RUTHFULLY YOURS

Dov Waxman, a professor of political science at Northeastern University, says he has written Trouble in the Tribe to investigate the “internecine battle” waged over Israel in the American Jewish community. What emerges instead is an apologia for radical anti-Israel Jewish organizations and a distorted image of organized American Jewry as intolerant, elitist, and intent on silencing those who dare criticize Israel.

The author’s failure to level with the reader is clear by the second chapter. It’s here that Waxman introduces us to his first example of how a dissenting group was “denounced” and “shunned” by organized American Jewry. That group was Breira, an organization established in 1973 following the Yom Kippur War. Breira means “alternative” in Hebrew, and the alternative it offered was a PLO-run state in the West Bank and Gaza. In Waxman’s telling, the group came from “the heart of the Jewish community” but was smeared by right-wing organizations after it came to light that two of Breira’s members had met with Palestinians with close ties to the PLO (in Israel meeting with the PLO was then illegal).

The trouble with Waxman’s narrative is that neither Breira’s position nor its members’ PLO meet-and-greet was the issue. What did Breira in was not dissent, but flying under a false flag. What was exposed, through a monograph put out by Americans for a Safe Israel—Waxman incorrectly names it American Friends for a Safe Israel—was who was in Breira’s leadership. The group’s first two paid staff members came from CONAME, as did 19 other members of Breira, many of whom held positions on its executive and advisory committees. CONAME originated as a front group for the Socialist Workers Party, and was described by Time as one of the Arab or pro-Arab organizations working in the United States. The group specialized in bringing anti-Israel speakers like Israel Shahak (who called the whole idea of a Jewish state “unjust and absurd”) to American campuses. During the 1973 war, it had joined with Arab and pro-Arab organizations in sending telegrams to Congress urging “no arms to Israel.” When this was exposed, the group claimed lamely that its name had been used without its consent.

Breira had roped in a number of high-profile Jews who took at face value Breira’s claim to be pro-Israel. When they realized they had been duped, some—including Harvard sociology professor Nathan Glazer, scholar of Judaism Jacob Neusner, and Rabbi Robert Gordis, editor of Judaism—jumped ship. Internal dissent doomed the organization. None of this you would learn from Waxman.

The groups that followed Breira fared better, Waxman says, undercutting his own argument that such groups are ostracized. He mentions the New Jewish Agenda (like Breira, long deceased) and the New Israel Fund, which Waxman describes as a “human rights organization.” He mentions in passing that it funds Adalah, but doesn’t say what Adalah is—an Arab-run legal center that rejects the legitimacy of the Jewish state. In other words, the New Israel Fund is pulling a Breira: It pays lip service to Zionism, saying it wants Jews to achieve “self-determination in their homeland,” but it supports groups that do not. Which is not Zionism. It is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If I had a shekel for every threat I’ve heard from disgruntled citizens to “leave the country” if a certain politician rises to power or a particular policy is implemented, I’d be rich.

Having just returned from a trip to the United States, where Trump-o-mania has some people in a frenzy over the possibility that the real estate mogul might win the presidential election in November, I thought I could escape some of this type of hysteria by returning home to Israel, where such hyperbole is so commonplace that it is barely noticeable.

But there is no rest for the weary, as I would discover on the day of my flight to Tel Aviv, when the announcement was made that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had entered into a coalition deal with former foreign minister and nemesis, Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman.

That this deal entailed the replacement of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon was of no source of concern to me. Though Ya’alon has an illustrious history and a reputation for being both a serious military man and levelheaded think-tank member, I gave up on him when he started preaching morality to Israeli society. At a time when both radical Islamists and Western professors, as well as huge swaths of the British Labour Party, are waging a frontal assault on the Jewish state, accusing it of atrocities it does not commit, the last thing Israel needs is a cabinet member adding fuel to the anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic fire.

I therefore say goodbye to Ya’alon without a heavy heart. Though Lieberman leaves much to be desired, at least he believes in meting out the death penalty to terrorists. Nor is he even as “right-wing” as his detractors claim. Like the positions of Trump, Lieberman’s are often indistinguishable from those of his left-wing counterparts. It’s the “take no prisoners” rhetoric and associations with dubious characters that make both men controversial.

Something is going on in the climate-change wars. Man’s role in our changing climate, according to Mr. Obama, is “settled” science, much as eugenics was once “settled” science. The latter was based on Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Among its consequences: it made phrenology an accepted study, it abetted discrimination, and it fostered the concept that the less fit should not over-breed. Steven Levitt’s claim in Freakonomics, that abortions reduce crime rates, has its origins in eugenics.

Anti-intellectualism is not confined to climate. The rationalization for transgender bathrooms is based on identity politics, not science. When Curt Schilling said that “a man is a man no matter what they call themselves,” he was fired. He may have been politically incorrect, but, x and y chromosomes say he was factually correct. As William McGurn recently noted in The Wall Street Journal, Schilling was “…Galileo, with ESPN filling in for the Holy Office.” Science is, as Mr. Obama should know, a process of discovery. When “science” strays beyond the limits of what has been established as scientifically true, it begins to resemble pseudo-science.

For years, debate has swirled around the role of man’s impact on climate. Those on the left claim that he bears principal responsibility, while those on the right question the degree of man’s effect. Both acknowledge that the earth’s climate has never stood still, and both parties recognize man has played a role. The debate: Where on the spectrum should man’s responsibility lie and what should be done to alleviate harm, while allowing economies to grow? Should we spend time assigning blame, or should we look for solutions to problems caused by climate, regardless of man’s role?

Both sides have become mulish in defense of their turf. The right receives donations from the oil, gas and coal industries – all of which have been critical to the standards of living we enjoy. The left gets support from environmental and green-energy groups, which have abetted our quality of life. Society has benefitted from both. Both richer and poorer nations require the former, but it is only developed nations that can afford “green energy.” When the battle is joined, it is society that suffers.