What Should We Think About "United Against Hate"?

A coalition of left-wing groups has announced a new initiative, "United Against Hate", seeking to counter antisemitism in American society. The Jewish organizations involved are IfNotNow, The Jewish Vote, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Never Again Action, and JVP. The non-Jewish groups associated with the endeavor include the Movement for Black Lives, Dream Defenders, Mijente,  United We Dream, the Arab American Institute, MPower Change, Emgage, and the People’s Collective for Justice and Liberation.

What should make of this?

At one level, it's hard to say because the website associated with the endeavor appears to be broken. Moreover, there is certainly something a bit brazen about launching a new counter-antisemitism initiative titled "United Against Hate" the same week as many of the same groups pushed "Drop the ADL". Be united, but not that united, I guess.

In my view, though, an initiative like this could have four different priorities in a variety of different mixes,  and how they prioritize among them will ultimately dictate how beneficial or detrimental it is. Those priorities are:

1. Combating right-wing antisemitism, which is a violent threat to Jews and -- through conspiracy theories like QAnon and various "Soros" theories -- is increasingly becoming mainstream in American conservative politics.
2. Combating left-wing antisemitism, which debilitates progressive movements and marginalizes Jews in the political community most of us call home.
3. Shielding left-wing antisemitism, by providing a Jewish seal of approval to progressive actors accused of more mainstream actors of antisemitic activity.
4. Punching at mainstream Jewish groups, seeking to further decay their clout in American politics and redistribute their influence and power to more left-wing alternatives.

As you can imagine, I think the first two priorities are salutary and the latter two malicious. The group members have experience with all four. Some have consistently fought against right-wing antisemitism, some have made contributions in undermining left-wing antisemitism. JVP has a long history of declaring alleged left-wing antisemites "not guilty (with a Jewish accent)", and IfNotNow's raison d'etre is centered on seething hatred for mainstream Jewish outlets.

A coalition like this doesn't necessarily have to choose -- the question is how it will balance these potential missions. But -- speaking from a purely realist, cold-blooded political calculus -- one way they could be very effective is by only focusing on right-wing antisemitism. A relentless, one-sided, unshaded, nakedly partisan attack on right-wing antisemitism could have a real impact on how antisemitism is perceived in the US.

I say this would be good only from a "cold-blooded" perspective because it reflects an attribute of politics that I hate: the necessity of "bad cops". In this case, that means intentional, partisan bias against the right on the subject of antisemitism -- all attack, no defense; against targets fairly and unfairly identified. This, after all, is how the right has treated antisemitism for the past few years -- hammering its existence on the left while refusing to even acknowledge its presence at home. Unlike the progressive community, which has (haltingly and unevenly) sought to grapple with antisemitism in its ranks, the right simply does not take up the issue at all. They're assisted by the fact that, up to this point, the left hasn't made fighting right-wing antisemitism a direct priority -- too often their response when it pops up is instead make an indirect whine about media bias ("can you imagine if Ilhan Omar said this?"). Even if the complaint has some merit, it suffers from the same defect as all other charges of hypocrisy: if Ilhan Omar said it, we know these same voices would be defending her to the hilt and calling the whole thing a smear. Attacks of this sort aren't actually attacks on right-wing antisemitism, they're attacks on paying attention to antisemitism at all. So it's not surprising that they don't yield sustained attention to bad conservative actors.

The result of all of this is that antisemitism controversies on the left stay in the news for weeks, while right-wing controversies fade after a day or so. I very much believe that one of the gravest mistakes the American Jewish community has made in recent years is that we've made it so that an honest though incomplete attempt at redressing antisemitism is viewed as worse than refusing to reckon with it at all. But that is, sadly, the world we're in. And in that world, United Against Hate offers the potential of shifting the narrative a little bit -- if it can maintain message discipline. That means mostly ignoring antisemitism on the left -- not defending it, not attacking it (you'll note that the RJC spends very little time defending someone like Jason Lewis -- whenever his name comes up, they ignore him and start talking about Ilhan Omar again). It means resisting the cry of "hypocrisy" -- a sword that nearly always cuts both ways -- and a simple, relentless concentration on right-wing antisemitic activity in America. Over and over, until the drumbeat becomes irresistible.

There is room for a movement like this, because to some extent the United Against Hate people are right -- mainstream Jewish groups haven't fully risen to the occasion of the moment. Of course, neither have the groups in this coalition: for the most part, they've manifestly failed to be productive actors in the fight against antisemitism; until now the overwhelmingly majority of their contributions to the subject was denying that the problem exists in non-trivial quantities. And there is very good reason to be skeptical that they will not be able to resist falling into old habits -- spending 90% of their time explaining why attacks on antisemitism in the Women's March are "smears" or insisting that blacklisting the overwhelming majority of the Jewish community is wholly compatible with fighting anti-Jewish hate.

But -- maybe they won't do that. Maybe they'll "just" attack right-wing antisemitism in a single-minded, unmediated fashion. In its best possible form, United Against Hate will likely be aggressive, one-sided, unnuanced, and occasionally even unfair. And in the terrible world that is 2020, that still might make them a useful corrective to our scarred discourse about antisemitism.

Nothing Went On At Fresno State

Last year, I blogged about an emergent controversy at Fresno State, where a faculty member alleged that a Middle East Studies search was canceled due to external "Zionist" pressure. Her claims quickly got substantial attention amongst the usual suspects -- JVP put together a condemnatory letter that quickly amassed 500 signatures -- but there was a crucial component to the case that remained missing.

Evidence.

Like, any of it.

The Fresno State administration consistently maintained that the search was suspended due to procedural problems; reporters who contacted the local Jewish community found nobody who had even heard of the search, let alone organized against it. Against that, those crying Zionist sabotage were left stringing together a few stray (and unattributed) comments allegedly made by some skeptical faculty members expressing concern.

So at the end of the day, was there any "there" there?

Fortunately, Northwestern University Law Professor Steve Lubet took the time to made and wade through a FOIA request for the relevant records that could answer that question. And it turns out that the University's denials were completely, absolutely, and 100% justified. The search was canceled because the finalists were all social scientists, but the position was going to be housed in a humanities department which didn't want to add faculty from outside its discipline. It was that mismatch which caused the search to be delayed a year (presumably so the parameters of the position could be realigned with the areas of specialization of the most interested candidates). Not a single document revealed any contact, let alone "pressure", from Zionist or Israel-advocacy organizations -- leading the President of the Faculty Senate to flatly declare (in an internal document) that the original complaining faculty member who made the allegations was simply "lying".

One hopes that puts this matter to bed. But it is fair to question how this "controversy" exploded in the way that it did. I wrote at the time:

Abba Eban once famously quipped that "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions." So too, it seems, that if JVP circulates a letter saying Fresno State was devoured by a hellmouth and Israel had summoned it, it would amass 500 signatures within the week.

Lubet uses this to coin the term "Occam's BDS razor": the simplest explanation, anytime anything on campus doesn't go precisely the way pro-Palestinian advocates would like, is the interference of nefarious pro-Israel lobbying. We can see how that mentality shook out at Fresno both "vertically" and "horizontally". "Vertically", a few offhand remarks that were critical of the search proceedings got elevated to cases of "harassment". And "horizontally", these few remarks were roped together to form the locus of an imagined conspiracy of intimidation against the entire search. The ease at which these jumps are made is itself illustrative of antisemitism in its structural dimension -- even the tiniest shreds of Jewish public or private discourse immediately metastasize into dark threats of domineering power. Such moves, I have to think, wouldn't fly (or wouldn't fly as easily) were they not so easily slotted into the grooves of antisemitic discourse.

Lubet concludes similarly: the fact that the allegation of Jewish interference was taken as gospel with virtually no evidence whatsoever, coupled with the (perhaps more alarming, though less surprising) fact that none of the bodies which leveled the accusation at Fresno State have shown any interest in even reviewing the documentation showing that the claim was groundless, is properly thought of as a manifestation of antisemitic conspiracy theorizing.

The Issue is (Jewish) Power

Andrew Mark Bennett has a searing piece in the Forward detailing Jewish Voice for Peace's antisemitic obsession with Jewish power. One striking aspect of it is that it self-consciously does not focus on BDS. JVP has plenty of other sins that can be hung on its head, and Bennett does a good job detailing many of them.

Let me put it this way: reading this article made me want a cigarette. And I don't smoke. That's how good it felt.

Exploiting Queer Trust

There's been a lot of commentary -- much good, some not -- about the decision by Jewish Voice for Peace to "target" (their organizer's words) the LGBTQ group Jewish Queer Youth for infiltration and disruption at the Celebrate Israel march last week (I highly recommend JQY's statement on the event). JQY is oriented towards the at-risk Jewish queer community, especially Orthodox Jewish youth who may not have other safe or comfortable venues where they can come out. Accordingly, JVP's decision to target JQY -- and with it, a particularly vulnerable Jewish and queer population -- has been met with withering criticism by much of the rest of the Jewish community.

But I particularly want to highlight this column in Bustle by Hannah Simpson, a transgender activist with JQY who was present at the parade. JVP has defended its actions by noting that the infiltrators were themselves queer Jews. But Simpson explains, in succinct and cogent terms, just how awful JVP's actions were in the context of an organization like JQY and its efforts to provide a safe and welcoming space for at-risk queer youth.

This attack was nothing short of hurtful and terrifying. JVP violated a key tenet of the work Jewish Queer Youth and so many pro-LGBTQ groups do across this country. We welcome new members seeking hope and community through our programming, often before they are “out” anywhere else. We emphasize being open and accepting all who come through our doors. However, thanks to JVP’s violation of this trust, Jewish Queer Youth and other groups nationwide may need to scrutinize new members. Our priority is making our members feel safe, but this attack shows our openness may be abused to put our members in jeopardy.

This is really important. Part of what JQY provides for at-risk queer Jews is a space of trust. A space where they won't be viewed with suspicion, where they'll be welcomed unconditionally. Indeed, one of the more powerful portions of the JQY statement was where it went out of its way to affirm that

We also respect that there are JQY teens with strong feelings against Israel.  Some even choose to peacefully protest the parade. JQY stands with them too. Support is never contingent on point of view. Our JQY guiding Jewish principle is Eilu v' Eilu divrei elokim chaim - both these and those ideas, even when in conflict, are simultaneously the living word of G-d.

Contrast that statement with JVP's fundamental disrespect for queer Jews who don't adopt their views. It is striking.

To clear: JVP's action worked because JQY was built around the principle of not questioning who decided to walk with them. This is, sadly, a very common tactic of reactionary and illiberal militancy: exploiting open society in order to undermine it. The effect -- very often the hope -- is to undermine those open features and replace them instead with a cloistered environment of fear and mistrust. In the context of the LGBT community, it takes features that are desperately needed and leverages them against the queer population for the sake of political theater.

For vulnerable Jews who often lack for spaces where they can simply be queer, Orthodox, political, apolitical, happy, celebratory, among friends, JVP's action was more than just "anti-Israel protest". It took away something very rare, and very precious.

In electing to proceed anyway, either JVP didn't think about that consequence. Or it did.

What is Going on at Fresno State?

There's a brewing controversy at Fresno State, where the university has restarted a search for the Edward Said Professorship of Middle East Studies after determining that the current search -- which had already selected a series of finalists -- had various procedural defects in violation of university guidelines (all the finalists were invited to reapply in the new search). An emeritus professor of Linguistics at the university, Vida Samiian, has publicly alleged, however, that this is all a pretext and that the search was canceled due "a documented campaign of harassment and intimidation ... by Israel advocacy groups" seeking to "derail" the search.

That sounds pretty bad. The problem is that, as my friend Steven Lubet has observed, there is virtually no evidence backing up these allegations. The university administration flatly denies having even been contacted by, much less subjected to pressure from, any outside groups. And Ben Sales at JTA interviewed members of the (relatively small) Fresno-area Jewish community had found that nobody there had even heard of the search, much less agitated against it.

The closest thing to actual evidence that Samiian has in her letter is a few instances of relatively anodyne expressions of concern by Jewish faculty members about how the search was progressing. She histrionically labels these "harassment", but they deserve that label only if it expands to encompass "Jews saying words." And again, none of them speak to any sort of campaign or concerted effort by anyone to have the search canceled (there is one stray reference to "outside" concerns about the search, but again, nobody has presented any proof of any such outside pressure manifesting).

Of course, a complete lack of evidence didn't stop JVP from rapidly circulating a letter taking as fact that the search was canceled "in response to pressures from Israel advocacy groups" who "launched a campaign to cancel the search altogether". Abba Eban once famously quipped that "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions." So too, it seems, that if JVP circulates a letter saying Fresno State was devoured by a hellmouth and Israel had summoned it, it would amass 500 signatures within the week.

Lubet uses this to coin the term "Occam's BDS razor": the simplest explanation, anytime anything on campus doesn't go precisely the way pro-Palestinian advocates would like, is the interference of nefarious pro-Israel lobbying. We can see how that mentality shook out at Fresno both "vertically" and "horizontally". "Vertically", a few offhand remarks that were critical of the search proceedings got elevated to cases of "harassment". And "horizontally", these few remarks were roped together to form the locus of an imagined conspiracy of intimidation against the entire search. The ease at which these jumps are made is itself illustrative of antisemitism in its structural dimension -- even the tiniest shreds of Jewish public or private  discourse immediately metastasize into dark threats of domineering power. Such moves, I have to think, wouldn't fly (or wouldn't fly as easily) were they not so easily slotted into the grooves of antisemitic discourse.

So underneath all of this sound and fury, is there any there, there? It seems supremely unlikely that there was any "pressure" or "campaign" from Israel advocacy groups with respect to this search. But if there is a bare kernel here, I suspect it's something like the following: the administration admits it was too slow to catch onto the procedural shortcomings of the search (lack of approval by a specific department, failure to form the search committee via departmental election, and unauthorized contact and participation by an external member -- likely Samiian). And I doubt that there are many faculty members at Fresno State or anywhere else who care about such things for their own sake. So, it is entirely plausible that the person who alerted the Fresno State administration to these irregularities did so not because of a deep, dispassionate commitment to the faculty handbook, but because of more, shall we say, substantive concerns about how the search was progressing.

One could say, then, that the irregularities were a "pretext", in that nobody would have cared about such procedural failings had the search not been independently controversial. However, it is also fair to observe that the whole reason we have requirements of procedure is precisely to create confidence in faculty searches in circumstances where controversy is expected. Procedures like these matter most in circumstances where one might worry about efforts to "stack" a search committee or otherwise buttonhole it into a particular ideological or political box -- efforts almost certainly made easier when one circumvents normal requirements of faculty election and oversight. More to the point: It is wholly unsurprising that nobody cares about procedural defaults in cases that nobody cares about. We have procedural rules precisely for the cases that people do care about.

My comments in no way should be taken to impugn those persons who were selected as finalists and have gotten caught up in the middle of this controversy. I know nothing about them, and they may well be superb candidates whose virtues would be recognized by a search committee which was operating entirely above board. But surely we can be concerned with the celerity with which a very inside-baseball procedural dispute was elevated -- on the basis of virtually no evidence -- into a grand conspiracy of Jewish intimidation, and the ease with which many bought into it.

JVP Just Can't Quit Miko Peled

Every once in awhile, Jewish Voice for Peace finds an "anti-Zionist" who is in fact too anti-Semitic even for them. Alison Weir was an example from a few years ago. More recently, it was Miko Peled (an Israeli Jew who has become a vitriolic critic of the state) who stepped over the line after linking the US/Israeli aid deal to why "Jews have a reputation for being sleazy thieves." This led to the cancellation of a scheduled talk at Princeton (hosted by a pro-Palestine group) and later another at SDSU. JVP and its head Rebecca Vilkomerson lauded the move:

Princeton group did right thing cancelling @mikopeled talk b/c of his tweets-no place 4 antisemitism in our movement https://t.co/wI23XPaJaa

— Rebecca Vilkomerson (@RVilkomerson) September 20, 2016

Peled was livid at the accusation of anti-Semitism, going so far as to threaten an SDSU student newspaper with a libel suit for publishing an editorial calling him anti-Semitic (lawyer's aside: he'd have no case, as assessments of anti-Semitism are matters of protected opinion immune from a libel action). With respect to JVP, he endorsed the sentiment that Vilkomerson was a "zionist in the closet" who needed "to be purged out of the movement for good."

In Weir's case, it took all of six months for her to start reappearing at JVP events. In Peled's case, JVP walked itself back in the space of a few days. Vilkomerson put up a new statement that agreed she had "overreached" and "clearly made a mistake" in her reaction to Peled's "sleazy thieves" comment.

What we have here is an example of the JVP's untenable position when it comes to anti-Semitism. The problem is not that they're "critical of Israel" or even that they're anti-Zionist. The problem is that their politics about anti-Semitism are predicated on the notion that "anti-Semitism" is, in nearly all cases, a hysterical charged lobbed in bad faith by evil Zionists wanting to suppress criticism of Israel. But, having spent years hammering this message home, they're somehow surprised to discover that when they call something anti-Semitic, they're subjected to the same treatment -- dismissed as "Zionists in the closet" (Peled's allies) or "turning priorities to suit Jewish interests" (Weir's backers). They want special dispensation as the "good Jews", and they don't get it.  Instead, their "allies" treat them exactly the same as they treat every other Jew (and indeed, exactly as JVP says Jews -- other Jews, anyway -- should be treated) -- with derision, disdain, and dismissal anytime JVP tries to use its Jewish standing to challenge rather than validate their position.

Because they fail to actually acknowledge anti-Semitism as a serious and systematic problem -- indeed, because they encourage it insofar as they promote the general sentiment that Jews normally can't be trusted -- the JVP falls into a trap of its own devise. It cannot actually advocate against epistemic anti-Semitism because that would require giving credence to the bulk of the Jewish community which adopts positions they wish to see delegitimized. But having helped normalize Jewish status as epistemically unreliable, they find their pleas for a special exception (in recognition of their respectable selves) will fall on deaf ears. It turns out that, in actuality, "good behavior" doesn't in any way diminish the perceived entitlement non-Jews have to dictate Jewish behavior.

Eventually, the JVP is going to collapse under the weight of this contradiction. Again, the problem isn't that it's critical of Israel or even that it's anti-Zionist. The problem is that its power lies simultaneously in the view that Jews are untrustworthy and the view that they (JVP) are extra-trustworthy because they are Jews. The tension is sublimated so long as JVP stays in perfect lockstep with its non-Jewish allies -- JVP providing a Jewish patina to what non-Jews are already saying about Jews. But it emerges in full force and fury whenever JVP diverges from the opinions of its peers (as when they wish to challenge anti-Semitism in their movement). And the problem will only get worse. The general belief that Jews are untrustworthy, paranoid, hysterical, irrational, and/or blood-crazed cannot help but create more and more anti-Semitism of the sort that even JVP will find intolerable. But the more that JVP tries to adopt a critical rather than a vindicatory standpoint towards its "allies", the more it will see that its "credibility" as a Jewish anti-Zionist organization can't actually be drawn on.

There is space for good Jewish left-wing criticism of Israel (and plenty of groups better than JVP occupy that space: APN, J Street, and Third Narrative, to name three). But it can only work if it doesn't draw its power from a fundamentally anti-Semitic narrative of general Jewish malfeasance. For a Jewish group to take that as their foundation is wrong in its own right, of course, but it is also self-sabotaging -- a great example of De Tallyrand's famous quip that "it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder."

The Stanford Anti-Semitism Experiment, Part 2

Last week, I wrote on a Stanford student senator who, during a debate over a proposed resolution condemning anti-Semitism, argued that it was not anti-Semitic to contend that "Jews control[] the media, economy, government and other societal institutions." That episode has mostly wrapped up as the Senator has dropped his re-election bid, though it remains to be seen whether the student Senate can pass a resolution on anti-Semitism that is acceptable to the Jewish community on campus.

And on that score, they may have a new datapoint to consider -- this time on the faculty side of things. David Palumbo-Liu is a comparative literature professor whom I've run across before -- this Huffington Post article where he attributed Palestinian stabbings of Israelis to "an on-going campaign to desecrate and destroy holy sites that anchor non-Jewish peoples to their faiths", including an alleged conspiracy to replace the al-Aqsa Mosque with a new Jewish Temple. That was enough for me to recognize that we had a hack conspiracy theorist on our hands, and I didn't think much more of it.

Anyway, this past week in a Salon article,  Palumbo-Liu went even further. In suggesting alternative media sources readers should rely upon for accurate Mideast reporting (because the mainstream media is biased, as we know), he endorsed  Alison Weir "If Americans Knew" organization. For those of you who don't know, IAK is a group that has, among other things, argued that Jews really did ritually murder Christian children to drink their blood during Passover. Weir has also justified anti-Semitism by saying that the Jewish "race" has been "an object of hatred to all the peoples among whom it has established itself," regularly appeared on neo-Nazi and white supremacist media programs, and, most recently, objected to the Merrick Garland nomination on account of Judge Garland's Jewish faith. IAK's anti-Semitism has been sufficiently overt to garner condemnation not just from the Anti-Defamation League, but also by groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and U.S. Campaign to End the Occupation (more on that in a moment).

After public outcry, Palumbo-Liu removed the reference to IAK from his article with the following message:

While the organization If Americans Knew, which was previously listed here, provides much useful information from reliable, neutral sources, I disagree with many of the public comments of its director. I have removed the original reference to prevent any confusion.)

On Twitter, that played out like this:

I disagree with many comments made by Alison Weir of IAK. I do not believe she represents all of what IAK does.

— David Palumbo-Liu (@palumboliu) April 12, 2016

Shorter @palumboliu : If you discount the "Jews drink Christian blood at passover" thing, IAK is well worth reading!https://t.co/FhuzKM7fpc

— David Schraub (@schraubd) April 12, 2016

Does Palumbo-Liu agree that IAK has engaged in anti-Semitism? Sure doesn't seem like it. There's no condemnation here at all: I "disagree" with my girlfriend regarding the merits of the movie Gran Torino, and in any event Palumbo-Liu can't even bring himself to say what it is he so blandly "disagrees" with. Certainly, he makes it clear that whatever "disagreements" he might have with IAK does not negate the reliability of the group as a whole. Who's to let a little blood libel disturb our credibility judgments?

There honestly isn't that much more to say on this event directly: A Stanford Professor thinks that an organization nearly-universally regarded as anti-Semitic is an important resource for persons looking for an accurate perspective on Israel, and Salon in turn thinks that an academic with those views provides a worthy contribution to its readers. That's depressing, but pretty straightforward.

But there are two more points I want to make. The first regards the role of the JVP condemnation of Weir in all of this. As I noted at the time, the JVP condemnation of Weir was itself quite mealy-mouthed (and they haven't been able to hold to it with consistency, either). They did seem to think, though, that their credibility as an organization that virtually never calls anything anti-Semitic would mean that their normal allies would give them credence here. This hypothesis was falsified rather quickly, and this event proves the point yet further. As soon as JVP strays from its box as the Jews who reassure non-Jews that they're totally not anti-Semitic -- that is, as soon as they do try to label anything anti-Semitic -- they become just as unreliable and uncredible as any other Jewish group. Palumbo-Liu, after all, had also listed JVP as another one of the organizations worth listening to -- but not, apparently, worth listening to when they call someone that Palumbo-Liu likes anti-Semitic.

Which moves me to the next point. Palumbo-Liu, I have no doubt, thinks he has reliable instincts on anti-Semitism. As usual, I don't quite understand the foundation of that sentiment, but what I'm curious about here -- and this is a serious question -- is whether there is anything that would falsify that proposition to him? Clearly, "supporting things most Jews deem anti-Semitic" wouldn't do it. And apparently, "supporting organizations even groups like Jewish Voice for Peace label anti-Semitic" won't cut it either. So what would? My suspicion is that the answer is: "nothing". David Palumbo-Liu's stance as a reliable arbiter of what is and is not anti-Semitic is axiomatic -- unchallengeable by anyone or anything (no doubt if we try, it's just another Zionist Jewish smear).

Professor Palumbo-Liu might be past helping in terms of accurately appraising the reliability of his own instincts. But we -- the collective we, including the Salons and the Nations and the Huffington Posts that publish him -- still can make that assessment. We can still look at him and his revealed instincts and ask ourselves: Is this guy credible? Is the perspective he's offering one worth sharing? Is his contribution one grounded in assessments and appraisals that are considered, fair-minded, egalitarian, and respectful?

We can still do that. And, in turn, the way we answer those questions reveals something about ourselves -- our own instincts, our own sensibilities, and, ultimately, our own credibility.

JVP Just Can't Quit Alison Weir

Hey remember that time that Jewish Voice for Peace cut ties with Alison Weir due to her anti-Semitism due to her not bothering to hide the obvious fact that the totally-not-anti-Semitic positions she shares with the JVP are also widely-beloved by neo-Nazis? Well, that lasted all of six months.

Jewish Voice for Peace and CAIR continue to sponsor talks by blood-libel advocate Alison Weir. https://t.co/wL3QbVOJdI

— Adam Holland (@ad_holland) November 24, 2015

Who could have predicted!

Eastward Bound

Almost ten years ago (wow!) I remarked on a comment by a Hamas leader who attributed some sinister motives to the blue stripes on the Israeli flag. He claimed that they represented Israel's desired borders, lying not from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean (as at least might have some superficial plausibility), but from the Nile River to the Euphrates. It was a delightful bit of conspiracy-mongering of which I had never heard of before. And never had again -- until now:

Dan Cohen also shared his experience with Jewish privilege in Israel as a visiting American Jew. He said, “When I go there, typically Israelis will ask me how long I’ve been there. And they’ll encourage me to join in the project.” “Project” is a term used by Zionist Jews that refers to the creation of a Greater Israel which would lie between the Tigris and Nile rivers and expand from where Israel lies today to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

Oh it's the Tigris now? Does our thirst for land never cease?

The source of this lovely atrocity is "MintPress News", which seems to be appropriately fringe (though not so fringe so as to fail to snag a bunch of quotes from -- who else -- Jewish Voice for Peace). In mild defense of both JVP and Cohen (who appears to have no affiliation with JVP), it seems like that particular bit of truth-y insight might have come directly from the article's author. But don't worry, there's plenty of the usual JVP nonsense -- my favorite in this round being "[Zionism] is just a political movement built on stolen land and depriving others of human rights. I can’t let this be done in my name. I have a right to be here and not agree with Israel." This, naturally, comes from a non-Native American living in Minnesota. As I wrote the last time this particular bit of historical blinders emerged:

[I]n all seriousness: is there any metric -- any metric at all -- under which a Jew living in Colorado [or Minnesota --DS] is not further implicated in colonialism than a Jew living in Tel Aviv? Because I can tell you that Jews ... do not have a multi-millennium connection to Fort Collins.

One almost gets the sense that to be a Jew is simply to be born as a trespasser, and that no matter where one goes your existence will be seen as a form of oppression.

The JVP's Untenable Position

I must say, I find this twitter conversation between a (probably*) non-Jewish anti-Zionist and a Jewish Voice for Peace supporter darkly amusing. Basically, the non-Jew is unhappy with the JVP's decision to disassociate from Alison Weir (incidentally, JVP has finally released a public statement to this effect). His Jewish JVP-affiliated interlocutor protests that "JVP is making huge progress in changing the conversation and making it OK to criticize Zionism." The non-Jew, though, sees the Weir disavowal as part of a larger pattern of "gatekeeping, pulling the rug from under people, turning priorities to suit Jewish interests..." To this, the Jewish participant lamely replies that he "understand[s]" why JVP now refuses to work with Weir and that "I've met many Jews in JVP. None of them have some ulterior motive" (as opposed to other Jews?).

What makes this conversation amusing is that it shows the fundamentally untenable position the JVP finds itself in whenever it disagrees with its non-Jewish ideological cohorts. Like most minority organizations vis-a-vis surrounding majority actors, the JVP as a Jewish group is generally accepted by its non-Jewish "allies" only as far as it remains in agreement with them, and no further. This, in itself, does not distinguish them from any other Jewish organization, whose non-Jewish friends also turn with a vengeance whenever the Jewish parties suggest that their behavior may be inappropriate.

Now, the typical move for any minority organization in this position is to argue for a degree of deference or at least tolerance for the decisions of the minority group as part of a commitment to pluralism and respect for group autonomy. Anybody, after all, can like a group when it agrees with you -- the true test is what happens when the group wants to go a different route or offers a dissident voice. And these concerns are only amplified when the subject is oppressive conduct specifically directed at the group in question. Ideally, a true ally would seriously and charitably consider the possibility that their position is inconsistent with their proffered egalitarian commitments, including making a due accounting for the possibility of implicit and structural biases which may initially make such a conclusion seem preposterous or outrageous. After all -- to return yet again to the Christine Littleton well -- equal treatment of minorities starts "with the very radical act of taking [us] seriously, believing that what we say about ourselves and our experience is important and valid, even when (or perhaps especially when) it has little or no relationship to what has been or is being said about us."

But the JVP can't make that argument. It can't make it because, of course, demanding as a general principle that people take seriously Jewish political appraisals and accord them due consideration as part of our commitment to pluralism and autonomy means demanding as a general principle that people treat Zionism that way, because most Jews are Zionist. The last thing the JVP wants -- or is in any position to credibly assert given that they routinely argue that mainstream Jewish institutions are untrustworthy, opportunistic, paranoid or delusional -- is to promote the sentiment that we should believe "what [Jews] say about ourselves and our experience is important and valid, even when (or perhaps especially when) it has little or no relationship to what has been or is being said about us."

That avenue being closed off, the JVP must instead make a plea for special treatment. They're the good Jews -- those rare and special few who should be exempted from the (wholly reasonable and salutary) general rule that Jews are generally irrational, delusional, and/or sociopathic. In effect, this is an appeal to "respectability politics". The JVP cites its long history as not just Israel-critics but also (to quote their statement) a group which "know[s] full well that the Israel lobby uses false and misleading accusations of anti-Semitism to silence critics of Israeli policies" and which has "called out that tactic time and time again and stood in defense of those who have been wrongly maligned with this accusation", and demands that it be rewarded for its good behavior.

In their defense, it's understandable why the JVP might expect to receive such special dispensation. The folks they are appealing to often do trot them out as being the rare Jews you can trust; indeed, their status as Jews-who-criticize-other-Jews gives them superstanding and enhanced credibility. But superstanding is a fickle thing -- it lasts only as long as the critic remains critical. Superstanding only applies as against the JVP's fellow Jews; it does not come with any general grant of authority or deference. It is unsurprising that once the JVP tried to draw upon the "credibility" they earned as ideological fellow-travelers to take a position not favored by their non-Jewish allies, they'd find that the well of goodwill suddenly went dry. Superstanding isn't a signal of egalitarian attitudes, its simply the nod of approval when Jews behave in accordance to non-Jewish wishes. When push comes to shove -- that is, when we return to the key case of differentiation and dissent -- there remains no room for Jews to step out of line. Which is why I argued that respectability politics is a doomed strategy.

Because they fail to actually acknowledge anti-Semitism as a serious and systematic problem -- indeed, because they encourage it insofar as they promote the general sentiment that Jews normally can't be trusted -- the JVP falls into a trap of its own devise. It cannot actually advocate against epistemic anti-Semitism because that would require giving credence to the bulk of the Jewish community which adopts positions they wish to see delegitimized. But having helped normalize Jewish status as epistemically unreliable, they find their pleas for a special exception (in recognition of their respectable selves) will fall on deaf ears. It turns out that, in actuality, "good behavior" doesn't in any way diminish the perceived entitlement non-Jews have to dictate Jewish behavior.

That's all I have to say about the JVP. The only thing I want to address before closing is the conclusion some right-wingers draw from this analysis: that because efforts to end the occupation and craft a solution that respects the democratic and self-determination rights of Jews and Palestinians alike won't end anti-Semitism, we shouldn't do it. If the JVP's "respectability politics" position is delusional, then this retort is just pathetic. It snivels that Jews shouldn't make decisions of our own accord, but solely based on what reaction it draws from others. This is nonsense, and peculiarly at odds with the entire point of Zionism as a project of Jewish self-determination -- the historically near-unprecedented ability of Jews to make decisions about ourselves for our own reasons, rather than with an eye towards averting the next massacre.

I don't support Palestinian equality and national aspirations because I think being nice to Palestinians will make people like Jews more. I do it because, well, the whole point of being an autonomous agent is that we get to make the choices, and I want to choose to do the right thing. People who say that we can't create a Palestinian state because of this or that thing Palestinians do or refuse to do drive me nuts: what's the point of Zionism if Jews are going to sit on their hands and complain while waiting for someone else give us permission to make a decision? .... As the black nationalist saying goes: "do for self."

The JVP's position is untenable because it can neither unequivocally oppose anti-Semitism (by demanding that Jewish voices -- all Jewish voices -- be given credence when speaking on Jewish experience) nor can it exempt itself from the system of anti-Semitism (discrediting Jewish perspectives where they differ from those of non-Jews) it tacitly endorses. But for the rest of us, the fact that "criticizing Israel" won't end anti-Semitism is not a relevant objection. We should pursue a just solution for Jews and Palestinians not because of what we expect to gain from it out of others. We should do it for self.

* "Probably" because at one point he asks "What makes you assume I have no Jewish heritage?" But elsewhere he refers to Jews as an external group (literally invoking "I have Jewish friends") and he never actually says he is Jewish. So the whole bit just screams "troll".

JVP Disassociates from Alison Weir

I first came across Alison Weir in 2009, when she was asserting that Jews really did ritually murder Christian children to use their blood in religious rites. Unsurprisingly, this was pretty much the last time I paid attention to Weir, as this sort of obvious anti-Semitic crackpottery doesn't really hold much interest.

But others disagree, such as the far-left "Jewish Voice for Peace" organization. I've paid more attention to JVP, because I'm quite interested in their Herman Cain-type role in the structure of discourse between Jewish and non-Jewish actors. To wit, JVP's main function in that discourse is not to persuade Jews, but rather to say things that non-Jews really love to hear from Jewish mouths. Derrick Bell's notion of superstanding springs to mind.

I digress. JVP had previously worked with Weir, but now they have reportedly informed Alison Weir that those days are over, citing her association with various hateful and bigoted groups. I say "reportedly" because tracking down direct sources on this is surprisingly difficult to find. One blogger has what appears to be the original letter by JVP, and Weir has responded to it on her Facebook page, so she apparently thinks it is genuine, but the whole thing is a little murkier than I'd like.

In any event, assuming everything is as stated, I have a few thoughts. Obviously, it's good in some sense that JVP has (finally) decided to cut ties with a bigot like Weir. Even if it was six years after she came out in defense of the blood libel. But what's interesting about their statement of disapproval is that they don't actually object to anything Weir has said (again, not even the blood libel bit, which is a gimme!). There would seem to be plenty to choose from, but JVP is distressingly silent on that point. Their objection is rather wholly associational: Weir has "chosen repeatedly to associate [her]self with people who advocate for racism." They cite a variety of far-right White supremacist sorts whom Weir has appeared with, or been promoted by.

Now to be sure, it is troubling for anyone to knowingly appear on neo-Nazi or White supremacist radio shows, and that is worthy of condemnation. But it is more than a little odd that this is the sole focus of JVP's attack. Shorn of any indicator that JVP finds anything objectionable in Weir's own statements, it seems that their main problem is that Weir makes it embarrassingly clear that their shared ideology -- the essentially indistinguishable perspective of Alison Weir and Jewish Voice for Peace -- has significant resonance with and appeal for neo-Nazis. That far-left/far-right synergy has always been soft-pedaled by groups like the JVP, and their problem is that Weir won't play ball.

To be clear, JVP had two decent options here. It could explicitly note and condemn specific views by Weir that make her such an appealing figure for neo-Nazis. That would put daylight between themselves and their positions and those which carry the endorsement of the David Dukes and Gilad Atzmons of the world. Or if they really don't have any substantive objections to anything Weir has written, then they could show some introspection and inquire as to why their shared ideology gains such a receptive audience amongst the reactionary far-right.

But the tactic they've chosen does neither. It's a head-in-the-sand approach that condemns Weir for not keeping up the ruse. They're not upset that Weir articulates anti-Semitic beliefs. They're upset that Weir reveals that the brand of anti-Israel activism they jointly espouse is one that is happily embraced by, and seen as an instantiation of the values of, reactionaries and neo-Nazis the world over.

I Can't Fathom Why They Were Shut Out in the First Place

The Forward has a piece up on Jewish Voice for Peace (an organization which, I have to admit, I thought was much older than its 2001 birthdate) and its effort gain "a seat at the [Jewish] communal table." The controversy is that the JVP either endorses or plays footsy with a number of radical positions -- from a one-state solution to the global BDS -- that the broader Jewish community considers well beyond the pale.

And in their latest gambit that's sure to demonstrate their mainstream-i-ness, JVP's executive director, Rebecca Vilkomerson, is endorsing the new Move Over AIPAC group, which is heading to DC during AIPAC's conference in order to reveal "the extraordinary influence AIPAC has on U.S. policy and how to strengthen an alternative that respects the rights of all people in the region."

And what better way to kick that project off than by honoring Helen Thomas, who infamously declared that the Jewish people in the region should "get the hell out". Now that's respecting rights (as the Judeosphere put it in response to Mondoweiss' astounding defense of Thomas -- that expelling Jews from the Middle East would be a good thing because it might reinvigorate Polish Jewish culture: "I'm deeply touched by this gesture of philanthropic ethnic cleansing.").

Other "luminaries" endorsing the event include Alice Walker and Naomi Klein. Yeah, I don't expect to see JVP at any communal seder tables in the near future.

Actually, you know who the JVP and its buddies are really emulating? Herman Cain. As Adam Serwer notes, Cain's statements are self-evidently not calculated to heighten the appeal of GOP policies to the African-American community. If anything, they're gratuitously alienating to Blacks. What Cain does do is nakedly appeal to the prejudices of White conservatives, who eat it up extra-hungrily because its coming from a Black man. Ditto the JVP -- if their goal is to "gain a seat" at the Jewish communal table, well, yer' doin' it wrong. But if their goal is to gain a seat at a table of folks who never really were big fans of Jewish communal expression and autonomy to begin with, but don't like to think of themselves as anti-Semitic -- well, they're doing it absolutely right. And for the same reason that I don't expect to see Cain keynoting the NAACP convention, I don't see the JVP's exile being lifted anytime soon.

UPDATE: Thomas has withdrawn from the event, saying she didn't want to "distract" from the group's message.