I was looking forward last week to talking to Nachman Shai, Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs. It’s rare for Israeli officials to talk publicly with American Jews—or any Americans—who challenge Israel’s denial of Palestinian human rights. Unfortunately, Minister Shai cancelled the conversation, citing a scheduling concern, and has so far been unwilling to reschedule. It’s depressing. What’s the point of complaining about being cancelled in progressive spaces if you cancel yourself?
I agree with Peter's analysis but I don't think I agree with the way the title of this piece frames the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that Zionism isn't a left-wing doctrine and that people who identify as Zionists can't be considered progressives. In that sense: no, Zionists shouldn't be "allowed" on the left, whatever that means.
But Sunrise DC's decision was still wrong. The real problem is that they rejected the support of non-leftists *who agreed with them about the need to fight climate change*.
It's fair to point out that the rally included some other groups who don't fully support the progressive agenda, like Catholic climate activists who oppose abortion rights. By not calling those groups out Sunrise DC gave the impression of holding Jews to a higher standard. But I doubt that was due to anti-Semitism. If the anti-choice views of the Franciscan Action Network had been pointed out, I'm sure they'd have been canceled too. That's exactly the problem with Sunrise's approach, and with a lot of left-wing activism generally.
You fundamentally misunderstand the people you're dealing with. They don't really want to build big-tent coalitions that can actually exert democratic people power and win necessary policy changes. They want to control the Left and progressive spaces. If their control over the Left causes the Left to become dysfunctional or powerless, to lose elections and fail to pass legislation, that only proves the Left's extramural constituents (eg: voters, in this case particularly Jewish voters and Jewish Democrats) are uncivilized barbarians.
In short, you're trying to debate the Iron Law of Institutions.
Strangely, you cite Hungary to make the case of opposing movements who choose to unite against a greater evil, but omit the case of Israeli parties joining together in a coalition whose sole purpose was to oust Bibi. This omition isn't incidental, I think, because of this government's stance against Palestinians in general and their human rights, most specifically. And besides that - Zionism is racism.
"I decided to talk it over with two people I deeply respect, who hold different views of Zionism."
If Rabbi Jill Jacobs doesn't see herself as being anti-Palestinian, then she and your other guest, Yousef Munayyer, could have the first debate on whether or not "Zionism is Anti-Palestinian."
A magazine you write for released an obnoxiously racist anti-Mizrahi screed in the form of a political cartoon. (https://jewishcurrents.org/when-settler-becomes-native?mc_cid=cee291239b&mc_eid=976a27a028) Are you willing to call out your own bedfellows?
I agree with Peter's analysis but I don't think I agree with the way the title of this piece frames the issue. It's perfectly legitimate to point out that Zionism isn't a left-wing doctrine and that people who identify as Zionists can't be considered progressives. In that sense: no, Zionists shouldn't be "allowed" on the left, whatever that means.
But Sunrise DC's decision was still wrong. The real problem is that they rejected the support of non-leftists *who agreed with them about the need to fight climate change*.
It's fair to point out that the rally included some other groups who don't fully support the progressive agenda, like Catholic climate activists who oppose abortion rights. By not calling those groups out Sunrise DC gave the impression of holding Jews to a higher standard. But I doubt that was due to anti-Semitism. If the anti-choice views of the Franciscan Action Network had been pointed out, I'm sure they'd have been canceled too. That's exactly the problem with Sunrise's approach, and with a lot of left-wing activism generally.
You fundamentally misunderstand the people you're dealing with. They don't really want to build big-tent coalitions that can actually exert democratic people power and win necessary policy changes. They want to control the Left and progressive spaces. If their control over the Left causes the Left to become dysfunctional or powerless, to lose elections and fail to pass legislation, that only proves the Left's extramural constituents (eg: voters, in this case particularly Jewish voters and Jewish Democrats) are uncivilized barbarians.
In short, you're trying to debate the Iron Law of Institutions.
Strangely, you cite Hungary to make the case of opposing movements who choose to unite against a greater evil, but omit the case of Israeli parties joining together in a coalition whose sole purpose was to oust Bibi. This omition isn't incidental, I think, because of this government's stance against Palestinians in general and their human rights, most specifically. And besides that - Zionism is racism.
"I decided to talk it over with two people I deeply respect, who hold different views of Zionism."
If Rabbi Jill Jacobs doesn't see herself as being anti-Palestinian, then she and your other guest, Yousef Munayyer, could have the first debate on whether or not "Zionism is Anti-Palestinian."
Shouldn't this be: "the compatibility of Jewish statehood and liberal democracy"?