As you have probably surmised from its title, the argument Rosenfeld and the AJC are making here is that Jewish progressives (which I consider myself to be) are really self-hating anti-Semites who represent a "fifth column" that are conspiring to destroy the Jewish people from within. In other words, to criticize the policies of a particular Israeli government is tantamount to anti-Zionism, and thus anti-Semitic. A quick thought experiment proves the utter vacuity of this line of argument: an American who sees fit to criticize the policies of the Bush administration under this conceptualization would be tarred as an “anti-American” and thus an internal enemy of the American people.
From the study’s foreword, written by the Executive Director of the AJC:
Perhaps the most surprising—and distressing—feature of this
new trend [toward anti-Zionism] is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish state. Here, too, the vociferous denunciators are to be found at both ends of the political-religious spectrum [. . .]
But when it comes to getting noticed by the media and getting “traction” for their views, it is the so-called “progressive” Jewish anti-Zionists who receive the lion’s share of the attention. These leftist Jewish critics challenge not just Israel’s policies, but “its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future.”
So here we see the battle lines being drawn: “Leftist” Jewish critics are seeking to undermine the Jewish state by bringing it down with their critical rhetoric. The study goes on to mention a handful of these offensive Jewish critics and chronicles their offending remarks. And from these handful of critics, we are expected to extrapolate from this that all leftist Jewish critics are by their nature anti-Zionists and anti-Semites.
According to Rosenfeld, the study seeks to answer a profound question: “In what ways might Jews themselves, especially so-called ‘progressive’ Jews, be contributing to the intellectual and political climate that helps to foster such hostility, especially in its anti-Zionist forms?” He goes on to state that before proceeding to examine these issues, though, he will first review “some of the developments that give rise to them in the first place.”
He notes that “intellectual elites on the European left have become increasingly outspoken in their hostility to Jews and the Jewish state and are voicing a kind of animosity to both that has not been heard in Europe for years.” Specifically, Rosenfeld advances the claim that a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.
Some of the other points made include:
“At a time when the de-legitimization and, ultimately, the eradication of Israel is a goal being voiced with mounting fervor by the enemies of the Jewish state, it is more than disheartening to see Jews themselves adding to the vilification. That some do so in the name of Judaism itself makes the nature of their assault all the more grotesque.”
And:
"Their contributions to what’s becoming normative discourse are toxic. They’re helping to make [anti-Semitic] views about the Jewish state respectable - for example, that it’s a Nazi-like state, comparable to South African apartheid; that it engages in ethnic cleansing and genocide. These charges are not true and can have the effect of delegitimizing Israel."
Rosenfeld goes on to libel a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, as well as a number of academics, basically because they dare to criticize Israeli policies in a way Rosenfeld believes lends support to anti-Zionists.
Readers of this blog may be aware that last year I wrote a lengthy, critical post on Tony Judt’s editorial on the Mearsheiemer-Walt paper on the “The Jewish Lobby”, so it is fair to say I am not necessarily a member of Judt’s fan club. But I specifically noted that I don’t consider Judt to be an anti-Zionist or anti-Semite for the arguments he makes, even though I disagree with them. I would argue that this is the position Rosenfeld should have taken in the report as well.
If there are a handful of leftist Jews who argue that Israel should cease existing, then fine, go ahead and call them out. But to then make the fantastical (and wholly unsupported) claim that these voices are representative of leftist Jews and a new, dangerous and widening trend of anti-Semitism is factually incorrect, albeit a sensationalist claim that will certainly ensure the report gets a lot of mainstream media news coverage.
Another logical sleight-of-hand that Rosenfeld attempts to pull off, part of Israeli critics’ regular stock in trade, is to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. So not only does he advance the false claim that anti-Zionism (or, the belief that Israel lacks the legitimacy to exist as a Jewish state) runs rampant among Leftist Jewish circles, but then he tries to claim that such sentiments are anti-Semitic as well. This is, of course, so far from the truth that it barely survives intellectual scrutiny.
To pick one example, Rosenfeld attacks the Jewish UC Berkeley Talmudic professor Daniel Boyarin’s statement that "Just as Christianity may have died at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Sobibor...so I fear that my Judaism may be dying at Nablus, Deheishe, Beteen (Beth-El) and El-Khalil (Hebron)." Boyarin is clearly drawing a historical analogy between the Church’s failure to prevent the genocide of Jews during the Nazi Holocaust and the Israeli government's conduct toward the Palestinians (and the Israeli people’s tacit acceptance of such measures). Now, you can argue that such an analogy is off the mark, you can argue that the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in refugee camps is wholly justified, you could even argue that the Israeli people are not complicit in the mistreatment of Palestinians. But it is intellectually dishonest, I believe, to argue that simply drawing the analogy is in itself evidence of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
In the final analysis, it appears that Rosenfeld is using this stud as a blunt instrument of intimidation against any writer, Jewish or otherwise, who dares to question the policies of an Israeli government, by dangling the anti-Semitism charge over his or her head. Of course, such a charge succeeds only in stifling and shutting down the possibility of an intellectually honest debate occurring on the merits of a policy, which I assume is precisely Rosenfeld’s and the AJC’s primary goal in the first place.
Rabbi Michael Lerner really nails the central problem with the study writing in the Baltimore Chronicle :
"[I]nstead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (e.g. to what extent are Israel's current policies similar to those of apartheid and to what extent are they not?), the Jewish establishment and media responds by attacking the people who raise these or any other critiques--shifting the discourse to the legitimacy of the messenger and thus avoiding the substance of the criticisms. Knowing this, many people become fearful that they too will be labeled 'anti-Semitic' if they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies.
When this bubble of repression of dialogue explodes into open resentment at the way Jewish Political correctness has been imposed, it may really yield a 'new' anti-Semitism. To prevent that, the voices of dissent on Israeli policy must be given the same national exposure in the media and American politics that the voices of the Jewish establishment have been given."
For some thoughtful criticism of the study, make sure to read Matthew Yglesias’ Op-Ed in The Guardian, ”Are We All Anti-Semites Now?”, as well as this article by Patricia Cohen that appeared in the New York Times as well as the International Herald Tribune.
0 comments:
Post a Comment