Is this anti-semitism?

i felt that article was somewhat weak, in that it held up some obviously terrible ideas ("ISIS is run by the Israeli secret service") alongside some ideas that maybe deserve more unpacking ("Understanding Hamas and Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important") alongside some that may be wrong but are not obviously wrong ("Israel is a ‘settler-colonialist state’") and just let them all hang there without rebutting one or another, as if to argue through guilt-by-association

I somewhat agree, although some of those arguments depend on context. There is definitely a tendency to speak about Israel in a hyperbolic way that seems to slightly bleed over into antisemitic stereotypes. E g the Salaita tweet about Netanyahu wanting a necklace strung with Palestinian babies heads or something to that effect.

well yeah i agree, there is a lot of stuff like that and it is totally indefensible

But yeah there are a wide range of opinions about Israel on the left and not all of the negative ones coincide with antisemitism of course. And it did feel like the author was using the more egregious ones to avoid the more difficult ones to address.

Man they keep on zinging Judith Butler with that quote and here is what she actually said -- in response to a questioner asking why leftists were hesitant to support Hezbollah just because they're violent. Butler said

"Understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important. That does not stop us from being critical of certain dimensions of both movements. It doesn’t stop those of us who are interested in non-violent politics from raising the question of whether there are other options besides violence."

In other words, she said, "OK, I guess in some sense they're part of the left, but they're a part of the left that sucks really bad because they murder lots of people and you don't have to excuse that or look away from that just because they can be classified as anti-colonialist."

interesting. i figured there was some missing context there.

that's a strange response imo to that article as if to say that Bibi's behavior has any link to what seems like collective psychotic bigotry on the part of very vocal and important institutions on the left.

I'm thinking about the UK here specifically, but I'm wondering which "very vocal and important institutions"? As usual, I see Corbyn gets a kicking, but I'm afraid mentioning Tom Paulin and Alexei Sayle(?!!?) makes it hard to take this article seriously.

alexei sayle is the secret lynchpin of the entire peace process, I've been convinced of that ever since I saw him on room 101

xp tbf, judith butler never says hamas and hezbollah "suck really bad." She says we "shoul not stop us from bwing critical of certain dimensions of both movements."

yeah i don't see how the extra context makes butler's comment any better. why is it "extremely important" to understand hamas and hezbollah as part of the global left and not as the fundamentalist right-wing organizations they self-evidently are? is the rocks + trees hadith that they quote in their charter also part of the global left and just something she tactically disagrees w/? it seems insane to me.

like if they're part of the left then the left is indistinguishable from the right and has zero moral authority. i'd prefer to believe butler is just a self-absorbed imbecile.

I'm thinking about the UK here specifically, but I'm wondering which "very vocal and important institutions"?

Tom, I hope you're right about this. I vacillate between feeling as though these tropes are deeply embedded in the left (and therefore the institutional events + personages collated in this article, and elsewhere, are emblematic of deeper rot) and are marginal phenomena. I was discussing w/ a professor friend last week about the possible relationship between the ongoing disintegration of the academy as a viable, valuable institution and the increased presence of radical left-wing anti-imperialism particularly directed at Israel. My somewhat snarky take was to evoke the trope that nations who expel their Jews are punished w/ decline. (nb this is generally understood as a theological claim in observant Jewish circles but I have read opinions that medieval Jewry was essential for maintaining the liquid flow of the economy due to their overrepresentation in mercantile industries + banking and that when they were occasionally expelled it had a devastating impact on a now one dimensional economy). He turned it around though in I think a much more clear-sighted way - that as the academy declines as a cohesive, intelligible body it opens up a space for radical illiberal organizations to assert themselves. The way he put it: "i think there's an interesting parallel that might justify linking BDS as a symptom of a more general institutional decay of the university system, most of which is deeply and structurally economic. but it has nothing to do with jews." In that case it could very well be both marginal and emblematic.

I was really the word 'important' that threw me.

Mordy there's a tension between your observation that universities are expelling their Jews and the numbers (and percentages) of Jewish faculty today at American universities. (same is true in France btw: disproportionately high). I'd think you'd push back on the question of the link between being Jewish and being "pro-Israel".

Oh I wasn't trying to claim that universities are expelling their Jews, though I have heard from a number of Jewish academics recently that old trends that marginalized Jews in fields like anthropology and women's studies are rearing their ugly heads once again, cf https://www.academia.edu/173261/Anthropological_Perspectives_on_Judaism_A_Comparative_Review:

“[Harvey] Goldberg offers three reasons for this marginalization: (nineteenth-century) focus on ‘primitive’ religions” (and the awkward result of modern Jews refusing to be seen as ‘backwards’ or uncivilized), lack of linguistic or textual skills for the study and interpretation of Jewishtexts, and a scholarly reluctance to deal with the intangibility of Jewish belief over the structure of more objectively observable phenomena, such as inscriptions or behaviors.”

[…]

“Dominguez has argued that Jewish difference somehow remains outside the anthropological purview; Jewish ethnographies have been ‘ghettoized’ as pertinent only to a Judaic studies audience or ‘folkloric’, offering nostalgic views of Jewish tradition and moribund communities (1993). Theorists tend to see Jews and Judaism as a reference point from the past against which to measure current-day dilemmas of Diaspora, minority rights, and integrations….However, as mainstream anthropology increasingly reckons with subjects who are ‘Diasporic’, the Jews are (sometimes) cited dismissively as historical precedents; their relevance is often argued away as they are found to be only one of a number of groups that might now claim such a title (see Clifford 1994).”

and while we can tease a part being Jewish and being "pro-Israel" the fact is that the vast majority of Jews are pro-Israel, and a little more than half the world's Jewish population lives in Israel. despite arguments to the contrary by ppl like Butler it is not so simple to separate out support for a huge piece of worldwide Jewry from being Jewish oneself. anyway it's not so much that they're being expelled but that they've already been marginalized into disciplines like Jewish Studies, and in many cases silenced in the arenas that these debates are being had. janet freedman writing in the forward:

So what did I learn? I learned what I need to keep relearning:

The zeal with which many come to their position on BDS is often in contrast with an awareness of history or a respect for the accuracy of information brought to their advocacy.

The BDS movement is not aimed at resolving differences. Supporters at the conference excoriated Israel, including statements from some that Israel should not be allowed to exist. Palestinians were valorized and any criticism of egregious misdeeds on their part excused as a necessary response to Israeli aggression.

While professing the challenging of interlacing systems of oppression that must be addressed together, anti-Semitism is frequently unseen or excluded. The Jewish invisibility and anti-Semitism within NWSA that led to the formation of a Jewish Caucus in the 1980s continues to exist. In response to this, fewer Jewish women have sustained their commitment to the organization and there is a paucity of sessions on the varied histories, lives, issues and activism of Jewish women.

The voices of Jews and others whose positions are rooted in the right of Israel to exist as a state have been silenced. Following my remarks at the BDS round table, there was just one comment from the audience validating some of my points, but I received many private expressions of support and appreciation for my “courage.” Several people told me it would be damaging to their careers to openly express opposition to the resolution.

it seems to me like the primary victims of academic BDS are left-wing Israeli academics (the very ppl critics of Israel should be aligning w/) and pro-Israel American Jews (faculty + students) who become surrogate targets bc Israel is too far away and too powerful (as a State) to defeat. my friend who teaches jewish philosophy in a jewish studies program is concerned that his classroom will become a battleground for BDS; ultimately Israel cannot be forced to do anything so any kind of political catharsis can only be performed against already marginalized figures in the academy. Israelis for the most part don't care about the AAA - and Jewish voices that might push back against these sorts of resolution are either cowed into silence (as in the Freedman piece) or were already ghettoized into Jewish Studies and therefore aren't even sitting in the Anthro meetings. it's not that the academy as a whole are expelling Jews, but that certain parts of the academy are. that they drape this sort of phenomenon under the guise of left-wing post-colonial activism is just the most perverse part.

Calling Hamas part of the "left" because they're anti western imperialism is a bit of a stretch with or without the violence. I don't think anyone would call American anti-government militias part of the left.

Right like is ISIS part of the global left? It seems so incoherent. The left should be objecting to the things in the West that don't live up to their values but why is fundamentalist resistance in toto to the very source of enlightenment values aligned w leftism?

Mordy there's a tension between your observation that universities are expelling their Jews and the numbers (and percentages) of Jewish faculty today at American universities. (same is true in France btw: disproportionately high). I'd think you'd push back on the question of the link between being Jewish and being "pro-Israel".

― droit au butt (Euler), Thursday, December 10, 2015 11:39 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think the very concept of "pro-Israel" actually needs some interrogation though. Israel is a state that exists and that many Jewish people have ties to. What does "pro-Israel" mean? It seems like the implication of "just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you are pro-Israel" is that there are two camps -- believing Israel should exist or believing Israel should not exist. I would agree with Mordy that the majority of Jews probably believe Israel should exist. I would also doubt that many ethnic/religious groups are ever asked to declare a position on whether an existing state should continue to exist. Many non-Americans have ties to and even affection for America -- they have lived here, they have family here, they have traveled extensively here, worked here, etc. Does that make them pro-Imperialism?

i think love of a nation state does take you into some ambiguous "things you are pro" in general but certainly Israel isn't unique in any regard there

fwiw Mordy i'm in academia (the humanities no less) and not only are there a disproportionate number of jews in my field (and adjacent ones), but i haven't felt an ounce of hostility or 'marginalization.' my experience is certainly not the only one, and i grant that there are some left-wing groupthink anti-'Zionist' reflexes and actions, esp. on the part of the more obviously politicized fields, that are making people rightfully uncomfortable. but i can't help feeling like some of what the articles you have quoted/posted are alleging about academia is hyperbolic. extremely hyperbolic, in fact. kind of akin to all the hemming and hawing (sp?) over the implications 'trigger warnings,' when actually those things are quite rare.

i really don't like the pro-/anti- israel binary. it doesn't clarify my position or, for the most part, anyone else's. insofar as i say that any political resolution to the conflict in the holy land entails admitting that the state of israel isn't going anywhere, i suppose i'm pro-israel. but that's less of a zionist philosophy on my part and more of an acknowledgment of reality.

I hope you're right. Outspoken critics and defenders of Israel are motivated to make the phenomenon seem more prolific than maybe it is so it's hard to tell. xp

I Think that one of the problems with using the colonialism structure to understand Israel is that it obscures that pragmatic fact. If Israel is a "colonial settler state" then just like Algeria or Rhodesia or South Africa we can expect its imminent collapse. But if as is true in reality the people of Israel have nowhere else to go if the State falls apart then that kind of expectation is delusional.

you do know there are colonial settler states that haven't collapsed and are in fact doing quite well? (n.b. i am not trying to make any sort of point wrt Israel with this i just think it's weird to ignore the existence of the Americas)

if you go back far enough though, how many countries are settled by their 'original inhabitants'? i mean it just seems like you're setting yourself up for infinite regress if that is the foundation of your objection to the state of israel....

Yeah I just get a little uncomfortable with the whole "well just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you are pro-Israel" line because the implication seems to be "you COULD be ANTI-Israel." I married a fourth-generation Israeli (i.e. someone whose great grandfather came to Palestine well before it was Israel) and all of her extended family is still there. Am I "pro" their existence? Do I need to be "anti" their existence in order to be cool with the left? I don't ask people whether they are "pro" or "anti" Turkey because of the Kurds.

well sure i mean arguably all states are colonial settler states - part of the function of creating a unified national identity involved either assimilating or outright destroying competitive national identities. this is true all over the world but no less in the middle east where you have a number of arab states despite most of the middle east not being arabia (how did that happen!). but the way that colonial settler is used among anti-colonial leftists doesn't really account for it as a phenomenon beyond the european white colonization of africa, asia, south america, etc, where the US is the ultimate example of successful genocide (and therefore the cautionary tale to be resisted on every level) despite it being too much of a fait accompli in the US to actually suggest boycotting the country u were born in, etc. i mean this is my impression at least. xp

the anti-colonialism of the left is /very/ selective. i've noticed this since i was a teenager.

that's in way of agreement with you btw :)

Yeah I just get a little uncomfortable with the whole "well just because you are Jewish doesn't mean you are pro-Israel" line because the implication seems to be "you COULD be ANTI-Israel."

also too close to "well there are some good jews," which refers to a very tiny minority of actual jews. moreover the implicit suggestion that to be a good person you have to be anti-israel whereas i reject that insinuation entirely. not saying that's what's happening here in this thread but often that's how i understand the use of certain jews (like judith butler) to excuse antisemitism. it can't be antisemitic, after all this jew agrees with me. jews are allowed to support the only jewish state in the world - it's very reasonable and there's nothing immoral about it. after all israel is not actually a settler colonial state, or imperialist, or genocidal etc. if it becomes verboten to support israel, or jews feel uncomfortable supporting it in their departments, that isn't really mitigated by saying that support of israel isn't integral to being jewish. they support israel bc they're jews (among possibly other reasons) so it is ultimately targeting a performance of their identity, and demanding their disaffiliation with coreligionists.

the anti-colonialism of the left is /very/ selective. i've noticed this since i was a teenager.

― wizzz! (amateurist)

this is true and it's very sadly seemingly the result of extremely superficial, violence-based (the centrality of Palestine vis-a-vis a ton of other situations where western allies are shitty to national/ethnic minorities in their territories is def based on the focus brought to palestinian plight by high-profile acts of terrorism), or public relations focused (isn't the dalai lama cute? the beastie boys support Tibet! what's an Uighur?) aspects of various anti-colonial movements

i also think the 'it's not antisemitic to disagree with israeli policies' is a red herring. i'm pretty sure i've made this point on ilx before but no one who is pro-israel is pro every israeli policy. it's impossible for that to be true - like every State there are a variety of govts. Likudniks don't support the elements of govt that aren't Likud. Settlers don't support the elements of the Israeli State that are hostile to the settlements. iirc the majority of israelis aren't fans of the settlements themselves, but they're still pro israel. sometimes the most "pro-israel" pov is the most antagonistic towards the state - ie v right-wing charedi jews who believe the secular state is an abomination that needs to be replaced w/ a theological govt. so what does being anti-israel mean if every pro-israel person disagrees with some israeli policies? presumably it means being against the ongoing existence of israel as a jewish state (as amateurist points out, something absurd to believe since israel is not going anywhere). in fact i haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but there is literally no pressure that can be exerted on israel to become a binational state; if at any time it becomes too difficult israeli govts always reserve the option to unilaterally leave the WB. so some pressure could be provided to end the occupation but anyone trying to end the jewish state of israel does not really understand the circumstances at play. (cf ppl who believe the arabs outlasted the crusaders so they can outwait the jews too)

i'm pretty sure i've made this point on ilx before but no one who is pro-israel is pro every israeli policy. it's impossible for that to be true

that's true but there are some baseline activities that almost every israeli gov't in recent decades has been party to to which a lot of people rightfully (or at least righteously) object.

but i agree with you about the uselessness and insidiously of the anti- / pro-israel dichotomy.

xpost

i mean in the same sense there have been different parties in control of the white house over the past 40 years but there are some baseline assumptions about the projection of american power that never seem to be altered in any fundamental way.

is that true tho? like sharon unilaterally withdrew from gaza as recently as 2005. olmert offered a deal in 2008, etc. i guess you could say that bibi + olmert + sharon all shared the same mission -to keep israel a jewish state - but had different strategies for going about doing it. but then the opposition is to the fact that israel is a jewish state and not just a disagreement w/ tactics.

maybe i'm just not sufficiently up on the intricacies of israeli politics

but haven't the jewish settlements in the west bank -- which seem to me a violation of good faith with the palestinians -- basically been countenanced (and mostly expanding) under all these various administrations?

this is what haaretz said:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday that the number of West Bank settlers has grown by about 120,000 since he took office in 2009.

But while the number is correct, the reason has little to do with the pace of construction in the settlements during his tenure. In fact, since Netanyahu became prime minister in 2009, there has been less construction activity in the settlements than under any other prime minister since 1995.

Netanyahu made his statement during an internal meeting on Tuesday, in an effort to rebuff growing criticism from the right. A recording of his remarks was obtained later by Michal Shemesh, a reporter for Army Radio.

“The left accuses us that from 280,000 [settlers] we’ve risen to 400,000, and that was during years when we were told that official U.S. policy was not even one house,” Netanyahu can be heard to say. “Praise God, this isn’t far from the truth. It’s the biggest increase in our world.”

This increase, however, isn’t because Netanyahu has gone on a building spree. According to data from the Housing and Construction Ministry, an average of 1,554 houses a year were built in the settlements from 2009 to 2014 — fewer than under any of his recent predecessors.

By comparison, the annual average was 1,881 under Ariel Sharon and 1,774 under Ehud Olmert. As for Ehud Barak, during his single full year as prime minister, in 2000, he built a whopping 5,000 homes in the settlements.

The current rate is also only about half the pace of settlement construction during Netanyahu’s first term of office, in 1996-99, when it averaged almost 3,000 homes a year.

So why has the number of settlers increased so sharply? Due to natural growth, especially in the two ultra-Orthodox towns of Betar Ilit and Modi’in Ilit. According to the Central Bureau of Statistics, the fertility rate in the settlements is 5.01 children per woman, which is far higher than anywhere else in Israel. In the northern district, which ranks second, the fertility rate is just 3.91 children per woman.

Thus in 2013, for instance, 12,129 children were born in the settlements and only 535 people died. This is also a very low death rate, which stems from the fact that the settler population is relatively young.

The statistics bureau’s data also shows that 74 percent of the growth in the number of settlers from 2009-2014 stemmed from natural increase. In 2014, for instance, the number of settlers rose by 14,200.

Of these, 11,800, or 83 percent of the growth, was a result of natural increase (births minus deaths) and only 2,400 the result of net migration to the settlements. In 2012, by contrast, natural increase accounted for only 68 percent of the total increase in the number of settlers.

in terms of new settlements (as opposed to housing in old ones) from what i understand there have been virtually no new ones (3 total?) approved in ~20+ years. nb that article is from 2014 so that figure might've changed. nb there are illegal non-govt sanctioned hill top settlements that do go up.

but you're kind of making my point, actually. under the center-left gov'ts, settlements were built. under netanyahu, they may not be built, but they are becoming more deeply entrenched.

so the point is that people rightfully object, not just to the policies of netanyahu and other rightists, but to what might be said to be the overall policy of the israeli government regardless of its position on the political spectrum -- which is to ensure that the the jewish settlements are deeply entrenched.

i hear, tho tbph i don't consider boycotts against the settlements to be remotely the same as boycotts against israel in toto (even tho i don't support either boycott personally)

sorry i forgot that i repeated that phrase!

the point is that israeli governments both 'left' and 'right' are complicit in something that many people (including many israelis!) view as evidence of bad faith vis-à-vis the palestinians (and vis-à-vis many international agreements as well).

xpost

but if you view israeli gov't as fundamentally complicit in the settlements then i can see how you could easily want to extend the boycott to israel as a whole

Ok I don't know anything about academic anthropology. in my area there are so many Jewish scholars that one of them once told me I was Jewish in an honorary way just by working in the area.

btw I'm writing this from Toulouse which feels ironically apt

anyway, the pt is that you can even oppose the settlements and still be "pro-israel" - the only issue is when you believe the entire israel is a settlement (aka the 1948 occupation pov) that needs to be dismantled xp

yup

I guess I also don't like saying "pro-Israel" because I'm not one of those people who goes to Israel day parades and waves flags. I don't buy Israel bonds or give money to the JNF or send pizza to IDF soldiers or whatever. In college I refused to go on a Birthright trip because I objected to the implications of the name. I also detest the current admin and the general direction Israeli politics has been going in. But I also would never use the term "anti-Israel" or "anti-Zionist" to describe myself, and I can't quite get comfortable with "post-Zionism" as a remotely realistic mode of approaching things. I would maybe say I'm zionist-sympathetic and even admittedly slightly biased toward Israel, but generally with a left-liberal slant. The rhetorical strategy of the Palestinian movement seems to be to try to put people like me in a bind -- choose a side, theirs or ours. You're either a good one or a bad one. TBF, right-wingers often do the same to liberal Jews from the other side.

Friend who spent her 20s in London and then moved back to Tel Aviv has commented recently that she is sick of seeing both sides in the conflict totally manipulated into endless warfare by international munitions companies, etc.

choose a side, theirs or ours. You're either a good one or a bad one. TBF, right-wingers often do the same to liberal Jews from the other side.

Speaking of which:

The president wrote back, admitting that he was embarrassed, to inform me that when he brought this to the shul committee concern unexpectedly arose. Trying to justify what he was about to tell me, he joked: “Because we are a synagogue … we have to be arguing about you coming to speak. The argument goes something like this … ”

Then he got to the point. Some people in the meeting, he explained, said that since “he appears on MSNBC and CNN, he is clearly J Street,”

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/195443/closing-american-jewish-mind