Last April Klein attended on assignment for a magazine the Durban 2 conference in Geneva, which Israel and a number of Western countries boycotted because of the invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. She is still upset by her experiences there.
I was sure, at this stage, she was going to remark on the horrifying anti-Semitism that was present at the event, which included an Iranian delegate calling Elie Wiesel a "Zio-Nazi". It's such a gimme, right?
"The most disturbing feeling," she explains, "was the Jewish students' lack of respect for the representatives from Africa and Asia who came to speak about issues like compensation for slavery and the rise of racism around the world. In their midst, Jewish students from France ran around in clown costumes and plastic noses to say 'Durban is a joke.' This was pure sabotage, which contributes to the tensions between Jews and blacks."
"Durban wasn't just about Israel: The Durban Declaration acknowledged for the first time that the trans-Atlantic trade is a crime against humanity and that opened the way to compensation. The boycott of the conference created a vacuum that was filled, on the one hand, by Jewish students who wanted to sabotage the conference, and on the other, by Ahmadinejad both of them were truly awful."
Ah, such delightful moral equivalency. Ahmadinejad spewed racist garbage, which is bad. Jews didn't feel like lying back and taking it -- equally bad. Indeed, worse -- it was "the most disturbing" thing! The most disturbing thing about Durban II, for Klein, was peaceful protests against anti-Semitism. Think about that for a moment. Think about what that says about her and her worldview. Cleansing power of anti-Zionism, anyone?
Do you think it was necessary to allow Ahmadinejad to speak out so prominently at a conference against racism when he is calling for Israel's destruction and denying the Holocaust?
"I think that silencing the Palestinians was a big part of the reason he got so much attention. He is the only one who acknowledged what happened this year more Palestinians were killed in 2008 than in 1948. The boycott seems to me to have been an irresponsible decision the Jewish community unifies in an attempt to shut down a discussion of racism when there is a shocking rise in racism on the right in places like Austria, Italy, Switzerland, in the midst of an economic crisis, in conditions close to those in which fascism spread in all of Europe."
Yes, we all know that the UN's biggest problem is that it silences the Palestinians. Seriously, this is victim-blaming at its most blatant. Klein admits that Ahmadinejad's speech was racist, but still faults Jewish groups for opposing the conference that gave him an open mic. Because we refuse to be abused, we're committing sabotage at an anti-racism conference. Here's a thought -- maybe if putative anti-racists like Klein would step up and refuse to tolerate anti-Semitism, then Jewish students wouldn't need to dress up like clowns to draw attention to it.
Alice Walker once wrote that "No person is your friend who demands your silence." In the face of growing anti-Semitism -- a rise in racism that has occurred on both the left and right, in Europe and worldwide -- Klein's demand of Jews is that they shut up and let the real people talk. No dice. Klein's antics reveal her true colors -- as an ally of hate, of the fury and bigotry that threatens to consume us all.
Maybe Klein, playing the age-old role of the "good Jew" will be spared, and maybe she won't. But she has no right to demand my silence at a time like this, and certainly no right to appropriate the good name of progressivism to her fanaticism. And the people who call themselves her allies ought to know with whom they stand. Her apologias for hate should render her beyond the pale of good company.
UPDATE: Rebecca Lesses, writing from Israel this summer, overheard an interview with Klein on Israeli radio and offers her own thoughts.
23 comments:
I'm a bit confused as to what your stance on the Durban conference is. Do you think it simply should not have been held, and therefore whatever was going on with the African and Asian representatives shouldn't have been happening in that space in the first place?
Because I can see why it would feel rather disrespectful if I were, say, a Dalit coming from India pressing to have caste discrimination and discrimination against tribal groups better-recognized as a form of racism, and a bunch of what look to me like privileged white kids are running around dressed as clowns. Yes, it's a peaceful form of protest, but it's also potentially demeaning to me to have a conference I'm attending with very serious purpose, in order to improve international understanding of the plight of the millions of people in my community, derided as "a joke."
It can be difficult for representatives from some of the underrepresented subcultures and communities to be given the recognition and funding to attend such events. The conference might look stupid to you or to the students protesting it, but it's important to some of the people there.
Here's a thought -- maybe if putative anti-racists like Klein would step up and refuse to tolerate anti-Semitism, then Jewish students wouldn't need to dress up like clowns to draw attention to it.
What do you consider to be Klein's tolerance or embrace of anti-Semitism? You say that she acknowledges that Ahmadinejad's speech was itself racist.
I'm honestly surprised you find this hard to understand, PG.
The "joke" was that the "anti-racism" event was actively promoting anti-Semitic ideologies like Ahmadinejad's speech (and the reaffirmation of Durban I). To anyone who actually takes anti-racism seriously, that's a joke (albeit not a very funny one). Calling it a joke isn't meant to say the conference is unserious in the sense of it being lightweight; it's meant to show that it is unserious about a true commitment to egalitarian values. From the perspective of the Jews victimized by it, of course, that absence is deathly serious.
If the conference was having panels on how the Dalits were dirty and evil and subhuman, I would fully expect them to protest -- they don't have an obligation to sit and smile just because there are other "anti-racist" events going on. If the Dalits did protest, we shouldn't say they're the one's sabotaging, we should say the bigots holding the racist panels are. Every group has the right to protest its unequal treatment -- particularly at an anti-racism conference of all places. By demanding Jews be silent even in the face of admitted dehumanization, Klein isn't treating us like equals.
Klein is an apologist precisely because she admits that Ahmadinejad's speech was anti-Semitic, but still says a) that Jewish groups should have just let it slide, apparently because we're supposed to lie back and take our dehumanization and b) by not doing that, we're actually engaging in even more disturbing behavior than the speech and attendant anti-Semitism itself. It's the classic reactionary move of saying the protests against racism are a bigger offense than the racism itself. That's always been properly labeled apologism.
David, I heard Klein being interviewed this morning on Reshet Bet (Israel Radio - I'm in Israel this summer). Take a look at my blog post about her interview - http://mystical-politics.blogspot.com/2009/07/naomi-klein-in-israel.html.
Ohdear, multiple Rebeccas here too. :O
I think the idea that the clowns were "sabotage" is ridiculous; while I don't think the countries that boycotted it should have, particularly the powerful NAmerican/European ones, for the reasons she explains (other discussions of racism), protest is a perfectly legitimate form of voicing objection and even if you object to it or to the form it comes in it's nowhere near the level of the leader of a major country saying the things that MA. did.
David,
But protest can take multiple forms. If the protest had been focused on Ahmadinejad's being given a speaking slot to express anti-Semitism, for example, then I think you're right that Klein shouldn't object to that at all and should instead support it completely. But if it came off as disrespectful to the other attendees and their efforts to bring their issues to an international stage -- and I'm not sure how dressing up as clowns and referring to the conference as a joke could avoid being perceived as disrespectful by those other attendees -- then it's reasonable for her to question whether the protesters took the right tack. Her complaint doesn't seem to be with having someone protest Ahmadinejad, but with the conference as a whole being treated as illegitimate. That's why I asked you at the beginning of my comment if you deem the conference wholly illegitimate. (I can't ascertain from your response whether you do or not, but it's leaning toward "you do.")
I think there is a reasonable case to be made that an anti-racism conference that gives a mic to a speech like Ahmadinejad has rendered itself illegitimate in total. What kind of anti-racism conference is that? A joke one, that's what type.
There's also unavoidable side-taking here. So there's the conference that is supposed to talk about anti-racism, including bigotry your group has experienced. Unfortunately, you observe there is this conflict at the event where one group believes the conference is actually actively supporting discrimination against them and protesting accordingly. You're annoyed -- you want this conference to be an opportunity to talk about your issues in a serious and respectful forum, and don't want it to be sidetracked. But the question is, who do you blame -- the folks protesting their ill-treatment, or the folks doing the ill-treating? If the other attendees have a right to be angry because their issues are being overshadowed, they should be made at the perpetrators, not the victims.
David,
I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the concern Klein stated, which is not that there's attention being paid to Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism, but the way in which the protest is made. I certainly have had the experience in encountering protests that I was sympathetic to the underlying cause while very annoyed with the methods by which the protest was done, even if the protest was wholly nonviolent. (E.g., protests against the passage of Prop. 8 that were done at Mormon churches. Prop. 8 was rotten, but it was most proximately the responsibility of the majority of Californians who voted for it, not the collective fault of folks who attend the Mormon church on the Upper West Side of NYC.)
But it's difficult to think of a more appropriate forum for protesting one's ire at the Durban conference than the Durban conference. You don't believe in protesting the Mormon church in the NYC over Prop. 8 because its the wrong venue for what you're upset about. But there isn't any better venue for protesting the Durban conference than at the Durban conference. If gay people were protesting in California in front of the state house, we'd have little grounds to criticize even if it was distracting attention from the child welfare bill we really wanted passed.
Klein is clearly upset because she thought that the good in Durban was weighty enough so that even people with legitimate grievances should not have aired them (or shouldn't have aired them in a way that actually would give their grievances attention, which is another way of saying "shut up"). But I think her concern is misplaced -- she should be angry at those who made the Durban conference into something validly protestable. Once again, she's blaming the victims for having the temerity to speak up about their discrimination where that discrimination is occurring. That's bogus.
Sure, but that only covers "time and place." There's still the question of "manner." And that's what Klein was troubled by: dressing up in clown costumes and calling the conference a joke. I'd be annoyed with Prop. 8 protesters if they showed up at the state capitol, on a day when they knew there would be many children there to lobby for passing the child welfare bill, and were mooning the capitol and carrying signs with obscene language.
Even if on that very day the legislature was planning to host a sermon by Jerry Falwell talking about how gays are the world's biggest threats to children and the gay community is a organized crime ring of pedophiles, as part of its "advocacy for children" activities?
(Not that I think "dressing up like clowns and saying the proceedings are a joke" = obscenities and nudity)
Yes. The fact that there are some people present whose message you want to undermine and show scorn toward is not sufficient justification for spreading that contumely around to everyone. Unless what you're actually trying to express is the message that it's wrong for anyone to be participating in the conference/ legislation day because it has been rendered so completely illegitimate by Ahmadinejad's/ Falwell's presence, you should have some consideration for those who have made a significant effort to be present for the event. But obviously, if you think those people are morally in the wrong for being there, no consideration necessary.
See, this is where I disagree. Your standard means it is essentially impossible for anyone to protest -- it's how "civility" gets used to silence marginalized groups.
Any protest targeting an event which people care about and are invested in is going to come off as disrespectful to some degree: it is something that is important to me, and you are telling me it is bad (the parallel to folks protesting Israel is apparent -- obviously at some level it is going to sting regardless of how it is presented, because I care about it and you're saying it's bad). Ultimately, it has very little to do with whether the protest is done with a candlelight vigil or clown costumes or swearing and obscenities -- it is the act of protesting, not the form the protest takes, which will trigger the cry of "disrespect" (note that Klein doesn't say a word about how Ahmadinejad's speech should have protested, or if it should have been at all. The problem really doesn't seem to be the clown costumes as much as it was the act of protesting, period).
But the whole point of protest is to stoke those feelings, so people can't just merrily participate in institutions which are bigoted toward their fellows. If that guilt-tripping is labeled a harm, then protest itself becomes impossible. This mentality is exactly what MLK was complaining about in his Birmingham Jail letters.
It is both the easy and the wrong response to blame the protesters for the ensuing guilt. The proper reaction is to target the folks promoting the bigotry. The Durban Dalits could have had their cake and eaten it too if they had joined in anti-Ahmadinejad protests and demanded that his bigotry be delinked from their struggle for equality (I believe, in fact, that Iranian Ba'hai groups did take precisely that tact).
"Your standard means it is essentially impossible for anyone to protest"
How is that? The only way to protest Ahmadinejad's presence at Durban was to dress up as clowns and call the whole conference a joke? Surely not.
The MLK references pretty much make my point: he and the movement he led put an emphasis on not letting their protests spill over into targeting those whom they would say were not their intended targets. Have you seen the footage of how African Americans dressed to do protests and sit-ins? No clowning. Somehow they got their point across without being disrespectful.
I disagree with the idea that asking for good manners is silencing those who know how to behave that way and are fully capable of doing so while still meeting their stated objectives. And I can't help noticing that the most common calls for being able to be rude or foul-mouthed in the course of a debate come from those who are privileged by class and education.
The people I have encountered who are uneducated and working class or poor who are engaged in liberal/left-wing protest generally do not think this is the way to engage as members of a polity. (In a reverse, I do find more hooliganish behavior among the less-educated folks on the right, while the elite right tend to pride themselves on parliamentary procedure.) Maybe you think they should adopt the norms of the liberal elite, but I'd prefer that the elite adopt their norms.
"Iranian Ba'hai groups did take precisely that tact"
That may have had something to do with the fact that it was their president and thus someone who might otherwise be thought representative of them. Also, that he's one of the people they're complaining to the UN about for oppressing them. Pretty sure that a fundamentalist Muslim Persian is not going to be mistaken as representative of the Dalits.
I don't think dressing up like a clown is a shocking affront to norms of civility and politeness that it justifies the vapors you're getting over it. When Jews grimly wave signs about anti-Semitism, we're dismissed with a wave of the hand. The clowns got attention. Indeed, they were surprisingly effective. If it made other folks sad that they had to actually grapple with their complicity in bigotry, I consider that a feature and not a bug.
If you follow the link I gave, I clearly don't support "incivility" in the sense of being impolite or assholish. The agreement we come to in the comments section was that "incivility" gets used as a sword against any sort of protest because the act of protesting, regardless of form, is going to seem disrespectful to any group affiliated with the protestee. Consequently, simply telling me "that's uncivil!" isn't a compelling argument. It has to be "uncivil" for reasons beyond that it is expressing hostility towards an entity that some people think is a good thing. Because whether it's a good thing is precisely the point the protesters are trying to dispute!
David, many people have claimed that Palestinian NGOs were in effect shut up at Durban II. Since the context was discussing Durban II, I assume that's what Klein was referring to when she mentioned the silencing of the Palestinians.
"I think there is a reasonable case to be made that an anti-racism conference that gives a mic to a speech like Ahmadinejad has rendered itself illegitimate in total. What kind of anti-racism conference is that? A joke one, that's what type."
According to the AP report on Ahmadinejad's speech, the UN does not have the right to refuse to let Ahmadinejad (or any other head of state) speak at a public conference like this one. So it's not as if they invited him; he decided he was speaking, and they had no choice but to allow him to use the mic.
To me, the reaction to Durban seems like an over-reaction. I'm referring not to protesting Ahmadinejad (which I think was great), but to the general dismissal of everything about the conference as a "hate fest." I think it would have been possible to protest and object to Ahmadinejad without dismissing the conference as a whole, or ignoring everything else the conference was about.
For that reason, I'd rather see something like this organized by a group other than the UN. The problem with that is, no NGO in the world has the UN's scope and prominence, that I can think of.
Could the credentials committee have revoked Ahmadinejad's credentials after the speech, I wonder? After all, the conference organizers kicked out Jews indiscriminately after a few of them protested.
As for the Palestinian NGO groups, I'm curious if these were the same ones that turned Durban I into the anti-Semitic maelstrom we all knew and loved. If they were, then I don't have a problem of stifling them the second time around (though they still got to hold their parallel events). I think Durban II was definitely better than Durban I on this score -- though I think that is almost certainly a response to the aggressive Jewish protests and a commitment to not be caught unawares and roll over like they did at Durban I. By critiquing those moves, Klein is essentially demanding that Durban II be allowed to turn into Durban I all over again, and that's bogus.
In any event, Klein's equation (in fact, greater condemnation) of the protesters which are likely responsible for DII being less problematic than DI is severely misplaced, and shows where her sympathies lie -- with the purveyors of anti-Semitism rather than its victims. I think both the positions that the conference itself was fatally undermined and that the protests should have been more targeted would have been legitimate to take, but I think it is up to the victimized Jews to decide which one best fits their experience. Klein, it is worth noting, does not indicate that any level of protest against Ahmadinejad would have been "appropriate" -- as far as I can tell her position really is that Jews should have ignored it because it distracted from real people with real rights.
but I think it is up to the victimized Jews to decide which one best fits their experience. Klein, it is worth noting, does not indicate that any level of protest against Ahmadinejad would have been "appropriate" -- as far as I can tell her position really is that Jews should have ignored it because it distracted from real people with real rights.
It may be up to Jews to decide that *they* find the conference wholly illegitimate, but that doesn't make Klein an abettor of anti-Semitism to criticize them for doing so. And if Klein would have found any kind of protest inappropriate, why did she specify that the protesters "ran around in clown costumes and plastic noses" rather than criticizing solely for the fact that they were protesting?
The idea that Klein doesn't believe Jews to be "real people with real rights" is simply erroneous. She has written repeatedly about how anti-Semitism is wrong, not only morally but as a practical matter because its continued existence provides justification for hard-right politicians in Israel. Your claim that she is somehow in favor of anti-Semitism, or even passively accepting of it, does not comport with her own writings.
I read that article by Klein and was left unimpressed (and I'm not sure the degree to which she still abides by it -- "it is equally possible to be pro-Palestinian independence without adopting a simplistic 'pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel' dichotomy, a mirror image of the good-versus-evil equations so beloved by President George W. Bush," hardly seems to comport with her current perspective on the conflict). It's critique of anti-Semitism was of a form I've observed frequently of late that focused too intensely on the fact that not all Jews are Zionist, but anti-Semitism might drive them into the Zionist camp. Missing is a strong argument for why anti-Semitism against avowed and committed Zionists (such as myself) is unjust. Her big proposal is to do more to "distinguish between diverse Jewish positions and the actions of the Israeli state." That's fine as far it goes, but it offers very little for any Jew who supports actions of the Israeli state that Klein feels are unjust.
I'm not arguing that Klein thinks anti-Semitism is a good thing. It just doesn't seem to be a priority for her. I don't care about states of mind, I care about actions and expressions, and Klein's words in the interview demonstrate that, in my view, she is not treating Jewish concerns as worthy of fair and equal consideration -- as "real" ones.
Again, she didn't identify an alternative form of protest that would be preferable. And I still think that any form of protest is going to come off as "disrespectful" to a group invested in the legitimacy/righteousness of the entity being protested, making me skeptical that the problem was in form, not content. There were Jewish groups protesting the speeches without clown costumes -- it is not like Klein had kind words for them to distinguish. She lumped in all the Jewish protests as exemplified by the clowns and thus worthy of condemnation. I also disagree that a clown costume is the sort of protest that is so horrifying offensive as to make it comparable to, say, Ahmadinejad's hideous speech (much less worse, as Klein alleges).
Missing is a strong argument for why anti-Semitism against avowed and committed Zionists (such as myself) is unjust.
Do you mean that one can be anti-Semitic toward Zionists without having that anti-Semitism equally applicable to non-Zionists? How does that work, exactly? I would think that an *anti-Semitic* criticism of a Zionist would be just as easily turned toward a non-Zionist (e.g. if one's criticism of a Zionist takes the form "you say that because you Jews don't value human life" or "you Jews only care about money"), so it would be something that Klein has said she opposes. On the other hand, if the criticism isn't something that could be used on a non-Zionist Jew ("Zionism is a form of racism"), then I am not sure why it is clearly anti-Semitic. (Though obviously if said by an anti-Semitic speaker, his specific utterance of it may be anti-Semitic as well.)
I'm not arguing that Klein thinks anti-Semitism is a good thing. It just doesn't seem to be a priority for her.
But lots of things don't seem to be priorities for her. I haven't seen her say much about female genital mutilation, but I don't assume based on that that she is OK with it. The word "priority" loses its meaning if it must be applied to every cause one thinks good.
Again, she didn't identify an alternative form of protest that would be preferable.
I didn't realize the onus was on her, in a brief interview, to do this. Would it satisfy you if I obtained an email from Klein saying that she thinks protesting Ahmadinejad would have been OK if it hadn't involved clown costumes?
I also disagree that a clown costume is the sort of protest that is so horrifying offensive as to make it comparable to, say, Ahmadinejad's hideous speech (much less worse, as Klein alleges).
Where did she say the protest was worse than the speech? I only saw the two mentioned together here: "The boycott of the conference created a vacuum that was filled, on the one hand, by Jewish students who wanted to sabotage the conference, and on the other, by Ahmadinejad. Both of them were truly awful."
My old synagogue at home has a sign out front saying "we support Israel in her quest for peace and security." Suppose someone firebombed the synagogue, and cited the sign (and its correlated political view) as the justification for it. The bomber says, however, that she has nothing against Jews who don't hold such views. Anti-Semitic? I absolutely think so. Exempting violence and hate targeted at an ideology that just happens to be held by a good 70% of a marginalized group from the ambit of racism towards that group is stale formalism at its most repugnant. It's uppity negroism all over again. One is still racist even if one promises to renounce all violence if Blacks just adopted the politics of George Schulyer (even if one also murders White civil rights activists too). See also the message conveyed to the Jews of South Africa (namely, any Jew who does not oppose Zionism should be forcibly expelled). Modern day hatred always has its neutral fig-leaves. You know this as much as anybody.
But lots of things don't seem to be priorities for her. I haven't seen her say much about female genital mutilation, but I don't assume based on that that she is OK with it. The word "priority" loses its meaning if it must be applied to every cause one thinks good.
It's not that Klein "doesn't say much" about anti-Semitism. It's that she specifically demands it subordination to other political projects -- not just for what she spends her time on, but for what other people (including Jews) do. She's not just saying "I want to focus on Dalits, not anti-Semitism", she's saying "and I'll do it even if it means essentially ignoring anti-Semitism around me" and demanding that everyone else adopt those priorities too (i.e., effectively ignore anti-Semitism to better pursue "anti-racism"). I'd also argue that insofar as being anti-anti-Semitic is generally included in "anti-racism", demanding we ignore the former to better pursue the latter is incoherent unless one thinks that anti-Semitism is not racist (or is a trivial part of racism).
I didn't realize the onus was on her, in a brief interview, to do this. Would it satisfy you if I obtained an email from Klein saying that she thinks protesting Ahmadinejad would have been OK if it hadn't involved clown costumes?
Too late. The protests of Ahmadinejad included plenty of folks not in clown costumes (I doubt Elie Wiesel was dressed like a clown). She grouped all the protesters -- clown or no clown -- together and lumped them all as saboteurs. Even if she retrospectively identifies the perfect protest she could have gotten behind, I'd read it as precisely the sort of idealization that gets trotted out to insure that practically speaking, protest is impossible.
Where did she say the protest was worse than the speech?
She specifically identified the protesters as demonstrating "the most disturbing feeling" evinced at the conference (of course, even saying they're equal to the speech is pretty morally appalling).
Could the credentials committee have revoked Ahmadinejad's credentials after the speech, I wonder?
I very much doubt it. They can't revoke his being a head of state, after all.
The question is, do you think it's worthwhile to have an organization of all countries attempting to address issues? If so, you have to accept that scumbags will be allowed to speak, because that's unavoidable in an all-countries organization. If not, then you should be advocating for the UN to be dissolved and some democracies-only group be formed.
As for the Palestinian NGO groups, I'm curious if these were the same ones that turned Durban I into the anti-Semitic maelstrom we all knew and loved.
With all due respect, David, this comes off as racist. You seem to be saying that when people are concerned that Palestinians have been censored, it's appropriate to lightly dismiss that concern, since some of the censorsed Palestinians who may or may not be the same Palestinians once said anti-Semitic things.
This is problematic in two ways. First, it relies on a "all those Palestinians are the same" form of argumentation which is obviously racist. Second, your rather sneering dismissal of the problem of Palestinians being censored contrasts very sharply with your passionate opposition to any boycott of Israel, due in part to the censorship effect that would have on Israelis. This suggests a rather severe double-standard.
I am skeptical of the UN, and do have a lean towards an organization of democratic states. But even if I do think that a forum for global communication is a good thing (and I do), one can concede that and still think it's a bad idea to give the body any normative power when it is effectively controlled by illiberal, anti-democratic regimes. I think one would be hard pressed to look at how the UN behaved over the past 20 years and say "that's a body that should be given increased moral credibility".
With all due respect, David, this comes off as racist. You seem to be saying that when people are concerned that Palestinians have been censored, it's appropriate to lightly dismiss that concern, since some of the censorsed Palestinians who may or may not be the same Palestinians once said anti-Semitic things.
With all due respect, Amp, this comes of as marginalizing. To say that Durban one involved folks who "once said anti-Semitic things" grossly diminishes what happened at Durban I. That makes it sound like the problems were incidental, isolated and scattered. In actuality, of course, the event was an organized anti-Semitic hatefest from top to bottom, and was led to be so by the pro-Palestinian activists in attendance. Characterizing them as folks who "once said anti-Semitic things" is like calling a Klan Grand Wizard (who hasn't actually committed violence) "someone who once said racist things". In general, this move whereby we diminish anti-Semitic activity and then complain that the real problem is that the anti-Semites promoting the hate are being silenced in their "anti-Zionist" message is a real threat to Jewish people, and I'm sick of it.
But even substantively, the charge is bogus. First, the inquiry is completely legitimate: if the NGOs were the same that acted up at Durban I, then the UN would be totally justified in banning the shit out of them at Durban II. Perhaps if our first thought isn't "ZOMG, the Zionist tentacle monster strikes again!" but "maybe the UN acted for a reason", these thoughts occur to us.
Second, I think the inference is justified observationally, at least to support an inquiry. If in 2004 I read about a group of GOP lawyers coming to investigate "election fraud", I'd be justified in asking "did they applaud the Brooks Brothers riot?" That's not because it's impossible for a conservative lawyer to a) find election fraud to be a serious problem and b) have found the riot appalling. It's just that as a reasonably attuned observer, I don't know of one. If I'm wrong, great, correct me. I'm also a reasonably attuned observer of the nature of pro-Palestinian advocacy at the international level, and I don't know of a major group that opposed what happened at Durban I. That doesn't mean they don't exist, and if these groups fall into that category, fab, and I extend apologies. But the inquiry is legit.
Third, I don't think I have an obligation to default towards trust here. The pro-Palestinian advocacy community has shown a marked tendency towards at least tolerating anti-Semitic hatred. Not all do, of course, and I can list off groups that do not (e.g., the ATFP). But when you're a member of a group victimized by hatred, bigotry, and prejudice (sometimes exploding into violence), you start to develop instincts on the matter -- and we're justified in using heuristics to aid us. I've defaulted to trust before when my gut told me otherwise, and gotten burned for my trouble. Jews who are too quick to ignore their gut on the matter and trust that other groups have their best interests at heart are Jews who end up fucked over, hard. I don't have an obligation to offer my back as a bridge anymore.
Post a Comment