Rabbi James Bennett of Congregation Shaare Emeth can’t help but chuckle a bit when asked if debate over Mideast policy is different inside the Jewish State than it is within the largest Jewish community in the world, the United States.

“It’s one of the issues I point to often when I’m participating in dialogue about Israel,” said Bennett, who has been to the region more times than he can count, including a year-long stint living there. “It’s ironic that the depth and the breadth of dialogue in Israel is far more diverse, far more nuanced and far more comfortable with tolerance of diverse perspectives than it is in the American Jewish community.”

For his part Bennett said that while Jews should speak as one in wanting a secure Jewish State, he believes in conversing with a wide variety of voices on the issue.

“I would be hesitant to avoid or terminate dialogue before I actually heard the position of the other and hopefully helped them to hear my position as well,” he said.

Still, as someone with a deep love of Israel, he also understands the reluctance to engage in conversation with those who may hold certain opinions.

“At the same time, I recognize the risks and the dangers inherent in that, legitimizing the position of somebody who I am opposed to on some ideological point,” he said. “That’s a risk we take but that’s the nature of dialogue.”

‘Issues aren’t any clearer’

Area rabbis see the risks, challenges and dilemmas Bennett talks of in various ways but all agree since passions run so deep, Israel can be a difficult topic to discuss. Airing diverging views about Israel’s existence and the way its government does business can sometimes be a stormy proposition. It also can be hard to know where – if anywhere – bright lines should be drawn in a conversation over Israeli policy.

“It’s important for the Jewish community, at the same time being united in our support for Israel and its welfare, also to be capable of nurturing a diverse, nuanced and respectful dialogue without alienating each other and at times even demonizing those in the community whose positions may be different than one’s own,” Bennett said.

Rabbi Hyim Shafner of Bais Abraham Congregation said the difficulty of discussing the Jewish State stems from the importance of two fundamentally Judaic values.

“The land is incredibly central to being a Jewish people…On the other hand, questions of social justice and human beings made in the image of God who is merciful and kind are just as central.”

Like Bennett, Shafner feels better Israel education is necessary. He also notes that the narrative should come from multiple perspectives. While on sabbatical in the Jewish State, Shafner recalled studying with a number of ardently Zionist Israelis.

“But I also went to sleep overnight in Bethlehem in an Arab house and had a dialogue there,” he said. “It was two different extremes but what you realize after coming to Israel is that the issues aren’t any clearer. They are more complicated.”

He said many young people today get the impression that Israel is either all good or all bad. The truth falls somewhere in the middle, he said.

“I don’t think there should be any lines,” Shafner said. “I mean, if you draw lines in the sand, it means you are afraid to talk about something. If you are justified, it means you shouldn’t be afraid to talk over any lines.”

Rabbi Justin Kerber of Temple Emanuel said that the debate has shifted over the years but not everything is different.

“One thing has not changed,” he said. “It remains a supercharged issue emotionally and it’s very difficult to discuss it coldly and rationally, even with people with whom we are in basic agreement. It’s an even more difficult conversation to have with those on the other side of the debate.”

Kerber said it is fruitful to pick the right forums for finding common ground among diverse viewpoints. He recalled not long ago attending an event where an imam from the local Islamic foundation chanted verses from the Koran the same evening in which Jewish rocker Rick Recht sang songs about his love for Israel. He said it was thrilling and rewarding to watch.

“I would suggest that we be aware of our audience,” Kerber said. “So often we get confused as to whether we are in engaged in dialogue about Israel, advocacy for Israel or education on Israel.”

The limits of dialogue

But there are also those who point to the boundaries of what conversation itself might accomplish in the face of a seemingly impenetrable wall of depressing facts that appear to present little hope for any sort of lasting resolution.

Pointing to everything from the failed Oslo Accords to the Hamas charter’s call for the Jewish State’s obliteration to the string of broken promises from Palestinians over recent decades, Rabbi Ze’ev Smason of Nusach Hari B’nai Zion cautions against embracing illusory opportunities for peace that don’t jibe with the situation as it exists.

“A dialogue within the Jewish people, to the degree there are disparate voices, means coming to the realization that those are the facts on the ground,” he said. “The enemies that surround us are committed to our destruction and a weak peace that will only lead to further concessions is not the answer.”

He said he hopes a true partner for negotiation can eventually be found on the Palestinian side but at present he has trouble seeing any path to peace. Smason said that everyone is tired of war and fighting but that shouldn’t lead to overly optimistic assumptions. Any meaningful dialogue on the topic must still begin with a true acceptance of Israel’s existence or there is little else to talk about.

“We have to be very pragmatic, very realistic and not engage in wishful thinking and imagine our enemies to hold positions that are any different than they actually do,” he said.

He sums up the difference between people who feel as he does and those who look for greater engagement.

“We feel that a bad answer is worse than no answer,” he said.

The need for balance

Rabbi Susan Talve of Center Reform Congregation likes to speak of the freedom of debate in the Jewish State.

“I was in Israel this summer and the wonderful thing about Israeli society is that there isn’t anything you can’t talk about,” she said.

Talve, too, feels everyone should be open to conversation. Still, she is sometimes disturbed by the lack of balance – a concept sometimes difficult to come by when speaking of Israel.

“I’ll talk with anybody but I don’t feel it’s productive to speak with people who care about the human rights of one group and not another,” she said referring to the double standard that many in the Jewish community feel exist in discussions that deal with the Mideast.

She said it can be tough for people to understand the close quarters in which the Israelis and Palestinians find themselves.

“There are a lot of Americans who don’t think that Israel is vulnerable and when they speak about human rights violations of the Palestinians, which there certainly are, they don’t recognize the human rights violations that go on from the world towards Israel and the Jewish community,” she added.

Like most in the Jewish community, Talve opposes moves to boycott, divest or sanction Israel. Such ideas, she said, are counterproductive.

“It’s for people who don’t really understand how interdependent the region is,” she said. “In order for there to be peace, there needs to be more interdependence, not less. Causing more suffering, especially economic suffering, is not going to help anyone.”

Pressure to play defense

Rabbi Seth D. Gordon of Traditional Congregation feels that general political polarization in the U.S. has led the various points of view to drift further apart on Israel.

“Culturally we have been pushed into hard ideological positions and even when there is dialogue there is not enough understanding,” he said. “I think that begins with the fact that the person with whom you are talking, particularly because he disagrees with you, is still part of you and you need to have that dialogue.”

Still, he said that doesn’t mean everything is on the table, even if everything might be up for discussion.

“I’ll talk with anybody but I believe that the Jewish character of Israel is non-negotiable,” Gordon said. “We can talk about it but you are talking about something that is air-and-water fundamental.”

Echoing Smason, he also said he believes the Arabs are at war with Israel, not the other way around.

The rabbi said he feels the conflict sometimes overshadows other aspects of Israel, which is a cultural and technological leader in the world.

“That captures the news,” he said of the violence. “Like with any country, that’s a caricature, rather than the real picture.”

Like Gordon, Rabbi Carnie Shalom Rose of Congregation B’nai Amoona said American Jews often find themselves forced into absolutist viewpoints on the conflict.

“It’s difficult because people are so used to defending Israel against the quote/unquote big bad world out there,” he said. “Rather than be constructive, we’d rather say positive things because there are enough people out there saying bad things.”

Rose said that such defensiveness can blot out the subtlety of constructive criticism.

“You have to be judicious about what kind of conversations you have,” he said. “Sometimes we are in environments where criticism of Israel comes out of love and concern for the betterment of the moral fiber of Israel then gets used as an opening for an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic kind of commentary.”

But Rose said the continuing occupation “diminishes” Israel and must be resolved. That means being both complementary and critical of the Jewish State.

“Within the Jewish community I think everything should be open and available because that’s what real true mature love is about,” he said.

He said that even those favoring boycott, divestment and sanctions must be permitted input.

“They have a place at the table as well,” Rose said. “I’m not happy about it. It’s not my personal orientation but when you talk about dialogue, there has to be dialogue.”

The important thing, said Rose, is to avoid letting discourse over Israel devolve into the same ugly shouting match that the rest of American politics has become. Much as it does within the Jewish State itself, the debate should be respectful and represent the full range of opinion, not just a black-and-white view.

“Monochromatic is never a way to live,” Rose said.