| Main Feature Story - Friday, January 26, 2007
Feature: Backward progress
Finding Our Voice conference to confront growing anti-Semitism from the progressive left
by Jordan E. Rosenfeld
For much of the 20th century, anti-Semitism has predominantly reared its head in the political far right and ideological hate groups.
With its left-leaning politics, Marin County (and most of the Bay Area) has rarely been known for anti-Semitic controversy. So it may come as a surprise to some that the Bay Area chapter of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has become increasingly worried about numerous incidences of what is being called a "new" or "neo" anti-Semitism right here at home.
What gives this brand of anti-Semitism the qualifier "new," according to ADL officials, is that it is not coming from its usual right-wing sources, but from the progressive left—couched under criticism of the Israeli government and its policies.
"Our focus work proved that this was a big, big problem," says Jonathan Bernstein, regional director of the Bay Area chapter of the ADL.
No one can pinpoint exactly when this new anti-Semitism emerged—some believe it started in the late '80s following the Palestinian's "First Intifada" against Israel—but it wasn't until recently, when Bernstein and his staff had finally heard enough from alarmed citizens, that the ADL decided to do something about it.
That something is happening January 28 in San Francisco, when the ADL is sponsoring the first-ever "Finding Our Voice: The Conference for Progressives Constructively Addressing Anti-Semitism" featuring keynote speaker Anthony Julius, of England, who has been recognized worldwide for challenging anti-Semitism. (Julius successfully defended Professor Deborah Lipstadt against libel charges brought by Holocaust denier David Irving). The conference has more than 40 co-sponsors on the bill, from well-known religious and political organizations around the country.
According to conference fliers, "It is critical to the well-being of the Jewish community to maintain the ability to effectively advocate throughout the political spectrum without fear of anti-Semitism. The Jewish community has a right to participate in political discourse without prejudice, bigotry and undue or disproportional criticism of Israel."
Anti-Semitism has been called "the long hatred" (a term coined by historian Robert Wistrich), as it can be traced back as far as the Jewish people themselves. Six decades past the Holocaust, many people have forgotten—and in some cases, don't even know—about the atrocities perpetrated on Jews under Hitler's reign (and throughout history). If not for recent attention to the subject thanks to an inebriated, ranting Mel Gibson (who, during last summer's DUI stop, spewed anti-Semitic statements at his arresting officer) and Sacha Baron Cohen's cringe-worthy comedy Borat—which revealed existing, and somewhat under-the-radar anti-Semitism in parts of the U.S.—there might not be much public discourse on the subject at all.
"We keep tallies on anti-Semitic incidents in the Bay Area," says Bernstein. "More and more, we're being tied back to criticism of Israel that just went too far. It's legitimate for people to criticize the policies of the Israeli government, but when Israel is singled out in a way that no other country is—if it's dehumanized and held to a double-standard—you have to start asking yourself if something else is going on here. It's been bringing real ugliness."
ADL assistant director Tami Holzman says images of antiwar protests really hammered home the problem.
"At antiwar rallies we saw posters where the image of the Israeli flag was superimposed with a swastika," says Holzman. "Another showed Ariel Sharon morphed to look like Hitler."
Manina Cherkin, assistant director of campus affairs for the ADL, cites the new book by former President Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, as another troubling example. As the title suggests, the book finds similarities between Israel's military actions against the Palestinians and the South-African system of apartheid.
"Using the word 'apartheid' plays on racist tendencies," argues Cherkin.
Indeed. Since the book's publication, Carter has been accused of anti-Semitism by many who say he's taking a pro-Palestinian stance, one that disparages Israel. In a review for the Washington Post this month, writer Deborah Lipstadt wrote, "Carter's book...while exceptionally sensitive to Palestinian suffering, ignores a legacy of mistreatment, expulsion and murder committed against Jews. It trivializes the murder of Israelis. Now, facing a storm of criticism, he has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense."
• • • •
CARTER HAS DENIED any anti-Semitism, and says that his book is not intended to be read that way.
Other than the few very public controversies that Gibson, Borat and Carter have brought to light, Bernstein and others at the ADL do not feel there has been an effective public discourse about the new anti-Semitism.
However, college campuses, with their atmospheres of free thought and discussion, are among the few places debate on the subject has taken flight. In the spring of 2005, the topic was forced into conversation when controversy erupted at San Francisco State University over a mural. A group of Palestinian students had painted the mural (with permission and the required permits from the school) on a wall of the student union. Jewish students had even been invited to weigh in on the design process. Unfortunately, the final design included images that Jewish students had not agreed upon—images many of them found offensive.
In particular was one of a famous cartoon character, known as "Handala," created by Palestinian cartoonist Naji-al-Ali in 1969.
"This character is often depicted throwing a rock and is seen as a symbol of resistance—and very offensive to Jews," says Cherkin. "In the mural, he's also holding a key, symbolizing the right of return to the Palestinians, which is about the destruction of Israel.
"This mural highlighted the tensions between Jewish students and Palestinian students on campus," Cherkin continues. "Still, it's not as powerful as when you hear someone say that Israel is an apartheid state and that Zionists are racists, and suggestions for divestment campaigns [boycotting businesses that have financial ties to Israel]."
The dean of the school ultimately ordered the removal of the mural.
Rick Davis, a San Anselmo-based activist who helped organize the Finding Our Voice conference—and who will give a presentation titled "That's Not Funny: Cartoons and Editorials. What's Legitimate and What Isn't?"—says that in his native England, a similar phenomenon of anti-Semitism has snowballed into serious proportions, with acts of harassment and violence breaking out against Jews.
"I went back to the UK after the Intifada, which most people would attribute to the recurrence of this anti-Semitism. When I walked down the street with my rabbi friend, kids drove past and made disreputable, disparaging comments because he was wearing his traditional religious attire," says Davis. "I argue that the United States and Israel are the only two countries that are friendly to Jews right now. People are not paying attention to what's happening on the left; they're going to turn around five years from now and there will be a 600-pound gorilla with 'new anti-Semitism' tattooed on his forearm. You may say that I'm paranoid, but what happened in the UK could easily happen here."
As a result of the worsening climate against Jews in Europe, the European Union's Monitoring Centre commissioned a report that provides easy-to-understand characteristics of this new anti-Semitism.
"The report identifies and defines several characteristics of 'the Jew' that, when they appear in the form of criticism of Israel...crosses the line into anti-Semitism," says Davis. "A lot of people on the left I talk to will say, 'People are just being too sensitive; all we're doing is criticizing the government.' But you have to make these criticisms in a fair way without provoking these anti-Semitic profiles."
Definitions of what constitutes anti-Semitism from the EU report include:
• "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal organizations."
• "Accusing the Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations."
• And in an article written by journalist Natan Sharanksy that ran in the Jerusalem Post in February of 2004, he proposed a "test" for differentiating legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism, which consists of three "Ds"—demonization, double standards and de-legitimation.
Davis gives a more personal example of a conversation he had with a woman at Spirit Rock meditation center in Woodacre.
"This woman is a good progressive radical. She said to me that Israel just takes and takes all the time and never gives, and she used the example of the Pakistan earthquake in which it was reported that Israel did not give aid—which is untrue; they gave under the public radar because Pakistan did not want to look like it was taking aid from Israel. I said to her, 'You're not aware of what Israel does. Every time there is a major disaster they're right there within a couple of days.'
"Her statement harped back on the typical Jewish profile—not an Israeli profile—of greed and avarice. She didn't realize she was being oppressive and didn't intend it that way, but she expressed it. I argue that Jimmy Carter is also expressing this new anti-Semitism in his book by not applying the same standards to Palestinians. He's demonizing Israel and applying double-standards."
If there's any doubt about the gaining acceptance of anti-Semitism, says Davis, look no further than Borat, in which the very-Jewish Sacha Baron Cohen (under the guise of a naive Kazakhstani television personality) goads Americans into not-so-subtle condonation of anti-Semitism.
"I understand where Baron Cohen is coming from," says Davis. "I believe his film is about this new anti-Semitism. I take him very seriously."
• • • •
MANY FEEL ANOTHER characteristic of this left-derived anti-Semitism is that it's borne more out of ignorance than hatred—and, as such, can be far more subtle and easy to overlook. Lynn Werner, a Berkeley teacher and civil rights activist, was one of the people who encouraged (through impassioned e-mails) Bernstein and the ADL to put on the conference.
"Things are becoming commonplace and acceptable," she said by phone from Florida (where she's caring for her mother). "What scares me is this is more serious than we think. What I keep hearing is that it's not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel, and I agree—I'm extremely critical myself of Israel in many ways—but when the line is crossed, as I have heard lately, and when people do not respond to these statements or see them as hate speech, it gets scary and upsetting.
"When people tell me that this is just a neurotic thing that Jews have—that we're always worried about anti-Semitism—it's minimizing a very serious issue and it's very dangerous."
In an e-mail Werner first sent to Bernstein in 2006, she wrote:
"I would like to know just what the swastikas at the high school where I taught meant if anti-Semitism does not exist. I would like to know what the brochures brought by the Palestinians on tour in my community in which Jews were depicted as cockroaches meant if anti-Semitism does not exist. I would like to know what the silence at the teach-in in S.F. meant when no one other than myself spoke up in opposition to the statement that the Jews are responsible for our present crisis [in Iraq]. I would like to know what it meant when a friend on the left told me that I could either work with labor and oppose Israel or I could support Zionism and be a racist. I would like to know what it meant when another colleague on the left protested her problems at the medical center where she worked as caused by that 'Zionist hospital.' "
Bernstein feels it's important to point out that the problems of new anti-Semitism are not relegated only to inflammatory and obvious examples, but that a lack of reaction or appropriate response to anti-Semitic behavior is just as problematic.
"The problem we've found in the progressive world is that there aren't a lot of people willing to speak up," he says. "I remember looking out the window of my office at a recent protest rally and seeing a man carrying a sign that said on one side 'smash the Jewish state' and on the other side, 'smash the Jewish race.' He probably felt that his fellow marchers were endorsing his message. There haven't been enough people who have drawn a line in the sand and said to these people—once you start scapegoating Jews, you're no longer welcome to participate in our movement."
Some fear that acceptance of anti-Semitism in the form of criticizing Israel is the first step for Jews toward a climate of danger.
As Werner wrote to Bernstein, "The growing acceptance of anti-Semitic rhetoric is so commonplace that it is not even recognized as anti-Semitism. By continually using the propaganda strategy of negating the existence of anti-Semitism as a real issue, such apologists shut off dialogue for those of us on the left who continue to question that rhetoric."
• • • •
MUCH OF THE problem, contend ADL spokespeople, is more a lack of awareness than outright anti-Semitism. Such may be the case of the recent Bronze Bow controversy at Davidson Middle School in San Rafael.
Last spring, a group of parents—not all of whom were Jewish—protested the inclusion of what they felt was an "anti-Judaic" piece of literature in the school's seventh-grade curriculum. The book in question, the Newbery Medal-winning novel The Bronze Bow by Elizabeth George Speare, is set in the time of Christ and follows the story of a young Jewish rebel who comes to believe in Jesus.
Leonard Levy of San Rafael was one of the first parents to spearhead the motion to have the book removed from the classroom.
In a letter Levy wrote to the teachers and administration, he outlined two main objections to the text.
The first: "It strongly promotes a Christian religious message that does not belong in the public schools. In a high school or college comparative religion course it might be fine. Not in seventh-grade core."
The second point stated, "From a Jewish point of view, the book presents a negative, inaccurate and arguably slanderous image of Jewish religion and society, and encourages the view that the teachings of Jesus were a great improvement."
The teachers defended the book as being historical, not religious, says Levy, even after he and others presented them with research that indicated the history in the book was highly inaccurate. "They maintained this even after we proved that the author clearly said in her Newbery acceptance speech that she wrote the book specifically to introduce children to Jesus," Levy says. "The teachers' reaction to us was that we were reading things into the text, though they admitted they didn't know anything about Judaism and they considered Jesus a minor character in the book—as if he was just a guy who happens to be a messiah—that's absurd."
While Levy did not feel the parents were met with overt anti-Semitism, he says, "Certainly anti-Semitism is an issue regarding the content of the book. Many people don't see it; they're blind to the issues. What the whole thing illustrates is an insensitivity to and lack of awareness to anti-Judaic issues when they're in a more subtle form."
• • • •
REVEREND BRUCE BRAMLETT of San Rafael (who will present "Essentials of the Longest Hatred: An All Too Speedy Overview of Anti-Semitism's Long History" at the conference) is an Episcopal priest who has devoted 30 years to the field of Jewish-Christian relations. He calls the topic of anti-Semitism "a deeply personal issue." As a young clergyman in the late 1970s, Bramlett visited Israel and, specifically, Yad Vashem—the national Authority for the Remembrance of the Martyrs and Heroes of the Holocaust. There he encountered for the first time the true events of the Holocaust—and suffered his first crisis of faith.
"I wondered where the Church had been during this time and the only way I could see my way through my crisis of faith was to basically say to God, I'm going to spend the rest of my life addressing this question."
Bramlett feels that what is taking place is not, in fact, a "new" anti-Semitism at all, but a "transmogrification" of the traditional anti-Semitism. "It's part of the same air we've been breathing for 2,000 years," he says.
He points to conspiracy theories that abounded after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. "You've probably heard the question asked, 'Why were there 4,000 Jews who did not show up to work on the day of September 11?' We might look at this as crazy, but a large, overwhelming percentage of the world's Arab, and certainly Muslim, population believe that Jews had something to do with the attacks." [At one point in Borat, the title character suggests he was warned not to fly in America "in case the Jews repeated their attack of 9/11."]
While there is a clear distinction between Islamist anti-Semitism and that from the progressive left, the two remain linked by the idea that when the Muslim world speaks, it is more likely the progressive left that is willing to listen.
Continues Bramlett, "You have the president of Malaysia addressing a major world conference of leaders and actually parroting and paraphrasing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [a forged document from the early 1900s that suggested there was a Jewish plot to achieve world domination]. Israel has become the Jew among the nation-states. That is what I'll be talking about at the conference, the whole transfer of Nazi anti-Semitism to the Muslim world. Muslims will say they have never been anti-Semitic, but it's just not true."
Bramlett fears that other oppressed ethnic groups may be inadvertently perpetuating this particular brand of anti-Semitism.
"Those of Middle Eastern and African-American and Latino backgrounds, for example, often because of their own political underdog-ness, find themselves willing and haphazard victims of this conspiratorial thinking," he says.
The ADL believes that the propaganda being turned out by Hamas is more effective at altering public opinion because it positions Israel as the bullying oppressor and the Palestinians as the oppressed underdog, and plays upon negative stereotypes of Jews abusing power. This championing of the underdog is part of what tends to draw progressives into the fray.
"One of the most classic images of anti-Semitic thinking is that of the powerful Jew—that is, a Jew with power; it's a deeply Christian anti-Semitic idea," says Reverend Bramlett. "St. Augustine said in the fourth century that the role of the Jews was to be a suffering, persecuted people as a witness to God's wrath. So as long as the state of Israel was a suffering, persecuted minority in the Middle East, people thought it was fine. After 1967, when the Israelis whipped the Arabs' asses, that was it. Then Israelis became abusers of power in the perception of the Christians. "
He continues, "I think recent examples of anti-Semitism [from the progressive left] have to do with a reaction to the West and its imperial tendencies in the Middle East. Israel is identified with the imperialism of the West, with the capitalism of America and with the imperialist tendencies of American policy. But, you see, the left is as dogmatic, authoritarian and racist as the right, it just uses different language."
While Bramlett may not believe these examples add up to a "new" anti-Semitism, others don't even agree that criticism of Israel comprises anti-Semitism at all. In an impassioned article, "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism," written for The Nation in February 2004, Jewish scholar Brian Klug argued that the issue has been blown out of proportion.
"To argue that hostility to Israel and hostility to Jews are one and the same thing is to conflate the Jewish state with the Jewish people...they are separate." Klug, a founding member of the Jewish Forum for Justice and Human Rights, went on to write, "When anti-Semitism is everywhere, it is nowhere. And when every anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, we no longer know how to recognize the real thing."
Whether or not there is an accurate scale by which to measure anti-Semitism, the conference creators and participants hope to see some constructive conversation take place January 28 and to put a halt to the Jewish people taking the rap for the Israeli government's policies and actions.
Jonathan Bernstein concludes, "Typically at the ADL, the way we deal with hatred is very simple. We try to figure out who out there has some influence and convince them to speak up about the hatred. We hope that in pulling together members of the progressive Jewish community and the mainstream Jewish community, this will open up some much-needed dialogue."
| 
Send this story
Print this story
