Michael J. Jordan has a great article over at the JTA talking about the contortions people are going through to avoid stating the obvious: Jewish and pro-Israel groups worked to undermine the Durban II conference. Although "it’s no secret who was behind the effort to discredit the 2009 Durban Review Conference in Geneva," Jordan shows that almost everyone from U.N. high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay on down is loathe to speak the truth out of fear of being called anti-Semitic. Jordan:
It was an ironic twist to the common storyline of anti-Semites naming Jews as the perpetrators of shadowy worldwide conspiracies. Those conspiracies typically are as true as the “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” -- that is, to say, not at all.
This time, however, the Jews actually did conspire, albeit openly, to sabotage the conference.
Jordan also reports this ridiculous episode:
“I can’t tell you exactly who the lobby is,” Pillay said in a March 12 interview with Australia’s ABC.net. “I can just pick out that it seems to be one source putting out this wrong information and labeling this review conference as ‘hate fest.’ ”
Use of the loaded term “lobby,” however, appeared to be too much for some Jewish groups.
UN Watch, a monitoring organization, sent Pillay a letter asking her “to avoid using certain well-known stereotypes.” Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, said the term "fostered images of a mysterious, unnamed, powerful” lobby.
This is a joke. Spurious charges of anti-Semitism applied to those stating the obvious work to debase the meaning of anti-Semitism in general. And the irony is that while Jewish groups attack anyone who points to their handiwork as anti-Semitic, they want to celebrate it themselves as Jewish work. The Boston Globe is reporting that on Sunday night the American Jewish Committee's David Harris, visiting the Andover Newton Theological School, celebrated the fact that the AJC "engaged successfully with the Obama Administration to consider whether to participate in Geneva." Of course the AJC and other Zionist organizations are welcome to lobby the Obama administration; and the Durban II episode is another great example of how the pro-Israel lobby in the US was mobilized and coordinated to affect US policy (an effort that hasn't finished). From their perspective, I understand why they would want to celebrate this. After all, it was a victory.
But why is it not okay for people to talk about it? And when they do why can't they say that it was Jewish groups leading the charge?
There are several dangers here. First, if we're ever going to have an honest discussion of US foreign policy we need to be able to talk about all the influences that go into setting it. Do Jews set US foreign policy in Israel/Palestine? No. Are they an important force to be reckoned with? Of course! Was that so hard?
A greater danger is the conflation of Judaism and Zionism. While Zionists may have wanted to derail the Durban II conference in an effort to defend Israel's racism, as a Jew I was ashamed of this. For a long time Jews were an important part of movements against racism in this country. Growing up, I routinely heard about the Jewish role in the civil rights movement. Now our communal leadership is working to undermine anti-racist efforts. This is shameful. While we once understood our place to be in solidarity with those who were facing persecution like us, the Jewish leadership in the US now seems obsessed with protecting its own ethno-national interests at all costs. To make matter worse, the nuance of the divisions within the Jewish community on these important issues is totally lost when no one is allowed to call out "the lobby" for its activities. Jordan demonstrates the danger of this:
Malaak Shabazz, the daughter of black rights activist Malcolm X, ... blamed “Zionist agitators” for being disruptive and aggressive toward her in Geneva, and she filed a letter of protest with Pillay’s office.
"People confuse Zionism with Judaism, and that's completely unfortunate," she said.
“The Zionists here are making people hate Jews,” Shabazz said. “I was unfamiliar with the tactics of Zionists. But I got a crash course on it here.”
An honest discussion of Jewish power not only includes an accounting of the influence that Jewish organizations have in promoting their agenda, but what that agenda is. The agenda of the Jewish organizations in Geneva was not to fight anti-Semitism but to protect Zionism. I believe this is at complete odds with what is actually in Jewish self-interest. Not only would Jews benefit from a successful conference discussing the danger of racism, but, as the Shabazz quote shows, the work of Jewish organizations in Geneva has unfortunately placed Jews on the wrong side of an issue that used to be central to our identity.
great post adam, along with jordans article at jta.. using the anti-semite label as cover for zionism has been going on for a long time! too bad more folks can't see how contrary it is to the best interests of all communities, the jewish in particular..
Why is it that the only time I ever hear someone say "as a Jew" it is when some self-hating Jew is saying it to lend undeserved credibility to his (or her) attacks on Jews? Somehow it is almost always said by someone who could just as accurately say "as someone who is Jewish by accident of birth and has no voluntary connection to Judaism…"
As for the conference itself, most Jews strongly support civil rights and are against all forms of racism. That is why most Jews who were well informed on the subject were against Durban II. The Obama administration tried to get them to eliminate the planned anti-semitism, and were unable to do so. Durban and Durban II were incredible ironies, racist conferences pretending to be anti-racist conferences. The countries that stuck around for the whole thing tended to be the worst human rights violators, while countries with good records on human rights (like Canada) either skipped the conference altogether or split when Holocaust denier, homosexual rights violator, women's rights violator, and all around hero of the anti-Semites on this blog, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got up and spewed his racist dogma.
Seriously, Ahmadinejad was the best they could come up with? I mean, Hitler's dead, but was David Duke too busy? Louis Farrakkkahn wasn't around? Surely they could have gotten somebody from the KKK or the World Church of the Creator as their keynote speaker.
Why is it that the only time I ever hear someone say "as a Jew" it is when some self-hating Jew is saying it to lend undeserved credibility to his (or her) attacks on Jews? Somehow it is almost always said by someone who could just as accurately say "as someone who is Jewish by accident of birth and has no voluntary connection to Judaism…"
Thom, if "Jewish self-hatred" is the core issue. You should look more carefully into the matter.
I guess it doesn't mean all secular Jews? How are you dealing with the religion versus nation issue? How would you define Jewishness? What exactly is a self-hating Jew? Do you think there are also self-hating whatever nationality? What is the difference to Jewish self-hatred. Could you give us your criteria?
I could go on and on with questions, but let me reduce it to the following two:
Is Michael J. Jordan a self-hating Jew?
Given there is no Jewish Pope and Israel is a (however deficient) democracy. Who decides about allowed versus illegitimate discourse?
Trained Arab Parrots Antisemitism Accusation
*RE: "The Zionists here are making people hate Jews," Shabazz said. "I was unfamiliar with the tactics of Zionists. But I got a crash course on it here." *A SOMEWHAT RELATED MATTER: An Interview with William Robinson; Zionist Lobby Targets Another Tenured Professor – By DOUG HENWOOD (EXCERPT) Doug Henwood: We're now joined by William Robinson, who is a Professor of Sociology at the University of California in Santa Barbara, someone I met about six or seven years ago at a conference and, although I've disagreed with him on some issues, I though he's a serious and thoughtful guy. I was very distressed to learn, reading Insider Higher Ed, the website, today that he's being persecuted by the Zionist lobby for an e-mail that he sent around to some of his students. Welcome William Robinson, tell us the story of what you sent and what's been happening. William Robinson: Yes, good afternoon to everyone. I included some material which was highly critical of the Israeli invasion of Gaza as part of the reading material for a course on globalization and global affairs, and this was in January. And I am now facing charges, here at the university, of anti-semitism and violating the faculty code of conduct because two students in the course – there were eighty students – these two submitted a formal letter of complaint that they found offensive the material condemning the invasion of Gaza. The students immediately withdrew from the course, I don't even know them personally. And what is particularly egregious about this case is not that the students submitted a complaint – any student is allowed to do that – but rather that the university took the complaint seriously and is actually prosecuting me…… *ENTIRE INTERVIEW – http://www.counterpunch.org/henwood04292009.html
ALSO SEE: " Abraham Foxman pushed UC-Santa Barbara to investigate professor" *Anti-Defamation League’s national director personally pressured UCSB representatives to act against faculty member* (EXCERPT) SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman held a confidential meeting in early March with University of California officials on campus to pressure them to investigate charges of “anti-Semitism” against sociology professor William I. Robinson. The meeting included Dean of Students Michael Young, a second dean, and at least seven faculty members. Some of the meeting participants told Robinson that Foxman, who was in Santa Barbara to meet with local funders, requested the meeting at UCSB for the sole purpose of demanding that university officials investigate Robinson for introducing materials critical of Israeli state policies in a course on globalization in January…. ENTIRE POST – http://sb4af.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/breaking-ne...
"Do Jews set US foreign policy in Israel/Palestine? No.Are they an important force to be reckoned with? Of course! Was that so hard?" That's not so hard, because its very misleading by understanding the degree that right-wing jews in the US influence foreign policy towards Israel/Palestine. On US trade policy, the steel workers are an important force to be reckoned with. So are the peanut farmers. And the RIAA. And Boeing. And Kodak. And the pharmaceutical companies. And the AFL-CIO. And DuPont. There are many important forces to be reckoned with, in the classic American pluralism of diverse and opposing baronies. But there's nothing like that on Israel-Palestine, which is why your statement is evasive and euphemistic. On Israel-Palestine, pro-Israel right-wing jews are the force to be reckoned with.
Oops – should have closed italics after the in the above.
I could have sworn I left a comment here earlier. I hope it was not removed for unsuitability. I was just checking back because I think I said, oddly enough "marital" when I meant "martial".
I think Phil may be overestimating the humanitarian motives for "fighting racism." Most of the time "fighting racism" seems to be a political strategy for securing entitlements or attacking a disfavored ethnic group. In that sense, the behaviour of the Jewish groups towards Durban is quite rational. They see "racism" as a weapon to be used against others, and have no interest in seeing it used against their interests.
Paul Gottfried mentioned that most Jews he knew during the civil rights movement (with the exception of the true-believers–ie. the "red diaper babies") were not especially interested in Blacks, yet supported the movement out of hostility towards Southern Whites, whom they regarded as backwards and anti-Semitic. Remember the Times' hysterical "anti-racist" media lynching campaign against the Duke lacrosse players? The editorial staff wrung their hands over their racist culture, sports, lack of diversity, etc., that led them to this horrible act of gang rape. There was no effort at all to critique the story…the narrative of evil southern aryan boys was just irresistable. The players were nearly convicted due to prosecutorial misconduct, and arguably, the media's thirst for blood. In the end, the prosecutor was disbarred, and the Times moved on to seeking "racism" amongst opponents of illegal immigration. Racism and anti-Semitism, if clearly defined, do describe actual phenomena. Unfortunately, in practice the terms are deliberately kept as vague as possible, and often serve political, rather than ethical aims.
David F. IMHO – Racism and antisemitism, as forms of adverse discrimination, are every day activities that require denial when encountered, in order to assure that our neighbors and ourselves remain physically safe. They are not the only forms of adverse discrimination. That changing previously accepted social patterns exposes contradictions in life, and in our understanding, doesn't negate the need for opposing what we believe to be unjust and injurious to the public well-being. My impression is that many of those who support the State of Israel, and the military activity necessary to sustain its ethnocratic policies, fall into the trap of thinking of racism as something black and white, simple, rather than understanding it as one of a complex set of human interactions, which belongs to the same category of discrimination as antisemitism. One finds antisemitism redefined, distorted, to mean differing political stances regarding Israel, rather than adverse discrimination based on ethnicity. Being clear about adverse discrimination makes more difficult the use of such terms for other than ethical purposes.
Otto – Perhaps the need for distinction is so great that the most effective approach would be to speak of specific interests, actors and actions, without terms such as "right wing," 'left' or 'liberal'. Even 'pro-Israel' is general, without explanation of what it is about Israel to which one is opposed. What is it about a lobby that is problematic? We often use terms as short-hand to save the time needed to think about what is being said, but the current circumstances require more thought, not less.
I wonder how 'racism' is understood by those who support an ethnocratic state in Israel. Racism and antisemitism both are forms of adverse discrimination, yet the meaning of antisemitism has been redefined, distorted, so that rather than meaning a form of adverse discrimination based on ethnicity, it means differing political stances regarding Israel. Without understanding that both are different forms of the same behavior, how can one understand racism?
We like to do that. Al Sharpton Dershie
One day one of these professors is going to have to get a good lawyer and sue the ADL and Foxman for defamation of character. I
Which is why the Durban II conference could do nothing but fail.
ALSO SEE: "The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built" – By DANA L. CLOUD, April 30, 2009 (EXCERPT) …Fewer people will know the names of four other targets of the Right’s attack: Margo Ramlal-Nankoe, William Robinson, Nagesh Rao, and Loretta Capeheart. All four face harassment, threats, or potential removal from their jobs at their universities because they have criticized Israel, defended multiculturalism, and stood up as organized employees in defense of their rights as workers… ..Professor William I. Robinson, a tenured Sociology and Global Studies full professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, has been attacked by the Anti-Defamation League and two of his former students. In January of this year, he forwarded an email condemning the Israeli attacks on Gaza. The email was an optional read for students. Within a week, the ADL wrote him a letter charging him without basis with anti-Semitism and sundry violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct. The Academic Senate Charges Officer then notified him that two of he students in the class to which he circulated the email had filed complaints against him. Acting for all intents like a co-complainant of the students, the Officer fabricated additional charges not raised by the students…. …The charges have reached the Committee on Committees, which is now in the process of convening a committee to assess the complaints. The campaign for Professor Robinson urges readers to 1) email the UCSB Chancellor and responsible authorities on campus to register your protest, and 2) sign the petition. Information and links are at http://www.counterpunch.org/cloud04302009.html Contact the Committee to Defend Academic Freedom at UCSB at http://www.counterpunch.org/cloud04302009.html
I could never support a theocratic state. Frankly, thaty kid on Cosby didn't seem smart enough to rule himself, let alone anybody else. But I did not follow the show closely, so I may be under-informed.