Jewish
history is full of cautionary examples of failed emancipation. For millennia,
Jews have often been perceived as the “other” in their host societies, a status
that continues to this day despite appearances to the contrary in some
countries. While the past century has witnessed various efforts to achieve
civil and political rights for Jews, including religious initiatives like
Reform Judaism and political movements like Zionism, these have not fully
addressed the underlying issues.
اضافة اعلان
Following
the Holocaust, Zionism succeeded in establishing the state of Israel, but it
did not resolve the fundamental issue of Jewish emancipation. That’s because
the state is not secure or, in many ways, viable. Israel’s lack of
internationally recognized borders and its ongoing inability or unwillingness
to establish a lasting peace with the indigenous Palestinian population have
exacerbated the idea that the country is not secure.
Rather than
mitigating these challenges, Israel has spent substantial resources to build a vast military
occupation to
control virtually every facet of the lives of Palestinians. The resources
required for this herculean task of domination largely come from abroad in the
form of military aid and diplomatic cover from the United States.
The dependence of a secular Jewish state on a predominantly Christian nation like the US is cause for concern, given the historical hostility between Christian societies and Jews. This stands in contrast to the narrative pushed by Israel’s current public relations campaigns, which don’t dwell on that dark history but instead argue that it is Muslims that have exhibited more hostility toward Jews.
The
dependence of a secular Jewish state on a predominantly Christian nation like
the US is cause for concern, given the historical hostility between Christian
societies and Jews. This stands in contrast to the narrative pushed by Israel’s
current public relations campaigns, which don’t dwell on that dark history but
instead argue that it is Muslims that have exhibited more hostility toward
Jews.
Throughout
history, numerous Christian societies have exercised animosity toward Jews, on
a scale far greater than their Muslim counterparts. Hostility, demonization,
subjugation, and violence blighted the history of Jewish populations in Europe.
While the US
is not a religious state, it is a majority Christian country that has witnessed
a hard rightward shift in politics, marked by extreme anti-immigrant rhetoric
in recent years. It seems inevitable that a savvy populist American politician
will eventually raise questions about the loyalty of American Jews and the
nature of the US’s special relationship with Israel.
Former
President Donald Trump has already made such insinuations through comments about American
Jews and his remarks calling Nazi marchers in Charlottesville “very fine
people.” This is deeply disturbing but unsurprising from the perspective of
Jewish history, which is marked by many episodes of such shifts.
The recent
uproar surrounding how American universities address antisemitism in the wake
of Hamas’s October 7 attack could mark another turning point.
The focus is on how institutions like Harvard
and the University of Pennsylvania handle the increasingly heated debate over
Israel and Palestine. Last month, the presidents of these universities were
called before Congress to address these issues, leading to a hearing
reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Republican members of Congress grilled these
university leaders over the use of the phrase “From the river to the sea,
Palestine will be free” by pro-Palestine activists.
This phrase,
used by Palestinians for decades, calls for their freedom and equality from the
Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. However, the Israeli government and
pro-Israel activists argue that it is a veiled call for the elimination of
Israel and the Jewish presence in the Middle East. They tend to overlook the
fact that Israeli settlers have also employed a similar phrase in their
propaganda, and Israeli textbooks have frequently omitted any reference to
Palestine on their maps.
In 2013, the Guardian reported that 76 percent of maps used to
educate Israeli children did not delineate boundaries between Palestinian
territories and Israel, with Palestinian areas left unlabeled.
During the
congressional hearing, a Republican lawmaker, who has previously advocated for
the removal of “woke
agenda” from
American universities, questioned Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, about
whether “calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s rules on bullying
and harassment.” Gay responded that it depends on the context, which the New Yorker notes was the correct response since “any
responsible determination of a policy violation is context-dependent.” After
the hearing, the president of the University of Pennsylvania lost her job, and
a new chapter in the debate about American freedom of speech began.
This phrase, used by Palestinians for decades, calls for their freedom and equality from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. However, the Israeli government and pro-Israel activists argue that it is a veiled call for the elimination of Israel and the Jewish presence in the Middle East. They tend to overlook the fact that Israeli settlers have also employed a similar phrase in their propaganda, and Israeli textbooks have frequently omitted any reference to Palestine on their maps.
The
Israel-Palestine debate has now become a platform to discuss broader free
speech issues in the US. While such discussions can facilitate real change,
they are cause for concern in this case because the intellectual foundations of
the debate seem weak.
For
instance, using a chant to advocate for Palestinian rights is not equivalent to
advocating genocide, and attempts to link the two often rely on outdated PR
talking points from Israel.
The more
significant concern lies in how this debate could further fuel discontent among
a growing number of Americans regarding the influence of Israeli politics on US
discourse. Given the numerous pressing issues facing the average American,
Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its international public relations may
not be at the forefront.
American
politicians can see this opening for their campaigns. Donald Trump is the most
obvious example, but others are bound to follow. Ironically, pro-Israel
activists driven by a desire to fight antisemitism might well be flaming its
fires through the blind adoption of Israeli talking points. If history serves
as a guide, there may be consequences for this perceived overreach, which would
almost certainly be unfavorable for the Jews.
Joseph Dana is a writer based in
South Africa and the Middle East. He has reported from Jerusalem, Ramallah,
Cairo, Istanbul, and Abu Dhabi. He was formerly editor-in-chief of emerge85, a
media project based in Abu Dhabi exploring change in emerging markets. Twitter: @ibnezra
Disclaimer:
Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Jordan News' point of view.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
