Henry Herskovitz – Will IJAN Challenge Jewish Power?
By Guest Post • Mar 20th, 2010 at 8:27 • Category: Analysis, Internet and Communication, Israel, Newswire, Opinions and Letters, Palestine, Religion, Zionism
Below is the analysis of Henry Herskovitz (with Michelle J. Kinnucan) of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends to a recent op-ed by Rebecca Tumposky on the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN).
There are many problems with IJAN, which lead me to doubt the purposes of the group. I first question whether they are a Palestinian solidarity group or yet another group that seeks to shield and preserve Jewish power both in Palestine and in the U.S.
In this writer's opinion, Jews – if they are acting in a group that represents Jews in the peace movement – should first and foremost challenge what Akiva Eldar and J. J. Goldberg, among others, call the "Jewish lobby" – the powerful people and institutions (and their rank-and-file supporters) who dominate the US discourse and policy regarding Jews and Israel. Often, these are the very people behind the charge of "self-hating Jews" (and for non-Jews, "anti-Semites") about whom Rebecca Tumposky, national organizer with the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, complains. Yet, nowhere in her article does Ms. Tumposky show a disposition to directly do that.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that three originators of IJAN who live in southeast Michigan, including "Invincible," declined the invitation to stand vigil with Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends at our Global Vigil Day in 2007 or at any other time. They refused to expose and challenge Beth Israel Congregation–a local institutional bastion of open, unabashed Jewish support for Israel–when they had the opportunity. And yes, I'm the first to admit that standing in front of a synagogue is not the only way to challenge Jewish power, but at the same time ask where does IJAN directly challenge this power using another tactic?
In Tumposky's op-ed she says IJAN "seeks to challenge the violence and injustice of Israeli apartheid" but she and IJAN are US-based. So, where is her mention, let alone challenge, of the Jewish supremacism/power that allows Jews – less than two percent of the US population – to so effectively steer US policy and resources into underwriting Jewish apartheid in Palestine?
Right out of the box, she shows her hand – Tumposky's and IJAN's opposition to apartheid is rooted not in universalistic notions of justice and human rights but in Jewish chauvinism/exceptionalism. Thus, they appeal to Jews on the grounds of "our varied traditions of social justice." And Tumposky wants to make sure – absolutely certain – that fighting anti-Semitism is prioritized in any work on freeing Palestine from the genocide brought on by the Jewish state. Thus, she writes, "We challenge anti-Jewish prejudice while standing in solidarity with organizations that support Palestinian liberation and historic justice …" In short, IJAN enters the Palestinian solidarity movement with an explicit agenda of highlighting, if not foregrounding, the concerns of Jews, the very people who enjoy Jewish privilege here and in Israel.
Her opposition to Zionism is carefully couched as a subset of opposing colonialism and imperialism, in general: "We share a commitment to participation in struggles against colonialism and imperialism. We therefore oppose Zionism … IJAN, in fact, opposes all imperialist aggression". She refuses to take notice of the peculiar situation of Zionism – Jewish imperialism – in that Jews lacked a nation-state of their own and, thus, Zionists commandeered other countries, namely Britain and the US, to realize their goals.
Tumposky beats up one or two carefully placed straw men along the way: "We will say it again and again, despite accusations of being 'self-hating Jews': Zionism is not Judaism and the Jewish community." Just who is it that equates Zionism with "Judaism and the Jewish community"? And why is this point so essential for "anti-Zionists" like the IJAN folks? What would Tumposky say to the 757 rabbis – "the largest number of rabbis whose signatures are attached to a public pronouncement in all Jewish history" – who in 1942 stated that Zionism is an "Affirmation of Judaism" and "Anti-Zionism, not Zionism, is a departure from the Jewish religion"?
She also plays a Left Zionist game when she attempts to distinguish the 'types' of Zionism, claiming that "the Zionism we oppose is not a longstanding cultural or religious expression". She conveniently ignores the fact that when push came to shove, all the Zionists – Left, Right and Center – gave their blessings to destroying Palestine.
In the first chapter of his book Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Norman Finkelstein challenged the myth that any of the Zionist tendencies (Labor, Religious, etc.) were ever benign. In short, the only thing about Zionism that really matters is that it "is a form of racism and racial discrimination," as the UN General Assembly correctly identified in 1975.
Tumposky's definition of Zionism is also problematic – "the 19th century ideology that led European Jews to work with imperialist powers to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people, which continues today." It is folly to imply that Jews were passive objects of that "ideology". Zionism was created, implemented, and popularized by Jews. Are readers supposed to believe that it was the imperialist powers that Jews only "worked with" that committed this crime? Isn't it more accurate to say that Jews led these imperialist powers by the nose – as they still do today – to have non-Jews die for the Jewish state?
When she writes "Israel and its U.S. lobby helped pushed us toward the Iraq war and are exerting similar pressure to attack Iran", readers need to be cognizant of what she omits – EVERY major constituent group of the organized Jewish community pressed for war on Iraq, and there's a list of at least two dozen Jewish individuals – in powerful government or media positions – who also pressed strongly for war.
Tumposky touts "Jewish visions of collective liberation and traditions of social justice", but doesn't give us any proof that this tradition ever existed, other than in the minds of Jews who want their image spit-shined, if not outright falsified. More than 300 years ago, Benedictus de Spinoza, who is often upheld as a great Jewish intellectual, observed that Jews had in fact nothing to commend themselves as superior to others, had acted in such a way as to "incur the hatred of all", and that this hatred was the glue that bound Jews together. Other than, perhaps, a few years during the Civil Rights struggle (and Benjamin Ginsberg casts doubt on even this), Jews collectively have acted in concert NOT for universal well-being, but for the benefit of Jews. IJAN does not seem to be an exception.
Distinguishing IJAN from AIPAC, J-Street and Tikkun, might make good reading, but doesn't let them off the hook. Once again, I'm reminded of Paul Eisen's words: "The crime against the Palestinian people is being committed by a Jewish state with Jewish soldiers using weapons displaying Jewish religious symbols, and with the full support and complicity of the overwhelming mass of organized Jews worldwide. But to name Jews as responsible for this crime seems impossible to do." It seems obvious to me that IJAN and similar organizations exist, in no small part, to prevent the naming of Jews as responsible for the Jewish-led genocide against the Palestinian people.
Guest Post is the author as indicated in the tagline. He/she (or the source that is indicated within the post) reserves the rights to the material published.
Email this author | All posts by Guest Post
[...] Excerpt from: Palestine Think Tank » Analysis Internet and Communication Israel … [...]
To be sure some members of IJAN call out the "Jewish tradition of social justice" as their motive for opposing zionism while failing to recognize that the "Jewish tradition" really isn't any better than those of other religions and cultures when it comes to justice social or otherwise. It may be a little chauvinist but that in itself is not a crime. It's a tendency of adherents to any culture to want to believe their culture is the best. I find it weird that you would criticize this Rebecca Tumposky for not explicitly coming out against the "leftist" zionists such as Akiva Eldar when she explicitly criticizes the even more "leftist" zionists of J-street and Tikkun for their racism.
It seems to me that you're proposing is that Jews are all collectively guilty of the crimes against the Palestinians because of the crimes of the zionists which is true the majority support. But to come out against the minority of Jews who are clearly and publically anti-zionist and stand in solidarity with the victims of zionism, simply because they didn't explicitly mouth the criticism you desired although they implicitly did, I have to question your motive in spreading discord among the supporters of the just Palestinian cause.
Edit:
And far from me to question someone's faith if it leads them to a position of justice. Whether or not the "Jewish tradition of social justice" was any big movement within the Jewish tradition is beside the point. Why does matter which articles of faith lead them to their position? Martin Luther King looked to the Christian teachings of J. Christ to find inspiration for his commitment to social justice while if you look at practices by Christianity as a whole such teachings are missing.
If you think Jews who join the Palestine solidarity movement as Jews get a pass on chauvinism when Jewish chauvinism is at the very heart of the oppression of the Palestinian people by the "Jewish state" on the basis of the 'well, other people do it, too' argument then that's on your head but it's no reason for anyone else to acquiesce to your way of thinking.
As for criticizing "this Rebecca Tumposky for not explicitly coming out against the 'leftist' zionists such as Akiva Eldar," you have clearly misunderstood. Nothing whatsoever is said about Eldar's or Goldberg's position on Zionism. They are merely cited as sources for the phrase "Jewish lobby" in reference to "the powerful people and institutions (and their rank-and-file supporters) who dominate the US discourse and policy regarding Jews and Israel."
You write, "It seems to me that you're proposing is that Jews are all collectively guilty of the crimes against the Palestinians because of the crimes of the zionists which is true the majority support." One thing wrong with your perception in this sentence is the word "all," nowhere will you find an assertion or implication of such a broad brush approach as "seems" to you to be the case.
You suggest that IJAN is "clearly and publically anti-zionist and stand in solidarity with the victims of zionism" That is exactly what is at issue. Tumposky waffles on the issue of Zionism, she tries to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' Zionism and she turns Jews into passive objects of Zionism instead of active creators and agents of it. The nature of IJAN's solidarity is at also issue when they seem to prioritize the identity and concerns of Jews. How clear would White solidarity with Black people be to you if self-consciously White people organized as White people on the basis of the great White traditions of social justice and one of their leaders described their group, the International White Anti-racist Network (IWAN), by saying "We challenge anti-White prejudice while standing in solidarity with organizations that support Black liberation and historic justice"?
You say "I have to question your motive in spreading discord among the supporters of the just Palestinian cause." Well, I doubt that you "have to" but that's real sweet any way and if we're just "spreading discord" then what exactly are you doing?
RE: the Rev. King, if you had more than a passing familiarity with his work then you would realize that he didn't blithely appeal to some vaunted 'Christian tradition of social justice' but he and others developed a critical discourse that came to comprise what James Cone and others call Black Liberation Theology. There are Jews who are doing similar theological work vis-a-vis Zionism (no, not the Zionists Lerner and Waskow) and unlike Tumposky's piece these Jews do NOT uncritically trumpet Jewish "traditions of social justice" any more than King glibly trumpeted any 'Christian tradition of social justice'.
In King's famous "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," addressed in 1963 directly to clergy, he said:
"… I must honestly reiterate that I have been disappointed with the church. … When I was suddenly catapulted into the leadership of the bus protest in Montgomery, Alabama, a few years ago, I felt we would be supported by the white church. I felt that the white ministers, priests and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained glass windows."
Not that she's close to being in the same league as the Rev. King (not yet anyway), you won't find Tumposky saying anything like that about 'the synagogue' or Judaism. On the contrary, as pointed out in the article Tumposky is at pains to distance Judaism from the crimes of Zionism even though every major and most minor branches of Judaism explicitly support Israel as a Jewish state.
The discussion about the op-ed by Rebecca Tumposky referenced above continues at
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/24501895-47/jewish-state-solution-israel-palestinian.csp
This article by Henry Herskovitz is a response to Rebecca Tumposky in the Register Guard in Eugene:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/24489909-47/jewish-jews-israel-zionism-anti.csp
This paper is pretty good by US standards, allowing the occasional criticism of Israel's actions, as long as it's accompanied by a warning not to use this to criticize the organized Jewish community or its religious beliefs. It followed it with a response from a left Zionist:
http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/24501895-47/jewish-state-solution-israel-palestinian.csp
The first article claims that true Jewish values lead to peace and security, and only their corruption by white European colonialism led to Israel's crimes. Tumposky's aim is to protect Judaism by separating it from Zionism, and excoriating anyone who finds a connection between the two. It's as if the anti-apartheid movement had claimed that European values would benefit black Africans, and that anyone who claimed otherwise was trying to stir up anti-white hatred.
The second article is even worse, supporting "Jewish and democratic values in advocating for true peace and security for Israel, the Palestinians, and the entire region".
definition of Zionism is also problematic – "the 19th century ideology that led European Jews to work with imperialist powers to displace and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people, which continues today." It is folly to imply that Jews were passive objects of that "ideology". Zionism was created, implemented, and popularized by Jews. Are readers supposed to believe that it was the imperialist powers that Jews only "worked with" that committed this crime? Isn't it more accurate to say that Jews led these imperialist powers by the nose – as they still do today – to have non-Jews die for the Jewish state?
Michelle,
Could you please provide some examples as to how exactly the Jew did that ?Jews were powerless to prevent the Balfour Declaration from coming into existence, and it may be an unconvenient fact for you, but the first Zionists were not Jews, but English Christians. If America and other Western powers assisted Jews in their resettlement or return to their former homes in European countries, Israel would never have been created in the first place. But since they didn't, the establishment of Israel became a necessity. The above statement would only have been true if the European Jews were giving an option to decide (by voting perhaps) whether they supported Zionism or not.
As to Jewish traditions and religion that you take issue with, unless you are Jewish yourself, you have no business judging them.