Culture, Identity, Israel, Politics

I can be an anti-Zionist, Abe Foxman told me so

For many days now, I’ve been reconsidering the position of Diaspora Jewish left viz a viz the powerlessness we think we suffer on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The word “occupation” was unforgiveable just a decade ago and the two-state solution is now the accepted solution to the conflict. In the past 28 years, the Jewish community has blossomed with mainstream peace voices: Americans for Peace Now (1981), the Israel Policy Forum (1993), Brit Tzedek v’Shalom (2002), and J Street (2008), not to mention many blogs. And now Obama invited all four to the big kids’ table.
We have come a long way. There is reason to celebrate.
But there is even more to celebrate if one listened to Abraham Foxman, Bret Stephens and Oren Rudavsky at last night’s 92nd St Y panel “Why Zionism Has Become a Dirty Word.” There sat three giant voices of Israel defense and Zionism apologetics, lamenting endlessly the deterioration of the Zionist movement and how few American Jews support Israel. There is a dearth of “proud Zionists” and it’s “a failure of PR” that Israel isn’t better received, they said. Had I not attended tonight’s sorrowfest (hat tip to EV and his friend) I would have drank a beer at home while morosely blogging anti-occupation screeds. Instead, I see now that my side — nuance, compromise, moral consistency — is winning.
First, Abe Foxman gave me permission to be an anti-Zionist. So long as I was against all nationalisms, I wasn’t an anti-Semite, he said. Whew! Since my Z-word feelings are ambivalent at best, that was *such* a weight off.
And Bret Stephens stopped Abe Foxman from painting all Arab societies with the same brush to correct him that Arab mothers actually *do* love their children more than they hate Jews. The terrorists are brilliant, evil men who prey on social outcasts and the manipulateable, not a whole society whose mothers thwart biology by sending their babies to die. Oh my, what a concession! My heart was aflutter. Stephens, why, I never knew!
Oren Rudavsky was the relative dove on the panel. When Foxman and Stephens finished saying the global community is more hostile to Israel than ever before, Rudavsky stepped in to correct them that Israel has treaties with Egypt and Jordan Lebanon, the Saudis have put forward peace proposals that don’t call for the destruction of Israel, and if one recalls the world and Arab presence at Yitzak Rabin’s funeral, then Israel has come a huge way since 1967 where diplomatic ties were zilch. Oh, baby. Say it again, Oren, say it again.
But here I was about to say the right-wing are really just disappointed peaceniks. But then I realized that shouldn’t be led astray by seductive words. (I would never be forgiven for making out with Abe. Never.)
Theirs was the worldview that is so easily charicatured for the community at large. Certainly not what every individual thinks, but the view put forward by official papers, communal statements, and in Hebrew schools. So let’s review the highlights of this worldview:

  • It is “corosive” to Zionism for a group of high profile Jews (Amira Haas, Gidon Levy, Tony Kushner were named specifically) to tear down Israel on a regular basis.
  • “Haaretz has a problem with what Zionism is all about.”
  • “Most anti-Zionists exist because Jews have given them the permission to exist” such as Walt and Meirsheimer, by fine hashing nuances between anti-Zionism, -Semitism and -Israelism.
  • “Why is racism a dirty word? Because the black community stood up against coded racist messages” and yet Jews are too weak to let anti-Zionism become the same. ” ‘You’re an Uncle Tom’ is a very useful phrase!”
  • Messianic Zionists (like Baruch Goldstein or the IDF rabbis recently) are not responsible for the discomfort in the Jewish community around the Z-word. “The objection is really with Zionism itself.”
  • Nationalisms are exclusive, they’re selective in how they define their citizens, and “you could call them racist.” If you are against all nationalisms, then being an anti-Zionist is not anti-Semitic. In all other cases, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.

So followed their “Israel isn’t at fault” and “it’s the liberal conspiracy to undermine Jews” line, to finally crescendo with this very well crafted question by the moderator, paraphrased:

To most of the world, Israel wasn’t born in 1948 or in 1967. Israel was born in 1982 after the Lebanon War as a superpower. They’ve ignored the history because the plucky Israel of ’67 or Antebe is now a superpower that subjugates the Arab world and occupies another country.

Was it too much to hope they would just agree that’s part of the problem? I held my breath. But Stephens claimed it was the failure of the Left and Foxman claimed it was a tidal wave of anti-Semitism. The panelists avoided the obvious answer, the one closer to reality: the occupation is wrong, it breeds death and hatred, it prevents badly needed regional stability, and it gives Zionism, Israel and Jews a detestible name.
Most other young Jewish communal employees like me (who you’d think would have the utmost patriotism) cannot stomach using the Z-word for fear of inheriting it’s uglier meanings. In particular, I cannot excitedly endorse Zionism when spokespeople like Foxman fail moral leadership by resisting calling the Armenian genocide for what it is, or using the Darfurian genocide cynically as rhetorical tool to take focus away from the Israel. No, Abe, I am glad that your brand of Zionism is fading. It’s a shame you took the whole label down with you. But that’s not my problem; it’s yours, Abe.
The panelists dismiss how much their views already dominate the community, despite meaningful change in the past 28 years. The composition of the conflict conversation is changing for the better — but we’re not there yet. So as we recognize the growth we’re enjoying, it’s still necessary to slap people awake from the drowsy platitudes of Foxman, Stephens and to a lesser extent Rudavsky to say: It’s the occupation, stupids.
X-posted to Judaism Without Borders.

10 thoughts on “I can be an anti-Zionist, Abe Foxman told me so

  1. 1) “I see now that my side — nuance, compromise, moral consistency — is winning.”
    Does this mean that anybody who disagrees with KFJ’s political outlook is banal, confrontational, and amoral?
    2) There was a treaty with Lebanon, btw (albiet barely.)

  2. Amen, brother Ben. I congratulate you for being able to sit through such a discussion, though I could have done without the making out with Abe imagery.

  3. 1) There’s a lot you can disagree with me about, so the answer isn’t automatically a yes. I was referring more to the panelists specifically.
    2) Which one?

  4. Jonathan-
    Lebanon still does not recognize the State of Israel, and they recently said they will not do so until Syria does. Which could be soon if Israel recognizes all of the diplomatic gestures Syria is making right now towards both Israel and the US

  5. 1) Fair enough, KFJ, although maybe it would change the tenor of your post(s) if you were a bit more explicit about this?
    2) Justin–it’s a bit of forgotten Middle East trivia that in 1982 Lebanese President-Elect Gemayel signed (announced?)an agreement with the Israeli government, stipulating that Lebanon and Israel would begin establishing diplomatic ties once Gemayel became President. Of course, Gemayel was assasinated by the Syrians a few weeks later, and that agreement ended in the dustpan. But, technicaly speaking, Lebanon was the second country to make peace with Israel, however briefly….
    How it’s become a progressive position that Israel should help the Assad regime permanently occupy Lebanon is something I’ll never understand, however.

  6. the agreement you mentioned was never ratified by the Lebanese government, therefore it never took effect. Also, Syria withdrew all troops and secret police from Lebanon a few years ago. Lebanon is still dependent on Syrian economic infrastructure since there country has been all but destroyed by various Israeli military campaigns and a heavy handed Syrian occupation force. So, while the treaty was negotiated and signed by both teams, it never took effect and Israel and Lebanon never ended their state of war.
    It’s not that it is a “progressive” position to support Syrian occupation of Lebanon, it is a peaceful position to support Israel having signed peace treaties and normative relations with all of its neighbors. The issue is that Israel has no right to meddle in Lebanese or Syrian politics. Syria and Lebanon’s relationship is for Syria and Lebanon to work out and if Lebanon wants to wait for Syria to make peace with Israel before they do, that’s their prerogative.

  7. I’m not sure what we’re arguing about. Lebanon and Israel never had a genuine agreement, I was just pointing out a bit of trivia.
    You are correct that Syria withdrew from Lebanon in 2005, under emence international pressure caused by its assasination of Rafiq Hariri. What has happened since then, other than continued postponement of the international tribunal on that assasination?:
    “With the combined power of Hezbollah, pro-Syrian militias, local Sunni Jihadists, and pro-Iranian Palestinians, Syria destabilized the Lebanese government of Fouad Seniora in 2005. A series of Syrian-sponsored assassinations—political activists, journalists, Lebanese army officials, and legislators Gebran Tueni, Walid Eido, Antoine Ghanem, and Pierre Gemayel—all but crippled the Cedars Revolution…The Iranian-backed Hezbollah, aided by Syrian intelligence, also launched an invasion of the Sunni segment of Beirut and another attack against a Druze mountain enclave. In the subsequent Qatar-mediated agreement with Lebanese reformers in May 2008, Damascus secured the provisions that Hezbollah would retain its weapons, and that a pro-Syrian contingent would join the Lebanese cabinet. Thus, through proxies and allies, Assad is back in Beirut.” (from an article by Walid Phares.)
    Supporting an Israeli-Syria treaty is not a peaceful position. Those in Israel who support such a deal–which seems inevitable now–do so out of geopolitical considerations. Barak and Ashkenazi talk about pulling Syria from the Iranian and into the US camp, and reducing Hizollah’s influence in Lebanon. From as far back as Rabin, the Syrian-deal advocates have always acknowledged that a Syria deal will grant de facto Syrian control over Lebanon. If you’re arguing for a Syrian deal for Barak’s reasons, fair enough, but if you’re arguing that it’s normative to allow Syria to control Lebanon, I can’t agree.
    “Syria and Lebanon’s relationship is for Syria and Lebanon to work out…”
    Really? Maybe that’s what we should tell the world–Stop meddling in our affairs. Israel and Palestinians’ relationship is for Israelis and Palestinians to work out. No doubt that without any pressure from Western governments–and Diaspora Jews–the Israeli government would be jumping at the chance to free Palestine!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.