Back when I was in elementary school my mom stressed that I should never touch the third rail. The third rail, for those who don’t know, is the power source for electrified trains that parallels the tracks. Two rails for the train… a ground level power source in parallel… hence the third rail. My mom’s admonition came in advance of a school field trip to the train yard at the end of the Long Island Railroad Oyster Bay line. I dutifully counted off every three rails and made sure to step over them. Little did I (or my mom!) know, but the line had not been electrified and the trains ran on diesel.
Today in American politics, for many people, talking about Israel is like touching the third rail. For part of the left side of the political spectrum, talking about Israel as anything other than a new Apartheid, colonial artifact, is grounds for outrage or worse. For part of the right side of the political spectrum (especially the Jewish right), talking about Israel, in anything but the most indulgent, existential crisis, terms is grounds for outrage or worse.
The sad state of affairs is summed up well by this graphic from Jnich, I found on substack:
Thus it is the third rail. Touch it and you are likely to be electrified.
Here I go!
I will confess that I am not an expert on Israel. I have never been to Israel. I have read some about it, but certainly not enough to claim expertise. Feel free to stop reading now. But where I do claim some expertise is in applied moral scrutiny, and political science. And it does seem to me when it comes to Israel, much of the discourse in America hand waves over questions of morality, and/or long term political strategy.
This piece began with conversations I have had with Jewish friends and family that can be boiled down to three basic points. 1. Supporting Israel is their number one political issue. 2. They are in favor of a policy of strength for Israel in its struggle with enemies such as Hamas and Hezbollah. 3. They believe Kamala Harris is not sufficiently pro-Israel to earn their support.
Each of these three statements are plagued with ambiguities that underscore how problematic they are.
1. Supporting Israel is their number one political issue.
I was born in the United States. My parents were born in the United States. Three out of four of my Grandparents were born in the United States.1 Growing up I happily swallowed a large does of American patriotism. I pledged allegiance to the flag every morning. I learned patriotic songs like God Bless America, America the Beautful, She’s a Grand Old Flag, and of course the Star Spangled Banner. I rooted fervently for team America in the Olympics, and was devastated when the US Men’s basketball team was cheated out of the gold medal in 1972. I am a proudly patriotic American, even if age and knowledge has given me a more nuanced understanding of my country and its history. I am a proud American because I believe in America’s ideals, and sometimes (but not always) my country lives up to them.
I get why Israel is so important to many American Jews. The Jewish disapora left us with pockets of population in many many countries — but nowhere a majority. This is a weak position to be in. The first priority of a state is to protect its people. Without a state, Jews were vulnerable to the Nazi Holocaust. Israel represents the state to ensure (and the place to retreat to) so that “never again” is real.
But I think for American Jews, focusing on the need for Israel to exist skates by an even more important point. The surest way to promote the security and prosperity of Jewish people all over the world, is to promote governments in EVERY nation that are committed to the security and prosperity of ALL people. Nobody knows better than Jews, that as soon as it gets factionalized, us vs. them, we are in big trouble. Tom Leher said it well in his satirical song National Brotherhood Week:
Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Moslems
And everybody hates the Jews.
The core of the promise of America, if not always the execution — is that ALL people are created equal, that they should all have an EQUAL opportunity to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have noted before that the arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice. That curve has made it possible for Jews to thrive in America. As America became a more just society in general, striving for equality for women and people of color it also became more just for Jews. This is one of the reasons why Jews were an important part of the Civil Right’s movement. Another was that equality, fairness and justice are morally correct by both secular and Jewish values, and should be nurtured.
This is ultimately why America has been Israel’s strongest supporter, even more than the guilt ridden Germans. Supporting Israel was viewed by Americans as morally correct, and to the extent Israel was a democracy, committed to a rules based world order, it was consonant with American principles and interests.2
There is discussion often that America supports Israel because politicians want Jewish votes, and Jewish campaign donations. The first is silly. Jews represent 2.4% of the American population. It is not a large enough voting bloc in any state (with the possible exception of New York) to make much of a difference. The second is an echo of the anti-semitic trope of Jews and money, notwithstanding billionaire activists like Adelson and Soros. Politics is awash in money raised on the internet these days, and while wealthy donors can be valuable, they are not determinative.
Ultimately focusing on support for Israel, rather than support for justice at home and abroad, I submit, is counter-productive. It invites a more transactional approach — my group wins and your group loses, and ultimately, the Jews will lose. And that’s before we even get to what “support” is and what “supporting Israel” means.
Currently, and consistently, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, support for Israel has meant billions of dollars of foreign aid, weapons and military assistance. I am sure there are differences between Republicans and Democrats in how they have engaged Israel, but honestly, I am struggling to find a difference that matters. This may well be a failure of knowledge on my part.
For the past 25 years or so, Israeli politics has been dominated by Benjamin Netanyahu. For some I have encountered, supporting Israel means supporting Netanyahu. I don’t get this. Netanyahu does not have majority support in Israel. He governs through a coalition. That coalition today is dependent on two ultra orthodox religious parties representing the Haredi community. For those of you in NY, the Hasid community here is a sub-group of the Haredi.
The Haredi believe men should spend their days studying Torah.3 Hence the unemployment rate and poverty rate for this community is very high. Also they are exempt from military service. The Haredi have the highest birth rates in Israel. Looking for cheap living, the Haredi have settled in the “occupied” West Bank, and have become radicalized against any two state solution that might divest them of their homes. Netanyahu needs their support to stay in office. If he is no longer Prime Minister, criminal proceedings against him will reactivate and he may well end up in jail. Supporting Netanyahu means supporting the most radical, non-secular, elements of Israel who control him. Is this supporting Israel?
2. They are in favor of a policy of strength for Israel in its struggle with enemies such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
As Kamala Harris and nearly every other American political figure has stated, Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks. I agree. I have no sympathy for Hamas or Hezbollah. But the inquiry cannot end there. It is morally incorrect to say that Israel should be able to defeat its enemies by any and all means necessary. When we commit to defeat our enemies by all means necessary we have eliminated any moral distinction between us and them. We cannot commit a holocaust to prevent a holocaust. Surely Jews, of all people, know that.
As a democracy, a nation committed to the rule of law, and a nation founded on the ashes of the holocaust, Israel in particular, and Jews in general have claimed moral superiority over their enemies. As I noted above, this position underlies American and Western support for Israel. Should Israel commit to defeating its enemies by any and all means necessary, it loses that moral high ground, and places its principled support in jeopardy. And this is where the ambiguity around “strength” comes in.
The Netanyahu government chose to respond to the vicious terrorist attacks by Hamas with a ground war that has displaced over a million non-combatants, killed tens of thousands of non-combatants, and bulldozed large sections of Gaza, a territory with among the highest population density in the world. Was this the only option? Was this the only option of “strength?”
It does seem like the answer to this question is “no.” A more targeted approach certainly seems possible. I find it hard to believe that a country that could pull off such an incredible feat as exploding pagers and walkie-talkies did not have other options besides a full scale invasion. Instead it does seem like Netanyahu chose a full scale invasion, and refuses to consummate a ceasefire deal that would return the kidnapped hostages, because his Haredi partners will not be satisfied until all of Gaza is bulldozed.
Is this strength? Is this morally correct? Or is this committing a holocaust to prevent a holocaust?
And if we want to look at it transactionally… Every escalation of the war by Netanyahu pushes Israel into greater and greater international isolation. Is that really a strong position for Israel to be in? Ironically, the vile Hamas attacks came in the wake of the Abraham accords and reports that the Saudi’s were on the verge of recognizing Israel. While Iran remained Israel’s implacable enemy, the Arab world was softening, showing signs that progress like what happened with Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain and UAE, could extend. By choosing full scale ground invasion, Hamas baited Israel into doing something that ended, for the time being, any chance of extending the Abraham accords. Is that strength? Or is it a desperate politician in thrall to the most radical elements of his coalition burning his country to the ground to retain power?
Finally, what is the long-term strategy? It is hard not to believe that what Netanyahu has done has radicalized large numbers of Gaza residents. You break it you buy it. Netanyahu has broken Gaza and now he owns a long-term human rights crisis with no way out. He has conceded the moral high ground, and made it much more difficult for other nations to support Israel. Is that strength?
I get the natural human tendency to call for action, and especially to respond to the atrocities committed by Hamas. But a response that concedes the moral high ground, radicalizes large swaths of a population against you, and leaves you managing a human right’s crisis, alone without allies, is not a strong one.
3. They believe Kamala Harris is not sufficiently pro-Israel to earn there support.
When I ask people what evidence they have to justify this belief, they really don’t have much tangible to point to. They say that some people around Harris, as characterized by the Netanyahu government, are not sufficiently pro-Israel. Really? That’s all ya got?
I guess for some, Biden (and Harris by the transitive property) is not sufficiently pro-Israel. Certainly Biden has expressed his frustrations with Netanyahu and has pressed him not to expand to an all out Middle East conflict. This seems reasonable and appropriate since the Biden Administration is not aligned with Netanyahu’s actions, is still providing him with massive weapons and support, is worried about the start of WWIII, and is more than aware of all of the points made above, and probably many more that I am not smart enough to think of.
America and Israel are friends. I love my friends, but they don’t get carte blanche.
I think there is very little reason to think Harris will be all that different from Biden, but who knows? Maybe she will press Bibi harder, cut off arms shipments, etc. But that isn’t anti-Israel. That’s anti-Netanyahu and pro American interests.
I do wonder whether the notion that Harris is anti-Isreal gains purchase because she is Black, and some leftist elements of the Black community feel kinship with the Palestinians and say things like “from the River to the sea.” To be clear, this phrase, “from the river to the sea” is at worst calling for the annihilation of the state of Israel and the Jews living in that region, aka a holocaust, or at best a naive belief in the formation of a Kumbaya multi-cultural state to replace Israel. But nothing in Harris’s political history suggests she has ever given any aide or comfort to this thinking. Do I have to point out that she is married to a Jewish man, and clearly loves her two Jewish stepchildren?
There is no question that Netanyahu prefers Trump, who will let him do whatever he wants. How much of the undercurrent that Harris is not pro-Israel is fed by a desperate and corrupt politician in control of the the Israeli propaganda machine?
Trump
Elections are about choices. In this election we have a choice between Harris and Trump. Refusing to vote for either is a cowardly cop out. Really. Total chickenshit. To paraphrase from the movie 42… when you meet your maker and she asks “Did you vote Trump or Harris?” do you really want to respond, “I didn’t vote?” Decide which one is more likely to make you safe and prosperous, now and in the future, and pick that one. It is really that simple.
I can’t understand American Jews who think the answer to that question is Trump.
When he said he wanted little guys with yarmulkes counting his money — that was enough for me.
When he tweeted that Hillary was corrupt and included a Star of David — that was enough for me.
When he used George Soros, Janet L. Yellen and Lloyd Blankfein in an ad warning of “global special interests” — that was enough for me.
When he responded to the Nazis in Charlottesville chanting “Jews will not replace us,” by saying there were “good people on both sides” — that was enough for me.
When he leaned into the divided loyalty trope by calling Netanyahu “your PrimeMinister” when speaking to a Jewish group — that was enough for me.
When he cozied up to Putin (a notorious anti-semite) who in turn is aligned with Iran — that was enough for me.
When he shared top secret Israeli intelligence with Russia — that was enough for me.
When he cozied up to the Saudis — that was enough for me.
When had dinner with anti-semite Nick Fuentes — that was enough for me.
When he started cavorting with anti-semite Lisa Loomer — that was enough for me.
When speaking before a Jewish group he said it would be the Jews’ fault if he lost, putting a target on my back, and leveraging an anti-semitic trope thousands of years old — that was definitely fucking enough for me.
It should be enough for all of us.
And now I am electrocuted. I touched the third rail.
Family legend has it that my maternal grandfather was born in Eastern Europe while his mother was on a business trip. If true, this is remarkable in many ways.
I think it is also fair to posit other factors. Among them… To the extent Israel was perceived as being founded predominately by European Jews, there was a natural affinity between Israel and the West. Also, certain right wing evangelical groups believe that the “End of Days” will start with holy war in the Middle East, so they support Israel.
My maternal grandfather chose a more secular path because he was struck by the unfairness of his mother working to support the family (and going on foreign business trips while pregnant, see note 1 above), while his father studied Torah.