American Jewry must stop centering its identity on Israel’s critics - opinion

The ideological struggle for the American Jewish soul keeps intensifying. To some, Israel’s a problem; to others, an inspiration. To some, the defining Zionist move – and emotion – is anguish; for others, it’s pride. Some emphasize outreach and inclusivity – embracing the anti-Zionist Left; others prefer Pilates – strengthening our core.

In Get Smart, K.A.O.S. fought C.O.N.T.R.O.L, although neither spy agency’s name was actually an acronym. Today, the League of Anguished Zionists fearing their Young – L.A.Z.Y. – opposes the Organization of Happy Zionists, O.H.Z. – Hebrew for boldness, strength.

I keep insisting that too many leaders exaggerate Jewish anti-Zionists’ popularity and relevance to the Jewish future. With polls showing 82% of American Jews being pro-Israel, and that 70% are “Zionist,” claims of a “lost generation,” don’t add up. But if we (dis)orient Jewish organizations and educational platforms to cater to these extremists, we risk losing a generation.

I certainly don’t understand this reactive negativity as being an identity-building strategy. What proud people tell their story from their enemies’ point of view or by obsessing about shortcomings? We’ve seen how harmful – and inaccurate – it is to pivot America’s narrative around the first slave ship’s arrival in 1619, rather than the catalytic promise of 1776 – whatever its limitations.

Let me be clear. As an academic and historian, I equally resist building an American or Israeli fantasy – land denying any complexity, or failures – that’s not how I teach. I don’t deny Israel’s headaches or mistakes. But I view them in context.

Today, manipulative moralizers also threaten the truth and the healthy discourse we need. Too many American Jewish leaders preach at Israel about “morality,” caricaturing Judaism as this pure fount of ethical wisdom that could cleanse those primitive Israelis if they would only stop befouling it. These sanctimonious sermonizers use the word “morality” as code, meaning “follow my take on the Palestinians” and “fighting (or not fighting) the Gaza war, as I saw fit.”

Such long-distance, remote-control hectoring is arrogant, especially coming from critics who have never been shot at and stayed silent during America’s post-9/11 Wars. They also offer a narrow, partisan reading of Western morality and Jewish ethics, let alone American history.

War is hell. Demanding pristine morality against brutal enemies is like seeking chocolate fudge that’s not fattening. War – like all state violence wielded by the most enlightened democracies – necessarily violates normal conventions by unleashing targeted bloodshed.

It also misleads. “Morality” includes your moral obligations to defend yourself, your family, your state, your people, your civilization. Wartime ethics compel democratic armies to protect their own soldiers, while advancing their goals and minimizing civilian damage as much as possible.

Loyalty, solidarity, and supporting your people are also moral imperatives, especially after they were viciously attacked on October 7, were bombed mercilessly by Houthis, Hezbollah, Iranians, and were libeled worldwide as mass-murderers.

Finally, these anguished Zionists keep catastrophizing, describing divided synagogues, squabbling families, and lost friends as “nightmares… disasters.” Although I hate playing this card, such charged language post-October 7 is far more fitting for those who lost their loved ones, their limbs, their sanity, their livelihoods – and in eulogizing those who lost their lives – be it at the Gaza border area’s kibbutzim, Ofakim’s alleys, Sderot’s streets, the northern towns, the Gaza battlefield, or Bondi Beach.

We in the Zionist Pride Brigade want our soldiers passing the mirror test, seeing in their reflection the most moral and successful soldiers they can be, despite searing conditions. But if we are forced to choose between winning this war, which ultimately freed 160 hostages and saved Israel, or being popular, we’d rather be alive than well-liked – especially because we kept asking “what’s the alternative… how would you fight this multi-front war against genocidal jihadists cowering behind civilians?”

Finally, being rooted in history and in our story offers perspective. In August, The New York Times covered a Weizmann Institute conference of “American Jewish and Israeli intellectuals” who experienced these growing flashpoints, including:

• “the tension between the universal and the particular in Jewish religion, culture and politics,”

• clashes over how much American Jews and America should support Israel,

• shared worries about the “alienation” of American Jewish students, and

• Israeli accusations claiming that overemphasizing “pure spirituality” caused American Jewry’s “failure to provide a minimal Jewish education for its younger generation.”

Jews survived those ongoing, inherent tensions that erupted in August… 1970. Continuing historical patterns, many of the most alienated Jews then assimilated away into non-Jewish society – confirming that no matter how much some leaders court them, they’ll still jump ship. It’s reassuring to realize that ultimately, many of the Jews worrying now about today’s next generation, were the young Jews their elders worried about then.