Iceberg, Goldberg. What’s in a Name?

There’s an old joke my father used to tell. It goes like this:

A Chinese man and a Jew are sitting in a bar. The Jew turns to the Chinese man and says, quite aggressively, “You Chinese are terrible. First Pearl Harbour, and now this.”

The Chinese man, incredulous, replies, “What do you mean, Pearl Harbour? That was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbour, not the Chinese.”

To which the Jew responds, “Chinese, Japanese. What’s in a name?”

The Chinese man replies, “And what about you Jews? You sank the Titanic. What are you going to do next?”

Now it’s the Jew’s turn to be confused. “What do you mean? The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg.”

The reply comes back quickly: “Iceberg. Goldberg. What’s in a name?”

I’ve been thinking about that old, and admittedly not very good, joke recently after being asked to speak with Radio New Zealand about the US strike on Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities.

I agreed to the interview on behalf of the New Zealand Jewish Council. As readers will know, I have no trouble talking. But when I sat down for the interview, I had to express my confusion about why I had been asked.

Yes, I’m Jewish. But the idea that Jews are collectively responsible for actions taken by the United States, ostensibly in support of its ally Israel, feels like quite a few degrees of separation from the role I actually hold. That role is, quite clearly, to advocate for the safety and security of Jews living in New Zealand.

Over the past few years, however, we’ve seen a growing conflation of Judaism and Zionism, as if they are one and the same.

A quick explainer for readers. Zionism is a school of thought that affirms the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish homeland and to exercise self-determination. The vast majority of Jews around the world are indeed Zionists. Being a Zionist doesn’t mean one supports every action by Israel; rather, it is simply, and seemingly innocuous opinion that Israel has a right to exist. Shouldn’t be contentious, but those the the times we live in.

Either way, believing in Israel’s right to exist is very different from being responsible for the actions of the Israeli state. To conflate Judaism, Zionism, and the policies and actions of the Israeli government is a step too far.

There are wide-ranging views within the Jewish community about many of the actions of the State of Israel. Some people decry the fact that Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which homosexuality is legal and gay marriage is permitted. There’s no accounting for opinions, right?

There are also many Zionists who are not Jewish. And there are many Israeli citizens who are not Jewish either, including Muslims, Baha’is, Druze, and Christians.

If readers take away one thing from this article, it should be that the Middle East is an incredibly complex and nuanced region. Trying to reduce it to a ten-second TikTok video is not just inaccurate, it is unhelpful and, in some cases, dangerous.

To be clear, I’m a New Zealand citizen. I proudly hold a New Zealand passport. I am not an Israeli citizen. I do not vote in Israeli elections. And while I’d like to think I’m important, I have no special access to the Israeli government and certainly no ability to influence its decision-making.

Of course, I have opinions about what’s going on in the region, just like I have opinions about the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian crisis in Sudan, and the atrocities committed by the Syrian regime. But having opinions and being held responsible for them are two different things. I can’t imagine a world in which Iran, a country currently led by a leader who has vowed to end Western civilisation, has nuclear weapons. But there is nothing I can do to influence that.

New Zealand is a nation of immigrants. Some of our ancestors arrived by waka, some by sailing ship, and some just last week by jet. We are a society built from many cultures, faiths, and perspectives. That is something to be celebrated and fiercely protected. So when someone marches down Queen Street, stamping on flags and saying that Buddhists might look pleasant but are evil inside, or that Sikhs are “taking over the country” by buying dairies and hiring family members, we are faced with a choice.

One reaction, and a valid one, is to laugh at the absurdity. It is absurd. In the same way that blaming Jews collectively for the actions of the State of Israel is absurd. But to dismiss it completely is to overlook the real danger this kind of rhetoric represents.

If we don’t stand up for a cohesive society, if we don’t defend the shared values that hold us together, then we risk helping to erode them.

At first glance, these may seem like different issues. One is about collective responsibility and holding Jews accountable for Israeli policy. The other is about extremist rhetoric targeting minority groups. But they are both symptoms of the same underlying problem.

We are becoming a society that struggles to tolerate nuance, that is more interested in sound bites than in genuine understanding. And that, in the long run, weakens us all.

This is my plea for a more thoughtful, more informed, and more mature conversation.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But having an opinion does not make it a fact, and confusing the two can cause real harm.