Jewish
Frontier

I am delighted and honored to be able to pay tribute to Ben Cohen and lrving Wishnia, two chaverim who have served our movement for longer than I have been on this earth, and whose commitment and dedication have indeed shaped the Labor Zionist Alliance. I think there is no more fitting way to highlight what people like Ben and lrving have accomplished, than by reading poems of Eretz Yisrael in the period just before and during the days of their youth. Now I know that "their youth" is a little vague: Ben and lrving are not exactly the same age. lrving is after all celebrating -biz hundert tsvantzik- his 90th birthday, while Ben is...not. But in any case, I believe I am a bit more accurate than our young chaverim of Habonim Dror, who have been known to refer to LZA members ranging in age from 35 to 90 as "your generation." In any case I have selected excerpts from two Yiddish poets — so I guess these are poems of Eretz YisROYL, not YisraEL. And these are poets usually, and incorrectly, associated more with Labor than Zionism: Peretz Markish and Morris Rosenfeld. Markish actually visited Eretz Yisroyl from Russia in the 1920's. Rosenfeld, from a somewhat earlier epoch, in America, was writing from imagination rather than direct witness. Nevertheless, both of them speak with the inspiration and clarity of great poets. Here they are in translation*:

Peretz Markish: Jerusalem Barefoot sit your hills, swollen humps, Jerusalem. Lamenting, with ancient camel hoof their age And leprous, they cry out to travelers - "Jerusalem!" They cry and mutter... Fiery days crawl on them like blackened bugs, While on them chokes the hidden haunted border And their leprous body, and their dead lineage To black god-merchants and hangmen they are selling Your holy earth is worthy, Jerusalem, Together with the slaves, the sheep, the dowry And with the vessels that brought sacred flame When the sickly step is forged with crosses But out of caves come barefoot shepherds To beg the Dead Sea for a storm. Morris Rosenfeld: Jerusalem Oh no, I can in strangers' lands No longer beg a home with shame While yet the ancient loving bands Bind me to my beloved land My tired eyes still fill with tears When I recall what was before When I could rest in slumber sweet And never hear oppressors' shout When I could tend my flock of sheep And close to me in piety And fervent love there shiver still The blossoms of Jerusalem I think I hear familiar voices They call to me, "Come home, come home." And in my heart begins to wake A hope for happiness renewed I think I see Carmel again The Sharon blooming as before The air is sweet with gentle songs Reminding me of my first spring Oh no, I can in strangers' lands No longer seek a dwelling place While yet the ancient loving bands Bind me to my beloved land

That was the reality and the dream of the Eretz Yisroyl of Ben and lrving's youth. The Medinat Yisrael of today is the product of their toil. One is tempted to say the "culmination of their toil," but that would be doubly incorrect; first, because the task of building an Israel which embodies the ideals of Labor Zionism is far from over; second, because lrving and Ben are not finished with their many contributions. The diplomatic way to say this is, "May you go from strength to strength." We Labor Zionists are not so diplomatic, so let me be clear: "Irving and Ben, you're not off the hook. You have too much yet to share with us."

It is virtually impossible in these difficult times for Israel to give a talk that is reflective rather than advocatory, or even polemical. How can you, when each week brings more reports of suicide bombings by Palestinians willing to die as long as they can kill as many Jews as possible, when young Russian Jews, newly arrived out of bondage, are murdered by their "neighbors"? Cool detachment is hardly a virtue when people are locked in violent confrontation. And our people are locked in such a confrontation with another people — a tragic confrontation, because it did not have to be. It has taken LZA some time after the outbreak of violence — sorry, that's too passive: after Yasir Arafat decided to start a war — for us to regain our equilibrium and bring our ideological and intellectual resources to bear. The shock of Arafat's rejection ofEhud Barak's offer was not easy to absorb. The fall of Barak and the election of Ariel Sharon followed fast on the heels of the renewed fighting. Our colleagues on the right could hardly contain their glee at what they saw as a vindication of their world-view, that the PA was a dishonest partner from the start, that you just can't negotiate with Arabs. On the left, Europeans and some American Jews and Israelis developed an amazing case of amnesia: you would never know from their words and actions that Barak's offer had ever existed. Or, it was his so called "arrogance" that drove Arafat away from the peace table. Or, the Israelis have been reaping all of the benefits of the Oslo process, while the Palestinians have gained nothing. Let us examine each of these claims.

In answering demands from the Jewish right that Labor Zionism repudiate Oslo and confess its errors, we should follow the lead of our friend Transportation Minister Ephraim Sneh, and remind our interlocutors that the level of violence decreased markedly since Oslo, that the PA worked with Israel to prevent terror attacks from Hamas so that dozens of potential suicide bombings were foiled, that Oslo led to diplomatic relations with numerous states including Jordan and the Vatican, that economic investment soared. We must also remind them that violations of Oslo were hardly one sided, that the Wye agreements were abrogated by the Netanyahu government almost before the ink was dry, and that those violations were either ignored or applauded by these very Jews who excoriate others for their perfidy.

To our colleagues on the left, we say, why do you, while expressing sympathy for the Palestinians' plight, and decrying the occupation, neglect to acknowledge that it was Arafat who rejected the end of that occupation? Why do you refuse to hold him accountable? Since when is the putative "arrogance" of an Israeli Prime Minister a reason to reject an offer of permanent peace, of the end of the occupation, of the dismantling of settlements, of the return of 95% of the land and a piece of Israel proper for the other 5%, of a shared Jerusalem, of a solution to the refugee problem? Not generous enough? Make a counter offer, not a war.

As for the claims that Israel got everything and the Palestinians nothing: 45% of Palestinian lands and most of the Palestinian population are now under Palestinian control. Enough? No. But a test of Israel's bonafides? You bet. In the meantime, despite the decrease in violence since 1993, there was violence aplenty. That eight year Paradise that Israel gained from the Oslo accords included: bombings, shootings, the release of Hamas prisoners by the P.A., the teaching of hatred in Palestinian schools and media, the continual stoning and Firebombing of Jews from the Temple Mount to the Western Wall below. And for those who think that stones are not much of a weapon, I did the calculation: a stone dropped, not even thrown, from the Mount, hits a Jew below at 42 miles per hour. In this so-called David vs. Goliath struggle, let us remember that David killed Goliath — with a stone. From the signing of the Oslo Declaration of Principles between Israel and the PLO in September 1993, until September 2000, before the latest "intifada," 256 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks. And yet, the majority of Israelis, in poll after poll, stayed the course, and reaffirmed their readiness to make sacrifices for peace. A test of their bonafides? You bet.

We wish for the occupation to end. We called for this even before Oslo, and we have supported the peace process from the beginning, endorsing the efforts of prime ministers from Yitzhak Rabin z"l to Ehud Barak. We will support the unity government under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in its efforts to obtain a secure and enduring peace. At the same time, it is appropriate for us to criticize actions by Israel that we consider excessive, such as the killing of 13 Israeli Arabs at the start of the current violence. We also urge that Israel delay no further in dealing with the socioeconomic disparities and discrimination against its Arab citizens.

We are of course concerned about the high death rate of Palestinians, especially children. How can one not be, even in the face of the appalling Palestinian abuse of their own children: putting them in the front lines? At the same time, we recognize the predicament of a few Israeli soldiers facing a mob of hundreds armed with rocks, slingshots, firebombs, and guns. We are also concerned that innocent Palestinians have become the victims of their leaders' folly. It is impossible to eliminate civilian suffering in wartime; nevertheless, it is important to minimize it, while responding with appropriate force to those who have chosen force. Even that is not simple. What shall we do to deter suicide bombers? Bomb a few villages in retaliation? Kill a few dozen or hundred Palestinian civilians? This we do not do. There is no magic plan. Sharon is faced with precisely the same dilemmas as was Barak.

And we have a crucial difference with the policies of Prime Minister Sharon. We oppose the continued establishment or expansion of settlements. We opposed it under Labor, we continue to oppose it. It is a major obstacle to peace. It does not have the support of the majority of the Israeli population, it has led to despair among the Palestinians, and it has provided fertile soil for Palestinian rejectionists. It is simply wrong. Even my mekhutn Mort, a retired dentist and no Labor Zionist, is asking, "How can we steal other peoples' land?" Does this mean that Jews should not have the right to live anywhere in the Land of Israel? Of course they should. Just as those Palestinian refugees who did not actually participate in the 1948 war should have the right of return, with all of their descendants, to their original homes in Israel. Two splendid abstractions, invoked regularly by those who desire victory, not peace. Peace will come when absolute rights are compromised, when self-righteousness gives way to seykhl. The settlements are not the only obstacle to peace, but they are a major one. That having been said: if Arafat had not rejected Barak's offer, that problem would be disappearing even as we speak.

We must, however, acknowledge just how far we have come since Oslo: the positions we Labor Zionists have espoused, including land for peace, and Palestinian statehood, have now become the normative positions of the Jewish community in Israel and in the world, and are endorsed by Ariel Sharon himself. They are also the positions of the American government. The clear consensus among responsible Jews and among responsible Arabs is that there is no going back. Unfortunately, the rubric "responsible Arabs" does not at this moment include Arafat and the PA. We Labor Zionists are not naive: we are well aware that perhaps, as my mother (of blessed memory) would say, "nishtu mit vernen tsu geyn tsum tish": there's no one with whom to go to the table. Nevertheless, we have rededicated ourselves to seeking ways of going forward, to a secure and lasting peace. How to do this? We don't know; no one knows. But we do know how not to do it: keep beating the Palestinians bloody and taking their land until they stop hating us. So we soldier on. There is no alternative.

But Labor Zionism is not a single issue movement. As we love Israel, so do we love the Jewish people, and so do we love social democracy. Download our ideology statement: laborzionist.org, and you will see these multiple commitments and agendas. As we rededicate ourselves to the search for peace between Israel and its neighbors, so too do we rededicate ourselves to peace between Jew and Jew. This is no easy task. In Shmaryahu Levin's famous epigram, "Yidn zaynen a kleyn folk ober a paskudnye." Jews are a small people, but ornery. We see this today in the continuing struggle for pluralism. Fifty years ago, a Jewish world traumatized by its horrific losses welcomed those who wished to identify as Jews. Great leaders of the religious movements sat with each other and with great leaders of secular Judaism, and worked together for the good of the Jewish people. Where has that gone? Why has our relative safety produced exclusionary fanaticism? The torching of synagogues was always a hallmark of rabid anti-Semitism. What are we to make of the torching of a Conservative synagogue in Jerusalem by Orthodox Jews? Swiss insurance companies were excoriated for demanding birth and death certificates as proof of identity from descendants of Holocaust victims, or from Holocaust survivors themselves. What are we to make of the Chief Rabbi of Denmark making precisely that demand, in order to "permit" immigrant Polish Jews to join the Danish Jewish community? There's an old Jewish riddle: "What's the difference between an apikoyres and a khnyuk: a heretic and a fanatic? An apikoyres is someone who does one less mitzvah than you; a khnyuk is someone who does one more." The joke is losing its charm.

We in LZA have set ourselves the task of establishing a forum where all branches of the Jewish people, religious and secular, can seek common ground. We have begun with Jewish leaders in Chicago, including the rabbi who heads the Conservative Movement's Rabbinical Assembly, a Reform rabbi who is a member of the national boards of both the UAHC and ARZA, and leaders ofNaamat and LZA. Such a forum will, for example, consider the question of what our Israeli chaverim call "The Fourth Way": non-religious, but firmly traditionbased Judaism, such as is currently practiced on many Labor kibbutzirn. Where does this fit in the spectrum of Jewish practice? We are also asking, in what way have synagogues evolved, from "houses of worship," an American Christian concept, to centers of learning and communal activity — which they were in the Old Country? In fact. Labor Zionism itself has long provided a paradigm for the synthesis of Jewish tradition and commitment to ethical action. Here, again translated from the Yiddish, is an excerpt from Nachman Syrkin's 1917 essay entitled "Thoughts About Socialist Zionism."

...as longing and as hope, as mystical belief and inner faith, the complex of thoughts and feelings which is contained in Socialist Zionism is rooted in all of Jewish history. The struggle against the world, out of the recognition of one's own originality and mission, for the higher ideals of culture and humanity, for the spiritinalization and moralization of life, is the basic theme of Jewish history. The transformation of each natural and historical reality, in order to bring down the Shkhinah and the Malkhes haRuakh, and actualize the ideal Shabbes Shabbaton of history, runs like a scarlet thread through the thousands of years of Jewish historical existence. In the ideas of Shivas Tsion, Byas ha Moshiakh, Geulah, Atid Lavo, Ketz ha Yornim, Akhris ha Yornim, and even the mystical hope of Tkhyas haMeysim resounds and is expressed this historical originality of Judaism.

This interweaving of traditional, even religious imagery with social action was truly revolutionary in those revolutionary times. We Labor Zionists, some of us now members of synagogues, have evolved, as have the synagogues themselves. We have place ourselves in the forefront of the struggle to make the definition of "Who is a Jew" as broad and inclusive as possible.

Syrkin's essay reminds us of the third pillar of Labor Zionism: what we now call social democracy, the struggle for tikkun olam in the socioeconomic sphere. Here is an excerpt from the LZA ideology statement:

We are committed to fight for human rights, social and economic justice, equal education, civil liberties and religious freedom. We oppose all forms of persecution, including those based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation.

Brave words. How do we actualize them? Our most recent initiative is the struggle against what I have termed "the global sweatshop." There is no movement more resonant with American Jewish history, nor dearer to the Jewish heart. The Frankenstein we thought our grandparents and greatgrandparents had slain has risen from the ashes. Guest workers, undocumented aliens, citizens of poor third world nations — all of these are reaping the benefits of globalization: sub-subsistence wages, appalling and dangerous working conditions, brutalization by managers, child labor, to name a few. You may recall that Harvard students staged a sit-in last spring. They wanted Harvard to adopt a policy, similar to one passed by the Cambridge City Council, establishing a "living wage" of $10.25 an hour as the minimum that could be paid to employees. From the April 30 New York Times:

More than 1,000 workers at Harvard earn less than $10.25 an hour. Porfirio Figueroa is one of them. He explained through an interpreter that he has to work two jobs 'just to survive a little bit.' But he doesn't get to see much of his kids. 1 only see my son on weekends and at night when he is sleeping,' he said.

I only see my son on weekends and at night when he is sleeping...

I have a little boy, a fine little son. When I see him, it feels as if the world is mine. But I seldom see him awake. When I see him, he's asleep. I see him only at night.

Morris Rosenfeld's most famous poem, "Mayn Yingele"[My Little Boy], set to music and sung by thousand of Jewish workers. It was with the strains of this song echoing in my head that I read in the New York Times of May 9, at the end of the partially successful sit-in, the smug words of Harvard's spokesperson: "We have not agreed to a living wage." Have they no shame? Have they no shame?

LZA has joined this struggle. Together with our youth movement Habonim Dror and the Jewish Labor Committee, we are developing a curriculum in our summer camps, to educate our youth in the history of the sweatshop, its current incarnation, and methods to combat it, including petitions, pickets, and boycotts. Like the corporations, we too are becoming multinational. The struggle of a Mexican immigrant in Los Angeles, a Pakistani child in Lahor, a Thai guest worker in Tel Aviv, is our struggle. We are the allies of the American Labor Movement, of the Histadrut, of the struggles for social and economic democracy around the world. We won once, and we shall win again.

A talk like this is inevitably something of a deception. One of the perks of the LZA president is to tell an audience of all we are trying to do, and all we hope to do. The reality is somewhat different. The LZA officers, the Executive Director, and I examine our budget, and decide which of those things that we want to do, and that need to be done, we cannot do. Can we afford another press release? Another mailing? Another speaker from Labor Israel? Another dues payment to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which would dearly love an excuse to throw us out, so that it can move even further to the right, while claiming that it represents all of American Jewry? Which of these goes by the wayside? Which can we afford not to do?

If all it took to accomplish our goals were sweat equity, we would have succeeded many times over. lrving Wishnia and Ben Cohen are the best examples of that. They have sweated for Labor Zionism all their lives. But they have also lent their names and their prestige to today's occasion because they know that it takes more. It takes contributions and donations and memberships. It has been my task today to explain why LZA is worth it. Your presence and your generosity to the Labor Zionist Education Fund is the best possible tribute to the work of lrving and Ben.

Ben and lrving: Mazal Tov. Kol tuv lekulkhem. Zayt ale gegrist. Thank you.

     Jeffry V. Mallow
     President, Labor Zionist Alliance
     June 3,2001

*In the speech, these were interspersed with excerpts from the original Yiddish