"I was astounded by the sheer force of these misrepresentations, which turned what is a research book into a vehicle used to harm Judaism and the Jewish people and, God forbid, as a justification for blood libel."...

Good for Toaff for coming to understand what many on the Jewish Left (both in Israel and abroad) insist on ignoring: their words can easily find themselves on anti-Zionist propaganda channels, where they will be used as justification for murdering Jews, G-d forbid.

This is teshuvah: to realize you have done wrong, to regret it deeply, then to do what is required to make amends and to resolve never to do it again. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev zt"l says: only he who speaks to the defense of the People of Israel is worthy to be their leader.

Shabbat Shalom!

I am not so sure how that book could have been misrepresented: Either he was saying that there was a factual basis to the blood libel or he wasn't saying that. Maybe he was astounded by the force of the reaction. But was he misrepresented? That I don't know.

As far as your point is concerned, Zionist Youngster, I don't really see eye-to-eye. I agree that criticism should be argued in good faith, not just meant as a weapon cynically used to undermine Israel's legitimacy. If the quote you use is meant to be interpreted that way, ok. And I agree that one shouldn't make common cause with such cynics; one ends up being used.

But self-censorship can be just as harmful in the long run. The notion of "my country, right or wrong," or "my people, right or wrong" can also be terribly abused.

This reminds me of what I read in The Trouble With Islam, by Irshad Manji. She mentions how the Islamic world did enjoy a period of free intellectual inquiry and political dissent, known as "ijtihad," in Baghdad from the mid-8th to mid-13th centuries. It all went wrong, she says, when continued hatred between the Sunnis and Shias finally convinced the Sunnis of Baghdad that they had to close ranks. Disagreement was seen as disunity ("fitna"), and was considered a crime. Consensus was the name of the game; the idea was to avoid "incoherent thinking" at all costs. The cost, according to Manji, was the extinction of the Muslim intellect by intolerance.

Now, I know that you're not suggesting anything like this, but I do see something of a parallel: Close ranks, allow no dissenters who may give comfort to the enemy, etc. Not a good idea if you want Israel to remain a democracy.

Let's face it, anti-Zionists will use anything they can against Israel; you cannot let that stop well-meaning and well-needed critiques. You cannot let the anti-Zionists dictate indirectly how much free commentary should be allowed within the Jewish or pro-Zionist community.

Israel does need to be criticized, for its own good. It is not perfect. And if you let its wrongdoings or misguided policies continue unabated, you only harm Israel. I think that well-meaning critics--whether Israeli or foreign--should simply be aware of the possibilities of exploitation or misinterpretation of their views. Even as they make their criticisms, they should make very clear that they are looking out for Israel's good.

This is no panacea. Even these protestations could be misleading. Tony Judt recently made such a statement, saying that the issue of Israel is not its existence but what kind of country it will be. This has to be taken with a grain of salt: He is clearly not happy with the existence of Israel, which he had termed an "anachronism." But I know of no other way. Certainly closing ranks and drawing our wagons in a circle is no answer.

Joanne,

Self-censorship isn't really what I'm advocating. I'm advocating repentance, conversion to our side, to the thought that we (the Jews, and non-Muslims in general) are right and they (the "Palestinians", and Muslims in general) are wrong. Self-censorship is only a stop-gap, but the problem is internal, the problem that many Jews have taken the lies of the enemy hook, line and sinker.

I agree there are points to criticize Israel. However, the current climate does not allow us to freely publicize that criticism. The current climate happens to be that the enemies of Israel seize every self-criticism and apology of Israel as admission of the rightness of wiping it off the map (G-d forbid). Owing to such a lack of charity, such a penchant for construing Israel as evilly as possible, by whatever means possible, there are severe limits on what we can air out in public. A people at ease can publicize its self-doubts to no serious ill-effect, but we are not a people at ease, we are surrounded (both physically and ideologically) by people who want to destroy us.

Among the criticisms of Israel, the charge that it is occupying the lands of others is not a valid one. Among the thoughts to which Jewish Leftists need to convert is the thought that this land belongs to us. As long as we believe we are inhabiting "stolen land", that we are "colonials living off the property of the indigenous people", we will lose this war. If we do not believe in ourselves, we will never win. The enemy believes in itself. When the plaintiff argues for himself and the defendant argues for himself, they have an equal theoretical chance of winning the case; when both the plaintiff and the defendant argue for the plaintiff, the judge has no choice but close the case in favor of the plaintiff.

I also recommend the excellent article, Don't Apologize, by Nidra Poller, on Atlas Shrugs, from the time of the recent Lebanon War. It's riveting and just right-on.

I'm not sure in what sense the land "belongs to us" unless "we" have purchased it from its previous owners. Even if "we" are somehow its collective owners and landlords, don't "we" have an obligation to treat its tenants fairly and humanely?