I ought to have linked to this earlier. My dear old friend and former colleague Marc Dollinger (with whom I taught here at PCC for seven years) had this op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle ten days ago: Anti-Israel Boycott Movement is Misplaced. Here’s the key bit:
Boycott defenders have constructed a revisionist narrative of Israeli history and politics that is rooted more in their underlying anti-Zionist ideology than it is in offering a complex and textured understanding of the Jewish state and its Arab neighbors. It recasts victimization, replacing Jews, who have historically been perceived as quintessential outsiders, with Palestinians, who are cast as sufferers from Jewish colonialism, imperialism and abuse of power. With this narrative, ideology trumps complexity and the political extreme drowns out the vital center.
Marc, who left Pasadena City College to take the Richard and Rhoda Goldman Chair in Jewish Studies and Social Responsibility at San Francisco State University, is one of the most deeply moral men I’ve ever known. I miss him very much; we both had undergrad degrees from Cal and Ph.Ds from UCLA, knew many of the same people… We talked college football a lot.
In any case, my wife and I are visiting Israel in the not-so-distant future. And I’ve been doing a lot of thinking and reflecting on the intersection of Judaism and Christianity lately. When we’re back from Israel, I’ll have much more to say.
I will say that as someone who (as I mentioned this morning) was active in the anti-apartheid campaigns of the 1980s, I have been deeply frustrated by the parallels that the left draws between apartheid South Africa and modern Israel. While I do not think for a moment that the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians is above reproach, I am troubled by the extent to which the American and European left has, as Marc points out, lost all sense of nuance in the rush to demonize Israel. Hamas is not the African National Congress, after all.
Anyhow, read Marc’s piece.
Interesting that you should post this now.
I have been thinking that for my upcoming fortieth birthday(today I am a man?) I’d like to go to Israel for the first time.
As you know (Hugo and I are friends), I’m not hugely religious or political (which means I’m a perfect dinner companion) but I certainly am Jewish, by birth and by affinity.
I have been thinking a lot lately about what it is to be Jewish. Between my dad’s one Jewish and one goyish wife (and the secular households of each) there’s some different levels of identification amongst his five kids. My oldest brother who’s mom is gentile and who is quite down on organized religion……..married a conservative Jew…..and it has not been smooth sailing between them about how to raise their kids. My sister, who has always by nature been a little goyish even when she was a more religious Jew, married a Canadian Jew who, in terms of religion and ashkenazic style, is the least Jewish Jew I’ve ever met ( all British, no Yiddish).
My two parents were not the least bit religious (although not out and out athiests). My dad even had periods where he was practically anti-semitic but if you overheard one of their fights there was no mistaking those two for anything other than two Ashkenazic Jews from the outer boroughs of New York.
For me, being Jewish is part cultural (and by that I mean the Ashkenazic, East Coast thing which is often, less than comprehensively, referred to as ‘Jewish’) and also the wisdom tradition of the Torah which I truly connect with more and more each time I investigate it.
I am not against intermarriage. I’ve felt deep soul connections with Jews and non-Jews and also a lack of one with both (but alas no connection with either that has resulted in my being married yet). I don’t think it has to mean that one’s Judaism dies and I think that the Jewish community needs to be more inclusive of Jews who are in this category.
Basically when I heard that Burns And Allen were a mixed marriage I decided it had to be okay( and, by the way, so did their parents which was quite evolved for 1916).
As for Israel, well I’m still working it out. I have heard different takes from people I respect on both sides (Jews and non-Jews) and between that and my apolitical nature I am uncertain. I can say that when I’m around Israeli Jews that I don’t feel the same kinship and connection as I do around other Jews cut from my own cultural cloth. It’s not that I don’t like them, I just don’t feel like they are ‘me’. My feeling now is a feeling of wondering why I should care about the situation there anymore than I should any other tragedy currently happening on earth.
So I’m going there to be able to answer that question and to perhaps expand my experience of what it means to be Jewish. In other words, I wanna see what all the fuss is about.
Stay Tuned.
Just read the article. Was struck by your friend’s referring to Jews as a ‘white ethnic group’, since in many cases they are neither. Only underscores my previous entry.
I’m puzzled by the claim that there has been a “rush to demonize Israel” among the left. The implication seems to be that leftists who object to Israel’s policies are motivated not out of a principled opposition to those policies, but rather have decided to oppose Israel from the outset and are merely picking and choosing offensive policies to object to so as to justify their predetermined position.
When this line is pushed by right-wing apologists, the motivating sentiment is presumed to be anti-Western: the left hates and seeks to undermine Western civilization and is therefore pro-Arab, pro-Palestine, and anti-Israel. I am assuming you reject this argument. But then I have to wonder, in the absence of reflexive anti-Westernism, what is supposed to be motivating the “rush to demonize Israel”?
It seems to me that you either accept the veracity of an anti-Western left, or the idea that the left is unfair in its criticism of Israel becomes incoherent.
Bill, I look forward to our conversation after we’ve both returned from the Holy Land.
I think, tps, the rush to demonize Israel lies in a false parallel between Zionism and traditional Western Imperialism. To say that Jews returning home to the Holy Land and claiming what was once theirs is analagous to Dutch settlers taking over the Western Cape (where they had no history whatsoever) is troubling.
Sometimes I wonder if some of the antii-Israeli sentiment is really anit-Americanism by proxy. The global left is fairly strongly anti-American, frequently justifiably; Israel and the USA are often seen as sharing similar foreign policy goals. They certainly share similar enemies. “The friend of my enemy is also my enemy” is an old (if unsustainable) political maxim.
I still don’t see what would motivate drawing that kind of false parallel in the first place: outside of a worldview in which leftists do evil for the sake of doing evil, what would move the left to be unfair in their criticism of Israel? Occam’s razor would seem to suggest rather that the left (perhaps working with different definitions of Zionism, and from differing ideas regarding the justice of land ownership, than you are) reaches its opinions on Israel in good faith, through principled analysis. Perhaps I’m misreading what you intend by the “rush to demonize.”
Perhaps I ought to withdraw the phrase “rush to demonize” and replace it with “an unfortunate willingness to equate Zionism with imperialism.”
Would that help?
Indeed Hamas is not the African National Congress. However, as far as I know the South African government wasn’t bombing, raiding, pillaging and completely destroying black African villages either.
Zionism in and of itself as a concept is not imperialistic. The people currently carrying it out ARE.
Christina, I am no friend of the settler movement, nor am I a Christian Zionist anticipating the Second Coming. I am in favor of a peaceful two-state solution (one that guarantees a majority Jewish Israel, and one that guarantees an autonomous Palestine). I do not think the Israeli government is above reproach, but Israel is the only nation currently targeted for a cultural boycott by the European left. Israel, surrounded by hostile forces that long for its total destruction, has a right to security. How that security is achieved is worthy of debate, and when Israel is over-zealous in its pursuit of safety, it deserves rebuke.
But Israel has been singled out above all other nations as a manifestation of injustice and oppression, and that’s not good sense.
Honestly I’ve got to respectully disagree with you here, Hugo. I don’t think that modern-day Isreal has any more claim to to the land than Modern-Day America. They can call it “returning to the holy land” all they want but the land was won by pretty ordinary secular conquest, it wasn’t given to the Isreali State by God.
I do, however, agree with the pragmatic point of the Marc Dollinger article, that the campaign to boycott Isreali academics is a tremendous mistake. I don’t agree that “the centre” is an inherently valuable political perspective and I don’t accept the particular brand of Isreali exceptionalism you’re trying to articulate.
I also take issue with Dollinger’s willingness to portray anti-Zionism as fiercely ideological and not ground in fact while refusing to apply the same criticisms to Zionism which is, as I think we’re all aware, an ideology that’s built on mythology.
I think there are plenty of reasons to draw parallels between Isreali and South African Apartheid. A lot of the consequences on the ground for Palestinians are the same, even if the political situation at the top is different.
I shouldn’t have to add this but I will: I do not in any way endorse anti-jewish or anti-semitic sentiments and the my concern for Palestinians does not in any way imply that I think ordinary Isrealis should be “driven into the sea”. It’s just that I don’t think that comparisons between Isreal and other imperial powers are unwarranted, however.
Perhaps this is the fundamental source of my disagreement. While I think that Isreali individuals (and the Jewish people) have a right to security, I can’t accept that Nation-States have rights in the same sense.
They can call it “returning to the holy land” all they want but the land was won by pretty ordinary secular conquest, it wasn’t given to the Isreali State by God.
It’s difficult to talk about this issue when so many people, including myself, are convinced that the land involved was given to one specific people and that that promise is still in some very real sense binding today. That doesn’t mean that God endorses the domestic and foreign policy of the Israeli government; it does mean that many thoughtful Christians and Jews do believe that the latter have a unique and special claim on this place. That claim is not so exclusive that it can insist on driving out all others, but it is a claim that is utterly unlike that of Manifest Destiny or the Afrikaner vision.
I don’t really want to insult your religious beliefs but I do disagree with you pretty strongly about this. I would like to point out that it’s important not to confuse the Jewish people (who, in the bible, Isreal was given to) with the Isreali State (which is a modern, largely secular bureaucracy).
Hugo, I think that you ignore the incredible pressures that supposedly mainstream Jews and Jewish Organizations put upon those of us who dissent from their positions. After hearing of and reading a Stanford University student’s most thoughtful editorial on her campus speaking of her concerns as a Jew related to Israel I emailed her to support her. Her response was telling! She thanked me saying that it was good to hear positive words amongst all the criticism (polite word) she had received.
Palestinians are people who have had their land occupied for 40 years as well as having lost land 59 years ago. They are not saints of course but most are peaceful and “sensible”. Suicide bombers and others who kill come out of a desperation, fear and anger. It would be nice of a Gandhi/MLK inspired non-violent residence could takeover and succeed, but unfortunately where peaceful efforts are undertaken, they get limited recognition.
I would urge you and others concerned to look at reading on areas such as:
** http://www.combatantsforpeace.org - “We are a group of Israeli and Palestinian individuals who were actively involved in the cycle of violence in our area. The Israelis served as combat soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces and the Palestinians were involved in acts of violence in the name of Palestinian liberation.”
** http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org - A Jewish Voice for Peace
** http://blog.mideastanalysis.org/ or http://www.muzzlewatch.org/ - blogs out of the leadership of A Jewish Voice for Peace
or if you want thoughtful Palestinian related perspectives:
** http://www.ramikhouri.com/ - Rami Khouri’s blog or
** http://palestinejournal.blogspot.com/ - a medical providers’ blog
Israeli settlements on the West Bank continue to expand and Gaza is both the site of starvation issues and an explosive powder keg.
The U.S. has been a Strong Ally of continued conflict, rather than a mediator - who will listen and help build a lasting peace. Israel has great “strategic” importance which will lesson as the oil in the Middle East gets used up in the coming decades.
Israelis are paying a huge price by not taking great risks in building a just peace. It is scary to open oneself up as Israel must do. The status quo - where close to half the young Israelis want to leave their country and see no viable future for the continuation of life as it is now is also very troubling.
It will take a lot of work to build a just peace! We need to do what we can to help. Defending Israel isn’t going to build peace. I hope that when you are in Israel you will seek out - dissent and dissenters. There are Jewish refuseniks and others who oppose Government policy.
Good Luck!
Geo, again, I’m anti-boycott and not a knee-jerk supporter of Israel. I checked out Jewish Voices for Peace, and they oppose a blanket boycott of Israel (though they do support boycotting settlement products.)
I share with you a concern for a just peace, and do believe that the USA has not always been helpful in this regard. I’m hardly a card-carrying member of AIPAC. It is possible to point out that the Israeli government has made some serious miscalculations and is involved in the systemic mistreatment of some Palestinians without calling for a blanket boycott of Israel or suggesting that the Zionist project is imperialistic at its core.
Okay, your new phrasing is much better and I see what you mean.
Labyrus,
Your analysis leads to a situation where dispossessing a group from their home for a long enough time makes it immoral for them to go back. How long is that? Eg, How long would Israel have to exile non Jewish Arabs from their land for, before it would be imperialism for them to go back?
Yup, the modern Jewish state is not “Judaism.” On the other hand, the modern Fatah and the modern Hamas are not the 1920s-1950s “Palestinians” either. Maybe if they were, you could make a claim that their support for Hitler undermines their rejection of Jewish settlement/self-rule in the region…
Hugo,
I agree that a blanket boycott of Israel may be wrong. A significant majority of my extended family are (Jewish) Israelis. I object though to a position which basically says: “both sides have done wrong” and “we must understand the pain of the Israeli Jews and the Palestinians” which results in a tolerance of the status quo.
Statistics like I just saw of: 952 Palestinian Children killed vs. 118 Israeli children killed since a date in 2000 - show how disproportionate the violence results in directly affecting the lives of Palestinians.
Many of us Jews fear another Holocaust in Israel if a Palestinian State is formed. Israel is also a nuclear power which clearly would likely use its most lethal weapons if its survival were ever a serious issue.
Palestinians are not living in a “stalemate” where their status remains the same. Expropriations of land for the Wall - separating Palestinians - from Israelis as well as the expansions and creations of new Settlements results in less and less land belonging to Palestinians over time.
I couldn’t imagine how you in Pasadena could continue living year-in-and year-out - if to drive to Hollywood or Downtown LA or Anaheim meant waiting hours at checkpoints where you possibly might not get through including IF you needed medical care or had sick or dying relatives or a funeral to attend.
I know that you Do Not - support many of the horrific things that go on! One need not be “leftist” to recognize that the U.S. Media and Political Establishment - even unrelated to 9/11 - Anti-Arab hysteria - tends to Strongly Favor positions strongly in support of Israeli policy and strongly against the Palestinians.
Certainly the Palestinians have been poorly treated by the leadership of Arab countries such as Jordan, Syria and Egypt. This however does not justify Israel’s continued oppression of Palestinians.
Both the Israelis and the US Government face new problems with the Hamas takeover of Gaza and the Fatah takeover of the West Bank.
The Israeli and U.S. Governments both must face the facts that IF we want to live in a world of “Moderate Islam” - and Peace (with a Capital “P”) we need to learn to live and support those in the Middle East who seek a just Peace for the Palestinians as well as supporting moderate forces elsewhere.
History tells me at least that the U.S. - creates - our “boogymen” and simplistic - support of dictators who support “our interests” - such as Manuel Noriega in Panama and Saddam Hussein - only to turn on them when they refuse to continue as we want them to be.
Hugo - I know you are not “the enemy” - and are indeed very good in most of what you believe in. Understanding and hearing Jewish friends and allies is important. It is also important to see and hear other voices and confronting one’s allies when what they believe in isn’t the whole picture.
Thanks!
Hugo, as an Israeli Jew, I can only say I’m thrilled at your prospective visit to my homeland. Do please keep us lurkers updated: I’d love to hear what you think of the country and its idiosyncrasies, both cultural and otherwise. And, of course, should you require any native help… ;)
(Sadly, I’m going to sit this debate out, because the Israeli-Palestinian horse is so dead for me, it is quite seriously an ex-horse. Listening to this subject being argued in my schools, my social circles, the national media, etc. is akin to brainwashing; one needs the occasional break from the dual-sided onslaught of self-righteous pain.)
Thanks, all. When we get back from Israel — and we’re going soon — I’ll give a detailed reflection. Maybe my friends who are soccer fans can help me choose between Maccabi Tel Aviv and Hapoel Tel Aviv. I’m always interested in the politics behind intra-city derbies (or rivalries, as we call them here).
It was never Imperialism for the Jews to go back to Isreal. It was Imperialism for them to go back as conquerors. It’s Imperialism to build a wall that separates people from their sources of water and their crops.
But I must wonder, if you’d asked a Jewish person in Europe in 1880 (or even 1930) where there home was, how many would actually say “Isreal”? Even the Zionists of the late 19th Century were considering establishing a Jewish state in Guatemala (which would’ve been much more clearly Imperialism). Zionism has its roots as a secular ideology, focused on creating a situation where Jews have political rights and basic safety (a laudable mission in many respects, but the ends cannot justify the means) - it was not, as you imagine, a mission of bringing Jews “home”.
It’s also worth pointing out that it’s not just “non-Jewish Arabs” who have been displaced by Isreal.
I’m not sure how this is a point of disagreement with me. I definitely don’t think that Fatah or Hamas are doing a very good job of representing the interests of ordinary Palestinians and I think it definitely is reasonable to question the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority. I’m not in any way a supporter of that Organization.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear enough: I’m for the basic rights of ordinary people in the region (Jews of European origin included), and firmly against the war-mongering institutions that perpetuate the violence there. These include Hamas and the Isreali state.
First of all, Hugo, I want to give you a hearty AMEN for this post. Amen again.
Now…Lanyrus said:
“While I think that Isreali individuals (and the Jewish people) have a right to security, I can’t accept that Nation-States have rights in the same sense.”
If this is the case, then the United States, France China, ets. are all nation states - do they not have a right to security? Do nation states have to accept peopel blowing things up in teh middle of their cities during rush our because well, nation states have no right to security as peopel do? In the end, nation states are a collection of people into a political entity.
It is my understanding that historically, one of the main roles of the modern, Western nation-state is defense of its constituents from foreign attack (as well as basic law enforcement so that people don’t settle disputes by maiming and killing each other). If the state can’t defend itself it will soon cease to exist.
Or, do only Jewish nation-states have no right to security in the same sense as Jewish individuals while (for example) French individuals AND the French nation-state have full rights to security on all levels.
Treifalicious, thanks for asking.
Actually, I’m an anarchist. No, I don’t think that any of the States you mentioned have any inherent rights. I do think human beings and communities have a right to not be terrorized. I think it’s all well and good if the Isreali State its citizen’s rights in that regard, but I do not think it is justifiable for a State to kill people in its own defense. A state is a system of organisation, and has little or no intrinsic value compared to that of a human life.