The other day I wrote a post on liberals and racism following from the J Street conference. I mentioned Bernard Avishai in the post, and he had this response. I respond to Avishai below. He goes first:
You write:
“The feeling that flowed through the J Street conference was: Two states is a lot better than one state because we’re Jews and we can’t trust what Palestinians would do if they were in charge. This theme was expressed in benevolent terms, as when Bernard Avishai spoke of the economic progress that Israel as a democracy "with a Jewish character" could make by teaming up with Palestine and Jordan. And it was expressed in frankly racist terms. Just read Sydney Levey’s post here, in which a J Street speaker crowed that four Palestinian children per family was a lot better than nine (which it used to be). If they said that in California, the guy would be out of a job….So liberal Jews routinely invoke a racist idea–the "demographic threat"–to justify the Jewish democracy.”
So wanting a democratic state with a Jewish character is racism, albeit expressed in benevolent terms. Really.
Look, nobody has dissociated himself more publicly from the “demographic argument” than I have, in Harper’s in 2005, in my book, and even at the J Street conference, when I pointedly rejected Haim Ramon’s use of it. Nor do I argue for a democratic state with a Jewish character because “we can’t trust what Palestinians would do if they were in charge” (though I am enough of an acolyte of Thomas Hobbes to ever trust any political arrangement that did not secure protections against violent, immoderate people on both sides).
No, the reason why I would like to live in a democratic state with a Jewish character is my attachment to the Hebrew language, the challenges of Jewish history, the grandeur of the Torah, the excitement of modern Israel poetry and popular culture—in other words, the same reasons why French Quebecers want a democratic province with a Quebecois character. If I had feelings of distance from most at the J Street conference, which was otherwise inspiring, it was because they tended to speak of Israel in purely political terms: as a place whose existence either inspired American Jews to a sense of ethical affiliation or did not. (You heard: “When I was young, Israel was so exciting; now it an embarrassment”—and on and on along these lines.) For me, Yehuda Amichai’s poetry is Israel’s justification. Imagine Swedish liberals who’ve heard of Abu Ghraib, but not Bruce Springsteen, deciding the worth of America. (Come to think of it, isn’t this the Nobel committee for literature?)
In other words, Israel’s right to exist is, finally, the counterpart to the fact that it does exist, that is, as a distinct, precious cultural life. We have to stop imagining that the only justifications for Israel were Andrei Gromyko’s in 1947. Could I be happy if Israel were in some larger federation, like Quebecers, or French citizens, for that matter. Yes. But could I ever be reconciled to a political arrangement in which the protections for Hebrew culture evaporated? Let’s just say it would be inhumane to ask this of anyone.
Weiss response:
Bernie, thanks for your thoughtful and serious note. It’s clear I should have gained a more nuanced understanding of your view of the demographic threat before posting, and I’m sorry for that. It’s been a while since I read your book, which I learned a lot from. I’ll get it out later.
But let me address a couple issues in your response. You suggest that Israeli culture is misrepresented in the international view of Israel as purely an occupier. (As the U.S. is misrepresented as solely the perpetrator of Abu Ghraib). And that it would be "inhumane" to overwhelm the grand achievements of Hebrew culture in undoing those political problems.
My response is that certain injustices in history cross a line and demand an international moral response. There was a lot to be said for Southern culture in the 1960s. I know that for a fact. But Jim Crow vitiated that larger understanding, as it should have. Similarly, whatever the achievements of South Africa in the 70s and 80s, they were undone suddenly by the world’s view of apartheid. To redeem the achievements of Hebrew culture now–and I don’t say that that’s impossible or unworthy–some vigorous political response would be demanded on the part of Americans/American Jews; more than what J Street has mustered. For me, the nightmare scenario of losing Hebrew culture is no justification for the actual nightmare: the living inhumanity that is perpetrated every day in the West Bank’s separate roadways or the blockade of Gaza.
Secondly: My post was written with an acknowledgment of my own racism. I grew up with it. I associate it with Jewish exceptionalism. And I struggle with it. Frankly, I bet you as a smart academic Jew have some of that attitude too. Your response to me is not at all introspective.
Let’s not talk about your heart, but your passport. According to your website and wikipedia, you grew up in Canada and now divide your time between in Israel and the U.S. As a worldly person myself, I identify with you. But I would say that yours is a very privileged position, as mine is. And when you say that you would like to live in a democratic state with a Hebrew character, isn’t this a partial truth? You seem to like living in the United States, too. I bet you have a great life in New England, as I have a great life in New York. And I am sure you experience Torah and Amichai’s poetry here too, as a minority. Your ability to move between societies is a reflection of the Law of Return, which of course many Palestinians who were born in Israel or the yishuv cannot exercise. So your privilege is bound up in inequality, and an inhumane one.
