A Secular Jewish Point of View on Israel

by Guest Contributor Sarah Jaffe

As an American Jew, the Israel question has been a part of my life. “Birthright” tours of the holy land are encouraged in the Jewish community, and Israel policy dominates the questions I am asked by other Jews on the campaign trail.

I embraced the Irish liberation struggle in college when I was reading Yeats and Synge, and through that lens I recognized that Israel was wrong in so many ways, yet I struggle to reconcile what I feel about it.

I find myself recoiling at pro-Palestinian articles, and I understand that even in me, progressive anti-racist anti-colonialist that I am, the identification of Israel with all Jews and thus with me is internalized. It has been successfully done in this country, an identification with the country built onto our experience of Otherness. Israel is that mythic land where no one ever asks you “what it’s like” to be Jewish, or lets an anti-Jewish slur drop from their lips.

I always disliked the construction of Jews as a race but I never really understood it until I really thought about Israel. Because to be a people who have a homeland, Jews must be a race—they must be able to claim heritage back to a certain place.

Of course this has been more problematic than helpful—racism, not a hatred for their religion, sparked the Nazis’ hate, and anti-Semitism is framed not as anti-Judaism but as hatred for the Semitic race—even when all Jews are certainly not Semitic, and all Semitic people are not Jewish, and the hatred for each is a very different thing from the other.

And then, my identity as a Jew is in question. I do not practice, nor was my mother Jewish, so according to many Jews, I am not even Jewish. My grandparents, my father’s parents, were, but with their passing my father no longer practices. I went to Hebrew school to make them happy, but dropped out before I was Bat Mitzvahed, in part because my parents no longer had the money for the extravagant party that is somehow part of this rite of passage in America. I fast occasionally on Yom Kippur to remind myself of something larger than me.

But my Jewish identity cuts deep, deep enough to feel that the writers of these articles don’t like me, rather than Zionism.

And it makes me understand for a minute that feeling that some white people got when they heard Rev. Wright. That fear that people hold something against you that you’re not responsible for, that you know they should be angry about but you don’t want to be part of.

And it makes me think, because Israel of course is that rare thing, a colonial power that has based its existence on its own experienced oppression. People who have experienced genocide and thus feel justified in enacting colonialism on others. Some Jews in America joined the Civil Rights movement because they knew what racism felt like, and others sat back and were just happy that it wasn’t them the fire hoses were aimed at.

I hope that if I had been around back then, I would have been marching.

And so I know that because this makes me uncomfortable, I need to seek it out more and learn more. Realize, of course, that it’s not about me. It’s about justice, and trying to put a real end to racism, and alliances must be built across lines for the world to truly change.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. season of the bitch » Got a little something… on 05 Jun 2008 at 9:16 am

    [...] at Racialicious. Thanks to Latoya for running it. If you aren’t reading that blog regularly, you really [...]

  2. GlobalComment » On Gaza: Speaking as a Leftist, American Jew on 07 Jan 2009 at 1:59 pm

    [...] wrote a piece this past summer for Racialicious on my conflicted Jewish identity, and I am even more conflicted now. I feel that I must speak out [...]

Comments

  1. Celeste wrote:

    “People who have experienced genocide and thus feel justified in enacting colonialism on others.”

    That was a really great piece and that was my favorite line because it’s so true. It is possible to fully acknowledge a genocide, and yet at the same time, fully acknowledge colonialism. Too often people ignore/deny the genocide and focus on the colonialism or vice versa and that hasn’t gotten us anywhere.
    People have been hating on the Jews for centuries and I think they do deserve someplace of their own. I think a nice chunk of Germany and probably a bit of Russia would have been a just choice but that ship’s sailed. The land has already been confiscated and I don’t think that giving it back is a realistic option for a lot of reasons.
    On a practical and a religious basis I think that the descendents of Isaac and Ishmael need to learn to share the land.

  2. Paul wrote:

    Israel is more of an enemy than a friend to the US. Look at the myriad of espionage cases wherein Israeli agents procure information on our latest weapons systems. The Israeli gov’t paid for Pollard’s defense and constantly lobbies for his release.If any other “ally” acted this way toward the US, we would have ended our relationship long ago. israel, however, plays the guilt card over and over again on the US.

  3. Molly wrote:

    The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex. There’s unquestionable racism and oppression aimed at both sides, sometimes by the other. Which is why I don’t understand the knee-jerk anti-Israel chants I hear at (unrelated!) rallies. I get that Palestine rhymes with “crime” (sort of) and that makes it handy, but really—it’s a complex topic, and it can’t be boiled down to a two-line chant.

    It worries me that gentiles who are otherwise relatively tapped into their privilege can be so unaware of the very real and frightening anti-Semitism that’s out there. They see the terrible things Israel does (which I don’t question, they have done some terrible things) but don’t see the need for a Jewish state, the fact that it’s been there 60 years and no other nation has to defend its very existence, the very real threats it faces.

    Their commitment to anti-racism only extends, I guess, to people who are viewed as non-white in a modern, progressive city; the fact that Jews have been considered (and still are, in many parts of the world, not to mention Jews who are also POC) non-white doesn’t register to them. And in my view that’s an enormous oversight. I do think I and they have to tread carefully, because there’s always the risk that we’re giving the “whiter” group the benefit of the doubt for no good reason other than unexamined privilege and prejudice, but in my view the staunch chanting of anti-Israel slogans goes too far in the other direction.

    Anyway. Sorry, that’s rather tangential, but you got me thinking about it.

    (NB: I’m not Jewish; I just think macaroons are proof that you are, indeed, the chosen people.)

  4. Celeste wrote:

    @ Paul: At the same time we were kinda slow to respond to the Holocaust. Would you completely trust someone who took their time responding to genocide (we’re still slow)? I totally get being paranoid. I think all countries are sneaky and shady.

  5. Celeste wrote:

    @Molly: I wouldnt’ say that Israel is the only country that has to defend it’s existence. I think they share that dubious honor with Palestine. What they did is no different than the colonizing everyone else did to build their ill-gotten countries. The difference for them and for that matter China is that they’re doing it relatively late in the game and such blatent annexation of land is now (rightly) frowned upon. Then you have a bunch of pots and kettles .

  6. Persia wrote:

    I think all countries are sneaky and shady.

    Celeste, I was about to say the same thing, pretty much– in fact, one of the major criticisms of American spy policy these days is that we don’t have enough spies crawling around.

    Realize, of course, that it’s not about me. It’s about justice, and trying to put a real end to racism, and alliances must be built across lines for the world to truly change.

    It’s never really just about us. We can use our experience and perspective to inform, but we have to remember the world is greater than that.

    This was a great piece, thanks for sharing it.

  7. feministgal wrote:

    “But my Jewish identity cuts deep, deep enough to feel that the writers of these articles don’t like me, rather than Zionism.”

    Yes, Yes, and YES! I absolutely relate to that sentiment.

  8. Matt wrote:

    The majority of Jews are Zionists. Even many non-Zionist Jews are sympathetic to Zionism, which is part of why people like Steve Cohen go around calling themselves anti-Zionist Zionists. This isn’t to challenge anyone’s identity as a Jew. In fact, my upbringing was highly secular and assimilated as well, and there’s a sense in this article, of alienation from the broader Jewish community, that resonates with me. But it is to challenge whether this article is in any way representative of Jews as a whole. It would be a shame to allow the weight of representation (of a notoriously contentious people) to fall on this one article.

    I find myself recoiling at pro-Palestinian articles, and I understand that even in me, progressive anti-racist anti-colonialist that I am, the identification of Israel with all Jews and thus with me is internalized. It has been successfully done in this country, an identification with the country built onto our experience of Otherness.

    I find this very awkward. Most Jews chose a relationship with Israel – your passive voice (”It has been successfully done”) hides that – and the article doesn’t explore why that is. I often find myself recoiling at pro-Palestinian articles as well, but the reasons are not because I have internalized something others (who?) have forced on me. Rather, it’s because pro-Palestinian articles (even when they aren’t explicitly antisemitic, which happens far too much) often deny and distort Jewish history.

    At the same time, I often find myself agreeing with pro-Palestinian articles. One can be both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli. One can acknowledge both perspectives at the same time.

    I don’t deny that the Palestinians experienced the creation of Israel as colonialism, but -like Hannah Arendt, Martin Buber and other alt-Zionists- I know there’s a big difference between acknowledging that and actually claiming that the Jews were colonizers. The passengers aboard the Exodus weren’t colonizers. They were refugees, and denying that is genuinely offensive.

    (Further, to call them colonialists is too much like the classic antisemitism that portrays Jews, even at their most vulnerable and weakest, as all-powerful. People don’t often realize that much of this Jews-as-colonizers narrative stems from Stalinist, antisemitic propaganda where this was entirely the intention.)

    How can an article about Israel (presented as being a Jewish perspective) not mention the Holocaust? The Nazis are mentioned only briefly, but there the purpose is to undermine the most common Jewish perspective, not to present it.

    There’s absolutely no mention whatsoever of the arguments for Zionism. It’s reduced to “People who have experienced genocide and thus feel justified.” Of course, the ‘Father of Zionism,’ Theodor Herzl, wrote before the Holocaust, before the Nazis came to power or even formed, before even the pre-Nazi antisemitic parties in Germany came together.

    It was a response to Diaspora, the condition of being stateless and without a homeland. A condition wherein the Palestinians were comparably privileged. Understanding Diapora as oppression in and of itself, and understanding Diaspora as a cause of antisemitism (where the Holocaust was merely the worst expression of something that didn’t end in 1945) is necessary to understanding Zionism.

  9. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @ Paul and Matt –

    This piece was run because Sarah put a very personal perspective on a very sticky and difficult issue. As we saw in the last discussion, talking about Israel policy is difficult and very involved, and many of our readers do not have enough background to challenge the assertions made.

    So, we’re flipping the discussion and going to make it smaller, looking at the people this issue impacts.

    Please engage with Sarah’s piece the way she presented it – as a piece that explores the ideas of identity.

  10. Sarah J wrote:

    Thanks, Latoya, for publishing it and for responding to it.

    I didn’t go into extreme detail on the Holocaust for the same reason I didn’t go into extreme detail on the Palestinian refugee camps: that’s not where I was coming from.

    I wrote this on the bus home from work one day after reading a couple of different articles in the Incite! reader about Palestinian identity.

    There was nothing in that book that took the Jewish point of view, and there are plenty of times that I do find that problematic. I also do find that the way some articles are written strikes me as more offensive than others, but I have to think about that not only in terms of what’s happened to Jews as a people but in terms of my own desire not to be associated with anything negative.

    It is very easy to use terrible things that happened in the past as an excuse to be somehow less responsible for things that happen now. This happens on both sides of the debate.

    But the thing I’ve noticed over the past year in my personal life–which was what I was writing about, not the historical context–is that Jews, Zionist or no, feel that any criticism of Israel is criticism of Jews when it comes from non-Jews. (Note even your reaction to my piece.)

    I think this is problematic, since many of us have no problem criticizing our own government’s actions, but it is somewhat of a taboo to say that Israel can do wrong, and does, because the specter of the Holocaust gets raised, and we are accused of forgetting.

  11. Celeste wrote:

    I think a lot of groups have trouble coping with criticism from outside groups without interpreting all such criticism as being against the group and not the behavior. There’s all sorts of ways to rationalize that whatever being said is coming from a place of hate and has no real merit, my favorite example: “They hate us because of our freedom”.
    What I try to do in those situations (something that on it’s face seems anti-black, female or physician and I just want to dismiss it) is change my perspective. I try to view the criticism from the perspective of the group it’s coming from or try to look at it with the idea that this group is just as important to the universe as me and my group are.
    Staying trapped in your own perspective with your feelings hurt and not actively trying to see beyond yourself, IMO, is at least selfish and worse than that counterproductive.

  12. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Interesting that you changed your views on Israel based on your involvement with Irish Republicanism.

    My story is a bit different. I was heavily involved with Irish Republican circles in Ireland, England the USA. I got into Palestinian politics through this, as Irish Republicans and Palestinians are closely linked.

    Through my interest and involvement in Palestinian issues I ended up falling in love with Islam and convering. later marrying an Arab woman.

    I agree with Matt that one can be both pro Palestinian and pro Israeli. However, as a strict believer in secularism and the idea that government needs to be completely divorced from religion, I cannot support ANY state that is set up to support and promote one religion over another.

    That is why I cannot and do not support Israel, Saudi Arabia, or any other state actor that seeks to promote one religion over another, and even worse, legislate religious matters on their population.

    I feel for your struggle, when you know something is wrong, yet are still drawn to it and atttracted by it.

  13. Matt wrote:

    Latoya, if you plan on brining in more Jews to present more Jewish perspectives, I’ll look forward to reading them. (Btw, here is a great article expressing a Jewish-American identity. ) But, as I said, “It would be a shame to allow the weight of representation (of a notoriously contentious people) to fall on this one article.” It does not represent the views typical of Jews, whether religious or secular, right- or left-wing, in America or elsewhere. Most Jews recoil at the description of Israel as a colonial state (as I said, I think they’re right to), but instead see Israel as a bolt-hole. Perhaps it would be better to start there?

    I appreciate the effort and intent, but I’m pretty wary here. The idea of Israel is that Jews don’t have to depend on the good will of others. I feel like you’re asking me to trust you because you have good intentions, and it’s making me kind of uncomfortable.

    There are assertions in the article that need to be challenged. And there is a serious risk of setting up a good-Jew/bad-Jew dichotomy that’s seriously harmful.

  14. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Matt –

    The problem is see here is not you challenging the views on what is presented in the piece. It is you objecting to any view of Israel/Jewish identity that is not your own. While we always appreciate suggestions, I am not going to stop posting things on this site just because some people disagree with them.

    We post a variety of perspectives on a variety of subjects and I don’t think we promote any one set view other than an anti-racist one.

    As I have said to you offline, I receive complaints about content from all kinds of groups of people, but I am not going to allow one viewpoint to trump another. So while people have disagreed with posts I’ve put up on parts of Muslim identity, posts about Black Identity, posts about interracial dating and interracial identity we still post them.

    Sarah’s experience, Fatemeh’s experience, Aaminah’s experience, Carmen’s experience, Nadra’s experience, my own experiences are just that – experiences. Other people have experiences that are going to conflict with ours and they will come to a different understandings based on their own experiences. That is fine. That is why we bother presenting different perspectives in the first place – to give people a chance to examine views that are outside of their own.

    But let me say this, once again, clearly:

    It is not your place to tell me what is acceptable to post on this blog.

    Sarah J is Jewish. You are Jewish. You both have perspectives. Neither is more valuable than the other.

    If you disagree, you can do exactly what she did – write something for us to post that keeps in mind our audience and the tone of our conversation.

    But I am not going to keep arguing the same points with you.

  15. Bq wrote:

    I find the knee-jerk resentment of some against a characterization of the situation in Israel/Palestine as colonialism understandable, but still very strange. How else do you describe a situation that involves settlers (mostly European) and native people being pushed out and made into refugees?

    Also, I noticed that a lot of Zionist rhetoric mirrors white American colonialist rhetoric – that the natives are bloodthirsty “beasts on two legs”. I saw an advertisement for a fashion magazine online once portraying a euro-looking woman surrounded by various women of color servants. You simply can’t have people migrating from the US and Europe and *not* bringing over white supremacist ideologies. The act of crossing does not erase history.

  16. Bq wrote:

    *whoops, i forgot to add that the advertisement was from Israel.

  17. Celeste wrote:

    @ Matt: “The passengers aboard the Exodus weren’t colonizers. They were refugees, and denying that is genuinely offensive. ”
    It is possible for the passengers to have been refugees when they arrived but when all was said and done the result was colonization. You can be both a victim and a colonizer. They’re not mutually exclusive.

  18. Kandee wrote:

    Thank you, Latoya.

  19. Matt wrote:

    Sarah: I think Celeste is right that there’s a universal tendency to resist criticism from outside when under attack. She’s right that it’s often counterproductive, but I’ve seen too many instances where it’s turned around. Palestinian supporters refuse to consider any Jewish perspective by insinuating that Jews are all brainwashed at Hebrew school and too privileged to challenge it. You cite my reaction to your piece, but I was pretty specific about what I didn’t like. Referring to Israel as a colonial state isn’t simply your perspective. It is a judgmental interpretation of history that elides Jewish oppression (as does the Rev. Wright analogy – very strongly) that I have every right to object to without the discussion becoming about how Jews do this and that.

    it is somewhat of a taboo to say that Israel can do wrong, and does, because the specter of the Holocaust gets raised, and we are accused of forgetting

    There are lots of Jews who criticize Israel harshly without ever getting accused (by anyone to the left of the Meir Kahane, that is) of forgetting. It’s really not hard.

    Abu Sinan: I think you misunderstand the role of religion in Israel. It is one of the least religious countries on the planet. The state there does not legislate religious matters or promote one religion over another.

    There are aspects of the law (marriage, eg., where there isn’t a civil alternative yet) that are handled by religious authorities, but those authorities don’t have to be Jewish. You could get married under Sharia law. I think the style of law descends from Turkey, but it often allows minorities greater authority in governing their own lives. It is a strategy for keeping the state out of religious affairs.

    Many Jews, and I’m one, desire that Israel should be Jewish like France is French. While many people criticize France for being insufficiently multicultural, no one ever identifies as opposed to its existence as a French state.

  20. Sarah J wrote:

    Exactly, Matt. It does not legislate the religious choices, but it does deny a certain group of people rights. Which is why I think that thinking about it through a racial lens is important.

    I do agree with you that some Palestinian supporters do turn it around on all Jews and do make us feel uncomfortable. I merely was trying to state that some of my discomfort needs to be worked through in my own head rather than blaming others.

    I wish that my perspective on Israel were as clear as yours–or conversely, as some of the anti-Zionists. It is not, and that was precisely what I was trying to communicate.

    And would you say that because some of the white people who came to America were fleeing religious persecution in their European countries, the end result here was not colonialism?

    I’d love to read an article from you on the subject, though, because as I think I said in my piece, I am often not sure what I think. And I’m sure Latoya would be happy to publish it the same way she published mine.

  21. Matt wrote:

    Celeste, colonialism requires a colonial power that extends it’s power outside its borders. It’s the wrong word to describe Israel, and it distorts the situation, as if the Jews of 1947 were in the situation that Israel has enabled the Jews of today to be in. Like I said, I don’t deny the Palestinian experience of Zionism as colonialism, but I think we have to complicate it if we want to render history accurately. In many, many ways, the Palestinians were a much stronger power at the time the Jews were supposedly colonizing them.

  22. Joseph wrote:

    @SarahJ
    Thank you so much for sharing this post. In describing your feelings I think you hit the nail on the head about a major obstacle toward–if not peace, then at least a peaceful discourse about Israel.

    I don’t what to tell you except that I don’t hate the Jews. I don’t have any trouble at all distinguishing Zionism (a political philosophy) from Judaism (a religious philosophy and ethnic identity). Although I completely understand why you are wary.

    As a Lebanese guy I always find that I have a lot in common with most of the (Northeastern, city-dwelling) Jews I meet. Our cultures and senses of humor are really similar and I am usually fast friends with the Jewish folks I meet–mostly because we are laughing at the same things. And yes, I am completely aware I am skating really close to a corny ‘ some of my best friends are Jews’ argument but…well, I don’t know what to tell you : Some of my best friends are Jews. Sometimes the truth is corny. Do we always agree about Israel? No. But our disagreements don’t keep us apart. We love each other the best way we can, which is really all you can ask.

    Zionism on the other hand is not automatically synonymous with Judaism. In America there is a very long tradition of Zionism as a subset of fundamentalist Christianity–a tradition that persists to this day (See Burke O. Long’s Imagining the Holy Land for a fascinating study of this phenomenon in the 19th century). And there are plenty of Jews who are horrified by Zionism. If you are feeling ambivalent about non-Jews criticizing Israel then check out Jewish-run organizations that agitate for the Palestinians–there are plenty. Finally, I don’t know if you have ever been to Israel but there is more and better criticism of the Israeli government from the Israeli left than anything you’ll find in the States, perhaps because of the dynamic you describe.

    You are not alone in your ambivalence–and if you wanted to you could find a community within your faith that shares your feelings. Good luck. And thank you again for being so honest. It is the only way to peace.

  23. Joseph wrote:

    @ Molly
    “The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is complex. There’s unquestionable racism and oppression aimed at both sides, sometimes by the other. Which is why I don’t understand the knee-jerk anti-Israel chants I hear at (unrelated!) rallies.”

    The most maddening aspect of the conversation about Israel (for me) is the “equal time” argument because it requires a willful blindness to the dynamic between the Israeli government and the Palestinians. Simply put, the Palestinians do not have the juice to “oppress” anybody. They are barely surviving. If you hear people associating Israeli oppression with other expressions of oppression around the globe it is because they are similar. So it is not a “knee-jerk” bias to chant “Free, Free Palestine” at say an immigrants rights rally because both activist communities are dealing with similar issues.

    Although, and this is important, I completely agree with you about the macaroons.

  24. Keren wrote:

    Very interesting article, it’s nice to see these experiences getting represented because they are just so damn complex!

    To add to the discussion over calling Israel a ‘colonial’ state- I think what people find annoying about this term is that it just ignores certain factors which make this situation incomparable to any other. Not just for the reasons that Matt has said, but also because the land that is now Israel used to be Jewish land, and has always had Jews living there. So it’s not exactly the same as some white people just deciding that they are going to take over somebody else’s country- it was people who thought they were finally going to return to their homeland.

  25. Tarik wrote:

    Most Jews recoil at the description of Israel as a colonial state (as I said, I think they’re right to), but instead see Israel as a bolt-hole. Perhaps it would be better to start there?

    A bolt-hole? What is a “bolt hole”? Lets get real here. If annexing territory through military conquest and then developing and propagating settlements on it through control and subordination of the indigenous inhabitants isn’t colonialism, then what is? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck.

    It continually amazes me how discourse about this issue in the US has become so stunted in its bias towards Israel that people can’t even openly acknowledge that what is going on there is colonialism. Yet what is worse is that from a human rights perspective (i.e. the continual violation of Palestinians’ basic human rights by Israel in all matters of life as a form of policy), the intellectual dishonesty and moral double standards exercised by the United States towards Israel/Palestine remains unquestioned.

    Until this fundamental reality is acknowledged and addressed, the problem will continue to fester and grow.

    Having said that, I appreciate the original writers’ thoughts on the issue and understand that her attempt was to share some personal and private insight on the matter, rather than address the political and human rights angle of this issue.

    BTW this post is not meant as a personal attack against Matt or Sarah J.

  26. Matt wrote:

    Sarah, the persecution of the Europeans who came to America wasn’t Diaspora. Instead, the analogy I would prefer would be that calling Zionism as colonialism is akin to calling affirmative action as reverse racism.

    Btw, I don’t know how familiar you are with the various progressive Zionist organizations out there. Came across this recently:

    My understanding of Zionism has continued to evolve, and my time at Meretz USA has confirmed to me that I can be a part of the progressive Jewish community. Organizations like Meretz USA, which envision a democratic, equal, and peaceful Israel, succeed where Jewish organizations which focus solely on Israel’s need for security fail. They reach Jews like me, who desire a connection to Israel, but not a connection that overlooks the state’s internal flaws and human rights abuses in the West Bank and Gaza.

    There’s Ameinu, and Peace Now (which is responsible for brining Combatants for Peace to the US), but Meretz is the group that typifies “Zionism” in my mind. I’m not entirely sure why I attach to Meretz like that, but perhaps it is because they’re Israeli counterpart has been around for some time as an active and spirited political party.

  27. A. G. Scalia wrote:

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/031103/3anti.htm

    Mod Note: If you submit a link with no commentary, it looks like spam. Since this is on topic, I will approve it, but next time add some explanation text around an outgoing link. – LDP

  28. Joseph wrote:

    @SarahJ
    Eep. “Anonymous” (”Thank you so much for sharing this post…”) is me–I accidentally posted before I addressed it. Sorry.

    I am promising myself not to get into this in an unproductive way so I’m going to try and just be really specific here:

    “…colonialism requires a colonial power that extends it’s power outside its borders. ”

    Yes, exactly. Israel was founded by the English and continues to exist because of the United States, two big old colonizers. This is where the mythology (Scrappy Little Nation Takes On The World) becomes dangerous–because it distorts the political reality on the ground.

    It is true that the Jews of 1948 did not have sufficient power to colonize but the modern state of Israel would not exist in this form but for the exercise of European colonial power. The dirty underside of the congratulatory mythology about the creation of modern Israel reads like a racist joke: The Europeans all looked at each other after the war and said “I figured out a way to get all the Jews out of Europe!”

  29. Joseph wrote:

    @ Keren
    “Israel used to be Jewish land, and has always had Jews living there. So it’s not exactly the same as some white people just deciding that they are going to take over somebody else’s country- it was people who thought they were finally going to return to their homeland.”

    This is a religious argument used as a justification for colonial expansion. Many Jews have a special attachment to the biblical Israel–it was this image of unity that kept Jews together during a long Diaspora. But the modern state of Israel is not the biblical Israel any more than the Atlantic City casino is the ancient city of Atlantis.

    It wouldn’t matter if no one was living there at the time it was created. But people who’d lived there for thousands of years were already there. So the idea that European Jews (also known as “Europeans”) could exercise some ancient claim on the land based on their religious myth-system (no matter how precious) is insane.

  30. WestEndGirl wrote:

    Apologies in advance for the huge post!

    Latoya, in response to your response to Matt, I take on board fully what you say about respecting people’s experiences and creating a space where people have a chance to examine views that are not their own. It is the very reason I come to this blog, and it has hugely helped me in my own anti-racist activism and work in social justice.

    But and this a huge but.

    There is a difference between a Palestinian person writing their perspective and narrative – which I as a mixed background Jew actively desire to listen to whether it may hugely conflict with my early teachings in my community, the wider community and so on and makes me uncomfortable – and others writing who are not affected personally and who make factually incorrect, blanket statements about my community. And concern around this issue is, in my opinions, something to be addressed and argued against and not dismissed on the basis that there’s a difference of experience.

    Bq is a clear case in point – ” You simply can’t have people migrating from the US and Europe and *not* bringing over white supremacist ideologies. The act of crossing does not erase history.”

    Just looking factually, the Jews were:
    1) for a large part, in the first and main wave of immigration to Israel, weren’t ‘migrating’ (which implies going to choose in a non-pressured manner another country to live in typically for economic reasons etc) , they were fleeing ongoing persecution from across the entirety of Europe (not the US) and didn’t have villages, homes or families to go back after the Holocaust. The second main wave came from the Arab and other Middle Eastern countries after state sponsored anti-Semitic violence, intimidation, confiscation of property and expulsion. Other waves include the Ethiopians and people from across the ex-Soviet Union, who to a lesser or greater extent were also facing hardship due to their status as Jews. Hardly ‘migration’.
    2) in several of the cases above, not actually considered as or were ‘white’, often lived in huge poverty and separately in enforced ghettos both prior to and after the Holocaust and were not connected into the wider political hierarchy in the countries in which they lived. So the idea that they all these ‘migrating’ Jews were either white or held *white supremacist ideologies* is really offensive to me.

    Does Bq’s point of view count as a reasonable perspective or experience? Or is it ahistoric and factually incorrect?

    Likewise Sarah’s own assertion in her post that:
    “racism, not a hatred for their religion, sparked the Nazis’ hate, and anti-Semitism is framed not as anti-Judaism but as hatred for the Semitic race—even when all Jews are certainly not Semitic, and all Semitic people are not Jewish, and the hatred for each is a very different thing from the other.”

    …is totally divorced from the historic reality of anti-Semitism. The hatred of Jews was primarily religious for thousands of years. We were cast out as ‘Christ-killers’ and filthy ursurers as well as the ‘other’ in every country we lived in both in the Christian and Muslim world.

    The term anti-Semitism was introduced by Wilhelm Marr in the 1800s as a way of explaining away an irrationalist position (hatred based on religious grounds) and justifying it in modern (and supposedly rationalist) ’scientific’ terms based on race.
    If I disagree with this, am I undermining Sarah’s experience or pointing out that she appears to have limited knowledge of the history of anti-Semitism….?

    Coming back to the actual article, my personal experience is that as a Jew I *know* that a substantial proportion of the criticism I hear of Israel is anti-Semitic. I know this because when I see someone’s face literally contort with rage and hatred when castigating Israel for its rights violations, but not when they describe far worse in Tibet, Chechnya, Darfur etc, then there is something going on far far deeper than just neutral and justifiable criticism of a state’s actions.

    I just don’t believe that 2000 years of religiously and state-endorsed anti-Semitism (or Jew-hatred if you prefer the term) has disappeared into nothingness.

    I don’t ‘look’ Jewish, I look “ethnic” and am often mistaken for Hispanic, Greek, Italian, Arab etc etc, and the downside (upside?) of this is I get to hear the things that people would never say to my face vis-a-vis Jews and Israel if they knew otherwise. I have heard people say things like:

    “well what do you expect from Israel, Jews are thieves and murderers”
    “Jews love to kill Arab children”
    “it’s a shame that the Holocaust didn’t finish them all off then we wouldn’t have this problem with terrorism”

    To me, these are not justified, neutral criticisms of Israeli policy or ‘anti-Zionist’ positions. This is why sometimes when I read certain pro-Palestinian articles that dismiss Jewish and Israeli history and concerns, I recoil from them in fear, because I *know* that they are motivated by Jew-hatred.

    For me, the solution to this hideous problem is for both sides – and not just the Israelis – to listen to and understand the other’s narratives and experiences. For me, making a blanket condemnation against the refugees from Europe post the Holocaust as colonial settlers is hideous. It is ahistoric and inaccurate, just as saying that all Palestinians voluntarily left their homes in the 1948 fled so that Arab allies could complete their job easily!

    It is far far too easy for anti-Zionist discourse to slip into anti-Semitic discourse. It happens all the time as my examples outline! For a good start at unpicking the relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism http://www.engageonline.org.uk is a great resource

    In the same way that white people should look at their own privilege, I expect other people to look at their own anti-Semitism.

  31. miss girl wrote:

    Should Jews not examine their own privilege, as well?

  32. Tarik wrote:

    I think what people find annoying about this term is that it just ignores certain factors which make this situation incomparable to any other. Not just for the reasons that Matt has said, but also because the land that is now Israel used to be Jewish land, and has always had Jews living there.

    That is not correct and a very poor (yet unfortunately extremely common) rationale used to explain or excuse what Israel has done and continues to do to the Palestinians. Justifying colonialism on the basis of “ancestral right” is not unique to Israel.

    Any examination of a number of similar situations either historically or contemporary indicate that the case of Israel/Palestine is not a unique one, but rather, a somewhat typical case of one community or nation trying to displace and/or subject another community or nation based on a racial or national claim. For example, China claims ownership of Tibet as part of its own national imagination of its historical right. The list goes on.

    How would you like it if someone came to your home one day and said, “Excuse me, but MY God and MY holy book says this is MY land that MY God gave to ME be, so you have to leave.” I don’t think you would like that one bit.

    I sympathize with Jewish peoples for what they have endured historically, but two wrongs never make a right.

  33. Joseph wrote:

    @WestEndGirl
    I think conflating bq’s and SarahJ’s posts with sentiments like “Jews love to kill Arab children” is hyperbolic, divisive and unfair. If you disagree with their points then answer them, don’t demonize them based on things they have not said.

    Do you really think that Latoya would allow the sort of hate speech you are afraid of to enter this conversation?

    If you say you have had bad experiences with people speaking hatefully about Jews in front of you then I believe you. Like you, I look “un-specifically ethnic” (i.e. not the way people imagine an “Arab” to look). People looove to come up to me on the street and speak to me in their own language. They also love talking about how much they hate Arabs right in front of me. It sucks. So I completely understand your wariness–but your fears and apprehensions are about you, not the rest of us.

    In the end, projecting them on to this conversation is just another way to foreclose the discussion–and I resent that.

  34. Celeste wrote:

    @ WestEndGirl: Your post confused me a bit. The original essay is about oneperson evaluating her view of Israel from her perspective. Is the main point of your post that other should look at their anti-semitism?
    It is possible to acknowledge the really sucky/evil situation that the Jews emerged from to move (or whatever verb you’d prefer) to Israel but no amount of ghettos and genocide changes what then happened to the Palestinians or makes it okay. Two wrongs don’t make a right or a zero. The former slaves who founded Liberia came from a sucky situation and were probably just looking for a place where people weren’t going to lynch them but then they turned around treated the people already living there like crap. That’s not okay either. It gives context to the situation, for sure. It wasn’t like most colonization when a powerful country goes lookin’ for gold and slaves. It was probably more motivated by the desire to have a place on earth where people aren’t trying to kill you than just blatant white supremacy.
    I don’t condemn the refugees, they had better reasons than most for their colonizing. In the end, though, people got booted off their land and now they’re in a sucky position. If those particular refugees then go kick someone else off their land then they’d be wrong, too.

  35. miss girl wrote:

    *Edit* I mean, wasn’t that the whole theme of Sara’s article? To reflect and deconstruct the multiple ways in which a person identifies with a history so engendered with the good, the bad and with all that is simply just her?
    It is extremely important to understand the facts and lay out definitions, but it’s a disservice if the only way of doing so is to detract from Sara’s point.

  36. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @WestEndGirl –

    Fair enough, but let me just say that your “but” is a common one – people love learning (on Racialicious) about other ideas and ethnic groups but I do notice there seems to be some hesitancy when it comes to a differing opinion that comes from your own ethnic group. See Muslim v. Muslim battles in our comments, black v. black, Asian v. Asian etc. etc. That’s going to happen. To address your specific issues:

    1. I couldn’t discern this from your post, but you are aware that Sarah did not identify as Palestinian, right? Are you referring to Jehanzeb’s other post? Sarah is a Jew, and identifies as a member of her own community, albeit from the secular side.

    2. BQ is a commenter. I’m only worried about the people who post. Commenters can say all kinds of things, and as you have probably seen from other threads, are generally called out on false assertions by other commenters.

    3. If you disagree with anything Sarah said, you are interacting with the post. My response to Matt was based on this post in addition to other online and offline conversations.

    4. Here: ““racism, not a hatred for their religion, sparked the Nazis’ hate, and anti-Semitism is framed not as anti-Judaism but as hatred for the Semitic race—even when all Jews are certainly not Semitic, and all Semitic people are not Jewish, and the hatred for each is a very different thing from the other.”

    I think Sarah gave a good definition.

    I understand that you may not agree, and that’s totally fine. But keep in mind this: we are an anti-racist website and we STILL have not come to an agreement on what defines racism. Can PoC be racist, or merely prejudiced? Is it racism when PoCs verbally or physically attack whites? Is it racism when PoCs verbally or physically attack each other on the basis of race? Some would argue no. So are there set definitions of things, yes. Are there working definitions of things? yes. Can you find that the working and set definition of a thing is still inadequate when trying to express a huge concept. Yes.

    I’ll let Sarah speak for herself in terms of her knowledge of origins and language.

    For me, making a blanket condemnation against the refugees from Europe post the Holocaust as colonial settlers is hideous. If that was the agreed upon interpretation of history, I think that we wouldn’t be having these kinds of conversations on this blog. But people interpret history differently.

    5. For me, the solution to this hideous problem is for both sides – and not just the Israelis – to listen to and understand the other’s narratives and experiences.

    Yep, which is why we cover a lot of different perspectives here. As I am sure you have noticed, each thread becomes heated very quickly.

    But here’s what I notice: It’s only heated between people who have a pro-Israel interest and a pro-Palestine interest. The rest of the blog doesn’t really comment. Which to me, is the biggest problem – a whole lot of people who are neutral and don’t have a vested interest either way leave it alone. And part of that reason – at least as it appears to me – is that people don’t really feel qualified to talk, as they are immediately bludgeoned with years worth of historical research from both sides.

    So instead of people trying to learn and understand and be involved, they get turned off. It’s too much to learn, too much to remember, too complicated – and they shut down. Or, they do what I think is worse, either remain unmoved (i.e. “Why are we even talking about this in the first place, no one will ever change their mind”) or will just pick a side without really bothering to understand how we got here in the first place. (And again, fact and figure inundation is not really the way to go. People need to have a knowledge base to build from. )

    Sarah’s piece is good because it is accessible. She struggles. There are things she doesn’t understand. There is this long, strange, historical *something* that is intimately related to her present that she can’t reconcile.

    A lot of people feel like that. And I believe that is where understanding on this issue has to start. This icky gray area. And understanding that people are struggling to work through it.

  37. Celeste wrote:

    Both groups have been there for a very long time. I don’t think one group has a greater claim than the other. There’s no way to prove a greater claim unless God is going to come down from heaven and indicate who’s more chosen than the other.

  38. DEAF FEMINIST PUNK!! wrote:

    Mod Note: Umm, DFP? Not the tone of argument we were going for here. Did you read Sarah’s piece? Hate of Israel being internalized as hated of Jews? Lots of personal pain? Yeah – think through what you are trying to say and try that comment again. Government Policy (US/Britain/Israel) is not the same as Israel. – LDP

  39. anonymous wrote:

    I’d like to participate in this discussion, however, due to my strong opinions on all manner of violation of human rights (especially use of MY tax dollars to support countries that commit crimes against human-kind) including, but not limited to: restrictions on movement, state sponsored terrorism, torture, home demolitions, assassinations, air raids, sonic booms, collective punishment and illegal detentions, etc. – I’d better not say much more.

    “Did the Zionists have the legal or moral right to invade Arab Palestine, uproot its Arab citizens from their homes and seize all Arab property for themselves just based on the “religious” claim that their forefathers lived there thousands of years ago? Only a thousand years ago the Moors lived in Spain. Would this give the Moors of today the legal and moral right to invade the Iberian Peninsula, drive out its Spanish citizens, and then set up a new Moroccan nation … where Spain used to be, as the European Zionists have done to our Arab brothers and sisters in Palestine?…” – Malcolm X (1925-1965)

  40. Sarah J wrote:

    What I wanted to do was meditate a bit on Judaism as racial identity, which was why I sent this bit off to Latoya rather than post it at my own site.

    I am aware of the “Christ-killer” label as well as many others.

    However, when you look back at, for instance, Nazi propaganda, it involved caricatures of “Jewish” faces and the like as much as it did invoke the “Christ-killer” image. It invoked, in other words, a racial Otherness to go along with the religious Otherness.

    On a deeper level, I suggest Leonard Cassuto’s “The Inhuman Race” to anyone interested in the tendency to create monsters out of races and cultures different from one’s own. Hatred of religions and of races intertwine into what is at its most basic a hatred of something different from oneself. I’ve written about how we create monsters out of political opponents all the time, and especially when political opponents are of a different race or ethnic background.

    So it was probably overly simplistic to say that hatred of Jews was entirely racial–but it certainly goes beyond religion.

    As I’ve said, I’m ambivalent about Israel. I simply don’t know what to think. And as Latoya said, the people who are not 100% committed to either side often get lost in these debates.

  41. Keren wrote:

    @ Tarik & Joseph
    You’re both twisting my point. I was NOT making any justifications for colonialism, and I certainly wasn’t making any religious arguments.

    Quite simply, I was saying why some people find it problematic to argue that Israel is colonial, as an addition to what Matt said. That reason is that it *was* once a Jewish country- that’s not an argument based on the bible, it’s based on historical fact. Who do you think built the Western wall, as part of their Temple, which still stands today? I’m not at all saying that it makes it right at all ( and I didn’t in my original comment either,) just that it would be imperfect to label it as white colonial aggression because it sits uncomfortably in that mould.

  42. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    @ Sarah J–thank you so much for sharing your struggle. I especially love your last statement:

    “And so I know that because this makes me uncomfortable, I need to seek it out more and learn more. Realize, of course, that it’s not about me. It’s about justice, and trying to put a real end to racism, and alliances must be built across lines for the world to truly change.”

    If that does sum up a lot of the anti-racism struggles, then I don’t know what else does.
    Actually I’d be interested in reading/hearing an exchange between you and Jehanzeb Dar. Both of your posts seem to dovetail beautifully.

  43. Joseph wrote:

    @Keren
    I never said “white” I said European…Arabs and Jews are both “white”…ish. You know, depending on who you ask.

    I am not dismissing the historical fact of the Jewish Diaspora–at all– but everybody once lived somewhere. My Brooklyn neighborhood was founded by Norwegians but so what? Everybody originally came from Africa…how far back are we going to take this argument?

    My point is that the reflex to cite “History” (with a capital “H”) as a justification for the creation of the modern Israel is nonsensical. It invites the inevitable question “Whose history?” And yes, for many, many people (Jewish and otherwise) the Jewish “claim” on the chunk of land where the modern state of Israel sits is a biblical one so, whether you intended it or not. you were referencing that belief system. I wasn’t trying to twist your point, I was trying to show what was underneath it.

  44. Persia wrote:

    However, when you look back at, for instance, Nazi propaganda, it involved caricatures of “Jewish” faces and the like as much as it did invoke the “Christ-killer” image. It invoked, in other words, a racial Otherness to go along with the religious Otherness.

    I think to separate the racial from the religious bigotry in most of the history of anti-Semitism is a fool’s game, at best. Religious differences have often resulted in bloodshed, but rarely in the centuries’ worth of stereotypes that have confronted Jews.

  45. Matt wrote:

    If that was the agreed upon interpretation of history, I think that we wouldn’t be having these kinds of conversations on this blog. But people interpret history differently.

    But that’s the point, isn’t it? So much of the debate is about who gets to interpret history and then force that interpretation on to others.

    Don’t you think it would cause outrage here if someone told an entirely one-sided narrative of a “land without a people” that not only elided, but denied the nakba? There are still those who claim the Palestinian residents left voluntarily to make it easier for the Arab armies to kill the Jews. There are still those who think the Palestinians chief complaint is that ‘the dhimmis won’t behave.’ What if they preceded it with, “I’m in favor of peace, but..” Wouldn’t it still grate?

    But isn’t this narrative of some foreign colonial power (and white at that!) such a one-sided narrative. One that doesn’t just ignore things like the Holocaust, but one that relegates them to irrelevancies?

    It is –I’m sorry– complicated. There aren’t many conflicts the world over where the positions of privilege have switched like they have here, and where both sides have had changing relationships with multiple colonial powers.

  46. Keren wrote:

    Joseph,
    No, I don’t think there was anything beneath the point that I made- because I made it with no agenda. I’m not even pro-Israel.

    “My Brooklyn neighborhood was founded by Norwegians but so what? Everybody originally came from Africa…how far back are we going to take this argument?”

    Please, that’s an offensive, straw argument. We were discussing the reason why some Israelis are confused by accusations of colonialism, because (how many times am I going to have to repeat this?) *in their view*, they are just returning to their homeland- 1500 years later- and not just a biblical homeland, but their actual, historical place of origin. Which, in a way, is true. It doesn’t justify the displacement of the Palestinians and it certainly doesn’t justify the human rights abuses which have occurred since.

    If I had said ” The Bible says that God gave Israel to the Jews and not the Muslims so the Israelis can do whatever they want to the Palestinians” then I can understand you having a problem, but clearly that’s very far removed from my opinion so I don’t understand why you take issue with it.

    “the Jewish “claim” on the chunk of land where the modern state of Israel sits is a biblical one so, whether you intended it or not. you were referencing that belief system.”
    Again, no. God, it is quite clear from the wording of all my comments that I’ve refrained from even using my opinion on the matter. The Jewish community used to live as a nation in the land which is now Israel. That’s not a religious argument, it’s undisputed fact. The remnants of that time and of their lives still exist in that area. This fact may be used by others to justify their wrong actions – which is why you’re reacting against it, I do understand, but it’s still true.

  47. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Matt- Agreed.

    This conflict is completely complicated as all get out.

    Now, it’s Sarah’s POV so I don’t think she is obligated to bring up the Holocaust if she didn’t see that as a huge factor in her narrative.

    Kind of like the same way I talk about a lot of black issues without bringing up slavery or the middle passage. It’s historical, yes. It’s important, yes. But – uh – a few things have happened since then, right?

    It is complicated as issues of privilege and oppression turn and turn and turn. So it depends. Different viewpoints. Different interpretations of history. Different understanding of how history plays into where we are and how we got here. And how we should proceed in the future.

    As you said, it’s complicated.

  48. Matt wrote:

    Did she maybe do a bit more than not bring up the Holocaust, though? Doesn’t referring to Israel as colonial define a narrative where the Holocaust can’t be brought up?

  49. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    No. She just chose not to.

    Israel would not be discussed in this way if it didn’t occupy two seemingly contradictory positions. Israel is seen as both hostile colony and needed refuge; as both oppressor and oppressed; as both victim of terrorism and perpetrator of terrorism. It’s both.

    Please address questions about Sarah’s piece to Sarah in your subsequent comments.

    And again, please remember this is Sarah’s gray area narrative. If you want to write your own black-and-white narrative, you’re free to do so.

  50. miss girl wrote:

    “If you want to write your own black-and-white narrative, you’re free to do so.”

    Ha! *applause*

  51. Joseph wrote:

    @Keren
    I wasn’t trying to be defensive–or attack you–I was trying to understand where you were coming from. Sorry if that was lost in my response. Tone is a tough thing to judge in a written forum, although I usually try to be attentive to that. Of course I understand your point–it is pretty obvious from the discourses around Israel that this is the case. But–as I said–I don’t think a recourse to history can be used to justify the creation of a modern Israel (especially since the image of the biblical Israel is spiritually compelling for so many people). That is a recipe for..well, what we have now.

    There is, in Israel, a practice of using archeology in a very specific way: to reinforce a Jewish historical claim and dismiss the–literally–thousands of years between then and now. It seemed to me you were referencing that. But if you aren’t, I get it.

    That practice and the narrative it suggests still exist though. And it grates on me when the presence of an old wall is used to make Israel seems a smidgen *less* colonial than other places.

  52. Anonymous wrote:

    And it makes me understand for a minute that feeling that some white people got when they heard Rev. Wright. That fear that people hold something against you that you’re not responsible for, that you know they should be angry about but you don’t want to be part of.

    This has nothing to do with being Jewish, and everything to do with being white. American anti-Semitism has been localized the black community, and has become a proxy for anti-whiteness in politics. I’m Jewish, but I’m also black, and Reverend Wright didn’t scare me one bit.

  53. Keren wrote:

    Joseph, I know that you weren’t attacking me, but you were attacking something which I hadn’t said, and attributing it to me, which is annoying. Also, it really could have been avoided.

    I think the Israelis know that it helps their cause (to some) to emphasise their historic and religious connection to the land, even if it is a millenia and a half ago, and doesn’t justify all of their behaviour since. Similarly, it’s politically expedient for the Palestinians to say the Israeli’s are colonialists, because no one wants to be associated with colonialism . So when that view is criticized for being imperfect, it ruffles a lot of feathers.
    But do you really think that the Israelis twist archaelogical evidence to suit their cause? Because I don’t see why they would do that, when they don’t need to.

  54. WestEndGirl wrote:

    In my absence – the best restaurant salad nicoise I’ve ever had btw – there have sprung up far too many posts for me to go through! So I’ll hopefully kind of address Latoya as the most comprehensive – again apologies for the length.

    I am aware that Sarah was expressing her experience as a secular Jew, I was making the point that I’m more than happy to listen to Palestinian voices who express opinions and experiences that make me feel uncomfortable and who may differ from mine – I welcome this. So the point I was making is that I’m not one to typically jump on posters who differ in their narrative from me!

    But certain things being expressed by Bq (who specifically kicked me off to comment) weren’t relating personal experiences and narratives: they were expressing things as relating to historic fact e.g. my example of the ‘migration’ to Israel.

    This is just not a case of grey areas v. a black and white narrative as being discussed in recent posts.

    I just cannot agree that there is no such thing ever as historical fact and only just an interpretation of history. Certain things are just verifiable – the vast majority of Jews going to Israel were of colour and not ‘white’ – thereby making Bq’s assertion that they were coming from Europe and the US and bringing white supremacist ideology erroneous. The fact that I also find it offensive is actually by the by from the wider perspective, it is just not true!

    Why does this matter? This is where I come to the crux of my point (hopefully more clearly than before!).

    Facts matter.

    Examples of facts. Jews as a nation have both a religious and historic attachment to, and presence in, the Holy Land for 000s of yeras. Jews suffered persecution and violence in the Middle East for hundreds of years prior to the state of Israel etc etc.

    When people do not understand or deny such facts, unfortunately from my personal experience and study of anti-Semitism, this will be used against Jews, often in the guise of anti-Zionism.

    An example relating to one of the above facts – if there were no problems being Jewish in the Middle East before the state of Israel, then it logically follows that the fact that Middle Eastern Jews were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries from the 1940s onwards is entirely the fault of the Jews setting up Israel.

    This is, in fact, a classically anti-Semitic trope – the Jews’ own behaviour leads to their persecution. (The Engage website I posted has great links talking about the relationship between contemporary anti-Semitism and classical forms)

    So for me, it’s just very obvious that factually incorrect comments which frequently occur in anti-Zionist commentaries – Zionism is by definition racism, Israel doesn’t allow non-Jewish weddings, Israeli Arabs aren’t allowed in higher education etc etc – demonises the Israeli experience.

    And unfortunately there’s just too much latent anti-Semitism out there for this kind of demonisation through factual inaccuracies not to then have a subsequent negative impact on people’s opinions of Jews. Why else does when something flares up in the Israel/Palestine conflict do anti-Semitic attacks rocket in the UK? Why else do I have to hide my magen david in order to avoid random people spotting it and hurling abuse in my face about Israel? If it really was a simple case of examining the conduct of the Israeli state in an entirely normal manner, this just wouldn’t happen.

    So just in the same way that I would not accept someone to say inaccurate things about Palestinians – they are all terrorists, there is no such thing as Palestinian culture etc etc – I expect the anti-racist community to make similar efforts to educate themselves sufficiently as to the facts in order to avoid demonisation of either.

    Why? Because it was through educating myself to the facts of the conflict that I went from effectively denying the narrative of the Nakba to being an active advocate for Palestinian rights. Before then I was just parroting what my pro-Israel community had told me.

    So is it really so hard for people in the liberal left and anti-racist movement to consider that they may well slip into anti-Semitic discourse fueled by ignorance? I know I did relating to Palestinians before I took it upon myself to learn about their experiences!

    Is it really so hard to accept that when supposedly anti-racist people say things like: “We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.” (Arun Gandhi in the WaPo) that this is outrageously anti-Semitic, factually incorrect and should be avoided?

    All I’m asking for is for people to be careful what they say in terms of ensuring that it is accurate and fair. And where people don’t know, they really shouldn’t pronounce!

    That to me is not about things needing to be black and white, it’s actually about saying: by my generalisations and my lack of thoughtfulness, am I creating an environment which is scary for other people who hold different views? Because at present, as a Jew, even as an anti-racist, pro-Palestinian one, frankly I feel spiritually threatened and fearful in most liberal left and anti-racist environments. And this is not acknowledged.

  55. Shelby wrote:

    I’m definitely one of those people that doesn’t know much about or have much invested in this issue…but I have been reading this post (and others like it) very closely. I feel engaged in the conversation, but in an “active learning” type of way. I don’t think it’s my place to do much more than ask questions. One of them being about the Anonymous comment before me which says: “This has nothing to do with being Jewish, and everything to do with being white. American anti-Semitism has been localized the black community, and has become a proxy for anti-whiteness in politics. I’m Jewish, but I’m also black, and Reverend Wright didn’t scare me one bit.”

    I’m a little confused with what you mean by this. Are you saying that when it looks like the Black community is criticizing Whites, they’re actually being anti-Semitic?
    I grew up in a predominately Black city and didn’t really have a concept of “Jewishness” that differed much from “Whiteness” so I’d be interested to hear more about this.

  56. Matt wrote:

    Israel would not be discussed in this way if it didn’t occupy two seemingly contradictory positions.

    And that there is one nutshell description of the history of antisemitism, and one of the major reasons it has never really been taken seriously except as a historical phenomenon. I disagree with you – My experience is that the rhetoric of Israel as a colonial state inevitably makes the Holocaust nothing but an irrelevant “justification” without any lasting moral consequence, in which recognition of the Holocaust cannot merit more than token consideration. I say that based on experience in many conversations on the matter, and while I won’t mention specific comments, parts of this discussion, too. That is very much a denial of the experiences and history of the Jews. And, btw, by calling Israel colonial, the origins of the state are brought up in the article — I’m not the one who brought it up, I’m the one who named it.

    It is, these days, commonplace for many Jews to be accepting of the Palestinian Nakba narrative, in Israel and the West. If we don’t agree, many of us (and it has always been the case) recognize it as legitimate. It seems to me that no one in this discussion would dream of denying it. Yet it is repeated as a denunciation of any possible Zionist narrative, eventually demonizing.

    It’s that kind of talk, which simplifies the conflict into saints against devils, that’s led to (something that’s hard to describe as anything less than) the organized boycott in Britain of Jews in academia. If I seem to insist on the same thing over and over again, it is not that I insist that Zionism is correct, but that the views of the vast majority of Jews cannot be dismissed as irrelevant without consequence.

    Also, I second (or third, actually) the recommendation for engageonline.org.uk, which WestEndGirl has offered.

  57. db11 wrote:

    West-End Girl – really well-written and insightful comment. I especially feel your last statement as I have seen appalling numbers of openly anti-semitic rants (under the guise of anti-zionism) on many sites of the ‘progressive’ left. I can only imagine how those statements would feel to me if I were Jewish.

    In numerous discussions over the many years since I lived in Israel, I have yet to meet someone (on-line or off) who was virulently anti-zionist / anti-Israel, who wasn’t also harboring some very personal resentment of Jews (at best). At the same time, the number of (North American) Jews willing to publicly voice legitimate questions / criticisms of Israel’s disastrous policies is depressingly few.

    In reference to Latoya’s comment about people not engaging vs. the people that do, it seems to me that the number of people willing to engage in respectful, thoughtful conversation about this incredibly complex and difficult subject – in a way that avoids demonization, acknowledges personal suffering on both sides, and is rigorous with regards to the facts – approaches a null set in most contexts.

    The fact that there has been one here today is a credit to Sarah, Latoya, Joseph, Matt, Tarik, Keren, you (WEG) and others – and to the spirit of this blog. In the few months I’ve been (mostly) lurking here, I’ve read more useful discussions around difficult issues of racism, identity and injustice than just about anywhere else.

    Thanks Latoya, for a great site and your impressive efforts to keep it from devolving into the typical on-line shout-fest – while still addressing the most difficult issues head-on.

  58. Renee wrote:

    “And it makes me understand for a minute that feeling that some white people got when they heard Rev. Wright. That fear that people hold something against you that you’re not responsible for, that you know they should be angry about but you don’t want to be part of.”

    That is where you lot me. POC are justifiably angry and though no white person living today is responsible for slavery or the systemic role that racism plays each one benefits from it.

  59. jvansteppes wrote:

    Molly- “no other nation has to defend its very existence”
    Though certainly there are plenty of countries who as colonial powers have taken their entitlement to a land for granted when they shouldn’t have. What gave the US or Canada or Australia’s [etc] colonial founders the right to be so arrogant? Let me be clear that when I speak of the colonizers who created Israel from land that was already occupied with people who weren’t consulted, I’m talking about Britain and the US, not the exodus.

    Sarah, I like your piece, it reminds me of a lot of conversations I’ve had with Jewish friends of mine, including some folks whose families were there before the state’s creation.
    I think white pro Palestinian activists do have a lot of work to do on rethinking their entitlement to speak on the topic. I also think its interesting that so many of my leftist white fellow Canadians, for example, know more about this issue than they do about the stolen land they’re living on, seeing that colonialism is the talk of the town…

  60. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @WestEndGirl –

    Okay – let me make something more clear. BQ is another commenter. Other commenters will make bigoted statements, just like they do on most other posts. Especially on a topic like this one, where a lot of people (and I am speaking strictly from a US point of view) have no clue why Israel is here and what it is supposed to do or why it was created. I censor out hate speech. I censor out people who are not going to add to the conversation. But just like every other conversation on this blog, I leave it up to the commenters to challenge things that are said here. That is how we learn, through the exchange of ideas.

    And there are two different dynamics going on here – Sarah’s post and why we published it and what is going on in the comments. I haven’t seen your comments before, so I am unfamiliar with you. I am very familiar with Matt. And again, my comments are based on his comments in previous discussions.

    I understand what you are both saying about facts. But the first conversations – particularly Jehanzeb’s Jerusalem Cries for Peace post – get dominated by people who have the best researched positions and who are going to budge the least. As a couple people told me via email on this discussion, they feel as though the cannot participate/follow along unless they have the big book of Israeli/Palestinian history at their side. And here, that isn’t the goal.

    So, we are switching tactics. Let’s go to a deeper level why should people care about Israel and Palestine? As Sarah demonstrates, its more than ideology and politics. It’s about people.

    WEG, I cannot explain to you what is going on with anti-semitism in the WaPo and on other forums. I only proctor this one. And with some discussions, a lot of latent bigotry is going to come out. I discovered this during the posts about Islam. But, I find that humanizing a topic, and continually presenting different aspects of it helps to foster more understanding and leads people to seek more information. And you then find less bigotry and more curiosity.

    But I do not believe that is going to happen until people have a space in which to examine these prejudices that take root. And if only a limited amount of people feel comfortable taking place in a discussion this kind of change will not happen.

    Finally, I would like you and Matt to remember how these kinds of discussions got started in the first place. Wendi posted one item about Jewish stereotypes in the Media. The comments for that were extremely ugly – but most of those were lost when the site crashed. The second batch of comments was nicer and primarily came from our Jewish readers. After that, I got an irate comment about why were allowing the genocide in Palestine to continue without saying a word. I posted on that, about not following the schedule of others, and the problems I was having – namely, to link to or post only that which humanized both sides of the issue. Jehanzeb’s post was a good example of that, and while the post turned into a fight between those who already staked out their positions in the comments, the basic idea of his piece resonated with my less knowledgeable readers – we can move forward to a two-state solution. I got Sarah’s piece that same week, but held it because I did not want her intensely personal piece compared to Jehanzeb’s factual analysis from a pro-Palestine perspective.

    But the goal is the same – to gain a greater understanding of these issues and to get more people to care.

    I have to head to the office, but I’ll post another comment about the engage website when I get back.

  61. Britta wrote:

    I’m someone who generally stays out of these sorts of conversations, in part because being neither Jewish or Palestinian, I don’t necessarily feel it’s my space to comment, and also because I have very ambivalent feelings myself. Latoya’s comment however, has given me the courage to chime in.

    Westendgirl, I certainly agree that there’s lots of unexamined antisemitism in lefty circles–that because Jews are considered white and occupy a space of privilege in the US, it’s easy to overlook the ways that Jews have (and in some places still are) persecuted. But at the same time, just because some criticism in Israel is based in antisemitism (or relies on antisemitic tropes) doesn’t mean that ALL criticism of Zionism or of Israel is. I’m very sorry that you’ve had so many hurtful antisemitic experiences. But it’s counterproductive to use those experiences as a bludgeon to silence people who disagree with you.

    Finally, there are facts. But how, and even in some cases, what, those facts are are both nuanced and can be interpreted differently (and legitimately) by different people. Jews absolutely have an historical/cultural identification with Israel. I don’t think anyone was denying that. But so do Palestinians, both Christians and Muslims. Sure, it’s true that many Jews who went to Israel were not white and came from the Middle East and Africa. But it’s also true that many Jews came from Europe and America, and many of those people, not surprisingly, brought their racism with them. In fact, many Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews face discrimination from Ashkenazi Jews in Israel.
    It’s true, many Jews, particularly those who arrived post WWII who came to Israel were fleeing persecution. But that doesn’t change the historical violence inflicted against the Palestinians. Complicates it, certainly. It’s possible for people who very legitimately want a safe space to end up committing an act of aggression against another people who happened to already be in that space. To recognize that aggression doesn’t take away from the first group’s very pressing need to be safe from persecution. But it doesn’t excuse aggressive behavior against the second group either. And Matt, to point out that two wrongs don’t make a right, is in no way an attempt to minimize the holocaust or the sufferings of Jewish people.

    Personally, I think that the Europeans, esp. Britain, are responsible for creating this mess. The Europeans were happy to have a group they didn’t particularly care about, the Jews, move to a land inhabited by people they cared even less for, the Arabs. After WWII, Europe owed the Jews a safe haven, and they were more than happy to have the Palestinians pay the price for their genocide.

    Unfortunately, the callous actions by a European power has created an intractable mess. Hopefully there is a way forward past all the hurt and the legitimate grievances where an acceptable solution can be found.

  62. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Britta – Excellent. Thank you for speaking up.

    @ Matt & WestEndGirl –

    This kind of conversation is new on this site, but the intent is the same as with everything we cover – to get people thinking about things in a different way. I understand your frustrations with how the conversation may be progressing with reference to your knowledge base and your experiences. And that is fine. But let me illustrate this with a different point:

    Last year, we were having a lot of issues with what kind of content goes on Racialicious. People from a heavily academic background were pushing to have a more academic tone to the site and there was a bit of intellectual bullying going on with people who were more versed in certain topics completely dominating conversations. It took a while to work this out. However, what remains is this: Racialicious is a gray area. We talk about things that are academic, but we want it to be accessible. We talk about pop culture, but in an analytical, race focused way. We aren’t quite Racism 101 – there are some things that need to be understood before you hit the door here. But we aren’t aiming to be an academic site, basically because academics already have those spaces. We work best by challenging ideas, stereotypes, and media narrative. And our conversations are set up to appeal to a broad range of people – but most notably, the ones who haven’t had to spend a lot of time thinking about these issues.

    I find it highly unlikely that I will be able to change Matt’s mind, Joseph’s mind, JDSg’s mind, WestEndGirl’s mind – you all have throughly researched this issue and have been involved in it for a long time. So these conversations are not structured to your level of understanding of the issue.

    What I am concerned about in these conversations is reaching people like Britta. And Celeste. And having people like Sarah and people like Jehanzeb talk to each other with the goal of moving things forward.

    When I saw the Lost City in the movie theater, I didn’t walk away from that two hour film thinking “Well, Andy Garcia has told me everything I ever need to know about Cuba.” No. He sparked the interest by telling a beautiful story. I spent the whole next day researching Cuban history. And, while I saw the movie two years ago, my eye still gravitates to articles about Cuba.

    Awareness and curiosity will lead to understanding. This I am sure of. And in my experience, having conducted hundreds of these conversations, this is the best way to go.

    Re: Engage Online

    I do really like that site, thank you for the referrals. Here’s why I like it:

    There are multiple viewpoints on each event. So while I was reading something I really didn’t agree with, I was able to immediately click on a different perspective and see it from a different view, which is helpful. Like the discussion on comparing Israel to Apartheid South Africa – first perspective I didn’t care for, second one was amazing and really outlined a lot of the legal stuff that gets lost in the discussions. I’ll use the site as a reference.

    Just be mindful that it won’t be the *only* reference.

  63. Matt wrote:

    In fact, many Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews face discrimination from Ashkenazi Jews in Israel.

    Britta, one of the things that complicates matters is that the Mizrahi are largely on the Israeli right when it comes to security issues. They didn’t arrive as refugees from Europe, but as refugees from Middle Eastern countries, where they faced sometimes brutal oppression. In response to the creation of Israel, they were expelled (or ethnically cleansed, if you like) from those Arab countries, so they experienced the creation of Israel in a way where non-Jewish Arabs were directly responsible.

    And Matt, to point out that two wrongs don’t make a right, is in no way an attempt to minimize the holocaust or the sufferings of Jewish people.

    I think a lot of my frustration here stems from a lack of understanding, and what feels like an unwillingness to listen, of why Israel matters to me. I wrote above, “It was a response to Diaspora, the condition of being stateless and without a homeland. A condition wherein the Palestinians were comparably privileged.” I think it’s very hard for people to understand that this is where I’m coming from. I don’t see Israel as one wrong intended to rectify another but as building a house for a homeless family.

  64. Joseph wrote:

    @Keren
    “Joseph, I know that you weren’t attacking me, but you were attacking something which I hadn’t said, and attributing it to me, which is annoying. Also, it really could have been avoided.”

    Could have been avoided…if I could read your mind? I think we have established that I misunderstood the intent of your first post and misread your tone. Do you remember where I said “sorry” for that? I heard you and responded…so, why are you still stuck on this?

    “Similarly, it’s politically expedient for the Palestinians to say the Israeli’s are colonialists, because no one wants to be associated with colonialism . So when that view is criticized for being imperfect, it ruffles a lot of feathers.”

    Um, no. A selective belief and an expression of political force are not “similar.” And pointing out that someone has invaded and exploited you and having other people see the common-sense of that description is a poor sort of “political expedience” don’t you think? I imagine the Palestinians would happily trade for something better than gaining the pity of the world by being slowly destroyed by Israel.

    “But do you really think that the Israelis twist archaeological evidence to suit their cause? Because I don’t see why they would do that, when they don’t need to.”

    Yeah. I didn’t just pull that out of my hat. There’s a lot of literature on this–not all centered on Israel. A lot of the 19th century “Disciplines” (History, Anthropology, Archeology etc.) have been rigorously critiqued because they have all been used in one way or another to support colonial projects. There are other examples–but in Israel Archeology has been used for this purpose. For example, when the Palestinians were routed they buried their pots and pans because they assumed they’d be back. When their everyday (but traditional) cooking implements were uncovered they were assumed to be “historic” but not truly valuable so many of them are now decorative objects that are used by Israeli interior designers to add a little “ethnic flavor” to their designs.

  65. Keren wrote:

    Joseph, yes, I do think that could have been avoided. You made me repeat myself *three* times, and then in your ‘apology’ showed that you hadn’t actually taken any notice at all.

    It’s not a ’selective belief’ that the area was once Jewish land, it’s not religious, it’s undisputed historical fact. It is also politically expedient for the Israelis to emphasize this. (And pol. exp for you to downplay it)

    The Palestinian side has an extremely good case for arguing that the Israelis are colonialist. It is also politically expedient for them to emphasize this.

    Just because something is politically expedient doesn’t mean it’s false, why do you take issue with it? It’s simply an analysis of the most effective strategy that will help one’s cause, and promoting it.

    With regards to the archaelogy, perhaps that’s true, I’m certainly no expert in that field so I’m not going to dwell on it. However, it does seem to me that in the example you gave, it could have easily been verified by any time-test and would have been discredited immediately. Where do the Dead Sea Scrolls and ‘an old wall’ (as you so respectfully put it) fit in to all this?

    Also, why would Israeli interior designers see any thing particularly ‘ethnic’ about the pots and pans? They have so many different ethnicities in Israel -many Jewish Arab communities that would have undoubtedly had similar utensils-that it seems strange that those would be singled out as special. Are you really sure about that?

  66. Anonymous wrote:

    “I hope that if I had been around back then, I would have been marching.”

    The palestinians are asking for their rights and you have a chance to be marching *now*

  67. Keren wrote:

    @Britta,
    If I may speak for WestEndGirl, I think you missed the point of her comment. As a pro-Palestinian activist – she is therefore obviously aware that anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. To be open about her experience in anti-Zionist circles as being a frequent witness to anti-Semitism is hardly using a ‘bludgeon to silence people who disagree with you.’ I mean, they’re on the same side.

    I’ve had similar experiences to her because I’m Indian, and throughout my life, lots of people have automatically assumed I’m Muslim. For some reason, that makes them think I am ’safe’ for them to spew their anti- Jewish vitriol. It’s really difficult to try and engage with anti-Zionist arguments when you know the real feelings behind many of it’s proponents. I think it’s a testament to WEG’s convictions that she has managed to bypass that and stick to the logic of the arguments instead of losing her morale.

  68. Bq wrote:

    “Certain things are just verifiable – the vast majority of Jews going to Israel were of colour and not ‘white’.”

    West End Girl, what are you talking about? The Holocaust occured in Europe to European Jews. That’s part of why it is a big component of the Zionist argument.

    You are flat-out wrong that most of the Jews in Israel are Indian or Ethiopian. I follow news articles and know people who are of those backgrounds and highly discriminated against by Euro-descended Jewish people. Are you saying that Jewish people in Europe were considered non-white for a long time? I would agree with that. But in the context of the US, Jewish people are racialized as white, and Middle Eastern people are racialized as “towelheads” and “sand ___s”. People who are deemed to be more clearly non-white/non-European like Indians and Ethiopians are profoundly discriminated against. In some Israeli Ethiopian narratives, I hear a fear of being seen as intruders and an anxiousness to assure gratitude at being “let in”. I saw an Israeli ad by the fashion company, Irit, that depicted a white-looking woman being served by servants of color. All of my Euro-Jewish friends in the States are considered “white” and were indistinguishable in socialized attitudes and appearance from Christan whites.

  69. Bq wrote:

    *socialized attitudes about race (i.e. flaunting white privilege)

  70. Bq wrote:

    West End Girl,

    You seem to take issue with my use of the word “migration”, and it seems the problem is that you see it as an overly-neutral term that glosses over the fact that people flee, are refugees, etc. I am using it in the context of someone who studies colonialism and post-colonial theory. The term, “the age of migration” refers to upheavals that are taking place right now because of globalization and neo-imperialism. The fact that you are not familiar with the context of that word in social justice discourses and are profoundly ignorant of certain discourses actually says a lot. Plenty of social justice-minded immigration activists describe the people moving over the Mexican border “migrants”. It is not because a lack of awareness that many are forced to come here through brutal free trade policies through deserts and past men with guns. Sheesh.

    There is a reason that Edward Said is a founder of post-colonial theory.

    Also, your argument that people from Europe cannot bring over European ideas is incredibly simplistic. It is possible for even the oppressed to internalize the values of their oppressors and reproduce it against other people. Another commenter brought up the example of Liberia, which I think is very apt. I strongly believe you should consider that situation.

  71. Bq wrote:

    agh, I should have looked over my comment.

    When I said, “You are flat-out wrong that most of the Jews in Israel are Indian or Ethiopian”, I meant non-European.

  72. Matt wrote:

    Bq, you’re mistaken about that.

    First, I’d like to point out that (white) Jews today are not simply white. We’re also Jewish, and that can mean a lot when we’re talking about race.

    But more to the point, just about half the Jews of Israel are Mizrahi. A really interesting blog that tries to document their perspective is PointOfNoReturn. This isn’t how I would put it, but the Mizrahi perspective is an important one, so I’ll quote directly from the site:

    In just 50 years, almost a million Jews, whose communities stretch back up to 3,000 years, have been ‘ethnically cleansed’ from Arab countries. These refugees outnumber the Palestinian refugees two to one, but their narrative has all but been ignored. Unlike Palestinian refugees, they fled not war, but systematic persecution. Seen in this light, Israel, which absorbed most of these Jewish refugees, is the legitimate expression of the self-determination of an oppressed indigenous, Middle Eastern people.
    This website is dedicated to preserving the memory of the near-extinct Jewish communities, which can never return to what they once were.

    No, they weren’t involved in the construction of Zionism, but they were involved in the construction of Israel and have become ardent Zionists. One way to make the conflict a lot more complex is to recognize that they’re often much more hawkish on Israeli security than the Ashkenazi Jews who came from Europe.

    Are you familiar with the Shas political party? It’s to the right of Likud on security matters (though to the left of Labor on domestic matters). Though they’d never be able to elect a Shas Prime Minister, it’s a major player in Israeli coalition politics and the most significant supporters of the settler movement in the government. Shas is dominated by Mizrahim.

  73. Joseph wrote:

    @Keren
    Funny story: So two days ago I was in the middle of an article about how the IDF targeted Palestinian children during the first Intifada for the old dissertation. It was pretty horrifying. (Rubber bullets were first employed specifically to target “stone throwers” i.e. children! During home invasions the IDF would punch and kick young boys in the genitals and girls and women–including pregnant women–in the abdomen…!) It literally made me feel ill so I clicked on Racialicious to escape this horror for a bit and…saw this thread.

    The timing was almost comically bad.

    So, even though I really admire SarahJ’s initial post, I wish I had done what the other Arab and Muslim posters did and just blown off this thread.

    But most of all I wish I hadn’t engaged with you in the first place because my original instinct about you (a bit dim, needs a lot of attention, thinks arguing is exciting) was entirely correct.

    And yes dear, re: the “ethnic objects,” I’m sure.

  74. Britta wrote:

    Thanks Latoya! And thanks Sarah, for your thoughtful post.
    Matt:
    In terms of listening–did you actually read what I wrote? I NEVER said the creation of Israel was a wrong. I said repeatedly, I understood why Jews wanted and needed a place to call their own. But. If I were to build a house for a homeless family on land that other people had been living on for generations, and in the process kicked them off, then I would be wronging them. It would be a completely separate issue from the right of the homeless to have a house. And considering that the Palestinians don’t have a state, I find your logic weird–they were privileged for living on the land, so it’s ok we kicked them off?

    I find your answer frustrating, because I DO understand what it’s like to have a homeland. I have one too. It gives me a sense of rootedness and belonging. I would never ever question anyone’s desire, be they Jewish or African American, to want that. And I also recognize that my homeland has been my people’s for thousands of years. While we’ve been invaded and colonized, no one has ever kicked us off the land or tried to destroy our culture. My ancestors chose to leave it to come to America, and were privileged enough to be able to maintain their native culture here and maintain ties back with family in the old world. I get that that’s a privilege that refugees and slaves never had. And I get that the holocaust wiped out much of that sense of rootedness that Jews had in Europe. It’s a privilege to know who you’re great great grandparents are, and it’s one that was taken from many Jews by antisemitism. And partially, that’s why I stay silent. Because it’s not my place to tell people how and what they should feel, or that their feelings are too intense, too “irrational.”

    Yet at the same time, as a citizen of the world, and of the here and now, I find it’s my job to speak out against injustice. And while I don’t want to hold Israel to a higher standard, I’m not going to hold her to a lower standard either. To be fully honest, I don’t believe in nationalism. I don’t think the “right to ethnic self-determination” has been a helpful philosophy. Why? because the world doesn’t come in neatly separated parcels of ethnic groups. In a few areas it might work out, but people have always mingled and lived amongst each other. To say that people *need* to live in an ethnically homogenous nation of their own results in a lot of violence. People get kicked out or “ethnically cleansed,” and the retort is always, “well, get your own country.” The creation of all nations has, at some point in the past, involved acts of bloodshed. Of course, there is a quandary: if I could wave a magic wand and get rid of nationalism as a philosophy, I would. If I could “redo” the founding of many nations, like America, I would. But I can’t, I can protest the racism and brutality of current nation building, but I do so from a position of privilege, secure in my own nation state and free from persecution. Yet at the same time, I can’t let knowledge of my own racist past as an American paralyze me from speaking out. And I can’t let the argument, “well, what you did was worse” be a satisfactory answer to injustice.

    And finally, I hold my own homeland to this higher standard too. I’m Norwegian (watch out Joseph, we’re coming for your neighborhood ;) , and Norway is struggling with issues of immigration. As an American-raised leftist, I am fully committed to a multicultural, multiethnic Norway, where all Norwegians, regardless of color or ethnic background, have the right to be fully Norwegian. But doing so means rejecting the ethnic nationalism championed by Woodrow Wilson. It means rejecting the close tie between ethnicity and nation state. It means, in some ways, a fairly radical change in what Norway is/what it means to be Norwegian. There are plenty of Norwegians who oppose this and who use the language of ethnic self determination to support eliminating immigration. This is true all across Europe, in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, etc. and I find it repugnant, but consistent with the concept of a single ethnic state. When I hear names like “project birthright,” I think about how I would feel if we replaced “Jew” and “Israel” with “person of Nordic ancestry” and “Norway,” and it creeps me out. I find it hard to argue against nationalism in Europe, and for nationalism in the Middle East (or any other region of the world).

    Again though, (sorry this is so long, everyone) I get that the balance of power is different. Like I said above, Norwegians have never been the victims of genocide or of pogroms. We’ve never *needed* a safe space like the Jews have. If that means making a nation, so be it. I can get that. What I can’t get, is how or why that justifies violence against an innocent group of people. I don’t get why we need to accept that we had a remarkable opportunity to make a nation state without violence, but it didn’t happen. Clearly, Israel exists where it does with the borders it does, and nothing will radically change that. But we can work to minimize the suffering of the displaced people around Israel, and we can work towards an acceptable compromise, whether that’s one or two states. It’s going to involve some sort of flexibility on both parts though. And it may even involve a reimagining of the ethnic nation state. I don’t know.

    Sorry this is ridiculously long and probably reads like random stream of consciousness. I guess I was trying to get at, like Sarah did, some the ambivalence behind my views on Israel.

  75. Keren wrote:

    Joseph,
    God, was there really any need to patronize and insult me like that because of some quibble over terminology? So, you misread my original comment, force me to repeat it multiple times- but of course, that means I’m the one who finds arguing exciting. Yeah, maybe you should have blown off this thread.

  76. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @Joseph –

    Whoops, should have tagged your comment with a mod note. No personal insults.

    *mod is going to get some tea*

  77. Matt wrote:

    Britta, thank you for saying that. (Btw, I apologize if I seemed to single you out as ‘not listening.’ It really helps me to hear acknowledgement of what I’m saying rather than just “But what about…”

    I agree with a lot of your comment. I’m not fond of nationalism, either. I want Israel to be a progressive and multicultural state (though you might not be aware of many ways in which it already is). I’m not happy that the Palestinians don’t have a state. I don’t know why anyone would assume that, because I’m a Zionist, I don’t want the Palestinians to have a state.

    But here’s where I think history plays a role – in demolishing the notion of original sin. Zionism included progressive strains that called for a binational state. The Yishuv (pre-state Israel) accepted multiple compromise plans. They made clear that they would accept whatever they could get.

    The Palestinians refused all compromise. They refused to accept that the Zionists simply wanted a state. They started the War of Independence before the British had even left and before Israel even declared itself to be.

    The Jewish blogosphere has been commemorating the 40th yahrzeit of Bobby Kennedy, and some articles he wrote while in Palestine have been receiving a lot of attention. He described the Arab position this way:

    The Arabs are most concerned about the great increase in the Jews in Palestine: 80,000 in 1948. The Arabs have always feared this encroachment and maintain that the Jews will never be satisfied with just their section of Palestine, but will gradually move to overpower the rest of the country and will eventually move onto the enormously wealthy oil lands. They are determined that the Jews will never get the toehold that would be necessary for the fulfillment of that policy.

    Those “oil lands,” btw, point to the belief that the Jews would conquer everything “from the Nile to the Euphrates.”

    The Palestinians and Israelis made this situation together. The Zionists do share a lot of blame for specific acts, but it was never inherent in Zionism that this would be how things turned out. But the narrative of “colonialism” places blame squarely on the founding of Israel. It describes Zionism as an original sin from which all other sins follow. To say, “Clearly, Israel exists” does not erase that blaming in any way.

  78. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Matt, you wrote:

    “The state there does not legislate religious matters or promote one religion over another. ”

    Huh? You are joking right? Have you ever been to Israel? I have MANY times and I can tell you the state and local governmetn DOES legislate Judaism into law.

    I remember the big deal that was going on around Israel when I was there last because people were serving levened bread when they shouldnt have been…………covered by law. How about state enforcement of Sabbat? You are aware that most businesses are forced, by law, to close during the Sabbat right?

    From top to bottom religion plays a huge role in Israel. You have rabbis that are part of the government that advise the Knesset on all laws, Rabbis even decide who is and who isnt an Israeli citizen, again based on Jewish law.

    Is it like Saudi Arabia? Nope, but it certainly isnt a secular democracy like we have here in the USA.

    If you havent been to Israel you need to go and experience it for yourself. If you have been you need to open your eyes a bit more when you go next.

    Just because a majority of Israelis self identify as non practicing doesnt mean it doesnt legislate religious law to some extent, it does.

  79. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Matt,

    If Jewish law isnt legislated in Israel can you explain why people are being CHARGED with displaying leavened bread during passover?

    http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/907194.html

    “The Jerusalem municipality recently filed seven indictments against businesses that publicly displayed chametz, or leavened bread products, during Pesach last year.”

    I suggest you look at religious law and it’s implementation in Israel. חוקים דתיים

    Public transportation is closed on the Jewish sabbath and stores and businesses are required to close. There was even an attempt to make it illegal to broadcast TV on Saturdays, which was finally shot down in court.

    It has been found illegal to run a business on Saturday. One mall is actually trying to change the law.

    http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/14698/edition_id/286/format/html/displaystory.html

    Matt,

    It is amazing you are not aware of this. Unless, of course, you have never been to Israel on a Saturday.

    I have.

  80. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Matt,

    You write ” They refused to accept that the Zionists simply wanted a state. ”

    How about I come to your house and give you the option of either letting me have part of it or having me take all of it?

    What if I could prove my ancestors lived there 2,000 years ago? Heck, what if I could prove my ancestors lived there 60 years ago? My Sudetenland family would be interested in that concept, they were forced to flee the Red Army at the end of WW2, they had been there for 500 years until 1945.

    Not a good choice is it? Can the Palestinians be blamed for NOT accepting the fact that the world wanted to take their land and give it to people, who if they had ties to the land, had it 2,000 years ago?

    It doesnt matter if it was 10% of Palestine or 75%, it isnt a choice anyone should have to make.

    What right do others have to come and decide to take another people’s land and give it to someone else?

    The answer is none, and there is no way to get past that.

    Palestinian land was taken by outsiders who did not have the right to give or to take it. We cannot go anywhere until that FACT is accepted.

  81. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Joseph,

    During the first intifada the running past time for IDF soldiers was to catch the stone throwers (ie children) and break their arms.

    That didnt go over well, but certainly shows you the brutality of the IDF.

  82. Matt wrote:

    You can’t buy alcohol in many places in the US on a Sunday. I guess we’re not a secular society? The example you cite is perhaps minor and limited – you can buy food that isn’t kosher, yeah? And, perhaps, we can argue for improvement rather than condemning the entire society?

    When I was in high school, there was a movement to move prom to Friday night so people wouldn’t be so tired for church the next morning. They didn’t consider how Friday night was the actual Sabbath for Jews. Not long ago I saw that a Jewish sports team was disqualified from their (high school, I think) league championships because they wouldn’t play on a Friday night. What I think is quite interesting about these, including the examples you point to from Israel, is that there is no such thing as a perfectly multicultural society. The “secular democracy like we have here in the USA” is a bit of a myth. There are very real implications to our society being dominated by Christians.

    Perhaps we can inform the debate by recognizing that the Turkish legal tradition from which much Israeli law stems is designed to accommodate different religious minorities without imposing a state religion. I don’t like the way it encourages ‘plural monoculturalism,’ but it seems to me a valid alternative. In fact, Jews have often preferred to live under such legal systems while minorities, as it allowed them to implement Jewish law within their own communities. And in Israel, there are times when Islamic or Christian law can apply instead of Jewish law. Doesn’t that undermine the image of Israel as a Jewish theocracy?

    Rabbi even decide who is and who isnt an Israeli citizen, again based on Jewish law

    Funny, then, that 20% of the citizens are Arab. You know Israel was the first nation in the world to accept Vietnamese refugees? You know they recently granted citizenship to a number of Sudanese refugees? You know that, separate from the law of return, they have legal immigration like that in any country?

    I’d agree if you were simply arguing for a more multicultural Israel, but you don’t seem to be. While there are plenty of trivial criticisms and plenty of significant criticisms you could legitimately make of Israel, you’re exaggerating here, and I don’t think it’s helpful. It strikes me as one-sided and demonizing.

    How about I come to your house and give you the option of either letting me have part of it or having me take all of it?

    This is a false choice, hidden by an analogy that’s slightly off. The Palestinians’ “house” is not identical to the whole of the land. The house, which unfortunately they don’t have yet, is the state built upon the land. The false choice seems more compelling by disallowing that two states could live next to each other – the two state solution. If any entire people have been denied houses or the possibility of land to build them on, I would consider it an outrage against basic human rights, and I probably would support some sort of land redistribution scheme. (And, indeed, I’m very sympathetic to the Diaspora communities of the Roma and Hmong.) I don’t agree entirely, but it certainly makes me sympathetic to the anarchist notion that all property is theft.

    It doesnt matter if it was 10% of Palestine or 75%, it isnt a choice anyone should have to make…The answer is none, and there is no way to get past that.

    I understand that position, but I disagree. It’s the original sin argument I’ve been arguing against. But, I guess I’ll thank you, since it is something which I think is often not fully acknowledged in the discussion. So would it be fair to say then that you’re ideal solution would be for the Jews to remain stateless while the Palestinians have a state? That seems to me to be the obvious implication, and I find it unacceptable.

  83. Abu Sinan wrote:

    Matt,

    Wow, seldom do I see a person twist and turn things so far to come to a point that they can try to justify.

    I wont address the nonsense links you put between the religious legislation in Israel and proms in local areas of the USA.

    I have no problem with the Jews having a state. It can and must be a shared, secular state with the Palestinians.

    The only real and workable solution is a one state solution with a government body entrench in secular rule of law.

    I reject the idea of religious Hamas state as much as I reject the idea of a religious Jewish state.

    As a matter of fact, I find it a bit obscene to support sectarianism of any kind.

    As long as Israel is set up to support one group of people over another it will remain illegitimate.

  84. Matt wrote:

    I have no problem with the Jews having a state. It can and must be a shared, secular state with the Palestinians.

    But then it’s not “the Jews having a state.” It’s the Jews being, yet again, a minority in a state in which their political power is limited by their minority position. Those two sentences are contradictory.

  85. Maude wrote:

    Could you all please read this article from the Independent, I think it puts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the right framework. The issue is not one of equals fighting it out. And no, I’m not anti-semitic, any more than members of Israeli anti-occupation are.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/this-is-like-apartheid-anc-veterans-visit-west-bank-865063.html