AIPAC...Israel...and the Joos
Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 02:40:13 PM PDT
Okay, there was a sudden influx today of diaries decrying the influence of "the Jewish Lobby," referring to AIPAC. There was a backlash by many calling these diaries anti-Smeitic followed by a wave of responses defending these diaries and decrying the tendency of people to call any attack on AIPAC anti-Semitic. Well, this is the kind of exchange that goes on ad nauseum. And really, there are some basic points that people ignore in the hysteria. So, here I want to discuss some problems with this whole exchange that really should be blatantly obvious.
Maybe, just maybe, this will raise the quality of discourse when it comes to certain issues (yeah right).
I think many people get very touchy around these issues. And for good reason. Here are the difficulties I see with these discussions, the red issues that make people touchy:
- Jews do indeed have a long history of being discriminated against, often quite violently, that rightly makes us touchy. Part of the long history of discrimination are the claims of a "Jewish conspiracy" and claims of Jewish split loyalties. These twin accusations have been used against Jews, almost always unfairly, since the time of ancient Rome and has led to many pogroms, murders and other atrocities. This long history makes Jews in general highly suspicious of anyone who talks about Jewish conspiracies, questions the loyalty of Jews in general or who is too quick to lump Jews together.
Let's take the example of calling AIPAC "the Jewish Lobby." Quite simply, this implies that AIPAC is representative of Jews in general, rather than representative of a small group of right wing Jews and a small group of right wing Christians, which is actually what it is representative of. Calling it "the Jewish Lobby" negates the diversity of Jewish opinion including the many of us who aren't too fond of AIPAC. This immediately sets off alarm bells in those who know history. It is precisely similar smearing of boundaries between a particular group who happened to be Jewish (say the Zealots or the Jewish Marxist organizations in Russia in the early 1900's) and Jews in general that led to considerable bloodshed. Russians slaughtered Jews indiscriminantly because some Jews supported Polish independence. The Poles also slaughtered Jews in general because some Jews supported Tsarist Russia. The Jews caught it from both sides precisely because of such a smearing. And there are hundreds of such incidents through modern history.
Anyone who wants to criticize any organization had best not blithely refer to that organization in too general terms. What if I referred to NAMBLA as "the gay lobby." Or al-Qaeda as "the Muslim lobby." I would be rightly attacked. It is no more legit to refer to AIPAC as "the Jewish lobby." This is not just a matter of semantics or quibbling. It is pretty critical in groups where the entire group has been accused of the sins of individual members. The assumption by some right wingers that gays are somehow child molesters is completely contrary to facts. Yet to refer to NAMBLA as "the gay lobby" would be to imply legitimacy of that assumption. Some people assume all Muslims are closet terrorists. THis is wrong and there is evidence that Muslim Americans are better integrated into our society than many other groups. Yet referring to al-Qaeda as "the Muslim Lobby" would give legitimacy to that assumption. Similarly, referring to AIPAC as "the Jewish Lobby" is factually incorrect and implies some kind of pernicious Jewish conspiracy. It resurrects ghosts of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the accusations of split loyalty.
This one example is repeated in many diaries. As soon as someone who is criticizing AIPAC or Israel starts referring to "Jews" instead of "AIPAC" or "Israel" or anytime someone questions the loyalty of an American Jew because he/she supports Israel, they are crossing a border into territory that history has taught us to be wary of. And it is unnecessary! There is no reason to smear the boundaries between AIPAC and Jews in general, Israel and Jews in general, or even Likud and Israelis in general. Jews, like any group, are a diverse, rather squabbling and fractous group. And anytime we feel lumped together too much raises our hackles. Given the history of what happens when the larger society starts talking about Jewish conspiracies and questioning Jewish loyalties, we have reason to be concerned.
And it isn't just paranoia. Anti-Semitism has been on the rise since 9/11. Up until 2004 it was at a post-WW II high in America and worldwide. It dipped slightly, then rose again in 2006. This is not isolated. It is part of a broad increase in intolerance nationally and worldwide. Interestingly, 9/11 triggered more of a rise in anti-Semitism than it did a rise in anti-Muslim incidents, thouhg both went way up. Hate rhetoric is on the rise and hate crimes are on the rise. Mostly the hatred comes from the right. Right wing talk show hosts and politicians advocating violence and denegrating Jews and Muslims...and then right wing thugs carrying out hate crimes. Hate crimes against blacks and gays are also on the rise, but the same kind of hate rhetoric is directed at them from the right. So the rise in hate crimes against Jews is not isolated. But it wasn't in Tsarist Russia either...or in Nazi Germany...or during the Spanish Inquisition. Intolerance often is a broad front, not directed against just one group.
So, with a history of such violence accompanied by a rise in both hate rhetoric and crimes, we ALL need to be worried about broad generalizations and condemnations that make reference to entire groups of people like Jews, Muslims, blacks, gays...or pretty much any large group.
You want to attack AIPAC? Fine. I am likely to agree since I am more of a NJDC kind of person than an AIPAC kind of person. But if you start using the term "Jew" when you are referring to AIPAC in particular, I am going to rapidly quesiton exactly what you mean by your attack.
- The Israel/Palestine issue is a very important one to many people and one with no easy solutions. Too often we get caught up with anger at one side or the other and in our anger against one side, wind up cutting the other side too much slack. Let's start with two statements: both sides are mostly just people who want to live their lives; and both sides have extremists who have committed atrocities.
Let me elaborate on the latter. Israel has indeed committed atrocities against Palestinians, and does deserve criticism for those atrocities. Such criticism per se is NOT anti-Semitic. Palestine has indeed committed atrocities against Israelis and does deserve criticism for those atrocities. Such criticism is NOT a justification of Israel's injustices against Palestinians. Arab nations have indeed committed atrocities against BOTH Israelis AND Palestinians and deserve criticism for those atrocities. Such criticism is NOT a justification of Israel's injustices against Palestinians.
All sides in this have done horrible things. And there are people on both sides who want the elimination of the other side. And therein lies something very important. The elimination of EITHER nation would require genocide. Israel AND Palestine were created by the UN from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire. This is the only reason either nation currently exists. Since the time of ancient Rome, neither nation had any independent existence and seldom any recognition as a group with nationalist aspirations. You hear more about Israeli nationalism far earlier than you hear about Palestinian nationalism, but the bottom line is there were Palestinians and Jews living there since the very earliest times (both are probably descended from native populations according to genetic analysis), there were nationalist aspirations from both groups at the time the Ottoman Empire crumbled, and the UN gave both nationalists movements a nation. From that momment the atrocities from all sides took over. Actually all sides were committing atrocities earlier, right down to terrorist acts. But things spiraled out of control when the Arab nations invaded, in effect successfully destroying Palestine before it began and trying unsuccessfully to destroy Israel. Had Israel and Palestine EACH had a chance to establish a genuine existence, modern history would be far different.
Both sides have grievences. But there is no viable solution except to negotiate a fulfillment of the UN's two state plan. Any other solution would lead to genocide, I am convinced. I get grief from fellow Jews sometimes because I support Palestine. And I get grief from anti-Israel people because I support Israel. But I do not see any option but to support both states and hope for a solution that gives both a viable economy and infrastructure, giving people a REASON to have peace.
Opposing Israeli actions makes sense. But to imply all Jews support Israel's atrocities does not. Nor does it even make sense to blame all Israelis for the atrocities that have been committed any more than it makes sense to blame the Daily Kos community for the actions of the Bush Administration. It is quite possible to support Israel and still be pro-peace. But I find it is often hard to take a position I define as "Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, Pro-Peace" because sometimes anyone who claims to be pro-Israel is lumped in with Likud and AIPAC and anyone who supports Palestine is lumped in with Hamas.
The heated arguements that arise often is due to a.) the smearing of boundaries such that a large group (Jews...Muslims...) are implied to be part of the actions of a subgroup (AIPAC...Likud...al-Qaeda...) and b.) the tendancy of the general Israel/Palestine debate to be dominated by the extremists, those who deny the right of one nation or the other and is willing to accept genocide as part of the solution. In this kind of climate of debate, it is very difficult for moderate voices to be heard. The debates spirals out of control and it may well be some well-meaning people come off anti-Semitic (or anti-Muslim) without intending too. Then when confronted with that anti-Semitism (or anti-Muslim bias) they respond defensively, defending their bigotry rather than clarifying it properly.
I am not sure if I have this all precisely the way I want it to sound. My goal is to give credence to both sides while clarifying the need to be careful how things are phrased because of very real history of intolerance and current intolerance.
Comments? Agreement? Disagreement?
