Politics: Anti-War Message Creep
I read Amos Oz's piece in the Times about the anti-war sentiment and how it becomes anti-US and often anti-Israel (or more pointedly anti-Jew). As a not-political voice, Oz captures something that has been simmering since the protests began surfacing last year.
AB sent the piece over along with a quick note:
(Incidentally, AB also raised the question of putting someone in jail for 15 years for being an accessory to the murder of 3,000 people.)
I think this is one of the deepest divisions in the current anti-war movement. The whole ANSWER vs. Rabbi Lerner thing has really highlighted it. (And this piece by David Corn from the Nation does a good job of identifying some of the problem.) More than anything, it's caused many on the left to look again at the ANSWER people, and how strongly they feel about certain outcomes. The blogosphere is aflame with all sorts of people who dislike ANSWER but defend marching in protests and others who think that any direct action in the protests strengthens the hand of the nut-jobs who run ANSWER. Much of the debate also centers on whether right-wing claims that a protest is invalid because ANSWER is crazy have any validity. (The right wing is also busy saying that speaking out against the war, especially with ANSWER, is essentially providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
The amazing thing that many in the younger generation on the left do not understand is that America's progressive Jews are the heart of liberalism. The liberal tradition, especially in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, was born from activists and attorneys who saw a moral duty in protecting those most in need in the American south during the 50s and 60s. America's Jews have been America's conscience for a long time.
Within the left, the anti-ANSWER forces have struggled to make this point. The ANSWER folks still don't understand it. What they see is a series of connections. As they articulate these connections, the validity of each degree strains credulity. It is acceptable that an un-provoked war against a Muslim country could spark a worsening of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. It is acceptable that a redoubling of efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a better commitment of US resources. To some, it may even be acceptable that the US policy towards Israel could be doing damage to the overall situation in the Middle East. But connecting the effort to prevent the United States from starting a pre-emptive war against Iraq to the call for Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories doesn't benefit anyone. What it does do is perpetuate a lot of hatred and villainy, which is something we have plenty of already.
I think the fulcrum of morality when it comes to dissent and protest should always be grounded in humanity. For me that means: I want my opponents to see things my way, but I don't want them to die. I am disappointed, shocked and angered at the conduct of President Bush and the rest of America's leaders, but I don't hate America. I disagree with the politics and policies of Ariel Sharon, but I don't hate Jews or Israelis.
Normally, deviating from this humanism is a mistake reserved for the right wing. They believe that hating US policies means hating the US (and they accuse the left of just that). They equate dissent with defection. But right now, the ANSWER people are painting America's Jews into an untenable corner by requiring as a condition of membership in the coalition against pre-emptive war in Iraq allegiance to something fairly close to an anti-semitic position. Therefore, American Jews don't feel comfortable acting on something they believe in (opposing the war in Iraq) because it could also mean they are supporting something they don't believe in (the elimination of Israel, or whatever it is that ANSWER believes).
This is one case where something that doesn't necessarily kill the anti-war effort definitely won't make it stronger.
I read Amos Oz's piece in the Times about the anti-war sentiment and how it becomes anti-US and often anti-Israel (or more pointedly anti-Jew). As a not-political voice, Oz captures something that has been simmering since the protests began surfacing last year.
AB sent the piece over along with a quick note:
Amos Oz is great at articulating the views of many. I think, by the way, that many American Jews are turned off by the anti-Zionist protest signs that consistently appear at the recent wave of protests. This is a community who would naturally be against this war, but circumstances and prejudices (and ignorance) have turned them into an island. Mainstream American Jews (read: not Wolfowitz) cannot stand with the mainstream protesters (equating Israel with colonial states, Zionism with racism, terrorism, etc) and they cannot stand with Bush (Republican policy, war for unknown reasons, pro-peace in the Middle East, etc).
(Incidentally, AB also raised the question of putting someone in jail for 15 years for being an accessory to the murder of 3,000 people.)
I think this is one of the deepest divisions in the current anti-war movement. The whole ANSWER vs. Rabbi Lerner thing has really highlighted it. (And this piece by David Corn from the Nation does a good job of identifying some of the problem.) More than anything, it's caused many on the left to look again at the ANSWER people, and how strongly they feel about certain outcomes. The blogosphere is aflame with all sorts of people who dislike ANSWER but defend marching in protests and others who think that any direct action in the protests strengthens the hand of the nut-jobs who run ANSWER. Much of the debate also centers on whether right-wing claims that a protest is invalid because ANSWER is crazy have any validity. (The right wing is also busy saying that speaking out against the war, especially with ANSWER, is essentially providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
The amazing thing that many in the younger generation on the left do not understand is that America's progressive Jews are the heart of liberalism. The liberal tradition, especially in the fields of civil rights and civil liberties, was born from activists and attorneys who saw a moral duty in protecting those most in need in the American south during the 50s and 60s. America's Jews have been America's conscience for a long time.
Within the left, the anti-ANSWER forces have struggled to make this point. The ANSWER folks still don't understand it. What they see is a series of connections. As they articulate these connections, the validity of each degree strains credulity. It is acceptable that an un-provoked war against a Muslim country could spark a worsening of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. It is acceptable that a redoubling of efforts to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a better commitment of US resources. To some, it may even be acceptable that the US policy towards Israel could be doing damage to the overall situation in the Middle East. But connecting the effort to prevent the United States from starting a pre-emptive war against Iraq to the call for Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories doesn't benefit anyone. What it does do is perpetuate a lot of hatred and villainy, which is something we have plenty of already.
I think the fulcrum of morality when it comes to dissent and protest should always be grounded in humanity. For me that means: I want my opponents to see things my way, but I don't want them to die. I am disappointed, shocked and angered at the conduct of President Bush and the rest of America's leaders, but I don't hate America. I disagree with the politics and policies of Ariel Sharon, but I don't hate Jews or Israelis.
Normally, deviating from this humanism is a mistake reserved for the right wing. They believe that hating US policies means hating the US (and they accuse the left of just that). They equate dissent with defection. But right now, the ANSWER people are painting America's Jews into an untenable corner by requiring as a condition of membership in the coalition against pre-emptive war in Iraq allegiance to something fairly close to an anti-semitic position. Therefore, American Jews don't feel comfortable acting on something they believe in (opposing the war in Iraq) because it could also mean they are supporting something they don't believe in (the elimination of Israel, or whatever it is that ANSWER believes).
This is one case where something that doesn't necessarily kill the anti-war effort definitely won't make it stronger.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home