Or are we? Harry's Place notes that under the prevailing logic employed by many who embrace a hard distinction between "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitic", it would be quite logical to deny that the bomb plot was anti-Semitic at all -- or at most, was only incidentally anti-Semitic. Though recognizing that their advocacy is taken to be hostile by a disproportionate amount of Jews, and their policy proposals would have massive disparate impact against Jews, the anti-Zionists declare that because their advocacy is fundamentally targeted at Israel, and not Jews, there is no anti-Semitism present. Jews who oppose Israel are quite welcome.
These bombers, too, apparently saw their agenda as politically motivated as against American military actions in the Middle East. And in addition to targeting the synagogues, apparently the terrorists also planned on attacking American military jets. Jews were targeted not necessarily qua Jews, but in their supposed capacity as supporters of these putatively unjust policies.
But if the attackers are perceived to be driven by anger over Israel, then for many anti-Zionists who share that premise – who perhaps hate Israel themselves and recognise the urge to act on that hatred, but would never do so – then the firebombing of a synagogue is a crime, for sure, but not a hate crime; there is no bigotry, just a mistaken politics; no antisemitism, no need for anti-racist solidarity and certainly no need for Zionism and Israel. I am yet to see anyone try to explain the attempted bombing of a synagogue in New York as an understandable, though misguided, expression of anger about Israel. But I won’t be surprised if someone does.
I haven't seen any reporting on the attackers' views on Israel, as opposed to American foreign policy more generally. It wouldn't surprise me if they were quite opposed, but it really is irrelevant for the point here -- replace "Israel" with "America" and it works quite as well (and with that modification, the claim has been made).
The crime is still a crime, but it isn't a hate crime, because the problem wasn't the underlying politics (which are conceded potentially legitimate) but rather either the over-extension or misattribution of it. This framework, with its focus on perpetrators instead of victims, pays little heed to the effects of these sorts of crimes and plots as Jews experience them. When folks are trying to bomb our synagogues or rocketing our towns or promoting genocide of our people, the precise political location of the attackers is not what is on our minds. There is a degree to which Jews feel abandoned in the face of this hate by the left, and the reason is that the left hasn't quite come to the consensus about whether this counts as hate or not.
18 comments:
I think the idea that there wasn't overt anti-Semitism involved here is fairly bullshit. There's probably more support for the right-wing of Israeli politics at the offices of the Weekly Standard than at the average NY synagogue, yet I've never heard of anyone's trying to blow up Bill Kristol. This was an attempt to terrify Jews qua Jews, not Jews qua crazed Israel supporters, and thus is a hate crime against Jews.
But keep in mind, from the perspective of the type of anti-Zionist we're talking about, there isn't any functional difference between the type of pro-Israelness at the average NYC synagogue, and that expressed at the WS. Both would be seen as morally abhorrent. Evaluating the perspective through the distinctions you and I would make is the wrong perspective.
Has someone actually said this was not a hate crime (or intended hate crime) against Jews?
The link I give to "Prison Planet" skirts in that direction. But my point is more that the logic which hermatically seals off much "anti-Israel" speech from being considered as potentially anti-Semitic would, if applied consistently, act as a ward here as well. That folks don't want to make that extension is, I suspect, because they aren't truly comfortable with the contours of their own position.
I read the Prison Planet piece differently ... that the men arrested were stupid people lured into it by a government informant (which, in fairness, has been a problem with some of these other big "terror ring" arrests, though it doesn't seem like PP has any evidence to that effect beyond idle speculation).
If you see a backhanded justification, I think the most likely thing would be for people to say that of course this was wrong, but really it's Israel's fault for being so awful that stupid people get confused about the difference between Israelis and Jews. Which, if/when it happens, would be wrong and anti-Semitic.
But setting that Prison Planet post aside, I'm ... uncomfortable, I guess, with what you're doing here rhetorically. I suspect many of the anti-Zionists who would not attempt to justify these attacks would do so not because they are resisting the "logical extension" of their ideas but because they really don't believe a NYC synagogue is legitimate target for anti-Israel violence, regardless of the potential wrongness of the ideas expressed by the members of the synagogue.
I'm not saying that the anti-Zionists are committed to saying the act isn't wrong; I think they're committed to saying it isn't anti-Semitic: "a crime, for sure, but not a hate crime; there is no bigotry, just a mistaken politics; no antisemitism, no need for anti-racist solidarity." And one does wonder if there will be the sort of rallying amongst the left that one would hope to see in the teeth of similar racist violence directed at other group, or whether there will be a more passive "yeah, these guys are kind of schmucks, but there are better things to worry about (like the horrors of the Iraq war)."
Do you really think the quoted statement from one of the wannabe terrorists, "I hate those motherfuckers, those fucking Jewish bastards…I would like to get a synagogue" is ambiguous, David? Because to me, that seems to be clear-cut antisemitism. Can you cite a single person in real life who has found it ambiguous?
Your post - like the post at Harry's Place - is a straw man. There are virtually no people in the real world questioning whether or not targeting an American synagogue with violence is antisemitic; there is widespread agreement about that.
Furthermore, it's not only misleading, but destructive to dialog for you and Harry to obfuscate that agreement.
To be fair, you do -- in comments -- sort of admit that you're attacking an entirely hypothetical position, not something anyone has said in the real world.
But my point is more that the logic which hermatically seals off much "anti-Israel" speech from being considered as potentially anti-Semitic would, if applied consistently, act as a ward here as well.More straw men. Is there anyone saying that the question of anti-semitism should be sealed off from even being considered?
The disagreement isn't over if anti-semitism should be considered (something nearly everyone agrees on); it's over the conclusions drawn from that consideration.
For example, no one is saying that it's out of bounds to consider if "Seven Jewish Children" is anti-Semitic. What many people are saying is that they disagree with the conclusion that it is anti-Semitic.
That folks don't want to make that extension is, I suspect, because they aren't truly comfortable with the contours of their own position.I think it's possible you're misrepresenting their position. But since you haven't actually named a single person who holds the position you're talking about, it's hard for me to be certain.
Since my argument is not that people are denying that this is anti-Semitic, but that their affirmation is in tension with their general belief on what "counts" as anti-Semitism (namely, that a political motivation that isn't expressly qua Jew cleanses the act of anti-Semitism -- cf. "mixed motive" anti-discrimination cases), the first part of your comment is non-responsive. If I'm making a straw man, it's not that one.
The bigger point of contention is the degree to which folks are, in fact, willing to consider whether X act, statement, or position is anti-Semitic. And, given the prominence of the Livingstone formulation, which tries to delegitimize the inquiry into anti-Semitism, I simply disagree with you that the only question up for debate is the boundaries of what counts as anti-Semitism. There is a very strong theme that the charge of anti-Semitism is inherently silencing and per se illegitimate. It echoes to an extremely distressing degree the conservative "race card" cry, which I'm sure we agree is not fundamentally a claim about the borders of racism so much as it is a hedge against racism ever being seriously discussed.
The Livingstone formulation, as you may know, is so named after London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who used it after being accused of anti-Semitism (accusing a Jewish journalist of being a Nazi) during an encounter that had nothing to do with Israel -- nonetheless, Livingstone's defense was that "criticizing Israel is dismissed as anti-Semitism". The Conveying a Message to the Jews of South Africa post cited the organizer of a march on a JCC (done "to convey a message to the Jews in SA") pre-emptively disarming any claim of anti-Semitism by saying "We are not going to support the canard that says if you are opposed to the policies of Israel you are anti-Semitic, this does not intimidate us." By and large, the manner in which the Livingstone is deployed acts to stifle discussion rather than enable it.
Being so recent (and me preoccupied today), I haven't seen this kind of argument yet. But I expect to. I absolutely did see it with the shooting at a JCC in Seattle ostensibly in protest over the Iraq War and with the Mumbai terrorist attacks.
In fact, what stuck out about Mumbai for me was the bizarre scene of Willow at Talk Islam explaining to Richard Silverstein that the Mumbai terrorists who targeted a Chabad House really were antisemitic. After he insisted at (as I recall) both the Guardian and Jewcy.com that they weren't. In fact, I think he had argued at TI, though I have to run before a good search to find it, it was a colonial and Orientalist act for us to try to read their motives based on either their words or actions.
Matt,
It seems odd that Silverstein would say it's wrong for us to read their motives based on their words, given that he himself says in the Guardian article you linked: "the single surviving terrorist noted that they chose Chabad House to avenge the suffering of the Palestinians."
IMO, choosing synagogues in an area where there are plenty of low-security targets (like the New York Post's offices) that actually are much more overtly right-wing pro-Israel is an indication that one is targeting Jews qua Jews. Chabad House in Mumbai would pose a different situation, since there aren't that many pro-Israeli media outlets or organizations in the city, and of course the Mumbai consulate will be highly secured and difficult to attack.
PG, you're full of all sorts of ideas for targets. I'll make sure to remember this if the New York Post and the Weekly Standard ever get bombed.
This story is totally contrived and I can't believe it's taken seriously.
It's nearly the same as the bust in upstate NY where an agent who didn't even speak the language of two of the men sent to prison for "conspiracy to commit terrorism"
From the NYT article I read, it said that one of the guys wanted to go to Pakistan/Afghanistan. Somehow, the "agent" the government planted turned these guys onto bombing something in the US.
This is nearly the same as the Albany terror plot (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/nyregion/09stinger.html)
where the government agent didn't even speak the languages of the men in the plot.
Having read the transcripts from that case, I saw this agent do strange things like blurt out "we should shoot down a plane" and then taking lack of vocal opposition to such an absurd comment to mean assent to a plot.
Ridiculous lies - none of these guys are even the types to show up at pro-Palestine/anti-israel rallies. They were random stoners that the government set up to look hard on terror and pipe up the threat to Jews for an Iran attack.
chingona,
Well, I realized the Weekly Standard wouldn't work because they're based in D.C., so I had to come up with another right-wing media outlet that can be over the top in supporting Israel.
I admit to having been a bit expressive, PG. However, Silverstein would argue that only some of the terrorists words can be read by Westerners clearly. If, for example, they say they targeted Jews to avenge the Palestinians, Silverstein would argue it is wrong for us to interpret that word Jews as meaning "Jews." Instead, he'd tell us it means Zionists. The mistake is "unfortunate" but not "antisemitic."
I think David already addressed that. But if there are no Israeli targets available, why choose a Jewish target at all? RS and others argue that it is the fault of Zionists who constantly conflate Jewish with Zionist. He wants to address that by showing that not all Jews are Zionists. And hence the constant calls for me to repudiate Zionism - if I don't then I'm a target. (Notice here that the worst antisemitism is under the name "Zionism is not Judaism.") I think that's antisemitic. RS isn't willing to allow the same sort of nuanced distinctions for Jews that he allows for LeT even when they are killing Jews. Everyone opposed to the antisemitism of the Mumbai attacks becomes an extremist. (Or at least he's not willing to stand behind such distinctions as meaningful and important. That's why the scene of a Muslim telling him he was wrong -though, see below, I can't find the page- was significant to me.) Sometimes, Jews are even a legitimate target (not to RS, though perhaps "Jewish Jihadis" would be, but to others all Jews). I think that's really antisemitic.
Here's probably the best RS piece. He calls those who think Mumbai was antisemitic "Jewish Jihadis." Here, he refers to folks at Engage as "my little Jewish holy warriors," so we know who he's talking about.
*Now that I have more time, he didn't put anything up on Jewcy, though there was an article that referenced his CiF piece. The Guardian piece was at CiF, not the paper-proper. Here's RS suddenly realizing he was flat wrong. (While trying to parse him, that's an important point.) Can't find the exchange with Willow that I mentioned above, but somehow I still think it exists. Unfortunately, now I don't have more time again.
Since my argument is not that people are denying that this is anti-Semitic, but that their affirmation is in tension with their general belief on what "counts" as anti-Semitism (namely, that a political motivation that isn't expressly qua Jew cleanses the act of anti-Semitism -- cf. "mixed motive" anti-discrimination cases), the first part of your comment is non-responsive. But this act was "expressly qua Jew," assuming that the quote "I hate those motherfuckers, those fucking Jewish bastards…I would like to get a synagogue" is accurate.
* * *
Regarding the so-called Livingstone Formulation, what Livingstone claimed, if I'm parsing his statement correctly, is that the Jewish org which attempted to have him removed as mayor was actually motivated by his past criticisms of Israel.
It was of course the Board of Deputies of British Jews that decided to refer me to the Standards Board for England. Throughout they have protested that this issue is just about how I treated one reporter who happens to be Jewish. I don’t believe a word of it.
Some time before this incident was blown out of all proportion the Board of Deputies asked to meet me to urge me to tone down my views on the Israeli government.
For far too long the accusation of anti-Semitism has been used against anybody who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government.I have no idea if Livingstone's accusation is correct or not, but that a right-wing pro-Israel organization might bear a grudge against a prominent left-wing critic of Israel, and thus press for his removal from his job over a fairly minor incident, is not inherently implausible.
Since Livingstone's statement included accusing the Associated Newspapers of anti-Semitism, as well as a discussion of anti-Semitic violence, I don't think it's reasonable to describe his "theme" as "the charge of anti-Semitism is inherently silencing and per se illegitimate." A more reasonable interpretation of Livingstone's statement is that he considers some charges of anti-Semitism legitimate, and others illegitimate.
(None of this is to deny that Livingstone is an asshat.)
* * *
I think we're at a situation where both of these statements are true:
1) There has been a pattern of good-faith critics of Israel being unfairly charged with anti-Semitism.
2) There has been a pattern of good-faith charges of anti-Semitism being unfairly dismissed without due consideration.
Both 1 and 2 act to stifle discussion rather than enable it.
I'm sure you'd agree with my point 2 (although you might word it differently). I don't know if you'd agree with point 1 or not.
The BDBJ is not a "right-wing" organization. It's not left-wing either -- it's just an umbrella organization for the British Jewish community -- it fills a role roughly similar to the AJC. Moreover, the calls for Livingstone to apologize and the complaints directed against him did not merely stem from the BDBJ. His original refusal to apologize came after a unanimous vote calling for one by the London Assembly. After that there were apparently 24 complaints filed against him to the board. Livingstone's response that you linked to ("I always support anti-racism! The real problem is fascism and pushy Jews with their agenda!") was firmly in Fatima Hajaig territory.
I don't think "good faith" is a shield against anti-Semitism -- one can make a good faith charge of anti-Semitism against (at least the argument of) someone who is making a good faith criticism of Israel. I'm not seeing a pattern of true #1s -- that is, accusations of anti-Semitism against good faith critics that are themselves facially unfair (recall my earlier evinced distinction between "legitimate" and "true"). But I admit I'm more concerned with the intra-left conversation on the matter, where I think the balance of inequities is particularly stark -- I don't much care what someone like Daniel Doron calls anti-Semitic or not.
"The BDBJ is not a "right-wing" organization.".
I couldn't say. However, many prominent Jews in Britain disagree with your assessment.
"Livingstone's response that you linked to ("I always support anti-racism! The real problem is fascism and pushy Jews with their agenda!") was firmly in Fatima Hajaig territory.".
The difference is, when I say that Hajaig said "The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else," she actually said that.
In contrast, the quote you attribute to Livingstone is not something he said in my link; you apparently made it up. Nor is it a fair paraphrase of his statement. It's not the way you'd read his statement if you had made a good-faith attempt to give the benefit of the doubt to people you disagree with.
"I don't think "good faith" is a shield against anti-Semitism -- one can make a good faith charge of anti-Semitism against (at least the argument of) someone who is making a good faith criticism of Israel.".
I agree. I phrased that badly.
What I meant is, there is a longstanding pattern in which people who criticize Israel harshly are often accused of being clear anti-Semites, even when their statements, if given any benefit of the doubt, do not appear to be anti-Semitic.
"I'm not seeing a pattern of true #1s -- that is, accusations of anti-Semitism against good faith critics that are themselves facially unfair (recall my earlier evinced distinction between "legitimate" and "true").".
It's unlikely we'll see eye to eye on this one, since in my view you yourself have supported unfair accusations of anti-Semitism against left-wing critics of Israel. (For example, our argument about Chomsky, or your comment that J-Street is "mushy" on anti-Semitism because they failed to condemn Theater J for staging the play "Seven Jewish Children.")
The Seven Jewish Children example is particularly illustrative of what I mean, since you linked approvingly (or so it seemed) to a post arguing that to use Seven Jewish Children as an occasion for discussion is wrong, because "debate is often fetishised to its own detriment." The critics of Seven Jewish Children you link to don't just want the play criticized; they don't want it produced at all. A pretty clear example of how your fellow-travelers prefer discussion stifled rather than enabled -- at least, when what's under discussion is a play that criticizes Israel.
(P.S. I don't make any claim that Livingstone isn't an anti-Semite. I don't know enough about him to judge; I am only discussing his statement from which the strawman "Livingstone Formulation" has been drawn.)
(P.P.S. Actually, I don't even think that the "Livingston Formulation" is a strawman. There are people who think like that -- one tends to encounter them on Indymedia, for instance. The claim that Livingston's statement is an example of the Livingston Formulation, however, seems unfair and untrue.)
Left-wing groups always portray anything to their right as reactionary -- it's a joke. From the vantage point of IJV, I'm sure the BDJB is right-wing, but from the perspective of British politics and the British Jewish community, it is a broad umbrella group.
You're confusing Hajaig's original statement with her "apology". Livingstone's original statement that was criticized was "Ah right, well you might be Jewish, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard...." In the statement responding to the controversy, he wrote, inter alia, "I have ... waged an unrelenting war on every manifestation of racism, anti-Semitism and every other kind of discrimination," then proceeded to try and change the inquiry onto the supposed shortcomings of the newspaper ("In reality, it is Associated Newspapers that has a long record of anti-Semitism and support for fascism") and the Jewish organizations complaining ("Throughout they have protested that this issue is just about how I treated one reporter who happens to be Jewish. I don’t believe a word of it." and saying "this incident was blown out of all proportion "). Compare Hajaig ("Throughout my life I have been opposed to apartheid and all forms of racism.....I deplore the attempts of Zionists to justify policies that have worsened the crisis in the Middle East....I wish to reiterate that the major issue in relation to the Palestinian Israel conflict is the enormous suffering of the Palestinian people"). I stand by my paraphrase -- Livingstone defended himself by proclaiming himself a true warrior against anti-Semitism and saying the real problem was the Jewish groups who "blew it out of proportion", masking the true motivation of defending Israel.
Post a Comment