Tuesday, October 26, 2010
[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]
1. In a discussion over at Engage in which he offers arguments in support of a boycott of Israel and only Israel, Ran Greenstein says,
Third, any diminishing of the capacity of the Israeli state to continue with its exclusionary and abusive practices is a blow against anti-semitism, because it relieves Jews of the burden of having to pay a price for Israeli policies they do not support and have nothing to do with them.
I think that's a clear statement of the Gurvitz-Goldman doctrine. This view explains hostility to Jews in general as being explained by the misdeeds of some Jews and it sees correcting the behavior of those Jews as the best solution for antisemitism. Note especially the care taken by Greenstein to say that he thinks this is unfair. He's not in favor of antisemitism, in fact he's against it, but rather than combating beliefs that hold Jews jointly and severally responsible for each others' behavior he embraces the logic of antisemitism by seeking (as he sees it) to correct the behavior of the bad Jews in order to protect the good ones.
2. The Goldman-Gurvitz doctrine is comparable to stating that if Muslims feel discriminated against then they should take the matter up with those amongst them who carry our terrorist acts or that the cause of prejudice against people of African origin is the fact that some people of African origin are involved in violent crime.
It has long been a cardinal principle of progressive politics that individuals should be judged on their own merits and not on the basis of their membership of some religious and ethnic collectivity. In general, this principle is holding up pretty well but it seems to be increasingly eroded when it comes to Jews.
3. In a later comment David Hirsh correctly characterized this view as "a disgrace" and Greenstein responded like this,
Fourth, unlike antisemites (and Zionists), I see no identity between Jews and Israelis. Jews - as a group - bear no responsibility for Israeli actions, nor do all Jews bear collective responsibility for what some Jews are doing. The burden of responsibility for oppressive and abusive Israeli state practices falls on those who take part in them and those who identify with and support them, Jews and non-Jews alike, in Israel and elsewhere.
Fifth, antisemitism must be fought indeed. One of the ways of doing that is by de-linking Jews from what the State of Israel does in their name and supposedly on their behalf.
The first sentence of this response looks like a clear retraction. He really should have left it at that because the second sentence shows him thinking that Jews who fail to adequately distance themselves from oppressive Israeli actions continue to bear collective responsibility for them and will, presumably, have to suffer the consequences. He develops this line of thought further in his final point; in order to fight against antisemitism we must seek to "de-link" Jews everywhere else from everything - not just oppressive policies and actions - done by Israel "in their name and supposedly on their behalf". So, it will be okay to be Jewish and you'll be able to live unmolested as long as you renounce any special feelings for or links with a particular faraway country.
3. Even if one were to accept Greenstein's version of the Gurvitz-Goldman doctrine as a genuine attempt to deal with antisemitism some obvious practical problems arise: How could a Jewish person in, say, Buenos Aires protect themselves from discrimination by distancing themselves from both Israel's oppressive actions and all aspects of the relationship between Israel and Jews elsewhere? Would there be a special oath they could take to do so? If so, who would draft it and before what authority would it have to be sworn? Would a notary public suffice or would they have to do it before a special tribunal, a special tribunal made up, perhaps, of people like Lisa Goldman, Yossi Gurvitz and himself? If a non-Jewish citizen of Buenos Aires thought that a Jewish citizen had insincerely recanted all their previous sympathy for Israel would they able to appeal against the unjustified awarding of a Good Jew Certificate? Would the certificate be valid for the bearer's lifetime or would it have to be renewed at regular intervals? I am sure there are other practical questions that would arise but it would be good to have an answer to these to start with.
