Stanley I. Kutler, Boston Globe, February 7:
The American Jewish Committee has endorsed an article by Indiana University professor Alvin Rosenfeld linking “progressive” Jewish thought to a rise in anti-Semitism. The article pointedly castigates Jewish critics of Israel ’s policies, and argues that such criticism questions the very right of Israel statehood. All this, Rosenfeld – and the AJC – insist, fuels anti-Semitism. It is a false proposition.
Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that to be or not to be is not the question, but how to be and how not to be is the essential one. The AJC’s view is that criticism of Israel is tantamount to denying Israel’s right to exist, and that makes you an anti-Semite.
Anti-Semitism has many sources, but the spring of critical “progressive Jewish thought” is a mere trickle. Indeed, there are lonely voices on the left and right who question Israel’s existence – and yes, some are Jewish. A voice here, an article there, by an American Jew criticizing Israel, and the AJC trembles.
The AJC’s real targets are “progressives” – which is their shorthand for Democrats and opponents of George W. Bush’s dubious adventure into Iraq. Along with its favorite stable of commentary writers, the AJC has been an ardent advocate for the Iraq war, fixed with a vision that it would bring forth a new Middle Eastern order. But the war and the vision have failed, and, ironically, at some cost to Israel’s interests.
Israel’s right to exist is not a serious question dividing Jews. But if Jewish criticism of the Jewish state made such Jews anti-Semites, then the world of anti-Semitism would be significantly enlarged. Criticism of the Israeli occupation puts you in the company of a significant portion of the Israel population. Those folks – many of whom are descendants of Israel’s “pioneers” – at best are amused by such an equation. American newspapers have been critical of the occupation, with some significant ones being Jewish-owned. And this has stoked the fires of anti-Semitism?
For Australian readers of this blog, ABC Radio National’s Religion Report interviewed Rosenfeld yesterday (Feb 14). See:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1847226.htm#transcript
Having already glanced at Rosenfeld’s paper, I thought Crittenden could have done better by addressing his specific ‘examples’ rather than the more general questioning on Zionism’s origins (can someone explain the little spat between Rosenfeld & Crittenden over ‘blood and soil’?)
Apparently a counter view to Rosenfeld in next weeks program.
Thanks for the link- I’d caught the end of the Irris Mackler interview in the car. I think the blood and soil thing harks back to some very tricky history- it was as Rosenfeld said a Nazi phrase, but it was also used in a speech by Kurt Blumenfeld, leader of the Zionist federation of Germany which was negotiating with the Nazis. I think the interpretation of ZVfD actions at the time is that they were trying to harness antisemitism to help propel the quest for a jewish homeland. Riding the tiger so to speak which is always a dangerous exercise. (Is this what you were asking?)
The strange thing about Rosenfeld’s analogy is he says comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and South Africa is akin to wishing it’s destruction when in fact both Germany and South Africa are quite extant and much the better for having their racist systems of government removed. That said I personally find comparisons to Nazi Germany in hideous taste. It is a deliberate insult to what I think should remain a powerful memory and I don’t like either side of the debate weakening the memory of the holocaust.
I think comparisons to South Africa are entirely in order.