Trending Topics:

Palestine solidarity work is most effective when done within an anti-racist framework

Activism
on 20 Comments

The recent fury and attacks on Ilhan Omar and her forthright statements exposing and criticizing the role of the Israel lobby and the Congressional requirement of allegiance to the policies of the state of Israel come at time when issues of political framing are roiling Jewish and progressive communities. It is becoming increasingly clear at this political moment that there are major generational divisions within the Democratic Party and within the general population. More people are also willing to say out loud that antisemitism is very different from critical thinking about the continued rightward plunge of Israeli politics.  For me this further clarifies my understanding that working on Israel/Palestine and doing Palestine solidarity work is most effectively accomplished within an anti-racist, anti-white supremacist framework.

So how did that strategic awareness happen for me? I came from a traditional Jewish family where our love of Israel was as uncomplicated as lighting candles on Shabbat or our pride in our roots in the tenements and sweat shops of the Lower East Side of New York. It wasn’t until the 1990s that I began to face the contradictions between my adult political self, working on issues of women’s rights, civil rights, health care justice, and my growing discomfort with Israel. At first I understood that this debate was really only of interest to Jews and Palestinians, although I quickly expanded that to some of the progressive Christian community. For us, the problem started in 1967 and our work was ending the occupation and supporting the radical notion of a two-state solution.

As I listened to Palestinians sharing their stories and read the works of Israeli historians who were delving into state archives and history that had been largely disappeared from Western consciousness, I began to understand that the problem actually began in 1948. This is what has been called Israel’s original sin, the founding of Israel as a Jewish state in historic Palestine on the backs of an indigenous population who were killed, expelled, exiled, and disenfranchised.

I was forced to give up my understanding of Israel as purely and justly a safe refuge post-Holocaust, with socialist roots and kibbutzim, “the light unto the nations.” I began to see Israel as an important U.S. ally that was becoming increasingly part of U.S. foreign policy: a foot in the door for oil resources and for challenging Soviet influence in the Arab world. Post 9/11 Israel became our trusted partner in the fight against “terror” or “Saddam” or “Iran”, or whatever Washington’s enemy of the month might be. The country also became a major player in our arms and security industries. Supporting Israeli policy uncritically became increasingly problematic for anyone with a progressive identity.

What this meant for me was that “the problem” really began with Zionism. I began to see Zionism which I had thought of as a Jewish liberation movement, our brand of nationalism, as an inherently racist national movement. I became aware that a movement that privileges Jews (in particular, white European/eastern European Jews) is most accurately understood as a settler-colonial project more like South Africa and the U.S.

This was a huge struggle on the Jewish left, especially after the Durban Conference Against Racism in 2001. Is Zionism inherently racist? How could this be? Not us. Gradually I came to understand that we Jews had used our victimhood to get a pass on Zionism. This was very unsettling.

As years passed, the continued rightward swing of Israeli leadership and the population at large, the obvious cultural, political, and institutional racism of Jewish Israelis towards Jews of color as well as Palestinians and African asylum seekers, further exposed the inherent racism and white supremacy that is the foundation of the Zionist movement as it is currently practiced.

My vision expanded further starting in 2005 with the launching of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction campaign. For me, linking tactics in the Palestine struggle with strategies used by Quakers against slavery or in the fight against South African apartheid opened my eyes to a broader concept of the work.

This was followed by the growing support of African American leaders and the position of Black Lives Matter, clearly linking anti-racist struggles in the U.S. with Palestine solidarity. Palestinian activists advising black activists in Ferguson on how to deal with tear gas meant that the feeling was mutual. And the framing broadened further. I saw shared struggles against militarism and police brutality and systems of mass incarceration and the building of walls. This was no longer an issue for Jews and Palestinians alone.  

I have also witnessed, particularly since 1967, the rise of the power of the Israel lobby, primarily evangelical Christian Zionists and AIPAC, as well as a host of prominent, well-funded think tanks like the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the multimillion dollar Israeli hasbara industry. Added to that was the growth of Israeli surveillance of internationals and the use of ex-Mossad spooks to keep track of and subvert the work of anyone raising significant questions.

I was forced us to ask: who are the folks who are blindly in support of Israeli policies? Are they folks that progressives feel comfortable working with? Why not? It became uncomfortably clear to me that racism, Islamophobia, and Jewish exceptionalism were at the core of all of their positions.

In the past few decades, various “peace plans” have come and gone, the Oslo Accords, the work of the Quartet (United States, the United Nations, the EU, and Russia), the Geneva Accords, etc. All have been weighed down by profound inconsistencies and U.S. dominance.

At the same time, the movement for Palestinian nationalism which was focused on building a Palestinian state, has grown and matured into a movement for self-determination, human rights, and respect for international law. Clearly, we as Palestine solidarity activists need to listen to what Palestinians are asking of us, rather than in telling them what to do. The days of a U.S. dominated peace process, all process and no peace, are over (note to Jared Kushner).

Thus it is clear to me that an anti-racist, anti-white supremacist, anti-global military-security- industrial complex should be the foundational litmus test for our work. Some are worried that an intersectional approach will dilute out the Palestinian struggle, that interest and energy will be lost. I would argue that such a framing actually creates more supporters and is consistent with the kind of work the younger generations are engaged in. This also moves us away from exceptionalizing the struggle for Palestinian rights and focuses us on the contradictions and injustices in the U.S. as well, a country that extolled manifest destiny and was founded as a settler-colonial state that committed genocide against indigenous people. We must continue to deal with the legacy of racism, marked disparities in education, opportunity, water, legal justice, etc. Doing this, we place ourselves within a global progressive movement for justice, for respect for international law, for indigenous rights, immigrant, gender, water rights, climate justice, and  free speech.

It is no longer acceptable to be “Progressive Except Palestine” but it is equally unacceptable to be “Progressive Only On Palestine.” This was clarified for me with the work of Muslim leaders like Linda Sarsour and Ilhan Omar who clearly stand against the reactionary policies of the Israeli state that are funded and blessed by the U.S. and for Palestinian rights, as well as against racism of all kinds and for progressive struggles for equality and justice.

This framing defuses the accusation that criticizing Israel is inherently antisemitic. This struggle is not about Israel as a Jewish state, but about how Israel behaves as a state in the community of nations.

The House of Representatives wanted to rebuke Omar with the accusation of antisemitism and an allegation of dual loyalties. Many of us thought she was merely stating obvious political realities. We saw Congress as well as much of the media, nervous of the reaction and pressure from AIPAC et al and ready to use the epithet of antisemite to shut her down. They responded just as she predicted. The fact that the proposed censure provoked a rebellion in the ranks which led to a statement condemning racisms and bigotry of all kinds should be viewed as a victory, not as a cave in to people who easily feel victimized and wanted to shine their Stand with Israel creds. Omar was an easy target: a Somali refugee hijab-wearing young woman of color. Don’t tell me this wasn’t about race…and anti-immigrant, Islamophobic fear and feelings lurking the halls of Congress. Intersectional case in point. As Ilhan Omar noted, “Exciting things happen when people are uncomfortable.”

Alice Rothchild
About Alice Rothchild

Alice Rothchild is a physician, author, and filmmaker who has focused her interest in human rights and social justice on the Israel/Palestine conflict since 1997. She practiced ob-gyn for almost 40 years. Until her retirement she served as Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harvard Medical School. She writes and lectures widely, is the author of Broken Promises, Broken Dreams: Stories of Jewish and Palestinian Trauma and Resilience, On the Brink: Israel and Palestine on the Eve of the 2014 Gaza Invasion, and Condition Critical: Life and Death in Israel/Palestine. She directed a documentary film, Voices Across the Divide and is active in Jewish Voice for Peace. Follow her at @alicerothchild

Other posts by .


Posted In:

20 Responses

  1. gamal
    gamal on March 12, 2019, 2:37 pm

    “As Ilhan Omar noted, “Exciting things happen when people are uncomfortable.” ”

    Third World when they faithfully recorded Paul Bogles final words before they hung him from the cotton tree “I stand here today before you a victim but the truth is I will never die” it is an implicit criticism of bystander well intentioned ‘progressives’ because its 96 degrees real hot in the shade as if you didn’t know.

    96 degree in the shade,
    real hot in the shade (repeat)

    said it was 96 degrees in the shade
    ten thousand soldiers on parade
    taking i and i to meet a big fat boy
    sent from overseas
    the queen employ
    Excellency before you i come
    with my representation
    you know where I’m coming from

    you caught me on the loose
    fighting to be free
    now you show me a noose
    on the cotton tree
    entertainment for you
    martyrdom for me

    96 degrees in the shade
    real hot in the shade

    some may suffer and some may burn
    but i know that one day my people will learn
    as sure as the sun shines, way up in the sky
    today i stand here a victim the truth is I’ll never die

    As sure as the Sun shine
    Way up in the sky,
    Today I stand here a victim –
    The truth is I’ll never die…

    https://youtu.be/Q_6ZnRg7fRo

    and explained for the budding anti-imperialist

    http://marcoonthebass.blogspot.com/2011/07/history-behind-third-worlds-1865-96.html

    • Talkback
      Talkback on March 13, 2019, 2:35 pm

      “As Ilhan Omar noted, “Exciting things happen when people are uncomfortable.”

      This time she cleary wrote Jewish people, I’m sure of that. And the sheep are bleating “Antisemitic trope! Antisemitic trope! Antisemitic trope!”

      • annie
        annie on March 13, 2019, 2:50 pm

        oh yeah i heard it too. she wants jews to be uncomfortable, no doubt about that. wanting jews to be uncomfortable feeds into the antisemitic trope that all jews are comfortable (rich, control society and rule the world etc etc). hence, antisemites resent that and seek their discomfort (ei: destruction). iow, as clear as day she wants to destroy the jews.

        it’s like, perfectly logical.

  2. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield on March 13, 2019, 12:19 pm

    ‘It is no longer acceptable to be “Progressive Except Palestine” but it is equally unacceptable to be “Progressive Only On Palestine.”’

    So we should ‘accept’ only people who are progressive on every issue? If so we shall not be accepting many people, if any. Are any of us really progressive in every respect? I would sooner welcome, encourage, and respect any motion that anyone may make in a progressive direction. Depending on our different life trajectories, we have different experiences and are exposed to different ideas, and therefore are likely to move in a progressive direction at different rates on different issues. Some will pass through a stage of ‘progressive except on Palestine’; others through a stage of ‘progressive only on Palestine.’

    Specifically, among those who oppose Israel there are people who do so from a generally progressive standpoint and others who may be much more conservative in other respects, who oppose Israel not on the basis of progressive principles, for instance, but on the basis of their perception of the interests of the United States as a great power. That is unfortunate, but without the contribution of such people we are much less likely to shift US policy with regard to Israel/Palestine. So are they to be rejected out of hand? (Not that I am sure what exactly it means to accept or reject people in this context or whether it matters.)

    • RoHa
      RoHa on March 13, 2019, 9:56 pm

      “So we should ‘accept’ only people who are progressive on every issue? If so we shall not be accepting many people, if any. Are any of us really progressive in every respect?”

      As a further complication, I would contend that some of the “progressive” positions on some issues are actually detrimental to people. If those who agree with my assessments are tested for “progressive on every issue”, then they will be found wanting, and rejected.

      And yet they might, if they were less lazy than I am, be able to make useful contributions to some “progressive” causes.

  3. James Canning
    James Canning on March 13, 2019, 12:31 pm

    Is it not a fact, that discrimination against Palestinians, on grounds they are not Jews, is based on religion, rather than race?

    • echinococcus
      echinococcus on March 13, 2019, 8:51 pm

      Canning,

      Racism, among civilized peoples, has been defined as discrimination based on accident of birth. Not on race.
      Believing that racism is based specifically and only on race is typically American.

      • Jon66
        Jon66 on March 14, 2019, 10:20 am

        Echi,
        Is mysogyny racism?
        Is homophobia racism?
        In the ‘barbarian’ area I live, we would not call these racism.
        But perhaps we should defer to ‘civilized’ folks like you. After all, I don’t even know which fork to use to eat a potato chip.

      • Mooser
        Mooser on March 14, 2019, 6:05 pm

        “Jon66”, is condescension racism?

      • RoHa
        RoHa on March 14, 2019, 9:36 pm

        If the chips come with fish, use the fish fork. If they come with steak, or steak pie, use the steak fork. If they come in a paper bag, with vinegar, use your fingers.

      • Jon66
        Jon66 on March 14, 2019, 11:39 pm

        Roha,
        Thanks. I feel a bit more ‘civilized’ already.

      • amigo
        amigo on March 16, 2019, 8:30 am

        “After all, I don’t even know which fork to use to eat a potato chip.” Jon 66

        “I am a husband father and surgeon” Jon 66

        One can only feel sorry for the poor buggers who end up on your operating table.

    • YoniFalic
      YoniFalic on March 14, 2019, 2:48 am

      James, you are expressing American parochialism. In the Western hemisphere, racism is based in color, but Zionism is an expression of 19th century genocidal European völkisch racism, which is based in ethnicity.

      It is simply incorrect to believe that Zionist discrimination is based in religion. You could use the term Konfession, but neither German Volk nor German Konfession has exact correspondence in meaning with an English word.

  4. marc b.
    marc b. on March 13, 2019, 1:03 pm

    this is a strange, wheel-spinning prescription for ‘progressives’. frankly, i don’t even know what that term means in this context. “an anti-racist, anti-white supremacist complex should be a foundational litmus test for our work” but reference to israel as a jewish state run by jewish supremacists risks allegations of anti-semitism? that’s what israel is, according to israelis, a jewish state run by and for people who are jewish.

    and, yeah, what he said. ‘It is no longer acceptable to be “Progressive Except Palestine” but it is equally unacceptable to be “Progressive Only On Palestine.”’ this sounds like a warmed over version of the hasbara brigade’s whataboutism. So no one could criticize apartheid s. africa without simultaneously criticizing the caste system in india, US treatment of puerto rico, and what else?

    • James Canning
      James Canning on March 13, 2019, 3:24 pm

      Most Palestinians is the US regard themselves as “white”, rather than “black”. The same is true with Lebanese, and Syrians.

      • marc b.
        marc b. on March 13, 2019, 4:24 pm

        they’re white by me.

        and this nugget:

        “This struggle is not about Israel as a Jewish state, but about how Israel behaves as a state in the community of nations.”

        How do you separate the two? SAfrica treated its citizens and its ‘neighbors’ equally abhorrently. Racism is baked into both cakes, apartheid and zionist.

      • YoniFalic
        YoniFalic on March 13, 2019, 4:39 pm

        It does not make a difference. Levantine are non-Euros & mostly non-Xtian.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus on March 13, 2019, 8:48 pm

        Canning,

        That skin color tone obsession is a specifically American disease. A deadly disease.
        That kind of wording is expressly designed to make you forget the real power relationships.
        Instead of that white/brown/black nonsense, try colonial/colonized.

  5. afmeyers
    afmeyers on March 13, 2019, 8:08 pm

    To Alice’s compelling account of her recognizing the crimes of the Zionist state, I would add this: the Israeli government was all too happy to serve as the Reagan administration’s attack dog on the forces struggling for human rights and social justice in Central America throughout the 1980s – see Israel Shahak’s _Israel’s Global Role: Weapons for Repression_

  6. echinococcus
    echinococcus on March 13, 2019, 8:57 pm

    “It is no longer acceptable to be ‘Progressive Except Palestine’ but it is equally unacceptable to be ‘Progressive Only On Palestine.’ ” says Dr. Rothschild.

    First, it never was acceptable to be “progressive Except”. It never was “progressive” except for some boobies without clear thinking.

    Second, it is totally irrelevant if you are progressive, regressive, back-and-forthive, whatever. The point about Palestine is that Palestine has to be restored to its owners and the invader chased out. That is not a “progressive” goal in itself, but it is liberation.

    Who the hell cares if a just goal fits some liberal word games or not?

Leave a Reply