Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism

The essay

Motivation

Rosenfeld describes his motivation for writing an interview in the CampusJ blog:

Over the last few years I’ve been focusing on anti-Semitism in my research on this day. Jews, especially Jews on the radical Left. I wanted to document and try to explain their words, which struck me as often being extreme. ^[4]

Rosenfeld explained his motivation to the New York Times saying he “wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is resurgent, Jews thinking the way they’re thinking is feeding into a very nasty cause. West Bank or Palestinians’ treatment is, in itself, not anti-Semitic, [Rosenfeld] writes; it is questioning Israel’s right to exist that crosses the line. ” ^[3]

Specific criticisms by Rosenfeld

Richard Cohen

Rosenfeld criticized Richard Cohen for writing in a Washington Post column that “The greatest mistake” The idea of ​​creating a nation of European Jews in an area of ​​Arab Muslims (and Some Christians) hAS Produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the fate we are seeing now …. Its great MOST enemy is history Itself, “and for writing That” There is no spot in blaming Hezbollah “During the summer 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War . ^[5]

Daniel Boyarin

Rosenfeld quoted Daniel Boyarin with disapproval for having written: “Just as Christianity may have died at Auschwitz , Treblinka and Sobibor … so I fear that my Judaism may be dying at Nablus , Deheishe, Beteen (Beth-El) and El-Khalil ( Hebron ). ” ^[6] Rosenfeld accuses Boyarin of lacking “lucid thinking” as “bias” for having drawn an analogy between the Nazi Holocaust and the Israeli government’s conduct towards the Palestinians . ^[6]

Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers

Rosenfeld wrote, “The Israel that emerges in [the book] Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers – a country characterised as ‘amoral’, ‘barbaric’, ‘brutal’, ‘destructive’, ‘fascistic’, ‘oppressive’, ‘racist’ , ‘sordid’, and ‘uncivilized’ – is indistinguishable from the country often denounced by the most impassioned anti-semites. ” ^[7] Rosenfeld derides the subject of the book for “not driven by anything remotely like reasoned historical analysis, but rather by a complex range of psychological and political motives that subvert reason and replace it with something akin to hysteria”.

The New York Times story

While the essay was released in 2006, it did not attract mainstream attention until it was covered in a January 2007 New York Times piece by Patricia Cohen. ^[3]

Cohen wrote that Rosenfeld’s “essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from one-time allies and respected figures” and goes on to note, “bitter debates over anti-Israel statements and antisemitism have been adopted by officials, academics, opinion-makers and others over the past year, especially since fervent supporters and tough critics of Israel can be found on the right and the left”. ^[3] In addition, Cohen devoted significant column to the angry reactions of many people named by Rosenfeld in his essay. ^[3]

The New York Times quoted Richard Cohen saying, “the essay cherry-picked quotations.” [Rosenfeld] mischaracterized what I wrote, [Richard Cohen] said, “I’ve been critical of Israel at times, but I’ve always been a defender of Israel. ‘ He Did add, HOWEVER, That a wide-range of writers Were named, some of Whom-have written inflammatory words about Israel. ‘He Has me in a very strange neighborhood. ” ^[3]

Tony Judt described to the New York Times that he believed in the reality of outspoken denunciations of him and others was to stifle their harsh criticism of Israel and his treatment of the Palestinians . ^[3] ” ‘The link entre anti-Zionismand anti-Semitism is newly created, [Judt] Said, Adding That he fears’ the two will Have Become so conflated in the minds of the world’ that references to antisemitism and the Holocaust will come to be seen as ‘just a political defense of Israeli policy’. ” ^[3] Judt stated that he “[does not] know anyone in a respectable range of opinion who thinks Israel should not exist”; The New York Times noted that his advocacy for a binational solution to Israel-Palestinian conflictis seen by many Israel as equivalent to dissolving Israel. ^[3]

The New York Times also queried Tony Kushner for his reaction. ” ‘Most Jews like me find this a very painful subject,’ Mr. Kushner Said, and are aware of the rise in vicious anti-Semitism around the world aim feel ‘it’s Morally incumbent upon us to articulate issues and reservations.” ^{[ 3]}

The original article in The New York Times describes the American Jewish Committee , the organization that released the essay, as a ” conservative advocacy group “. ^[3] The AJC promptly contested this characterization, which others did as well. ^[4] [8] In response, the newspaper issued a correction making that “[the AJC’s] stance on issues ranges across the political spectrum; it is not ‘conservative’.” ^[3]

Alvin Rosenfeld was highly critical of the New York Times ‘ coverage, alleging that the article was misleading and incorrectly framed his argument, ^[4] [9] the mischaracterization of the AJC was just one example. The mischaracterization, according to Rosenfeld, also including the title of the article, which describes the targets of his critical essay as ‘Liberal Jews’ when, Rosenfeld wrote, “I never referred to liberal Jews, if you read my piece ‘t find the sentence. ” ^[4] Gershom Gorenberg concurs with this criticism writing that the “essay itself refers to ‘progressive’, a group that overlaps with liberals but is not synonymous”.The misleading coverage, Rosenfeld wrote, “reduced my argument to a kind of Left-Right, Conservative-Liberal face off” and led to many people misreading the essay. ^[4] [9]

Other news coverage

In early February 2007, Stacey Palevsky observed, in a report for the j. the Jewish news weekly from Northern California , “Everyone seems to be talking about it”: ^[10]

Journalists and Jews are all trying to figure it out – when does Israel evolve from legitimate to anti-Semitic? Why are progressive, liberal organizations, more tolerant of anti-Zionist language and actions? What does the new anti-Semitism mean for Jews and for the Jewish state? And are Jews contributing to anti-Semitic rhetoric? Or is such a charge contrary to the Jewish tradition of freethinking? ^[10]

Ben Harris, in the late February 2007 report for j. the Jewish news weekly from Northern California , wrote “The Jewish Party is a place where it is a reality.” it is immoral to remain silent in the face of what they see as Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. ” Harris quotes Philip Weiss : “Things are changing …. My perception is that the Jewish community, the Jewish progressives, are feeling licensed and rising up.” Weiss Himself notes two recent developments: the launch by Jewish Voice for the Peace of the Muzzlewatch Project dedicated to chronicling the alleged suppression of criticism of Israel ,to a free Jewish group from a national pro-Israel alliance. ^[11]

Rebecca Spence wrote in The Forward That There Was a similar Ongoing debate in the UK, Where, “Saying That Britain’s mainstream Jewish groups-have stifled a free discourse is Israeli policies, about 130 Generally leftist Jews-have FORMED Their Own group, Independent Jewish Voices . ” ^[12]

Other responses

Praise and support

Shulamit Reinharz wrote in a column for the Jewish Advocate , “Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites.” But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to Endanger Jews. ” ^[3] [13]

Gil Troy wrote an opinion article in New York ‘s The Jewish Week praising the essay and criticizing its critics:

Finally, rather than treating the problem as an issue of a painful, complex issue, the AJC of stifling the debate. Such hysteria makes intellectuals look spoiled, thin-skinned and brittle. Best-selling authors like Noam Chomsky or billionaires like George Sorosritualistically applaud their own bravery and claim they are lonely voices when joining the trendy intellectual pile-on against Israel. How it is that people who viciously criticize Israel and Zionism, who reads the Jewish world about tolerating various opinions, suddenly can not stomach vigorous debate when they are criticized? Nothing in the AJC essay advocates hate laws, suppressing free speech, shunning, or any other intimidation. Professor Rosenfeld did what we are supposed to do – identify, catalog, analyze, explain, and challenge. ^[14]

Lee Adlerstein wrote an opinion article for The Forward titled “Alvin Rosenfeld Is Right About Liberals And The Jewish State”:

People should have a right to criticize Israel, even harshly, including challenging their right to exist. There must be robust debate about the wisdom of Israel’s policies, and there is much to criticize.

However, this is not a normal time and we are not allowed to ignore reality. Searing criticism rightly branded as delegitimization of Israel is truly dangerous, all the more painfully so when it comes from Jews. The community, given its own right of expression, should decry defamations of this kind.

For commentators with a public audience to delegitimize Israel at this time is hurtful, undermines existing need support and, at least in that manner, encourages Israel’s enemies. Alvin Rosenfeld has done. ^[15]

David Harris was happy with the reaction: “The individuals Rosenfeld mentions are on the political fringes in asserting that Israel has no right to exist and should be destroyed or morphed into a so-called binational state, which means the end of Israel as we know it. ” ^[16]

Jonathan Tobin wrote in the Jewish World Review that “Rosenfeld is careful to specify that questioning policies of Israeli governments is not the same as being anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic.” But he has the bad manners to point out that those who aggressively question Israel’s right to have any government or to defend itself, at best, unwilling allies of a growing anti-Jewish movement …. For this, Rosenfeld and his sponsors at AJC have been treated to the fate of public tar and feathering that is usually reserved for the troglodyte denizens of the far-right. ” ^[17]Tobin concludes “In recent years, it is the supporters of Israel who are becoming pariahs in intellectual circles, not its critics.” For all the talk of “martyrdom” on the part of people like Tony Judt, the fact is, they have not suffered one bit for pot shots at Israel where they stand for Zion, where do we want to know where we are headed? No longer possible to identify a Jew without any disavigation any support for Israel. ” ^[17]

Edward Alexander wrote in the New York Post in support of: “When people like NYU’s Tony Judt, the most vociferous and self-righteous of Rosenfeld’s critics, issue their monthly calls for politicide in Israel, which they demonize as the sole ‘anachronistic’ state in an otherwise progressive multicultural world, do not they sense, even subconsciously, a potential kinship with the genocidally inclined (and not-at-all progressive) president of Iran ? In law, such kinship is called ‘ accessory to murder ‘. ” ^[18]

Criticism

Patricia Cohen noted similarities between Rosenfeld’s essay and what Alan Wolfe calls “Jewish Illiberalism”, ^[19] which “traces the heated language to increase opposition to the Iraq war and President Bush’s policy in the Middle East, which [according to Wolfe] had spurred Jews to become more outspoken about Israel “. Wolfe stated, “Events in the world have sharpened a sense of what’s at stake.” Wolfe claimed that Israel was “more isolated than ever”, with the effect of “American Jewish defenders of Israel to become more aggressive”. ^[3]

Richard Cohen responded via his regular Washington Post Column published on February 6, 2007. ^[12] Cohen noted that he has more than 90 columns to condemning antisemitism since he started as a columnist in 1976, “most of them full-throated condemnations of . the hatred That killed fully one-third of all Jews During my lifetime So it comes as a surprise That has the strength of a mugging to be accusé of aiding the very people I so hate – of being white year abettor of something called Expired The New Anti -Semitism . ” ^[12] [20]Cohen wrote that the report “has given license to the most intolerant and narrow-minded of Israel’s defenders so, that the AJC concedes in my case, any veering from orthodoxy is met with censorship or, from someone like Reinharz, the most powerful of all post-Holocaust condemnations – anti-Semite – is diluted beyond recognition.The offense is relatively unimportant writers, but to memory itself. ” ^[20]

Douglas Rushkoff responded to the essay on his blog on January 1, 2007, stating, “In their new whitepaper, [The American Jewish Committee] blame [s] ‘progressive Jews’, and yours truly by name, for promoting the extinction of the In their opinion, it is their racist and triumphalist stance that represents the antithesis of the Mosaic insights – and the greatest threat to what it was. ^[21]

Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum said, “I think it’s a hodge-podge …. I’m not sure how to make this discourse or debate. targeting it this way? ” ^[5]

In The Washington Post , Susan Jacoby wrote, “This is in fact a sign que la American Jewish right is afraid That it is losing ground dans le Jewish community in Their political alliance with the. Christian Right over all issues related to Israel – forged, Ironically, because Protestant fundamentalists look at Israel as the place where Jesus will return on Judgment Day – ultra-conservative Jews have broken with the best Jewish traditions of social consciousness and conscience. socially compassionate part of the Jewish past to their politics, they are promulgating the idea that liberal Jews, Jews who are any questions about Israeli policies, are bad Jews. “^[22]

On January 7, 2007, Daniel Sieradski appeared on Beyond the Pale , a progressive Jewish radio program that airs on Pacifica Radio , along with Esther Kaplan and Sara Roy , both of which are mentioned in the report, to discuss both its alleged inaccuracies and perceived hostilities towards the progressive Jewish community. ^[23]

Also in response to the essay, Michael Lerner wrote, “instead of seriously engaging with the issues raised (eg, to what extent are they not?), The Jewish establishment and media Knowing this, many people become fearful that they will be labeled as ‘anti-Semitic’ if they do not respond to the criticism of the world. they question the wisdom of Israeli policies or if they seek to organize politically to challenge those policies. ”

“The Jewish establishment has turned Judaism into a cheer-leading religion for a national state that has a lot of Jews, but has seriously lost sight of the Jewish values ​​which early Zionists hoped would find there.” ^[24] Lerner warns, “When this bubble of repression of dialogue has been opened up to the way of Jewish political correctness has been imposed, it can really yield a new anti-Semitism. The politics of politics and the politics of politics in the media ^[24]

Rabbi Arthur Waskow Said That far from Enabling antisemitism, Most of the authors the AJC attacked This ( Tony Kushner , Adrienne Rich , and Daniel Boyarin , Among Others) are in fact major contributors to the renewal and revitalization of Jewish culture, cutting across the conventional Jewish diasporaand religious-secular divides. He holds that Rosenfeld and the AJC see no value in such contributions because they see the state of Israel. He also argued that the AJC has done more to undermine Israel and its Jewishness than the questions raised by these intellectuals, by the AJC’s support for some specific policy decisions by the US and Israeli governments: especially the Iraq War , which has increased dangers to Israel, and the settlement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Jews. ^[25]

Rosenfeld’s response

Rosenfeld responded to his criticism via a piece published in The New Republic ^[9] and in an interview published on the CampusJ blog. ^[4]

He wrote that many of his critics mischaracterize the argument he puts forth in his essay in a manner similar to what Rosenfeld wrote was an erroneous portrayal in The New York Times . He explains: “Since I never once referred to ‘liberalism’, called no one ‘Jewish anti-Semite’ or ‘ self-hating Jew ‘, said nothing about Democrats or the Iraq war, and made no attempt to ‘silence’ anyone This Kafka esque bill of indictment makes me wonder what is it? – illiteracy, dishonesty, or worse? As Bret Stephens recently put it, ‘How does joining a debate become an effort to suppress it?’ ^[9] Rosenfeld denied it, stating that, “Nobody’s being silenced ….to talk about silencing, this debate in fact is evidence of a robust and open discussion “. ^[4]

Rosenfeld argued that there was a ” dialectical scam” among the far-left critics of Israel:

The ubiquitous rubric “criticism of Israel”, however, has also come to designate another kind of discourse-one that has almost become a politico-rhetorical genre unto itself, with its own identifiable vocabulary, narrative conventions, and predictable outcomes. Bernard Harrison calls a “dialectical scam”. It goes something like this: (1) An Israeli action that can serve the ground of “criticism of Israel” (eg, Israel’s military incursion into the area near Jenin in April 2002 in response to Palestinian terrorist massacres); (2) Then “dissent” in the strongest possible terms, for instance by likening the “razing of Jenin” to the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto, while anticipating that “powerful” and “repressive” Jewish institutions will try to “silence” the critics by calling them anti-Semites; (3) When taken over by the subject of “the razing of Jenin” and that the IDF has nothing in common with the SS, cry “foul” and claim that they are really censored by the fact that they have a Jewish organizational conspiracy to silence “criticism of Israel” by branding the authors of such “anti-Semitism”.

For some, this dialectical scam works nicely and validates their sense of themselves as intellectual martyrs suffering for a higher ideological cause. Once again, however, the scam relies on what it actually is: political bias, compounded by a touch of hysteria, masquerading as victimization. Thus, when a tiny political group calling itself “Jewish Voice for Peace” sets out to track “a growing epidemic of intimidation and harassment of fellow Jews seeking to stifle open debate over America’s policy toward Israel”, it can hardly be expected to be taken gravement. ^[9]

Mixed responses

Gershom Gorenberg of the American Prospect praised Rosenfeld’s idea, but criticized the delivery and organization as “sloppy”:

Rosenfeld ‘s own sloppiness hurts him. While attacking vituperative opponents of Israel who call themselves “progressive”, he identifies their views with all who call themselves progressive – rather like letting James Dobson define what “Christian” means. He fires the shotgun of his criticism at such a wide flock of writers that his reader can wonder where he is aiming. Does The Washington Post ‘ s pro-Israel columnist Richard Cohen really belong to the species as Sami Ideological Those Who accuses Israel of genocide?

The blurriness is a shame, because Rosenfeld has a legitimate argument. He explicitly rejects the view that any attack on Israeli policy equals anti-Semitism. Rather, their destination is those who reject the very existence of a Jewish state, and who express their opposition in shrieking that they equate Israel with the Nazis. ^[8]

John Judis , a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , wrote:

There is a paradox that haunts these charges of anti-Semitism. On the one hand, Rosenfeld, Harris, and others want to deny That American Jews and American Jewish organisms like AIPAC [ American Israel Public Affairs Committee ] Suffer from dual loyalty in try trying to affect US foreign policy. It’s anti-Semitic or anti-Semitism, they say, to make that charge. On the other hand, they want to ask the American Jewish intellectuals for certain loyalty to Israel, Israeli policies, and Zionism as part of their being Jewish. They make dual loyalty an inescapable part of being Jewish in a world in which a Jewish state exists. And that’s probably the case. Many Jews now suffer from dual loyalty – the same way that Cuban-Americans goldMexican-Americans do. By ignoring this dilemma – and, worse still, by charging those who acknowledge its existence with anti-Semitism – the critics of the new anti-Semitism are engaged in their own political selves. ^[26]

See also

• Jewish left
• The Left’s Jewish Problem , a 2016 book by Dave Rich about the British Left

Further reading

Interviews

• Ben Greenberg. “Interview With Alvin Rosenfeld” . CampusJ . March 2, 2007.
• Bob Garfield , Brooke Gladstone , JJ Goldberg . “Transcript: A Zion in the Sand” . NPR On The Media . February 16, 2007.

Essays

• Alvin H. Rosenfeld. “Progressive ‘Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” . American Jewish Committee . 2006.
• Shaul Magid and Paul Bogdanor. “Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Boundaries of Dissent: Round 2 of the Alvin Rosenfeld Debate” , Zeek , April 2007.
• Alvin H. Rosenfeld. “Modern Jewish Intellectual Failure: A Brief History”, in The Jewish Divide Over Israel: Accusers and Defenders , ed. Edward Alexander and Paul Bogdanor, Transaction Publishers, 2006, pp. 7-32.
• Alan Wolfe . “Free Speech, Israel, and Jewish Illiberalism” . The Chronicle of Higher Education . November 17, 2006.
• George Soros . “On Israel, American and AIPAC” . New York Review of Books . April 12, 2007.
• Shalom Freedman . “Rosenfeld is Right” Jewish Political Studies Review 19: 1-2, March 1, 2007.
• Melanie Kaye / Kantrowitz “Some Notes on Anti-Semitism from a Progressive Jewish Perspective” . Jewish Currents March 2007.

Further media coverage

• Alvin Rosenfeld. “Rhetorical violence and the Jews” The New Republic .
• Joe Lanzmann. “Are you a liberal anti-Semite?” Slate . February 2, 2007.
• Stanley Kutler . “On Jewish critics of Israel” . The Boston Globe . February 7, 2007.
• Jack Gilden. “Hey, Lefty” . Baltimore Jewish Times . February 9, 2007. ^{[ dead link ]}
• Gaby Wood. “The new Jewish question” . The Observer . February 11, 2007.
• Ira Youdovin. “Is Community Open to Critics of Zionism?” . The Forward . February 23, 2007.
• “Alvin Rosenfeld Is Right About Liberals And The Jewish State” . The Forward . March 16, 2007.
• Emanuele Ottolenghi . “News from the Continent: False Prophets” . Commentary . February 19, 2007.
• “The Jewish Grassroots Revolt” . ( Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians ), Canadian Dimension . February 19, 2007.
• Larry Lowenthal. “Uproar over recent essay” . Commentary . February 28, 2007.
• Hillel Halkin . “‘Progressive’ Critics of Israel” . Commentary . February 28, 2007.
• Esther Jungreis . “Rebbetzin’s Viewpoint: Purim Replay” . The Jewish Press . February 28, 2007.

References