In a recent Times of Israel piece, Zack Bodner, CEO of the Oshman Family JCC, addresses a growing rift in the Jewish world: the debate over whether "legacy" organizations like the Federation are responsible for the polarizing nature of the term "Zionism." As someone who identifies as a Zionist, I couldn’t help but reflect that while Bodner uses the "Tommy Boy" analogy to defend our institutions, his underlying message offers a path toward a constructive center, one that values both institutional loyalty and the need for evolvement.
The current discourse often falls into two extremes:
—— one side blames major Jewish organizations for "poisoning" the term Zionism by being too protective of Israel,
—— while the other side blames anti-Zionist activists for distorting the term entirely.
A centrist perspective suggests that neither side holds the total truth. We must be more transparent about our internal critiques of Israeli policy. We must also recognize that the "anti-Zionist" label is often applied to those who fundamentally reject Jewish sovereignty. This is not acceptable.
Bodner highlights that legacy organizations often act like a "marriage counselor," offering tough criticism to Israel behind closed doors to achieve results rather than headlines. The benefit to this is that it prevents fueling external hostility and maintains a seat at the table. On the other hand, the challenge is that for a younger generation, this "quiet diplomacy" can look like silence or complicity. It is not.
The middle ground requires that we find a way to honor the "mensch-like" private advocacy while being more up front about values in public, ensuring the community feels heard and that both sides feel validated.
Rather than abandoning the word "Zionism" because it has become "impediment," we should treat it as a starting point for brave conversations. A centrist approach doesn't shy away from the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the possible flaws in Israeli policy. Instead, it asserts that one can be a proud Zionist while simultaneously engaging in rigorous, even uncomfortable, debate.
The goal is to move toward a more nuanced vision of Zionism, a relationship between Israel and the Diaspora based on honest partnership. We can disagree with specific policies without dismantling the framework of Jewish peoplehood or challenge the very existence of the Jewish homeland.
I was told we need a call to action: That action is choosing dialogue over finger-pointing. If we do, we ensure that the next generation inherits a Zionism, an Israel, that is both resilient and reflective of our highest values and aspirations.
First, we need to talk to each other.
