TheAugeanStables.com, February 1, 2007

The NYT has a discussion of a controversy within the Jewish community about when criticism of Israel not only oversteps the bounds of decency, but rather feeds the current wave of antisemitism that began in late 2000 and continues to gain momentum. Before discussing the article, which I think misframes the issues in critical ways, I want to make some remarks about what I think is at stake here… The American Jewish Committee, a liberal, mainstream organization which has been as dedicated to defending the rights of others, as it has been of Jews for the last century, and, until quite recently, reflected the Politically-Correct Paradigm [PCP1] position (pro-Oslo, pro-dialogue, pro-negotiations), has published an essay that criticizes Jews who, embracing the Post-Colonial Paradigm [PCP2], criticize Israel so harshly and categorically that in some cases they have called for the dismantling of the state. In so doing, Rosenfeld argues, they actually feed the anti-Semitic delirium that, since 2000, has grown stronger by the year.

The primary issue at stake in this debate concerns the nature of criticism, more precisely, since we’re talking about Jews criticizing Israel, “self-criticism.” This is one of the most difficult issues to deal with right now for a number of reasons:

* 1) Jews have a tradition of ferocious self-criticism that goes back to the prophets… when the Assyrian empire conquered the northern regions, or the Babylonians, the southern, the prophetic response was not to castigate the vicious invading imperialists, but to castigate the Israelites for not keeping their bargain with the Lord. Prophetic rhetoric-say calling the Israelites “men of Sodom”-does not offer “impartial appraisals” of the situation, but rather operates as a kind of “whip of shame” to lash the Israelites into returning to the right path. This tradition is evident throughout Jewish history, especially in the lively debates within the rabbinical community, as evidenced in the Talmudic exchanges.

* 2) The ability to take self-criticism requires an important ability to overcome the emotional dynamics of honor-shame, in particular the prevailing attitude among honor-shame alpha males that a public criticism is an attack on one’s manhood, and, as the rules of those cultures tend to go, one can, even must shed the blood of another for the sake of one’s own honor. The ability to take criticism without violence-and even more, to acknowledge fault publicly-is a key marker of civil society and a free press, and demands a very high level of emotional maturity. In honor shame cultures the instinct is to point the finger and, in extreme cases, demonize the “other” rather than take responsibility.

* 3) One of the essential elements of any learning curve, but especially of modernity’s extraordinary learning curve, comes from this kind of commitment to self-criticism (science, academia in general, public debate, free media). This overlap between Jewish and modern culture helps explain on the one hand why Jews do so well in modern cultures, especially in the professions that call for the ability to tolerate contradiction (academia, law, journalism), and on the other hand, why enemies of modernity, scapegoat and demonize the Jews as the manipulators of a giant scheme to use modernity as a way to enslave mankind.

* 4) Modern Jewish self criticism has an important element of the prophetic. Rather than criticize others, Jewish thinkers…tend to focus on their own people’s faults. And, in more emphatic modes, they tend to use an inflated rhetoric of denunciation-Israelis are racists, the wall is apartheid, the state of Israel is born in sin. Now all of these things, on the scale of moral perfectionism, might be true. But no one’s perfect; and where does that leave the rest of the world? Israel is the only country to have brought blacks out of Africa to freedom. Israel treats her Arab Muslims better than the Arab countries treat their Arab Muslims.

* 5) People who don’t realize how self-critical Jews are, almost as a cultural instinct, don’t understand the meaning of their comments on the Arab-Israeli conflict… NPR did a piece shortly after the outbreak of the Intifada on the origins of the conflict. The Israelis they interviewed said, “it’s at least half our fault,” and the Palestinians said, “it’s all their fault.” The uninformed listener, assuming that no one willingly admits to stuff they haven’t done, would be entirely reasonable in concluding that it’s probably 75 percent Israel’s fault. No one would have a clue that, had the Arabs won, the most likely outcome would be no refugees because most would have been slaughtered.

* 6) Self-criticism can and does morph into a pathological (and messianic) form which I’ve called “masochistic omnipotence complex.” We are to blame for everything that’s wrong, if only we would change, we could fix everything.”… On one level, such exceptionally self-critical responses are very generous. But when they become inflated with prophetic rhetoric, we end up with a moral narcissism-only my actions count-and a subtle bigotry that robs the “other” of any agency-they merely “react” to my misdeeds.

* 7) PCP1 (liberal version) is based on a basic reflex of self-criticism on the one hand: What can we do to make things better?-concessions (land for peace), confessions (we did wrong), apologies (we’re sorry for what we did); and well intentioned projection on the other: If we’re nice, they’ll be nice because they share our desire for a peaceful, positive-sum future. PCP2 (”progressive” or radical version) is based on a compulsive self-criticism: we-capitalism, imperialism, hegemony-are the source of all problems, and a corresponding affirmation that the outrage of the wretched of the earth is entirely justified, even admirable. Thus, 9-11 is the result of how we’ve treated the Arab world… We cannot assume that “other” cultures are committed to the civic values (positive-sum relations, freedom and mutual respect) that strike liberals as “self-evident.” We must at least allow for the existence of-and recognize when we are faced with-cultures committed to very different values and psychological assumptions. So, on the one hand, it means appreciating that for all our faults, we have come a long way in achieving the kinds of moral imperatives that liberals believe in-human rights, respect for others, tolerance, freedom, sharing of wealth-no matter how much farther we need to go; and on the other hand, that many of the people we are dealing with in the Muslim world have no commitment to these values…

* 8 ) The current situation-since 2000 in particular-has strengthened a dynamic I call the “Moebius strip of cognitive egocentrism.” We project our good intentions on them-PCP1 holds that “if we’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us”-while they project onto us their worst intentions-conspiracy theory assumes that your adversary is evil, without good intentions. They take full advantage of this to manipulate us into “standing with them” on matters of human rights…while they have no interest or commitment to those rights (the Palestinians are already treating their Christians as dhimmi).

* 9) The Moebius strip becomes a knot when the hyper-self-critical…types adopt the demonizing language of the demopaths, including their irredentist demands, and, by adopting that demonizing discourse-today heavily anti-Semitic in ways that make the Nazis look mild-and toning its worst excesses down, they turn it into acceptable discourse, “justifiably harsh” criticism of Israel. Thus they speak in the language of prophetic rhetoric and self-sacrifice in which Israelis are and have been such horrific abusers of human rights that Israel should be dismantled, i.e., they, as Jews, renounce the right to sovereignty… Behind them, the active haters and killers who now proliferate with such astounding speed around the world. It is this phenomenon, the radical, hypercritical Jew who is so obsessed with the sins of his own people that he cannot see the monster he feeds, who stands at the center of Alvin Rosenfeld’s critique.

* 10) The idea of a one-state solution for the Arab Israeli conflict was a favorite of the Zionist left back in the days before the 1948 war, a vision of a single, “bi-national,” secular, modern democratic state for all inhabitants of the land. And those Arabs who, drawn to this modernizing vision, declared their commitment soon found themselves the target of the irredentist forces of the Mufti. The outburst of hysterical xenophobia and Jew-hatred that accompanied that conflict woke up all but the most determined “universalists” among the Zionists to the impracticality. After 1973, however, convinced of the futility of destroying Israel by military means, the PLO adopted the language of a bi-national secular state as part of their demopathic use of “human-rights” discourse… In any case, anyone who views what passes for mainstream discourse in the Palestinian world can only conclude that, “objectively,” those who call for the dismantling of the Jewish state are supporting massacres, ethnic cleansing, and the return of dhimmi status for the Jews.

[New York Times] text in bold blockquote…

Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor

By PATRICIA COHEN Published: January 31, 2007

The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews. Alvin H. Rosenfeld is the author of an essay critical of liberal Jews that has generated heated debate.

This is very strange. The article itself is quite explicit: the target is a certain kind of “progressive” Jew, not the more mainstream “liberal” Jew. It’s the difference between the liberal, well-intentioned (if misguided) and mainstream liberal Politically Correct Paradigm (PCP1) and the much more aggressive and radical Post-Colonial Paradigm (PCP2). And as for the AJC as a conservative advocacy group-what do you have to do to get the label liberal, or as the AJC itself prefers, centrist, in this world? Why would the author so badly misinform the reader right off the bat?

…An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding…virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

Again, this brief summary of the article makes it look bad. It’s not, as Cohen states, that they feed a rise in virulent antisemitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist, it’s because their ferocious criticism of Israel confirms the demonizing voices that want to make Israel the greatest violator of human rights in the world and deligitimate her. The denial of Israel’s right to exist is a…logical and grotesque outcome of this larger problem of moral hysteria. To reduce it to “questioning” makes it sound like a mean-spirited and authoritarian effort to shut down…desperately needed discussion about how to restore moral sanity.

In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising-and distressing-feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s…right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”… By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.

This remark gets to the core of the problem. Just like the Israeli government is reluctant to confront the media, so Jews have been reluctant to confront Jews on these issues. This partakes of the general Western malaise of appeasement: don’t say anything, you’ll only make things worse. The key is to raise these issues intelligently, judiciously, and with the aim not of destroying the opponent, but engaging constructively with those who, benevolently or malevolently, do damage with their aggressive (mis)understandings of the stakes involved. Ultimately, the vast majority of us are on the side of civil society.

The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt…in addition to a number of academics. Mr. Judt, whose views on Israel and the American Jewish lobby have frequently drawn fire, is chastised for what Mr. Rosenfeld calls “a series of increasingly bitter articles” that have “called Israel…arrogant, aggressive, anachronistic, and infantile…dysfunctional, immoral, and a primary cause of present-day anti-Semitism.”

A historian at New York University, Mr. Judt said in a telephone interview that he believed the real purpose of outspoken denunciations of him and others was to stifle harsh criticism of Israel. “The link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is newly created,” he said, adding that he fears “the two will have become so conflated in the minds of the world” that references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will come to be seen as “just a political defense of Israeli policy.”

This is pretty sorry stuff. Judt’s dismissal of the critique-which is far more substantive than merely listing Judt’s insults-speaks volumes for the lack of substance in the “progressive” critique. This is little more than the classic dismissal of concerns about the anti-Semitic elements in anti-Zionism with: “Oh any criticism of Israel is dismissed as antisemitism.” Part of the problem is that Israel has such a tolerance for criticism, that they take far more than they deserve, and only cry antisemitism when they’re really viciously attacked. What any reasonable person would call harsh criticism, Israel stomachs daily with barely a peep of protest. Let Prof. Judt try aiming his moral indignation at the Palestinians and Muslims and see how much they’ll tolerate… Judt thinks the way to get Israel to cease its moral outrages is a single state:

The time has come to think the unthinkable. The two-state solution-the core of the Oslo process and the present “road map”-is probably already doomed… But what if there were no place in the world today for a “Jewish state”? What if the binational solution were not just increasingly likely, but actually a desirable outcome? It is not such a very odd thought. Most of the readers of this essay live in pluralist states which have long since become multiethnic and multicultural. “Christian Europe”…is a dead letter; Western civilization today is a patchwork of colors and religions and languages, of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Arabs, Indians, and many others-as any visitor to London or Paris or Geneva will know.

The…essay is classic expression of the Post-Colonial Paradigm (PCP2) which…Judt adheres to…closely.

The problem with Israel, in short, is not-as is sometimes suggested-that it is a European “enclave” in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a “Jewish state”-a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded-is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.

Okay, how many ways can an extremely intelligent professor…get it wrong. No, the Israeli project is not imported into “a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers and international law.” On the contrary, the world in which Israel exists hasn’t come close to respecting individual rights, having open frontiers and obeying international law. This remark not only underscores Judt’s profound ethno-centrism…but the huge gap between Middle Eastern realities and the angélisme of Moral Europe which he apparently identifies with even as it slowly-Roman style-commits suicide by bleeding to death.

Thus the likelihood that that “single, integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs” would live up to the progressive moral standards Judt holds Israel to are less than zero… Only a fool or a knave could possibly suggest such a thing in good faith… So, having stepped into intellectual and moral terrain which marks him as a self-destructive radical, Judt’s defense is to say, “Oh yeah, well I know what [you’re] really up to, you want to stop people from criticizing Israel.”…

On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, wrote, “Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience…a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism.”

More of the Judt defense, with a nice twist-the Jews who complain about the radicals encouraging anti-Semitism are themselves contributing to “anti-Jewishness.” Turn a substantive critique into a sweeping attempt to shut down dissent… It would be nice to hear one of these folk actually address the criticism, rather than try to hide behind a sweeping dismissal and make veiled threats about the criticism backfiring. Any decent outsider, not already attracted to the moral Schadenfreude that has engulfed so many in this young century, would not find this internal struggle a cause for further anti-Jewishness.

Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld’s indictment and joined the fray. Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: “Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews.”…

David Singer, the [American Jewish Committee’s] director of research, said the attention Mr. Rosenfeld’s essay had drawn was not unexpected. “We…thought that it would raise eyebrows…,” he said. “I think it’s an act of courage” on the part of the American Jewish Committee and the author, he added. “It obviously deals with matters of great sensitivity.”…

Richard Landes, professor of History at Boston University, director of the Millennial Institute, is member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East