Israel Matzav

... IN A sense, Spielberg is not to be blamed. His attitude is merely a byproduct of the general drift which began with Oslo when Israeli governments began to soft pedal the justice of Israel's case, and concentrated on persuading Israelis and Jews that Yasser Arafat was a genuine peace partner. There were Israeli leaders who even instructed Diaspora activists to stop defending Israel's actions because the "irreversible peace process" made such activity counter-productive. [Hello Shimon Peres and the 'New Middle East'! CiJ] As a consequence, the passion previously invested in promoting our case in the war of ideas evaporated. The flow of lies and calumnies from those seeking to destroy us went unanswered. Revisionist historians promoted the lie that Israel was indeed born in sin, and distorted the origins of the repeated wars of aggression Israel had to face. Invariably, the lies impacted on global public opinion and the image of Israel was transformed from that of an underdog to an aggressor and occupier.

To make matters worse, elements on the Israeli Left initiated a drumbeat of unprecedented self-hatred in the media and universities. Outlandish views that had hitherto been restricted to inconsequential fringe groups filled the op-ed columns of Haaretz, the media flagship of the Israeli intelligentsia, and whose English-language edition began publication in recent years.

Within the Israeli polity, such post-Zionist propaganda only had marginal impact because being in the front lines of terror, Israelis were not unduly influenced. However when the English-language versions of these masochistic articles were globally disseminated on the Internet, they impacted negatively - especially on Jews living in societies where application of double standards and demonization of Israel by the local media had already become daily fare.

IN THIS new era, Jews like Kushner, formerly regarded by the community as marginal, were provided with an imprimatur to promote their outlandish attacks on Israel as respectable alternative approaches. Even Israel's right to exist became a subject for debate. In effect, Jewish anti-Zionism became validated in mainstream institutions and most Jewish leaders opted to bury their heads rather than face unpleasant confrontations.

...

Needless to say, those exposed to anti-Israeli diatribes are not in danger of being transformed into enemies of Israel. [I'm not sure why that's 'needless to say.' In fact, I suspect that the opposite may be true - that those who are exposed to anti-Israel diatribes are in danger of being transformed into enemies of Israel. CiJ] But a basic question of principle is involved. Surely, even a pluralistic Jewish educational conference whose declared objective is the enhancement of Jewish identity must have its red lines.

Are there no limits? Does anything go? Is it a requirement of freedom of expression for a Jewish organization to provide a platform for those who delegitimize Israel? Are views which question the right of a Jewish state to exist to be accepted as a legitimate "alternative" Jewish viewpoint?

Would anti-Semites be tolerated? Would Kahanists qualify? And why, in a society which is already saturated with hostility against the Jewish state, should a respectable Jewish platform be provided for Jewish defamers of Israel? ...

We live in complex times. Israel remains the principal anchor for Jewish identity for most Jews. If, distinct from legitimate criticism of Israel, reputable Jewish organizations are willing to tolerate debates in which the verities of the Jewish state are undermined, we are paving the way for our own moral self-defeat. Diaspora Jews will simply not survive if they lack the backbone to purge the enemy from within. As Jews, we must not become absorbed into the moral turpitude associated with post-modernism which blurs distinctions between good and evil.

Read it all (there's more). And once you've read it all, think about this: what is the solution? Is there one?