors, and someone who does understand the need to fight against terror – has called today for "an immediate stop to the firing of rockets on Israel and to the Israeli bombings in Gaza and calls for all parties to use restraint." The not-as-much admired British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has said: "I am deeply concerned by continuing missile strikes from Gaza on Israel and by Israel’s response today."

To be fair, these statements do show a predisposition by European leaders to "understand" that deterioration was caused by Hamas’ decision to allow – or more accurately orchestrate – rocket fire into Israel. Thus, they preach first for "stop to the firing of rockets" and only then to "Israeli bombings." But one has to wonder: why the mention of Israel? Why the concern about Israel’s legitimate response to the daily rocketing of its civilians? Why only the reviled US administration has the courage and the clarity to respond to the Gaza operation without feeling the need to engage in linguistic acrobatics?

"The United States strongly condemns the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and holds Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence in Gaza," [State Secretary Condoleezza] Rice said.

Middle East complications aside, it is, sometimes, as simple as that.

The post The Two-Sided Argument Over Gaza appeared first on Jewcy.

I have warned them all in advance that there’s going to be a lot of America-oriented material in this course, because these are the topics I’m dealing with on a daily basis. They weren’t quite happy with it — American means reading material in English — but agreed to play along. That is — until they realized that by "America" I often mean "American Jews."

We had a show of hands this past Monday. About 80% of my young, eager to please, enthusiastic, curious, fun-loving Israeli students think American Jews are, well, boring. Not personally boring, just generally so. If they were to decide what to do with them, journalistically speaking, they’d ignore them. And these, mind you, are the journalism students: so, in a short while, some of them will get to decide.

One of them, not long ago, had to write an assignment on some Americans visiting Israel. "It is the most boring piece I’ve ever written," he complained. These visitors were so happy to be in Israel, impressed with its achievement and with its people, so positive. There was nothing to talk about, no questions to ask, no issues to debate. How can one write a piece about such good people?

I asked him to give me the outline of his questioning. It was almost anti-Semitic in nature. All he wants to know — meeting Jews — is about money. How much do they have, how much will they give to Israel, and to what causes, will the financial crisis make them give less, did they give a lot in the past.

This reminded me of an article published last week in the Jerusalem Post — a story detailing the extent to which Israeli media has ignored the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, even though it was taking place in Jerusalem this year:

Coverage in the Hebrew media of the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities, the umbrella body that represents billions of dollars of annual charity donations from hundreds of thousands of North American Jewish households, was generally limited to policy speeches given at the conference by Israeli politicians.

See the problem here?

I think my students, instinctively, do.

The post Israeli Journalism Students Think Americans Jews Are Boring appeared first on Jewcy.

"Israel is not a monopoly of rabbis," the Kadima chairwoman noted. "Israel is a Jewish state, but a Jewish state is not a religious state but mainly a nation-state."

The crowd was quite happy, quite impressed. Is this the beginning of a new era? Look at recent developments concerning conversion:

Cabinet Secretary Ovad Yehezkel, Diaspora Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog and Jewish Agency chairman Ze’ev Bielski, all outgoing as the country goes to elections and Bielski takes a leave of absence to compete in the Kadima primary, said the conversion process was too inflexible and harmed aliya and society.

And this happens as the Jewish Agency has passed a somewhat revolutionary resolution calling on the Israeli government to establish “an independent conversion authority which will facilitate and assist in the conversion process”. No, it will not be an institution free of Orthodox influence. But it will be much more tolerant than its predecessors. And it will be one lead by people who understand the urgent need to reform (even if not Reform) the conversion process.

Why is all this happening now?

Here’s the cynic’s explanation: Livni, for one, is angry with the Haredi Shas Party for refusing to join her coalition and forcing new elections. “Not a monopoly of rabbis” is her way of saying: if I’m Prime Minister, you’re going to lose influence. It’s also her way of telling Israelis: vote for me if you want Haredi influence reduced (implying that a vote for Netanyahu will have the opposite outcome).

But here’s the more profound explanation: Israeli leaders have heard many times that Israel’s conversion process is unacceptable and intolerable as far as the US community is concerned. Heard – and ignored. As often happens, a crisis was needed for the attention to be drawn to the broken conversion system, and this came last May when “High Rabbinical Court of Israel severely censured the head of the country’s Conversion Authority for performing” what they thought was “conversion in a non-kosher way”:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wasn’t happy with the court’s decision: “Conversion in Israel is a national priority”, he said. “I am determined to resolve the current conversion crisis and improve the process of conversion in Israel.” This was a moment in which the truth about conversion crystallized: it’s not the rabbis, but rather the politicians, who make the important decisions. Olmert can’t hide behind a rabbi’s back. Livni can’t. Netanyahu – the leading candidate (by far) to be the next Prime Minister – can’t.

The post Israel Is Not a Monopoly of Rabbis appeared first on Jewcy.

Here’s the list of clichés to be avoided in the coming months (and, if possible, years): 

Tzipi Livni is Israel’s Obama: I was foolish enough to be one of many writers comparing the two. But no, Livni is not really Obama. For starters, Obama has the charisma that Livni lacks – but there are also many other differences. As you can see here – when Livni run in the Kadima Party primaries I argued that she can be (wrongly) compared to Hillary Clinton and that Obama can be compared to her rival, Shaul Mofaz. I think it’s time to quit all such comparisons.

Obama is like the first Arab Prime Minister of Israel: Give me a break. Does Obama belong to a group with which the US has an ongoing war? Does he belong to a group fighting to establish an independent state alongside the US? Does he belong to a group to which Independence Day is a day of mourning? This is not just dumb – it’s a political message according to which the fate of Arab Israelis is somehow similar to the one of African-Americans. It’s the kind of cute journalistic inventions with which Israel will be de-legitimized. 

Obama will help bring the peace: Maybe, maybe not. I wrote about this belief months ago: In the deceptive reality of the modern era, one can get confused – but Bush was not the president of Israel, and the same will be true of his successor. Therefore, the desire for a kind of “Obama will take care of it” is nothing more than a flight from reality, or from responsibility.

Obama is "the first Jewish president": no, he is not. He was not a Muslim masquerading as Christian, and he is not Jewish. The fact that he lived in an area in which Jews also lived does not make him Jewish. Colin Powell was growing up among Jews and even knows some Yiddish, but I don’t remember him being called Jewish. True, many great people are Jewish – but it’s time to recognize that not all great people are Jewish. And it’s not even clear yet if Obama is great.

Obama and Bibi can’t get along: I think they can. Netanyahu was ousted in the late nineties partially because he couldn’t get along with Clinton, and he probably learned his lesson. Obama is smart enough to know that taking on Netanyahu will confirm to many the suspicions they had about him during the race. There’s reason to assume that both will try very hard to avoid confrontation. Saying they can’t make it is the wishful thinking of Netanyahu’s political rivals.

Israel needs its own Obama: Israel is in need of many things. Most of all, it needs an experienced, charismatic, measured leader that can help it sail through the stormy waters of present day Middle East. It needs an Ariel Sharon, or a Yitzhak Rabin or a Yitzhak Shamir. Obama might be such great leader one day, but until this happens, it’s much too soon for anyone to want someone like him.

The post Block That Obama Cliche appeared first on Jewcy.

Dear Jeffrey, Since I’m on my way back to the east coast, where I’ll spend the next two and a half weeks — watching election returns somewhere in Ohio or Florida — I’ll soon also have an opportunity to de-sharpen those re-sharpened edges. Or maybe the sharper the better? I guess our discussion can only move forward if we somewhat abandon our initial topic (why Israel should not be mentioned as mach) and try different angles with which to entertain our Jewcy readers. You asked about Israeli government officials, so I’ll start with them, and generally speaking, I think these can be divided into three main groups. A. Those supporting Obama for a while now. They include Democratic-leaning Israeli officials — most supporting the candidacy of Hillary Clinton’s and switching to Obama, few supporting Obama from the start. These officials generally believe that a Democrat will make America stronger – hence, will benefit Israel. Some also believe that Obama will get involved in the Israel-Arab peace process and help advance it in ways that Bush could or would not. The more realistic among them think this is mostly true for the Syria-track. There’s a fair number of Israelis unhappy with Bush’s tendency to oppose — or not to encourage — an Israeli Syrian dialogue. Anyway – these pro-Obama supporters consist the smallest of the three groups I was mentioning. B. The second group will be the one of late-comers to the Obama cause. These people, I suspect, will grow in number as long as the polls show an apparent Obama victory (if they do). It is the international manifestation of the band-wagon effect: essentially, Israelis understand that Obama is going to win, so they might as well try to see the benefits and advantages of such candidate. Talking to the members of this group is pretty funny because one can easily detect the ways with which they try to rationalize an argument they aren’t comfortable with. If polls, or atmosphere somehow changes — these people will rush back to the group where they originally belong: McCain supporters. C. This is basically the B group without the pretense, and its rapidly shrinking (Israelis, to they credit, were always very practical in nature). It consists of people who rather have McCain as the American president and are still willing to say it. Their arguments — and the argument of most knowledgeable Israelis supporting the experienced battle-tested McCain over Obama — are quite clear: they want a president who understands the need to use power, and does not entertain the illusion that with charismatic personality one can change the Middle East (related to this topic, I really recommend that people will read your Atlantic piece on McCain and the use of power). In some ways, what they fear in Obama is the repetition of Bush the democracy-promoter. It’s true that most Israelis think Bush was a friendly president, but readers should realise that very few of them really bought into the lets-democratize-the-region notion. Too realistic to believe, or too racist (Ariel Sharon famously said "after all, it is Arabs we are talking about here"), or too experienced — Israelis liked the part of Bush that was supportive of security concerns, and vehement in fighting terror, but didn’t as much appreciate his desire to transform the Mideast. Not that they don’t want it — they just don’t think it’s possible. Not now, not this way. Surprisingly, what some of them see in Obama is a different kind of the same naivete. How’s that for a surprisingly refreshing point of view? Now back to the original topic of this exchange: does mentioning Israel helps Obama with Israelis? it really does. If one tries to find the positive aspects to this constant attention the country is getting, it is the fact that Israelis do feel now much more comfortable with Obama than they did a year or half a year ago. I’ll leave you the benefit of starting the discussion of McCain and Israel. Best, Rosner

To read Shmuel Rosner’s first letter, click here; Goldberg’s reply to it, here.

RELATED: Rosner’s original piece, "Enough About Israel, Already," for Slate, and Goldberg’s post at the Atlantic.

Shmuel Rosner’s blog is here.

The post How Israeli Officials View Obama And McCain appeared first on Jewcy.

Jewcy invited Goldberg and Rosner to discuss their mutual fantasy of minimal Israel chatter in an ongoing email dialogue. Below is Rosner’s opening salvo; Goldberg’s reply will be posted later today.

Dear Jeffrey, I’ll start by repeating the core argument I was making in Slate. It was not about the importance of the U.S.-Israel alliance, or the reasons such alliance is desirable (for both countries). My complaint was about the frequency with which presidential candidates mention Israel. I think this hurts Israel because it presents is as a country that is more trouble than an asset to America. I also think that it distorts the voters’ perception of American foreign policy. Israel is important, and is located in an important region. But mentioning Israel more than Chine, Russia, the European Union and its leaders (Germany, France, Britain) gives the wrong impression about the real interests and the real motives for numerous US policy decisions. The question for this email exchange, though, is how do we make it interesting for readers. If we both agree that Israel’s name should come up in the election with less frequency, the only way for us to have a debate is if we have some disagreements regarding the reasons for which we want it off the radar screen. My argument is fairly straight forward: it hurts Israel. It’s not about "normalcy" (as you briefly argue in the blog item you wrote about this topic) — it’s about interests. I don’t think the candidates really serve Israel’s interest when they talk about it. And since both of they claim — and I believe it to be right — to be staunch supporters of Israel, their actions contradict their intentions. As we both know, this is probably happening mainly because of politics. The candidates think that they need to keep saying how much they love Israel in order for people –mostly Jewish — to feel comfortable with them and to support them. I find it to be both ignorant and insulting: most American Jews care for Israel but are not one-issue voters. They might not vote for a candidate that is openly hostile to Israel, but will hardly make the nuances of Israel-related policies the definite reason for which to vote or not vote for specific candidates. If there’s a litmus test, both McCain and Obama have passed it a very long time ago. This does not mean that their different approaches to Middle East policies have no significance as far as Israel is concerned. It does mean that they can stop using Israel by way of explaining why staying/leaving Iraq is the right way to go, or why talking/bombing Iran will be the appropriate policy for the U.S. to pursue. As I wrote in my Slate piece, I think Israelis should also grow up and stop drooling whenever a debate is moving in Israel’s direction. The constant need for the husband to say how much he loves the bride does not mean the bride is lovable but rather that she lacks self-confidence. In the case of Israel, self-confidence in not just a quality that’s more appealing, it is also a matter of national security. If Israelis need this constant approval, it means that they aren’t sure about the US’ support. If they aren’t sure, their enemies might be convinced that it’s really something they can further erode by pursuing more aggressive policies. But let me ask you this Jeffrey: Is it Israel that makes Jewish voters uncomfortable about Barack Obama? you’ve written a lot about Obama and the Jews (as I did too), and you seem to think that something else is at play here – dare we say racism? and if that’s the case, can Obama overcome such weariness by talking more about Israel? And what about McCain: can he really convince Jewish voters to vote for him by convincing them that Obama’s policies will endanger Israel – or is he really going to scare Americans voters who might think that he is going to war with Iran because of Israel? A lot to talk about, and so little time.

Best, Shmuel

Jeffrey Goldberg’s reply can be read here.

Shmuel Rosner’s blog is here.

RELATED: Rosner’s original piece, "Enough About Israel, Already," for Slate, and Goldberg’s post at the Atlantic.

The post Why U.S. Candidates Should Stop Talking About Israel appeared first on Jewcy.

To: Adam LeBor

Dear Adam,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. The lesson of your experience seems quite obvious: if even someone like yourself, whose instincts (I suspect) are much more pro-UN than mine, has turned skeptical, then the organization is really as useless as I imagined. And the point you've raised regarding its treatment of Israel is but one example of why it should be scrapped, or at least marginalized. Giving it more power will be very costly to Israel, as instead of working to better the world as it should, what I expect the UN to do it is to try and use any power it might obtain to make Israel less secure.

So let us agree (I think we do) on that, and turn to the question of Darfur, and to Jewish-American involvement in trying to make this cause a keystone of using Jewish political power to improve the world.

The facts are indisputable: Jewish Americans were on the forefront of the battle to save Darfur. If you happened to attend the largest Washington demonstration for Darfur you couldn't ignore the fact that although it wasn't a "Jewish" rally, most of the participants happened to be Jewish. Jewish legislators (among them the late Tom Lantos) were vocal, Jewish activists were, well, very active, Jewish organizations were, and still are, making space for this issue on their agenda.

But what is the reason for all that?

One possible explanation should make all of us very proud: Jews, who suffered the most from genocide, feel compelled to raise their voices against it in every part of the world. They feel they have the moral authority and obligation to do so. And they're right.

But there's also a second possibility (which isn't mutually exclusive from the first): For the past few decades, American Jews were spent most of their political capital on the just cause of securing Israel — and then got tired of it. They got tired of being seen by some elite groups as particularistic and tribal. They got tired as the cause (Israel) has shifted from being David to being Goliath. And they were looking to prove that American Judaism is not a hostage of the Israel-first school of thought, that it has its own priorities.

This comes out in discussions of Darfur as well as other humanistarian causes. One expression of those sentiments the outrageous letter (former IDF civilian volunteer) Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) sent to Israel's Ambassador in Washington, demanding that Israel be more receptive to Sudanese refugees who reach Israel's borders. Another expression was the denunciation (in which Jewcy played no small part) of the Anti Defamation League after its leader, Abe Foxman, came out in opposition to the Armenian Genocide bill presented to Congress by — you guessed it — a Jewish legislator. (The bill was defeated for the very reasons on which Foxman based his opposition, but you didn't hear much criticism of its sponsors and of the leadership of the House when they failed to deliver on their unrealistic pledges).

So you see where I'm going with this — and I hope the readers will spare me comments blaming me for not caring enough about genocide. I'm happy to see the Jewish community as active as it is in humanitarian causes. I do also think, however, that there's some merit to this niggling question that keeps coming back: Will universalist causes eventually replace Israel as the great political cause of American Jewry?

One might suspect that domestic considerations are also in play here. American Jews
were always at the forefront of fighting for the rights of African-Americans. They were marching alongside Reverend King in the high days of cooperation between the two communities, but sometimes along the way the bond between Jews and African Americans have soured. The Jewish community has been trying to prove, ever since, that it did not abandon African-Americans for racial reasons — hence some of the appeal to Jews of Barack Obama, offers the community the intriguing hope of repairing those historic relations.

That's why Israelis interpret the intense involvement of American Jews in shaping the policies toward Ethiopian Jews, as being motivated by domestic considerations. The same logic applies to the very active role Jews are playing in trying to help Darfurians. The Jews, arguably, were not as involved as a group during the crisis in the former Yugoslavia. (Interestingly, Ariel Sharon opposed international involvement in the crisis, fearing it would set a dangerous precedent. He anticipated an effort by the countries in control of international organizations hostile to Israel to influence the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by the use of international force).

And again, this is not an indictment of the Jewish community for acting for the "wrong" reasons. Motivations that lead to the outcome of fighting genocide are all "good". However, I think one should be able to have an honest discussion of such motivations, because other than implicating the just war against genocide, it also raises issues related to the relations between Israel and Diaspora Jews, especially in cases in which the interests of the communities come apart.

Such contradiction was visible in the case of Turkey and the Armenian genocide, when fighting to establish historical truth ran contrary to Israel national interests (and American interests, to judge by the coverage and the outcome). The case the Ethiopian Jews was a similar story of American Jews pressuring Israel to accept more immigrants than it wanted to.

So: we started with the UN and its inability to stop genocide, and we now turn to explore Jewish involvement with stopping genocide. Is there a special Jewish responsibility here? Does it also apply to Israel? And what happens when the preservation of the State of Israel contradict the cause of stopping genocide?

I'm looking forward to your answers.

Best, Shmuel

The post Do Jews Have A Special Responsibility To Fight Against Genocide? appeared first on Jewcy.