This is a very important point. Just to say zionism=colonialism is extremely narrow. I think if more people understood the roots of Zionism, why and how it developed, and spiritual Zionism as different than political zionism then we might be able to make progress in this horrible situation. Nuance is totally missing which causes a lot of "othering" rather than understanding. Thanks Peter.
I strongly support Professor Beinart’s nuanced and thoughtful message. More speech, even if we think it is bad speech, is always better.
I will add this as an Arab-American (though not Palestinian origin):
1.) Zionism is defined by its victims. The internal Jewish identity discussion of Zionism is kind of irrelevant. Zionism is what is done to Palestinians, and they get to tell us what it is. Their voices need to be heard, which is exactly why the DNC silenced them last week. I know this is a difficult/uncomfortable point but it’s true. Frankly it’s true of most ideologies. We should ask Native Americans to tell us what was/is manifest destiny
2.) The exercise of changing Jewish views on Zionism or Israel/Palestine is an exclusively a Jewish endeavor. Partly it’s a function of every community’s right and need to maintain an internal dialogue about identity and politics, but it’s also reflection of a lot of dehumanized views of Palestinians in particular. I have lots of Jewish friends (a function of geography, I assume) but I generally don’t broach topics related to Palestine with them. Unfortunately, I’ve nearly always found my Jewish friends to be resistant to any facts outside of whatever narrative they were raised with. That said I am fairly certain that most of my Jewish friends are pretty apolitical on Israel / Palestine issues. I would rather stay within that assumption about my friends and their beliefs. Sadly, I’ve had enough experiences with friends/colleagues suddenly being racist/hostile/closed off that I usually try not to engage on the issue because it just causes rancor (in both directions) and it’s unproductive. If someone wants to broach a topic, they can, but I’m usually not going to ask. I am open about my opinions but although I would like to persuade people, we all have our limits, our capabilities. If people want to change their beliefs, they do that on their own terms. Again that is true of most people and most beliefs.
I’m an older Gen X. I suspect the experience of Gen Z is vastly different and better. I think they are also just better people than I am.
I wonder where you live? In the San Francisco Bay Area most of the Jews I know (including me) are extremely sympathetic to the Palestinian plight/genocide. But we do live in a bubble here. Like you, though, I steer clear of dialogue with Jewish friends who I know to be uncritical of Israel.
Firstly. I wish we all could get a coffee together. I appreciate more than anything else being able to confront these hard subjects by listening to people from different walks of life. Secondly, I'm afraid we live in a bubble. It's interesting that what I see is the oldest generation and the gen Z being clear about their stance against genocide. But even withing the more liberal jewish boomers that seen to be a non-starter... it's like two separate realities.
Actually Lora, come to think of it, one of my oldest closest friends is an SF Bay Area Jew. He made some really horrible comments on my Facebook page about the genocide, so I dropped him as a Facebook friend. I have not spoken to him since. I am still considering our relationship but I’m not in a hurry to make any decisions. We have known each other for almost 40 years, but I have not decided whether I actually want to forgive him. Separation is probably a good thing right now.
I will say (and I have heard variations of this from several Jews), I’m tired of arguments along the lines of “oh, I think what is happening in the West Bank/Gaza is terrible” or “I don’t support Netanyahu at all”, but then it’s followed by something like “but the Palestinians did [X] (whatever Zionist talking point of the day), so what did they think was going to happen?” It’s blaming the victims for their own ethnic cleansing and genocide. It’s patronizing as hell, racist, and dismissive rhetorical tactic used by Jewish Americans who want to justify their own racist hatred of Palestinians, but don’t want to admit their own bigotry.
People only change on their own terms, and change is slow. I probably won’t live to see a free Palestine but maybe the next generation or the one after will. I assume that Israel will exterminate and expel the Palestinians remaining in Palestine within the next 5 years but those in the diaspora may eventually be able to return.
I saw that the bookstore had not cancelled the event, but that a single employee (who was leaving their job the next week) blocked the event and was terminated early. However, once again this event with the most mild limitation of speech makes news, is written about with excitement, and is called “anti-semitism.” I agree with your point that this could be strategically self-defeating. On the other hand, I wish that Rabbi Bachman-who sounds like a thoughtful and lovely person overall—isn’t able to interpret the employee blocking the event as cry of pain over the harm that American Zionism is causing. I would hope the rabbi would release a statement condemning the unbearable cruelty of Netanyahu and Biden’s actions and making it clear he disagrees with those actions. In other words, why not put the onus on people who call themselves liberal Zionists to clarify how they imagine a Zionism that fits with liberal values? The reason people are protesting Zionism is a direct consequence of people like Joe Biden saying he is a Zionist and showing that Zionism for Biden means hugging Netanyahu and shipping bombs. Of course that is how Americans will interpret Zionism.
100% agree with your perspective. Zionism can't be defined by the by the aggressor, but by it's victims. If there's these differences within the self described zionist jewish community I have honestly seen too much of it in the US where I'm part of it.
I Agree with much of what you are saying, in order to open the conversations from all sides for better understanding of each othe and our roots. I believe in Freedom of Speech. even if isn't what you want to hear. Maybe I am wrong, but I have felt that much of Zionisim is a sense of Entitlement.. The same kind of Entitlement that Nazi's had about themselve, or Slave Owners had in this country about Blacks. and American Indians. Am i Wrong?
Very reasonable perspective (as always), Peter. Censoring and canceling people for their ideology (or any other reason) does not advance the conversation - just as I believe it was a mistake for the DNC not to allow a Palestinian American to speak on the main stage.
I appreciate your point about moving people's ideas and the inherent belief that they can be influenced and changed. We need this kind of positive energy these days, because there are many days when I cannot see any hope for change, all this because of the reality on the ground. Thank you.
I would agree BUT this is not even a real story. It was one employee that did that, not the bookstore. There's some some small groups that made that hard-line decision. Personally I think what are you saying makes sense and is reasonable IF these "nuance" zionists would have stood up and loud and clear had they condemn the ongoing genocide in occupied Palestine. But I hear nothing on my broad community that does nothing to curtain the obliteration of the indigenous peoples of our holy lands.
The pro-Palestinans should have been invited to speak. But I understand why the Party refused. They desperately and absolutely needed to show and confirm unity and hope, but also massive joy!
A face of positivity was imperitive for that crucial and decisive moment.
Unfortunately what it conveyed was, "There's no room for Arab-Americans or anyone who cares about Palestinians in our big tent." And that's going to translate into a lot of people leaving the party and refusing to vote for their own people's genocide.
So it was a foolish error, to say nothing of ghastly and frankly racist.
Everyone's a human except Palestinians. They can be slaughtered with impunity, with our tax dollars, and everyone just needs to shut up about it and let them be killed and starved so we can enjoy our party.
The Dem establishment seems to be choosing genocide over American democracy. And that's a pretty sad potential epitaph for this country.
Thank you Peter. The trend of excluding those we disagree with is growing in this country. It's a circle the wagons mentality that does nothing to advance the causes that people claim to be fighting for.
Excellent, makes all the right points, in my opinion, and clearly. Thank you! The one thing I would add is that all poltical labels, such as "socialist", "feminist", "progressive", "Zionist", embrace a range of opinions and that automatically silencing someone because of a label that has been assigned to them will inevitably prevent various people who have more complex or nuanced views (or even simply good ones!) from speaking. Political speech should always be given wide latitude and those who do not like what is said should then argue against those specific views. This, of course, is an old-fashioned civil liberties point of view but I believe it is still valid.
The situation does indeed depend on what kind of zionism/zionist we are 'confronting', and it is good to be reminded that not all zionists have the same understanding of zionism and that many have not engaged with the implications.
The mark of critical thinking is to be able to change perspective and strategy depending on context. While room must remain, at least in principle, for communication in order for a politics to be ethical, it remains that we shouldn't consequently fall for 'chimeras', like 'justice' or 'free speech', disconnected from their de facto instantiations in this world.
Free speech and justice, may be things we wish to aspire to, but this implies acknowledging they are not things that already exist. To assume or claim that they do, categorically, may be more detrimental to the goal of reaching or approximating them than assuming the critical position that acknowledges the gap between the 'is' and the 'should' and the work required to attempt to bridge it.
Under this view, boycotting certain speeches and events is simply one of the political tools at our disposal to produce the space in which free speech is possible in the first place, that is, a space in which all partakers' have equal rights.
As with all tools, it should be used for specific tasks and goals in particular situations, it shouldn't be used in all cases, which would undermine the very goal one seeks to achieve, nor should it be dismissed categorically, on the basis of an abstracted conception of 'free speech' that bares little connection with actual speech in this socio-material world.
Here's a shorter version of some of the arguments made in the book (unfortunately missing the speech as interpellation theory in chapter 4 of the book).
This is a very important point. Just to say zionism=colonialism is extremely narrow. I think if more people understood the roots of Zionism, why and how it developed, and spiritual Zionism as different than political zionism then we might be able to make progress in this horrible situation. Nuance is totally missing which causes a lot of "othering" rather than understanding. Thanks Peter.
I strongly support Professor Beinart’s nuanced and thoughtful message. More speech, even if we think it is bad speech, is always better.
I will add this as an Arab-American (though not Palestinian origin):
1.) Zionism is defined by its victims. The internal Jewish identity discussion of Zionism is kind of irrelevant. Zionism is what is done to Palestinians, and they get to tell us what it is. Their voices need to be heard, which is exactly why the DNC silenced them last week. I know this is a difficult/uncomfortable point but it’s true. Frankly it’s true of most ideologies. We should ask Native Americans to tell us what was/is manifest destiny
2.) The exercise of changing Jewish views on Zionism or Israel/Palestine is an exclusively a Jewish endeavor. Partly it’s a function of every community’s right and need to maintain an internal dialogue about identity and politics, but it’s also reflection of a lot of dehumanized views of Palestinians in particular. I have lots of Jewish friends (a function of geography, I assume) but I generally don’t broach topics related to Palestine with them. Unfortunately, I’ve nearly always found my Jewish friends to be resistant to any facts outside of whatever narrative they were raised with. That said I am fairly certain that most of my Jewish friends are pretty apolitical on Israel / Palestine issues. I would rather stay within that assumption about my friends and their beliefs. Sadly, I’ve had enough experiences with friends/colleagues suddenly being racist/hostile/closed off that I usually try not to engage on the issue because it just causes rancor (in both directions) and it’s unproductive. If someone wants to broach a topic, they can, but I’m usually not going to ask. I am open about my opinions but although I would like to persuade people, we all have our limits, our capabilities. If people want to change their beliefs, they do that on their own terms. Again that is true of most people and most beliefs.
I’m an older Gen X. I suspect the experience of Gen Z is vastly different and better. I think they are also just better people than I am.
I wonder where you live? In the San Francisco Bay Area most of the Jews I know (including me) are extremely sympathetic to the Palestinian plight/genocide. But we do live in a bubble here. Like you, though, I steer clear of dialogue with Jewish friends who I know to be uncritical of Israel.
Firstly. I wish we all could get a coffee together. I appreciate more than anything else being able to confront these hard subjects by listening to people from different walks of life. Secondly, I'm afraid we live in a bubble. It's interesting that what I see is the oldest generation and the gen Z being clear about their stance against genocide. But even withing the more liberal jewish boomers that seen to be a non-starter... it's like two separate realities.
Actually Lora, come to think of it, one of my oldest closest friends is an SF Bay Area Jew. He made some really horrible comments on my Facebook page about the genocide, so I dropped him as a Facebook friend. I have not spoken to him since. I am still considering our relationship but I’m not in a hurry to make any decisions. We have known each other for almost 40 years, but I have not decided whether I actually want to forgive him. Separation is probably a good thing right now.
I will say (and I have heard variations of this from several Jews), I’m tired of arguments along the lines of “oh, I think what is happening in the West Bank/Gaza is terrible” or “I don’t support Netanyahu at all”, but then it’s followed by something like “but the Palestinians did [X] (whatever Zionist talking point of the day), so what did they think was going to happen?” It’s blaming the victims for their own ethnic cleansing and genocide. It’s patronizing as hell, racist, and dismissive rhetorical tactic used by Jewish Americans who want to justify their own racist hatred of Palestinians, but don’t want to admit their own bigotry.
People only change on their own terms, and change is slow. I probably won’t live to see a free Palestine but maybe the next generation or the one after will. I assume that Israel will exterminate and expel the Palestinians remaining in Palestine within the next 5 years but those in the diaspora may eventually be able to return.
I grew up in rural Maryland, went to college near Baltimore, moved around a lot but have been settled in/around Washington DC for the last 20+ years
I saw that the bookstore had not cancelled the event, but that a single employee (who was leaving their job the next week) blocked the event and was terminated early. However, once again this event with the most mild limitation of speech makes news, is written about with excitement, and is called “anti-semitism.” I agree with your point that this could be strategically self-defeating. On the other hand, I wish that Rabbi Bachman-who sounds like a thoughtful and lovely person overall—isn’t able to interpret the employee blocking the event as cry of pain over the harm that American Zionism is causing. I would hope the rabbi would release a statement condemning the unbearable cruelty of Netanyahu and Biden’s actions and making it clear he disagrees with those actions. In other words, why not put the onus on people who call themselves liberal Zionists to clarify how they imagine a Zionism that fits with liberal values? The reason people are protesting Zionism is a direct consequence of people like Joe Biden saying he is a Zionist and showing that Zionism for Biden means hugging Netanyahu and shipping bombs. Of course that is how Americans will interpret Zionism.
100% agree with your perspective. Zionism can't be defined by the by the aggressor, but by it's victims. If there's these differences within the self described zionist jewish community I have honestly seen too much of it in the US where I'm part of it.
I Agree with much of what you are saying, in order to open the conversations from all sides for better understanding of each othe and our roots. I believe in Freedom of Speech. even if isn't what you want to hear. Maybe I am wrong, but I have felt that much of Zionisim is a sense of Entitlement.. The same kind of Entitlement that Nazi's had about themselve, or Slave Owners had in this country about Blacks. and American Indians. Am i Wrong?
Very reasonable perspective (as always), Peter. Censoring and canceling people for their ideology (or any other reason) does not advance the conversation - just as I believe it was a mistake for the DNC not to allow a Palestinian American to speak on the main stage.
I appreciate your point about moving people's ideas and the inherent belief that they can be influenced and changed. We need this kind of positive energy these days, because there are many days when I cannot see any hope for change, all this because of the reality on the ground. Thank you.
I would agree BUT this is not even a real story. It was one employee that did that, not the bookstore. There's some some small groups that made that hard-line decision. Personally I think what are you saying makes sense and is reasonable IF these "nuance" zionists would have stood up and loud and clear had they condemn the ongoing genocide in occupied Palestine. But I hear nothing on my broad community that does nothing to curtain the obliteration of the indigenous peoples of our holy lands.
The pro-Palestinans should have been invited to speak. But I understand why the Party refused. They desperately and absolutely needed to show and confirm unity and hope, but also massive joy!
A face of positivity was imperitive for that crucial and decisive moment.
Unfortunately what it conveyed was, "There's no room for Arab-Americans or anyone who cares about Palestinians in our big tent." And that's going to translate into a lot of people leaving the party and refusing to vote for their own people's genocide.
https://zeteo.com/p/poll-harris-democrats-gaza-ceasefire-arms-embargo
So it was a foolish error, to say nothing of ghastly and frankly racist.
Everyone's a human except Palestinians. They can be slaughtered with impunity, with our tax dollars, and everyone just needs to shut up about it and let them be killed and starved so we can enjoy our party.
The Dem establishment seems to be choosing genocide over American democracy. And that's a pretty sad potential epitaph for this country.
I am curious if you have read this review? https://spectrejournal.com/acting-jewishly-during-a-genocide/
Thank you Peter. The trend of excluding those we disagree with is growing in this country. It's a circle the wagons mentality that does nothing to advance the causes that people claim to be fighting for.
Excellent, makes all the right points, in my opinion, and clearly. Thank you! The one thing I would add is that all poltical labels, such as "socialist", "feminist", "progressive", "Zionist", embrace a range of opinions and that automatically silencing someone because of a label that has been assigned to them will inevitably prevent various people who have more complex or nuanced views (or even simply good ones!) from speaking. Political speech should always be given wide latitude and those who do not like what is said should then argue against those specific views. This, of course, is an old-fashioned civil liberties point of view but I believe it is still valid.
Hi Peter,
Thanks for this.
The situation does indeed depend on what kind of zionism/zionist we are 'confronting', and it is good to be reminded that not all zionists have the same understanding of zionism and that many have not engaged with the implications.
The mark of critical thinking is to be able to change perspective and strategy depending on context. While room must remain, at least in principle, for communication in order for a politics to be ethical, it remains that we shouldn't consequently fall for 'chimeras', like 'justice' or 'free speech', disconnected from their de facto instantiations in this world.
Free speech and justice, may be things we wish to aspire to, but this implies acknowledging they are not things that already exist. To assume or claim that they do, categorically, may be more detrimental to the goal of reaching or approximating them than assuming the critical position that acknowledges the gap between the 'is' and the 'should' and the work required to attempt to bridge it.
Under this view, boycotting certain speeches and events is simply one of the political tools at our disposal to produce the space in which free speech is possible in the first place, that is, a space in which all partakers' have equal rights.
As with all tools, it should be used for specific tasks and goals in particular situations, it shouldn't be used in all cases, which would undermine the very goal one seeks to achieve, nor should it be dismissed categorically, on the basis of an abstracted conception of 'free speech' that bares little connection with actual speech in this socio-material world.
Nick Riemer engages in detail with much of this in his book "Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine": https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538175866/Boycott-Theory-and-the-Struggle-for-Palestine-Universities-Intellectualism-and-Liberation
Here's a shorter version of some of the arguments made in the book (unfortunately missing the speech as interpellation theory in chapter 4 of the book).
https://jacobin.com/2017/07/bds-boycott-divest-sanctions-palestine-israel-academic-universities