opinion
Ben Shapiro and Binary ‘Aliyah’
BY YISHAI FLEISHER
A t a recent event in Tel Aviv, American Jewish
media personality and headliner Ben
Shapiro was asked — to roaring applause from
the olim-filled audience — whether he would ever
consider aliyah to Israel.
“Because the fundamental principles of the
United States are good, eternally good and
worth upholding, and my fight to do that as a
Jew is deeply important … my Jewish mission
does not conflict with my presence in the United
States,” answered Shapiro.
He was then asked, “Shouldn’t all Jews live
in the state of Israel?” He replied, “Jews should
live where they can be a light to the nations, and
for me, as a person with millions and millions of
followers in the United States, promoting what I
think are values that are eternally good, living in
the United States is a point of morality for me.”
Further asked whether he ever wonders if, one
day, he will be forced to flee the United States,
he said, “The existence of the State of Israel is
the single greatest guarantor of my loyalty to
the United States, frankly. Because Israel exists,
that means the United States is going to be a
more welcoming place for me, because Israel
is there as a backstop in case anything should
go wrong.”
These were sharp answers from a very thought-
ful individual. America is a great nation with
important values and perhaps the most influ-
ential country in the world. In that sphere, Ben
Shapiro has a unique standing. His work affects
millions of Americans and, being a believing and
practicing Jew, he can justly be said to be on
shlichut — emissary work for Judaism and Israel.
There are others, like Chabad emissaries on
college campuses, who can also claim that they
have an important Jewish mission outside the
Land of Israel. However, most American Jews
who do not have millions of followers or are not
on clear emissary duty do not belong in the same
category. Shapiro’s remarks about America remaining
an inviting place because Israel serves as a
defense in case of trouble is a commentary on
the history of Jews in non-Jewish societies. Yet
Israel’s defense of Jews worldwide is not exactly
a rationale to remain outside the Land of Israel.
Moreover, I am not sure if Israel is indeed ensur-
ing that Jews are safe in America. I have been
shocked by what young Jews in American public
16 AUGUST 4, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
schools have been telling me about the surge in
antisemitism they face, not to mention the hatred
that the Jews of France, Russia and South Africa
must deal with.
The Big Project of the Jewish People
As a Jew who lives in Israel and believes in the
centrality of the Jewish state, I am very much
pro-aliyah and believe that God is ingathering
the exiles as promised. Living in Israel is the
fulfillment of Jewish destiny. But when thinking
about how to speak with my American Jewish
brothers and sisters, I have learned to take a
less binary approach than I once did. Asking
Ben Shapiro head-on if he would make aliyah
makes it look like there is only a binary choice —
either you are in or you are out. But in truth, the
spectrum of ways to connect with Israel is wider
than that.
Had I been in Ben Shapiro’s place, I would
have used the opportunity to pause and ask
a basic question: What is the biggest single
project of the Jewish people in our time? In my
opinion, it is the rebuilding of the Jewish com-
monwealth in the Land of Israel. It is what we
have prayed and waited for, and it’s happening
in our lifetime.
And if building Israel is our people’s goal, then
that goal is not limited to Jews living in the Land
of Israel. All Jews can and should be part of the
national mission of rebuilding Zion, no matter
where they live. A committed American Jew can
say, “I may not be in the land for various reasons,
including my shlichut where I am, but I identify
as a Jew who believes in the centrality of the
Jewish commonwealth. Though I live abroad, I
am engaged in building Israel.”
Indeed, millions of American Jews are dedi-
cated to that national aspiration. They donate
their hard-earned money to the cause of building
and strengthening Israel; many come to Israel
once a year, spending their precious vacation
time in the Jewish state; others send their chil-
dren to study in the Holy Land for a gap year
course at a university, seminary or yeshiva.
I know an American Jewish lawyer who brings
his family to Israel every summer while he works
American hours at night. Another lawyer friend
goes out of his way to hire Israeli lawyers to work
remotely for his American firm so they can earn
a good salary while living in Israel. These people
make every effort to support developing and
building Jewish life and industry in the Land of
Israel while not yet making aliyah.
Aliyah Is Not a Binary Option
Many Jews cannot make aliyah or won’t make
aliyah for various reasons. So, instead of hitting
them with an aliyah ultimatum that will likely be
answered with a “no,” I prefer to get to “yes” by
making simple suggestions: “Have you consid-
ered buying property in Israel? It makes good
financial sense, your kids will love it and you’ll
own a piece of the rock!” Most of the time, Jews
seriously consider purchasing real estate in the
Holy Land. Other times I get to “yes” by asking,
“Where are you thinking of sending your child to
study in Israel?” or “Which Israeli organization do
you support?”
A “yes” on these steps towards a greater con-
nection to Israel is better than a “no” on the binary
aliyah option.
And when people ask me what steps they could
take to get closer to Israel, I give simple advice:
“Commit to drinking Israeli wine on Friday night—
it’s a great way to make a stronger connection
and to not only support Israel but to have Israel
inside your body and soul.” Also, I always recom-
mend putting up a picture of Jerusalem — or a
favorite place in Israel — on a wall in their house
facing the Holy City, which makes Israel a daily
sight. Finally, I like to say, “Consider purchasing
a burial plot in the Holy Land.” Almost everyone
asks how much it costs.
Mini-Aliyot Making aliyah and living here in Israel is a dream
come true for some and a fulfillment of a religious
mandate for others. But for various reasons, not
everyone can do it or even wants to do it. Yet
many steps can be taken to strengthen the con-
nection between Jews of the Diaspora and Israel
— mini-aliyot. The first step is to become con-
scious of the rebuilding of Israel as our people’s
biggest project, and that we can all take part in it,
no matter where we live.
Let’s not get stuck in the binary aliyah posi-
tion that can lead to a “no” and push Israeli and
Diaspora Jews away from each other. Instead,
let’s find ways to get to “yes” and foster greater
connectivity. And a “yes” on mini-aliyah is more
likely to bring a “yes” to full aliyah down the line.
All these thoughts may not have come out
during Ben Shapiro’s talk, but having the privilege
of knowing him, I think he would agree. JE
Yishai Fleisher is the international spokesman for
the Jewish community of Hebron and an Israeli
broadcaster.
opinion
Can Jews Agree to Disagree?
BY ANDREW SILOW-CARROLL
kieferpix / iStock / Getty Images Plus
H ere’s a story I recently shared on
Facebook: I was paddling my inflatable
kayak on a lake in the Berkshires. Granted,
it is not the sleekest or coolest-looking
conveyance, but it gets the job done and it fits
in the trunk of my car.
At one point I passed two guys in a very
lovely canoe. One of the guys says to me,
“That looks like fun!” And I say, “And you
have a beautiful boat,” which it was. And
then the guy in the stern of the boat says,
“It’s a lot more expensive than yours.”
His response sort of stunned me: Why
was he talking about the price of our boats?
Had my clunky kayak offended his sensibilities
somehow? My Facebook friends mostly agreed with my
initial reaction: The guy was a jerk. But then a few
people weighed in with an alternative interpreta-
tion: The guy was actually making fun of himself
for spending so much on a canoe. One friend, a
Jewish educator, channeled the guy’s thinking this
way: “Our boat might be beautiful, as you say, but
I’m not sure it’s worth it, considering we could be
getting a lot of fun from rowing in a kayak like yours
and would have spent a lot less money to do it.”
True or not, I love that interpretation. It reminds
me of something from Pirke Avot, the Mishnah’s
compilation of ethical principles: “Judge to the
side of merit.” (1:6) That is, in life and conversation,
give the other person the benefit of the doubt.
How many conversations slip off the rails because
we assume the worst of the other person?
The story was fresh in my mind when I attended
an invitation-only event on July 26 on “view-
point diversity,” put on by the Maimonides Fund.
The day-long seminar brought leaders of various
Jewish organizations together to discuss our
society’s inability to engage in what the keynote
speaker, NYU social psychologist Jonathan Haidt,
describes as “constructive disagreement.” In
Haidt’s 2018 book “The Coddling of the American
Mind,” he and coauthor Greg Lukianoff dissect a
“callout culture” in which “anyone can be publicly
shamed for saying something well-intentioned
that someone else interprets uncharitably.”
Because Haidt’s book is mostly about the col-
lege campus, I thought the day might shape up
as an attack on “wokeism.” But the speakers and
attendees were diverse, and liberals and conser-
vatives alike fretted about the demise of civility
and tolerance in their polarized worlds. A Jewish
education professional said she is wary about
bringing up Israel in front of donors, many of whom
treat any criticism of Israeli policy as “anti-Israel.”
And the leader of a right-leaning think tank com-
plained about a left-leaning Jewish “monolith”
that dismisses the views of Jewish conservatives
or considers them somehow “un-Jewish.”
A considerable number of people spoke about
what they characterized as self-censorship, fear-
ing the consequences they or colleagues might
face if they utter an ill-considered thought — or
if their opinions diverge from emerging small-o
orthodoxies on gender, race, politics and, once
again, Israel. (I agreed to Chatham House Rules,
which means I could characterize our conversa-
tions but not quote or identify participants.)
After the event, Mark Charendoff, president
of the Maimonides Fund, said he and his col-
leagues — Ariella Saperstein, program officer
for Maimonides, and Rabbi David Wolpe of Los
Angeles’ Sinai Temple put much of the program
together — had been thinking about these issues
for a while. “It seems to us that it’s just become
more difficult to have some of these conversa-
tions,” Charendoff told me. “It started off with
Israel — what are you allowed to express regard-
ing Israel, and then, you know, politics in America
has become obviously a dividing line. And it
doesn’t seem to have gotten any better.”
Although few if any members of Gen Z were tak-
ing part in the convening, the group born after 1995
seemed to be on a lot of people’s minds. That’s
partly because of Haidt’s framing of the issue; in
his book, he dates strict campus speech codes and
polarizing identity politics to the arrival of Gen Z on
college campuses. A leader of a secular Jewish
group that works with young people said
she is often under pressure from Gen Z-ers
to take an organizational stand on hot-button
issues, when her mission is to encourage par-
ticipation from a politically diverse population.
On the flip side, a leader working with the
same cohort said Gen Z-ers complain that
they were “lied to” about Israel by their Jewish
elders, and that their own ambivalent or
anti-Zionist viewpoints are shunned in Jewish
spaces. Indeed, a few participants defended
“red lines,” saying viewpoint diversity does
not mean “anything goes.” As one fundraising
executive told the room, “When it comes to
Israel, the last thing I want is nuance.”
When I brought this up with Charendoff,
he said, “One-hundred percent I want to
hear from young people who are uncomfortable
with Zionism, because I want to understand why,
and I think our young people are smart and pas-
sionate. That doesn’t mean … that we have to be
completely neutral to who the convener of a dis-
cussion is and what their motivations are.”
At times I lost track of who is to blame for con-
stricted speech and cancel culture, especially on
college campuses. Is it the student governments
at liberal universities that block campus Jewish
clubs from organizing because their support for
Israel made other students uncomfortable? Or
is it the Jewish groups that insist campuses that
allow harsh criticism of Israel are making Jewish
students feel unsafe?
I also thought about the value of “viewpoint
diversity” if one side or the other is playing fast
and loose with the facts, or refusing to argue in
good faith. Haidt warns against the tendency
to “inflate the horrors of a speaker’s words far
beyond what the speaker might actually say”
— he calls this “catastrophizing” — but how do
we respond to actual catastrophes? Viewpoint
diversity may seem a luxury in debating, say, the
climate crisis or threats to democracy.
Still, the general thrust of the day was encour-
aging people to do their part in lowering the
temperature in Jewish circles: to urge ideological
opposites to listen to one another with more gen-
erosity of spirit, to assume the best of others and
to consider the possibility that they may actually
be wrong about a given issue. Because when it
all comes down to it, we’re all in the same boat. JE
Andrew Silow-Carroll is editor-in-chief of the New
York Jewish Week and senior editor of the Jewish
Telegraphic Agency.
JEWISHEXPONENT.COM 17