There are Jews who smell antisemitism whenever non-Jews criticize Israel, and blame Israel’s Jewish critics for abetting them. The interests aroused by Alvin Rosenfeld’s controversial recent essay, “Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” raises the specter that this mindset could become a leitmotif in the way the American Jewish right regards its counterpart on the left and center-left.
The essay’s targets are Jews who condemn Israel in hyperbolic terms, such as by drawing analogies with Nazism and apartheid. Some, but not all, of them also advocate terminating Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
Most of the big names are familiar. Tony Judt, Tony Kushner and poet Adrienne Rich have been known commodities for years. Those whose names are unfamiliar speak mostly to themselves. Considering the groundswell it has generated, it’s curious that Rosenfeld’s essay contains very little that was not previously known.
As Rosenfeld himself notes, Jews have always criticized Israel, even to the point of challenging its legitimacy. More than a half-century ago, the American Council for Judaism lobbied against American support for Israel’s creation, and this past December six Neturei Karta rabbis showed up in Tehran for the recent conference of Holocaust deniers.
These are, however, nervous times for American Jews. The rise of antisemitism is distressing, as is the postmodernist tendency to condemn all nationalisms. Jimmy Carter’s use of the term “apartheid” in his book title is a jarring example of how well-meaning Christians decontextualize facts on the ground, and then make unfair judgments of what they perceive to be Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians.
Alan Dershowitz spoke for many when he voiced his concern that “this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” And the $750,000 advance John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt will receive for a book-length version of their essay on Jewish power suggests a new openness to public discussion of an issue long regarded as taboo.
There are also distressing shifts in Washington. The Iraq Study Group’s linkage of progress in Iraq to progress in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict crossed a line many Jewish leaders have fought to maintain. Moreover, whoever is elected our next president may very well not be as friendly to Israel as is the incumbent.
Furthermore, there is profound concern for Israel’s security in the face of rising Iranian power. Confidence in Israel’s leadership is exceedingly low after last summer’s Lebanese debacle. And for the first time ever, Iran’s nuclear potential confronts Israel with an existential threat it may be powerless to deter.
In short, conditions are ripe for getting the wagons into a circle and squashing dissent. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee, which commissioned Rosenfeld’s essay, is correct in asserting that those who challenge Israel’s right to exist and compare Israel to Hitler’s Germany need to be confronted. [Editor’s note: The AJCommittee’s David Harris and David Harris of the Israel on Campus Coalition bear no relation.]
Rosenfeld and the AJCommittee are to be congratulated for taking up the gauntlet. But the line separating calumny from legitimate dissent is unclear and ever shifting. Indeed, we may already be on a very slippery slope.
The Zionist Organization of America recently tried to expel the Union of Progressive Zionists from the Israel on Campus Coalition for bringing Israeli military veterans to campuses to speak about alleged Israeli abuse of Palestinians. The initiative was supported for a time by the American Jewish Congress, which not long ago was the Jewish community’s most vociferous guardian of free speech. What’s next?
Doni Remba, a leader of Americans for Peace Now, characterizes Carter’s book as being “badly flawed but with a large kernel of truth.” In the future, will an author who condemns Carter’s main thesis nevertheless find himself condemned because he accepts some of Carter’s critique?
Jewish Voice for Peace, which supports divestment and is currently circulating a petition urging Congress to heed Carter’s words, is certainly beyond the pale. But what about Rabbis for Human Rights, an Israeli-based pluralistic organization that rejects divestment and advocates a two-state solution, even as it accuses Israel of violating human rights?
American Jews have gone through periods of attempted suppression of criticism at other times when storm clouds gathered. The enforcers can be surprising.
In the 1970s, when Likud expansionism ignited controversy, Rabbi Arthur Lelyveld, a leading social activist who had his head busted open on a freedom march in Mississippi, used his bully pulpit as president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis to warn colleagues against “joining the jackals nipping at Israel’s heel.”
Today we have Alvin Rosenfeld. By implying that progressive thought leads almost inevitably to views that are deleterious to Israel and the Jewish people, he buys into a genre of stereotyping that ignores the overwhelming number of Jewish progressives and liberals who are staunchly pro-Israel.
Take his treatment of a textbook published in the United States by a mainstream publishing house that includes a section titled “Should Israel Exist?” He castigates the book for merely raising the subject, and for including responses in the negative from two Jews, Ahron Cohen of Neturei Karta and Joel Kovel, a Marxist eco-socialist professor at Bard College.
Although neither the title nor its publisher is identified by Rosenfeld, a check of Amazon.com reveals that the book must almost certainly be “Israel: Opposing Viewpoints,” published by the Greenhaven Press as part of its “Opposing Viewpoints Series” for high-school students.
The book is by no means anti-Israel or antisemitic. The responses of Cohen and Kovel, plus one by Tony Judt, are juxtaposed by an equal number of strongly pro-Israel statements written by Jews. While one shares Rosenfeld’s outrage over Israel’s legitimacy being questioned by anyone, it is both unfair and woefully counterproductive to attack a textbook that seeks only to engender reasoned discussion of an issue that is already in the air.
Most disturbing, however, is Rosenfeld’s concluding remark. He anguishes that “young readers will quickly learn the arguments for the elimination of the Jewish state — every antisemite’s cherished dream — are contributed by Jews themselves.” He then adds gratuitously, and dangerously, “Given the drift of ‘progressive’ Jewish thought, that, too — perverse as it is — should come as no surprise.”
Reading this specious allegation, one is frightened by memories of the voice of a late, unlamented senator from Wisconsin muttering somewhere in the background, “Mr. Chairman, I have a list of names….”
Rabbi Ira Youdovin is executive vice president of the Chicago Board of Rabbis.
With much due respect to Rabbi Yudovin, and having read and generally agreed with Professor Rosenfeld, this is a familiar and increasingly wearying trope. Most of those critiqued by Rosenfeld are themselves, as Rabbi Yudovin concedes, often "hyperbolic" critics of, in varying degrees, of Israel, Israeli policy, and individuals with whom they disagree. Why is dissenting from dissenters somehow seen as "suppression of criticism?" Perhaps it has something to do with the loaded term "progressive," which suggests that disagreement must be reactionary. Moreover, isn't Rabbi Yudovin's use of the term "Jewish right" itself a mild form of suppression in our community, which does trend liberal and Democratic. Finally, Rabbi Yudovin, correctly in my view, labels some Jewish groups as "beyond the pale". That some of us might draw that line in a different place does not mean that we are "squashing dissent".
Let's just focus on one of the items that outrage you Rabbi Youdovin. That Rosenfeld calm's that the editors of a text book that includes a chapter called "Should Israel Exist?" are anti-semetic. Please identify the text book that raises that kind of question about any other country that is a member of the United Nations. When one is held up to a standard that no one else is subject to, that is called a kangaroo court - and when the butt of it all are Jews or Israel, that may reasonably be called anti-semitism or ignorance. Why give the prosecutor in such a kangaroo court the benefit of the doubt. The editors of that textbook are expected to know better. They are anti-semtites or blissful idiots (in which case, b.t.w., why should publicly supported schools buy their textbooks?).
Funny how the canard is always raised: No nation but Israel is ever criticized for Rights violations, never, therefore all are anti-Semites. Utter garbage, and those who promulgate such are either completely ignorant or liars. Every Human Rights group has soundly criticized Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states, both Syria and Iran are under international sanction and have been under continuous criticism for Human Rights violations. Oddly enough, it is only in forums like this, where the sole subject under discussion is Israel, that one finds such ignorant attacks. As if one is obligated to change the subject every time in order to appease the bruised feelings of some fanatic. It is, of course, Israel who makes the continual comparisons to the West. Israel claims to be a Western-style democracy, desires to join the EU, there is some talk of NATO, yet when it comes to Human Rights Israel talks out of both sides of her mouth: She claims to be a western democracy, yet, in defense of her dismal record, compares herself only to the despots surrounding her, as if that somehow relieves her of her moral and legal obligations. It is not the world that holds Israel to a double-standard, but Israel that demands a double-standard for herself. Nor, frankly, does the Holocaust except anyone from the strictures of International Law and Human Rights. And if one knows anything of American History, one must come to the unavoidable conclusion that pluralism, not nationalism, is the only answer.
Look, you don't hear anyone writing chapters entitled, "Should Saudi Arabia exist?" "Should China Exist," etc. It's only Israel that's obsessively attacked - and those who do so ARE anti-Semites. How come we don't hear the "progressives" attack Saudi Arabia's religious apartheid, for example? "Infidels" aren't even allowed to set foot in Mecca or Medina, and Islam is the ONLY religion that may be practiced in that country. Women aren't allowed to drive cars. Yet all we get from the left on subjects like these is silence. How come these these critics of "ethno-religious nationalism" aren't attacking the world's dozen or more Muslim countries, where gays and women are discriminated against as part of Sharia? People who attack only Zionism -- the return of Jews to their homeland -- are anti-Semites. Sorry. When they ignorantly compare tiny Israel to America, they ignore the history of Jewish persecution (see, e.g., the Holocaust), as well as Jewish historical and religious ties to Zion. They also ignore American history.
I consider myself anti-Zionist insofar as I object to any state(not just Israel) in which citizenship is determined on ethno-confessional grounds. My own specific objections to Israel are based on reading material produced by Jewish, usually Israeli, writers(e.g. Avi Schlaim, Tom Segev, the early Benny Morris, Tanya Reinhart et.al.,et.al.). I certainly don't consider myself anti-Semitic, nor do I think do the above noted writers so consider themselves.
Deeply troubled by my own experiences underlining the Jewish community's unwillingness to tolerate any criticsim of Zionism, I am grateful to the Forward for publishing Rabbi Youdovin's thoughtful article. It is particularly important to remember the dangers inherent in making lists of names. Jews are making lists of the names of "anti-Semitic" Jews whose crime is that they are political liberals. I am not certain if it is still acceptable to be a liberal Jew at all anymore. Or, are liberal Jews only "self-hating, anti-Semites" when it comes to Israel? Is it permissible to question the war in Iraq, the minimum wage, the crisis in health care,the hole in the ozone layer? How can it be permissible to question other issues vital to America's present and future from a "liberal" perspective when we are compelled to support the conservative camp because it is perceived as supportive of Israel? Jews are putting Jews on lists, naming names, making accusations in the name of Zionism. The late Senator from Wisconsin and his followers put people's names on lists because they were Jews and therefore suspect of being "commies", "pinkos", etc. It is shocking and sad that Jews are now doing the same thing to each other and that "liberal" is becoming a dirty word in the Jewish community. I remember the 50's and frankly I am afraid. My father taught me never to sign anything and I hope that I will not regret putting my name to this comment.
Everyone is fighting the battles of yesteryear. Joe McCarthy is long gone. The words of liberal Jews who criticise Israel may see their words used by enemies of Israel in mounting attacks against her. See it for yourself on antisemitic websites, and I mean real antisemitic websites, the old-fashioned kind that aren't so subtle. Jews who love and defend Israel want these goodie-two-shoe Jews to stop giving fodder to our enemies. You may want to sit around agonizing over whether Israel is good enough and moral enough. Israel is plenty good and plenty moral. There's no nation that could do better under the circumstances and a lot that would do much, much worse. I have no sympathy for "poor me" when you are the people who are causing the damage. These are dangerous times for the world and for Jews. The enemy is not the U.S. nor is it other Jews who disagree with you. When will you "progressives" grow up and act like adults? Start helping for a change.
Lebling groups like "Jewish Voice for Peace" "beyond the pale," demonstrates how out of touch with anything close to international opinion on Israeli policies. How good is it for Jews to be associated with this kind of parochial view of Israel and its racism against Palestinians who, after all, are now experiencing year 40 of an illegal occupation. Everyone concerned about anti-Semitism should be working to end Israel's occupation instead of splitting hairs over what's "acceptable" criticism on the part of Jews. For god's sake. This is America, not the former Soviet Union.
why this obsession with openness and discussion on what is essentially anti-israel? and why the double standars then when it comes to ahmedinejad examining the holocaust or david duke criticizing jews, you cant have it both ways.
So, Jewish Voice for Peace is "beyond the pale." Little surprise, then, that the same is true of peace, itself.
The good Rabbi laments the "postmodernist tendency to condemn all nationalisms," yet we are speaking here of a ethno/religious nationalism, the likes of which have been rightfully condemned for more than 60 years, long before the advent of postmodernism. He then speaks of the perceived "Israeli human rights abuses against Palestinians," as if it all were merely a matter of squinting one's eyes to make them all disappear. I. F. Stone, the great Jewish-American journalist, once wrote: "Israel has turned American Jews into schizophrenics, for what they would abhor anywhere else they ardently support in Israel." Would Rabbi Youdovin, and others like him, care to live in the US under the same conditions as Palestinians in Israel and Occupied Palestine are forced to live? Would they care to live in a US ruled by Christian nationalists? If Israel must give up its identity as a "Jewish state" in order to end the occupation and finally become a state of all its citizens, then so be it. If there has been one clear lesson in the last hundred years, the bloodiest of all centuries, it is that human rights must trump all nationalisms. In ignoring that we will surely all go to hell together.
The question is not right/left, and that is again how Ira Youdovin frames it. Right/left is a diversion. It's a simple gestalt that closed-minded people hang their mental hats on. The left thinks this; the right thinks that. Forget left/right; it's about people, survival, survival of the Jews in Israel as a nation. I have a new definition of anti-Semitism. It's not caring about the fate of Jews. It's making suggestions that will lead to a terrible result for Jews. Weakness is not strength. Sensitivity to the Other is not strength. A clear vision and self-understanding allows Jews to know what their next move is to be. Intellectual critics, always holding out the highest ideals, demanding that Israel achieve them no matter the cost, ready to go to international forums to make their case, what motivates such Jews? Can anyone understand such clearly destructive behavior? When such Jews speak we are to infer their high ideals and are encouraged to feel shame for supporting such a state as Israel. If listeners are susceptible their spirits may flag; morale is hurt. The "critics", spoilers actually, go about town and the world with their complaints about Israel, working, working assiduously to stop that little country on the Mediterranean from doing what it needs to maintain itself against a virtual sea of genocidal hatred. Israel is criticised internationally by people with no moral standing and the Jewish people are to buckle? Recently, historically very recently, the Jewish people arose out of the very ashes to build the Jewish State, a state that every Jew has a right to be proud of. I am proud of Israel and I let people know it, especially critics of Israel. A firm yet friendly attitude goes a long way in making the case for Israel with outsiders. That's what Jews should be doing. Forget the Jewish critics, forget about responding to them at all. They are a drain on our resources, a drain on our good spirits. Find the positive; work for Israel in the special way you can; do twice as much as you have been doing, bring love to Jews and non-Jews and make Israel a true light by being a light yourself to everyone you meet.
I'm an Israeli living in the US, with American citizenship. I take every opportunity to condemn what Israel does in terms of religious liberty for liberal streams of Judaism, laws that discriminate against non Jews in Israel proper, and the massive violations of human rights in the occupied territories, not least of which is the occupation itself - which means denying national rights to more than 2 million people. Call this Hebrew speaking, former IDF soldier, synagogue attending liberal Jew a friend of anti-Semites if you like.... and you strengthen the hands of real anti-Semites who use such arguments to show that many Jews are embarked on a project of thought control and suppression of dissent.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.