Things People Blame the Jews For, Volume LXXXII: "The Rise in Transgenderism"

 

Some folks decided to check in on former U.S. Representative and Green Party presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney.

Admittedly, for me "Jews are playing a disproportionate role in fostering social acceptance of transgender youth and adults" is less of a "blame" and more of a "credit". Still, this is part of a long, not-especially-slow slide by McKinney into the depths of far-right antisemitism.

While it was not this explicit, even as a congresswoman McKinney definitely set off my and many other Jews' antisemitism radars. But precisely because it wasn't this explicit, there was also that sense of anxiety: am I just seeing things? Am I too sensitive? After all, for all the talk about how Jews toss out antisemitism allegations at the drop of the hat, there's also, well, a lot of talk and pressure that presumes Jews toss out antisemitism allegations at the drop of the hat. 

In that context, the one silver lining I have from watching McKinney's progression regression is that it validates those instincts. We were not, in fact, seeing things, we were onto something real, and maybe our intuitions -- even when not fully formed -- are worth paying attention to after all.

Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Hamas)

Freshman Republican Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL) has introduced a resolution endorsing any Israeli annexation of the West Bank. In doing so, he explicitly promoted a "one state" solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict:

Walsh asserted that "there is no such thing as a two-state solution, and no such thing as land for peace. The ultimate peace is going to come through annexation, through Israel having sovereignity over the whole land, from the Mediterranean to Jordan."

Hamas could scarcely say it better. A one-state solution ends up with a huge Palestinian minority; likely an eventual Palestinian majority. At which point they vote to rename "Israel" "Palestine", abolish the state's Jewish character, and in all probability inaugurate all sorts of illiberal and discriminatory legislation against Jewish residents.

I've noted before that Walsh is no friend of Israel or the Jews. And here we see proof of that. Walsh is advocating nothing less than the end of Israel, the end of the Zionist dream of a Jewish democratic homeland. It renders him arguably the most overtly anti-Israel Congressman since Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), and the Jewish community should let him hear it.

Monday Roundup

I'm not feeling it today, dear readers.

* * *

Ex-Rep., current nutcase Cynthia McKinney and ANSWER host an event on NATO's Libya campaign, refuse to let in Libyans.

Gay Orthodox groups get their first float at the Tel Aviv gay pride parade.

I remember when this scandal broke, but I confess I didn't expect any criminal indictments to come from it: Aides of former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich (R) charged with voter suppression crimes.

The "Anthony Weiner's secret Muslim agenda" conspiracy theory still has legs on the far-right.

Supreme Court rejects class certification for a giant sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart. Scott Lemiuex has good commentary up.

The Futility of Distinguishing Between the Far-Left and Far-Right

There's a cottage industry in trying to pin down the politics of Gabrielle Giffords' would-be assassin (thankfully, it looks like she will survive). Jim Lindgren, claiming that he merely wants to "take the political argument off the table", argues that the best way to do so is to point out "that Loughner was more probably a mentally deranged left winger than a mentally deranged right winger." In support of this, Lindgren cites, for example, Loughner's apparent opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

But I think obsessing over whether Loughner was "really" extremely right-wing or left-wing is worse than just partisan, it's impossible. Why? Because whether they identify as "left" or "right", extremists of this stripe tend to say more or less the same things. Professor Lindgren's observation that rabid anti-war views are an indicator of being "left-wing" is simply flawed. Certainly, it's probably true that there are more mainstream liberals who are anti-war than mainstream conservatives. But once you reach the margins, you see plenty of extreme anti-war rhetoric emanating from the old-school, paleo-con right. If someone yells out that the Iraq War is an imperialist project of our Zionist Occupied Government, I have no earthly way of telling if that's the product of someone who identifies as "far-right" or "far-left". Frankly speaking, once you reach the fringes that folks like Loughner inhabit, it's more or less impossible to tell the difference between the far-right and far-left. The extreme ends of the political spectrum, far from being polar opposites, tend to wrap back around the edges of reality and link up again.

Moreover, extremists left and right don't seem to view each other as enemies, but as fellow sojourners. Cynthia McKinney has been very happy to associate with members of the far-right fascist fringe. The Palestine Telegraph, which I suspect identifies itself as "left", has prominently featured David Duke on its front page. Pushing (slightly) closer to the center, Code Pink attempted to make common cause with the Tea Party. This isn't exactly a rare phenomenom. Hell, there's a long history of at least a grudging respect and accommodation between White supremacists and Black nationalist organizations.

So the question isn't really whether Loughner is "left" or "right" -- a question to which I'm dubious has a coherent answer. There are certain hallmarks of extremist movements -- belief in imminent totalitarianism, wild conspiracy-mongering, racism and/or anti-Semitism, calls for violence against public officials, mistrust of basic governmental institutions (like the currency system), to name a few. And it's a bad thing when politicians of any stripe to tap into that id. The self-identification of either the politician who plays in that mud, or the extremists who listen to it, is besides the point. The fact of the matter is, since "we’re not teetering on the brink of totalitarianism, officials in positions of responsibility probably shouldn’t run around the country saying we’re teetering on the brink of totalitarianism."

Green-Brown Swirl, Part II

I already linked to some of ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney's sojourns into the heart of extremist anti-Semitic hate-swamps. But I think it is important to reiterate just who she is associating with. There are those who, after being made aware of this, would still accord McKinney credibility. These persons, no matter their protestations, cannot be said to hold any beliefs that are recognizably progressive -- at least any progressivism that is not avowedly anti-Semitic.

I was once asked if there was "any criticism of Israel that you wouldn’t automatically suspect of anti-semitism." I took exception to the premise of the question (as I felt quite within my rights to do), but noted that it also missed the point. The mistrust tends to be directed more towards critics than towards criticisms.

[M]y presumptions, if you will, are not tied merely to the statement but also to the stater. A comment, issued by someone whom I know and respect and know cares about Jews and truly views and treats them as equals (particularly if they themselves are Jewish because then it’s their body on the line) is going to meet more acceptance than the same comment by someone whom I know is an anti-Semite (and of course there is a continuum in between). So J Street won’t meet with charges of anti-Semitism from me even when I disagree with them, because I know they are committed to norms of fairness as well as the security of Israel and Jews. By contrast, [my] default stance towards Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir is significantly more … skeptical.

The problem, of course, is that in the whole wide world I don’t know most people, and thus don’t have access (at least at first glance) as to whether they are people who truly view Jews as equal, understand Jewish history, value Jewish perspectives — in short, are allies. My default assumption is that they are not. I don’t think that’s unreasonable of me — it certainly accords to my experience with most non-Jews I’ve met who don’t really know that much about Jews qua Jews (this is true for pro- as well as anti-Israel folks out there).

That isn’t to say that I believe the average person is a Jew-hating Nazi; I don’t. I just don’t have any particular reason to believe that Joe Random Gentile either knows all that much about or cares all that much about Jews, beyond mainstream stereotypes. In a world where this is the default, I’ll admit to starting off mistrustful unless I see indications otherwise. Show me you value Jewish perspectives, show me that you think Jewish bodies matter, show me you take as seriously as human beings and not as caricatures or objects, and you’d be surprised how far I’m willing to walk with you.

In a world of limited knowledge, we have to use heuristic short-hands when trying to evaluate the motivations and intentions of political actors. Suppose I overheard a stranger railing vitriolically against affirmative action. Now, there are plenty of grounds by which to critique affirmative action from an avowedly anti-racist perspective. Nonetheless, my immediate assumption, without any qualifying knowledge, would not be to assume that the speaker is particularly committed to racial egalitarianism, because most (not all) people aren't so committed, and because most (not all) people who are favor affirmative action. That's how a heuristic works: it is a cognitive shortcut sacrificing optimality for efficiency.

Anti-Semitism works similarly. It certainly isn't true that every critic of Israel is anti-Semitic, or every criticism is. The problem is that, heuristically, if I know little about a speaker, and I start from a presumption that the average person isn't particularly committed to securing equal standing for Jews, and then I hear a criticism of Israel thrown in -- particularly of the kind rarely (not never) voiced by those who do hold said commitment -- it makes sense for me to default to a skeptical stance.

And Rep. McKinney bears this out. Rep. McKinney was one of the more virulent Israel critics when she served in Congress, but she wasn't doing the sort of flagrantly racist and judeophobic stuff we're seeing right now. Nonetheless, the Jewish community, drawing on its long experience in recognizing anti-Semitism (a survival skill we've had quite a few generations to hone) recognizes something quite askance. And given her playing footsie with the worst sorts of bigots and hate-mongering maniacs, I think our intuitions were quite warranted.

So where does this leave the Israel critic who genuinely cares about the liberation of all people, including Jews? Well, the first step of respect is recognizing our vulnerable status and not demanding our trust as an entitlement. Trust is something earned through listening, through respectful dialogue, through a demonstrating willingness to reassess and reevaluate your views, through agreeing to view those you know the least about in their strongest possible light. People who have done the hard work of showing themselves to be allies will find a welcome ear in our community. But persons who openly flaunt their unwillingness to listen, who traffic in arrogant pathologizing and psychoanalyzing -- these persons cannot be surprised when I view their professed commitment to my equality with significant skepticism.

Kind of a Greenish, Brownish Color

Former U.S. Rep. and Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney cements her Green-Brown alliance by extensively citing far-right anti-Semitic extremist Matthias Chang. Adam Holland gives a run down of Chang's delightful contributions to civilized discourse.