Food fight!

You may have heard that a Lebanese organization plans to sue Israel to prevent anyone from calling hummus Israeli. Point of No Return has a perspective you might not see everywhere:

Let's face it, say I. The motive underlying the Lebanese threat, an attempt to challenge Israel because it is better at marketing a food than the Lebanese are, is political:

"It is not enough they (Israelis) are stealing our land. They are also stealing our civilization and our cuisine," said Abboud.

The subtext is that hummus has been appropriated by foreign German and Polish Jews as their own. No mention of the fact that Middle Eastern Jews, 50 percent of the Jews in Israel, brought these foods with them.

And, frankly, here in New York it is clear that Israeli hummus is far superior to every other hummus.

A further question arises: can these foods be legitimately called Arab?

If I were a Turk, I would be outraged. I might even be tempted to sue.

Taking Jews seriously

Ralph Seliger at Meretz USA points to this article by Claude Kandiyoti at Haartez:

The Belgian political class does not understand the sensitivity of the Jewish community, which tends to see verbal attacks against "their" state as an avatar of the old threats, rooted in old prejudice, against their people. The Jews often do not grasp the difference between criticism of a sovereign state whose policies might be considered problematic - and sheer anti-Semitism. In this gap of perceptions lies the problem.

The article provides two cases of Belgian politicians described as antisemitic:

To be be clear: Whatever his intentions, Flahaut's comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany unequivocally falls under the general criteria of anti-Semitism, as defined in the working paper of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Michel, on the other hand, is in more of a grey area, as he has never been associated with actions or comments delegitimizing Israel or the very right of the Jews to political autonomy.

There's no description of why Michel has been criticized, and I can find very little online in the way of either things for which he might be criticized or actual criticism of him. I'm in an awkward position where I have to trust Kandiyoti. But if he's right that (1) Jews do indeed keep criticizing Michel and (2) Michel doesn't pay any heed to these criticisms, then I find it hard to place any trust in Michel. Anti-racists, as a general rule, tend toward believing minorities on the issue of their own oppression. I happen to think it does go too far at times, but if the Belgian Jewish community is repeatedly criticizing Michel, I have difficulty not taking that seriously. Michel says this:

"I am a victim of this confusion, in the way I am accused of anti-Semitism each time I speak out against Israel's policies. I always was, I still am and I'll always be a genuine friend of Israel and of the Jewish community of my country, but I can no longer tolerate being insulted by members of the community."

Jews are not afforded the sensitivity and respect leftists and liberals normally afford to oppressed groups. The dominant society insists on owning the definition of antisemitism, rendering lots of antisemitism invisible.

Kandiyoti writes of "the sensitivity of the Jewish community." This is an old theme, pervasive in philosemitism. Because Jews are made nervous by the history of antisemitism, it is argued, we cannot take Jews seriously when they complain of antisemitism. I like the general thrust of the article, which argues for listening more to the complaints of the Jewish community and does not take Michel's side against the Jewish community, placing him instead in a "grey area." But I still think Kandiyoti concedes too much in an attempt to win an audience with the dominant society. When Jews complain of antisemitism, it is not because we are oversensitive and hyper-reactive. It is because we perceive antisemitism.

On those brave Jews who speak out against "Zionism"

The speakers are lauded as “three brave hearts,” whose “courage and eloquence” should be “saluted” by “grateful Canadians.” This is, apparently, because they have spoken out against XXXXXXXX, and (it seems that this is a crucial element) have received flack for doing so.

The missing word is, in that case, 'Islamism.'

It seems that the most important credentials these days for Muslims to get taken seriously by some media outlets are based on how much the rest of the Muslim community (apparently) hates them. Their actual knowledge of Islam or Muslim communities is brushed aside. The actual impact that they have had in doing anything to fight “Islamism” (however the author understands it) is equally irrelevant. I am not saying that any of the people profiled have no knowledge or haven’t been active in these issues (even if I may vehemently disagree with many of their ideas). What I am concerned about is that we’re being asked to take them at their word simply because certain key people disagree with them, and we’re being implicitly told that their own thoughts and actions are not especially important as reasons to pay attention to what they say.

This is problematic in itself, because it means that many Muslims end up being represented by people that they may not agree with.

bigotry vs. oppression

Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good post addressing some of the things I've talked about.

Allow me the liberty of generalizing here--whites are most concerned about racial bigotry. That is, "I don't believe in interracial marriage" or "I don't want black people living next to me" or even "I think black people are prone to crime."

Black folks don't like racial bigotry, but they're mostly concerned--not about racism as bigotry--but racism as oppression.

Where he describes racial oppression, it's largely financial: job discrimination and redlining. I think that's a big part of the reason people don't think of Jews as oppressed and why people don't offer Jews the level of consideration, including the right to speak for ourselves, that would be offered to other minorities.

But there are two points. First, those academic and cultural boycotts--those things are discrimination. Second, and I think this is probably deeper, the oppression of Jews has never featured economic dispossession. It's been there, but it's never been central so that we can say things have changed. The fact that Jews aren't disproportionately poor today does not mean the oppression of Jews has ended. In pre-Nazi Germany, Jews had attained economic near-equality. To say we're not oppressed today suggests we weren't then, either, but that's obviously ridiculous. Instead, the oppression of Jews has always been about violence, scapegoating, and blunting political power. Those things are still around.

Antisemitism as a societal problem, not an individual one

Via Z-Word:

In his classic “Anti-Semite and Jew,” Jean-Paul Sartre argued that antisemitism “is something quite other than an idea. It is first of all a passion.” The emphasis is Sartre’s.

He then relates the story of a young woman who told Sartre of her unpleasant experiences with furriers. She has been robbed by them, she said, and they had damaged the furs which she had entrusted to their care. And they were all Jews, she added.

“But why did she choose to hate Jews rather than furriers?” Sartre asked rhetorically. “Because she had in her a predisposition toward anti-Semitism.”

I disagree that it's because antisemitism is a passion. Rather, I argue that antisemitism is embedded in our societies. Whenever we talk about Jews, we're echoing and regurgitating what was written by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens, and how ever many others. Though many of us reject overt expressions of antisemitism, few of us know any other way to talk about Jews. So when a disagreement occurs (perhaps over the definition of antisemitism, whether it can apply to anti-Zionism) one needn't be at all imaginative to perceive that the Jew is a scheming manipulator with an unfair advantage in debate. On the other hand, it does take a bit of imagination to figure that perhaps the perspectives of Jews, especially when it seems that most Jews hold a view few others hold, are important contributions to the discussion. So why the Jews instead of the furriers? Because the last person picked the Jews instead of the furriers.

The only passion needed is perhaps the tiniest touch of narcissism, something few of us lack. It's difficult to really grasp that I do not own the truth, so when minorities disagree with me I often have to stop to force myself to take account of the difference in perspective. That's not a way we're taught to think, but because we live in racist societies it is necessary in order to not contribute to racism.

Suppose I were to say something about affirmative action, and someone else were to call that statement racist. It's often difficult to imagine that a discussion of racism ought to be about the way in which minorities experience society. On the other hand, it's easy to insist that the discussion be about my hurt feelings after that other person willfully (I would imagine) misunderstood what I said and called me racist. Problem is that while I'm focusing on my hurt feelings, I'm not paying attention to the way in which that other person experiences my words, and so I'm completely disconnected from any way of evaluating how my behavior affected that other person. Without that, I can't even begin to say whether my words were indeed racist.

So if I'm in a discussion on Israel and I want to talk about antisemitism, it's no surprise to me that there's resistance. Because of the history of antisemitism, disagreement over something like that is most naturally understood as me being a scheming and manipulative Jew, willfully abusing the charge of antisemitism to silence others. And that's why that history of antisemitism, and the ways in which Jews understand it, must be investigated closely. Why it's necessary that critics of Israel take a moment to Be Quiet and Listen. That doesn't mean automatically agreeing, but it does mean a real effort to understand.

I am here merely applying what is typical of most anti-racist theory to antisemitism. I don't know why, but few people reliably approach antisemitism in that way. Overt expressions of antisemitism about which we would all agree, neo-Nazis and such, are the tip of the spear. The shaft is "Don't tell me what antisemitism is; I know what antisemitism is," or "I'll sue if you call me an antisemite." That's why we often talk about racism without racists. The people who threaten to sue might or might not be what we'd want to call antisemites. Many probably are, but it's not important. We don't need to divine their souls to understand that their actions reinforce and reproduce antisemitism. In fact, without them, the tip of the spear wouldn't be nearly as threatening. In that way, those people who seem like they might be a little antisemitic but we're not certain enough to really challenge them are the more significant problem.

(See also.)

Two links

Jeet Heer complains about an SNL skit, "In sum, every stereotype of the evil Jewish banker is used in this skit."

Engage links to the Sounds Jewish podcast. Starting right after 22 minutes, there's a great segment on Art Garfunkel that says a lot about the ways we understand Jewishness. Interesting point on how easily British Jews seem to relate to the American immigrant experience.

False Universalisms

Over at South Jerusalem:

“But that would be suicide,” said Shaya, and he’s almost certainly right. Some advocates of a single state sincerely mean well. (although many use the slogan as a euphemism for denying the Jews any right to live in their land). But their liberal values blind them to the realities on the ground. A single state means civil war, endless strife, and frustration for two nations that each justly demand the right to self-determination. We need only look at bi-ethnic and multi-ethnic states from Belgium to Lebanon to see what the future would hold.

See, despite his left-wing values, Shaya is a Zionist. He thinks that the Jews are a nation and that as such they deserve and need a state of their own. For all his concern for the plight of the Palestinians, he knows his Jewish history and accepts the central Zionist thesis that, to survive, we Jews must have the power of state so that our fate lies in our own hands.

I have trouble with the idea that a One-State solution could even possibly be democratic (in the sense that it protects Jewish rights as Zionists argue is necessary) given that states collectively have struggled with implementing or protecting minority rights. It seems, at least from a practical standpoint, premised on the notion that the dominant society can be generic so as to be equally acceptable to all. I know of no country where that's the case. I can't imagine a country where that's the case. Instead, the dominance of some becomes so pervasive as to be invisible. For example, white, Protestant men ignore the dominances of whiteness and Protestantness in America. Taking it for granted, they claim that America is equally open to all, but that's clearly false.

The "white racial frame," as some would call it, or simply "privilege."

The argument for a single "democratic" state really ignores the arguments Zionism has been making for over 100 years about the nature of minority status. From the idea that Jews could be successfully incorporated into a larger society if they merely convert to Christianity to this idea that Jews can be successfully incorporated into a larger society if only they give up the notion of self determination, we sometimes don't seem to have progressed very far. Jews have the right to define our own, collective interests, which is something quite distinct from a right to not be annihilated; but even the kinder, well-meaning variants of anti-Zionism never seem to consider how a society could progress beyond merely treating Jews well. Jews have been treated well at times in history - time and again between atrocities - and most of us are Zionists because we have a deep understanding of the difference between being treated well (as one might treat a pet well) and being equal.

But even without such theoretical considerations on the limits of democracy, it's clearly not the case that such a resolution is practical in the foreseeable future. The result would be a replay of Israel's War of Independence. Why anyone would call that peace is beyond me.