[ad_1]
Early last November, Maxima Patashnik got wind that community and religious leaders around town were drafting a statement on the war in Gaza.
As government affairs director for the Jewish Community Relations Council, Patashnik tracked down a generic “wasolidarity” email and sent a query asking for more information. An anonymous respondent replied that the Washington Solidarity Statement was a joint effort “ … to promote humanity, peace, and justice for all, including Israelis and Palestinians.”
In her email back, Patashnik wrote that the process had not included members of the region’s mainstream Jewish community. “At a time when true solidarity is more necessary than ever, this is deeply painful. Rather than feeling supported and in community with others who are suffering, our community feels excluded and isolated by this effort.”
Patashnik offered to help craft the statement but received no reply, and in the end, her outreach made no difference.
The Washington Solidarity Statement announced on Nov. 16 was signed by Jewish Voice for Peace-Seattle and the Council on American Islamic Relations-Washington, along with dozens of other groups including the Church Council of Greater Seattle, El Centro de la Raza and OneAmerica.
None of the 35 members of the Jewish Community Relations Council signed on. The council includes such establishment organizations as the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle (founded in 1928), Jewish Family Service (since 1892) and various congregations.
The Washington Solidarity Statement was not a one-off. Instead, it was just the start of a blizzard of declarations about the war in Gaza that have excluded input from the leaders of mainstream Jewish groups.
The Seattle City Council passed a Gaza resolution. So did the Seattle teachers’ union, various Democratic legislative district committees around Puget Sound, and the Washington State Democratic Central Committee.
All this matters for two reasons: The freezing out of the mainstream Jewish community’s perspectives comes at a time of alarming antisemitism across the region and nation. It is easy to demonize those with whom you refuse to communicate.
And secondly, the noise and posturing drown out possibilities to achieve greater understanding and perhaps find common ground. A few months ago, I heard a perspective often missed in all the shouting. I will share that in a moment, but first it’s important to note the difference between consensus and unanimity in the Jewish community itself.
“There is no single voice that could speak for any single community and we certainly don’t represent the entire Jewish community,” said Patashnik. “We work very hard to build consensus and find areas where there is vast agreement among Jewish organizations and Jewish individuals in the community as a whole.
“What the Jewish community is asking is very similar to what other minority communities ask,” she added. “That their lived experiences and their voices be central to adopting positions, creating policies that are central to our identity and that are of deep concern to us.”
Take the concept of a cease-fire, a feature in most Gaza-related statements. Here is why that is problematic to some. Go back to Oct. 7, which was considered by many in the Jewish community to be an act of war by Hamas on Israel, and the obvious need to respond.
“Hamas has just perpetrated the greatest attack on Jewish people since the Holocaust. They are asking for a cease-fire, which would essentially let Hamas stay completely in power, just to do it again,” said Rabbi Will Berkovitz, CEO of Jewish Family Service.
And then there are phrases such as “From the river to the sea.”
On social media, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., posted: “From the river to the sea is an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction or hate.”
Rep. Kim Schrier, D-Sammamish, responded: “Make no mistake. This expression is a call for the elimination of the State of Israel … This is stoking the antisemitism that is spiking in this country and around the world.”
How is the average person expected to sort through all that? The complexities apparently didn’t register when the King County Bar Association printed an anti-Israel piece titled “From the River to the Sea” on the front page of the February issue of its “Bar Bulletin” to attorneys.
After an intense blowback, the bar association board of trustees posted that its publication wasn’t an appropriate forum to discuss the conflict. “Our mistake caused harm to many of our members and the community. For this we apologize …”
The incident reinforced the need for all those compelled to share an opinion to seek wide feedback on how their words might be received. It is imperative to turn down the temperature instead of fanning the flames. But it also underscored the urgency felt by some in the Jewish community to engage with those who may not understand all the nuances.
“We can acknowledge the complexity of the current moment,” said Miri Cypers, regional director of ADL Pacific Northwest.
“A lot of what we try to do as educators and leaders is encourage people to not be binary and to also have certain principles of engagement and civil discourse. What we are trying to do is talk about a difference of impact and intent. I don’t think people are always super informed about what they’re saying or doing and how they’re contributing to harm.”
The question remains: If the Jewish community wants to engage, who will listen? And which faction will receive the most receptive audience?
In the last few months, the community conversation has been decidedly one-sided.
Members of the group Jewish Voice for Peace often find journalists at the ready to record their actions and words. On its website, the group calls itself “anti-Zionist,” and, further: “We are accountable to Palestinian-led organizations …”
But the majority of Jewish opinion indicates otherwise. An October survey by Jewish Federations of North America found that nearly 91% of Jewish respondents answered affirmatively to the question: “Do you believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state?”
And no discussion about the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle would be complete without mentioning the 2006 shooting there. After forcing his way into the office, a 30-year old man shot six women, one fatally, in what police termed a hate crime. Active shooter drills are now common practice in many synagogues.
A few months ago, I heard about an Israeli speaker coming to Temple De Hirsch Sinai on Capitol Hill. I went not knowing anything about him but figured I might learn something.
He was Rabbi Donniel Hartman, president of the Shalom Hartman Institute, which states: “Our mission is to strengthen Jewish peoplehood, identity, and pluralism; to enhance the Jewish and democratic character of Israel; and to ensure that Judaism is a compelling force for good in the 21st century.”
Of all the words and images since Oct. 7, I had not heard a voice like his. Here’s a sampling, as Hartman reflected on six months of war during one of his recent podcasts.
“My primary takeaways are of pride and disappointment,” said Hartman. “A sense of pride in our society, in our kids (serving in the Israel Defense Forces) — in harm’s way. The level of commitment has been inspiring.”
He continued: “I have such disappointment not just in our government but also in our army, in the overall way we have been conducting this war … When I look in the way we’ve been conducting ourselves, there’s a mediocrity. I think there’s a moral mediocrity, there’s a strategic mediocrity, there’s a public relations mediocrity. And there’s a deep disappointment because that’s not my Israel.”
I asked Rabbi Daniel Weiner, who hosted the speaking event, if Hartman’s perspective reflected that of Seattle’s mainstream Jewish community.
“His view stands in the middle of where much of my constituency stands when it comes to supporting Israel but being concerned about the West Bank and Gaza, of being concerned about lack of a peace process to resolve the Palestinian situation to include a two-state solution one day,” said Weiner.
Solly Kane, president of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, added: “I would agree with Rabbi Weiner. I think for the nonorthodox, mainstream Jewish community, Donniel Hartman’s views represent where the vast majority of the mainstream Jewish community sits.”
Is this perspective so out there, so extreme that there is no room to incorporate it in how this community understands and talks about a conflict so very far away and with so many centuries of complex history?
Picking only select voices and falsely holding them up as representing the Jewish community is an act of marginalization and disrespect. If Seattle is to live up to its values of tolerance and inclusion, mainstream Jewish groups and congregations must be part of these ongoing and difficult conversations.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of Jewish respondents who answered affirmatively to the question: “Do you believe Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state?” in a survey.
[ad_2]
Source link