One of the surprises of Middle East debate here is how censorious the Jewish community can be. The ADL’s efforts to keep Tony Judt from talking, the shutting down of the Spertus Museum’s exhibit on Israel/Palestine geography last month, the withdrawal of invitations to John Mearsheimer to speak, the incredibly narrow bandwidth of the Times, the Forward, the Sun, the Washington Post, just about any newspaper when it comes to these issues (and yes I know that’s not the Jewish community per se, but let’s not split hairs right now), the David Project’s activities at Columbia U, etc. Jewish Voice for Peace has a whole website devoted to tracking efforts to muzzle debate on Middle East policy, and most of it is done by conservative Jews. And when you look at Israel, Haaretz shames our journalism daily.
I bring this up in order to note that a leading sociologist noticed this pattern of Jewish omerta nearly 50 years ago. In the classic, Beyond the Melting Pot (1963), which I picked up lately, Nathan Glazer wrote of Jews:
When the American anti-Semite George Rockwell wanted to speak in New York City, Jewish groups and individuals (not all) put great pressure on the government to prevent him from opening his mouth legally. When young boys painted swastikas on Jewish synagogues, it became a matter for almost hysterical outbursts and elaborate studies–as if no one had written dirty words on appropriate walls before. A few years ago, the Police Commissioner of New York spoke out in irritation against Jewish policemen who were taking off Yom Kippur as a holiday when he needed every man to guard Khrushchev and Castro… Married to a Jewish woman, knowledgeable about New York and New York Jews, he said that he knew many of them were not planning to spend the day in the synagogue. The outburst against him by Jewish organizations was violent, and when he refused to apologize, he only scarcely retained his job. Such incidents, and they are common in the life of the city, lead one to reflect on the future of the Jewish community. What is it afraid of? What is it defending? Are these minor slights matters that should so deeply concern it? [that’s just the windup, now comes the good stuff]
The Jewish community is affected not only by the context of America in the sixties but by the context of Jewish history. But never in the Diaspora have Jews wielded such weight and power in a great city, and in such circumstances it is necessary to consider how the traditional parameters of Jewish history may, if only for some generations, have been altered. The defense of a minority group and its interests may legitimately be shrill and insistent when it is powerless and weak and there is no one to listen; thus much may be excused the Negroes. But the maintenance of this habit when conditions change may seem to those outside the group arrogance and hypocrisy.
Brilliant, huh. And bear in mind, Jews were a lot less powerful in ’63 than they are today. Now we’re principals in the U.S. establishment, the leading funders of presidential campaigns, and we’re shutting down a professor at the University of Chicago who doesn’t like Israel policy and using the stage at Yivo to try to brand him an antisemite–and one of the speakers (Jeffrey Goldberg) is comparing Jews to blacks as oppressed classes. It doesn’t just smack of arrogance and hypocrisy, it’s a lack of self-awareness, which has become even more defiant in the wake of the neocons. This is an amazing moment in Jewish history, as Glazer said. Where has his reflective spirit gone? I think the answer is: the stunning success since ’63, and the lack of a historical understanding of what it means to have power.
