Natan Sharansky leverages the sham of his legacy at General Assembly
Natan Sharansky, formerly a Jewish refusenik in Russia championing civil rights and present-day Likudnik director of the Jewish Agency, flashed his crown as “unofficial” head of Soviet bloc human rights activists at the annual Jewish federations convention, the General Assembly. It’s a shame the crown is tarnished with a decade or two of being one of Israeli’s preeminent hawks and a pillar of Israeli Jewish-only nationalism. His words coming from anyone else would be soaring and inspirational, connecting the history of global Jewish tikun olam to the future:
“In the post-nationalist, post-identity world where people are once again asked to make a choice. Do you believe in the universal value of human rights you are told why do you hold onto individual nationalism. Do we really want to shelter ourselves in the cocoon of a Jewish state?” he asked. “When one young Jew believes he or she must make a choice that he or she cannot belong to both, then they make the choice in favor of universalism, then assimilation erodes our community. Our detractos sense our weakness and our hesitation.”
[…] “Identity strengthening is the best answer in the struggle for the freedom of Israel,” he said. The most important thing today, like yesterday, 20 years ago is the return to our Jewish roots. Rebuilding our Jewish identity can allow us to fight for tikun olam everywhere, for justice and for freedom for everyone. (JTA)
How lovely indeed. But in the words of MJ Rosenberg, “The test of whether one is a human rights activist or one who simply uses the issue for political ends is that person’s willingness to apply the human rights measuring stick to his own people. It is pretty easy to limit your calls for human rights to nations other than your own. For Sharansky, concern for Palestinians is the test of whether or not his claim to the mantle of human rights activist is genuine…he fails—big time.”
He has shared podiums with politicians advocating disenfranchising Israeli Arabs, opposed a Palestinian state at nearly every turn, opposed the Disengagement on the grounds of giving up any land, illegally confiscated thousands of dunams of Jersualemite Arab land (since overturned by the Attourney General), and so on. He supports his party, Likud, in policies that stripped the social safety net and minimized the civil rights of non-Jews.
Some legacy. And the American Jewish community — being none too steeped in hypocrisy themselves — eats it up. May the big wigs at the General Assembly continue to eagerly lap up Sharansky’s cynical use of human rights language. It will assist their disenfranchisement from the bulk of American Jewish young people all the quicker.
all i have to say is “D-bag”
This is full of inaccuracies. Start by reading Natan Sharansky’s piece with Bassam Eid of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group in the WSJ.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120269089266857707.html
Why do you feel the need to insult anyone who has ever done something good for the Jewish community? Not everyone can contribute as much as you do with all your important blogging.
Those who have done some good and some bad should not be treated as if they have done only good, which I believe is the point of this post.
I think in the early part of this video, Sharansky is brilliant. Who else is speaking of these things? You can feel his passion for this issue, which is why he is the perfect individual to head the Agency right now. He gets it!
The later shtik on Taglit and MASA and strengthening ties to Israel and tikkun olam is all good and well – programs and politics are the bread and butter of JA’s daily grind – but he needs to keep hammering and elaborating and expounding on the identity issue. What is lacking in the Agency is not programming, or even resources, but the intellectual framework to strengthen Jewish identity.
Universalism is not a new phenomenon. Growing up in the Soviet Union my parents were also told that national identity was irrelevant and passe, that being a Jew at a time of science and progress was anti-modern, anti-progressive, anti-socialist, unjust, counter-revolutionary and that we must all become the melting pot of the proletariat. I left in 4th grade and I remember the slogans well; I remember chanting them.
And these words were not merely spoken by a few, they were enforced by education, propaganda, and the carrots and sticks of state apparatus. Identity is the enemy of collectivism, the fault line of the Soviet Union’s stability, and ultimately its undoing. Sharansky didn’t spend a decade in Gulag because he was fighting for universal rights. If you misunderstood this, then you understood NOTHING about the struggles of Soviet Jewry!
Sharansky was fighting for his rights as a Jew! Other refuseniks were fighting for their rights as Russians and Poles and Czechs. They fought for each other only to the extent that they believed all people must be free to plot their own destiny. What united the refuseniks was not universalism, but an innate repulsion at the repression of their rights and identity as individuals. It happens to be that the rights of individuals ARE universal rights, but their foundation is in respect for individual self-interest and self-identity, not pureed collectivism.
Nor is this a new challenge. The Jewish battle against universalism is as old as our people itself, and threads into our most poignant struggles, whether battling Greek humanistic polytheism or surviving Persian exile. We are the most unnatural, illogical, artificial nation in the history of humanity, forged not by blood or geography, but by a choice of faith in a covenant we cannot empirically observe, verifiably prove or even trade for a so much as a cupcake. And this wisp in the wind has enabled our survival as a people for longer than any other national group.
The struggle against universalism cuts to the core of an individual’s choice to identify as a Jew. What does it mean to be a Jew, to make the choice of affirming Jewish identity, day in and day out? What is the role and responsibility of a Jew? What is the purpose of a Jew, and of the Jewish people? These are questions that demand a response ground in truth, not politics or ideology.
If Sharansky is serious, and I believe he is, then I hope he takes the opportunity he has been blessed with to reach into our identity, into our history and heritage – which provides a blueprint for the struggle ahead – to reclaim and disseminate the value of Jewish identity, the virtue of Jewish purpose. A technocrat could have managed pro-Israel programming. Sharansky was elected to think and revolutionize, not to manage. In the months and years to come, I will be looking to Sharansky for tangible action on supporting Jewish identity everywhere, from remote Jewish enclaves in Brazil and Kamchatka to the streets of Tel Aviv and New York, from the villages of Moldova to the metropolis of Parisian Europe.
Sharansky is a good man. May he be blessed with the strength and wisdom to be successful in strengthening Jewish identity.
“The Jewish battle against universalism is as old as our people itself, and threads into our most poignant struggles, whether battling Greek humanistic polytheism or surviving Persian exile.”
Jewish thinking and culture was profoundly and permanently affected by Greek humanism, we have more in common with Greek humanists than we have with the practitioners of Judaism before contact with the Greeks.
Also of note is that the Greek thinkers were generally not polytheists. They tended toward pantheism, which is a “God is all” concept often considered a type of monotheism.
Greek Polytheism at the time of our contact with the Greeks had more to do with a civic response that today we would call by another name: Religious tolerance. As the Greek area of influence grew, especially during the Hellenistic period, since the religious districts and spaces were considered civic, supported by the polis generally, all gods, cults and believers of all stripes were able to have a place inside of the city’s religious structures.
Secondarily when you read of the riots in Alexandria between Jews and “Greeks” you are actually reading of riots between several different groupings of Jews. This did just device along lines of type of Judiac belief but also along lines of who was the legitimate representatives of the community — especially important since taxes were aggregated first thorough “community leaders.”
The simple fact is we have most flourished within tolerant systems. In order for those systems to work we also have to be the champions of promoting the same rights for all peoples.
Sharansky’s view is perverted because he came from a perverted system in the Soviet Union which is not an analogy to anything current. Sharansky is a hypocrite, and underdog who became the overdog, and who doesn’t wish to challenge the udnerdog-overdog systerm ,but simply to assert overdog status.
Wow, you’d dismiss the legacy of a man who was imprisoned by a dictatorship for a decade because he fought for human rights, as a “sham”. I’d like to be able to say that’s “audacious” but it’s actually just obnoxious.
Of course Sharansky’s legacy is a “sham” to the far left — he didn’t become a leftist himself. Few greater sins than committing one’s energy and reputation to non-leftist politics.
Eric, yes, I’m saying the man is a sell out. He wanted human rights, but now that he benefits from them, he doesn’t need to advocate for them any more. Opportunistic and disingenuous for certain.
What I’m saying also is that credibility matters. His saying these things is like Israel saying they believe in the right of national self-determination and then denying it to another people for 62 years. Oh. Wait…
What I’m saying also is that credibility matters. His saying these things is like Israel saying they believe in the right of national self-determination and then denying it to another people for 62 years. Oh. Wait…
42 years
KFJ,
Sharansky obviously does not accept the premises of your opinions. “denying it to another people for 62 years.” Are you serious? Are you versed in the last 100 years of Middle Eastern history?
Just to take the most glaring example from your litany of Sharansky’s supposed offenses, he has obviously been proven correct on his Disengagement position. The move weakened Israel, strengthened Palestinian terror and Islamist groups, turned Gaza into the world’s largest missile base and ended up reducing security for both Israelis and Palestinians while doing nothing to advance “peace”.
Your opinions are on the far, basically extreme, left. Why do you expect so many people to share them — and assume that those who don’t (the majority of people) are somehow worse than you? Your disdain for people who don’t share your views is just…. well, it seems absurd in light of your radicalism. But maybe it’s just part and parcel…
This just comes with the territory. Natan Sharansky is a hero (at least to some of us), but he elected to become a politician, so he’ll be subject to a lot of criticisms–that’s just the name of the game.
Eric, people on the far left do not spend their entire work day fundraising for Israel. That’s my day job. Left, absolutely. Far left? Maybe compared to a hareidi! (Are you hareidi?) But what amuses me is that because you think I’m a minority opinion, I’ll just stop believing what I do because it’s not what everyone else thinks. Seriously? Is that how you make opinions? That might explain a lot, but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about you.
Regarding Disengagement, I’ve already addressed why the Disengagement failed to produce a secure Gaza a thousand times. In short, I use the words of Sharon’s closest advisor Dov Weissglass, “Disengagement provides the required amount of formaldehyde so there will be no peace process with the Palestinians.” Mission accomplished, Mr. Sharon, mission accomplished.
Regarding Sharansky, he’s not a human rights activist anymore. But he loves to talk about his time in jail, doesn’t he? He uses it for political points, not fighting structural injustice. And his record in the Knesset is clear: dismantling rights, not strengthening them.
Disengagement provides the required amount of formaldehyde so there will be no peace process with the Palestinians.”
Is that why Sharon formed Kadima, to “finally establish Israel’s permanent borders”? http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1127057.html
KFJ you totally missed my point.
(Interesting that you agree with Sharansky that disengagement was a bad idea….but you still lambaste him for that opinion!)
>>David: “Greek Polytheism at the time of our contact with the Greeks had more to do with a civic response that today we would call by another name: Religious tolerance.”
Tolerance for everything…. but Judaism. Or monotheism. Please. Read about the development and stall of Greek mathematics to get a flavor of where such “tolerance” led.
>>“Jewish thinking and culture was profoundly and permanently affected by Greek humanism, we have more in common with Greek humanists than we have with the practitioners of Judaism before contact with the Greeks.”
I think it’s exactly the inverse. The confrontation between Greece and Israel was so difficult because the Greeks had cultural elements and values that had previously been thought to still be exclusively in the domain of Jews. Kind of shocking to greet visitors from “another planet” and be presented with a copy of the Britannica.
Jonathan1, Israel denied the Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes right after the war in 1948. Israel never believed there was a Palestinian people to begin with. So 62 years.
Avigdor, Sharansky has done nothing at all since he was released from prison. If you name one thing he has done for anyone’s benefit since then, I will send you a monogrammed T-Shirt.
To me, we have nothing to apologize for before Rabbi Levinger moved into the Park Hotel, so it’s 42 years. But we’ll just have to disagree on that.
41 years–I know BZ will catch me on that
It’s a matter of record that up until the early 70’s both Jews and Arabs were referred to as “Palestinians”. The notion of a separate nationality known as Palestinian is a very recent development.
>>“Jonathan1, Israel denied the Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes right after the war in 1948.”
Why would any country offer to bring in hundreds of thousands of enemy civilians who had originally fled in order to enable the annihilation of the country? It makes no strategic sense.
“the value of Jewish identity, the virtue of Jewish purpose”. Which is what exactly? I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The value does not inhere in Jewish identity, but the things we choose to do with it. Sharansky chose to support occupation while claiming human and civil rights in the name of Jews. That hypocracy is not something he or anyone else should be proud of.
I simply don’t see the hypocrisy. In Sharansky, I see unyielding commitment to ensuring the security and human rights of Jews, which is the first responsibility of Jewish leadership and, for that matter, of a Jewish state.
Progressive Jews pride themselves on exploring and embracing complexity, yet there is an attempt by some here to simplistically castigate anyone who does not immediately endorse Palestinian statehood and a withdrawal from the liberated territories as anathema to human rights. There is not a single Jew in Israel who supports the occupation – the current state of affairs – and to categorize people in such a way casts doubt in the direction of the accusers of a general commitment to understanding complex issues.
The occupation is a product of four decades of left and right wing Israeli government policy, and as such represents the terrible, complex balance of fundamental interests imposed on the State of Israel, and everyone here knows what they are. If we annex the territories, what do we do with the Palestinians? If we withdraw from the territories, how do we defend ourselves? To present these complex issues as black and white is to deprive the conversation of intellectual honesty itself. No one here has the answer and the definitive solution that reconciles these questions – not CoA, not Eric, not Jonathan1, not KFJ, and not me. Perhaps I missed some of you here convincing Hamas to stop firing rockets at Sderot or launching the next act of terror and war? I didn’t think so.
Sharansky does not support the occupation, but neither does he support risking yet another bloody war on the Jews of Israel, which will get much more bloody when the Jews of Israel fight back. Furthermore, to paint him as some sort of right wing extremist is simply unjust. The man has spent the last decade writing and advocating for coexistence, and has supported and elevated Palestinian reformers who wish to broaden the Palestinian public discourse, increase tolerance for dissent, civil society and demand PA accountability for its abuses. If you haven’t seen this, you simply haven’t paid attention.
The measure of a Jewish leader is how he represents and serves Jews. With the Palestinians, Sharansky has found the right balance of standing firm on Jewish rights and interests while working towards coexistence.
What is important now is what Sharansky does, as head of the Jewish Agency, to flesh out his vision for supporting and strengthening Jewish identity around the globe. To get into the details of how this identity translates into action is improper. We each have our own visions for successful Jewish communities. No matter how we approach Judaism, what we share is a commitment to Jewish life – this blog being a powerful affirmation of Jewish life – and it is this commitment that is being challenged by apathy and assimilation. It is this apathy and assimilation towards Jewish identity that Sharansky must confront.
Those of you with comprehensive plans on how to achieve this, or who would like to be part of the conversation should send him an email; I know I will.
Sharansky is also on Facebook. I know that no one here will believe me, but I was the FIRST person to friend his official profile on Facebook. I had just read an editorial from him on WSJ or NYT and thought to myself, I wonder if he is on Facebook… and sure enough, he had just joined the day before.
No one here has the answer and the definitive solution that reconciles these questions – not CoA, not Eric, not Jonathan1, not KFJ, and not me
You are correct about that. I believe that partition is the best option, but I have no definitive solution. Not even close.
Shabbat Shalom
Speaking of identity, has anyone heard of this?