Union College Professor Stephen M. Berk captivated a large group of Jewish students, parents and alums – including many of his former and current students – in his Oct. 21 talk about Israel and the upcoming presidential elections.
Union’s Hillel, which Student Board President Maggie Weinreb called “small and mighty,” sponsors the annual lecture during parents’ weekend.
Berk, Henry and Sally Schaffer Professor of Holocaust and Jewish Studies at Union College, lauded Hillel as “the place on campus” for Jewish students, and called it “inclusive, pluralistic and Zionist.”
Paraphrasing journalist Zev Chafetz, Berk said, “Israel is a good country in a bad neighborhood.” And, he said, the neighborhood has only gotten worse: Muslim extremists dominate 75 percent of the Egyptian Parliament, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel, Syria remains an unstable entity that could be taken over by Al-Qaeda or Islamist extremists and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refuses to negotiate with Israel.
And no one was surprised when he called Iran the “greatest of all problems.”
Berk then adroitly deconstructed two major views about Iran. The Obama administration and about half of Israel’s population hews to the view, he said, that calls for allowing sanctions to work with the hope that Iran will make a deal with the U.S. Supporters of this approach, he said, argue that the U.S. will have time to stop Iran if it weaponizes nuclear material; if we fail on that front, “Iran won’t be suicidal” and the consequences of launching a preemptive attack would be extreme.
Gas prices would rise dramatically and, said Berk, “Every Jew, every Israeli, every American would be the target of Iranian terrorism.”
On the other hand, preemptive action proponents, said Berk, assert “sanctions never work” – except against South Africa’s apartheid movement (South Africa was a paraiah then, but many countries now are not adhering to sanctions against Iran), and “American intelligence has never been right about [nuclear weaponry].” Berk cautioned, “It’s not [a math problem], we don’t know who’s right.”
Turning to the upcoming U.S. elections, Berk called the debates "…entertainment. Presidents count [as] formulators of foreign policy. Do not think they are all interchangeable. Sometimes they are, but not this year.”
Unabashedly open about his “Democratic [Party] DNA,” Berk said, “I am filled with sin, but not [the sin of] waffling. Except now, I’m waffling” about Obama.
Making the case for Obama, he said that the U.S. flow of foreign aid and intelligence to Israel is greater than ever before, which both Ehud Barak and Shimon Peres laud repeatedly.Obama “covered Israel on the Goldstone Report” and spoke out against Abbas’ push for a Palestinian seat at the U.N. table in 2011.
Arguing against Obama, he noted these factors: Obama has made “mistake after mistake, commencing with his speech in Cairo” in which he said Jews’ right to the land of Israel arose from the Holocaust
“He played into the hands of sophisticated anti-Israel [individuals] in the Muslim world,” said Berk. "[They say] ‘Yes, the Holocaust happened but the Europeans did it, so why inflict the Jews upon us in the Middle East?’”
Jews’ claims “predate the Holocaust by 3,500 years,” he said.
Other errors, Berk noted, included Obama’s treatment of Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, his failure to visit Israel as president and his delay in establishing a no-fly zone in Syria.
Somberly acknowledging that Israel, not the U.S., is under the “gun of destruction,” he added, “If [an Israeli] prime minister makes a mistake, the country can disappear.”
Some 6 million of Israel’s approximately 7.8 million residents are Jewish, Berk said. “Six million ghosts of the Holocaust look over the [shoulder of the] Israeli prime minister.”
American Jews care about domestic issues that may take precedence over Israel – the economy, healthcare, women’s reproductive rights and the Supreme Court, said Berk. “I’m in the minority of American Jews who believe Israel is paramount” and will vote accordingly.
Admitting to uncertainty about his presidential preference, he invited audience members to call him after Election Day when he would freely disclose his decision.
Enthusiastic audience members peppered Berk with questions about Romney’s pros and cons, how young Jewish voters’ lack of strong affinity for Israel might impact the election outcome, why Israelis distrust Obama, Egyptian media’s assertions that Jews are responsible for the world’s ills (something akin to the Nazi propaganda of World War II), and why he believes that Romney, perhaps unlike Obama, has a “visceral love of Israel.”
Berk, who patiently responded to the throngs of parents and students who approached him after his presentation, is clearly a popular presence on campus.
A faculty member since 1967, Berk has earned an international reputation for his expertise in Russian and Soviet Jewry history, the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and the American Jewish experience.
