Dialogue participants attributed the polarization to various causes. The most frequently cited was that political and ideological polarization is a worldwide phenomenon, attributed to multiple factors including extreme economic inequality, the bifurcation of the media super charged by social networks and more. The Jewish community is understood to function within the larger socio-political context of the trends and developments that are profoundly affecting the United States, Western Europe, and Israel.
Another factor, also cited by some, blamed Netanyahu, the Israeli government, and the “right” in general. One participant said that “the issue of the occupation is at the core of the polarization.” But others were more general in casting their blame, citing simply “Benjamin Netanyahu and the right movement,” or “Bibi and right wing American Jewish fanatics.” Some also related to Netanyahu’s behavior and speech saying that “Netanyahu is far too polarizing…” and that “Bibi has exploited this tension for his purposes.”
To a certain extent, these charges of polarizing speech, especially related to Diaspora Jews, on the part of the Israeli government has a basis in reality. Thus, current Communications Minister Shlomo Karei has accused the Wexner Foundation of “spreading poison,” and Prime Minister Netanyahu has accused the New Israel Fund, which is based in the United States and relies upon American Jewish support of “receiving funding from factors which are hostile to Israel” and of aiming to “erase the Jewish character of the state.” He has even called for the establishment of a “commission of inquiry” to investigate the fund. (Needless to say, no such commission has been setup.11)
While the former rationale, attributing polarization to global factors, was cited by many, the latter position, blaming Netanyahu and the “right,” was frequently articulated by those self-identifying as liberal, particularly those who had experienced exclusion from Jewish institutions such as organizations and synagogues because they were not considered sufficiently Jewish or “loyal.” Both perspectives reflect the fact that discourse within the Jewish community has a decidedly different character than it did decades back. Beyond the above factors – global polarization and a derisive Israeli government – as we listened to each of the Dialogues convened in communities and reviewed the results of the questionnaire, we came to the view that something deeper is underway, which we note below and believe merits serious study and monitoring moving forward. It appears it is time to recognize that the polarization underway in Israel and the Jewish world reflects deeper processes at play in Jewish collective identity.
