Archive for the 'Jewish Politics' Category

Tell Amazon to Remove Goldberg’s Smear of Jimmy Carter’s “Peace, Not Apartheid”

Published by
Andrew Schamess
January 16, 2007 in Jewish Politics. 0 Comments

Readers might want to sign this petition to online bookseller Amazon.com.

Amazon has posted a highly negative piece on former President Jimmy Carter’s book “Peace, Not Apartheid” in the “Editorial Reviews” Section, which is normally reserved for neutral, informative comments.

The review’s author, Jeffrey Goldberg, accuses Carter of antisemitism and dishonesty and of hiding his true purpose in writing the book:

Carter…has long been disproportionately interested in the sins of the Chosen People… Why is Carter so hard on Israeli settlements and so easy on Arab aggression and Palestinian terror? Because a specific agenda appears to be at work here. Carter seems to mean for this book to convince American evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel.

This would all be fine in the “Readers Reviews” section, but Amazon has no business embracing this view of the book by placing it in the “Editor’s Reviews.” Lots of controversial books are up on Amazon without this sort of pointed dis-endorsement.

By the way, Henry Norr, who started the petition, is an interesting character - a technology writer and a Jewish activist against the Iraq war and the Israeli occupation. This is from a 2004 article in the Berkeley Daily Planet:

Veteran Berkeley technology reporter Henry Norr has reached a settlement with the San Francisco Chronicle, which suspended him last April, ostensibly for participating in protests before the Iraq invasion started…

Norr fans, especially East Bay techies, turned the firing into a major cause celebre, setting up a website, whereishenrynorr.com, and replacing the cover sheets on Chronicle coin boxes around Berkeley’s Bart station and elsewhere with ‘Where is Henry Norr?’ posters. They also organized a demonstration on his behalf at one of Executive Editor Bronstein’s public appearances, and called for circulation and advertising boycotts.

The Chronicle’s Monday story about the settlement claims that “Norr’s termination occurred as a result of events arising out of his role in anti-war protests against the current war in Iraq.” Norr concedes that his Iraq opposition, including his arrest in San Francisco, played a part in his eventual firing, but he thinks there’s more to the story. His statement, published in Monday’s Chronicle article, says that “because I didn’t violate the ethics policy the Chronicle had in place at the time, it is clear I was fired because of my political views—my opposition to the war in Iraq and Israel’s occupation of Palestine.”

In an interview with the Daily Planet Monday, Norr went on to say that “I can’t prove it, but I have a strong suspicion that one of the main reasons I was fired is because of my support for Palestine.”

Norr’s July 2002 column about a billion-dollar Israeli Intel plant built on land guaranteed to Palestinians in a 1948 treaty was the subject of a heated campaign by pro-Israel groups, and he incurred further criticism for a vacation trip to the Occupied Territories with the International Solidarity Movement.

He himself is Jewish by background, though not religious, and he answers accusations that he’s anti-Semitic with the quip that “anti-Semites used to be people that hated Jews, but now they’re people that Jews hate.”

“If Israel finds peace, American Jews may lose their identity”

Published by
Brad Brooks-Rubin
August 21, 2006 in Jewish Culture, Peace Process, Israel History, Jewish Politics and All Posts. 2 Comments

If you’re like me, you had some extra time at the end of last week. As we all know, nothing much gets done in August anyway, and it seems that the entire mainstream Jewish community took last week off, probably since they had been pressed into serious overtime earlier in the month. Although I had naively been expecting the frantic stream of emails and press releases to keep up its wartime pace, I must have missed the “Urgent: Support the Cease Fire Now” messages that were coming out.

So with my Inbox quiet, I decided to take some time and look back. Many of us forget, but not that long ago, things were different in the politics of the mainstream Jewish community. The role of AIPAC and the rest of the Lobby was in real doubt, the connection between American Jews and Israel as tenuous and shaky as it has probably ever been. Looking at what was being said from that time can really help bring both the experience during Lebanon, and more importantly where we go now, into perspective.

For me, the opening to an article in the Jewish Week from 1994 sums it up:

If Israel finds peace, American Jews may lose their identity.

For me, as an American Jew, I simply refuse to allow this to be the case. It should not have been the case then, and it can’t be now. Until the opposite is true, until our identities are lost without peace, then our identities are meaningless.

|inline

Israel! Israel! Praise the Lord!

Published by
Brad Brooks-Rubin
August 12, 2006 in Personal Reflections, The Jewish Right, Zionism, Jewish Politics, Judaism and All Posts. 5 Comments

If you are an American Jew who has unambiguously supported the nature and extent of Israel’s military response in Lebanon (it remains to be seen what those will be after today’s UN vote), who is proud to be a part of the “zero dissent” community, who is contributing to emergency funds of American Jewish organizations without a second thought about how or where your money will be spent, I have only one request. The next time you are flipping channels and come upon a Christian televangelist, especially one who is healing the faithful, then I ask you to just stop and watch for awhile. Try not to shake your head or mock, but rather pay close attention.

Because that is now who you are.

Several years ago, I went through an obsession with Christian evangelists and revivalists, both of modern times and of the early 20th century. Growing up as a middle class, educated American Jew in suburban Philadelphia, the obsession began in my early 20s from plain curiosity: I simply could not understand the kind of faith, the nature of theology that could lead people to follow these preachers, to believe so wholly and completely in their every word, in the brand of Jesus they taught. Watching the healings on television became a near ritual for me; I was captivated by the people dropping to the floor and writhing, muttering in tongues, claiming to see from eyes long blind, all from the mere touch of the hand of their preacher.

Shaking my head in disbelief, sometimes mocking as if this was the professional wrestling version of religion, I was always somewhat jealous. My Jewish (such as it was) and secular educational experiences had always taught me to question, to be skeptical of such beliefs, to reject “just swallow this” messages, to shun movements like these, which so clearly fly in the face of modern reality, of Jewish teaching. But, “wow,” I thought, how amazing it must be to really believe like this, to throw modernity away and dive in to a revival. To swallow it all and believe you really do feel better and are saved.

As I listened to the news of the Israeli cabinet’s decision to expand the ground war, for some reason, I thought back to those preachers. And then to the “Stand with Israel” rally I attended in DC a few weeks back and wrote about previously. To the “support Israel” emails I get non-stop, most of which also ask for my money. To the chorus of “don’t question their decisions” that continues a month in to the action that was first going to last 2 weeks, then 10-14 more days, and now, if the ground war expands, at least 30 more days.

The leadership of the American Jewish community — and, for the first time, with the help of those same evangelical Christians — are leading us in an old-fashioned, big tent revival combined with a modern, Oral Roberts-style tearful plea. And I think I am missing out on what may be my one Jewish chance to be healed and saved; that is, no matter which way I head these days in the pro-Israel world — Jewish or Christian right — it looks like I am going to Hell.

Think about it. Christian evangelists (or, frankly, evangelists of any religion, but Christians have been the most prevalent in America) are most successful when they preach three things: there is grave and imminent mortal danger; we have a choice in how to deal with the danger; there is salvation for those who choose the right (i.e., our) way, damnation for those who don’t. And imbuing all of it is a plea for money to support both the way and the message.

Let’s see, in painful (and lengthy) detail, how our American Jewish evangelists on Israel work within this paradigm.

|inline

Israel, American Jews and the Left

Published by
Andrew Schamess
July 2, 2006 in Jewish Culture, Zionism and Jewish Politics. 3215 Comments

I have gotten many very kind emails asking what is going to happen to Semitism. The blog has been on sabbatical due to some changes in my personal life. I don’t know how often I will post; but I am still committed to the issues I’ve written about here. I will try to put something up now and then, at least; and maybe more often as time goes on.

I wanted to respond to an interesting post on a new blog, Inquiry Above All, whose author commented on my last post. The topic is an important one: how American Jews, a politically progressive group, find ourselves supporting a militaristic state whose actions are often dyssynchronous with our basic values; and how this plays out in the broader context of American politics and foreign policy. The author - who identifies himself as a non-Jew - offers a long meditation - sometimes rambling and ironic, other times touching powerfully on essential issues - but, overall, trying sincerely to come to grips with the progressive position on Israel. Here’s a brief sample:

If you’re plugged into the culture wars, you are by now aware that you are obliged to take a stand on the matter of Israel/Palestine. Both right wing and left wing positions on Israel have been mapped out with some level of detail, and the true loyalists of each directional tribe are receiving increasingly more insistent commands to line up appropriately. The emergent right wing position on Israel is not generally a problem for non-Semitic conservatives… The left wing position on Israel is more agonizing for progressives, however, who grew up watching Woody Allen films and owe Jews pretty much every good idea the Left has ever had…

(Thanks, there! But you guys came up with a few on your own. Really.)

In the last few decades… the creative energy, intellectual acumen and financial resources of liberal Jewish activists were considered indispensable to most bedrock progressive projects. In this political climate, progressive attention to the ways that Israel resembled a colonial power or apartheid state seemed to be not only low priority, but impolitic. Israel/Palestine was pretty much the only issue that most liberal Jewish activists were not so progressive about. Even left wingers who were disgusted by Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians sensibly figured it wasn’t worth rocking the boat with important political allies, especially when faced with the spectre of Nixon and Reagan landslides.

He traces the splintering of the Jewish left, the rise of neoconservatism, and the new alliance of Israel supporters with the religious right. He concludes that, among other things, the Jewish liberal community should begin an internal process to stake out a position distinct from that of the neoconservatives, and hopefully more progressive on Israel. I agree. Below, I offer a few scattered thoughts of my own on how we got to where we are now… |inline

Jewish Voice for Peace Goes National - Maybe a Berkshire Chapter, Even

Published by
Andrew Schamess
March 6, 2006 in Activism and Jewish Politics. 7 Comments

There’s a huge need for a strong national organization to give voice to the many Jews who oppose Israel’s occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory. Up till now the Jewish anti-occupation movement has consisted mainly of individual activists and small local groups. We’re largely shut out of the mainstream Jewish organizations. Our influence on policy is meager, and we haven’t been very successful in reaching the “silent majority” of Jews who are disturbed by Israel’s actions but afraid to speak out.

I think, though, the tide may be starting to turn… |inline

Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton: Mazel and Shlimazel

Published by
Andrew Schamess
November 18, 2005 in Conditions of the Occupation, U.S. Politics, Peace Process and Jewish Politics. 0 Comments

The media moment of the Disengagement was the evacuation of the settlers from Gaza. It seemed every camera in the world was pointed at them as they loaded up their trucks and left their farms. "Mission accomplished," said the networks once the last settlement was empty. But the success of the Disengagement depended entirely on subsequent steps. The critical factor in making Gaza an economically viable independent territory was border permeability. If Gazan goods and labor couldn’t make their way into Israel, Egypt and overseas; if there was no link between Gaza and the West Bank; then Gaza was doomed to become a restive, improverished dependency - fertile ground for terrorist recruitment. That’s exactly where things were headed, due to an impasse in Israeli-Palestinian border negotiations, until Condoleeza Rice arrived last week…

|inline

Fault Lines in the American Jewish Community

Published by
August 19, 2005 in Peace Process and Jewish Politics. 0 Comments

The Disengagement has exposed an interesting split in the American Jewish community. You can’t really properly divide Jews into groups because, I know, everyone has his own opinion on everything. But, nevertheless, there are basically three groups here with regard to Israel and its foreign policy. There are those of us on the left - which is a fair number of American Jews, but outside the Jewish establishment and not that well organized - who outright oppose the occupation and favor a Palestinian state. Then there’s the Jewish establishment, which tends to take a “support Israel right or wrong” line. The establishment sees its role as advocating for Israel, without meddling in the decisions of Israel’s elected government. Their predominant concern is Israel’s security. And finally, there’s the predominantly Orthodox right wing. Strongly influenced by the ideals of religious Zionism, it supports claiming all of Biblical Israel as the property of the Jewish state…

Over the past few years, it’s been hard to tell the difference between the establishment and the religious right. Until the Disengagement, Sharon’s policy favored settlement in the occupied territories. This could be sold as a security measure (through a rather flawed rationale of deterrence) and as an expansionist measure, and so satisfied both groups. Furthermore, bombs exploding in Israeli cities could be counted upon to unify and galvanize the community. Differences were easily put aside in the face of terrorism that was constantly presented as a threat to Israel’s very existence.

Not so now. The Forward’s Jennifer Siegel reports on an anti-Disengagement rally that took place in Central Park Tuesday. It was organized by the Zionist Organization of America and the heretofore unknown Alliance for Eretz Yisrael. Rather than the predicted thousands of protesters, it consisted of a few hundred die-hard Lubavitchers.

“Some people are conspicuously absent” today, said David Romanoff, of the Alliance for Eretz Yisrael. He was one of the hecklers who disrupted Sharon’s May 22 speech to Jewish leaders in New York. Romanoff went on to point the finger at several major organizations: “Where are you, Anti-Defamation League? Where are you, American Jewish Committee? Where is the American Jewish Congress today?…”

Romanoff also singled out for criticism the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America - two of the most important Modern Orthodox-dominated organizations in the country. Both groups declined to rally publicly against the pullout

Even the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, which technically represents, um, the Major Jewish Organizations, but has in fact been a bastion of religious Zionism, finally got around to endorsing the Disengagement on Wednesday. Yes, this past Wednesday - about two years after Sharon announced it, with the evacuation in progress, when it was absolutely clear that the Gaza settlements were going away and there was nothing anyone could do about it.

The more sensible organizations of the religious right, like the Conference of Presidents, are not interested in fighting what is obviously a losing battle. But the lines will become clearer in the next month or so, when, I think, you will see the right throw its weight solidly behind a Netanyahu campaign.

James Bresser, the Washington correspondent for New York’s Jewish Week, interviewed Mandy Ganchrow, the former president of the Orthodox Union (who, by the way, has his own little Blogger Blog, bless his heart) about the post-Gaza strategy of the right.

“There will be tremendous pressure on the Bush administration to advance the road map and to provide aid and arms to the Palestinian Authority… There will be pressure on Israel to make concessions like allowing a Palestinian seaport.”

Groups that opposed the Gaza pullout, he said, are already preparing for those battles, although “there is no unified strategy.”

He said the activism of groups like the Zionist Organization of America and Americans for a Safe Israel, working with Israeli opponents of the pullout, “helped create new pressures on [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon that will make it very difficult for him to make other concessions to the Palestinians.”

Maintaining that pressure in Israel, he said, will be a top priority for these groups.

Morton Klein, of the Zionist Organization of America, told Bresser that Jewish groups will turn to the Christian right for help in influencing the President and Congress:

“We will continue to work with them on a number of issues,” said ZOA’s Klein. Powerful Christian Zionists like Gary Bauer, president of American Values, he said, are important allies in the impending fight against the road map.

Clearly, they are turning to the Christian Zionists because they cannot count on help from the Jewish establishment. This move will, I am sure, drive a further wedge between the Jewish right and the mainstream. Groups like the AJCongress - which cut its teeth fighting against school prayer in the 1960’s - have no love for Pat Robertson and his ilk.

What does this mean for the left? Well, we should keep saying what we’re saying: that the occupation is bad for Israel and grossly unjust to the Palestinians, and that the status quo produces nothing but stalemate and violence. We may find a more receptive audience in the Jewish establishment than we have in the past, assuming the Disengagement does not blow up in Sharon’s face.

And we could be a little more open to alliances. Sure, we’re smarter and more righteous than everyone else. But would it be so bad to team up with the ADL against the settlers, in support of a rational peace plan, if it ever came to that?

About

You are currently browsing the semitism.net weblog archives for the Jewish Politics category.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.

Latest

RSS

Archives

Categories