On Populism

An interesting argument about direct democracy (via Bob):

And if Israel's behaviour is short-termist (we will only know if it is short-termist in the long run, see Keynes aphorism on this matter) and it's continuance as a democracy with secure borders would be better served by a more nuanced and humane approach, are we seeing another instance in which a debased, creepingly direct democracy is threatening the moral foundations of democracy?

I think he undervalues one aspect of the particular case. The particular case is really a stepping off point for Paulie, though it's an important case for me, but I can use it in the same way as Paulie. A huge part of the Zionist perspective is "we have a right to make decisions about our own self-defense, since the rest of the world has demonstrably failed to care," and a huge part of the world replies, "ummm, no you don't, because you're not a real nation unless we say so. And we promise to protect you next time (provided you obey us right now, but otherwise, we'll force ourselves on you), so stop bringing that up." That kind of discourse is just.. Well, it really shouldn't be a surprise that one goal of Israeli governance to make it's own decisions with pointed stubbornness just to spite those who deny Israeli sovereignty. I think you see that all the time in postcolonial states, usually mocked by the privileged who see themselves as enlightened. Israel is founded on the notion that Jews cannot thrive without sovereignty, but that discourse is about denying Jews that sovereignty. Often, denying Israeli sovereignty while either ignoring or even championing that sovereignty for others. Disagreement is often important, but mocking and hateful shows of economic or political force aren't particularly productive in such cases.

In the general case, however, let me respond to this end:

Is a simple concerted re-statement of the values of representative democracy our only salvation? And if so, why isn't it a growing political movement?

Increasingly direct and populist democracy may be a symptom of the information age or merely a cyclically recurring problem. Perhaps, after a period of adjustment, we'll look back and say this was when Democracy grew up. I have my guesses, but I'd feel out of my depth to put them forward. There are, however, other responses besides such restatements. These restatements happen all the time, and they're usually a good thing. Toni Morrison's endorsement of Obama during the campaign, where she credited him with wisdom, being one such case (that I found moving and persuasive). Of course, when populists talk about politicians they can trust, which is something they do constantly, they're also (however dysfunctionally) working inside the rhetoric of representative democracy. But there is another, existing response, easily overlooked. What it doesn't do is deny the value of direct participation, because direct participation is actually a genuinely good thing. Instead, it expresses a measured skepticism of populist movements that criticizes populist rhetoric for excluding people from the democratic rights such movements claim for themselves.

With Zionists (like me) one of the winningest arguments is "Don't the Palestinians have the same right to sovereignty?" That's why a two-state solution is favored today by almost all Jews worldwide, which wasn't the case some 25 years ago. Unfortunately, a great deal of the rhetoric arrayed against Israel is exactly that sort of short-sighted, populist rhetoric we ought to be criticizing. That's why so much support for the Palestinians (which would be a good thing, if it were more genuinely progressive) is about the supporters getting to feel good about themselves.

Breaking News Alert: Judd Apatow is Jewish

An interesting review of the latest Apatow-gang film, here at Zeek.

Although religion is rarely evoked, it is nonetheless clear to anyone who is educated on the subject that their male protagonists are at least culturally Jewish. Indeed, Apatow’s camp has been called a “Jew Tang Clan,” playing off the name of the Wu-Tang Clan, a highly productive Staten Island hip-hip collective. By itself, this emphasis on identity might not seem particularly noteworthy. It’s not as if Hollywood has avoided Jewish humor in recent decades. What distinguishes the representation of Jewishness in films like Get Him to the Greek is that it exaggerates the schlub in its boyish men to the point where they veer perilously to negative stereotype.

These aren’t “stealth” Jews, getting to have their ethnic heritage and transcend its historical burden. Even when their romantic exploits succeed, against daunting odds, they remain marked by their deviation from the urbane, polished and post-ethnic masculinity of conventional male leads. Apatow projects may be Cinderella stories, but the magic wand doesn’t redress the superficial imbalance between their male protagonists and the love interests they improbably win over. They are both “everymen,” devoid of the special traits that stardom normally demands, and decidedlyJewishmen.

The character of Aldous Snow (in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, at least - I've yet to see this one), by being British and named Snow, is an exaggeration of whiteness every bit as much as these schlubs are exaggerations of Jewishness. Unfortunately, most audiences, reviewers, and critics just ignore the Jewish elements of the Jew-Tang Clan.

Unless, that is, members of the audience fail to recognize them as ethnic at all. One of the signal developments in postwar American Jewish history is a gradual decrease in visibility. While it might seem obvious that the protagonists featured in films from the Apatow camp are Jewish, there are plenty of moviegoers in the United States who lack the knowledge and experience to reach that conclusion. Although some of these pictures’ popularity may be a function of this ignorance – would Middle America respond to them as favorably if they were understood as ethnic films? – the degree of integration it indicates is still largely salutary.

Salutory? That's fair, as long as it is recognized that's not always the most important question. It's pretty clear from Apatow's films and a host of other places -- indeed, from the creation of Zeek, itself, founded with the recognition that Jews in journalism tend to hide their Jewishness -- that there's been a need to find new ways to express Jewishness. To be Out. That word appears in Michaelson's editorial and also in Jon Stratton's Coming Out Jewish. It's a word I like to describe a dilemma of contemporary Jewihsness.

This isn't always the most important question, either, but it's one I find interesting because it points to the relationship between Jews and the Left: Would feminists respond as critically if the ethnic character of these films, which the filmmakers strive to exaggerate, weren't so thoroughly erased? Such criticisms are right, so far as they go (in that they're not the only audiences erasing Jewishness), but it sure is frustrating.

Yeah, that's antisemitism, too

From the Rabbi who asked Helen Thomas about Israel:

Isn't it amazing that the vulgar hate mail and offensive threatening words to me and my family (and the Jewish People) are of no concern to some people. The jsut want to know if I ambushed Helen an dwhy did I report on this etc..

(Btw, my internet's been sketchy the past few days, which means this probably won't be the time when my blogging suddenly becomes regular. The more you know..)

The goals of Birthright Israel

Post at Tablet on Birthright Israel, by Adam Kirsch, reviewing Shaul Kelner's book, Tours That Bind: Diaspora, Pilgrimage, and Israeli Birthright Tourism.

An older post from Phoebe Maltz also discusses Birthright.

Both suggest, Phoebe in her particular experience, and Kirsch in reviewing an academic work on the tours, that Birthright Israel is not about indoctrinating kids into Zionism. Kirsch:

It is that the whole premise of Birthright is opposed to the classical Zionist idea that Jews, to flourish as Jews, must settle in the Jewish State. Birthright trips are round-trip, not one-way; as Kelner provocatively puts it, “since the program’s inception, it has funded the departures of almost 200,000 Jews from the Jewish state.” Really, the tours are not Zionist enterprises but “diaspora-building” ones, meant to increase Jewish consciousness among American Jews once they return to America.

Phoebe:

And every time Birthright comes up, someone, soon enough, will refer to "Zionist brainwashing." This could be the case on some trips, but the one I went on was far more devoted to convincing wary American Jewish guys to embrace (literally, figuratively) American Jewish girls - and, in the person of IDF soldiers, to convince American Jewish girls of the potential of Jewish masculinity - than it was about anything to do with our surroundings.

I'm sure some Birthright tours are Zionist brainwashing, but probably those would be the ones where the kids (well, young adults, and perhaps the parents as well) were looking for that particular experience. Which means it's not exactly brainwashing, then.

To reduce Birthright tours to Zionist brainwashing is to be unable to relate to Jews except as "Zionists." It stems primarily from the idea that Jewish narratives of the conflict are artificial and fake. That they must be propped up by powerful (and cynical) interests.

AK:

Like most teenagers, too, Birthright tourists are also clearly more interested in sex and drinking than in politics and religion. Kelner notes that the programs are practically designed to encourage hooking up, among the participants and between Americans and Israelis—especially American women and male Israeli soldiers, during the “cross-cultural peer-to-peer encounters known in Hebrew as mifgashim.” (Female soldiers, Kelner observes, are not nearly as interested in the male tourists.) No wonder it has earned the nickname “Birthrate Israel”—which is, come to think of it, not a bad description of the program’s ultimate goal.

PM:

If my group took anything away from the trip relating to Israel in particular, it was probably that the country's drinking age is under 21. The whole thing might as well have taken place in Montreal. Israel was at best a picturesque environment, one from which we had to be shielded by a security guard and rules preventing us from wandering off on our own for ten minutes because OMG terrorism. What I'd like to see isn't indoctrination, just more discussion of Israeli history, contemporary life in Israel, and so forth, including but not limited to the conflict, and less pleading instruction on how to be a Jew in America.

In desiring more focus on Israel, including discussion of the conflict, Phoebe is being so very Zionist. I am, too, but I don't really have a problem with such tours if people like them. Then again, I never went on one.

The failures of anti-oppression activists to deal with antisemitism

Left antisemitism matters.

David talks about the failures of anti-oppression activists to apply the basics of anti-oppression theory when the oppressed are Jews.

What distinguishes the rare discussions of anti-Semitism in these forums is not that folks universally mock and deride the concept. On the Feministe thread, you will find many that don't. What is different is that folks that would in other context be seen as trolls, here are just "the other side". The lack of 101 penetration is astounding. Respect how the Jewish community describes its own experience. Don't accuse us of being psychopaths, overly sensitive, manipulative, or flat out liars. Don't group our history and experience into the narrative of others. Being a Jew who disagrees with the bulk of the community does not earn you super-standing. The "anti-Semitism card" can and is easily trumped by the "anti-Semitism card card". Calling a particular statement respecting Israel anti-Semitic does not mean one condemns all criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic. For that matter, critiquing one's statement regarding Israel does not necessarily mean we've called you anti-Semitic at all.

And, indeed, in a space like Racialicious, I've seen plenty of comments that are truly shocking. Unlike Feministe, every single comment at Racialicious is hand-moderated, so it's much better (but it can also be more worrying). It's really amazing that a commenter here would have to write:

Also, I really [don't] recommend starting anything with, “I have nothing against the Jewish people.” Really, that can only end in tears.

It's common wisdom at Racialicious that anyone who starts a sentence with "I have nothing against..." is about to say something racist.

It seems to me Racialicious, in particular, has made some progress (though Racialicious, in particular, also started pretty ignominously, despite their sincerity), but there's certainly still work to be done in all such forums. Sometimes a comment may be allowed by moderators who know that another comment will respond. Indeed, there was a response in another comment. But then look at the links provided that sparked these comments. There's a model there for dealing with antisemitism, in which Jews are seen primarily as privileged. The occasion of Helen Thomas's bigotry against Jews was used to remind people that antisemitism isn't that important. Particularly for sites that already struggle to include Jewish issues, that's not living up to their ideals.

The anarchist Left is not the anti-racist Left, so it's no surprise to find them doing worse, but they have generally absorbed some 101 lessons and desire to be strong anti-racists. There is a common root that makes it sometimes useful to view the anti-racist Left together with other Lefts. A guest post at Contested Terrain, shows how an anarchist website published an article from a right-wing, antisemitic website, then silenced criticism of the antisemitism.

Why? According to a study by Christopher MacDonald-Dennis, who interviewed "Jewish peer facilitators in a nationally recognised social justice program at a university in the Midwest":

The participants explained that many people, especially people of color in the minds of many respondents, saw Jews as not only agents but as “super-privileged White people”.

I don't think it's exactly "people of color" who are especially guilty of this (though I think there is obviously something that they felt they had to say and didn't know how else to say). Perhaps it may be more accurate to say it's the Left. But when I say that, I am including many people of color who may not be Leftists in a broad sense.

Sometimes, conflicts between different people of color have to do with resentment of the relatively more successful group. That's often been the case with Jews and other people of color in America. It's what James Baldwin was mostly talking about in Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White. But that interacts with antisemitism, which creates an impression of Jews as far more powerful than we are, in funny ways which non-Jewish anti-racists really have to take more seriously. And, contrary to the common perception that antisemitism among POC is driven primarily is this sort of resentment, a lot of it has simply to do with the nature of antisemitism. Because Jews are seen as powerful and scapegoated when things "go wrong," people with real greivances have powerful incentives to antisemitism, while the powerful are often in a better position to see the illogic.

Much of what Baldwin wrote is just not relevant to today's debates about antisemitism centered on Israel and anti-Zionism in the way it would be if we were talking about the Crown Heights riots. It's not just that the "White people" part of the MacDonald-Dennis quote, which reduces and minimizes the experience of Jews, needs to be made more complicated. It's that "super-privileged" part, which goes far beyond that, that needs to be explicitly countered. Baldwin wrote, in part,

For one thing, the American Jew's endeavor, whatever it is, has managed to purchase a relative safety for his children, and a relative future for them.

But, of course, the violence against Israel and the sanctioning and apologizing for that violence (as well as the attacks on Israel that deny Jews the sense of safety we otherwise draw from having that bolthole) means precisely that this isn't a relevant a part of todays discussions. Jews have fears that are real. It is not being "hysterical" for Jews to express those fears when someone calls Israel a "colonial" or "apartheid" state, and anti-oppression websites need to face up to that if they ever hope to achieve their ideals.

But anti-racists, who rarely understand antisemitism any better than the general public, routinely deny and minimize that fear at the same time they claim that Jews are privileged because we don't have to be afraid. In the name of creating a safe space, they may create bizarre and arbitrary rules for what is allowed, because they only see one kind of disruption. All of which is part of the process of subsuming the struggle against antisemitism into a more general anti-racist campaign that doesn't begin to serve the interests of Jews. Which is, in turn, part of the wider process of silencing and suppressing Jewish voices in general.

In some places, I'm glad to say they've begun to do better, but there is still more to do. Moderators are still learning what it takes to make a space welcoming for Jews. And I'd say anyone who moderates discussion of racism needs to read Steve Cohen's "Funny, You Don't Look Antisemitic" and realize that the failures of the Left with regards to antisemitism are not accidental. It's the nature of antisemitism that Left antisemitism has always been a meaningful and significant part of the problem. And it's not our job to educate you.

Paternalism

Jeet Heer writes here about paternalistic racism.

In one sentence we get the two faces of paternalism: the smiling face that claims to have a special knowledge and affection (“I have deep love for our colored people” combined with the scowling desire to maintain power (“I know where they should be kept”).

He continues:

Smith’s two-faced take on race relations seemed very familiar to me. Don’t we see the same two-faces in the way neo-conservatives talk about Arabs? On the one hand there is the smile of condescension (we need to bring democracy to the Arabs) which quickly becomes the scowl of contempt (if they reject what is good for them, we’ll have to use the only language they understand which is force). The psychodynamics of racial paternalism deserve a deeper look from scholars.

Yes, we do see a lot of paternalistic racism directed toward Arabs. Also, a lot of paternalistic racism directed toward Jews. From people who have great love for Jews but fear that Israel will increase antisemitism. Or people who have great love for the Jews but fear that our constant "crying wolf" will keep them (somehow, I don't know how) from helping us when the time comes that we need their support. People who have great love for the Jews, so long as we are stateless, weak, and dependent on their protection.

I can't help but think of this, from George Galloway (apologies, but if you open the page, it will try to print; just hit "cancel"):

I cannot accept that the accusation of anti-semitism is part of the badinage of political debate. It’s a most serious allegation and hurling it at critics of Israel and its policies does nothing other than belittle victims of genuine anti-semitism down the decades, who are numbered in their millions.

He positions himself as the one who really has reverence for the victims of the Shoah. He said that after suing to shut down a Jewish radio station, which had dared to mock him for his support of the genocidal Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah. Not only did he say, "We are all Hezbollah, now," but also, "I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, and to glorify the resistance leader, Hassan Nasrallah." He quite likes a bit of badinage, doesn't he, when he's the one speaking? He has a great deal of love and respect for Jews, so long as we let him do all the talking.

Paternalistic racism sure gets around.

Activism probably shouldn't be emotionally satisfying

If it is, you're probably in it for the wrong reasons.

Two points especially worth taking from this post at Meretz USA. First, the execrable blog, MondoWeiss, is "a project of The Nation Institute." Anti-Israel activists have always loved to claim they're outsiders, but in reality, they're not. Actual Palestinian voices are still unfortunately rare, but anti-Israel and antisemitic voices are as much a part of the mainstream as ever. Second, maybe first in importance, is Ralph Seliger's wonderful answer to the question, "What do you tell young people who want to feel they’re making a difference?"

It isn’t boycott, it’s more engagement that you need. The United States should be more engaged in finding a solution and we should be more engaged in reaching out to all sides.

That probably wouldn’t be very emotionally satisfying to someone who was upset about the issue. But I think it’s part of growing up to understand that the world is not here to give you emotional satisfaction, and in this issue there is both complexity and perplexity, and you need to learn as much as you can, and be receptive to all sides, and be discerning.

That's huge for anti-Israel types. They want to "do something." They say, "We have to do something. We can't just sit by." That's wrong. There are other options. There are organizations, like Seeds of Peace and OneVoice trying to bring people together. That's real peace activism. And the whole damn mess is not about somebody's feelings as an activist sitting comfortably in Europe or the US! Talk about privilege, yeesh!