The Australian anti-Zionist, and Jewish atheist Antony Loewenstein, is visiting the States. He talked at Harvard last week. Told this anecdote:
I met a group of influential left-oriented Jews in Melbourne last
year. They wanted to engage with me and discuss privately my ideas. It
was a depressing affair, however, as one after the other detailed their
“pain” and “trauma” over the occupation, expressed dedication to a
two-state solution and pledged to work towards its implementation.
Publicly, with a few notable exceptions, they refused to condemn
Israel’s gross violations of human rights. It was simply a bridge too
far. Talking passionately amongst themselves may have made them feel
good but the situation in the Middle East requires more than
hand-wringing. A fear of societal exclusion held these people back
while the Palestinians suffered in silence.
Loewenstein
is reflecting the problem that I have with the idea of dialogue. How
much information do people need? They get the information again and
again, about Palestinian human rights abuses, and they do nothing;
still, they want to have dialogue about it. Zach Wales, a former
Columbia student, once explained this to me–that these people seek a
private means of atoning, and doing nothing, even as they gather "more
information." (In the information age, that's what we always need!)
It
is for a similar reason that I said the other day that I do not think
that progressives on this issue should truck with the Jewish community.
Richard Witty promptly said it was like shunning the U.S. government.
The U.S. government is powerful, and official. The Jewish community
tends to be locked into denial. It's just not very useful to be
spending a lot of time working with that community when you could be
building bridges elsewhere. Though I'm not for shunning; I feel engaged
with the Jewish community. But I don't particularly wish to talk about
this stuff with my Jewish friends and relations.
