|
Peter
Beinart recently asked what makes Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) “so
treif.” Beinart is bewildered why JVP is excluded from the “organized
American Jewish community” because, in his estimation,
the group is not anti-Israel but “Israel-agnostic:” it does not oppose
or support a one or two-state solution. Well, here are some questions
that may help answer why JVP is “so treif.”
1)
On the JVP page stating its so-called agnosticism linked to by Beinart,
the organization explicitly endorses the Palestinian right of return,
which is a straightforward call for the end of the Jewish state. Is the
Palestinian right of return something the “organized American Jewish
community” should accept?
2)
On January 30, 2009, the Free Gaza Movement, one of the lead organizers
of the flotilla campaign that attempted to violently breach Israel’s
blockade of the Gaza Strip, issued a mission statement, with positions nearly identical to those of JVP. (Several JVP members were aboard the flotilla and, as an organization, it supported the flotilla.
Is the Free Gaza Movement “Israel-agnostic” as well? Is breaching
Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip something the “organized American
Jewish community” should get behind?
3) At least one proud JVP member (the coordinator of JVP at the University at Arizona) has pretended to be Jewish. Should the “organized American Jewish community” stand behind attempts to use one’s Jewishness for political expediency?
4) Judith Butler, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a self confessed “Israel-hater” who is currently embroiled in controversy over her receipt of the Theodore W. Adorno Award, is on JVP’s board of advisors. She also thinks that it is “extremely important” to understand
“Hamas [and] Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that
are on the Left, that are part of a global Left.” Why is a
self-confessed “Israel-hater” on the board of advisors for a group that
is merely “Israel-agnostic”? Is recognition of Hezbollah and Hamas as
“progressive” and “part of the global Left” something the “organized
American Jewish community” should do?
5) JVP board members signed a letter declaring,
“Surely it is now time to acknowledge the narrative of the other, the
price paid by another people for European anti-semitism and Hitler's
genocidal policies. As Edward Said emphasized [sic], what the Holocaust
is to the Jews, the Naqba is to the Palestinians.” According to the
State Department, an example of the ways in which anti-Semitism
manifests itself could include: “Drawing comparisons of contemporary
Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” Is anti-Semitism something that
the “organized American Jewish community” should welcome?
6)
If anti-Semitism is not enough, perhaps we should ask Beinart to
explain his about-face on JVP. This past year, Beinart apparently canceled
a talk after learning that a JVP board member was scheduled to moderate
the event. Did JVP undergo some recent, radical transformation that now
makes them acceptable to Beinart? Even Norman Finkelstein, the noted
Israel-basher and “Holocaust-industry” critic, admits that groups like JVP have no credibility when they feign Israel-agnosticism. Why does Beinart not realize this obvious truth?
But
Beinart did not stop there. He not only called JVP “Israel-agnostic,”
but he compared its agnosticism to Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee
for Israel. According to Beinart, being a “liberal democracy” is also a
defining characteristic of Israel. The Emergency Committee for Israel
is seemingly agnostic on whether it supports Israel’s permanent
occupation of the West Bank. Permanent occupation of the West Bank is
not something liberal democracies do. Thus, despite presenting
themselves as being pro-Israel, Beinart’s logic transforms the Emergency
Committee from pro-Israel to “Israel-agnostic.”
But
this syllogism is flawed. Although Beinart is fond of highlighting the
guarantees of equality in Israel’s declaration of independence, there is
one small problem: “neither the declaration nor any other enactment of the state contained the word ‘democracy’ or derivatives thereof”
let alone the words “liberal democracy.” (It does, however, contain
the words “Jewish state.”) If liberal democratic values are not a
prerequisite to being pro-Israel, then the Emergency Committee for
Israel is, in fact, pro-Israel, even if one disagrees with all of their
positions and tactics.
While Israel’s founders no doubt envisioned a democratic state—not the 21st
Century liberal democratic state envisioned by Beinart—and recent
additions to Israel’s Basic Laws have rectified this lacuna, there is an
irreconcilable tension between Israel’s Jewish character and its
democratic one. For a liberal democrat like Beinart, it is easy to
ignore this tension at present, when the Jewish character of Israel is
not threatened. But if, for example, JVP got its way and Israel allowed
the return of millions of Palestinian refugees, all of whom are given
the right to vote, would Beinart choose a liberal democratic Israel,
even if it meant the end of a Jewish one?
No comments:
Post a Comment