Anti-Israel Sentiment on the Left
March 20th, 2007 Posted by Barbara
On the left, in academia and in activist circles, it has become common to hear cartoon-like comments about Israel, comments that are simplistic to the point of caricature. Israeli public opinion is taken to be monolithic, with no mention of the peace movement or of broader opposition to the occupation. Israel is described as having been founded in league with imperialist powers (Britain and the US). Zionism is equated with imperialism and racism. The two-state solution is dismissed as Zionist. Palestinians are described in equally monolithic and simplistic terms: they are taken to support a one-state solution (presumably unanimously) and the one-state solution that they are taken to support is presumed to be progressive. Hezbollah is described as a liberation organization, fighting to defend the people of southern Lebanon. It is common to hear people on the left describe their politics as “anti-Israel.” There are many who see hostility to Israel and support for Palestine as central to radical politics. That is, the measure of one’s radicalism is how strongly one supports the Palestinians and the depth of one’s hostility to Israel.
This is hardly the only problem facing the Middle East peace movement in the US. The larger problem is the determination on the part of many mainstream and rightwing Jewish organizations to squelch criticisms of Israel, and the large number of individual Jews who label any such criticism anti-Semitic. The organizations intent on silencing criticism have considerable political clout and financial resources and have created an atmosphere of intimidation that has severely dampened discussion of issues having to do with Israel and Palestine. But the bad behavior of many on the Jewish mainstream and right does not exonerate those on the left who have embraced a politics, in relation to Israel and Palestine, that portrays Israel and Palestine as undifferentiated units and that frames the conflict between Palestine and Israel as a battle between good and evil. The central goal of the Middle East peace movement is a negotiated settlement that takes into account legitimate concerns on both sides. This does not mean equating the two sides: there is an Israeli occupation of Palestine, not a Palestinian occupation of Israel. But the Israeli/Palestinian conflict involves nationalism on both sides, and sharp political divisions on both sides, as well as inequality between Israel and Palestine. While pressing for a negotiated settlement does not require equating the two sides, it does require recognizing that there are legitimate concerns on each side. It is this last element that is missing from the perspective of much of the US left.
What is striking about this is that hardly anyone, on the left, would adopt such a simplistic stance in relation to the US, or probably any other country in the world. No serious organization on the left adheres to a policy of “anti-Americanism.” Everyone knows that taking such a stance would lead directly to political oblivion. The same, of course, applies in Israel: a politics based on opposition to Israel is not likely to attract much suppor. Israel is engaged in an occupation that is morally and politically indefensible. The US is engaged in an occupation of and war in Iraq that fits the same description, but which has taken place on a much larger scale and has led to a far higher number of deaths. But in large areas of the US left, Israel is spoken of with far greater venom than the US. Many on the left speak of Israel, not the US, as the cutting edge of evil.
So the question is, what is at work here? This is not exactly anti-Semitism, certainly not of the traditional variety. Those on the left who regard Israel as the cutting edge of evil do not hate Jews. Many of them are Jews. Those of them who are not Jews probably have many close relations with Jews; on the left, especially the intellectual left, Jews are very numerous. There are many reasons for people on the left, Jewish or not, to be very troubled by the behavior of Israel. Such reasons include the occupation, the brutal treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories, discrimination against Israeli Arabs, the alliance between Israel and the US, the fact that Israel has become the closest partner of the US and in many ways its agent in the Middle East. The Zionist program of a Jewish state has been debated by Jews since Zionism emerged in the late nineteenth century, and dissenting views are as legitimate now as they were before the State of Israel was founded. One can legitimately argue that the founding of a Jewish state forced Jewish culture into a mold that promoted militarism and other negative qualities. One can argue that the world would be better off without nation-states, especially nation-states based on particular ethnic and religious groups. One can also make arguments in favor of a Jewish state, which I need not rehearse here. The point is that criticizing Zionism, and the founding of a Jewish state, is not in itself anti-Semitic.
It is, however, irrelevant to the current situation in Israel and Palestine, because the State of Israel was founded more than half a century ago. There is nothing to be gained from arguing about whether Uganda would have been a better idea, or whether Jews should have refrained from going to Palestine because Palestinians already lived there, or whether, once they were there, they should have refrained from pursuing the formation of a state. What made the Holocaust different from previous attacks on European Jews was not only its scale, but the fact that the doors of the world were closed: for the vast majority it was not possible, as it had been at previous moments, to go somewhere else. The only escape route available to significant numbers of Jews was to Palestine. For many survivors Palestine was also the easiest option. It is hard to imagine that the Jewish community in Palestine, greatly expanded due to the war, would have refrained from pressing for a state, or would have refused what international support was offered. Israel is hardly the only nation state in the world formed on the basis of ethnic/religious identity. Its record of abuses is bad but hardly the worst in the world. Given the continued existence of anti-Semitism it is not reasonable to ask that Israel be the first state to give up nationhood, or to sever the connection between citizenship and ethnic/religious identity. The vision of a Middle East without national boundaries, or of Middle Eastern states in which citizenship has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion, is inspiring and worth working towards. But given the depth of ethnic and religious animosities in this region these are not realistic goals for the near future. A one-state solution is much more likely to entail either the Israeli right’s vision of a Greater Israel, stretching from the sea to the Jordan River, or Hamas’ vision of Islamic fundamentalism holding sway over the same region.
What explains the demonization of Israel in large sections of the US left? One source is disappointment. Within recent memory it was possible to equate Jews with progressive politics. In its early decades Israel’s relatively egalitarian, left-leaning society inspired hope and pride in many Jews in the US and elsewhere. The one-sided character of the current left critique of Israel suggests a sense of betrayal. This is understandable, but not particularly helpful as a basis for promoting peace. Disappointment with Israel is not anti-Semitic, but if it leads to a politics that can see nothing in Israel to support, it opens the way to anti-Semitism.
Other sources of left demonization of Israel have more to do with the left as a whole than with Jews on the left in paraticular. A large sector of the left tends to divide the world into two categories: US imperialism and its enemies. Israel’s alliance with the US places it firmly on the wrong side of this dichotom. The rise of a new kind of challenge to US imperialism, in the form of Islamic fundemantalism aligned with right-wing Arab nationalism, raises questions about the assumption that all anti-imperialist forces are progressive. But Israel’s alliance with the US, and its continued occupation of Palestine, nevertheless place it firmly on the wrong side of this dichotomy. A simplistic form of anti-imperialism might explain a view of Israel as the second most evil society on the planet: it is the closest ally of the US. It does not explain why so many on the left direct more animosity toward Israel than toward the US. Perhaps the explanation lies in some combination of two factors: bitter disappointment in Israel on the part of left wing Jews, plus, elsewhere, vestiges of the traditional anti-Semitic view that where there are problems, there are Jews pulling the strings (thus, the charge that the Jews were behind the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq).
A final source of the left demonization of Israel has to do with race and with victimhood. The US left has always been largely white; in recent decades it has also been largely composed of the middle class, especially the professional middle class. At one time the working class was thought to be the agent of revolution, and the left pursued a working class constituency. In recent decades class issues have been relegated to scond place if not forgotten, and people of color have been seen, not exactly as agents of revolution, but at least as the vanguard of social change. The left has pursued people of color as constituents or at least as allies. Arabs are regarded as people of color (even though Arab identity is based on language, not race) and in the Israel/Palestine conflict the Israelis are white and the Palestinians (though genetically very close to Jews) occupy the position of people of color. The relative powerlessness of the Palestinians is a major factor in the place that they occupy in the imagination of much of the US left, where victimization tends to be equated with progressive politics. The high profile of the Palestinians and of “the Palestinian cause” in the Arab world promotes a similar attitude in large sectors of the US left: pro-Palestine, anti-Israel. But thinking about Israel and Palestine in terms of supporting one and opposing the other is not going to lead to peace, because neither people is going to leave. A politics that recognized serious political divisions on both sides, and that supported the efforts of Palestinian and Israeli progressives to find common ground, would be much more productive.
Entry Filed under: Online Community
13 Comments Add your own
1. Brian Henry | March 22nd, 2007 at 6:03 am
“This is hardly the only problem facing the Middle East peace movement in the US. The larger problem is the determination on the part of many mainstream and rightwing Jewish organizations to squelch criticisms of Israel, and the large number of individual Jews who label any such criticism anti-Semitic. The organizations intent on silencing criticism have considerable political clout and financial resources and have created an atmosphere of intimidation that has severely dampened discussion of issues having to do with Israel and Palestine.”
I think what Barbara means here is that some Jews - ranging from the center-left to the right - don’t espouse her position. Evidently, she finds this hard to take.
2. Brian Henry | March 22nd, 2007 at 6:42 am
“This does not mean equating the two sides: there is an Israeli occupation of Palestine, not a Palestinian occupation of Israel.”
Perhaps Barbara intends this statement to illustrate what she means by an argument that is “simplistic to the point of caricature”…?
Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza (which it no longer occupies) when surrounding Arab nations started a war against Israel with the professed goal of driving the Jews into the sea.
Israel retains the moral and legal obligation to continue occupying the West Bank until there is a Palestinian partner that is both willing and able to negotiate in good faith or until Israel unilaterally decides it’s in its own best interest to end the occupation.
I supported the Oslo process. Arafat betrayed it. I supported unilateral withdrawal from the territories. The Palestinians responded with continuing terror.
The sad fact is that getting rid of Israel remains the goal of most Palestinian factions - Hamas, the PFLP, much of Fatah, etc.
They pursue this goal through terrorism and propaganda, and simplistic statements such as Barbara’s aid them in their goal.
I believe most Americans understand this. Certainly most Jews do. And that perhaps explains why there’s no one around on this site: JANIP seems to be an organization dedicated to unreality, created by people who should know better.
3. Rabbi Arthur Waskow | March 24th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
The need to keep Israel secure has absolutely nothing to do with the occupation or the settl;ements (except that it makes achieving Israeli security much harder). If the point were Israeli security from terror attacks, then the \Security Barrier/ Wall/ Fence should have been built along thje Green Line & Israel should have withdrawn its army inside that boundary. Ther settlers could have gone back home or neotiatedc a deal with the Palestiinian s, if posdsible.
Meanwhile, the Arab League proposed in 2002 a regional peace settlement with a full peace treaty encom[passing Israel, a 1967-boundary Palestine, and all Arabn states. There were some p[robably unacceptable conditionsd; did the Israeli govt take up the task of negotiating over them? hardly; it sneered at the idea and the proposal.
So l,ong asd the Israeli govt insists on preserrving the big settlements and its sovereignty over arab east Jerusal;em,. tfhere casn be no viable Palestinian state and no peace.
Arafat, Barak, ^& Clinton all failed at Camp David; the l.ater neotuiations were much closer to a decent deal, but Barak had poisoned the well with his claim that Arafat was an uiinfit partner and wioth hisencouyragement of Sharon’s visit with 1200 armed men to the temmpl;e Mt/ Haram al sharif, so iBazrak’s govt fell before the deal could be pursuied and sealed.
Similarly, Israel rejected out of hand the Geneva Inirtiative propossals.
Peace would probably be easier to achieve had Hamas not won the recent elections, but one of the reasons they did was that israel refuied to negotiate with President Abbas aabout withdraw3ing from Gaza.
Why am i spendin g time reciting all this? because without it, one might think therfe is equal responsibility for the continuation of violence. I wish it were so. itr isn’t. As barfbvara saoid, the Israelis are occupying PalestiniaN lands in Gazam, West Bank, and East Jerusalem — not vice versa. (Any power that bombs another people at will, controls its econmy and its borders, holds ists legitim ate tax monmeyn under its own control, etc, is in fact ccupying it. The notion that Gaza is a free territory is absurd. Anyone who believes it is abysmally ignorant; anyone who knows it is not so but asserts it for propaganda reasons is a liar.
barabara’s assessment iof why the US left is inclined to demonize Iszrael misses two factors, I think. One is that Israel is the recipient of enormous US aid, military and (esp. in provate grants) economic. Other nasty govts, from China to Uganda to Zimbabwe, are not. (The Iraqi govt i is, and the Left cartainly attaacks it.) That does not excuse edemonizatyion of Israel.i society, and Barbara is quite right in saying that most of the Left does not think or act toward US society — as distinct from its govt — the way it does toward Israeli society It is not entirely unrteasonable to bring special ire to bear when your own tax money is being used to pay for unconscionable actions.
Secondly, she does not note that “disappointmenty” she mentions that has arisen since Isdrael turnedc from a prto-labor society into a Thatcherist one is much sharper for Jews on the l;eft than for otherts.Many left-wing Jews actual;l;;y feel n extremely painful horror at how Isrtael claims to be the “Jewiosh” state in ways they do not feel about china, Zimbabnwe, orf Uganda.
That horror also doe not justify demonizing Israel, but I think exp-l;ainms some of it.
Finally, the Jerwish right and centerrt have a l;ot nmnopre power to demonize and damage jews who are critical of Israeli policy or weho wonder o0ut lous whether Buber was right ion wanting a binational state than the Left has [ower to damage Americans, jewish or otherwiose, who support a two-state peace settlement or even those who justify the Occupation. So I would urge that whilwe we continuwe to criticize any effort to demionize israel, the greater danger is effortys like that of the AJCom to smear progressive jews or that odf AIPAC to encourage letting the President decide on this own whetyher to attack Iran.
4. E.M. Daniel | March 24th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Here is another comment that is simplistic to the point of caricature, this time made by the author:
“The larger problem is the determination on the part of many mainstream and rightwing Jewish organizations to squelch criticisms of Israel, and the large number of individual Jews who label any such criticism anti-Semitic.”
This is a claim often made by the far left, but, the fact of the matter is, it does not hold water. Even Abe Foxman from the ADL has stated time and again that criticism of Israel per se is not anti-Semitic. What matters is the content of the critique. Is Israel held to an unfair standard? Are anti-Semitic tropes used to criticize Israel? And so forth. The matter of anti-Zionism is important as well. For many Jews anti-Zionism is equivalent to anti-Semitism. But anti-Zionism is far more than criticism of Israel, it is an ideological negation of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security with its neighbors.
These comments appear contradictory:
“No serious organization on the left adheres to a policy of “anti-Americanism.””
“A large sector of the left tends to divide the world into two categories: US imperialism and its enemies.”
The groups responsible for organizing the largest anti-War in the United States—such as United for Peace and Justice and International ANSWER—adhere to ideologies that can only be described as anti-American. All one needs to do is visit their websites and read what they have to say if you don’t think this is the case.
5. Alex S., Israel | March 24th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
“One can also make arguments in favor of a Jewish state, which I need not rehearse here”
Your fear of stating the very raison d’etre of a Jewish state - which is connected the tyhe right of the Jewish people to self-determination and national expression, in this article, is itself a symptom of the sickness that has infected the Left regarding Israel and the Jewish people. One of the oldest civilizations in the world is confined, by many in the Left, to being either a theological debated school (the classic bourgeois position of “citizens of the belief of Moses”) or pathetic images of a vanished past (the Bund, glorification of the Diaspora, etc.). A proud belief in the right of the Jewish people to its language, civilization, and national expression cannot be proclaimed on the Left. As if the McDonaldization of the world and the elimination of all national communities and social epxression is a Leftist, and not a right/globalist ideal. But again - this is the position of the Left only vis-a-vis Israel.
It is therefore sadly true that we are talking about an old, and not a new variant of anti-semitism. And it makes absolutely no diffierence that some of the people who talk this way are Jews; just as it made absolutely no difference that some supporters of the fascist Right in pre-war Poland were Jews.
Barbara, I hate to tell you this but what you write is nothing new, and I remember similar articles by Arthur Waskow and others in the 70’s. As in the past, all your attempts to engage in a rational discussion of the profound hatred of the existence of Jews as a people - not just as a religion or as a barely tolerated fringe community - are doomed to failure. The only thing that will convince the Right or the Left - or indeed the world - of the right to Jews to have national community is the strength and viabiliity of the Jewish and Israeli community itself. If you are truly interested in such acceptance, then I suggest that you stop making useless attempts to rationally convince the world to your right to national identity - and spend your time building and strengthening that identity itself.
6. Ralph Seliger | March 25th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Although I’m more of a liberal and less radical than Barbara, I very much appreciate her analysis. Would that more of the left were open to her perspecitve.
I’d like to raise two points of contention: One is that when we simply condemn “occupation” per se without indicating that it’s Arab violence that prompted the occupation and perpetuates it,
we are engaging in a convenient shorthand that omits the historical context.
Also, in repeating the “squelching dissent” charge as prominently as she does, she’s exaggerating the problem. I believe that dissent IS squelched in some quarters; my understanding is that this is especially true in Jewish communities out West which tend to be overly defensive. But I’ve also experienced this in NY’s Jewish Week newspaper, which admitted to me last year that I’m “too left” for their taste. On the other hand, NJ Jewish News (also a big Jewish community weekly) does publish my views, as does The Forward. And the left tends to be at least as squelching (I’d say more so) of non-PC views it hates.
7. Bennett Muraskin | March 25th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I would like to see specific examples of the alleged unfairness of leftist positions on Israel. Who are these people and how influential are they. My sense is that these are marginal elements that do not amount to much. Most leftists that I know believe in the 2 state solution.–or if they are binationalist or one-staters, they do not support Hamas or advocate force to achieve their goals.
8. Ralph Seliger | March 26th, 2007 at 7:18 am
There is a lot of fuzziness among left-wing critics of Israel about whether Israel should exist or not or if it should be “binationalist.” You’d find that in Tony Kushner and Alissa Solomon’s anthology, for example.
But the best known case is Tony Judt, not extreme on other issues, but a one-stater regarding Israel and the Palestinians. The fact that Judt and most others who advocate one state do not support terrorist violence is hardly a defense for a grossly impractical and unfair position. Their opposition to violence is often nominal, with a formulation that equally criticizes Palestinian attacks on civilians and IDF efforts to stop the attacks. And there are many far-left voices, especially in campus communities, who are much more vicious in their anti-Israel sentiments than Judt, Kushner, et al.
And Carter’s best-selling book is so popular partly because of his use of “Apartheid” in the title. Extremists ignore his careful explanation that he’s not talking about Israel proper but only the West Bank. The “A” word, along with his inaccuracies and one-sided tone, tend to undermine Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state.
9. MIchael Rossman | March 27th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Six of the seven substantive responses so far to B. Epstein’s moderate and intelligently reasoned analysis seem simply dismissive and denigrative. I hope that this is less an index of general membership in JANIP and this listserve, than an indication of whose oxen are feeling gored by her points. If any others think she makes good sense, they should speak up, or leave outsiders like me to rueful speculations about JANIP’s sobriety and thoughtfulness.
Those who criticize her observations about the quick and profligate recourse to charges of “anti-Semitism” whenever Israeli policies are questioned may indeed see a different landscape East of the Mississippi. But from my perspective in the S.F. Bay Area, she has hardly put this issue sharply enough. The vehemence, vituperation, and sheer bulk of such knee-jerk responses is a major factor in shaping the climates of discussion here, in personal interchanges, in group meetings, in print, and online. One can scarcely make even the most moderate and reasonable critique of Israeli policies past or present, let alone any reference to the moral failings involved, without making oneself a target for such reckless charges. Indeed, it has been quite remarkable to me to see how some people of my generation, with a lifetime’s experience and steeping in progressive culture, can lose their minds completely — i.e., abandon any semblance of consciousness of progressive values, internationalism, or the fact that there are at least two sides to every issue — in response to any critique of Zionism, and go into rabid attack mode. Such conduct does perhaps even more than simplistic anti-Zionism to poison the waters of interchange, and sabotage the kinds of progress that JANIP strives for.
As for Epstein’s other substantive points, I think she passes lightly over one that rings more strongly for me. I think a form of racism is at the core of many Jews’ disappointment with Israel’s conduct over the past thirty years. I’m speaking personally here, but I’m sure this analysis extends to many. Growing up in a radical humanist Jewish family, and going through the era ‘57-’67 when so much of the New Left’s clarity and fervor was generated and directed by Jews with similar backgrounds, I derived what I much later realized was an altogether unrealistic set of assumptions about progressive values and the generality of Jews in this nation. I confess: a key reason for the sharpness of my disappointment and disagreement with Israeli Zionism and its USA support and supporters is that *I thought that Jews were better than that.* I was raised knowing that we had been slaves to Pharoah and had been liberated, and that my door was to be open to all others who were enslaved. How then could I take Israel’s unconscionable material support of the apartheid regime in South Africa? This is only the simplest expression of a paradox that will smoulder agonizingly in my consciousness until I die, unless J*w*h quite reforms the consciousness of those in power in Israel.
Given such background, it is not at all surprising to find how many Jews of my generation and political persuasions are agonized by the situation with the Palestineans, and are fundamentally critical of so much of Israeli policy.
10. Chris | March 28th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Michael,
Thank you for your honesty about thinking Jews knew better. I have found that sentiment as well and really do not understand it. Jews are human beings who make mistakes. Oppression does not make anyone better, it simply makes them oppressed. People learn very different things from their history of oppression: some which lead them to the left and some to the right.
I think Ashkenazim of a certain age (I do not see this feeling among my Sephardic or Mizrahi family) need to deal with their sense that Jews are supposed to be so different. I think THAT feeling has caused much damage to the Jewish community.
Honestly, I am a progressive who is always told that right-wingers call all criticisms of Israel anti-Semitism but I have not seen it. I have been called naive, silly, living in la-la land and frankly disrespected but never have I been accused of anti-Semitism, I do sometimes wonder what my left brothers and sisters say and why they do not think about how their words might be construed as not caring for the Jewish people.
11. Chris | March 28th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Michael,
Thank you for your honesty about thinking Jews knew better. I have found that sentiment as well and really do not understand it. Jews are human beings who make mistakes. Oppression does not make anyone better, it simply makes them oppressed. People learn very different things from their history of oppression: some which lead them to the left and some to the right.
I think Ashkenazim of a certain age (I do not see this feeling among my Sephardic or Mizrahi family) need to deal with their sense that Jews are supposed to be so different. I think THAT feeling has caused much damage to the Jewish community.
Honestly, I am a progressive who is always told that right-wingers call all criticisms of Israel anti-Semitism but I have not seen it. I have been called naive, silly, living in la-la land and frankly disrespected but never have I been accused of anti-Semitism. Of course, my area of expertise is anti-Semitism, thus I do not talk about the nefarious Jewish lobby controlling US foreign policy, knowing how that plays into ancient anti-Jewish myths.
12. MIchael Rossman | March 29th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Chris –
Thank you for your note, whose end sets me to thinking further.
I am proud of and deeply attached to my own Jewish heritage, which I construe — to put it briefly — as involving facility and deep respect for literacy and learning, a personal bearing-on of the history sketched in “Last of the Just,” a modicum of Yiddishkeit, and the humane and progressive values that propelled the New Left.
Yet I must bow to my mother’s father, who left me his blue eyes and a certain obligation. He was the latest in a line not simply of rabbis but of Grand Rabbis and Great Rabbis, that stretched unbroken from Padua Italy in 1492 until his youth in Russia at the start of the 1900s. Swept in the heady, conflicting currents of re-emergent Zionism and the Bund, he pondered the deeper issue at 18, and decided that if there were a God, He would be God for everyone, not only for Jews — and so became a Bolshevik rather than a rabbi, was jailed for his part in the abortive ‘05 revolution, and survived to come here … and so on.
It’s from this background that I ponder your remark, “I do sometimes wonder what my left brothers and sisters say and why they do not think about how their words might be construed as not caring for the Jewish people.” Though I am not God, a trace of whatever is holy stirs through me with my grandfather, to ask whether — as your remark invites, in this context — I should care first and without qualification for “the Jewish people.”
To my mind, Ariel Sharon was the planet’s leading anti-Semite until G*d and cholesterol struck him down. From the time of his disasterous provocation on the Temple mount, it was clear to me that no one else could be accounted as having banked-up so much grief and disaster for Jews around the world, for generations to come.
How should I care for Sharon? How should I care for the Jews who taught the apartheid masters of South Africa new tricks in surveillance, clandestine torture, and nuclear technology? How should I care for the Israelis who buried Mordecai in prison for telling some of the truth about Israel’s nuclear weaponry, how should I care for the Jews here who constrain “my country” on its hypocritical course of preparing to savage Iran for aspiring to uranium enrichment while Israel has enough nuclear-tipped missiles to snuff half the Muslims on Earth? Scratch the neocons who prepared Bush-&-Co. to invade Iraq and squander half a million lives and a trillion dollars, and you’ll draw proudly-Jewish blood.
This brief list hardly tells the story, but gives the flavor of my quandry. Who are “the Jewish people” that I should care for, above and without respect for the rest of humanity? Yes, I love Jews because I love the Jews I know, who share my values — but why am I to love Sharon and the rest to whom I refer, just because many other Jews believe they are doing good for “the Jewish people”? You say, so quickly and perhaps glibly, “Of course … I do not talk about the nefarious Jewish lobby controlling US foreign policy, knowing how that plays into ancient anti-Jewish myths.” Dear brother, to turn your back on truths and contradictions for the sake of ostensibly protecting Jews from their persecutors is … how can I say it? No favor to the human spirit, no favor to what I understand as admirable in our heritage, no favor in the long run even to us and our Jewish genes, let alone to a humane future.
Which brings me back to Palestine, a torment in my belly ever since I shook free from the myth that whatever Jews do in the name of preserving their future is justified, and admirable because of that. I am ashamed that I was lulled so long by the sense of Jewish exceptionalism, I was 48 before I really begain to understand the tragedy and the travesty of Israel vis-a-vis those other Semites. Hey, we’re Jewish, we’re God’s favored people even when we don’t mention His name and mandate. Whatever we do to those Others, directly and indirectly, doesn’t really matter, because they’re not Jewish.
They’e animals, they’re not really human, they send their children to die without regret …
Eh, I can’t torture this line further. My grandfather stirs within me, saying dryly, “Child, do be careful, he may think you don’t care for the Jewish people.” And he leaves me with a question. Does “caring for the Jewish peole” mean excusing everything and anything some of them do “for the sake of our survival”? And if not, then where does one draw the line, when and how does one say, “I care more for humanity, and for my own humanity, than for these butchering zealots”?
13. Chris | March 29th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Michael,
See, I have never thought Jews were exceptional so being let down was not hard for me. I am Latino and gay. There are members of both of those communities who are pretty abhorrent. But they are still my people. The love may have to come out in this way: “you need to act right!” but it still love nonetheless. I think as a person of color and a gay man, I see why we need each other. I think whiteness has actually hurt the Ashkenazi community because it has led to this idea that Jews do not need each other. We need each other to be better than we currently are.
My love for my people comes out as a progressive Zionist. I want a homeland for my people. No, it was not done perfectly. I ahve read Benny Morris but I know that no state has come about without violence. If we expected Jews to be different, THAT would be racist.
I find your realization of Jews’ humanity interesting, frankly perplexing, and sad. I have found in my expereince that Jews who are ravaged with such guilt not necessarily helpful in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Guilt does not help a situation.
I enter this conflict as someone who knows that Israel has made some terrible mistake but I also know others have as well. We have hurt each other. But I want my people to survive. if others have that right, so do we.
Oh, and in terms of apartheid and SA–other African nations did business with them as well as other “progressive” countries.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed