Monday, February 12, 2007
Natan Sharansky has a prescription. Worth reading in full
BEFORE THESE internal debates were resolved the Soviet Jewry effort could not be regarded as a movement, capable of attracting allies and moving governments. Nor were such debates easily, or ever fully, put to rest.
As late as 1987, when the by then mature and powerful movement organized the largest-ever Soviet Jewry rally on Washington's mall to coincide with Mikhail Gorbachev's visit, some Jewish leaders wondered if the community could be mobilized, and if such a rally would be counterproductive. They warned that only a few thousand souls would brave the winter weather, and that the Jewish community would be considered "warmongers" who were spoiling the recent warming of US-Soviet relations.
In actuality, over 250,000 people came to a rally that was pivotal in opening the floodgates, not just to 10,000 or 20,000 Jews, which seemed like a dream at the time, but to a million Jews who came to Israel over the following decade.
Since it has been a while, a reminder is in order of what full mobilization looks like...
Sharansky strikes all the right chords here, comprehends the ideas/ideological interests at play and responds with the right, positive sensibilities in terms of praxis as well. Very solid, substantial combination of ideas, comprehensions and praxis.
He mentions the "'three-D' distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and the new anti-Semitism - demonization, double standards and delegitimization - have become part of international documents and discourse." That's the first I've heard of these specific measures, which additionally seem very sound, very probative. Can't help but wonder what specific "international documents" he might be referring to. Are they peripheral and being marginalized? Are they more central to some of the international and trans-national orgs? Etc. Leveraging these types of discussions/dialogs would additionally seem to be central articles to help counter a wide range of ideas being floated, from principles such as those originating from within Iran, to the Finkelsteins, to the Judts, etc., etc.
And by contrast it's embarrassing to see so many of the misbegotten and malignant expressions originating from superficial "Christian" or "Christianist" quarters, especially so some of the mainstream segments (e.g., James Wall, recently mentioned herein, is but one example only of the more malignant responses). Too often, at best, there are quietist/pietist responses, head-in-the-sand forms of naivete, etc.
It's an excellent essay, but Sharansky should have taken the time to get his facts straight. The gift to Harvard that was returned was $2.5 million, not $10 million (perhaps Sharansky is thinking of the $10 million gift by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud to the families of 9-11 first responders that was rejected by Rudi Guiliani), and it was given by Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan of the UAE, who was not a Saudi. Meanwhile, in 2005, Harvard did accept a $20 million gift from the same Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. Where's the victory there?
Yeah, I caught those little discrepancies, too...they might have accepted that Talal gift, but that's because no one was there to speak out about it. That's the point. We need to start doing that more. (Although at $20million, that would have required a lot of noise.)