Does Israel Need International Jewish Consultative Body?

A short while ago, Mr. Michael Fridman, a renown Russian businessman and one of the cofounders of the Russian Jewish Congress, wrote an article arguing that it was necessary to establish an international Jewish consultative body. Mr. Fridman made a good point when he noticed that Antisemitism and anti-Israeli trends have recently been on a global rise, with students and intellectuals being their driving force. According to Mr. Fridman, this leads to further expansion of the conflict, and through the efforts of the Western media, not only native populations of the Western countries but also their own Jewish Diaspora turn against Israel. All these problems should be solved. Mr. Fridman says that we cannot let the ties between Israel and the Diaspora break and that the Diaspora is strong enough to support Israel in the hard times. What is no less important, such break would lead to the demise of the Diaspora itself since the total separation from the Jewish identity represented by Israel will gradually but inevitably lead to their total assimilation. 

All the above is absolutely right. But the solution proposed by Mr. Fridman stands beyond any criticism, and there are several reasons to that.

1. Today, we already have a huge amount of international Jewish bodies. I cannot even list them all. They call themselves Congresses, Assemblies, Associations and Federations, and sometimes, it is easier to differentiate them by abbreviations than by their full titles. The founders and sponsors of these bodies, apparently, fulfill a very important commandment by sustaining their bureaucratic structures and providing jobs to many fellow Jews. But establishing one more structure to consult Israeli leadership? Gentlemen, maybe you should think of the problems of the Diaspora first? Two generations from now, it will be represented by the ultraorthodox communities only!

2. Mr. Fridman argues that this body would include “the brightest, most respected and influential members of the Diaspora.” This statement raises certain questions. Respected by?... Influential among?... The article implies that these people are not unlike Mr. Fridman himself and his REC fellow members, i. e. the people who represent secular financial and (maybe) academic and political elites. However, this organization will not provide representation for major institutions and communities. The latter would refuse to cooperate with the secular oligarchs and politicians, and this includes, for example, the American Chasidic communities populating entire towns. Eventually, we will end up with another sectoral institution that sees itself a representative of the whole Peoplehood.

3. Mr. Fridman proposes that this body consisting of the non-Israeli citizens, of people who do not even mind their Jewish roots and the Holy Land in their everyday lives, will have a consultative voice regarding all decisions of the government that has been democratically elected by the citizens of Israel. This body will advise our government on our internal and external affairs. Moreover, to erase any doubt regarding the status of this “consultative voice”, Mr. Fridman offers to Israeli Knesset members to establish its role in a legislation act. In other words, every four years the naïve Israelis will elect their Knesset and government whose “advisors” will be the people having no slightest idea about the needs of the Israelis or confusing their needs and opinions with their own and, most importantly, not bearing any responsibility before the Israelis (or anyone else).

Feeling that he has crossed a line here, Mr. Fridman goes on to emphasize that the nature of the proposed body would be consultative only and that no one but Israeli citizens could decide for the State of Israel. However, there is no need to establish a financial and political strong arm only to advise. Should one think that he or she is fit to advise the Israeli government on a specific issue, they may personally offer their advisory skills. Should their advice be reasonable, it will be listened to. However, the proposed advisory body can possibly have just one goal and that is exerting pressure. Any reasonable person understands that on the one side there will stand all the global Jewish capital (and not just Jewish, provided the influence and the connections of these people). On the other side, there will be a political representation of the Israelis pressed by dozens of other forces that want to crush it and torn by contradictions from within. the only possible way of cooperation would be to try to relax and go with the flow (while being raped), and this is also highly doubtful.

Maybe one day Israel will have a government with a strong ideological mindset. But then, there will be no need to establish any “international consultative body” because either its position will be the same as the position of Israeli government or this government will ignore its position, no matter how much its “advices” sound like a hidden threat.

But maybe it is not that bad, and an Israeli everyman will actually benefit from being governed by a strong hand of the “experts” from some international Jewish assembly rather than by a weak and gutless leadership?

In order to figure it out, we need to understand how Israel is strategically different from the Diaspora.

Before Israel became a state, when it was just a project, several serious questions arose. To mention just a few, on what territory should the Jewish state be created? Where should it have its capital? What should be its main national symbol? What shall its soldiers be taking an oath on? Most of these questions were even out of discussion. We all know the story of the Uganda project. We know what was chosen to become the key symbols of the Jewish state – the Star of David and the temple Menorah, the very Menorah that the Romans took away and engraved on the Arch of Titus when they destroyed the remains of the Jewish autonomy. Today, when we restored our state, the Menorah has returned first to our emblem and to the passport of the Jewish state, and in the future that we always have in mind it will return to the Temple of Jerusalem.

Jerusalem... This word has been heard for thousands of years in all Jewish prayers. Could one ever imagine that a Jew would agree to have another capital? The city where our kings ruled, the city where the Supreme Court of our wise men gathered, the city where our key uniting symbol – the Temple – stood for almost thousand years. “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem”, when we celebrate and when we mourn. The city where a handful of fanatics supported by all the Jewish communities of the world, despite the deadly danger, has been holding the city for their people century after century, right until its marvelous return.

We see that the State of Israel was established on the basis of Judaism, the Jewish tradition, the religion that is inseparable from our national identity, and not only in our own view but also in the view of other nations. We remember that UN session where the Jewish delegation raised their main argument, Tanakh, the Bible. All nations know that this land was promised to us by our Creator, and it is the only thing that entitles us in the eyes of other nations to have our state in this very place because no one cares who owned what thousands of years ago.

In other words, the legitimation of Israel can be only internal, “growing from the roots”. It becomes stronger when our confidence in the rightfulness of the Jewish cause becomes stronger. If we believe in our Truth and stand for it, others will also respect it. If we don't care about it, why would other people do?

As for the Diaspora, it lives according to very different laws. The Diaspora Jews’ legitimation comes from the people that surround them. For them, the less different they are, the less identity of their own they have, the better. Sometimes, they fail to understand that the way people see them since the creation of the State of Israel, directly depends on how strong is Israel itself and its internal legitimation. The people of Diaspora think that, not unlike them, Israel has to seek for its legitimation somewhere "outside”, although it is more than obvious what how will end the attempts to adjust the policy of Israel to the aspirations of the global anti-Semites. (Interestingly, this is exactly the position of some Israeli politicians. Apparently, psychologically, they are still "in the Diaspora").

The conclusion: the force that would succeed in breaking the ties between the State of Israel and Judaism will destroy the State of Israel and the Peoplehood around the world. First, Israel will lose its Jewish character and internal legitimation, then the remains of external legitimation will dissipate, and then the Final Solution will come. Where it will happen first – here, in Israel, or in the Diaspora – is not that that important.

Now, back to the article of Mr. Fridman. Although he does not say it directly, certain clues like complaining about the fact that the Reformists did not get a section of the Western Wall, or mentioning that the process of the Giyur, the conversion to Judaism, it too tough, imply that the author and his peers not only are not religious themselves but also eager to put their best efforts into secularization of Israel. The very Reformists that according to Mr. Fridman were deprived of their portion of the Wall are eroding our national identity while the “light” versions of the Giyur without the Mitzvot erode the concept of the Peoplehood itself and separate its different parts. Probably, Mr. Fridman means well but he has to understand: what seems to make a life of a Diaspora Jew easier, may eventually become a grave-digger for the State of Israel.

The RJC and other similar institutions make a lot of good for the Diaspora Jews. The RJC cofounders generously grant their funds and efforts to facilitation of mutual help between the Jews, to fighting anti-Semitism and many more important causes. They have accumulated priceless expertise in these areas. Unfortunately, it is rather useless and even dangerous to use this expertise on Israeli soil. We, the Israelis, have to face entirely different issues and challenges. Our leadership, maybe unconsciously, is trying to keep our boat afloat until the day when the critical mass of Israeli citizens will become mature enough to genuinely understand what they do in this land, under this emblem and with this capital. And when it happens, all the disturbing trends listed in Mr. Fridman’s article will make a 180 degrees turn. Thus, those who strive to facilitate this process should strengthen the ties between the Israeli and the Diaspora Jews rather than try to shatter them.

And those who really want to be a part of the Israeli public discourse are always welcome to join the rest of us as Israeli citizens and permanent residents!