|
|
'Think of Zionism as an answer for
materialism'
By JUDY
SIEGEL, THE JERUSALEM POST, LOS ANGELES

The growing materialism and "meaninglessness" in much of
American Jewry could be fought with teaching Zionism by creating
savings accounts for children and teenagers to be used for
eventual trips to Israel, suggested McGill University history
Prof. Gil Troy.
Speaking on Monday, the second day of the 94th annual
Hadassah convention at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los
Angeles, Troy and other speakers at a plenary session "Is Israel
on Your Radar Screen?" bemoaned the fact that the younger
Diaspora Jews are, the less likely they are to care about or
identify with Israel.
The birthright program that will bring 42,000 young Jews to
Israel for 10-day trips this year is excellent, said Troy, "but
we have also to take personal responsibility for it and take
more vacations in Israel. As the father of four young children,
I know that Jewish children get more and more unnecessary gifts.
Instead, think of Zionism as an answer for materialism.
Hadassah, he suggested, can lead by organizing such savings
accounts for travel to Israel. He also advocated widespread
teaching of Hebrew to American Jews.
The convention's 2,000 delegates were polled instantaneously
using electronic devices that captured their opinions. When
asked whether their youngest adult child was just as attached to
Israel as they were, only half answered yes, and 85 percent felt
that Jews in their 20s and 30s are not as attached to Israel as
their elders.
Prof. Steven Cohen, a researcher in Jewish social policy at
the Hebrew Union College, conducted his own scientific study of
non-Orthodox American Jews who constitute 90% of Americans who
identify themselves as Jews.
According to all measures, the younger they are, the less
attachment they feel about Israel. "It's a terrible tragedy. The
only exception of less activity compared to their elders is that
younger Jews are more likely to speak to non-Jews about Israel,
but this is because they know more non-Jews."
Because the poll queried people who identified as Jews, Cohen
said it "overrepresents Jewish attachment to Israel because
there are many intermarried and assimilated Jews who do not
identify themselves as such."
The serious decline in donations to Jewish causes since the
1980s reflects the fact that unmarried intermarried Jews are
less inclined to financially support Jewish and Israeli causes,
Cohen said.
"The strongest predictor of attachment to Israel is if you
have a Jewish marriage partner. There is a corrosive effect on
Jewish identity in the US. You can't sustain ethnicity if don't
have Jewish friends, neighbors and spouses, but two-thirds of
young Jews have a non-Jewish romantic partner.
"Assimilation and intermarriage is at the root of declining
identification by Jews with and support for Israel. But an
antidote is to travel to Israel, and the more you come, the
better."
Cohen also endorsed Jewish financial support for Jewish
summer camps and youth movements, independent prayer groups and
Jewish learning.
Rabbi Eli Stern, director of special projects at the Samuel
Bronfman Foundation, said that there is a "profound identity
shift among young Diaspora Jews from assumed Jewish identify to
asking why one should be Jewish at all."
The serious decline of the Conservative Movement, which
always supported Israel, Stern said, reflects this
disillusionment.
While political support for Israel in the general American
population remains strong, using Israel as a source for
collective Jewish identity has taken a tremendous hit, Stern
added.
Former Israeli cabinet minister, refusenik and human rights
activist in the Soviet Union, Natan Sharansky, who is now
chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem
Center in Jerusalem, said at the convention that the growing
view among young Jews that freedom and peace can be achieved
only by rejecting ethnicity, nationalism and faith was
dangerous.
"They think that freedom and identity are on opposite sides,
that there no values worth dying for. There must be no
hesitation in saying proudly that we are for justice and human
rights, but the only way we can defend and protect Israel is
going back to our roots and being proud Jews," he said, earning
a standing ovation.
|
|
|
|

|
|
July 17, 2008
|
|
|
|
|

|
|
Circles in the
Sand
By BRET STEPHENS
July 17,
2008; Page A13
|
|
|
|
A Path
Out of the Desert
By Kenneth
M. Pollack
(Random
House, 539 pages, $30)
Kenneth Pollack is
a hard man to pin down. A former CIA analyst and
member of the Clinton administration's National
Security Council now affiliated with the
left-leaning Brookings Institution, he made a
qualified case for invading Iraq in "The
Threatening Storm," which appeared six months
before the invasion itself. Two years later he
produced "The Persian Puzzle," which urged the
U.S. to pursue a negotiated settlement with
Iran.
Now Mr. Pollack
has given us "A Path Out of the Desert," billed
in its subtitle as a "grand strategy for America
in the Middle East." It's a misleading title,
except perhaps metaphorically, since his path
requires the U.S. to remain
in
the desert for decades in order to help sort out
the region's myriad problems and set it on a
path toward greater democracy, better
governance, stronger economic growth, less
cultural insularity and so on. Sound familiar?
It could almost be called the Bush Doctrine,
were it not for the author's embarrassment about
all things Bush.
|
|
|
That's not a bad thing,
either, at least if it gives the author whatever liberal
street cred he needs to remain an influence on the
thinking of the Democratic Party. At his best, Mr.
Pollack is a thorough and clear-eyed analyst who knows
his subject well and isn't prone to wishful thinking.
The book's early sections examine U.S. interests – oil
and Israel take pride of place – to show why we cannot
easily disengage from the Middle East.
Mr. Pollack is
particularly good at exposing the myth that close U.S.
ties to Israel worsen our relations with other Arab
governments or explain popular hostility to America: Our
patronage of Arab dictators such as Egypt's Hosni
Mubarak has more to do with that. Nor has America's
"tilting" toward Israel complicated efforts at Mideast
peacemaking. On the contrary, as he writes, U.S. support
for the Jewish state "helped convince the Arabs that
they did not have a military option against Israel."
Also persuasive is Mr.
Pollack's diagnosis of much of what ails Arab societies.
The region has the world's highest unemployment rate.
Oil-rich states cosset their industrial and service
sectors with subsidies, guaranteeing inefficiency. The
quality of education is low, and there's too much of it:
Every year, Arab universities graduate thousands of
young men and women whose aspirations exceed their
actual skills. Legal systems don't work, corruption is
rampant and bureaucracies are almost comically bloated:
In Kuwait, more than 90% of the national work force is
employed by the government.
It gets worse. In Mr.
Pollack's reading, the Arab world exists in what he
calls a "pre-revolutionary" state, similar to that of
Russia in the late czarist period. There is a
dangerously bulging youth cohort: 44% of Egyptians, 48%
of Palestinians and 53% of Yemenis are between the ages
of 15 and 29. Violence – in the form of government
repression, terrorism, revolution, ethnic and sectarian
conflict, interstate war, and civil war – has been
pervasive from Algeria to Lebanon to Bahrain. Islam,
often radical and politicized, is on the rise: In Egypt,
there is now one mosque for every 745 people, up from
one for every 6,031 in 1986, despite a doubling of the
population. And rather than attempt genuine reform, Arab
governments are constantly finding pretexts and methods
to go on with business as usual, thereby aggravating the
problems described above.
Having laid out a mostly
accurate picture of where the Middle East stands today –
and how it got there – Mr. Pollack proceeds to offer his
version of a cure. In its broad contours, it's a sound
one: The U.S., he writes, must begin "draining the
swamp" in which the Arab world's various pathologies
fester. It must prod both our allies and our enemies in
the region to mend their ways. And it must have faith
that more democratic systems can take root even in the
Islamic world. "Despite the fact that George W. Bush
said it was the best thing for us to do," he writes,
humorlessly, "it actually
is the best
thing for us to do."
Where Mr. Pollack errs is
in the details, in matters large and small. In his rage
against the Bush administration, for instance, he
laments that the president failed to raise the subject
of political reform with Mr. Mubarak "in April 2004,
less than three months after the second inaugural
address." Er, fact check, please: Mr. Bush gave his
second inaugural, which vowed to put freedom at the
center of U.S. foreign policy, in January 2005.
More substantively, Mr.
Pollack seriously underrates the specifically Islamic
contribution to the region's woes. Instead, he blames
religion generically – along with the usual
socio-politico-economic sourness – for radicalizing so
many young Middle Easterners. Yet not a single Christian
became a suicide bomber during the second
intifada,
never mind that Palestinian Christians suffered as much
at the hands of Israelis as Palestinian Muslims. That's
not to say that Islam is incompatible with democracy.
But Islam, at least as it's widely practiced in the
Middle East today, has often been in sharp tension with
the liberal habits of mind that sustain democratic
institutions over time. A religion that preaches death
for apostates is not necessarily one that will easily
tolerate other forms of dissent.
Finally, Mr. Pollack's
policy prescriptions on such key issues as Iraq, Iran
and the Israeli-Palestinian crisis amount to the usual
mush of olive branches, carrots and sticks, peace
processes, and tactical options for policies A, B and C.
This is not a new grand strategy but a continuation of
what the U.S. has been doing, with varying degrees of
emphasis and success, for decades. If that's any
indication of how an Obama administration might act, I
won't sleep any worse at night. But neither will I get
my hopes up for a Middle East that's any better than the
declining place of Mr. Pollack's grim telling.
Mr.
Stephens writes Global View, the Journal's
foreign-affairs column.
|
|