Keeping faith with the founders | The Jerusalem Post

Congratulations to The Jerusalem Post on its 85th anniversary. Two large sets of challenges among many loom large.

First, there is a need to understand the Post’s role inside Israel.

We all recall the recent 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, but we do not remember often what came immediately after it.

In fact, the Anglo-Zionist leadership, headed by Chaim Weizmann, immediately came to visit the Yishuv along with British officials. On that symbol-laden first visit after the Balfour Declaration, Weizmann laid the cornerstone of the Hebrew University in 1918.

In a time that the Yishuv was lacking even its basic needs, including roads and water, Weizmann nonetheless saw the establishment of a university as essential: “In this Hebrew University, however, we have gone beyond restoration and reconstruction; we are creating during the period of war something which is to serve as a symbol of a better future.” He asked what the role of a new university would be: “From where will it draw its students, and what languages will they speak here? At first glance, it might seem like a paradox that a land that has such a small population, a land that still needs everything done in it, a land lacking basic needs such as plows, roads and ports – that in such a land we are establishing a center for spiritual and intellectual development. But the paradox does not exist, as such, if one knows the soul of the Jew.”

It was a powerful message that Zionism defined state-building not just as building the institutions of government, but also as riveted upon creating the foundational basis of a new society.

In that same tradition, the Post was founded in 1932. There is no doubt that Gershon Agron was keen on seeking to influence the British Mandate, but he also understood that a Zionist society required accountable media, which are a building block of a nascent democracy.

Agron’s mission statement for his vision of the then-Palestine Post, included in the first issue published, stressed that the Post’s “reports will be as objective as is humanly possible, and its criticism informed, legitimate and helpful.... The studied purpose will be the present and future welfare of the country and of its people.”

As cognizant as Weizmann and Agron were of the need to seek to influence the British, they both realized how indispensable the institutions that they created were in ensuring the democratic character of Zionism. It is a profound challenge that is bound to be important in the 21st century no less than in the 20th.

A second challenge for the Post is the relationship between Israel and Jewry worldwide. Much has been written about the various generational, demographic and cultural challenges impacting American Jews and their relationship with Israel.

It will be tempting to fall back on clichés about the relationship or examine only the shortcomings of the Diaspora. Yet it might be worth asking whether the US-Israel relationship – including the robust $38 billion, 10-year military aid package – could exist with the breadth and depth of today, if there were no American Jews.

The commitment of American Jews to Israel’s security goes back to July 1, 1945, when David Ben-Gurion met with a group of wealthy American Jews in New York to ask for their assistance so that Israel could have sufficient arms, without which a Jewish state could not survive. Ben-Gurion was a big believer in close ties with the Diaspora. He later rated his garnering of that assistance as one of the three biggest achievements of his life.

Aid to Israel is not automatic; it has required wide American public and bipartisan support to sustain it over time. American Jews have been instrumental in securing congressional support for over $100b. in past US assistance, apart from the 10-year commitment. This support has been based on Americans’ sincere belief that Israel shares American values and interests in a very troubled region. Therefore, the relationship with American Jews should be seen as a national security issue for Israel and not just about Israel-Diaspora relations.

Interpreting both sides of the relationship is not easy, yet this does not make it less important. The venerated former leader of the National-Religious Party Yosef Burg was once asked whether he considered the national strand or the religious strand of the party to be more significant. His response was “the hyphen” since it was the bridge between the two.

Indeed, another important contribution the media can make is by shining a spotlight on different bridges of cooperation between Israel and the Diaspora, which range from technological innovation to Jewish studies and culture.

Here is wishing the Post well. If it remembers how Weizmann, Agron, Ben-Gurion and Burg grappled with these historic challenges, it will play a key role in the period ahead.

The writer is the Ziegler Distinguished Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He served as editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post between 1999 and 2000 and beforehand as its diplomatic correspondent.