The American Jewish Committee has endorsed an article by professor Alvin Rosenfeld of Indiana University 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.
Not surprisingly, Kutler presents a "straw man" argument that makes one wonder if he bothered to read Rosenfeld's article or whether he is hoping that no one else will so that he can get away with this canard. Rosenfeld does not implicate ALL "progressive" Jews or even ALL criticisms of Israel.
In some quarters, the challenge is not to Israel’s policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future. Thus, the argument leveled by Israel’s fiercest critics is often no longer about 1967 and the country’s territorial expansion following its military victory during the Six-Day War, but about 1948 and the alleged "crime," or "original sin," of its very establishment. The debate, in other words, is less about the country’s borders and more about its origins and essence. One of the things that is new and deeply disturbing about the new anti-Semitism, therefore, is precisely this: the singling out of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state alone, as a political entity unworthy of a secure and sovereign existence. (Bold Added)
Clearly, Rosenfeld, is not referring to ALL the critics of Israel (e.g. "In some quarters...") or ALL criticisms of Israel, but rather to criticism that the, "challenge is not to Israel's policies, but to its legitimacy and right to an ongoing future." Or critiques that, "single out" the, "Jewish state, and the Jewish state alone". I fail to see what is false about these propositions.
Critiques of the type that hold Israel by a different standard (whether a bad or a good standard) are racist. Racism against Jews is known by the term Anti-Semitism. As such, people (whether Jewish or otherwise) who promote the ideas mentioned above - i.e. advocating the destruction of Israel, or those who hold Israel solely accountable for all the problems in the Arab-Israeli conflict are without a doubt Anti-Semites. Being Jewish does not mean that they have been magically innoculated at birth.
Even stranger than Kutler's assertions above (yes, I know it is hard to believe possible) is the following paragraph:
The committee'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 committee 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.
Aside from the fact that this comes off as what psychologists call "projection" , it has little to do with this paper and is verifiably false. In fact, Bush is never mentioned in Rosenfeld's paper and the only reference to Iraq is about a Turkish movie portraying Jewish doctors harvesting Iraqis for organs. This is a crass attempt to undermine Rosenfeld's argument by making the majority of American Jews feel that he is referring to them. After all, Kutler certainly knows that 86% of Jews voted Democratic and against Bush in the last election. (To read Rosenfeld's paper, click here.)
Finally, Kutler digs up "dirt" on the AJC from over 60 years ago and uses this to both psychoanalyze and tar the organization.
The American Jewish Committee's history reveals a convert to Zionism, one filled with the worst of proselytizing zeal. Before 1947, the committee was a powerful divisive force precisely because it so adamantly opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Its founders would marvel at the committee's evolution. ... Finally, the committee changed course in 1946, as its membership expanded with a substantial number of East European Jews and their descendants.
He has the chutzpah to say this as if nothing happened circa 1946 to forever silence the pre-war debates between Bundists and Zionists. For someone so obviously smart as the professor, it is kind of suprising that he has obviously never heard about the Holocaust. Perhaps that explains his "enlightened" perspective.
There is much more that is fundamentally wrong with this opinion piece, but I don't have all day to right these wrongs. Wait, was that last sentence meant as a swipe at Eastern European Jews?
No comments:
Post a Comment