Israel, Disagreement, and Self-Criticism: When to Withhold

There is little doubt in the mind of an Israeli patriot that two celebrated elements of Israeli society are its abilities to be self-critical and to promote freedom of expression. Expressing one's views, arguments and disagreements are Jewish specialties, as the cliché illustrates: where there are two Jews, there are three opinions. It is a cliché that is sometimes said cynically or negatively.

However, in certain circumstances, the cultural characteristic that is captured here is not always negative. It can be a very positive habit that reflects the diversity, intellectual vibrancy and continuous self-assessment that a culture can embody. In the right context, disagreements can be part of a dialectical process that enables us to learn and progress. 

Certainly, these are strong characteristics of The Jewish State. You do not need to do an extensive Google search to find dissenting opinions, videos and editorials on Israeli policy and culture—and to discover that a whole lot of this material is generated by Israelis or within Israel itself. Appreciating the complex political and social challenges that Israelis face is a value that we rightly deem to be good and ethical.  To risk the dullness of another cliche--and appealing to it's utility, it is good to acknowledge that life is not just black and white and that we live in shades of gray.

However, in certain circumstances, engaging in self-criticism and arguments is not always positive.  No?  At some point, we may have to choose a shade of gray and, in doing so, begin to discard the other shades.  There are times when being self-critical and argumentative can result in doing more harm than good.

This is a problem that we often ignore. Knowing when to simplify, and when to avoid a subtle approach to advocating for Israel is not easy. Arguably, it is difficult in part because being self-critical and embracing the freedom of expression are values that are deeply ingrained in our own culture. It can therefore be difficult to see the reason or rhyme behind suspending these values. The inability to simplify can be an even greater challenge for advocates who are highly knowledgeable and erudite about the issues confronting Israelis. When is citing a potentially enlightening footnote about Palestinian politics or attempting to qualify a statement like “Israel is the soul democracy in the Middle East” the wrong thing to do; especially when the alternative is readily construed as presenting half-truths, factoids, or even lying? When is it appropriate to forgo engaging in arguments and to withhold from being self-critical?