How Jewish Perestroika (the AJC's Blunder) Is Helping the Zionist Left
But I'm going to try to not be self-serving here. The fascinating thing about this Jewish perestroika is that it liberates everyone. Not just my camp, the anti- or non-Zionist camp that wonders if the dream of a Jewish state hasn't slid hopelessly away, but also the We-are-very-upset-about-Israel's-current-policies-but-we-love-her-and-believe-in-her camp. The Zionist left is angered and embarrassed by the AJC report, feel that it's broadbrush and reactionary, and so are standing up with renewed energy, as if the ball is about to be handed to them, at last—the rightwing having shot itself in the foot.
Gershom Gorenberg, who is in that camp, yesterday said the real story is that the left is alive, it's empowered groups like the Union of Progressive Zionists, which is harshly critical of the occupation. Isn't it great they haven't been thrown off the Israel on Campus Coalition, Gorenberg writes, despite the best efforts of the ZOA. And he is right. Tamara Shapiro, the 24-year-old who runs UPZ, is an amazing young woman, idealistic and tough. She brought Breaking the Silence to America last year; she gets it from the right (ZOA) and the left (me). Now the AJC report has given her more room to operate, by blasting open the debate. (Leonard Fein makes the same point in the Forward this week).
Just as the AJC gave leftish John Judis of the New Republic freedom to talk about something he has probably been secretly bitching about for years: the pressure on Jewish intellectuals to be loyal to Israel, from people like his boss, Marty Peretz (he didn't say that part out loud). When is Mickey Kaus, another not-all-the-way-on-the-reservation Jewish intellectual whose career has been boosted by Peretz, going to speak up about this pressure? Or Mike Kinsley? Time is now, boys. Everyone's letting their hair down in the sweatlodge.
The best analysis I've seen yet of the politics of the Jewish left in America is from Daniel Sieradski—"Mobius," of Jewschool. He explains to me that the two big roadblocks are a, ideological differences, and b, dough.
I question as to whether recent events indicate the presence of a movement so much as what I regard as fractious groups with overlapping areas of interest and little coordination. Some folks are focused on liberal domestic political issues such as labor practices, women's rights, gay rights, etc., others are focused on shifting the priorities of the Jewish funding establishment away from intermarriage and Israel advocacy towards Jewish education and cultural initiatives; while others yet still are focused on finding a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.That last group is broken into left-leaning Zionists (of the Meretz/Labor cadre), post-Zionists (who believe either in two states or a binational solution, yet overall, a solution which respects both Jewish and Palestinian rights), and anti-Zionists who are more often than not anti-Israel reactionaries.
The one thing these three groups can agree on is that things are headed in the wrong direction and that the mainstream Jewish leadership is steering us down a dark road.
However, it is practically impossible for these groups to collaborate because of:
[Sieradski continues] A) Ideological differences. Group one believes in Israel's right to exist securely within its established borders. Group two believes Israel's existence is an interim step on the road to binationalism. [I think Chomsky's in that camp] And group three believes Israel ought to cease existing immediately and that its leaders should all be sent to the Hague. [Alert: Possible straw man] These positions cannot be reconciled with one another. However, if they can find areas of overlap on which to focus, such as ending the occupation, stopping the settlement enterprise, giving Palestinians sovereign statehood, and elevating the rights of Arab citizens of Israel, then a coordinated effort may be possible. [emphasis Weiss's] But because of our propensity for infighting (two Jews, three opinions) chances are rather slim.B) Competition. Every group wants to be THE group responsible for doing the moving and shaking, and thus be recognized as a potential funding candidate by wealthy donors. Michael Lerner, for example, doesn't know the meaning of collaboration. He simply wants Tikkun to have the spotlight. I wanted to come to his Spiritual Progressives conference in DC this summer in order to cover it for Jewschool. He told me I could only come if I bought his book and reviewed it on my site first. [Dan, I've gotten that vibe from the great man, too] I had a similar encounter with Arthur Waskow and the Shalom Center when I approached him with the idea of creating a Jewish issues focused MoveOn. He has his own action center through the Shalom Center and wants IT to be the centerpoint, under his own stewardship. Time and time again, this ownership issue rears its head. This group won't work with that one, this one sees working with the other as counterproductive to its own interests, this one has too many levels of bureaucracy to get the go ahead, etc. The only group seemingly bringing folks together these days is Jewish Funds For Justice, which has gobbled up several organizations in the couple of years, consolidating various efforts from around the US into a strong base of operations for progressive Jewish action. However, it's focused solely on domestic issues, like minimum wage, and does not comment on Israel.
C) Fear of career suicide. [Say it! Dan] Groups like Jewish Funds for Justice do not comment on Israel, because while its donors can all agree on the progressive domestic agenda, they cannot agree on Israel. Some people may be pro-choice, pro-gay, etc., etc., but when it comes to Israel, they can turn into Meir Kahane. For that reason, first and foremost, individuals working in the progressive Jewish community are afraid to speak up about the American Jewish community's stance towards Israel because they fear that it will harm their reputations as well as the funding potential of their organizations. [Weiss: brilliant, true, important. I lately heard about a group forming at Columbia Hillel, called Prophetic Alliance, now Progressive Jewish Alliance, which takes no position on the occupation. Why don't they just announce, We are morally bankrupt!]
The groups trying to put together the counter-AIPAC lobby are still in negotiations and haven't yet secured a drop of funding. (I know folks very close to the deal.) Regardless of whether it comes to fruition, it's got a long way to go before it will have any impact at all.
What we really need is, as I suggested earlier, a MoveOn exclusively for Jews and Jewish issues, and to begin having a communal conversation among the Jewish Left to find out what we can all agree on and commit ourselves to pursuing.
The problem, ultimately, is money. The reason why the Jewish right is dominant is because they're the dominant segment of the Jewish funding world. Left-wing Jews give their money to liberal arts colleges and museums. They do not invest in Jewish causes. The wealthiest liberal/left-wing members of the Jewish community are alienated from the Jewish community and therefore do not invest in the Jewish community. [Weiss: Wow, I think that's the way I'm alienated] The only people with enough pride or ethnocentricity to invest in the Jewish establishment are the right-wingers. Under these circumstances, we're fucked. [Ditto] That's why simply hearing of Soros' potential interest in this alternative left-wing pro-Israel lobby was exciting... because a rich lefty Jew is actually considering giving money to a Jewish cause.
We need more Jews who earn $50,000+ to stick loot in the reserves behind an organization that strives to find commonality between all the various factions of the Jewish left, and lobbies and organizes on our behalf.
To that I say good friggin' luck.
I found Daniel/Mobius' analysis extremely upsetting because I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for posting it, Phil.
So, my question to some of the regulars on this blog is: will you accept that people in Group 1, the Zionist left that does what it can to battle against the conventional Israel lobby, might be part of the solution? Will you agree to disagree with them on some things (e.g., the theory that the Iraq war was mainly a war for Israel), but agree on others? Or will you keep calling them the names I've been called in the last two weeks-eg. "useful idiot," "a fig leaf for the Erezt Israel crowd" and a "Likud apologist?"
Phil speaks for me, tough dove. What is needed is less chat and more action. The Palestinians won't stay alive forever under their present circumstances. I think that if some miracle happened tomorrow and Israel drew back to the 1967 boundary, taking that frigging wall, all the settlers & the soldiers, and set about restoring the Palestinian lands which have been destroyed, and paid reparations, and released the thousands of political prisoners from Israeli jails -- if that happened I doubt very much if you would hear again from people in group 3. In fact, group 3 would probably cease to exist.
"These positions cannot be reconciled with one another. However, if they can find areas of overlap on which to focus, such as ending the occupation, stopping the settlement enterprise, giving Palestinians sovereign statehood, and elevating the rights of Arab citizens of Israel, then a coordinated effort may be possible. [emphasis Weiss's]"
tough dove, being in group #1 doesn't preclude believing that the Iraq war was closely connected to Israel. Being in group #1 is basically a decision one makes on a individual basis based on many things, such as what one believes is the best for one ethnic peers or so on. Because it deals with the future and a lot of ideological considerations, it is inherently subjective.
But connecting the desire for the US invasion of Iraq to a neoconservative attachment to Israel is clearly not a personal decision, it is something that happened or didn't or sort-of-did happen in the past. While there are always interpretative subjectivities when dealing with history, they are not that significantly unless you enter into the territory of partisans (who operate with predetermined conclusions regardless of the evidence) on either end of the spectrum. It is something that will be discussed for years and probably our understanding will evolve and develop as more documents and more research comes forward.
Off topic: Democracy Now has a succinct little summary of the 5 dancing Israelis story.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/08/1610254
(Well, not so off-topic now that I've read Ben's post.)
trouvere: I think you don't have to go so far to the conspiratorial edge. In the end, responsibility for such things as large as a war are going to be (and have been) assigned to multiple factors as well as circumstances. But all factors should be held responsible from George W Bush and Richard Cheney, on down. And the whole thing is likely to be see studied in universities for decades as an example of poor decision making similar to how the Bay of Pigs invasion is to this day held up as a model of "groupthink." I find that by being overly assertive in trying to pin it all on Israel or on the neoconservatives you only fool yourself and display to others a willful ignorance of the complexity of the world. Things are rarely black and white.
Ok people here is thing. Its easier to raise money and get people involved for something positive. Any group that a guy like Phil would belong to would have what has a platform or agenda. Fuck your people, benefits for suicide bombers, wipe out Israel, lets back up the Iranian missile program . Most Jews are just not going to stand in line for that one. Now Dearborn, Michigan would be a whole other story. Whats the agenda here. People other than Arabs generally don't give their time and money to causes that are completely negative..
trouvere- you can watch that carl cameron thing on youtube. It must have hit him like a ton of bricks when he realized who he crossed. I mean literally a ton of bricks probably did hit him.
Hey Les, only a couple of months until Hitlers birthday, what do you guys do on April 20th, Do you have a party or what
bill- what's funny is that the AJC considers debating israels morality to be dangerous to israel. it means one of two things
1. they feel a discussion of israels policies will lead to the obvious conclusion that they are inhumane. If they had really positive, good neighborly policies, they would welcome discussions about them
or
2. they themselves use dubious "criticism" to muddy the waters regarding otherwise decent groups
either way, censorship is certainly the tool of the guilty.
I usually celebrate the 20th at a leftist mosque
"Things are rarely black and white."
I hope you're not going to go all platitudinous on us, Ben.
Sure there's more than one constituency in a large democracy like the U.S. But it IS black and white that one of the most powerful of those consitutencies was virtually unanimously pushing for a war in the Mideast.
Group two believes Israel's existence is an interim step on the road to binationalism. [I think Chomsky's in that camp]
-- evidence please.
Rowan Berkeley wrote: "Group two believes Israel's existence is an interim step on the road to binationalism. [I think Chomsky's in that camp] -- evidence please."
Chomsky has expressed support for both binational solutions as well as a one-state secular democracy. I don't think he has a singular position paper anywhere, but you can find offhand references all over the place if you construct the proper Google search.
The problem with Ben's analysis -- which is OK in the intellectual sense -- is that it doesn't get us anywhere in the material world. Ben's ideas are remarkably similiar to tough dove's. These are -- in effect -- soft, maintain-the-status-quo, Israeli gov't apologist ideas. As in "be fair & balanced", "we're trying", "give us credit for trying".
Ben, most of the country did hold Bush, Cheney et al responsible, and their party was voted out of office. What exactly good did that do us? The US continues to mobilize for war against Iran. Political leaders in the so-called opposition party continue to enable the wars in Iraq & Iran. These same US political leaders are in the pocket of a foreign government which expects to benefit from the wars in Iraq & Iran. This foreign government manages to buy US political leaders by appealing to its ethnic constituency in the US. So tell me, Ben, exactly what good does it do -- in the real world not the bizzaro world, not the world of the intellect and the debating points but the real world of flesh and blood and death and destruction and economic mayhem -- what good does it do for people like you and me to decide to hold Bush & Cheney responsible? Don't you think that maybe it makes some sense to appeal to that foreign government's ethnic constituency? To encourage that powerful group to balance their birthright fears against their national allegiance?
When I describe that ethnic constituency as 'powerful', I am not 'falling into that old canard' BTW, although I can virtually hear the AIPAC/Israelis sharpening their pencils for this. Here is the kind of power I see that group as having in the US. It is a little difficult perhaps for citizens of this country to fully appreciate my analogy because this is not the way the American electoral/governmental system works. The US has a winner-take-all political system. Many, if not most, other world democracies, including Israel, have the parliamentary system. In the parliamentary system, very small political parties can have a lot of power by simply acting as the 'balance of power' in a stand-off between two other big powerful parties. This is why, in Israel for example, a small group of Eretz Israel visionaries can have such a profound effect on gov't policies.
In the US the balance-of-power political effect is not so apparent, but that does not mean it is not real. Yes, US imperialists are an important driving force behind the wars. But the whole of American history & tradition stands in opposition. These two forces are like two big powerful oppositional political parties. Into this power structure is where political lobbies come into their own. Influence/money/electoral votes/media & press thrown toward one side or the other can make the difference.
It does matter a whole lot, in real-world terms, where American Jews will throw their support -- to Israeli or to US interests. The world awaits the outcome of this American drama.