On Sunday there's a conference of Jews in New York seeking to recover the progressive anti-war tradition in Jewish life. I'm planning to attend. Rabbis Ellen Lippmann and Arthur Waskow. J.J. Goldberg, Amy Goodman. Register here. Oh, also: Michael Ratner (who has helped on the lawsuit against Caterpillar), M.J. Rosenberg, and Jeremy Ben-Ami, of J Street, Tammy Shapiro of Union of Prog Zionists. Strange that Ralph Seliger, who sponsored Shapiro's work once, is attacking the conference in the Forward, and singling out the statement by one of the speakers at the conference, Leslie Cagan of United for Peace and Justice, that "Occupation is Wrong in Iraq and Wrong in Palestine." Seliger: "[B]oth [occupations] defy the simplistic solutions that this slogan would suggest." Oh my God, why is a Progressive Zionist wasting any words defending the occupation? When will Seliger bluntly condemn the horrifying conditions that both occupations have produced? And Seliger attacks Cagan for not supporting the two-state solution, and attacks Amy Goodman for "extreme anti-Israel bias."
Maybe these people represent a real strain in Jewish life today?
The organizers are angry at Seliger and the Forward for "persisting in the kind of fear and paralysis about the war that has silenced many Jewish voices for nearly six years." It reminds us that when push comes to shove, many progressive Zionists line up with the Alvin Rosenfelds of the world, who said that anti-Zionism is anti-semitism. Seliger, who supported the Iraq war plans, is trying to block the important work that might take place here: a recognition in the progressive Jewish community that members of their own communal family, including neolibs and neocons, pushed the Iraq war in some measure out of concern for Israel's security, meanwhile pooh-poohing the Israeli occupation. There won't be progress till that recognition is achieved, and the apologetics for the occupation cease.
I think the oppossite of your headline Phil.
I think he wants practical and effective change, rather than just oversimplification and the horrible policy conclusions that result from oversimplification whether its Cheney or the left that does it.
Phil,
Do you understand some of the ways that anti-Zionism IS racism?
Its not in all ways, but it definitely is in many.
Saying "progressive Zionism" is like saying "progressive White Nationalism." It doesn't mean anything is fundamentally different; it just means they're less honest about what they want.
I wouldn't really call M J Rosenberg "anti-war".
Speaking of MJ, it was discouraging to see him write not one but two HuffPo defenses of Rahm Emanuel, when he never found the time to utter a single peep about Rashid Khalidi.
I' m afraid the whole "progressive Zionist" crowd is pretty sorry. And unfortunately many of them are so prominent in the Left that I think their hypocrisy has weakened the entire progressive movement. It's hard to inspire others when your real commitment is not to principles but to your people.
Neocons "pushed the Iraq war in some measure out of concern for Israel's security".
Some measure? There can be no clearer case where Israel's interests were pushed to the exclusion of America's national interest than with the Iraq War.
We still do not have a clear picture for all of the reasons that we went into that war. But the three top factors were Israel, America's overly developoed military industrial complex always looking for excuses to war and oil. None were sufficient reasons but all were likely necessary.
In any case it is progress to see that this conference is talking about the American occupation of Iraq in the context of Israel occupation of the West Bank. If that lesson can be implanted in the minds of the American people, perhaps Iraq will be the last war we fight on Israel's behalf.
M & W's book says the security of Israel was "critical" to the decision to attack Iraq after 9/11–anyone can go to their extensive footnotes in their book to see how well they support that contention, most of which were from Jewish sources. Another reason was the Military-Industrial-Security complex, of which both the USA and Israel at the top of the world heap. Big Oil played a small part, the part only Chaney knows after his meeting with it that has not seen the light of the day.
i second alana. a beautifully succinct statement. i also tend to view a conference of this sort as cover. they need to re-establish their reputations as progressives. i got invited recently to a fundraising lunch with some peace/mediation ngo. i checked the board and they were all neocons, mostly jewish. the list of their peacemaking efforts in africa was impressive however.
"In any case it is progress to see that this conference is talking about the American occupation of Iraq in the context of Israel occupation of the West Bank."
Unfortunately I don't think it has anything to do with the occupation. There's nothing at the registration site that says anything about Israel. All they mention is the not exactly controversial goal of "ending the Iraq war and turning to domestic needs high on the agenda of major Jewish organizations."
So what Seliger is really objecting to is the granting of legitimacy to such critics of Israel as Amy Goodman and Leslie Cagan. So much for the anti-war priorities of "progressive Zionists". So much for the American priorities of "progressive Zionists".
Euston Manifesto; signer:
Ralph Seliger - With the exception of remaining a loyal Democratic party voter (too loyal, perhaps),I disaffiliated with the general left about 25 years ago; I grew weary of explaining what I was as a progressive Zionist and defending why I support Israel's rights to security and peace as a Jewish state. At that time, I embraced the socialist-Zionist Americans for Progressive Israel/Hashomer Hatzair. In the 1990s, our comrades in Mapam merged with Ratz and others to form the Meretz-Democratic Israel party and we formed Meretz USA. We stand for an equitable two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians and a negotiated peace. We draw fire from both right and left, Zionists and anti-Zionists. Too much of the left is still apologetic for authoritarian movements and mindless anti-Americanism (not to mention, anti-Israelism); most of the right is still wrong. Hopefully I fit here.
The Euston Manifesto attempts to realign the left as Freedom-at-gun-point-forces:
Broadly speaking, the group asserted that the left as a whole is overly critical of the actions of Western governments, such as the military presence in Iraq, and correspondingly is overly supportive of forces opposing Western governments, such as anti-Western Iraqi forces. As the document puts it, "we must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic 'anti-imperialism' and/or hostility to the current US administration."[1]
I don't believe that a colonial movement that is built upon displacing indigenous population can be progressive, especially when engaged in continued colonialism, expansion and oppression.
Do progressive zionists believe that if Palestians behaved in the proscribed way, the powers that be in Israel would respond by ending the occupation (and siege of Gaza) and withdrawing from the OTs?
In my analysis, the core problem is that the Israel government(s) have continued to expand their control since 1967… regardless of what Palestinians do — even in the midst of a peace process!
Are progressive zionists as willing to exert the necessary pressue on Israel — namely, boycotts, sanctions and divestment — to bring about a just solution?
Everyone knows what it would take to end the occupation tomorrow, but NO American Zionist organization that I'm aware of — left, right, progressive, conservative — has ever called for withholding U.S. aid until Israel complies with U.S. policy.
The've squabbled over how to spend the American taxpayers' money, but they all agree they're entitled to it.
Similarly with the tool which ended South African apartheid, boycotts. They have all opposed them. A boycott takes the matter out of the hands of the tribe and gives it the world — and we can't have that.
"The've squabbled over how to spend the American taxpayers' money, but they all agree they're entitled to it."
PEPs indeed: "Preclusive Except for Pockets."
Phil,
Do you understand some of the ways that anti-Zionism IS an enormous bloody colonial landgrab?
It isn't in all ways, but it could be in some.
The key is, cut off American payroll for Israel.
Nothing else will do.
It's like drawing the parental line on an entitled child.
Tough Love.
Get with it, eternal victims, eternal juvenile delinquents.