A palpable tension hung in the air Friday night in Phoenix, during a Shabbat dinner for attendees of a large conservative gathering. Just a mile away, a prominent voice was publicly attacking another, igniting a fierce debate over Israel that threatened to overshadow everything else.
The conflict quickly turned personal and raw, circling around a question that has haunted discourse for generations: where does legitimate criticism of Israel end and antisemitism begin? It’s a line often blurred, a distinction rarely agreed upon.
At the dinner, speakers lauded a recent speech defending Israel and condemning antisemitism, while pointedly criticizing a rebuttal. The evening’s host, a rabbi, navigated a different path, focusing on the spiritual power of the Sabbath and its traditions.
When questioned about the escalating feud, the rabbi acknowledged a personal connection to one of the figures at the center of the controversy, offering a measured defense. He insisted the individual wasn’t motivated by antisemitism, despite the inflammatory rhetoric.
Simultaneously, on the main stage, another exchange unfolded, with one commentator asserting that strong pro-Israel advocacy shouldn’t dictate the views of others. The core of the disagreement, it seemed, was about the freedom to express differing opinions.
Both sides felt unheard, trapped in a cycle of accusation and defensiveness. Critics of Israel claimed they were stifled, while staunch supporters feared a resurgence of bigotry, sometimes misinterpreting genuine disagreement as malice.
The dispute escalated to calls for outright ostracism within the conservative movement – a demand rendered meaningless by the movement’s decentralized nature. The infighting threatened to fracture a coalition built on shared principles.
Interestingly, conversations with ordinary attendees revealed a surprising disconnect. For many, Israel simply wasn’t a pressing concern. One attendee from Ohio confessed it was “the last issue I think about,” highlighting a gap between the elite debate and the concerns of average voters.
However, this internal struggle carries significant weight. While past support from one leader has been unwavering, the future is uncertain. A potential shift in leadership could jeopardize that steadfast alliance.
The situation echoes the enduring controversies surrounding Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice.” Interpretations of the play’s Jewish character, Shylock, have long been fraught with debate, revealing deeply held biases and perspectives.
One actor, Jewish himself, argued that Shylock was an outsider *because* of his faith, a perspective that challenged conventional readings. Similarly, at the gathering, critics of Israel maintained their views weren’t rooted in antisemitism – a claim met with skepticism by many Jewish observers.
The vulnerability of the Jewish community was underscored by a statistic frequently cited: Jews comprise just 0.2% of the world’s population. This small percentage carries with it a historical awareness of fragility and the ever-present threat of persecution.
The prominent voices involved in this dispute would be wise to de-escalate the rhetoric. The current spectacle appears more like a competition for attention than a genuine search for understanding.
Conservatives are strongest when united, and common ground on Israel exists. A return to civility and a focus on shared values could bridge the divide and restore a sense of purpose.
The remaining days of the gathering offer an opportunity to refocus on what unites attendees, rather than allowing division to prevail.
