A few weeks ago, there was a protest in front of a New York City synagogue which was hosting a real estate event featuring, in part, properties in Jerusalem. Pro-Palestine protesters, notably, chanted their support for Hamas ("Say it loud, say it clear, we support Hamas here."), the internationally-recognized terrorist organization responsible for (among other crimes) the massacres on October 7. A smaller group of pro-Israel protesters affiliated with the far-right Jewish Defense League chanted their own racist slogans, including "death to Palestine."
The next day, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a statement condemning the pro-Hamas chants: "Chants in support of a terrorist organization have no place in our city." There was some consternation about the supposed delay (of one day), but it appears that time lag occurred because Mamdani was consulting with high-level members of the Jewish community to ensure he got the statement right.
I noticed at the time, though, that the ultimate statement rightfully condemned the pro-Hamas chanting but not the equally appalling that came from the JDL. "We support Hamas here" is a despicable thing to say anywhere, but especially in front of a synagogue. No person of conscience should defend it (it is not surprising that there are several notable left-wing figures who lack any such conscience). But "death to Palestine" is equally rancid and should be equally indefensible. So why was it not included in Mamdani's condemnation?
I suspected at the time that it was left out because some factions of the Jewish community would have denounced its inclusion. Many of these figures would claim that they do not, of course, defend the JDL or chants like "Death to Palestine". But they would present including it in Mamdani's statement as "both-sidesing" or "all lives mattering" or in some other way diluting of the message condemning the pro-Hamas chants. And it seems the reporting bears my intuition out. An earlier draft of the condemnation was going to condemn the Jewish Defense League, but it was removed following protests by Jewish leaders who viewed it as a "false equivalence."
This is rotten. It's not just that complaints about "both sidesing" lack legs when both sides really did chant despicable things. It's also the choice -- and it is a choice -- by certain Jewish leaders to decide that condemnations of pro-Palestine extremists are in some way "diluted" or are less sincere when they come tied to calling out pro-Israel extremists present at the same event. Why should we feel that way? I don't feel that way. In fact, I feel rather ill at the notion that someone might think my equal standing as a Jew is threatened by condemning phrases like "death to Palestine." What does that say about ourselves? What does that say about what we are saying about ourselves, that we make such demands?
This is, I think, the end result of the tremendously destructive road too many Jewish leaders have committed to trotting down, where we have become obsessed with "all lives mattering" or "us too-ism" to the point that anything that even purports to tie Jewish safety to any sort of political universalism or solidarity is presented as an affront. It is not unrelated to the bone-jarringly stupid choice by the ADL (among others) to self-consciously cut itself off from historic allies because antisemitism must be fought alone or not at all. I don't mean to suggest that there are not serious challenges in the relationships Jews have with other communities, historic allies included. But in all of these cases, we are choosing to isolate ourselves. These are not instances where we are being forced out of coalitions or compelled to go alone. We are choosing to believe that the entire concept of allyship is a form of disrespect.
We don't have to think like this. Nobody is forcing us to hear "chants of 'death to Palestine' have no place in our city" and decide it means "Jews are lesser." There's no reason to make that inference, and there are many reasons not to make that inference. And so while at one level I am glad that Mamdani was consulting with and attentive to Jewish community concerns in the wake of the synagogue protest, it is a very bad thing that we've decided our "concerns" compel him not to condemn obviously despicable and indefensible rhetoric from the likes of the JDL. That Jewish leaders -- especially Jewish leaders who do recognize how wretched the JDL is -- think in those terms speaks to rot in our own psyche that we need to address, and quick.
5 comments:
It's unfortunately become gut-wrenchingly common. I'm sure you're aware of the graffiti at Whitman a few days ago that said "F*** Muslims" and "nuke Palestine." The Montgomery County executive put out a standard statement condemning the graffiti.
And, of course, the comments sections of the local news websites were filled with "why didn't he condemn the antisemitic graffiti at Whitman 4 years ago"? Which, of course, he did. In pretty much identical terms. But I think the ugly fact is that lots of people, on either "side" of this issue, and in fact probably a majority who are strongly on a "side," view it in zero-sum terms-- hate is fine, so long as it's directed at the "right" people. That that's the case even in a place as educated and allegedly enlightened as Bethesda is... very not great.
Long time first time.
I’d like to invoke the “they-threw-the-first-punch” defense.
The two sides are not equivalent in this case because the protests were happening in front of a synagogue. The pro Hamas chants were intended to offend and anger and the anti-protestors were smaller in number but more importantly they were responding to a perceived affront. It doesn’t make the JDL statements less vile, but the context in which they made them matters. Should they be performing the same chants in front of a Palestinian mosque, it would be far more deserving of condemnation.
The deep issue with this framing is that you would consider the JDL to be a part of the "we." For any decent person, groups like Hamas and the JDL are not "our" extremists. As a Jewish person, my message to the JDL would be to go away, that they're unwanted, they're repulsive, and they don't represent me. Similarly, if I were a Muslim, my view of Hamas would be... that they're unwanted, they're repulsive, and they don't represent me.
So invoking "they threw the first punch" as any kind of defense of these groups, mealy mouthed or not, is itself not acceptable framing, at least for anyone purporting to any sense of decency.
Alex,
I didn't intend this as a defense of the JDL (because f**k those people). It's a defense of Mamdani for not both-sides-ing this.
Sure, he could say "I condemn group A for X, and also to a lesser extent condemn group B for Y." But that level of nuance isn't really available to him.
He gets one shot at the communication. The audience has limited patience and attention. The nuance would be lost.
This is a time for calling out the folks who made this story newsworthy in the first place. The JDL will do something entirely on their own that makes them the target of their own condemnation.
Have you considered that it's the JDL's goal to make Mamdani attack them? Both-sides-ing it would be politically costly for him, and that's exactly what they want. Sometimes the best way to deal with these jerks is to ignore them which I promise will make them feel small and is the best way to discourage them.
That's not both-sidesing. Both-sidesing would be declaring that we condemn both antisemitism and Islamophobia where only one group is present. In this case, the JDL showed up and did what they do. So they deserve to be roundly and loudly condemned. And you can bet that were a bunch of Hamas supporters to show up at a Baruch Goldstein memorial rally, there would be round (and correct) condemnation of them. And I strongly suspect (by which I mean it's stone cold certain) that, if a statement ignored the Hamasniks' presence at such an event, it would be roundly condemned by those same people as a double standard where antisemitism is excused.
Post a Comment