Story and photos by Diane Joy Schmidt, New Mexico Jewish Link, Volume 49, Number 2, Fall 2019/Stav 5780. See as published at this googledrive LINK.
Below is a slightly revised, enlarged draft that was submitted, in particular here is one paragraph that did not make it in time for the published story, that I felt especially chilling, in response to the fourth question, “Is a Two-State Solution still possible?:

**Tobin did argue that, on the other hand, things are turning in Israel’s favor—at least, among the leaders in the Sunni Arab states, who, he said, are tired of Palestinian intransigence. He said, “The leaders of the Sunni Arab states are far more afraid of Iran than of anything Israel might do. In fact they look to Israel as a bulwark, as someone who might defend them against Iran. The subtext there is, they are not that keen on creating another Arab state that might be dominated by Islamic extremists, which would be a threat to them as well as to the Jews.”  The story begins below:

THE DEBATE “LEFT VS. RIGHT: THE BATTLE FOR THE SOUL OF AMERICAN JEWRY”

It is a measure of the heartfelt desire within the American Jewish community that people wish to get along, that they want to show their genuine willingness to understand and to come to grips with the issues that divide us. It is this fundamental need for Jews to find common cause with one another that has kept a project going that was launched back in 2017, “Left vs. Right, The Battle for the Soul of American Jewry.” The title was, until recently, “The Battle for Israel’s Soul,” indicating the polarization that has only increased since Trump took office here. 

Two eminent journalists set out across the country with sufficient missionary zeal to tilt at windmills for our viewing pleasure, J.J. Goldberg, editor-at-large and former editor-in-chief of The Forward, for the left, and Jonathan Tobin, contributing writer for The National Review and editor-in-chief of JNS.org, the Jewish News Syndicate, for the right.

        It was a full house at Temple Beth Shalom on Sunday, August 26th when the show came to Santa Fe, and Rabbi Neil Amswych introduced Goldberg, Tobin and the moderator, board member Steven Farber, a distinguished Santa Fe attorney and civic leader. A series of questions around four main topics were posed with timed responses and counter-responses. For almost two hours, the audience sat listening attentively, while also intently scribbling on notecards the questions they wished to have aired at the Q&A at the end. 

This is the 61st time Goldberg and Tobin have presented their friendly debate-like conversation, and while they wildly disagreed on many issues, the tone was mild and civil throughout. No blood-pressure cuffs were raised. In the evening, they also traveled to Hillel House at the University of New Mexico and performed for another two hours for a young crowd.

The main point they stressed was that we can, we must, listen to each other. At this time, it is too easy to tune out the other channels, to un-friend those you don’t agree with on Facebook, to not try to listen and understand one another’s point of view.

The First Question

Farber chose to lead off with the most recent question, “Was Israel right or wrong to forbid the political visit planned by the two Muslim congresswomen, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib?” This was asked along with, “Do BDS and anti-Zionism amount to anti-Semitism in new clothes?” ( the acronym BDS stands for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, a Palestinian-led movement to boycott Israel).

Tobin said that they both agreed it was a mistake for Israel to bar the two congresswomen; to him it was a mistake because it gave them enormous prestige, and the media focus on them completely overshadowed any news whatsoever of the visit by the large delegation of 41 Democrats and 31 Republicans who visited Israel earlier that week and who held a joint press conference showing their support for Israel.

Goldberg said the media have made misrepresentations of statements by Omar and Tlaib, making them sound anti-Semitic by not giving the full context of their statements. He also said that Omar has repeatedly said that BDS is not helpful because it shuts down dialogue, and that she has said we need dialogue to get to peace and a two-state solution.

Tobin responded that nobody is complaining that the congresswomen are criticizing Israel, “both of us criticize Israel, 7 million Jews get up every morning in Israel and criticize Israel,” but that they are opposed to Israel.  He said the debate has moved to, “Should there be an Israel?” and that Tlaib is opposed to a Jewish state under any circumstances. He also pointed out that Trump is more than happy to paint them as the new face of the Democratic party, and said that, as a conservative from the outside looking in, that this is an issue for Democrats need to concern themselves with. 

Tobin went on to say that it has become dangerously fashionable on college campuses to be anti-Israel, to embrace anti-Zionist attitudes, to embrace intersectionality, the idea that Israel is the villain in the Middle East, and that is to embrace anti-Semitism. He said the real threat of BDS is not to Israel, which is economically strong, but to American Jewish kids on college campuses.

Goldberg said that as much as we are afraid of what sounds to us like anti-Semitism, a lot of it is not anti-Semitism. 

The Second Question, Confronting anti-Semitism in the U.S.

The discussion moved on to anti-Semitism in the U.S., and included the questions “Is it possible for Jews to find common ground with each other to confront anti-Semitism as a community? Which represents a greater threat to Jewish security, the white supremacist right or the far left?”

J.J. Goldberg said that while in Europe Muslims are the greater danger, in the U.S. the far-right way outpaces Muslims in killing Jews. He explained that “The threat in this country is mainly from the radical right. A school of the radical right is growing, that says that white people are facing white genocide, because of the rise of non-white peoples who are taking over and eliminating the white European culture that we stand for — at the behest of Jews, so they can destroy white culture and take over the world.” He said that this conspiracy theory is what killed 11 Jewish people in Pittsburgh, 51 Muslims in New Zealand, 22 Mexican-Americans in El Paso, and the mass murderer in Norway who killed 77 there because they were encouraging immigration.

  Tobin reflected that “Politics has replaced religion for many Americans as their true faith. People are more upset about their children marrying someone from a different political party than a different faith.” Then Tobin briefly tried to make a case that the far left has more political influence in this country than the far right. 

Both agreed that anti-Semitism should not be a partisan issue, that it should be opposed from both the right and the left. 

The Third Question, around Immigration.

The third set of questions, around immigration, started with, “Does the Jewish community have a stake in the debate about U.S. immigration policy?” 

Tobin asked whether “the entire populations of these countries (Central America) should be allowed to come here just because there’s violence and economic distress in their countries?” And, that it cannot be equated with the Jews fleeing the Holocaust. 

Goldberg agreed that analogies to the Holocaust are too extreme and that calling border detention camps ‘concentration camps’ is too extreme. But, he pointed out, “this whole debate began when we started seeing the separation of families, the caging of children. Trump has his cheering squads out in the hinterlands cheering, yay.” He said this shows the influence of the far right with this administration. In a response to Tobin arguing that we must follow the rule of law, that there are immigration laws, Goldberg reminded us of how the history of immigration laws led to many of the deaths in the Holocaust, and that refugee laws were adopted after WWII to protect those who are facing the threat of death. 

He asked, “Should these immigrants be doomed to die, when at best it takes several years to get your hearing? Jewish people have not only historical memories, but we have values.” Goldberg went on to say that it’s only a very small, noisy group that says ‘throw the borders open.’  “There’s a middle ground but we get hysterical listening to the other side.” He pointed out how we need more immigration courts, and that cutting off aid to Central American countries is completely counter-productive.

The Fourth Question: Is a Two-State Solution still possible?

To  “Is the idea of a 2-state solution still possible?” Goldberg said, “The bottoms line is, as long as there is no other solution that is plausible, the 2-state solution is the only answer.  The only question is, how long is it going to take to get there.” 

He identified opponents to a 2-state solution as consisting of two groups, those that don’t trust the Arabs, and religious Zionists, who believe that if we give up the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria, (that comprise the West Bank), that God will punish us. “To save us from the Arab hordes or from God’s wrath, you need to plant settlements throughout the West Bank so it becomes impossible to give it up.” 

Tobin first seemed to acknowledge Goldberg’s points, saying a two-state solution is, in theory, the most rational solution. However, he insisted that in Israel, from the center-left to the right, the consensus now is that it is not possible. “The overwhelming majority, not just Likudniks, not just people in the settlements, think that repeating Sharon’s experiment of Gaza with the far larger, far more strategic West Bank wouldn’t be merely ill-advised, it would be insane. . . However unpleasant the status quo might be, it is better than the alternative . . . The best thing is to wait for a sea-change in Palestinian politics.”

Goldberg responded that the time is now, that the Palestinians are becoming more rigid, not less. He said that Israel is safer with a peace agreement than with more land, and that there is a peace offer on the table agreed on by the Arab League, with 1967 borders with land swaps, a symbolic number of refugees allowed to return to Israel, and the rest resettled. Otherwise, he said, without two states, Israel will not give 4 million people on the West Bank the vote, and Ehud Barak, former prime minister, has warned over and over again that this is going to turn Israel into an apartheid state. A two-state peace agreement would mean moving 150,000 Jewish settlers, but it could be done.

“All the retired heads of the Shin Bet, the security police, all of the former heads of Mossad, the intelligence arm, all but one of of the retired security establishment and intelligence in Israel agree that Israel should be agreeing now to a two-state solution. They say, begin negotiations now, because they’re willing to negotiate,” said Goldberg.

Referencing the upcoming elections in two weeks in Israel that will determine if Netanyahu continues in office, Goldberg added, “And, the only reason Israel is not agreeing now is because Netanyahu’s government would fall because it rests on a minority who believes God will punish us if we leave.” Netanyahu, he added, also has grave doubts because he doesn’t trust Arabs as far as he can throw them. But, Goldberg insists that according to polls, 60% of Israelis and of Palestinians would go for a two-state solution when terms of the Arab Peace Initiative plan are presented.

Tobin scoffed at Goldberg’s views and, in summary, said that there is no deal that Palestinians would accept from the Arab League or from Trump or from Saudi Arabia or from anyone else; that their culture is still rooted in this one-hundred year old war against Zionism. He said, consider that the Palestinian Authority will still give pensions to terrorists even if it means giving up Western aid. 

**Tobin did argue that, on the other hand, things are turning in Israel’s favor—at least, among the leaders in the Sunni Arab states, who, he said, are tired of Palestinian intransigence. He said, “The leaders of the Sunni Arab states are far more afraid of Iran than of anything Israel might do. In fact they look to Israel as a bulwark, as someone who might defend them against Iran. The subtext there is, they are not that keen on creating another Arab state that might be dominated by Islamic extremists, which would be a threat to them as well as to the Jews.” 

We may soon see what the future holds if no two-state agreement is to be seriously addressed. The Israeli elections will take place September 17th, and the hopes and fears for the future of the State of Israel are reaching a fevered pitch.  

Don’t shut people down: Listen, learn, respond.

At the Q&A, one question from the audience was, ‘What the best way is to respond to the Lannon Foundation’s series of lectures in Santa Fe that has an anti-Israel bias?’  

Tobin responded for both him and Goldberg that,“The best way to respond to any speech that is wrong is with speech that is good. The answer is not to try to shut them down, (but to) respond with speech of your own, political activism of your own. That’s the only answer. 

“The left and the right in this country seem to be only in the business of telling each other to shut up. We no longer wish to listen, we’ve forgotten how to listen, and that’s the real problem in America today. The breakdown of community, social media, all these issues. Don’t try to shut people up. Listen, learn, respond.” 

###