We Stand With Israel – what you mean vs what others mean
Israel and China offer contrasts in how word precision (or lack thereof) can matter
“We stand with Israel.” In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas, this phrase invokes empathy, compassion, sadness, solidarity, courage. But in today’s politics, its usage can be complicated, even loaded.
First, you must read “What Does It Mean to Stand With Israel?” by Emily Tamkin in Slate. (I also highly recommend her book "Bad Jews" on Jewish-American politics and identity.) Tamkin unpacks the question of whether “standing with Israel” necessarily connotes support for the Israeli government. She wonders whether the corruption and disfunction of the Netanyahu government led to the apparent intelligence failure: “Does standing with Israel include granting its government freedom from its most basic responsibilities? Tamkin also praises the courage of Israeli observers who ask whether the Israeli government’s relentless hardline policies and military occupation perpetuate the cycle of violence against civilians.
To “stand with Israel” also begs the question of what one means by Israel. It reminds me of the debate that policymakers have been having over how to refer to China, a topic I addressed last week in “The politics and risks of substituting “CCP” for “China.”
Those who insist on saying “Chinese Communist Party” explain that they seek to differentiate the people of the country from the leaders. CCP is substituted (sometimes inaccurately) for the name of the country, the “People’s Republic of China.” PRC is commonly shortened to “China,” which can be fraught, especially when used adjectively. There are millions of people (Tibetans, Uyghurs et al) who are not ethnically Chinese (Han). The CCP’s label of “Chinese Tibetans” or “Chinese Uyghurs” is an inaccurate yet deliberate attempt to retcon and assert that these distinct people are mere subsets of the Han majority.
Israel is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. Arabs make up 21 percent of the population of Israel (this statistic includes East Jerusalem and Golan Heights); another five percent are listed as “other.” Nineteen percent of the population is non-Jewish. When people say “the Jewish state” it invokes an image of the State of Israel that is different from the reality. I’m not implying anyone who says it does so maliciously. But we have to understand the larger context.
The Israeli government has itself exacerbated the problem. The Nation-State bill passed by a Netanyahu-led government in 2018 gave Israel an official stamp of national self-identification as a Jewish state. Many complained this made second-class citizens of non-Jews and non-Hebrew speakers and said it would erode the integrity of Israel’s democratic character. Given what has happened since, notably Netanyahu’s judicial “reform” and the massive protests against it, those who feared the Nation-State bill would contribute to democratic erosion proved prescient.
The conflation of Judaism and Israel has had poisonous effects in the United States and elsewhere too. As has happened before, there are fears of attacks on synagogues and other anti-Semitic acts following Israeli military actions. Such hate crimes are abhorrent in themselves. But it makes it harder to make the argument that Judaism has nothing to do with Israeli government decisions when the Israeli government itself is blurring the line.
Moreover, U.S. politicians, particularly Republicans, deploy an “I support Israel” defense to accusations, often credible, that they are engaging in anti-Semitism. This includes Donald Trump’s long history of anti-Semitic tropes and dining with a neo-Nazi, and the frequent invocation of “Soros” as code for a manipulating globalist Jewish cabal, even by senior Republican senators and congressmen. Such attempts at self-inoculation serve both to perpetuate anti-Semitism and to devalue the sovereign country of Israel into a political buzzword.
Further complicating matters is the Israeli government’s use of “Judea and Samaria” to refer to the West Bank, using Biblical language to invoke an ancient claim to land that is considered occupied territory under international law and used to justify Jewish settlements there. Complicit are many Republicans, who have adopted “Judea and Samaria” into their party talking points and denials that the West Bank is occupied.
So when we say “We Stand with Israel,” consider whether we run the risk:
that it will be interpreted as inherent support for the Israeli government’s policies, including any military actions that cause disproportionate loss of innocent Palestinian lives?
that it will be seen as supporting only Jews in Israel, further marginalizing the one-fifth of the country who are not?
that it will be construed to endorse the ethno-nationalist vision of a Greater Israel that includes places where Palestinians live and have lived?
To be clear, I do not raise these questions to challenge the sincerity of those who say they stand with Israel out of genuine empathy and sadness for the victims of Hamas’ brutality. Anger is justified. But in our hyper-politicized environment, it is important to open up perspectives, as Tamkin and others have done.
Lastly, this conundrum is not just about Israel. Ethno-nationalism is on the rise everywhere, from Hungary to India, China and the United States, stressing structures of pluralistic democracy. The deliberate conflation of ethnic and religious identities with a nationalist identity has a political purpose, one that carries with it notions of supremacy and diminution of minority rights.
Right now in India, Prime Minister Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is elevating the use of “Bharat” over India to refer to the country’s name. The etymology here is complicated, but given the BJP’s track record, there are legitimate concerns that such a name change is intended to support the Hindu nationalist vision (to the detriment of India’s Muslims, Christians and others).
And if we to be precise about our language on China -- to distinguish between its leadership and its people and to be respectful of the ethnic diversity within its recognized political boundaries – should we not also take care to be precise in our language on Israel and elsewhere?
Yes, we stand with Israel. But don’t let others misconstrue what you mean.